BTSX+BitUSD vs NuShares+NuBits - which will win the USD peg war?

[toast]

BitUSD peg has been holding decently (~5% spread) and recent market mechanic changes mean BTSX bulls can play market maker which should tighten it up significantly.

NuBits are still quite new and I still don't understand the peg mechanics very well - is it just NuShareholders tweaking interest to try to achieve NuBit demand?  That said, Jordan and his team are exceptional and I am sure they have thought it through very carefully.


Anyway:  which are you more confident about?
(disclaimer: I'm a bitshares dev)

[1715423618]

1715423618

[1715423618]

1715423618

[1715423618]

1715423618

[Yurizhai]

Far too early to tell, but I think we can all agree it is good to see two serious competitors in the market! This will make both of them try to constantly improve.

The NuBits whitepaper can be found here https://nubits.com/about/white-paper


The basic idea is that:

The price of NuBits is pressed downward by shareholder elected 'custodians' selling NuBits for $1.

The price of NuBits is pressed upward by anyone who owns NuBits being able to take their NuBits out of circulation (called parking) for a limited time in exchange for a monetary incentive, the incentive amount chosen by shareholders which will reflect how needed parking is at the current time.

Hope this helps.

[scottsecret]

So how many custodians and who chooses who they are ?  Is it a centralized selection process ?

[delulo]

Far too early to tell, but I think we can all agree it is good to see two serious competitors in the market! This will make both of them try to constantly improve.

The NuBits whitepaper can be found here https://nubits.com/about/white-paper


The basic idea is that:

The price of NuBits is pressed downward by shareholder elected 'custodians' selling NuBits for $1.

The price of NuBits is pressed upward by anyone who owns NuBits being able to take their NuBits out of circulation (called parking) for a limited time in exchange for a monetary incentive, the incentive amount chosen by shareholders which will reflect how needed parking is at the current time.

Hope this helps.

Interesting. What role does peercoin (undercapitalized) play for the mechanics of Nubits?

One Nubits should always be one USD? I clearly have to read the paper

[Yurizhai]

Far too early to tell, but I think we can all agree it is good to see two serious competitors in the market! This will make both of them try to constantly improve.

The NuBits whitepaper can be found here https://nubits.com/about/white-paper


The basic idea is that:

The price of NuBits is pressed downward by shareholder elected 'custodians' selling NuBits for $1.

The price of NuBits is pressed upward by anyone who owns NuBits being able to take their NuBits out of circulation (called parking) for a limited time in exchange for a monetary incentive, the incentive amount chosen by shareholders which will reflect how needed parking is at the current time.

Hope this helps.

Interesting. What role does peercoin (undercapitalized) play for the mechanics of Nubits?

One Nubits should always be one USD? I clearly have to read the paper

NuBits created and sold are an example of a revenue for the network. The revenue is paid to shareholders in the form of Peercoins only.

So how many custodians and who chooses who they are ?  Is it a centralized selection process ?

As many as the shareholders elect, and they can be abandoned at the will of the shareholders. Custodians have no control over the network.

[toast]

How do you enforce "revenue is paid to shareholders in the form of peercoins only"?  If I understand correctly, this process is entirely off-chain and I don't see how you could stop the shareholders form choosing to pay dividends in USD or BTC or something.

[Yurizhai]

How do you enforce "revenue is paid to shareholders in the form of peercoins only"?  If I understand correctly, this process is entirely off-chain and I don't see how you could stop the shareholders form choosing to pay dividends in USD or BTC or something.

It's not off chain. Paying dividends with Peercoins happens in the client. Paying dividends with something else would be.. hard, to say the least. We're talking hundreds, thousands, eventually hundreds of thousands of shareholders you're going to pay individually with something other than Peercoin, or create some kind of program to do it.. why? It's supposed to be in Peercoins, if you refuse to do it that's a good way for the shareholders to abandon you as a custodian.

[toast]

How do you enforce "revenue is paid to shareholders in the form of peercoins only"?  If I understand correctly, this process is entirely off-chain and I don't see how you could stop the shareholders form choosing to pay dividends in USD or BTC or something.

It's not off chain. Paying dividends with Peercoins happens in the client. Paying dividends with something else would be.. hard, to say the least. We're talking hundreds, thousands, eventually hundreds of thousands of shareholders you're going to pay individually with something other than Peercoin, or create some kind of program to do it.. why? It's supposed to be in Peercoins, if you refuse to do it that's a good way for the shareholders to abandon you as a custodian.

Just because it's in the client doesn't mean it's on-chain. I don't see how it could be on-chain without modifying PPC blockchain rules.

What if majority shareholders decide PPC is not the best way to pay dividends? From what I can tell it is not explicitly part of the protocol. That's not a bad thing, it's only bad if your promise that PPC is the only way to do this if it isn't.

[Yurizhai]

How do you enforce "revenue is paid to shareholders in the form of peercoins only"?  If I understand correctly, this process is entirely off-chain and I don't see how you could stop the shareholders form choosing to pay dividends in USD or BTC or something.

It's not off chain. Paying dividends with Peercoins happens in the client. Paying dividends with something else would be.. hard, to say the least. We're talking hundreds, thousands, eventually hundreds of thousands of shareholders you're going to pay individually with something other than Peercoin, or create some kind of program to do it.. why? It's supposed to be in Peercoins, if you refuse to do it that's a good way for the shareholders to abandon you as a custodian.

Just because it's in the client doesn't mean it's on-chain. I don't see how it could be on-chain without modifying PPC blockchain rules.

What if majority shareholders decide PPC is not the best way to pay dividends? From what I can tell it is not explicitly part of the protocol. That's not a bad thing, it's only bad if your promise that PPC is the only way to do this if it isn't.

The whitepaper outlines Peercoin as the way dividends will be paid. I do not actually know if it is enforced in the protocol in some way. In any case, there is no reason people would not want to use PPC. It has the smallest blockchain, and they specifically want to avoid paying dividends in NBT. Maybe someday they will change dividends payments, but for now all elected custodians that I know of are planning to buy Peercoins with the profits soon.

[EvilDave]

Just to be evil: you forgot one!

http://bitcoinist.net/big-showdown-coinousd-vs-bitusd/

https://coinomat.com/coinousd.php

[toast]

Just to be evil: you forgot one!

http://bitcoinist.net/big-showdown-coinousd-vs-bitusd/

https://coinomat.com/coinousd.php

Lol! Sorry, no - IOU USD user-issued assets have been a thing since mastercoin was still new and exciting.

[matt608]

I'm betting on BTSX, but time will tell.  Bitassets have great names too, bitUSD, it sounds 'official', but that is secondary of course to the market mechanism. 

[nomoreheroes7]

BitUSD. The name alone is worth billions. And its underlying mechanics feel a lot more decentralized and free-market driven to me.

Also, NuBits may very well be an actual Ponzi. And I'm not just throwing that out there as FUD, there's legitimate discussion that NuBits' system may in fact be a form of Ponzi.

[peligro]

NuBits is very centralised. I don't like how you can not generally buy them. They are trying to get a small group who holds and controls it.
The Peercoin pump showed how a small group manipulating is not a good idea.

[masterOfDisaster]

NuBits is very centralised. I don't like how you can not generally buy them. They are trying to get a small group who holds and controls it.
The Peercoin pump showed how a small group manipulating is not a good idea.

NuBits is in no way centralized. And you can buy them at 3 exchanges at the moment: https://nubits.com/exchanges
Shame on me for quoting myself:

NuBits is the coin emitted by the "Nu bank", which is represented by the holders of NuShares. And because the NuShares are distributed (one might call it a "Distributed Anonymous Bank", DAB) you can't call it centralized.
If the bank that emits a currency is not centralized, the currency isn't, either.[...]

[willfahmy]

BTSX+BitUSD is much easier to understand and makes much more sense to me.

[asdlolciterquit]

BTSX+BitUSD is much easier to understand and makes much more sense to me.

and, i would add, BTSX is hard enought to understand!

[Zer0Sum]

NuBits is very centralised. I don't like how you can not generally buy them. They are trying to get a small group who holds and controls it.
The Peercoin pump showed how a small group manipulating is not a good idea.

Ya man, Jordan Lee has been selling "shares" to his buddies for months...
Then they engineered this massive PPC Pump to cash in.

I skimmed the Whitepaper (Gen 2.0 fatigue, baby) and complexity is usually a bad sign...
At the end Jordan basically says he is targeting the USD...
Imagine the killer drugs this dude must be on...
To create a new Federal Reserve and call the money "NuBits"...
Like it's a children's snack... dude probably has not left his PC in 20 years.



JORDAN'S BIG PUMP

[masterOfDisaster]

So much hate.
So little information.
And the logic is flawed as well.

How do you relate
"selling "shares" to his buddies for months"
with the accused
"PPC Pump to cash in"?

...makes no sense for me...

Btw - I don't believe that this was an engineered pump.
NuBits was announced long before the countdown began: http://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=2923.0
The information that NuBits would require Peercoins for distributing dividends was in that announcement from June 05, 2014.
The assumption that people buy Peercoins because they expect a rise of Peercoin's price level is not too far-fetched.
...but you want to blame NuBits or Jordan for the greed of those who wait to buy Peercoins until NuBits' launch is announced (so they can pump and dump other things meanwhile)?

