but on the blockchain itself there is a nice
~ $12,000 buy wall at .99
Gee... I wonder who put that there. When you run out of funds to prop up the market then what will happen? Lots of natural demand for stability in a down market. This has turned out to be a great robustness demo for BitAssets in general. Amazing.  Yep, -14% in one day and the other day -10%. Amazing alright. Maybe when this Bitshares(TM) scheme is up, you can steal from the legally retarded.  |
|
|
|
...I'm truthful all of the time.
Right.... there are no liars and no dishonest people in this world we live, especially in the crypto forums... Obviously, Keiser doesn't know the WHOLE STORY.
Please inform/educate him! NXT was designed as a decentralized PoS "transactional currency". A "transactional currency" is a "store of value" and a "transactional token". It is a "store of value" because it has scarcity, only 1 billion NXT (This value was never changed), and it is resistant to external actors influencing depositors money. It also derives part of its value because it has utility. All transaction fees on the NXT platform must be paid in NXT.
Noone gives a %@$& about NXT, it was created to quick make rich 73 people, period. Wasn't NEM created to solve this initial distribution problem? Bitshares supposedly gets its value proposition from the fact that you need Bitshares to trade or hold "bitAssets" which are supposed to be "Safer than a Swiss Bank Account". The problem here is that "bitAssets" are not really assets. They are derivatives and derivatives are not "Safer than a Swiss Bank Account". This means Bitshares has ZERO utility value in the context of creating crypto assets. If the entire asset class does not have full convertibility, there can never be parity and therefore, the peg is doomed to fail. Bitshares also cannot seriously be taken as simply a digital "store of value" when it has "Dilution Without Limit" (aka inflation) and the amount of outstanding Bitshares is constantly being adjusted by Bitshares(TM), the company, which according to Stan doesn't exist. It is also not decentralized when a very small number of large stakeholders can manipulate the delegate elections to their favor via approval voting.
I'm still waiting for the first coin that will be a fork of Bitshares and will "solve" any of those "problems" you mention above, but I can see that there are no coin forks so far because as it seems everything in Bitshares works OK and in a way that you can't compete with it, as a sidenote wallet is in 0.6.2 version and there is still room for improvement. Put your money where your mouth is and please fork Bitshares and offer "solutions" to the "problems" you think you see like NEM did with NXT. |
|
|
|
I've stated numerous times that attempting to peg a virtual, non-redeemable derivatives contract to the price of a physical asset is doomed to fail because the "bitAsset", as you like to call your derivatives contracts, have none of the attributes (aka intrinsic value) of the real asset. I also think it is highly unethical to advertise your BTS derivatives contracts as "assets" and claim that they're "Safer than a Swiss Bank Account". Imo, this whole BTS garbage is a blatant money grabbing attempt by I3 directed towards those who don't have a firm grasp of economics. Mark my words, the pegs will fail and the people who will lose money will be those who can least afford to lose it.
Why you give just an "opinion"(imo) and not an honest opinion(imho)? It seems that you try to retain some of your honesty by not giving a honest opinion. In any way, it seems that lots of people disagree with you... " ....BitSharesX introduces the concept of “BitAssets.” BitSharesX is significant because nobody has tried to implement such a system before. This system is a high speed, easily accessible Forex/Stock/Commodities/etc market. BTSX could become one of the most exciting developments in cryptographic history.
BitShares is one of the numerous technologies claiming to be “bitcoin 2.0” or “finance 2.0.” In essence, this “Bitcoin 2.0” movement represents a movement to leverage the power of globally decentralized consensus and decision making networks as birthed by bitcoin. The notion behind “bitcoin 2.0” technologies is that the idea of bitcoin can be expanded upon and applied to various sectors of the global economy and, particularly, finance. In short, “consensus technology has the power to do for economics what the internet did for information.” Theoretically, one such network could arbitrage the combined power of all human computing power on Earth in order to harmonize real-time knowledge discovery and aggregation all done in a trustless, decentralized manner.
Bitcoin is the first autonomous system to use this technology towards a distributed consensus technology that functions as a reliable global payment network. The blockchain is at the core of bitcoin. This cryptographically secured public ledger of the bitcoin network and the associated accounts facilitates the transfer of value between accounts. For the first time in the history of the internet, financial transactions do not need a middle man.
This is what people love about bitcoin. But this technology, as many of bitcoin’s futurists point out, can be expanded. This is what BitShares looks to do with the blockchain. No industry relying on the internet will go untouched by technologies like bitcoin and BitShares. Banking, stock exchanges, lotteries, voting, music, auctions and many other industries will be forever changed by a digital public ledger that makes the creation of so-called “distributed autonomous corporations” (DACs) possible. This system, according to advocates of “bitcoin 2.0”, will provide better services at a fraction of the cost incurred by traditional and centralized corporations....." http://www.maxkeiser.com/2014/11/this-little-known-crypto-asset-might-disrupt-the-current-financial-order/#OkJ6mXxICkEL4AaO.99 |
|
|
|
|
It's nice to know that the Bitshares assets have almost double the trading volume of Nxt and many times that of Counterparty and Maidsafe and many more alts. There was days that bitUSD alone had more than 700K trading volume but that was on days that we had great bitcoin volatility.
