[Bitshares] bitUSD discussion

[zorco]

The first mover advantage is great but what stops NXT from doing their own collateral or pegging system or a near-equivalent thereof?  

Nobody it stopping them hope they gonna do it !! Nobody stopped people copying  bitcoin either.

It's a question of IF something brings utility to the mass market and if the mass market is utilizing this service

The utility is here : "it's just an amazing way to store the value of assets in a decentralised way that's never been possible before!"

Truth will see how the mass market reacts.

[1715064662]

1715064662

[1715064662]

1715064662

[CoinHoarder]

It's not a question of IF something will work (something broken is a problem, though).

It's a question of IF something brings utility to the mass market and if the mass market is utilizing this service.  The NXT asset exchange as far as I can tell works extremely well.  Much like BitSharesX's bitassets may work.  The reality is asset trading just doesn't appeal to the plurality.  It's also reinventing the wheel as if I really wanted to trade $USD then I would use real exchanges and not a crypto.

Main reason people went into cryptos was to escape the inflation of the $Fiat. Why do I need to deal with assets and other gimmicks when they already work pretty well themselves in the real world?


It's also a question of IF something is proprietary.  The first mover advantage is great but what stops NXT from doing their own collateral or pegging system or a near-equivalent thereof?  

I'm not sure how many times people have to tell you this, but the Nxt asset exchange is not the same thing as Bitshare's bitassets....... they are two completely different concepts. It seems like you still don't understand what bitassets are.

It's also reinventing the wheel as if I really wanted to trade $USD then I would use real exchanges and not a crypto.

It is nothing like reinventing the wheel...

Centralized exchanges suffer from many vulnerabilities/risks/inconveniences including risk of government asset seizure, losing funds due to being hacked, volume and price manipulation, going insolvent due to bad business practices or running ponzi-like schemes, complicated know your customer requirements (it can be hard or take a long time to get "verified"), Etcetra. (I'm sure I'm forgetting something.)

Technically, a decentralized version would suffer from none of these problems.

[PilotofBTC]

So is the 2x BTSX that you need to borrow bitUSD based on the USD price of BTSX or the units?

If BTSX is trading at $.50 each, then I need 4 BTSX to borrow 1 bitUSD?

So, the whole bitshares concept could have been done on the NXT blockchain using NXT as the store of value and creating a bitUSD asset. (I assume they didn't cause the devs could create BTSX's for free.)

I wonder too, how close this is to the NXT monetary system. It sounds very similar to me.

[TaunSew]

It's not a question of IF something will work (something broken is a problem, though).

It's a question of IF something brings utility to the mass market and if the mass market is utilizing this service.  The NXT asset exchange as far as I can tell works extremely well.  Much like BitSharesX's bitassets may work.  The reality is asset trading just doesn't appeal to the plurality.  It's also reinventing the wheel as if I really wanted to trade $USD then I would use real exchanges and not a crypto.

Main reason people went into cryptos was to escape the inflation of the $Fiat. Why do I need to deal with assets and other gimmicks when they already work pretty well themselves in the real world?


It's also a question of IF something is proprietary.  The first mover advantage is great but what stops NXT from doing their own collateral or pegging system or a near-equivalent thereof?  

I'm not sure how many times people have to tell you this, but the Nxt asset exchange is not the same thing as Bitshare's bitassets....... they are two completely different concepts. It seems like you still don't understand what bitassets are.

Still going on with that rhetorical dribble, huh?

How about instead of you pushing the burden on proof on me, due to bitassets which isn't released until monday, how about you present the evidence that it's "completely different concepts" without posting a link full of rhetorical bullchit?  We'll know on monday when your 'evidence' doesn't consist of rhetoric and rainbows.


bitassets are assets, end of story.  If your only difference is a collateral and pegging system then that can patched into any asset system.  Sure it may not be the exact 100% same as bitassets but the regular user wouldn't know and if they did wouldn't care.  Not everyone wants a centralized bank like BitShares.

[CoinHoarder]

So is the 2x BTSX that you need to borrow bitUSD based on the USD price of BTSX or the units?

If BTSX is trading at $.50 each, then I need 4 BTSX to borrow 1 bitUSD?

So, the whole bitshares concept could have been done on the NXT blockchain using NXT as the store of value and creating a bitUSD asset. (I assume they didn't cause the devs could create BTSX's for free.)

I wonder too, how close this is to the NXT monetary system. It sounds very similar to me.

There is nothing stopping Nxt from implementing something similar to bitassets. I think that first mover advantage is important though and BitsharesX has them beat there. Look at how far Bitcoin's first mover advantage has got them, I think we can all agree there are many more technically advanced crypto currencies with more features and improvements over it, yet it is still the king of crypto currencies.