[masterOfDisaster]

[...] there's legitimate discussion that NuBits' system may in fact be a form of Ponzi.

I agree 100%

I agree 100%

+1

I'd appreciate to have a discussion because I think it is very important to discuss this topic.
But a discussion needs next to a position arguments for that position.
Will we read arguments or does it remain an unfounded accusation?

The process looks to me like NuBits (NBT) are sold for roughly 1 USD and they are bought for roughly 1 USD by the custodians who act on behalf of the NuShares holders.
So for each NBT that is sold, theres 1 USD available to buy it back.
Where's the Ponzi?

A Ponzi scheme requires that a system can only be sustained by new participants entering the scheme.
NuBits is designed to be sustainable independent from the amount of NuBits in circulation, being brought to market or being removed from it.

[supranetico]

Short answer - Neither
Long answer - Both of them have an inherited structured which relies of market management (more like manipulation) by largest holders - the fight to fix price to $1.

[d5000]

Both are "first tries", and as far as I understood the whitepapers, both can manage the peg well in a stable or bullish market (regarding the "shares", not the "pegged assets").

But I worry that both will have a hard time when the first serious bear market (e.g. after the first great bubble) arrives.

Until now I like the bitUSD concept a little bit more, as it doesn't rely so much on centralized exchanges. NuBits on the other hand seems to be a more flexible concept with a greater "human factor", and bitUSD seems to rely 100% on mainstream-economics market mechanisms. I have still to understand some of the mechanics of NuBits.

Disclaimer: I am a Peercoin fanboy

[nomoreheroes7]

I'd appreciate to have a discussion because I think it is very important to discuss this topic.
But a discussion needs next to a position arguments for that position.
Will we read arguments or does it remain an unfounded accusation?

The process looks to me like NuBits (NBT) are sold for roughly 1 USD and they are bought for roughly 1 USD by the custodians who act on behalf of the NuShares holders.
So for each NBT that is sold, theres 1 USD available to buy it back.
Where's the Ponzi?

A Ponzi scheme requires that a system can only be sustained by new participants entering the scheme.
NuBits is designed to be sustainable independent from the amount of NuBits in circulation, being brought to market or being removed from it.

Others can explain it better than I ever could, so if you're truly interested in this discussion take a look at the BitShares post regarding it:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9057.0

The good stuff starts around pages 8-9. Most interesting thread I've seen in a long while, and Jordan Lee is also there participating.

[BigOrangeBee]

Where are NuShares sold?

[toast]

[...] there's legitimate discussion that NuBits' system may in fact be a form of Ponzi.

I agree 100%

I agree 100%

+1

I'd appreciate to have a discussion because I think it is very important to discuss this topic.
But a discussion needs next to a position arguments for that position.
Will we read arguments or does it remain an unfounded accusation?

The process looks to me like NuBits (NBT) are sold for roughly 1 USD and they are bought for roughly 1 USD by the custodians who act on behalf of the NuShares holders.
So for each NBT that is sold, theres 1 USD available to buy it back.
Where's the Ponzi?

A Ponzi scheme requires that a system can only be sustained by new participants entering the scheme.
NuBits is designed to be sustainable independent from the amount of NuBits in circulation, being brought to market or being removed from it.

I think the "ponzi" is that demand for NuBits are supposed to come from people willing to park them in exchange for interest in the form of more NuBits. There is no way to reduce the nubits supply, only "kick the can down the road" by paying more nubits which the holders have to hope they can resell for a dollar later, the demand for which comes from people holding nubits for the interest which they hope to sell for a dollar later, etc.  Jordan incorrectly compares this to how the fed controls USD demand via interest rates, except that in the case of the fed the USD paid back with interest is actually destroyed.

With bitUSD, there is real buy demand from shorts who should be willing to buy at any price below $1 because it is collateralized by more than that value worth of BTSX. When they buy and cover the supply is reduced. If there's not enough demand for bitUSD, then there won't be any bitUSD!

[jlspartz]

So, if I've got this straight, NuBits requires human custodians to keep the currency pegged to USD, but claims to solve market manipulation    I don't see how something cannot be manipulated if requiring people to make adjustments.  Is there a plan to switch these custodians out with automation when it's more established?

[toast]

Short answer - Neither
Long answer - Both of them have an inherited structured which relies of market management (more like manipulation) by largest holders - the fight to fix price to $1.

bitUSD does not depend on market "management", only people competing to make a profit. It assumes people act greedily and are not "fighting" any market forces (any deviation is an opportunity to trade profitably).

[d5000]

I have two questions about bitUSD:

1) What happens if a whale sells bitUSD in the bitUSD/BTSX and in the bitUSD/USD market simultanously* and so the price goes down in both markets? Then the arbitrage USD -> BTSX -> BitUSD -> USD is not possible anymore.

2) In a long BTSX bear market, there would be naturally more demand for bitUSD than for BitSharesX, and there would be few people willing to short them. I have read in bitsharesx forum that there was an example with an hypothetical "BitDouble" which would duplicate every year its value, and the answer was nobody would be willing to short. In a real BTSX bear market the situation would be similar, as BitUSD would continously appreciate vs the BTSX. What would happen in this situation?

(* It must not be necessarily the same whale, it can also be market forces driving down BitUSD price in both markets.)

[toast]

I have two questions about bitUSD:

1) What happens if a whale sells bitUSD in the bitUSD/BTSX and in the bitUSD/USD market simultanously* and so the price goes down in both markets? Then the arbitrage USD -> BTSX -> BitUSD -> USD is not possible anymore.

2) In a long BTSX bear market, there would be naturally more demand for bitUSD than for BitSharesX, and there would be few people willing to short them. I have read in bitsharesx forum that there was an example with an hypothetical "BitDouble" which would duplicate every year its value, and the answer was nobody would be willing to short. In a real BTSX bear market the situation would be similar, as BitUSD would continously appreciate vs the BTSX. What would happen in this situation?

(* It must not be necessarily the same whale, it can also be market forces driving down BitUSD price in both markets.)

1)  Remember that the demand for BitUSD ultimately comes from shorts trying to cover, and that arbitrage is just what market makers do to provide liquidity. So the answer is, "real" shorts (not liquidity providers) would start buying back bitUSD to lock in their profits, and speculators would start buying up bitUSD in anticipation of this movement and the knowledge that they can sell it back to the market makers at a profit. So really this question isn't different from what happens if someone dumps on just one of the markets you mentioned.

2) If no new shorts are willing to enter then margins start getting called and bitUSD is bought up and taken out of circulation and destroyed until bitUSD is overvalued enough that either existing bitUSD holders take the opportunity to cash out into real USD at a profit (via bitusd -> btsx -> usd) or new shorts are finally brave enough to enter ("bitUSD is $1.50, BTSX won't fall by 50% faster than other new shorts will enter, so I'll short").

[tk808]

NuBits/NuShares Article Published on Coins Source. Enjoy

https://twitter.com/CoinsSource/status/515233053455568896

[d5000]

@toast: Thank you for your answers. I think I got the mechanism for 1) now. As for 2), I must digest it a bit It's possible that events 1 & 2 together (bitUSD going down versus USD, btsx going simultaneously down versus bitUSD and USD) could be a problem. I try to explore worst-case scenarios, so this is not meant as FUD or something alike, in fact, I think the BTSX model is a really nice innovation.

[peligro]

I think that it has to keep printing more NuBits to profit the existing NuBits. Thats why the ponzi word is being mentioned.
Was quite interested to see what the scheme they have for maintaining peg, and so far it just looks like they have to rely on more and more users to keep it viable.

[supranetico]

Short answer - Neither
Long answer - Both of them have an inherited structured which relies of market management (more like manipulation) by largest holders - the fight to fix price to $1.

bitUSD does not depend on market "management", only people competing to make a profit. It assumes people act greedily and are not "fighting" any market forces (any deviation is an opportunity to trade profitably).

Here's the thing if people act "greedily" they should be acting greedy about their BTSX holding too. That would mean net shorts will always be higher than net longs - isnt that the case in the current market? There have been quite a lot of restrictions put in place to not allow people to short. Something like - you cant short below 5% (not sure) below the MA price or interest bearing etc. So BTSX on one hand believes people to act rationally (greedy) but disallows people to act on their own accord (based on their greed). How is that a good thing?

Problem with NuBits and BTSX is same, free market reign is restricted given, while talking about the market is free. Not a good combination.

[toast]

Short answer - Neither
Long answer - Both of them have an inherited structured which relies of market management (more like manipulation) by largest holders - the fight to fix price to $1.

bitUSD does not depend on market "management", only people competing to make a profit. It assumes people act greedily and are not "fighting" any market forces (any deviation is an opportunity to trade profitably).

Here's the thing if people act "greedily" they should be acting greedy about their BTSX holding too. That would mean net shorts will always be higher than net longs - isnt that the case in the current market? There have been quite a lot of restrictions put in place to not allow people to short. Something like - you cant short below 5% (not sure) below the MA price or interest bearing etc. So BTSX on one hand believes people to act rationally (greedy) but disallows people to act on their own accord (based on their greed). How is that a good thing?

Problem with NuBits and BTSX is same, free market reign is restricted given, while talking about the market is free. Not a good combination.

