No it doesn't matter if it's you, what do you see as the escrow fund taking as a cut for buying and selling, or in other words what % can it drop by before they start buying back given the point of the escrow is to pay buyers the value of the coin back
Take a look at the "aggression factor" described in the specification. How quickly the escrow fund reacts is defined by whoever launches the currency, using this parameter. OK I'll try again, -I buy 5 master coins for $100 -I spend 5 master coins on 100 $1 coins, I suppose I have to pay slightly over a $1 from these perhaps $1.01 if I'm buying directly from the escrow fund with a 1% aggression factor. Now Master coin value goes either up or down; If it goes down in value 20% I gain 20% mastercoins but no extra value. If it goes up in value 20% I lose 20% Is that correct? |
|
|
|
Let me try your thought experiment, on the basis people only buy up to the value of backed assets for $1coin
Escrow fund $1000
market buys 1000 $1coin @ $1 each Q) Why are people buying $1 coins with no infrastructure supporting their use and no speculative value isn't this a bit of a chicken and egg situation?
$1coin trade at around $1 but with no practical use for them and no speculative value demand drops and people start to sell
Escrow fund buys 500 $1coin for $500
Q) by definition an escrow means the original purchaser handed that money to you on trust that it was backed so when you pick up "cheap coins" how much do people lose off there originally backed sum?
can you clarify the points above as can't really do a thought experiment without clarifying those points first!
Probably initial people buying a stabilized coin would be buying small amounts out of curiosity. If the currency holds the target value as promised, the infrastructure would definitely follow! The primary question here assumes that people would be buying these currencies from me, which is not the case. Their money automatically goes straight to the escrow fund. The only trust at this point is in the protocol, not in a human being. No it doesn't matter if it's you, what do you see as the escrow fund taking as a cut for buying and selling, or in other words what % can it drop by before it starts buying back given the point of the escrow is to pay buyers the value of the coin back |
|
|
|
An escrow fund will be operating at a loss at all times because the only time it will enter the market is when everyone else disagrees with the valuation and it will be making decisions that profit-seekers would not make! The only way for the fund to raise capital is to sell above market rates and to convince some other investor to pay above market rates *knowing* that the fund will be working against their interest and that they will take a loss for paying above market rates. The only way to keep the price from falling due to lack of backing is to purchase the coins at ABOVE MARKET RATES and thus at a loss.
You have a deep seated assumption based upon circular logic... that assumption is that the price will maintain parity naturally without respect to the backing and that the fund would be able to profit on this natural market correction. However, if this were a natural market response the fund would be unnecessary. Every action taken by the fund will be at a loss.
Let's imagine that GoldCoins is launched and a bunch of people buy it, driving the price up above target. The escrow fund then creates GoldCoins to match supply to demand, and sells GoldCoins at a higher price than they will be worth in a few days once supply catches up. This is profit for the escrow fund, and the escrow fund is now over-funded as a result. Later, a bunch of people decide there is a better way to store gold, and they sell their GoldCoins driving the price below target. The escrow fund then buys those cheap coins until supply again matches demand. Again the escrow fund profits by buying cheap coins which will be worth more in a few days! There's not circular reasoning here. Sovereign governments do this all the time (although they get in trouble when they try to also control interest rates, as described earlier). Why would the price go above target isn't that an escrow backed value people wont buy over? Why will coins be worth more in a few days if demand dropped out in the first place? If the price doesn't go over target, that's great. The escrow fund doesn't have to do anything. But if a bunch of people decide they have to have GoldCoins even if they pay a slight premium for them, the escrow fund takes that premium. This is supply and demand, folks. Let me try your thought experiment, on the basis people only buy up to the value of backed assets for $1coin Escrow fund $1000 market buys 1000 $1coin @ $1 each Q) Why are people buying $1 coins with no infrastructure supporting their use and no speculative value isn't this a bit of a chicken and egg situation? $1coin trade at around $1 but with no practical use for them and no speculative value demand drops and people start to sell Escrow fund buys 500 $1coin for $500 Q) by definition an escrow means the original purchaser handed that money to you on trust that it was backed so when you pick up "cheap coins" how much do people lose off there originally backed sum?can you clarify the points above as can't really do a thought experiment without clarifying those points first! |
|
|
|
An escrow fund will be operating at a loss at all times because the only time it will enter the market is when everyone else disagrees with the valuation and it will be making decisions that profit-seekers would not make! The only way for the fund to raise capital is to sell above market rates and to convince some other investor to pay above market rates *knowing* that the fund will be working against their interest and that they will take a loss for paying above market rates. The only way to keep the price from falling due to lack of backing is to purchase the coins at ABOVE MARKET RATES and thus at a loss.
You have a deep seated assumption based upon circular logic... that assumption is that the price will maintain parity naturally without respect to the backing and that the fund would be able to profit on this natural market correction. However, if this were a natural market response the fund would be unnecessary. Every action taken by the fund will be at a loss.
Let's imagine that GoldCoins is launched and a bunch of people buy it, driving the price up above target. The escrow fund then creates GoldCoins to match supply to demand, and sells GoldCoins at a higher price than they will be worth in a few days once supply catches up. This is profit for the escrow fund, and the escrow fund is now over-funded as a result. Later, a bunch of people decide there is a better way to store gold, and they sell their GoldCoins driving the price below target. The escrow fund then buys those cheap coins until supply again matches demand. Again the escrow fund profits by buying cheap coins which will be worth more in a few days! There's not circular reasoning here. Sovereign governments do this all the time (although they get in trouble when they try to also control interest rates, as described earlier). Why would the price go above target isn't that an escrow backed value people wont buy over? Why will coins be worth more in a few days if demand dropped out in the first place? Edit: sorry someone posted similar at the same time |
|
|
|
Where is the option for 'pay yourself like a grad student and live on ramen'?
