|
toast (OP)
|
 |
September 23, 2014, 06:46:46 PM |
|
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)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is a common myth that Bitcoin is ruled by a majority of miners. This is not true. Bitcoin miners "vote" on the ordering of transactions, but that's all they do. They can't vote to change the network rules.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yurizhai
|
|
September 23, 2014, 07:09:57 PM |
|
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-paperThe 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
Newbie
 Offline
Activity: 52
Merit: 0
|
|
September 23, 2014, 09:20:51 PM |
|
So how many custodians and who chooses who they are ? Is it a centralized selection process ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
delulo
|
|
September 23, 2014, 10:06:09 PM |
|
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-paperThe 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
|
|
September 23, 2014, 10:38:30 PM |
|
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-paperThe 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 (OP)
|
|
September 23, 2014, 11:01:03 PM |
|
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
|
|
September 23, 2014, 11:08:41 PM |
|
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 (OP)
|
|
September 24, 2014, 12:06:43 AM |
|
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
|
|
September 24, 2014, 12:15:40 AM |
|
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
|
|
September 24, 2014, 12:39:16 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
toast (OP)
|
|
September 24, 2014, 12:47:56 AM |
|
Lol! Sorry, no - IOU USD user-issued assets have been a thing since mastercoin was still new and exciting. |
|
|
|
|
matt608
|
|
September 24, 2014, 11:41:36 AM |
|
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
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 326
Merit: 250
King of all the land
|
|
September 24, 2014, 12:30:32 PM
Last edit: September 24, 2014, 12:57:23 PM by 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
|
|
September 24, 2014, 12:43:37 PM |
|
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
|
|
September 24, 2014, 01:05:40 PM
Last edit: September 24, 2014, 06:58:54 PM by 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/exchangesShame 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
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 2
Merit: 0
|
|
September 24, 2014, 02:07:01 PM |
|
BTSX+BitUSD is much easier to understand and makes much more sense to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
asdlolciterquit
|
|
September 24, 2014, 02:31:45 PM |
|
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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1588
Merit: 1000
|
|
September 24, 2014, 03:44:44 PM
Last edit: September 24, 2014, 04:04:45 PM by 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
|
|
September 24, 2014, 04:30:12 PM |
|
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=2923.0The 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
|
|
September 25, 2014, 09:15:59 AM |
|
[...] there's legitimate discussion that NuBits' system may in fact be a form of Ponzi.
I agree 100% 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