Restricting shorts based on a price feed is not "restricting the free market". When you enter a contract for a difference, you and the other party have to agree on a real-world price.
Not having this restriction would be like forex allowing you to do naked shorts at a price other than the current market price for the real asset.

You're basically saying that an open-market exchange prohibiting selling boxes labeled "1 oz gold inside" when it actually has half an ounce inside is restricting the free market.

[Yurizhai]

One thing I can say for sure. The reaction from a lot of the BTSX crowd has been very disappointing. Seeing bytemaster use words like 'suckers' and 'ponzi scheme' is just ridiculous. It doesn't matter if BTSX ends up  the greatest thing that graced the human race, and NuBits a terrible idea - let it be known that Jordan Lee acts more professional when he  is taking a dump, and that counts for something in my book. I think it's important people remember that in the end it's not crypto vs. crypto, it's crypto vs. state.

[toast]

One thing I can say for sure. The reaction from a lot of the BTSX crowd has been very disappointing. Seeing bytemaster use words like 'suckers' and 'ponzi scheme' is just ridiculous. It doesn't matter if BTSX ends up  the greatest thing that graced the human race, and NuBits a terrible idea - let it be known that Jordan Lee acts more professional when he  is taking a dump, and that counts for something in my book. I think it's important people remember that in the end it's not crypto vs. crypto, it's crypto vs. state.

You are right.

That said, if you knew BM's normal extremely measured and objective mode of communication, I think you'd take what he has to say about nubits more seriously. BTSX is accused of being a ponzi all the time so it is dangerous to recklessly accuse others, and bm knows the "real" critieria of ponzi and does not use the term lightly.

Fact is, nubits requires constant influx of capital in the form of nubit holders to maintain the peg. It is not like the fed, those analogies are dangerously flawed.

[Yurizhai]

One thing I can say for sure. The reaction from a lot of the BTSX crowd has been very disappointing. Seeing bytemaster use words like 'suckers' and 'ponzi scheme' is just ridiculous. It doesn't matter if BTSX ends up  the greatest thing that graced the human race, and NuBits a terrible idea - let it be known that Jordan Lee acts more professional when he  is taking a dump, and that counts for something in my book. I think it's important people remember that in the end it's not crypto vs. crypto, it's crypto vs. state.

That said, if you knew BM's normal extremely measured and objective mode of communication, I think you'd take what he has to say about nubits more seriously. BTSX is accused of being a ponzi all the time so it is dangerous to recklessly accuse others, and bm knows the "real" critieria of ponzi and does not use the term lightly.

I believe you believe that, but I also think he just did. We're talking within hours of it's release, the mere infancy of a new system and he called it that. If Jordan thought something was a ponzi scheme, I still do not think he would say those words. He would voice his concerns in a very detailed and professional manner, and wait for a response. Apparently this doesn't matter to a lot of people, as BM seems to have quite a few followers ready to back him up regardless.

Still, I thank you for speaking cordially with me!

[CoinHoarder]

One thing I can say for sure. The reaction from a lot of the BTSX crowd has been very disappointing. Seeing bytemaster use words like 'suckers' and 'ponzi scheme' is just ridiculous. It doesn't matter if BTSX ends up  the greatest thing that graced the human race, and NuBits a terrible idea - let it be known that Jordan Lee acts more professional when he  is taking a dump, and that counts for something in my book. I think it's important people remember that in the end it's not crypto vs. crypto, it's crypto vs. state.

That said, if you knew BM's normal extremely measured and objective mode of communication, I think you'd take what he has to say about nubits more seriously. BTSX is accused of being a ponzi all the time so it is dangerous to recklessly accuse others, and bm knows the "real" critieria of ponzi and does not use the term lightly.

I believe you believe that, but I also think he just did. We're talking within hours of it's release, the mere infancy of a new system and he called it that. If Jordan thought something was a ponzi scheme, I still do not think he would say those words. He would voice his concerns in a very detailed and professional manner, and wait for a response. Apparently this doesn't matter to a lot of people, as BM seems to have quite a few followers ready to back him up regardless.

Still, I thank you for speaking cordially with me!

I think BM has a lot of people willing to back him up, especially in the Bitshares community, because over time he has proven himself as being much smarter than the average bear. He is one of the most intelligent people I know of in crypto, and I don't ever say that about anyone so that goes to show you how highly I and the Bitshares community value his thoughts and opinions. I think his statements on Nubits have been genuine and not a "knee jerk" reaction. Sure he could of possibly toned it down a little bit but at the end of the day Bitshares is a decentralized autonomous company, and BM's statements shouldn't reflect upon Bitshares as a whole just as Bitcoin core dev statements or actions shouldn't reflect upon Bitcoin as a whole. He was quick to form an opinion because he is a very smart guy with the ability to understand Nubits quickly and think through the possible implications better than most.

/BM fan boy  

[sumantso]

Short answer - Neither
Long answer - Both of them have an inherited structured which relies of market management (more like manipulation) by largest holders - the fight to fix price to $1.

bitUSD does not depend on market "management", only people competing to make a profit. It assumes people act greedily and are not "fighting" any market forces (any deviation is an opportunity to trade profitably).

Here's the thing if people act "greedily" they should be acting greedy about their BTSX holding too. That would mean net shorts will always be higher than net longs - isnt that the case in the current market? There have been quite a lot of restrictions put in place to not allow people to short. Something like - you cant short below 5% (not sure) below the MA price or interest bearing etc. So BTSX on one hand believes people to act rationally (greedy) but disallows people to act on their own accord (based on their greed). How is that a good thing?

Problem with NuBits and BTSX is same, free market reign is restricted given, while talking about the market is free. Not a good combination.

Restricting shorts based on a price feed is not "restricting the free market". When you enter a contract for a difference, you and the other party have to agree on a real-world price.
Not having this restriction would be like forex allowing you to do naked shorts at a price other than the current market price for the real asset.

You're basically saying that an open-market exchange prohibiting selling boxes labeled "1 oz gold inside" when it actually has half an ounce inside is restricting the free market.

I think the market limitations and reliance on feeds is a short term measure to help during the initial low volume phase. Might be wrong, though.

[CLains]

Can't blame Daniel Larimer for sneering just a little bit, when he has published and educated people on his idea for over a year, and along comes the hype of "something Nu" that aims to accomplish something similar but is developed entirely in secret, leaving him unable to even evaluate it, during the most critical phase of his own project.

[supranetico]

Short answer - Neither
Long answer - Both of them have an inherited structured which relies of market management (more like manipulation) by largest holders - the fight to fix price to $1.

bitUSD does not depend on market "management", only people competing to make a profit. It assumes people act greedily and are not "fighting" any market forces (any deviation is an opportunity to trade profitably).

Here's the thing if people act "greedily" they should be acting greedy about their BTSX holding too. That would mean net shorts will always be higher than net longs - isnt that the case in the current market? There have been quite a lot of restrictions put in place to not allow people to short. Something like - you cant short below 5% (not sure) below the MA price or interest bearing etc. So BTSX on one hand believes people to act rationally (greedy) but disallows people to act on their own accord (based on their greed). How is that a good thing?

Problem with NuBits and BTSX is same, free market reign is restricted given, while talking about the market is free. Not a good combination.

Restricting shorts based on a price feed is not "restricting the free market". When you enter a contract for a difference, you and the other party have to agree on a real-world price.
Not having this restriction would be like forex allowing you to do naked shorts at a price other than the current market price for the real asset.

You're basically saying that an open-market exchange prohibiting selling boxes labeled "1 oz gold inside" when it actually has half an ounce inside is restricting the free market.

Huh? is all I can give for the example you gave. half ounce at price of 1 is clear scam and it will be restricted but is not same as not allowing people to short wherever they want. I am sorry but was the point of the thread to get an opinion or was it to throw absurd examples to support BTSX. If its latter, I leave the thread to you.

[sportscliche]

Yurizhai makes a good point.  Leaving their approaches to implementing a dollar-pegged digital asset aside, the Bitshares and Nubits/Peercoin communities couldn't be more different.  Sunny King, Sigmike, Jordan Lee, and the other devs display the attributes of scholarly, completely serious professionals, who absolutely refuse to get into the ubiquitous name-calling, cheerleading, and bashing that permeates so much of the crypto-coin discourse and marketing.  The extent of Jordan Lee's comments on Bitshares was that it is different than the Nubits concept.  That's pretty much it -- no criticisms, no bashing.  He and the other devs work in anonymity and let their work speak for itself.

The Bitshares community, in contrast, strikes me as more of an us-vs-them frat-boy club.  The tone of the posts, which are often sophomoric with little to no substance, isn't going to do them any favors with potential investors or adopters.  I was initially very intrigued by Protoshares, but found myself losing interest as I became aware of the prevailing close-minded attitude.  Then there was the headline photo in their February 2014 newsletter, which essentially sealed it for me:

http://static.squarespace.com/static/51fb043ee4b0608e46483caf/t/52f318d2e4b0bdba1c163a6d/1391663314443/News%20Letter%2005%20-%20February%202014.pdf

Nothing has happened in the last half year that has caused me to change my opinion.

