|
tarmo888
|
 |
November 15, 2020, 11:56:46 AM |
|
If you want to participate in the referral program by having your referral link in your Bitcointalk signature, feel free to use the below signatures:
Is there any requirements as to the numbers of posts per week to be eligible for award from this referral program or one just needs to wear a signature with the referral link and get payment when someone click on it ? It seems to be as a new way of Gbyte distribution, is that correct? Number of posts or clicks on Bitcointalk doesn't matter anything, maybe just increases your chances of anybody buying any Bonded coins. It's same referral distribution, so you benefit from it when new user who has never used ostable.org before, buys any token there. |
|
|
|
|
tonych (OP)
Legendary
Activity: 990
Merit: 1036
|
|
November 17, 2020, 11:00:31 AM |
|
We launched a contest for the best content promoting Bonded Stablecoins: The prizes are: - 500 IUSD for the best video; - 500 IUSD for the the best article or forum post (own blog, bitcointalk, reddit, medium, steem, hive, etc); - 100 IUSD for the best tweet. Use your referral link in this content. Details: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5290195.0 |
Simplicity is beauty
|
|
|
|
eXtremal
|
|
November 17, 2020, 11:37:10 AM |
|
We launched a contest for the best content promoting Bonded Stablecoins: The prizes are: - 500 IUSD for the best video; - 500 IUSD for the the best article or forum post (own blog, bitcointalk, reddit, medium, steem, hive, etc); - 100 IUSD for the best tweet. Use your referral link in this content. Details: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5290195.0hello sir I am still confused about adding a wallet at https://ostable.org/ and I am confused about how to send GBYTE to get iusd, and I see there is no trading with other pairs I hope in the near future to make more pairs, and besides it is whether this contest depends on how many are successfully invited and they have to follow to fill their balance, and if not we don't get anything from the results, for example signiture |
|
|
|
|
tarmo888
|
|
November 17, 2020, 01:56:55 PM |
|
We launched a contest for the best content promoting Bonded Stablecoins: The prizes are: - 500 IUSD for the best video; - 500 IUSD for the the best article or forum post (own blog, bitcointalk, reddit, medium, steem, hive, etc); - 100 IUSD for the best tweet. Use your referral link in this content. Details: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5290195.0hello sir I am still confused about adding a wallet at https://ostable.org/ and I am confused about how to send GBYTE to get iusd, and I see there is no trading with other pairs I hope in the near future to make more pairs, and besides it is whether this contest depends on how many are successfully invited and they have to follow to fill their balance, and if not we don't get anything from the results, for example signiture You install the wallet app, you enter the amount of IUSD you want on ostable.org and you click the buy button. The wallet app open for you to confirm the transaction. ostable.org is like exchange, you can always trade your IUSD back to GBYTE. on ostable.org or oswap.io, you can also exchange IUSD to OUSD. The contest for best content for promoting Bonded Stablecoins has nothing to do with how many sign out, but obviously that could be one of the criterias to determine what is the best content. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
mishax1
Legendary
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1017
|
|
December 25, 2020, 11:53:49 AM |
|
fucking stablecoin
|
|
|
|
|
|
julian071
|
|
January 03, 2021, 10:35:36 AM |
|
Seems like a lot of people are abandoning ship. I've decided to go down with it (or weather the storm), even though I've got some serious money in it. The tech is just to awesome and it's been a great adventure up till now, even though the financial gain isn't there.
Hope the dev team hangs in there, let us know!
|
=P
|
|
|
|
tarmo888
|
|
January 03, 2021, 04:34:44 PM |
|
Seems like a lot of people are abandoning ship. I've decided to go down with it (or weather the storm), even though I've got some serious money in it. The tech is just to awesome and it's been a great adventure up till now, even though the financial gain isn't there.
Hope the dev team hangs in there, let us know!
Seems just that some speculators noticed that Bitcoin is pumping, so they just dumped their GBYTE to get more GBYTE. The amount of GBYTE on Bittrex hot wallet has not changed much recently, so these probably were never Obyte users anyways. Bonded Stablecoins and Oswap.io liquidity distribution on the other hand has more and more GBYTE value deposited. Just more people needs to know about it, it's difficult to reach new people when nobody cares to spread the news. |
|
|
|
|
|
julian071
|
|
January 03, 2021, 04:54:54 PM |
|
Seems like a lot of people are abandoning ship. I've decided to go down with it (or weather the storm), even though I've got some serious money in it. The tech is just to awesome and it's been a great adventure up till now, even though the financial gain isn't there.