I can't understand why some people think that bitasset trading volume should not be included in the total, when I trade BTS for bitUSD its like trading BTS to USD it's only better, I have total control of my bitUSD and I don't rely on a centralized exchange to steal my money intentionally or unintentionally.
btw people that trade BTS<==>bitUSD would be forced to trade BTS<==>mtgoxUSD and bterUSD if they had not the bitUSD option.
I thought the point was to move away from centralized exchanges...
|
|
|
|
Here is the one year history of bitshares... |
|
|
|
Yeah, but Daniel "bytemaster" Larimer admitted as well that Bitshares won't be able to do anything against the "Black swan events" and it seems to me the Bitshares pegging is unable to provide stability, i.e. if the Bitshares would have fall by 67% which is quite likely scenario then the whole Bitshares pegging would collapse (if I understood correctly).
Again, I am not saying one is better than the other one, I am just trying to figure out if that pegging concept could work at all.
Are you refering to this? http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2015/01/27/BitAssets-and-Black-Swan-Events/Here is a quote from the above link.... The Highly Improbable
By Wall Street standards, BitShares is extremely conservative in its ‘lending’ policies by only allowing users to borrow up to 33% of the value of their collateral. Most banks consider lending 80% the value of collateral to be conservative and often go almost to 100%. The loan is secure so long as the value of the collateral is greater than the amount borrowed.
In the case of BitShares we assumed the collateral (BTS) could easily be as volatile as Bitcoin on its worst days. On some days Bitcoin has lost 25% or more of its value. Recently Bitcoin lost 42% of its value over just 7 days and along with it so did almost all alt-coins. This level of movement is within the design tolerance of BitAssets, but did result in many short positions being margin called.
In order to break BitUSD the value of BitShares would have to fall by 67% in a market where no one was willing to sell enough BitUSD to allow all existing shorts to cover. For all practical purposes this fall would have to occur over just a few days, in thin markets, with no expectation for a rebound in value. btw  |
|
|
|
I was with you on the need to diversify until your last sentence. "Go to Wall Street" and "Do it properly" don't really go together [...] Seems like a pretty exciting (and essential) market niche to me! And if you trust the block chain to secure your bitcoins, you should have the same confidence that the block chain will reliably execute the deal you have purchased and pay you the right amount needed to buy your ounce of silver at a future date. Hey there Sorry, I was being cynical about the ETF Market in general and how to make *quick* silver that way instead of holding it long-term  I am a firm believer in cryptos and hard mathematical proof and direct metals! What you do say makes a lot of sense. After thinking about it more, I think my problem is rather with BTS than the actual assets themselves. If I have read through their approach correctly, their system is very much based on a centralized system rather than a completely decentralized Proof of Stake, is that not correct? I think they call it *Delegated Proof of Stake* and so called *elected* 101 stake holders take turns to create blocks. In a video it says it is *trusted clients the shareholders trust*. I think this sounds more like, it is 101 clients that have the most cash to be called *trustworthy by other clients that also hold a lot of cash*  Or is this like NuBits where you can actually be a part of the shareholders that vote for those delegates? I don't know but having a few entities control the entire BTS network seems not very secure to me and just doesn't sound fair down the gut-feeling, but if I am missing some important part in this system, I think there is certainly a very interesting time ahead with blockchain-proofed silver that is actually backed by physical silver itself or at least an asset on a different coin or coin like BTS itself . Wasn't there several projects that try to achieve that very soon as well? All the best, Vya I think that DPOS is more decentralized than bitcoin, a few mining pools control the majority of hashing power of bitcoin. Here you can see a decentralization comparison between bitcoin's POW, bitcoin if it used POS instead of POW and finally DPOS, http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2015/01/09/How-to-Measure-the-Decentralization-of-Bitcoin/ also keep in mind that the income from DPOS goes to development, marketing etc and helps bitshares grow while in bitcoin all the mining is spent to pay electric power bills and miners that offer no other benefit to bitcoin. Finally there is a decentralization comparison between DPOS and NXT http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2015/01/13/Decentralization-of-Nxt-vs-BitShares/I think that a solution that is backed with physical silver has the problem that you have to trust someone else to hold/store/secure that physical silver. On the other hand, bitSILVER is backed by 200% to 300% collateral in bts and you have only to trust the blockchain! |
|
|
|
|
An Aesop's Fable
One hot summer's day a Fox was strolling through an orchard till he came to a bunch of Grapes just ripening on a vine which had been trained over a lofty branch. "Just the thing to quench my thirst," quoth he. Drawing back a few paces, he took a run and a jump, and just missed the bunch. Turning round again with a One, Two, Three, he jumped up, but with no greater success. Again and again he tried after the tempting morsel, but at last had to give it up, and walked away with his nose in the air, saying: "I am sure they are sour communists!"