[chryspano]

Yurizhai makes a good point.  Leaving their approaches to implementing a dollar-pegged digital asset aside, the Bitshares and Nubits/Peercoin communities couldn't be more different.  Sunny King, Sigmike, Jordan Lee, and the other devs display the attributes of scholarly, completely serious professionals, who absolutely refuse to get into the ubiquitous name-calling, cheerleading, and bashing that permeates so much of the crypto-coin discourse and marketing.  The extent of Jordan Lee's comments on Bitshares was that it is different than the Nubits concept.  That's pretty much it -- no criticisms, no bashing.  He and the other devs work in anonymity and let their work speak for itself.

The Bitshares community, in contrast, strikes me as more of an us-vs-them frat-boy club.  The tone of the posts, which are often sophomoric with little to no substance, isn't going to do them any favors with potential investors or adopters.  I was initially very intrigued by Protoshares, but found myself losing interest as I became aware of the prevailing close-minded attitude.  Then there was the headline photo in their February 2014 newsletter, which essentially sealed it for me:

http://static.squarespace.com/static/51fb043ee4b0608e46483caf/t/52f318d2e4b0bdba1c163a6d/1391663314443/News%20Letter%2005%20-%20February%202014.pdf

Nothing has happened in the last half year that has caused me to change my opinion.

You have 12 post and in your last 6 posts you are attacking BitShares!

Please tell us what coin you support and post a picture of your developers here! There are lots of reasons for developers to be anonymous and one of them is lack of belief in their project, I will let you figure out what other reasons there are to be an "anonymous developer".

I respect the developers you mentioned above, especially Sunny King but Jordan Lee is doing it wrong! I see no wrong to tell him that his creation "quacks like a duck" and some people might actually think that it's a "duck" and not what he claims thinks (EDIT) it to be.  

I believe in bitshares and I know who the developers are and how capable they are, I also have some pictures of the developers! how many people can say the same in this forum?

[CoinHoarder]

Yurizhai makes a good point.  Leaving their approaches to implementing a dollar-pegged digital asset aside, the Bitshares and Nubits/Peercoin communities couldn't be more different.  Sunny King, Sigmike, Jordan Lee, and the other devs display the attributes of scholarly, completely serious professionals, who absolutely refuse to get into the ubiquitous name-calling, cheerleading, and bashing that permeates so much of the crypto-coin discourse and marketing.  The extent of Jordan Lee's comments on Bitshares was that it is different than the Nubits concept.  That's pretty much it -- no criticisms, no bashing.  He and the other devs work in anonymity and let their work speak for itself.

The Bitshares community, in contrast, strikes me as more of an us-vs-them frat-boy club.  The tone of the posts, which are often sophomoric with little to no substance, isn't going to do them any favors with potential investors or adopters.  I was initially very intrigued by Protoshares, but found myself losing interest as I became aware of the prevailing close-minded attitude.  Then there was the headline photo in their February 2014 newsletter, which essentially sealed it for me:

http://static.squarespace.com/static/51fb043ee4b0608e46483caf/t/52f318d2e4b0bdba1c163a6d/1391663314443/News%20Letter%2005%20-%20February%202014.pdf

Nothing has happened in the last half year that has caused me to change my opinion.

I wish this could be a debate on the merits of BitsharesX/bitUSD vs Nubits/Nushares, but since you guys want to focus on ad hominem criticism.... You criticize the Bitshares community for name calling etc and then you on to do the same thing all throughout your post. Furthermore..

As chryspano mentioned it is ironic that you show up out of the blue in August, after taking a 5 month hiatus from Bitcointalk, and immediately start bashing Bitshares in all 6 of your posts since you came back.

It is doubly ironic that this is around the time that Nubits, a project that would be competing with BitsharesX by solving the same problem in a different way, was about month from being released.

It is triply ironic that you seem to be a big fan of Peercoin/Peershares/Nubits:
http://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=30870
http://www.reddit.com/user/sportscliche

It is quadruply ironic that in February of this year you give a completely different reason for not investing in Bitshares than you give in your post here and now.

http://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=527.msg18220#msg18220

Hello all, I wanted to alert you that Peershares vs Bitshares is being discussed on the Bitshares forum:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=2759

which is what brought me here (my first post!).

Based on what I read in the OP of this thread, I feel confident in stating that the two concepts are vastly different.  Bitshares is attempting to accomplish something far, far more ambitious (IMO more speculative) than Peershares.  This is not without controversy and I refer anyone interested to several discussions that took place on bitcointalk last fall:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279771.msg3214589#msg3214589
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279771.msg3036037#msg3036037
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279771.msg3282870#msg3282870
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=423000.msg4621908#msg4621908
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=325425.msg3610353#msg3610353

One of the issues is whether Bitshares violates the "Impossible Trinity":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_trinity

Another is that it uses a predictive market, but one in which there is: i) no deliverable (eg commodity or share) and ii) no delivery or settlement date (i.e. it's at t=infinity).  There is no external price feed, so the market is expected to set a consensus fair price.  While this may work in theory, I can't see anything that would have prevented its implementation on a centralized exchange in the past, ie. there's nothing in the fundamental economics that requires it to be de-centralized.  Since the idea of a predictive market has been around for 50+ years, smart financial entrepreneurs must have made the extrapolation (adding the conditions of no deliverable and no termination date) at some point and determined it to be unworkable.  For this reason alone, I have skepticism about the Bitshares model and have elected to stay out of it.

It seems to me you are a bit bitter you missed out on getting into Bitshares early because you talked yourself out of it. Instead you decided to invest in Peercoin which is about 1/3 of the value today that it was in February. If you had invested into Bitshares instead you would of came out way better as BTSX is up 300% since its release and the people that got in before the snapshot have done much better than 300%. That being said, I'm sure all of this isn't affecting your opinions and statements as to Bitshares and how horrible of people the Bitshares developers and community is.  

Unfortunately, you haven't learned your lesson in the past 7 months of pain that you've been a Peercoin investor and wrote off Bitshares. Yet, here you are 7 months later backing the wrong horse again (Nubits) and suffering from the stubborn tribe mentality that plagues most cryptocurrency communities. Bytemaster, and other Bitshares community members, have eloquently and thoroughly explained for everyone to read why Nubits/Nushares is flawed and likely to fail, yet you decide to write this possibly valuable learning experience off as name calling, cheerleading, and hating for the sake of hating.

Along with the concept of Nushares/Nubits being flawed, the release of Nushares behind closed doors to well connected Peercoin community members and Nubits developers doesn't strike me as being very fair or open. Bitshares had months of open fundraising and mining/buying/selling of PTS that gave everyone an equal chance to get in on the ground floor. The developers didn't have any special privileges compared to any other random investor, they paid/mined their fair share of the genesis stake of BitsharesX just like everyone else.

Don't let your stubbornness and bitterness cost you any more of your cryptocurrency savings than you've already lost by investing in Peercoin. I am not saying invest in BitsharesX, but you are backing the losing horse all over again in the market pegged cryptocurrency wars. This is your warning, and it is the warning that Bytemaster and other Bitshares community member have been so nice to share with you. If you invest heavily in Nushares/Nubits I think you may look back at this in a year and say damn... I should of listened to them, they really weren't just trolling.

BitsharesX is the better solution to the same problem meanwhile awarding its users with less risk than Nubits/Nushares. It is for this reason and others that we believe we are going to win this battle of the USD market pegged stable cryptos, including through our innovative and successful implementation of the decentralized market place, the dedicated community and developers, and our solution being the closest thing you'll get to a "hands off" free market approach in a market pegged crypto asset. Whether you choose to believe us and heed the writing on the wall is up to you, and you can take it or leave it.

Now, can we get back to technical analysis as to the merits of Nushares/Nubits and BTSX/bitUSD, or do you guys want to continue flinging poop at one another?

[CanadianGeorge]

Daniel Larimer of BitShares lays out in simple steps in this mumble session how NuBits is by definition a Ponzi scheme: https://soundcloud.com/beyond-bitcoin-hangouts/beyond-bitcoin-community-dev-hangout-2014-9-26

Skip to 9:30 to hear the pertinent info, but very good show all the way thru

[tonyk]

I just did not get why the market rocks?

Isn't it better to have self appointed body that prints NuBits at will... Even if this board does not know what exactly to do with the extra supply, I think they have some ideas...

[CoinHoarder]

I just did not get why the market rocks?

Isn't it better to have self appointed body that prints NuBits at will... Even if this board does not know what exactly to do with the extra supply, I think they have some ideas...

I realize you are joking, but that is exactly the point. At least Bitassets like BitUSD are collateralized by something. They don't come into existence without matching a short that has provided 200% collateral with a long position, or by a buyer selling a bitUSD that already exists and is collateralized.

Nubits requires the inflow of new money to maintain the peg when the value of Nubits is lower than the value of a dollar, and it is why the Bitshares community has likened it to a Ponzi scheme and compared it to the federal reserve. For the whole system to work it relies on Nushares holders setting interest rates and printing new Nubits, all of which have no collateral and require new capital to come in to maintain the peg. Furthermore, Nushares holders have way less power than the federal reserve even though it functions similar to it. They can't destroy money (Nubits) and they don't have a government, laws, regulations, and guns backing Nubits.

