Take refuge in bitSILVER

[matt608]

Not slating BTSX' interesting ideas- Both systems are taking different approaches. Some people want decentralized derivatives, some people want tangibility- proof-of-physical existence. There are pro's and con's and potential risks with both..both systems are an evolution from what we already have.

Agreed.  

It's just BTS btw, it lost the "X" a few months back.

[StanLarimer]

The question that intrigues me is how am I going to play it on The Day the Dollar Dies?

Owning physical silver is really best mostly for this scenario, because until then the artificial supply of paper silver is going to overwhelm the demand for physical.

This black swan could hold off for decades and then happen overnight.

When it does, paper silver will drop in value and physical will climb - but you won't be able to get any by then.

Even if you have physical, can you unload it fast enough at the blow-off top (the day a One World Fiat Currency is announced and made mandatory legal tender, or some other fiat discontinuity?)  Who will you trust shipping your physical for sale during that chaos?  And what fiat will you want in return?

I like the ability to hop back and forth between crypto destinations in the flight to safety:  BitSilver and other cryptos, especially BTS and BitBTC.  I can hop between them in ten seconds on the BitShares Decentralized Exchange - assuming I'm smart enough to know when to hop.

And I won't need any traumatized centralized exchange on a bank holiday to do it for me.

The only trouble I see is deciding whether BitSilver or BitShares is going to rise faster in that scenario.  I'll probably hold both, knowing I can change my mind every 10 seconds for pennies.

[matt608]

The only trouble I see is deciding whether BitSilver or BitShares is going to rise faster in that scenario.  I'll probably hold both, knowing I can change my mind every 10 seconds for pennies.

Ah I'd missed that as an advantage over physical, bitSILVER being a crypto is very practically instantly and freely exchangeable.

[janbrel]

The only trouble I see is deciding whether BitSilver or BitShares is going to rise faster in that scenario.  I'll probably hold both, knowing I can change my mind every 10 seconds for pennies.

Ah I'd missed that as an advantage over physical, bitSILVER being a crypto is very practically instantly and freely exchangeable.

I suppose there must be paperwork for big silver trading transactions. Avoiding that's another advantage of bitSILVER.

[matt608]

The only trouble I see is deciding whether BitSilver or BitShares is going to rise faster in that scenario.  I'll probably hold both, knowing I can change my mind every 10 seconds for pennies.

Ah I'd missed that as an advantage over physical, bitSILVER being a crypto is very practically instantly and freely exchangeable.

I suppose there must be paperwork for big silver trading transactions. Avoiding that's another advantage of bitSILVER.

Yep, it's silver in the form of a cryptocurrency so it comes with all the benefits of the ecosystem.

[sumantso]

The yield currently is 3.7%; it was 5% at some point. So not only it is easier to get and less risky than any centralized system, it also earns bonus.

[matt608]

The spread is also getting smaller!

[kelsey]

read some on this, unless i'm missing something, this sounds like a game that will only work while everyone plays along?


(irl I hold silver as part of an overall portfolio)

[StanLarimer]

read some on this, unless i'm missing something, this sounds like a game that will only work while everyone plays along?


(irl I hold silver as part of an overall portfolio)

So do I!  I also have some PSLV (but wouldn't touch SLV).  BitSilver provides a new mix of properties that is valuable in my mix.  It's outside The System's counterparty risk and liquid like crypto yet tracks the spot price of silver and pay's a yield.  So you can move quickly and change what you are pegged to between USD, Silver, BTC, Gold, CNY, etc.  That's a lot of flexibility for the part of your portfolio that needs flexibility.

Like all markets, we need depth for them to work efficiently.  This has a certain chicken and egg nature to it which is always the challenge when something new is being bootstrapped.

But, the BitUSD and BitCNY markets have reached decent depths and proved that the pegs would hold even during the recent crypto-crash.

Coming up before long, we are expecting an on-off ramp to physical silver will be available.  This should be big, because it will then be possible to enter and leave crypto space via metals instead of fiat.  And, for example, BitSilverEagles will be pegged to the actual price of deliverable physical bullion coins, not manipulated spot.

Let that sink in for a minute!

You can read about the full implications here:

Use Gold and Silver with BitShares to bypass Fiat Regulations

[Vyazhan]

Mhhh, just let me get this right.