Hope the dev team hangs in there, let us know!
Seems just that some speculators noticed that Bitcoin is pumping, so they just dumped their GBYTE to get more GBYTE. The amount of GBYTE on Bittrex hot wallet has not changed much recently, so these probably were never Obyte users anyways. Bonded Stablecoins and Oswap.io liquidity distribution on the other hand has more and more GBYTE value deposited. Just more people needs to know about it, it's difficult to reach new people when nobody cares to spread the news. I'd love to help. however I find this whole Stablecoin thing way to complicated. If I can in anyway help please DM me. |
=P
|
|
|
|
tarmo888
|
|
January 03, 2021, 04:56:58 PM |
|
Seems like a lot of people are abandoning ship. I've decided to go down with it (or weather the storm), even though I've got some serious money in it. The tech is just to awesome and it's been a great adventure up till now, even though the financial gain isn't there.
Hope the dev team hangs in there, let us know!
Seems just that some speculators noticed that Bitcoin is pumping, so they just dumped their GBYTE to get more GBYTE. The amount of GBYTE on Bittrex hot wallet has not changed much recently, so these probably were never Obyte users anyways. Bonded Stablecoins and Oswap.io liquidity distribution on the other hand has more and more GBYTE value deposited. Just more people needs to know about it, it's difficult to reach new people when nobody cares to spread the news. I'd love to help. however I find this whole Stablecoin thing way to complicated. If I can in anyway help please DM me. |
|
|
|
|
|
maxvall
|
|
January 08, 2021, 06:44:09 AM |
|
Another stablecoin: GB2. It represents a 2x leveraged position in GBYTE vs USD. The price of the token is currently about 23 GBYTE, the same as the price of GBYTE in USD. That is, the price in USD is 23-squared now and is pegged to (GBYTE/USD) 2. Try it out https://ostable.org/trade/MCZAGO47NLPO25KOOJHN22PNKEGLQ6XV#buy. If 2x leverage is too small for you, feel free to create a 10x, just specify the desired leverage on the create page https://ostable.org/create. Warning: trading with leverage is dangerous as leverage multiplies your losses (and gains). Hmm... Last three days GB2 price is 15-30% below target. Is it broken? |
|
|
|
|
|
tarmo888
|
|
January 08, 2021, 07:47:31 AM |
|
Another stablecoin: GB2. It represents a 2x leveraged position in GBYTE vs USD. The price of the token is currently about 23 GBYTE, the same as the price of GBYTE in USD. That is, the price in USD is 23-squared now and is pegged to (GBYTE/USD) 2. Try it out https://ostable.org/trade/MCZAGO47NLPO25KOOJHN22PNKEGLQ6XV#buy. If 2x leverage is too small for you, feel free to create a 10x, just specify the desired leverage on the create page https://ostable.org/create. Warning: trading with leverage is dangerous as leverage multiplies your losses (and gains). Hmm... Last three days GB2 price is 15-30% below target. Is it broken? Nope, there was just pump in price, so there is now opportunity to fix the peg by buying more governance tokens or redeeming GB2 tokens. Fixing the peg would give reward from fast capacitor. |
|
|
|
|
3DPass
Jr. Member
Activity: 178
Merit: 5
|
|
January 08, 2021, 11:36:19 AM |
|
Hey there.
Could anybody explain why there are just 12 witnesses or about within the network?