BitsharesX doesn't need any of that because it is as close to a free market solution you can get when it comes to a decentralized market pegged asset, and thus I believe it comes with less risks involved than owning Nubits. It relies on people acting rational in a free market approach rather than shareholders setting interest rates and printing money without collateral. As long as people act rationally, then the Bitasset market peg will be maintained. People will act rationally as it would be unprofitable not to do so for them, the free market system works on the belief that people will act in a way that is financially in their best interest (IE. Profitable.) to trade against the peg is an unprofitable decision as free market participants will buy into that price movement and profit from your unprofitable decision.

[sumantso]

Now, can we get back to technical analysis as to the merits of Nushares/Nubits and BTSX/bitUSD, or do you guys want to continue flinging poop at one another?

Thats top quality digging - bravo

Can safely say all of us has missed some bus or the other. Last year during that Bitcoin rally, I sold at $155. Imagine how much I was kicking myself when it soared to $1200.

[ChronosCrypto]

In the short term, it looks like NuBits has the advantage, because they are providing a lot more market liquidity, and holding to the peg much more tightly. NuBits is actually usable today, more so than BitUSD, because of this.

In the long term, it seems that BitUSD will outlast NuBits, because BitUSD doesn't seem to depend as much on growing demand. However, if NuBits adds a "NuBits burn" mechanism as has been discussed in their forums, which shrinks the supply of the pegged asset in exchange for creating NuShares, it could go either way.

[chryspano]

btw nubits just printed another 4.04M out of thin air, any potential buyers here? remember that they can print as many as you want! maybe you can ask for a discount if you buy large quantities!

My guess is that noone is buying this ponzi, all I see is an artificially inflated supply and bot trading to get some attention, perhaps they should "print" 140M this would bring them to the 2nd place in marketcap.

[Yurizhai]

btw nubits just printed another 4.04M out of thin air, any potential buyers here? remember that they can print as many as you want! maybe you can ask for a discount if you buy large quantities!

My guess is that noone is buying this ponzi, all I see is an artificially inflated supply and bot trading to get some attention, perhaps they should "print" 140M this would bring them to the 2nd place in marketcap.

Yeah laugh away, keep denouncing it as a "ponzi scheme", it's not going to change the fact that NuBits is and will probably continue to blow BitUSD out of the water. Make up all the excuses you want.

Seriously, the irrational hatred and the general behavior of the BitsharesX crowd is truly pathetic. Just look at the post on the BitsharesX forum https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9057.300 . Insane. I hope the entire world sees that thread, it's enough to stay away from BTSX completely. They're just afraid.

[Tradingriver]

why should i buy Nubits?

i want to buy Nushares, but only "selected" people are chosen. if you go to the nubits side, you will find nothing, how you can buy nushares. nushares are not traded on any exchange. but the 1 Dollar pegged Nubits i can buy millions of them. great!  what can I do with them? nothing, just selling or parking.

what can i do with bitUSD till now?

1. by holding i earn a yield from the trading fees etc. ; it is not clear how big the yield will be in the future but right now it is >1.5%
2. it is not only bitUSD but bitCNY, bitBTC and bitGLD - and on any of them, you get a yield! great Gold with yield fantastic
3. i can exchange bitUSD on BTER to USD or BTC or BTSX . ok, the volume is not great at the moment, but i have 3 assets to sell my bitUSD and bitUSD are not backed with millions issued Nubits to tradingbots.

my problem with nubits is - i don't get them.

why is it not a ponzi if the nushare owners can vote anytime more nubits at the market? the interest for parking, where does it come from? i suspect from issuing new nubits - this is inflation - and will blow up big time!

[Yurizhai]

why should i buy Nubits?

i want to buy Nushares, but only "selected" people are chosen. if you go to the nubits side, you will find nothing, how you can buy nushares. nushares are not traded on any exchange.

The security of the network required a portion of the shares to be distributed to people who could be trusted in order to get off the ground. It will only become more decentralized from here. However, there is nothing stopping any exchange from adding NuShare trading. In fact, the first exchange trading NuShares was added today.

https://bter.com/trade/nsr_btc  ( Note: bter had trouble and deposits currently aren't working but I'm guessing it will be fixed within a day )

So it's already on one exchange, a month from now it will probably be several. You want NuShares on exchanges? Go petition your favorite exchange to add them.

why is it not a ponzi if the nushare owners can vote anytime more nubits at the market? the interest for parking, where does it come from? i suspect from issuing new nubits - this is inflation - and will blow up big time!

You're just echoing what bytemaster said. Did you forget he also said that it could probably work for quite awhile? Oh and guess what else, a new mechanism to burn NBT in exchange for NuShares is already being discussed, a draft will probably be presented within a few  weeks. Boom, the major criticism of NuBits solved, probably years before it would have become a problem anyway. It's like you don't understand cryptocurrencies can evolve.  It's clear the BTSX is either deluded or shitting themselves.

[CoinHoarder]

why is it not a ponzi if the nushare owners can vote anytime more nubits at the market? the interest for parking, where does it come from? i suspect from issuing new nubits - this is inflation - and will blow up big time!

You're just echoing what bytemaster said. Did you forget he also said that it could probably work for quite awhile?

You are forgetting the part where he said that Nubits would fail, like all ponzi schemes eventually do. There is probably a reason why "Jordan Lee" is anonymous. There is also a reason him and the Devs are selling all NuShares to bag holders for 6.5 million U.S. Dollars, ridding themselves of all risks of the Nushares/Nubits system. http://discuss.nubits.com/t/undistributed-nushares/125

You are also forgetting why people hate the Federal Reserve.. because they can and will print money if they deem it appropriate or necessary and dilute USD holders. Nushares has already started diluting Nubits owners by printing a 4 million Nubits bail out fund, and over time it will get worse and worse as the market cap of Nubits grows and more "rainy day" funds are needed to "bail out" the system when (not if) it fails. http://discuss.nubits.com/t/proposal-to-create-a-strategic-reserve-of-nubits/448

Except the federal reserve uses laws, regulations, prison, and weapons to ensure its power. Nubits, although modeling the way they print money closely, has none of these things going for it. Just like many think the Federal Reserve is a ponzi and will fail, people think the same of Nubits. Don't act like Nubits won't use the 4 million "bail out" fund which they already created for this exact purpose if shit hits the fan. This is why it is a Ponzi scheme, Nubits owners will pay for the bail out via dilution, even though they have no control over its creation or usage. Nubits owners are vulnerable to whatever Nushares holders deem appropriate or necessary.

btw nubits just printed another 4.04M out of thin air, any potential buyers here? remember that they can print as many as you want! maybe you can ask for a discount if you buy large quantities!

My guess is that noone is buying this ponzi, all I see is an artificially inflated supply and bot trading to get some attention, perhaps they should "print" 140M this would bring them to the 2nd place in marketcap.

Yeah laugh away, keep denouncing it as a "ponzi scheme", it's not going to change the fact that NuBits is and will probably continue to blow BitUSD out of the water. Make up all the excuses you want.

Seriously, the irrational hatred and the general behavior of the BitsharesX crowd is truly pathetic. Just look at the post on the BitsharesX forum https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9057.300 . Insane. I hope the entire world sees that thread, it's enough to stay away from BTSX completely. They're just afraid.

You must understand BTSX users hatred for Nubits. You guys come onto the scene after BTSX and bitUSD and claim to be "The World's First Stable Digital Currency" in big letters right on the home page of your website, even though BTSX and bitUSD were being talked about, advertised, developed, and released before Nubits. The BTSX community also acts the way it does towards Nubits because it believes that they have the better solution to the same problem. Yet Nubits/Nushares bag holders are going everywhere (including our own forums) and spreading the gospel as to how it is such a "better" solution, as is evidenced with your bolded statement, sucking in new and unwitting victims to your ponzi scheme.

Nushares holders print uncollateralized tokens in the form of Nubits, and can print however many they would like as they are uncollateralized. Meanwhile bitUSD is backed by 300% collateral as they do not come into existence without 200% collateral provided by a short position on bitUSD and 100% collateral as provided by the buyer of the bitUSD. Nushares/Nubits can evolve and so can BTSX/bitUSD, but it doesn't change the fact your system is broken in the same way the Federal Reserve is broken and thus hated. It would need to be completely redesigned to collateralize Nubits and not be a ponzi scheme.. the ability to burn Nubits for Nushares doesn't change this. It would need to be redesigned so much so that it would no longer resemble anything like Nushares/Nubits functions today.

The only thing Nubits has on bitUSD right now is better liquidity. Whereas Nubits uses market makers to provide massive buy and sell walls, bitUSD liquidity is more natural and related to its adoption.. similar to all cryptocurrencies. The Nubits market would probably qualify as the most manipulated cryptocurrency market for this reason. The only way it retains its value is with these market makers in place and the massive buy/sell walls they provide, whereas bitUSD allows all of its end users to maintain the market peg without such manipulation. bitUSD liquidity will improve as it is further adopted, and thus it is more natural compared to its current adoption and not as manipulated. It's liquidity develops much like any other cryptocurrency, as it is adopted more there will be more liquidity and volume.