[merockstar]

It's not a question of IF something will work (something broken is a problem, though).

It's a question of IF something brings utility to the mass market and if the mass market is utilizing this service.  The NXT asset exchange as far as I can tell works extremely well.  Much like BitSharesX's bitassets may work.  The reality is asset trading just doesn't appeal to the plurality.  It's also reinventing the wheel as if I really wanted to trade $USD then I would use real exchanges and not a crypto.

Main reason people went into cryptos was to escape the inflation of the $Fiat. Why do I need to deal with assets and other gimmicks when they already work pretty well themselves in the real world?


It's also a question of IF something is proprietary.  The first mover advantage is great but what stops NXT from doing their own collateral or pegging system or a near-equivalent thereof?  

I'm not sure how many times people have to tell you this, but the Nxt asset exchange is not the same thing as Bitshare's bitassets....... they are two completely different concepts. It seems like you still don't understand what bitassets are.

Still going on with that rhetorical dribble, huh?

How about instead of you pushing the burden on proof on me, due to bitassets which isn't released until monday, how about you present the evidence that it's "completely different concepts" without posting a link full of rhetorical bullchit?  We'll know on monday when your 'evidence' doesn't consist of rhetoric and rainbows.


bitassets are assets, end of story.  If your only difference is a collateral and pegging system then that can patched into any asset system.  Sure it may not be the exact 100% same as bitassets but the regular user wouldn't know.   Nowhere was it written that the NXT asset exchange was the final version.

sure you can patch it into nxt.
not sure why they haven't yet?

but even if you do that, nxt still isn't reaping the benefits of DPOS.

[CoinHoarder]

It's not a question of IF something will work (something broken is a problem, though).

It's a question of IF something brings utility to the mass market and if the mass market is utilizing this service.  The NXT asset exchange as far as I can tell works extremely well.  Much like BitSharesX's bitassets may work.  The reality is asset trading just doesn't appeal to the plurality.  It's also reinventing the wheel as if I really wanted to trade $USD then I would use real exchanges and not a crypto.

Main reason people went into cryptos was to escape the inflation of the $Fiat. Why do I need to deal with assets and other gimmicks when they already work pretty well themselves in the real world?


It's also a question of IF something is proprietary.  The first mover advantage is great but what stops NXT from doing their own collateral or pegging system or a near-equivalent thereof?  

I'm not sure how many times people have to tell you this, but the Nxt asset exchange is not the same thing as Bitshare's bitassets....... they are two completely different concepts. It seems like you still don't understand what bitassets are.

Still going on with that rhetorical dribble, huh?

How about instead of you pushing the burden on proof on me, due to bitassets which isn't released until monday, how about you present the evidence that it's "completely different concepts" without posting a link full of rhetorical bullchit?  We'll know on monday when your 'evidence' doesn't consist of rhetoric and rainbows.


bitassets are assets, end of story.  If your only difference is a collateral and pegging system then that can patched into any asset system.  Sure it may not be the exact 100% same as bitassets but the regular user wouldn't know.   Nowhere was it written that the NXT asset exchange was the final version.

Nxt's asset exchange, as it is currently implemented, relies on trust. Sure, I could create a "NxtUSD" asset on your exchange, but people would need to trust that I am holding the correct amount of collateral and not embezzling and/or using the collateral in improper ways. Bitshares version is decentralized and trustless since it's done on the free market.

You are right, you guys could implement something like bitassets. Why don't you guys go do it instead of hating on a good idea that is needed?

[TaunSew]

I don't think DPOS really matters (no one cared about it weeks ago).  I read it and didn't appeal to me as I think there are vulnerabilities to it (you can say it is a safer system than NXT but I think the delegate system can be gamed a lot easier than spending millions of $Fiat to acquire 51%+ of NXT.  There isn't even enough NXT for sale.  You'ld probably have to jack up prices at least ten fold to get people to sell and nobody is going to spend $10s of $100s of millions to buy out a newer crypto).



 All the rhetoric and controversy was largely instigated by BTSx who came in with bitasset and are trashing NXT only days after it was "hacked" on a Chinese exchange.  Not implying anything but stranger things have happened.

My concern is something that is being pumped with $millions of $Fiat when it hasn't even been released or tried by the mass crypto-public yet.  We can't even use bitassets yet and yet people are plying on stupid money (unless it's fake volume).

[chanc3r]

So is the 2x BTSX that you need to borrow bitUSD based on the USD price of BTSX or the units?