Exactly! Unfortunately, that one doesn't fly with my wife and kids  How much have they invested? |
|
|
|
Where is the option for 'pay yourself like a grad student and live on ramen'?
Exactly! |
|
|
|
|
You've never started a business before have you!!!
|
|
|
|
... can someone explain to me how come this btc address says it has 1800 btc but many more seem to have been send adding up to 3000 btc easily? ... where do you get the figure of 3000 from the blockchain shows a list of what's been sent? It's a bit off topic so delete this post if you want dacoinmaster but why do you think now is a bubble and how have you been detecting bubbles in the past? I see a transaction of 1995 btc towards exodus: http://blockchain.info/tx/103397caef6dc9b31c944eaa3efecfe924dc4f830db815d9d1735cdc5f4354a5Another one of 1222 btc: http://blockchain.info/tx/68c0677e3fc26286d2c83772f6e1f7b4b9e3072008995a884a8c1e943f4dbf99And many more... but balance says 1885 btc only on exodus address? Well the first bubble, the dotcom bubble, I didn't detect and went all in on the top and lost my savings. Learned my lesson. I'm detecting a bubble when huge gains have already been made, everybody talks about it, prices double faster and faster. Money slushes over into the weakest of the market with poor fundamentals and they go up even more percentage wise than the leaders (low end real estate, pets.com, Litecoin) and on the top money is invested in mere stories with nothing tangible (real estate on the drawing board, this?). Did you invest here? If so why? No I haven't, was really keen as loved the idea been thinking about how an alt could be used to work along side fiat at a stable rate and like the ideas of using crypto for stocks shares etc, but the method doesn't make sense for me so I'll just wish him the best of luck and sit this one out! |
|
|
|
I also like your idea to build the new protocol on bitcoin instead of starting an alternative blockchain but I am surprised this attracts 1000 of btc's considering the many objections stated by smart people here. I do get the feeling bitcoin land is like the dotcom bubble. I'm wondering those that send 100's of coins, or are heavily invested in copycats like Litecoin, have they succeeded ever in avoiding a bubble before? For example did they leave/avoided the stock market, commodities or emerging markets in 2007, or left/avoided real estate in 2005, or reduced/left bitcoin in June 2011 or April 2013 before the market crashed? This is a serious question I would love to get an answer from investors in this project or Litecoin? Because it seems they are walking into a bubble that has a high chance of destroying their capital. It would comfort me to hear that they have successfully detected bubbles before and believe this is not one. On a sidenote can someone explain to me how come this btc address says it has 1800 btc but many more seem to have been send adding up to 3000 btc easily? I avoided the bubble a bit too early in April as it crashed back to where I sold at around 108-109!! If I'd waited another 5 days could of bought a couple more properties haha.... Yes explanation around 600 bitcoins have been sent excluding Dacoinmasters where do you get the figure of 3000 from the blockchain shows a list of what's been sent? It's a bit off topic so delete this post if you want dacoinmaster but why do you think now is a bubble and how have you been detecting bubbles in the past? |
|
|
|
|
Love the name, don't let your house get burgled by thieves Havalock!!
|
|
|
|
|
With a faint wind and tumbleweed blowing across the floor of Gox this Saturday, looks like we're waiting for the first draw between Bull and Bear before we can predict the trend this weekend!
|
|
|
|
SOMEBODY BOUGHT 420BTC WORTH OF MASTERCOINS!!
Ahem, "420?". Seems like Mastercoin will be used for drugs initially. Looked like it came from a Nigerian IP too!!! |
|
|
|
|
I can't understand why your fundraising you've stated you want to fit this around your job. It's a no overhead project and you've $120k in spare bitcoins floating around!
You say you're worried about other people doing it first, but publicly announcing all the project details before you've even started coding.
I was very excited about this when I first started reading yesterday, and took the day off work to read everything I could starting with the youtube Video from Bitcoinfest which obviously gives you a lot of credibility.
I get a bit of a hint of arrogance about you and that you can't listen to people or accept criticism, calling your paper the 2nd Bitcoin in the first place is a bit crazy but you've still got it filed in the eponymous folder after you've clearly caused a bit of an outcry over it.
You seem to skim over questions or not elaborate on your answers and most importantly when you announced the first paper you had mostly negative/constructive/it wont work criticism and you've leapt straight from that to saying everything works fundraising time without going through the process again with your new paper to Iron out the chinks.
I think you've got dollar signs in your head which are clouding your objective vision and this is reflected in your posts and papers ( I don't mean this in a you're a scammer way).
Forget money and work out if your passionate about it creating something new and if you are do it right from the offset you're going ass about face about in my opinion and I can't put any money in to it (not that you need it)
Best of luck if you do continue I'll be watching this space, but personally I think you should refund everyone and come back for a fundraiser if and when you need it.
|
|
|
|
|
He's probably just deleting your posts because he thinks your an annoying semi-retarded cock mate
|
|
|
|
This is what altcoins are for, basically, no?
Yes but people don't post ALTCOIN Project development in BITCOIN Related Project Development forum. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=265488.0It has nothing to do with bitcoin project development. Yes it does do you understand what his proposals about or what day of the week it is? |
|
|
|
+1k btc in the account already.
Amazing.
He added 1222 himself yesterday, not sure if he added the 100 on top very big investment if not |
|
|
|
As of a lack of X is the new Y threads, I give you.
I don't see any particular reason of why the bear market should end, There is still profit taking to be done people.
See you below 50.
Whx do xou think that?, if anxthing i see an upward trend coming while goy's still facing withdrawal problems. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