The only thing upholding the value of Nubits is the promise that someone will buy it back for $1. In the case of exchange default, that promise could be broken as who will sign up as a market maker once that happens. Exchange default will happen sooner or later. Furthermore, the market makers could withdrawal their buy walls at any moment, and at that point there is nothing upholding the value of Nubits to $1. There are only handfuls of market makers in Nubits, whereas with bitUSD the whole user base are the market makers. Nubits isn't traded on a decentralized exchange like bitUSD is and is subject to exchange default, kyc/aml regulations, and possibly taxes at some point due to those aml/kyc restrictions that all centralized exchanges will need to adhere to once governments around the world regulate Bitcoin and other virtual currencies.

Both systems have there pros and cons but I'll stick to the system (BTSX/bitUSD) that doesn't rely on trusted third parties like Nubit's market makers, centralized exchanges, and Nushares owners, rather than settle for an alternative that prints uncollateralized money, is similar to a ponzi scheme just as the federal reserve is, will likely fail at some point in time due to its ponzi-like attributes...... that happens to have better liquidity at the moment until bitUSD is more widely adopted. Enjoy your one and only benefit as in having better liquidity for the time being, as once that statement is no longer true there isn't any benefit to Nubits over bitUSD and yet it retains all of the negatives that BTSX doesn't suffer from by design. It will be a sad day when Nushares/Nubits bag holders lose all of their money, yet I will not feel sorry for you all as we have warned you about all of the flaws repeatedly and you choose to write it off as FUD.

[Yurizhai]

why is it not a ponzi if the nushare owners can vote anytime more nubits at the market? the interest for parking, where does it come from? i suspect from issuing new nubits - this is inflation - and will blow up big time!

You're just echoing what bytemaster said. Did you forget he also said that it could probably work for quite awhile?

You are forgetting the part where he said that Nubits would fail, like all ponzi schemes eventually do. There is probably a reason why "Jordan Lee" is anonymous. There is also a reason him and the Devs are selling all NuShares to bag holders for 6.5 million U.S. Dollars, ridding themselves of all risks of the Nushares/Nubits system. http://discuss.nubits.com/t/undistributed-nushares/125

You are also forgetting why people hate the Federal Reserve.. because they can and will print money if they deem it appropriate or necessary and dilute USD holders. Nushares has already started diluting Nubits owners by printing a 4 million Nubits bail out fund, and over time it will get worse and worse as the market cap of Nubits grows and more "rainy day" funds are needed to "bail out" the system when (not if) it fails. http://discuss.nubits.com/t/proposal-to-create-a-strategic-reserve-of-nubits/448

Except the federal reserve uses laws, regulations, prison, and weapons to ensure its power. Nubits, although modeling the way they print money closely, has none of these things going for it. Just like many think the Federal Reserve is a ponzi and will fail, people think the same of Nubits. Don't act like Nubits won't use the 4 million "bail out" fund which they already created for this exact purpose if shit hits the fan. This is why it is a Ponzi scheme, Nubits owners will pay for the bail out via dilution, even though they have no control over its creation or usage. Nubits owners are vulnerable to whatever Nushares holders deem appropriate or necessary.

btw nubits just printed another 4.04M out of thin air, any potential buyers here? remember that they can print as many as you want! maybe you can ask for a discount if you buy large quantities!

My guess is that noone is buying this ponzi, all I see is an artificially inflated supply and bot trading to get some attention, perhaps they should "print" 140M this would bring them to the 2nd place in marketcap.

Yeah laugh away, keep denouncing it as a "ponzi scheme", it's not going to change the fact that NuBits is and will probably continue to blow BitUSD out of the water. Make up all the excuses you want.

Seriously, the irrational hatred and the general behavior of the BitsharesX crowd is truly pathetic. Just look at the post on the BitsharesX forum https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9057.300 . Insane. I hope the entire world sees that thread, it's enough to stay away from BTSX completely. They're just afraid.

You must understand BTSX users hatred for Nubits. You guys come onto the scene after BTSX and bitUSD and claim to be "The World's First Stable Digital Currency" in big letters right on the home page of your website, even though BTSX and bitUSD were being talked about, advertised, developed, and released before Nubits. The BTSX community also acts the way it does towards Nubits because it believes that they have the better solution to the same problem. Yet Nubits/Nushares bag holders are going everywhere (including our own forums) and spreading the gospel as to how it is such a "better" solution, as is evidenced with your bolded statement, sucking in new and unwitting victims to your ponzi scheme.

Nushares holders print uncollateralized tokens in the form of Nubits, and can print however many they would like as they are uncollateralized. Meanwhile bitUSD is backed by 300% collateral as they do not come into existence without 200% collateral provided by a short position on bitUSD and 100% collateral as provided by the buyer of the bitUSD. Nushares/Nubits can evolve and so can BTSX/bitUSD, but it doesn't change the fact your system is broken in the same way the Federal Reserve is broken and thus hated. It would need to be completely redesigned to collateralize Nubits and not be a ponzi scheme.. the ability to burn Nubits for Nushares doesn't change this. It would need to be redesigned so much so that it would no longer resemble anything like Nushares/Nubits functions today.

The only thing Nubits has on bitUSD right now is better liquidity. Whereas Nubits uses market makers to provide massive buy and sell walls, bitUSD liquidity is more natural and related to its adoption.. similar to all cryptocurrencies. The Nubits market would probably qualify as the most manipulated cryptocurrency market for this reason. The only way it retains its value is with these market makers in place and the massive buy/sell walls they provide, whereas bitUSD allows all of its end users to maintain the market peg without such manipulation. bitUSD liquidity will improve as it is further adopted, and thus it is more natural compared to its current adoption and not as manipulated. It's liquidity develops much like any other cryptocurrency, as it is adopted more there will be more liquidity and volume.

The only thing upholding the value of Nubits is the promise that someone will buy it back for $1. In the case of exchange default, that promise could be broken as who will sign up as a market maker once that happens. Exchange default will happen sooner or later. Furthermore, the market makers could withdrawal their buy walls at any moment, and at that point there is nothing upholding the value of Nubits to $1. There are only handfuls of market makers in Nubits, whereas with bitUSD the whole user base are the market makers. Nubits isn't traded on a decentralized exchange like bitUSD is and is subject to exchange default, kyc/aml regulations, and possibly taxes at some point due to those aml/kyc restrictions that all centralized exchanges will need to adhere to once governments around the world regulate Bitcoin and other virtual currencies.

Both systems have there pros and cons but I'll stick to the system (BTSX/bitUSD) that doesn't rely on trusted third parties like Nubit's market makers, centralized exchanges, and Nushares owners, rather than settle for an alternative that prints uncollateralized money, is similar to a ponzi scheme just as the federal reserve is, will likely fail at some point in time due to its ponzi-like attributes...... that happens to have better liquidity at the moment until bitUSD is more widely adopted. Enjoy your one and only benefit as in having better liquidity for the time being, as once that statement is no longer true there isn't any benefit to Nubits over bitUSD and yet it retains all of the negatives that BTSX doesn't suffer from by design. It will be a sad day when Nushares/Nubits bag holders lose all of their money, yet I will not feel sorry for you all as we have warned you about all of the flaws repeatedly and you choose to write it off as FUD.

This is a whole lotta text with a whole lotta nothing in it.

Coinhoarder. Look at me. Put your face to your monitor. Imagine my eyes on the other side.

Do you genuinely, honestly believe the Nu network is intended to be a scam or ponzi scheme? I mean seriously? The Peercoin community and be extension the Nu commmunity is probably one of the least scam like communities in the entire cryptocurrency space. I'm not saying this as  PPC fan, or a NBT fan, just as a genuine fact. Thousands of posts over a year to confirm this. You are seriously deluded my friend.

[CoinHoarder]

This is a whole lotta text with a whole lotta nothing in it.

It had a whole lot more substance than your retort.

Coinhoarder. Look at me. Put your face to your monitor. Imagine my eyes on the other side.

Do you genuinely, honestly believe the Nu network is intended to be a scam or ponzi scheme? I mean seriously? The Peercoin community and be extension the Nu commmunity is probably one of the least scam like communities in the entire cryptocurrency space. I'm not saying this as  PPC fan, or a NBT fan, just as a genuine fact. Thousands of posts over a year to confirm this. You are seriously deluded my friend.

I don't think you are intentionally running a Ponzi scheme, you just don't realize how flawed the Nubits model is and the inevitability of its failure. Bailouts will only keep it afloat for so long before it dies. It says so in the Nubits Whitepaper...

When Nu Is Obsolete

While Bitcoin is a first generation cryptoasset, Peercoin was the beginning of the second generation defined by proof of stake. Nu heralds a third generation of cryptoassets featuring stable value managed by shareholders. Will there be a fourth generation? Likely. I do not yet know what will be its defining characteristics, when it will arrive or whether it will make Nu obsolete. Nu is more adaptable than Bitcoin or Peercoin with its voting mechanisms and shareholders are likely to devote considerable revenues to updating it as well as research and development. While I believe the system can likely be sustained for a very long time, it would be foolish to believe it could last forever, as in century after century. Someday it will be replaced by a superior system based on technology not foreseeable today.

When this occurs, NuBit demand will decline permanently. The end of the currency will be marked by interest rates rising to unprecedented highs and then going still higher until the vast majority of NuBits are parked. When market participants reach a unanimous consensus that NuBits are worthless, then they will suddenly drop to zero value from one USD. As long as a small group of speculators believe there is even a small chance NuBit demand will reach a new all time high the price will remain one USD. As the currency shows signs of stress and serious decline in levels of use NuBits will pass from ordinary businesses and people to speculators willing to take large risks for large rewards. Ownership of NuBits will centralize somewhat as the currency shows signs of stress. Failure of the currency is not synonymous with failure of the network. If there are other currencies offered by Nu, they will continue to be unaffected.