If BTSX is trading at $.50 each, then I need 4 BTSX to borrow 1 bitUSD?

So, the whole bitshares concept could have been done on the NXT blockchain using NXT as the store of value and creating a bitUSD asset. (I assume they didn't cause the devs could create BTSX's for free.)

I wonder too, how close this is to the NXT monetary system. It sounds very similar to me.

There is nothing stopping Nxt from implementing something similar to bitassets. I think that first mover advantage is important though and BitsharesX has them beat there. Look at how far Bitcoin's first mover advantage has got them, I think we can all agree there are many more technically advanced crypto currencies with more features and improvements over it, yet it is still the king of crypto currencies.

I've seen at least one currency pegged asset so far - this one...

USDbitfnx - Each 1 USDbitfnx asset represents 1 USD deposited at bitfinex.com.
I this case an asset is only put into circulation if there is a real dollar supporting it.. The purpose of this asset is not to provide a dollar equivalent but this or something like it issued on NXT or another Crypto with an asset exchange would achieve a traceable crypto token with a with real $$$ backing the token.

Am I right in understanding that with BTS is there is no guarantee that you can redeem 1 BTSX for 1 USD because you do not need to deposit a USD somewhere to create a BTS in the first place?

[TaunSew]

It's not a question of IF something will work (something broken is a problem, though).

It's a question of IF something brings utility to the mass market and if the mass market is utilizing this service.  The NXT asset exchange as far as I can tell works extremely well.  Much like BitSharesX's bitassets may work.  The reality is asset trading just doesn't appeal to the plurality.  It's also reinventing the wheel as if I really wanted to trade $USD then I would use real exchanges and not a crypto.

If the bitAssets work and bitUSD is pegged to the dollar value of BTSX, then it becomes a game changer. For stocks, commodities, assets, and transfers.

Stocks and commodities will be able to retain their real world dollar value, all while trading on a non-governmental/Wall St. controlled environment.

Yeah but this just the same pegging / collateral system you've (well BTSx people) mentioned a dozen or so times.  It doesn't stop assets from failing or being scams.

It also wouldn't fly on my tax income or depositing into the bank.  "So uhh where did this $7 million come from" "from trading bitUSD and bitMicrosoftstock"

[ChuckOne]

but even if you do that, nxt still isn't reaping the benefits of DPOS.

DPoS and TF + Leasing are basically the same. We discusses this issue in length here and somewhere else.

Trust me on that matter, I am technical guy. Besides social implications, that is all that matters to me.

[ChuckOne]

Am I right in understanding that with BTS is there is no guarantee that you can redeem 1 BTSX for 1 USD because you do not need to deposit a USD somewhere to create a BTS in the first place?

But is that not the very definition of pegging?

[CoinHoarder]

So is the 2x BTSX that you need to borrow bitUSD based on the USD price of BTSX or the units?

If BTSX is trading at $.50 each, then I need 4 BTSX to borrow 1 bitUSD?

So, the whole bitshares concept could have been done on the NXT blockchain using NXT as the store of value and creating a bitUSD asset. (I assume they didn't cause the devs could create BTSX's for free.)

I wonder too, how close this is to the NXT monetary system. It sounds very similar to me.

There is nothing stopping Nxt from implementing something similar to bitassets. I think that first mover advantage is important though and BitsharesX has them beat there. Look at how far Bitcoin's first mover advantage has got them, I think we can all agree there are many more technically advanced crypto currencies with more features and improvements over it, yet it is still the king of crypto currencies.

I've seen at least one currency pegged asset so far - this one...

USDbitfnx - Each 1 USDbitfnx asset represents 1 USD deposited at bitfinex.com.
I this case an asset is only put into circulation if there is a real dollar supporting it.. The purpose of this asset is not to provide a dollar equivalent but this or something like it issued on NXT or another Crypto with an asset exchange would achieve a traceable crypto token with a with real $$$ backing the token.

You need to trust bitfinex that they hold the correct amount of collateral and don't do any funny business, so it is completely different from bitassets.

[zorco]

So, the whole bitshares concept could have been done on the NXT blockchain using NXT as the store of value and creating a bitUSD asset. (I assume they didn't cause the devs could create BTSX's for free.)

Probably but there are a lot of differences still, Bitshare use DPOS you have a transaction speed of 10 sec. You have the delegates,you have dividends that are payde to shareholders  etc.  

"the hole bitshare concept" - Bitshare X is the first DAC  the first of many to come that are using  bitshare toolkit : Bitshare Dns, Bitshare Music, Bitshare Play, follow my Vote etc. My point is Bitshare concept is much more then Bitshare X so there are more differences that you can see at first glance.