Moral of Aesops Fable: It is easy to despise what you cannot get
|
|
|
|
|
lol 18 views and only 1 vote from the OP so far...
|
|
|
|
Oligarchs of nxt feel very uneasy lately, I wonder why |
|
|
|
bts is great but I have to say the client is literally the worst nightmare I have ever seen. Slow to get the chain, slow to scan txes, eats all the memory, gets stuck, eats all the cpu, gets corrupted, crashes, can't start after a crash, constant disk activity, can't uses the system for anything else.
When you start bitshares for the first time it uses lot of system resources like the original bitcoin wallet did(bitshares use more resources), it is unwise to try to do anything else in your pc until bitshares fully synchronizes. This slow down can also happen if you start bitshares after a long period of time and it needs to synchronize with the network again. Transaction scanning can be slow if you have lots of accounts in your wallet. It was some hours ago that bitshares moved from 0.4.27.2 version to 0.5 so its still too early and things will keep improving drastically, also a light client will be out soon and a mobile version is in testing right now I think. |
|
|
|
I can't get a handle on the DPOS system used in NewPTS and BitShares.
This is my understanding...
Unlike most POS where my own holding stake after a while rewarding me for securing the network, under DPOS I spend some of my god damn holdings to vote in up to 101 other bastards that get all the rewards leaving me with less and less every time I participate.
Sounds like a system where the majority of the individuals holding get worth less and less over time (both actual by voting cost, and %Total since they get none of newly minted coins) while a select few elite delegates get richer off everyone else's back.
Please enlighten me if I have this confused.
You can see it this way, if bitcoin was using DPOS you would vote with your bitcoins for 101 "mining pools" (known as delegates in bitshares) each delegate would have a specific mission and would use the income for his mission like developing, marketing etc. Bitcoin burned something like 500 million $ last year for electricity, can you imagine the benefits if all those money were used in marketing, to hire more developers or to back any other good idea from the bitcoin community? No more money to the electric power companies for POW, no more money to the big whales of POS coins that do absolutely nothing for the coin. In DPOS all "mining income" is used to develop and helps in the grownth of the coin that uses DPOS. It's up to you to decide what delegates would help the coin the most and VOTE them! I hope this helps. |
|
|
|
In case you don't know, CoinoUSD is a token on the NXT asset exchange for 1 USD that can be exchanged for real USD at Coinomat. It's similar to BitUSD and NuBits in that all three are pegged to the value of the US dollar albeit in the case of CoinoUSD, the pegging mechanism is much more centralized.
I think you answered your own question. At what price would you buy chryspanoUSD if I issued some of those and I "promised" to buy them back at 1 usd? imo only BitUSD is doing it the right way. |
|
|
|
In the meantime..... dogecoin is waiting in the corner.....   Dogecoin just left nxt behind !!! Lets see if it will last.... That ambush actually worked!!!  Counterparty is next I think.... |
|
|
|
In the meantime..... dogecoin is waiting in the corner..... |
|
|
|
Nxt is currently at 8th position in coinmarketcap and its a matter of time for counterparty and dogecoin to move it further down the list. 24 trading volume is almost non existent and you can probably move the market with 100$ Nxt was initially distributed to no more than 70 people and that's a reason almost no one is touching it! Add to that the fact that there have been some very serious scam accusations ( https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-core-developer-jeff-garzik-believes-nxt-is-a-scamcoin/) and you can see the whole picture! These are some of the issues... * It is marketed like a scammy penny stock. * Anon early super large stakeholders + Proof-Of-Stake == the big guys run the table, if they choose. https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf The central bankers are in place from Day One unless they are super-virtuous and give tons away “fairly.” * Anonymous developers * Closed developing process. Source is periodically handed down from the ivory tower to the masses. * Certain notable personages (& key stakeholders) that dodge, dodge, dodge, when an obvious attack vector — mitigated in other crypto-finance projects by known techniques — is highlighted. * Active resistance to making it easier to independently reproduce the software * Technical criticism is routinely met with bizarre behavior (notably from come-from-beyond) * Attacking critics, rather than responding to criticism. * Several security incidents that smell like inside jobs. What needs to be done for the comeback of nxt? Can ntx recover or the game is over like so many other scamcoins out there? I know nxt has some great fuders and trolls out there but is this helping or harming nxt? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