In the space between now and obsolescence, there is much that Nu can do to benefit shareholders and its users.

Finally, it should be noted that Nu is experimental software at this point. It may not work as intended. However, shareholders will be tenacious in repairing any defects that are found.

[nomoreheroes7]

Dang coinhoarder, you always know how to put complex ideas into easy-to-understand words. Sorry yurizhai, but his arguments blow yours out of the water.

Nubits is a ponzi in its current form, simple as that. Whether or not the devs are aware of this, however, is a different story.

[Yurizhai]

Dang coinhoarder, you always know how to put complex ideas into easy-to-understand words. Sorry yurizhai, but his arguments blow yours out of the water.

Nubits is a ponzi in its current form, simple as that. Whether or not the devs are aware of this, however, is a different story.

He didn't say anything. There is little substance in that entire post. The one criticism of NuBits everyone is labeling as a ponzi scheme (increasing demand by increasing inflation) doesn't even meet definition of a ponzi scheme. And it's something that several people have proposed potential solutions to. It looks  like a bunch of people parroting bytemaster's post in an echo chamber. The very problem is talked about in the whitepaper, presumably it would happen years to decades from now, and it would be extremely obvious it's happening - and that's all if Nu didn't implement a solution by then.

I'm pretty sure that there is no way NuBits could have possibly released that wouldn't have the BTSX crowd hostile towards it. Fortunately whether or not the BTSX crowd likes it will not affect it's success.

[toast]

Dang coinhoarder, you always know how to put complex ideas into easy-to-understand words. Sorry yurizhai, but his arguments blow yours out of the water.

Nubits is a ponzi in its current form, simple as that. Whether or not the devs are aware of this, however, is a different story.

He didn't say anything. There is little substance in that entire post. The one criticism of NuBits everyone is labeling as a ponzi scheme (increasing demand by increasing inflation) doesn't even meet definition of a ponzi scheme. And it's something that several people have proposed potential solutions to. It looks  like a bunch of people parroting bytemaster's post in an echo chamber. The very problem is talked about in the whitepaper, presumably it would happen years to decades from now, and it would be extremely obvious it's happening - and that's all if Nu didn't implement a solution by then.

I'm pretty sure that there is no way NuBits could have possibly released that wouldn't have the BTSX crowd hostile towards it. Fortunately whether or not the BTSX crowd likes it will not affect it's success.

Sorry to hear about backlash from BTS/BitUSD - obviously you couldn't expect anything else from hardcore BTS zealots.

Unfortunately the truth is that the NuBits economic model requires a constant influx of capital. There needs to be some algorithmic / quantitative and on-chain ruleset that dictates how and when nubits is bought back and destroyed for it to have "guaranteed" value, which NuShare holders are not provided.

NuBits is nothing more than "centralized / non-gov-backed USD" with a private third party holding the value necessary to give NuUSD backing. This is not "morally" bad! It's only "technically" / "trust-systems" bad - you have to trust Jordan and co.

It's a sort-of legitiate money backing scheme, but I'm not sure it really captures the spirit of what cryptoheads are looking for: trustless systems which don't rely on centralized entities.l

[sportscliche]

Hmmm...now I'm wondering why we even have this thread.  I've learned that NuBits and bitUSD are not competitors, as clearly stated by Bytemaster at 16:30 of the Beyond Bitcoin discussion linked in post 46 above (link reproduced here):

https://soundcloud.com/beyond-bitcoin-hangouts/beyond-bitcoin-community-dev-hangout-2014-9-26

The "thin air" issue also warrants a closer look.  NuBits are granted by shareholders to custodians.  The custodians then sell them on the exchanges, which means real money is coming into the system.  The proceeds are used to maintain the peg, pay dividends, fund developmental projects, and compensate the custodians.  It is similar to a fractional reserve bank -- all the cash that comes into the system is not available for redemption.  If all existing NuBits were to be cashed in at the same time, the peg would break and the system would fail.  The developers acknowledge that the Nu network cannot function in perpetuity, but this doesn't imply that it is useless and fundamentally flawed.

I don't think a fractional reserve system meets the definition of a ponzi scheme.  Admittedly, it's a subjective interpretation and a Google search will reveal good arguments on both sides.  Banks operate on fractional reserves yet have facilitated stable commerce for centuries.

Note that the Bitcoin network produces 25 coins -- out of thin air -- every 10 minutes and nobody seems to complain.  The original developer was also anonymous -- a criticism I've seen thrown at Nubits recently.

[chryspano]

Hmmm...now I'm wondering why we even have this thread.  I've learned that NuBits and bitUSD are not competitors, as clearly stated by Bytemaster at 16:30 of the Beyond Bitcoin discussion linked in post 46 above (link reproduced here):

https://soundcloud.com/beyond-bitcoin-hangouts/beyond-bitcoin-community-dev-hangout-2014-9-26

The "thin air" issue also warrants a closer look.  NuBits are granted by shareholders to custodians.  The custodians then sell them on the exchanges, which means real money is coming into the system.  The proceeds are used to maintain the peg, pay dividends, fund developmental projects, and compensate the custodians.  It is similar to a fractional reserve bank -- all the cash that comes into the system is not available for redemption.  If all existing NuBits were to be cashed in at the same time, the peg would break and the system would fail.  The developers acknowledge that the Nu network cannot function in perpetuity, but this doesn't imply that it is useless and fundamentally flawed.

I don't think a fractional reserve system meets the definition of a ponzi scheme.  Admittedly, it's a subjective interpretation and a Google search will reveal good arguments on both sides.  Banks operate on fractional reserves yet have facilitated stable commerce for centuries.

Note that the Bitcoin network produces 25 coins -- out of thin air -- every 10 minutes and nobody seems to complain.  The original developer was also anonymous -- a criticism I've seen thrown at Nubits recently.

This is a time bomb you describe here, if some and not all of nubits are backed by "real" money then this means that some nubits are indeed backed by thin air and this number of nubits will continue to rise with time because of interest rates, for how long do you expect people to continue to support a broken system? afaik we are trying to go away from "fractional reserve".

Also don't compare bitcoin to nubits.
You are forgetting that bitcoin is not pegged to a specific price and its value is determined by supply and demand, the problem with nubits is its "peg" to 1 dollar. 

What do you think would happen if you could try to "peg" bitcoin to a specific price like 500$ with the mechanisms used in nubits? my guess is that you would be forced to create millions and millions of coins when the demand is high, (like when it was at $1000+ in the past) and create even more coins when the demand drops like when it did some weeks ago. Demand is high? you create more coins!! Demand is low? you create even more coins!! What will happen to all those accumulated coins? you will have to find more suckers to sell them or you will be forced to pay even greater interest rates and thus create even more nubits in an already low demand market, rinse and repeat. My example may not be that good but I believe it helps to see the big picture.

AFAIK bitcoin developers are not anonymous any more. In my books anonymity is a lack of belief in your project, If you really believe in your project you say who you are and what you are trying to do, as simple as that.

[manicminer]

Which is the most painless way to hedge bitcoin to USD today with cryptocurrency? Which has won, or, is seemingly winning?

Other alternatives?

[manicminer]

Which is the most painless way to hedge bitcoin to USD today with cryptocurrency? Which has won, or, is seemingly winning?

Other alternatives?

Maybe I posted this in the wrong forum. Who knows?

[cryptohunter]

Isn't bitbay doing this too? I thought they were the original peggers.

[FandangledGizmo]

Looks like BitUSD won? 

[cryptohunter]

Looks like BitUSD won? 

what about tether that seems to be at 1 dollar for months on end?

[FandangledGizmo]

Looks like BitUSD won?  

what about tether that seems to be at 1 dollar for months on end?

I believe Tether is backed by centralized reserves. So though you can access it on the blockchain, if their fiat reserves were seized/confiscated by a government or other they'd have a problem. (Whoever has access to the Tether funds could also possibly run away with the money at some point.)

BitUSD is decentralized, it and the backing for it exists on the BTS blockchain so .gov can't seize/confiscate your BitUSD or the collateral that backs it.

[CoinHoarder]

Looks like BitUSD won?  

what about tether that seems to be at 1 dollar for months on end?

I believe Tether is backed by centralized reserves. So though you can access it on the blockchain, if their fiat reserves were seized/confiscated by a government or other they'd have a problem. (Whoever has access to the Tether funds could also possibly run away with the money at some point.)

BitUSD is decentralized, it and the backing for it exists on the BTS blockchain so .gov can't seize/confiscate your BitUSD or the collateral that backs it.

I agree, Tether should not be in the same conversation as bitUSD or Nubits, as a centralized entity is the only thing that is holding its peg. It is no different from mtgoxUSD, poloniexUSD, or btceUSD.