[CoinHoarder]

So is the 2x BTSX that you need to borrow bitUSD based on the USD price of BTSX or the units?

If BTSX is trading at $.50 each, then I need 4 BTSX to borrow 1 bitUSD?

It is based off of the price of BitsharesX relative to the US dollar, as determined by the free market.

You would only need 1 BTSX in the case of BTSX being worth $0.50, as only 2x collateral is needed (I think) if you wanted to borrow 1 bitUSD. If BTSX falls in price and your collateral can no longer cover your 1bitUSD, then your position is released and you lose your collateral proportional to the amount collateral that is required to cover your position.

Am I right in understanding that with BTS is there is no guarantee that you can redeem 1 BTSX for 1 USD because you do not need to deposit a USD somewhere to create a BTS in the first place?

It is determined by consensus on the free market, by some people going long and some people going short on a specific asset. There is no guarantee, but short of manipulation or some flaw, there is no need for a guarantee. The free market will always even out to the true value of the USD as soon as a large amount of orders are placed on both sides, proper volume is established, and skepticism dies down that bitassets will not work for some reason. Because of those reasons, bitUSD will likely be worth less than US dollar until "market equilibrium" (or consensus) is reached. I expect this to happen eventually, but on the release and in the immediate future after the release, bitUSD will likely be worth less than a real US dollar. That is speculation though...

[PilotofBTC]

Am I right in understanding that with BTS is there is no guarantee that you can redeem 1 BTSX for 1 USD because you do not need to deposit a USD somewhere to create a BTS in the first place?

But is that not the very definition of pegging?

I don't think so, there is a difference between pegging the value of something to something else, and saying that it is back by that other thing.

I think the Yuan is pegged to the US$.

Generally, to peg the value to the dollar they would have to buy and sell bitUSD to keep it at a value of $1. That means there is a central bank and the value of bitUSD is being manipulated, right?

[ChuckOne]

I don't think so, there is a difference between pegging the value of something to something else, and saying that it is back by that other thing.

I think the Yuan is pegged to the US$.

Okay, I see.

Generally, to peg the value to the dollar they would have to buy and sell bitUSD to keep it at a value of $1. That means there is a central bank and the value of bitUSD is being manipulated, right?

I have no idea.

[Tradingriver]

you cannot "create" and "promise" to deliver a bitAsset

a bitAsset is only created if 2 people (a buyer and a seller) are trading this asset class. this is the major differencel. It seems you don't get this.

it function like a future market. it is a trustless contract backed with BTSX. This is the reason why it will function.

you are selling bitUSD and i buy it from you. only now the bitAssets are created and backed from your collateral and my collateral.

someone will loose in this trade. its the same function any future exchange on the planet will give you, just without trust and 3 party.....

a trade in bitAsset is like "i will sell you in the future my wheat for price x". But not for the future just now.


sry - you should just take a piece BTSX and watch. if its fails ok, if its works - great. why hate a project you are not involved? maybe you are concerned about your only NXT invest.

[chanc3r]

sry - you should just take a piece BTSX and watch. if its fails ok, if its works - great. why hate a project you are not involved? maybe you are concerned about your only NXT invest.

I won't 'take a piece' of anything I don't understand...
And why is it that anyone asking questions about BTSX is being accused of protecting their NXT investment..
Many hold NXT but would be foolish to hold only NXT so many hold other investment also...
Many would be foolish to only invest in crypto and so also hold other FIAT based investments and assets.

If you meet everyone just trying to understand with such accusations then your community will not grow.

[instacalm]

I won't 'take a piece' of anything I don't understand...
And why is it that anyone asking questions about BTSX is being accused of protecting their NXT investment..
Many hold NXT but would be foolish to hold only NXT so many hold other investment also...
Many would be foolish to only invest in crypto and so also hold other FIAT based investments and assets.

If you meet everyone just trying to understand with such accusations then your community will not grow.

The problem here is that this thread is attacking BTS(X) based on massive lack of understanding, claiming BitShares would aim at "mirroring the FED", rambling about fractional reserve lending etc. I've been with NXT since December '13 but this is nothing short of embarrassment. As far as I see there were no accusations or attacks coming from the BitShares community initially as this was clearly initiated by a few community members of NXT.

Gladly voices such as CfB's still do exist:

U, guys, waste ur time here attacking our allies instead of fighting against bankers. The fact that attacks became much intense after Bitshares had outpaced Nxt on CoinMarketCap makes me to think that u r in Nxt just to make more fiat. This makes me very upset...