Thx
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
maxvall
|
|
January 08, 2021, 12:15:41 PM |
|
Another stablecoin: GB2. It represents a 2x leveraged position in GBYTE vs USD. The price of the token is currently about 23 GBYTE, the same as the price of GBYTE in USD. That is, the price in USD is 23-squared now and is pegged to (GBYTE/USD) 2. Try it out https://ostable.org/trade/MCZAGO47NLPO25KOOJHN22PNKEGLQ6XV#buy. If 2x leverage is too small for you, feel free to create a 10x, just specify the desired leverage on the create page https://ostable.org/create. Warning: trading with leverage is dangerous as leverage multiplies your losses (and gains). Hmm... Last three days GB2 price is 15-30% below target. Is it broken? Nope, there was just pump in price, so there is now opportunity to fix the peg by buying more governance tokens or redeeming GB2 tokens. Fixing the peg would give reward from fast capacitor. What can gives the initiative to buy governance tokens in such cases? Capacitor may be almost empty when all previous trades was near optimal (bought/sold both t1&t2 with target proportion). |
|
|
|
|
|
tarmo888
|
|
January 08, 2021, 12:24:16 PM |
|
Another stablecoin: GB2. It represents a 2x leveraged position in GBYTE vs USD. The price of the token is currently about 23 GBYTE, the same as the price of GBYTE in USD. That is, the price in USD is 23-squared now and is pegged to (GBYTE/USD) 2. Try it out https://ostable.org/trade/MCZAGO47NLPO25KOOJHN22PNKEGLQ6XV#buy. If 2x leverage is too small for you, feel free to create a 10x, just specify the desired leverage on the create page https://ostable.org/create. Warning: trading with leverage is dangerous as leverage multiplies your losses (and gains). Hmm... Last three days GB2 price is 15-30% below target. Is it broken? Nope, there was just pump in price, so there is now opportunity to fix the peg by buying more governance tokens or redeeming GB2 tokens. Fixing the peg would give reward from fast capacitor. What can gives the initiative to buy governance tokens in such cases? Capacitor may be almost empty when all previous trades was near optimal (bought/sold both t1&t2 with target proportion). GB2 is a 2x leverage of GBYTE/USD price. If the price is going up in bull market, more people are likely to buy more GB2 to profit from the increase of price. The more GB2 is bought/issued the more valuable GRGB becomes (it's price is calculated by the bonding curve) and more fees go to both capacitors (because buying GB2 right now would make the peg even worse). The fast capacitor is emptied only when somebody fully fixes the peg. Partially making the peg more closer only takes some of the reward from fast capacitor. There is also reward in slow capacitor, from which 10% can be moved to fast capacitor. |
|
|
|
|
3DPass
Jr. Member
Activity: 178
Merit: 5
|
|
January 09, 2021, 07:00:59 PM
Last edit: January 09, 2021, 07:41:51 PM by 3DPass |
|
Oh, thank you very much.. I've learned a lot about how it works from WP and from source code trying to find out. And I sourced no one real cause why they're just up to 12, despite all the explanations over there. Technically, there is definitely no one fundamental restrictions about it, especially, in terms of consensus. So, my question was what that magical restriction rule of 12 for? Why they're not 120 or not 1200? According to the White Paper, the majority of witnesses has the power over the network. And if there are just 12, it looks like completely centralized, doesn't it? Please, correct me in case I was wrong explaining at least one real cause of that design. I'm not against it, I'm just trying to figure it out from risk perspectives of using. Personally, it doesn't really matter to me if those 12 public decent persons or not. |
|
|
|
|
|
tarmo888
|
|
January 09, 2021, 07:47:19 PM |
|
Oh, thank you very much.. I've learned a lot about how it works from WP and from source code trying to find out. And I sourced no one real cause why they're just up to 12, despite all the explanations over there. Technically, there is definitely no one fundamental restriction about it, in terms of consensus. So, my question was what that magical restriction rule of 12 for? Why they're not 120 or not 1200? According to the White Paper, the majority of witnesses has the power over the network. And if there are just 12, it looks like completely centralized, doesn't it? Please, correct me in case I was wrong explaining at least one real cause of that design. I'm not against it, I'm just trying to figure it out from risk perspectives of using. Personally, it doesn't really matter to me if those 12 public decent persons or not. What makes it look completely centralized? Order Providers are not block producers or any other way between you and the network. There is an explanation on Medium blog article, I recommend to read it: Order providers are selected by users and every user includes a list of order providers he trusts in every transaction he posts. The list includes 12 order providers, the number is small enough so that users can realistically know the identities of all 12, and the number is large enough so that the system survives random failures of a minority of the order providers.
The lists of order providers can vary from user to user but the lists in the neighboring transactions can only differ by one position.
|
|
|
|
|
3DPass
Jr. Member
Activity: 178
Merit: 5
|
|
January 09, 2021, 08:56:58 PM
Last edit: January 09, 2021, 09:38:29 PM by 3DPass |
|
Oh, thank you very much.. I've learned a lot about how it works from WP and from source code trying to find out. And I sourced no one real cause why they're just up to 12, despite all the explanations over there. Technically, there is definitely no one fundamental restriction about it, in terms of consensus. So, my question was what that magical restriction rule of 12 for? Why they're not 120 or not 1200? According to the White Paper, the majority of witnesses has the power over the network. And if there are just 12, it looks like completely centralized, doesn't it? Please, correct me in case I was wrong explaining at least one real cause of that design. I'm not against it, I'm just trying to figure it out from risk perspectives of using. Personally, it doesn't really matter to me if those 12 public decent persons or not. What makes it look completely centralized? Order Providers are not block producers or any other way between you and the network. There is an explanation on Medium blog article, I recommend to read it: Order providers are selected by users and every user includes a list of order providers he trusts in every transaction he posts. The list includes 12 order providers, the number is small enough so that users can realistically know the identities of all 12, and the number is large enough so that the system survives random failures of a minority of the order providers.