So you are buying an imaginative digital asset/stock that is the value of real physical silver but doesn't really exist or is backed by anything at all other than the promise that it has the worth of real silver? That sounds an awful lot like Wall Street Silver/Gold to me and not really where I would like to put my value into. Also, as said before, I will need to trust the established crypto I am using as my platform, like Wall Street, to do my trading on. In my opinion, the failing parts in this mechanic are too many to justify not just buying real silver. Also, real silver can help me when there is an emergency and I have no electricity. It's hard to buy bread and basic services with digital promises.

Diversify your assets to real and digital makes a lot of sense to me, but to put all your eggs into the crypto-basket doesn't seem like a wise move to me. If you wanted to trade silver quickly and make a lot of cash from it, you might just as well go to Wall Street and do it properly

Just my 2 coins...

[brekyrself]

Mhhh, just let me get this right.

So you are buying an imaginative digital asset/stock that is the value of real physical silver but doesn't really exist or is backed by anything at all other than the promise that it has the worth of real silver? That sounds an awful lot like Wall Street Silver/Gold to me and not really where I would like to put my value into. Also, as said before, I will need to trust the established crypto I am using as my platform, like Wall Street, to do my trading on. In my opinion, the failing parts in this mechanic are too many to justify not just buying real silver. Also, real silver can help me when there is an emergency and I have no electricity. It's hard to buy bread and basic services with digital promises.

Diversify your assets to real and digital makes a lot of sense to me, but to put all your eggs into the crypto-basket doesn't seem like a wise move to me. If you wanted to trade silver quickly and make a lot of cash from it, you might just as well go to Wall Street and do it properly

Just my 2 coins...

You should also look at BitAssets such as BitSilver as a way to quickly move in and out of BTC volatility.  BitBTC is also an option on the internal exchange thus one can quickly trade in downtrends without having to trust a third party exchange.  The assets are backed by BitShares with at least 200% collateral as seen here: http://bitsharesblocks.com/assets/market

It's an interesting experiment none the less!

[StanLarimer]

Diversify your assets to real and digital makes a lot of sense to me, but to put all your eggs into the crypto-basket doesn't seem like a wise move to me. If you wanted to trade silver quickly and make a lot of cash from it, you might just as well go to Wall Street and do it properly

Just my 2 coins...

I was with you on the need to diversify until your last sentence.  "Go to Wall Street" and "Do it properly" don't really go together

BitSilver competes with Wall Street, not with physical silver

BitSilver does not try compete with good old physical silver for eliminating all systemic risk.

It competes awesomely with silver ETF's (aka paper silver) which have huge known trust issues.

BitSilver removes that trust issue by using the block chain to enforce digital contracts to deliver enough value to purchase silver over a wide range of possible future silver prices.  An asset with an established market price (BTS) is pledged as collateral via the block chain to be given to the holder of BitSilver on demand.  (This is really just a form of variable escrow enforced by the block chain.)

As BTS fluctuates, the amount of BTS paid out by the block chain "escrow agent" adjusts automatically to keep paying you enough BTS at any time to buy an ounce of silver.  No humans are in that loop and the 200% to 300% collateral is always there for inspection to ensure that the block chain can make good on that promise.

Try that with silver ETFs, where there may be up to 100 paper shares for every 1 actual ounce of silver.  
You know they can't deliver and you know the blockchain will.
  
Let's see:
   ~1%  backing with SLV ETF,
200%+ backing with BitSilver.

Seems like a pretty exciting (and essential) market niche to me!  

And if you trust the block chain to secure your bitcoins, you should have the same confidence that the block chain will reliably execute the deal you have purchased and pay you the right amount needed to buy your ounce of silver at a future date.

[Vyazhan]

I was with you on the need to diversify until your last sentence.  "Go to Wall Street" and "Do it properly" don't really go together

[...]

Seems like a pretty exciting (and essential) market niche to me!  

And if you trust the block chain to secure your bitcoins, you should have the same confidence that the block chain will reliably execute the deal you have purchased and pay you the right amount needed to buy your ounce of silver at a future date.

Hey there

Sorry, I was being cynical about the ETF Market in general and how to make *quick* silver that way instead of holding it long-term   I am a firm believer in cryptos and hard mathematical proof and direct metals!