The Nubits peg has been broken for at least 12 days now. It is currently at $0.258 instead of the $1.00 like it is supposed to be. It is unclear to me if they will ever regain the peg. Their main developer, the pseudonymous "Jordan Lee" has gone MIA. He was last seen on the Nubits forums 9 days ago. That doesn't exactly inspire confidence, but the Nubits/B&C Exchange community is scrambling to replace him and remedy the situation. We shall see if those efforts are successful... this thread breaks down the Nubits peg failure pretty well, and the ensuing drama that has unfolded: https://discuss.nubits.com/t/withdrawn-make-firing-and-replacing-incompetent-liquidity-providers-our-top-priority/4036

At least, maybe now the Nubits camp can concede that Bitshares' bitUSD is a better solution to the same problem. It is still going strong since before September of 2014, and it is currently valued at $1.01

The main downside with bitUSD is the lack of liquidity due to low adoption- which is unfortunate. The Bitshares community has been discussing ways to increase/incentivize liquidity, so hopefully that will help.

[Rick M]

bitUSD is pegged n working  strong collateralized, I think that is the secret, collateralized n decentrilized

you cannot compare bitBTC bitUSD bitGOLD to tether, because when you use tether you a putting trust in a 3rd party service, you dont own your funds


we cannot say that bitUSD won, because of low liquidity, but if we would have a winner right now it would be it.


I choose to support bitshares mainly because of smartcoins, people talk a lot about inovating all the time mulsig escrow, sidechain, etc.... but I cannot
believe that a btc investor would rather lock btc in multisig or sidechain instead to support bts, print more collateralized bitusd n bring more value to project that he wants to support, certainly as a btc n bts holder my preference is convert what I want in bts instead lock it in a gateway, sidechain n create it virtualy into another chain.....thats why cfd is used

bitshares has a awesome product, just need to make people use it, like people use tether even knowing that thether can ask your id n can run away n never look back

[hozer]

The Nubits peg has been broken for at least 12 days now. It is currently at $0.258 instead of the $1.00 like it is supposed to be. It is unclear to me if they will ever regain the peg. Their main developer, the pseudonymous "Jordan Lee" has gone MIA. He was last seen on the Nubits forums 9 days ago. That doesn't exactly inspire confidence, but the Nubits/B&C Exchange community is scrambling to replace him and remedy the situation. We shall see if those efforts are successful... this thread breaks down the Nubits peg failure pretty well, and the ensuing drama that has unfolded: https://discuss.nubits.com/t/withdrawn-make-firing-and-replacing-incompetent-liquidity-providers-our-top-priority/4036

At least, maybe now the Nubits camp can concede that Bitshares' bitUSD is a better solution to the same problem. It is still going strong since before September of 2014, and it is currently valued at $1.01

Nubits is back to $0.88 on bittrex and $0.79 on poloniex, so it looks to me like a recovery is in progress.

You never know if something works until you test it to failure, so this makes for a vote of confidence for Nubits and it's community if the recovery continues.

[CoinHoarder]

The Nubits peg has been broken for at least 12 days now. It is currently at $0.258 instead of the $1.00 like it is supposed to be. It is unclear to me if they will ever regain the peg. Their main developer, the pseudonymous "Jordan Lee" has gone MIA. He was last seen on the Nubits forums 9 days ago. That doesn't exactly inspire confidence, but the Nubits/B&C Exchange community is scrambling to replace him and remedy the situation. We shall see if those efforts are successful... this thread breaks down the Nubits peg failure pretty well, and the ensuing drama that has unfolded: https://discuss.nubits.com/t/withdrawn-make-firing-and-replacing-incompetent-liquidity-providers-our-top-priority/4036

At least, maybe now the Nubits camp can concede that Bitshares' bitUSD is a better solution to the same problem. It is still going strong since before September of 2014, and it is currently valued at $1.01

Nubits is back to $0.88 on bittrex and $0.79 on poloniex, so it looks to me like a recovery is in progress.

You never know if something works until you test it to failure, so this makes for a vote of confidence for Nubits and it's community if the recovery continues.

That is cool. I am rooting for them to succeed. I think the idea could work, but it was poorly managed. They spent way too much cash on share buy backs. If they had all the cash they spent doing that on hand, the peg might of never been lost in the first place. Hindsight is of course 20/20.

There is also a new competitor- the Steem Dollar (SBD). http://www.steemdollar.com/

[chryspano]

....
There is also a new competitor- the Steem Dollar (SBD). http://www.steemdollar.com/

There was a rename some time ago, It's called SD now.

[hozer]

The Nubits peg has been broken for at least 12 days now. It is currently at $0.258 instead of the $1.00 like it is supposed to be. It is unclear to me if they will ever regain the peg. Their main developer, the pseudonymous "Jordan Lee" has gone MIA. He was last seen on the Nubits forums 9 days ago. That doesn't exactly inspire confidence, but the Nubits/B&C Exchange community is scrambling to replace him and remedy the situation. We shall see if those efforts are successful... this thread breaks down the Nubits peg failure pretty well, and the ensuing drama that has unfolded: https://discuss.nubits.com/t/withdrawn-make-firing-and-replacing-incompetent-liquidity-providers-our-top-priority/4036

At least, maybe now the Nubits camp can concede that Bitshares' bitUSD is a better solution to the same problem. It is still going strong since before September of 2014, and it is currently valued at $1.01

Nubits is back to $0.88 on bittrex and $0.79 on poloniex, so it looks to me like a recovery is in progress.

You never know if something works until you test it to failure, so this makes for a vote of confidence for Nubits and it's community if the recovery continues.

That is cool. I am rooting for them to succeed. I think the idea could work, but it was poorly managed. They spent way too much cash on share buy backs. If they had all the cash they spent doing that on hand, the peg might of never been lost in the first place. Hindsight is of course 20/20.

There is also a new competitor- the Steem Dollar (SBD). http://www.steemdollar.com/

How is the steem dollar (SBD) even remotely relevant? If you want to compare the two, even with the recent (last 6 hours?) free-fall of Nubits prices it's still a pretty good peg to dollars compared to SBD. bitUSD, on the other hand seems to be holding and recovering from BTC price swings pretty well, even if it does have a larger spread that Nubits used to when it was working.

[smooth]

....
There is also a new competitor- the Steem Dollar (SBD). http://www.steemdollar.com/

There was a rename some time ago, It's called SD now.

Sort of. There was an "official" rename from SBD to SMD to SD. Then all the exchanges listed it as SBD so almost everyone is calling it that now.

[CoinHoarder]

@hozer

Since it has been trade-able, SBD has performed much better as stable / US dollar pegged cryptocurrency than Nubits. It also has wayyy more volume and market depth. $135k in volume vs $5k in volume... It also pays decent interest which is cool

I am not sure if you are trolling, but SBD should at the very least be brought up in any reasonably objective conversation regarding market pegged assets.

[hozer]

@hozer

Since it has been trade-able, SBD has performed much better as stable / US dollar pegged cryptocurrency than Nubits. It also has wayyy more volume and market depth. $135k in volume vs $5k in volume... It also pays decent interest which is cool

I am not sure if you are trolling, but SBD should at the very least be brought up in any reasonably objective conversation regarding market pegged assets.

From coinmarketcap, sept 20, 2016:
 Steem Dollars (SBD)
$0.904956 (5.09%)

bitUSD (BITUSD)
$0.982400 (-3.66%)

NuBits (USNBT)
$1.00 (0.57%)

Can you please explain how 'steem dollars' are a pegged currency at a 10% discount to the currency they are supposed to be pegged at? I don't get it.

BitUSD and NuBits have what I consider reasonable pegs. It remains to be seen if Nubits can keep their peg, but they are the only one I know of that had a failure and recovered.

[testz]

@hozer

Since it has been trade-able, SBD has performed much better as stable / US dollar pegged cryptocurrency than Nubits. It also has wayyy more volume and market depth. $135k in volume vs $5k in volume... It also pays decent interest which is cool

I am not sure if you are trolling, but SBD should at the very least be brought up in any reasonably objective conversation regarding market pegged assets.

From coinmarketcap, sept 20, 2016:
 Steem Dollars (SBD)
$0.904956 (5.09%)

bitUSD (BITUSD)
$0.982400 (-3.66%)

NuBits (USNBT)
$1.00 (0.57%)

Can you please explain how 'steem dollars' are a pegged currency at a 10% discount to the currency they are supposed to be pegged at? I don't get it.

BitUSD and NuBits have what I consider reasonable pegs. It remains to be seen if Nubits can keep their peg, but they are the only one I know of that had a failure and recovered.

https://steemit.com/steemit/@dantheman/boost-steem-value-by-backing-steem-dollar

[hozer]

Can you please explain how 'steem dollars' are a pegged currency at a 10% discount to the currency they are supposed to be pegged at? I don't get it.

BitUSD and NuBits have what I consider reasonable pegs. It remains to be seen if Nubits can keep their peg, but they are the only one I know of that had a failure and recovered.

https://steemit.com/steemit/@dantheman/boost-steem-value-by-backing-steem-dollar

Okay that's pretty damned interesting.

So make that two pegged currencies that have failed, one that has recovered, and one that seems to have a proposal that might result in a recovery. But what I currently understand of steem dollars is they are a rather 'soft' peg, depending both on witnesses and relative volatility levels.

Nubits seems to have the 'hardest' peg of the distributed systems, but seems to be brittle if stressed too much. BitUSD looks to be in the middle.