The lists of order providers can vary from user to user but the lists in the neighboring transactions can only differ by one position.
Thanks, I've read it, as well. Unfortunately, I'm not satisfied by that, though. ..and the number is large enough so that the system survives random failures of a minority of the order providers. This one is the vital and understandable requirement and there is no questions with it.
The list includes 12 order providers, the number is small enough so that users can realistically know the identities of all 12
This is the really weird one... There is no consistency at all. imho If users are that bounded to check they're not going to be able to get the identity of 13 or 14 or 50 witnesses? That's not true, from my point of view, until I haven't got any evidence of vice versa stuff. And, I guess, so much people really don't care if those witnesses are identified or not. What makes it look completely centralized? For some reasons, actually. 1. All of those 12 were declared by dev at the time of the system was first published (WP) years ago, so it's not a tough issue to realize them to be somehow related to one another. 2. It's described the case of attack in the WP as the only majority of witnesses are able to distinguish the main chain using their data. Certainly, we're talking about just 12 people or organizations somehow interested in keeping the network healthy. And they're have the real power. And they're interested in getting commissions, as well. 3. There is the rule of the protocol saying the new witnesses might be added just after old 12 witnesses have approved the new one. There is no way they would have done that. They haven't any reason for that. But they've got all the reasons not to do it. "Rule 4. the stability point advances only when the current witnesses (as defined in
the current stability point) post enough units after the current stability
point" These rules are designed to protect against malicious and accidental forks. At the same time, they imply that any changes of the predominant witness list have to be gradual, and each step has to be approved by the majority of the current witnesses. (From the WP, page 21)That's my personal opinion. I can see a lot of risks... Because protectability of the network depends on 12 people. --- So, please, answer my question about the other real reason in case I was wrong. Thanks |
|
|
|
|
|
tarmo888
|
|
January 09, 2021, 09:36:09 PM |
|
The list includes 12 order providers, the number is small enough so that users can realistically know the identities of all 12
This is the really weird one... There is no consistency at all. imho If users are that bounded to check they're not going to be able to get the identity of 13 or 14 or 50? That's not true, from my point of view, until I haven't got any evidence of vice versa stuff. And, I guess, so much people really don't care if those witnesses are identified or not. What makes it look completely centralized? For some reasons, actually. 1. All of those 12 were declared by dev at the time of system was first published (WP), so it's not a tough issue to realize them to be somehow related to one another. 2. It's described the case of attack in the WP as the only majority of witnesses are able to distinguish the main chain using their data. Certainly, we're talking about just 12 people or organizations somehow interested in keeping the network healthy. And they're have the real power. And they're interested in getting the commissions, as well. 3. There is the rule of the protocol saying the new witnesses might be added just after old 12 witnesses have approved the new one. There is no way they would have done that. They haven't any reason for that. But they have all the reasons not to do. That's my personal opinion. I can see a lot of risks... Because protectability of the network depends on 12 people. --- So, please answer my question of the real reason if I was wrong. Thanks Each transactions having 12 witnesses attached to it is consistent. What is not consistent would be having variable amount of witnesses on each transaction. There can be more than 12 at the same time, but each transaction need to have 12 witnesses. That's consistent. If you don't have identified witnesses then you could Sybil attack it. 1. No, the network launched with all witnesses belonging to founder, in past 2-3 years, there has been interviews, polls and users have replaced majority of witnesses with new ones. Witnesses have followed the changes that users have made. 2. The only power that witnesses have is stopping the network from finding the stability point when majority of witnesses collude and turn off the node, but even then, the community can hard-fork. There is no real power for witnesses (they can't censor) and the commissions barely cover fees for new transactions. Yes, it is interest of all witnesses that majority of witnesses keep running their nodes and if some won't, majority of witnesses or even users can signal to replace a shitty witness. 3. Not sure what you are talking about, each time there was a witness change, all the witnesses and users changed their witness lists, but actually only majority is needed. There is years of public DAG data that Obyte consensus mechanism works. |
|
|
|
|
|