What you do say makes a lot of sense. After thinking about it more, I think my problem is rather with BTS than the actual assets themselves. If I have read through their approach correctly, their system is very much based on a centralized system rather than a completely decentralized Proof of Stake, is that not correct? I think they call it *Delegated Proof of Stake* and so called *elected* 101 stake holders take turns to create blocks. In a video it says it is *trusted clients the shareholders trust*. I think this sounds more like, it is 101 clients that have the most cash to be called *trustworthy by other clients that also hold a lot of cash* Or is this like NuBits where you can actually be a part of the shareholders that vote for those delegates?

I don't know but having a few entities control the entire BTS network seems not very secure to me and just doesn't sound fair down the gut-feeling, but if I am missing some important part in this system, I think there is certainly a very interesting time ahead with blockchain-proofed silver that is actually backed by physical silver itself or at least an asset on a different coin or coin like BTS itself . Wasn't there several projects that try to achieve that very soon as well?

All the best,
Vya

[chryspano]

I was with you on the need to diversify until your last sentence.  "Go to Wall Street" and "Do it properly" don't really go together

[...]

Seems like a pretty exciting (and essential) market niche to me! 

And if you trust the block chain to secure your bitcoins, you should have the same confidence that the block chain will reliably execute the deal you have purchased and pay you the right amount needed to buy your ounce of silver at a future date.

Hey there

Sorry, I was being cynical about the ETF Market in general and how to make *quick* silver that way instead of holding it long-term  I am a firm believer in cryptos and hard mathematical proof and direct metals!

What you do say makes a lot of sense. After thinking about it more, I think my problem is rather with BTS than the actual assets themselves. If I have read through their approach correctly, their system is very much based on a centralized system rather than a completely decentralized Proof of Stake, is that not correct? I think they call it *Delegated Proof of Stake* and so called *elected* 101 stake holders take turns to create blocks. In a video it says it is *trusted clients the shareholders trust*. I think this sounds more like, it is 101 clients that have the most cash to be called *trustworthy by other clients that also hold a lot of cash* Or is this like NuBits where you can actually be a part of the shareholders that vote for those delegates?

I don't know but having a few entities control the entire BTS network seems not very secure to me and just doesn't sound fair down the gut-feeling, but if I am missing some important part in this system, I think there is certainly a very interesting time ahead with blockchain-proofed silver that is actually backed by physical silver itself or at least an asset on a different coin or coin like BTS itself . Wasn't there several projects that try to achieve that very soon as well?

All the best,
Vya

I think that DPOS is more decentralized than bitcoin, a few mining pools control the majority of hashing power of bitcoin. Here you can see a decentralization comparison  between bitcoin's POW, bitcoin if it used POS instead of POW and finally DPOS, http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2015/01/09/How-to-Measure-the-Decentralization-of-Bitcoin/ also keep in mind that the income from DPOS goes to development, marketing etc and helps bitshares grow while in bitcoin all the mining is spent to pay electric power bills and miners that offer no other benefit to bitcoin. Finally there is a decentralization comparison between DPOS and NXT   http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2015/01/13/Decentralization-of-Nxt-vs-BitShares/

I think that a solution that is backed with physical silver has the problem that you have to trust someone else to hold/store/secure that physical silver. On the other hand, bitSILVER is backed by 200% to 300% collateral in bts and you have only to trust the blockchain!

[Vyazhan]

I think that DPOS is more decentralized than bitcoin, a few mining pools control the majority of hashing power of bitcoin. Here you can see a decentralization comparison  between bitcoin's POW, bitcoin if it used POS instead of POW and finally DPOS, http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2015/01/09/How-to-Measure-the-Decentralization-of-Bitcoin/ also keep in mind that the income from DPOS goes to development, marketing etc and helps bitshares grow while in bitcoin all the mining is spent to pay electric power bills and miners that offer no other benefit to bitcoin. Finally there is a decentralization comparison between DPOS and NXT   http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2015/01/13/Decentralization-of-Nxt-vs-BitShares/

I think that a solution that is backed with physical silver has the problem that you have to trust someone else to hold/store/secure that physical silver. On the other hand, bitSILVER is backed by 200% to 300% collateral in bts and you have only to trust the blockchain!

Mhh, that is a point hard to not take into account, yes I agree

So it's pretty hard for a newcomer to understand this DPOS in detail though. So this works different than just owning a stake and then creating blocks but I don't really understand how it's inherently different than NXT? It appears to be just a form of trusted delegation and not trustless at all whereas with NXT if I own enough of a stake I am trustlessly elected to become a Stakeholder and therefore a contributor to the network.

What happens for instance if I own a 5% stake of BTS and then want to become a delegate? Since it's not automated, I have to rely on the trust of the community that I will be doing my job of processing blocks. With a 5% stake I would think I am more than trustworthy and would like to receive my fair share but if I don't want to be publically known of owning such a stake, how will I ever get my reward as I would from NXT?

It appears to me that this is a big move towards something big but having 101 names in the client which I don't know at all to take care of my network and therefore essentially all my BTS and all assets, I don't know how to feel about that. Especially since the names are publically available, who can assure me there is no delegate-fixing happening from the big whales? If the 101 delegates hold a large portion of BTS, couldn't they just fix their own votes to always vote for each other and never leave their place as delegates?

It even says on the wiki itself: "In a delegated proof of stake system centralization still occurs, but it is controlled. Unlike other methods of securing cryptocurrency networks, every client in a DPOS system has the ability to decide who is trusted rather than trust concentrating in the hands of those with the most resources. DPOS allows the network to reap some of the major advantages of centralization, while still maintaining some calculated measure of decentralization. This system is enforced by a fair election process where anyone could potentially become a delegated representative of the majority of users. "

So how exactly does this prevent major stakeholders electing themselves to stay in the game without the mass market users of BTS being treated fair?

Sorry if this is steering a bit off-topic, but I am sure a lot of people who are not experts in BTS, would like to be re-assured before investing any amount of cash into this experiment

All the best,
Vya

[StanLarimer]

So it's pretty hard for a newcomer to understand this DPOS in detail though. So this works different than just owning a stake and then creating blocks but I don't really understand how it's inherently different than NXT? It appears to be just a form of trusted delegation and not trustless at all whereas with NXT if I own enough of a stake I am trustlessly elected to become a Stakeholder and therefore a contributor to the network.

What happens for instance if I own a 5% stake of BTS and then want to become a delegate? Since it's not automated, I have to rely on the trust of the community that I will be doing my job of processing blocks. With a 5% stake I would think I am more than trustworthy and would like to receive my fair share but if I don't want to be publically known of owning such a stake, how will I ever get my reward as I would from NXT?

It appears to me that this is a big move towards something big but having 101 names in the client which I don't know at all to take care of my network and therefore essentially all my BTS and all assets, I don't know how to feel about that. Especially since the names are publically available, who can assure me there is no delegate-fixing happening from the big whales? If the 101 delegates hold a large portion of BTS, couldn't they just fix their own votes to always vote for each other and never leave their place as delegates?

It even says on the wiki itself: "In a delegated proof of stake system centralization still occurs, but it is controlled. Unlike other methods of securing cryptocurrency networks, every client in a DPOS system has the ability to decide who is trusted rather than trust concentrating in the hands of those with the most resources. DPOS allows the network to reap some of the major advantages of centralization, while still maintaining some calculated measure of decentralization. This system is enforced by a fair election process where anyone could potentially become a delegated representative of the majority of users. "

So how exactly does this prevent major stakeholders electing themselves to stay in the game without the mass market users of BTS being treated fair?

You can think of the 101 delegates as the equivalent of 101 forging or mining pools - with uniform influence kept under 1%.    And these 101 have to get and keep the approval of the stakeholders!  To do that, they have to earn one of the top 101 reputations among those people.  Over time, as the system grows, this will be the top 101 small businesses in the industry.  As such, they will have a lot at stake keeping them honest - especially since they are sure to be caught if they betray their office.

Reputations are hard to earn and easy to lose.
This is the big factor.

When a self-appointed forging or mining pool (or self-owned mining farm) goes corrupt, there is nothing anyone else can do about it.  Maybe they'll lose a few customers but they'll continue to sign their share of blocks.  With DPOS, earning the disapproval of any significant number of stakeholders is enough to drop you out of the top 101.  After that you can sign NO blocks.

Mystery candidates simply don't get elected.  You need to convince the stakeholders you are trustworthy and that means doing real proof of work - proving you have done or can do useful work for the community.  It is rare for a delegate to get elected who hasn't revealed her true identity and can't get an endorsement from at least a few well-known community members.  Switching to some sock puppet identity forfeits all the trust your real identity had earned.

Perhaps over time a whale can acquire a bigger percent of the shares, but that only means she has the ability to select from the pool of candidates that other people also trust.  Remember, if the shareholders find misbehavior, they are free to unite to out-vote any likely whale.  

Also, all that delegates can do is include transactions and sign blocks or not.  Their behavior is transparently observable.  Behave badly and they lose their reputation and their ability to sign anything.

Note that other solutions you cite still have residual trust in the hands of self-appointed people who can't be fired.  BitShares makes that trust explicit, auditable and revokable.

And that makes all the difference.  

[Daedelus]

At least two new Core devs have joined Nxt (Roberto, Yudi and team). That takes us to 11+ now 
https://nxtforum.org/general-discussion/(core)-dev-team-increase/

Who is paying these guys, and how much money are they making? 

Read the thread.

The devs are implementing the features needed to run their business, DeBuNe. The business, they hope, will make money.

Many guys approach Nxt, wanting to use it for thier business. Here is another who plans to be making 10,000 Txs a second, using Nxt as the backbone of their network: https://nxtforum.org/general-discussion/maximum-block-size-is-too-restrictive/


Roberto and Yudi happen to want to build in core features they need, rather use ones that already exist. And more power to them 

[Vyazhan]

Heya!

Thanks to you both for the elaborate and very detailed and helpful information on this! I must say, I am becoming intrigued by this a little bit more now

I shall spend some time on the whitepaper and get into the details of this all a bit more!

Thanks guys and I wish you the best of luck with this project!

[Shuai]

Diversify your assets to real and digital makes a lot of sense to me, but to put all your eggs into the crypto-basket doesn't seem like a wise move to me. If you wanted to trade silver quickly and make a lot of cash from it, you might just as well go to Wall Street and do it properly

Just my 2 coins...

I was with you on the need to diversify until your last sentence.  "Go to Wall Street" and "Do it properly" don't really go together

BitSilver competes with Wall Street, not with physical silver

BitSilver does not try compete with good old physical silver for eliminating all systemic risk.

It competes awesomely with silver ETF's (aka paper silver) which have huge known trust issues.

BitSilver removes that trust issue by using the block chain to enforce digital contracts to deliver enough value to purchase silver over a wide range of possible future silver prices.  An asset with an established market price (BTS) is pledged as collateral via the block chain to be given to the holder of BitSilver on demand.  (This is really just a form of variable escrow enforced by the block chain.)

As BTS fluctuates, the amount of BTS paid out by the block chain "escrow agent" adjusts automatically to keep paying you enough BTS at any time to buy an ounce of silver.  No humans are in that loop and the 200% to 300% collateral is always there for inspection to ensure that the block chain can make good on that promise.

Try that with silver ETFs, where there may be up to 100 paper shares for every 1 actual ounce of silver.  
You know they can't deliver and you know the blockchain will.
  
Let's see:
   ~1%  backing with SLV ETF,
200%+ backing with BitSilver.

Seems like a pretty exciting (and essential) market niche to me!  

And if you trust the block chain to secure your bitcoins, you should have the same confidence that the block chain will reliably execute the deal you have purchased and pay you the right amount needed to buy your ounce of silver at a future date.

Stan, I love the physical silver idea, but I really think it should be done without a new MPA. Adding yet another bitasset is going to make it even more difficult to get bitsilver liquid. Over time physical silver will be traded for bitsilver with a fee added to every trade (for storage and margin), and it will be this exchange rate of physical silver to bitsilver that will be measured by delegates in the long run - not the price of paper silver to USD and USD to BTS as it currently is - so bitsilver owners will not be affected if paper silver decouples from physical after BTS has been properly established.

[StanLarimer]

Stan, I love the physical silver idea, but I really think it should be done without a new MPA. Adding yet another bitasset is going to make it even more difficult to get bitsilver liquid. Over time physical silver will be traded for bitsilver with a fee added to every trade (for storage and margin), and it will be this exchange rate of physical silver to bitsilver that will be measured by delegates in the long run - not the price of paper silver to USD and USD to BTS as it currently is - so bitsilver owners will not be affected if paper silver decouples from physical after BTS has been properly established.

Yes, we just discussed that in our marketing meeting today and reached the same conclusions.  Let it evolve to what the market demands.