State of NuBits - what are the next steps?

[Nagalim]

Basically agreed. However, PPC hasnt grown much either. Also, an auction system (see maker dao but dual side) would do wonders for liquidity imo.

[Cybnate]

Remove or reduce PoS minting rewards and rely on voting control being a large enough incentive. Complete the NSR re-denomination motion.

Although they are probably drops in an ocean, I would support both.

I suspect many shareholders are not buying additional NSR because one crisis event requiring extensive dilution would make them worthless

I think it is not right to focus on existing shareholders. The focus should be on attracting new shareholders.
The risk of a crisis is always there and capping losses or risks during a crises is only possible by transferring risk to other parties involved. In our case are that NuBits holders and they should be the last to suffer from a crises imo.

A motion which describes how to deal with funds during a crises is unlikely to increase the interest in NSR imo. My experience learns that during a real crisis one needs to be very agile and strict rules are usually not helping and are usually the reason why a crises couldn’t be averted earlier.[quote=“JordanLee, post:10, topic:3612”]

Augur would be an important win for us as well and is certainly worth pursuing.
[/quote]
Someone already on this? Or how can we help to make this happen?[quote=“JordanLee, post:10, topic:3612”]
NSR and BKS are quite illiquid
[/quote]
The buybacks seem to help a bit for the NSR liquidity, although I suspect a few daytraders to grab a quick profit instead of gaining new shareholders. BKS liquidity is very low, maybe too many trades off-market? Could be a chicken and egg problem.

Finally particularly NSR is suffering from low anticipation. The networks who shot up on value are offering something new and/or are backed by major parties and therefore are attractive to speculators as there is a high risk of short term gaining of value.

Long story cut short, I think we need to continue investing in new features for Nu to attract new users and maintain interest for the current users. Just waiting for B&C and crossing fingers is going backwards imo, although I’m convinced that it will support Nu. The question is to what extent.

[Sabreiib]

I am currently interviewing a very promising candidate for one of the full time B&C developer positions.
-----------------------------\

It sounds great! I would vote for contributing majority B&C income to develope an escrow system in initial 1-2 years!

[Sentinelrv]

It sounds great! I would vote for contributing majority B&C income to develope an escrow system in initial 1-2 years!

We could also print BlockShares as Jordan mentioned in order to fund this escrow development. The profit coming in afterwards could then be used for BlockShare buybacks and burns, over time reducing our supply back to where it originally was.

[Sentinelrv]

Just waiting for B&C and crossing fingers is going backwards imo, although I’m convinced that it will support Nu. The question is to what extent.

I wasn’t implying that we should sit around and wait for B&C, merely that one of the things we should do is think outside the box of posting ads on Reddit to find our candidates. It’s great news that Jordan is speaking with a potential candidate now. Besides helping Jordan in this area, we should definitely try to tackle other things like the ideas in your list while B&C is being worked on. We can’t afford to be stagnant.

[Sabreiib]

It is said that the same group of people are pumping ethereum, just like what they did on bitshares, look out the pump & dump scheme.

I don’t think ethereum price rise is natural and healthy, BTW, I don’t believe it’s a good idea to store everything in blockchain, in the end the bloat blockchain will scare the public.

http://cryptomining-blog.com/tag/ethereum-blockchain-size/

[Nagalim]

Finally particularly NSR is suffering from low anticipation

This is why dropping the mint reward would be death to our minting difficulty, which is already suffering. On the contrary, mint rewards should go up with lowering mint difficulty.

[masterOfDisaster]

mint rewards should go up with lowering mint difficulty

They do!
The mint reward per block stays the same, but the reward per time is increasing with declining difficulty, because minters will be successful more often per time frame compared to a higher difficulty

[Nagalim]

Imagine an alternative scheme: each block the block reward is 0.01/D where D is the difficulty from 10 blocks ago. So if D is 0.00025 then the reward is just like it is now. However, a difficulty like .0002 would give 50 nsr per block. This would give incentives to nsr holders to mint if only to reduce the mint reward for everyone else.

The issue is that competition breeds dirty tactics. People could ddos other minters to increase their own mint rate. However, this is also a problem with the current system: minters already have incentive to sabotage each other. The same is true for bitcoin miners: you can substantially increase your share of the mining rewards by for instance getting the US to bomb large swaths of china and (coincidentally or not) wiping out big mining farms.

[masterOfDisaster]

This would give incentives to nsr holders to mint if only to reduce the mint reward for everyone else.

This sounds like a change that could/should applied together with frequency voting.
At least I think frequency voting would be able to mitigate downsides of people minting just for the sake of minting (while not configuring votes or registering fata feeds).
If doing those two changes in one update is considered too dangerous, I’d say that frequency voting is a prerequisite for dynamic minting rewards.

[cryptog]

B&C’s escrow development?

How does BCE help solve the problems of scalability and the very long confirmation time of bitcoin ?

A decentralized voting architecture could enable the real time voting (as in BCE) of co-signers of multi-sig wallets that would store the nubits.
This is intended to be accomplished by the escrow system of BCE.
But how do we make sure that tx (settlement) is instantaneous?
A sole escrow system cannot enable that in itself.
As a matter of fact, I think we need some kind of servers that process requests very rapidly.
The problem is that those servers would introduce some kind of single point of failure.
However, cannot those servers be choset and managed by a voting system based on Nu?
I believe this was the idea behind Teehe

[Nagalim]

B&C uses native trades. One could in theory make a string of unconfirmed txns if one trusts the B&C signers and trade rapidly, then use a smart system to settle some of those trades off-chain and move only what’s required per block. That way, the only time you’d have to wait for confirmations is on withdrawal and deposit (and deposit only because we dont trust customers not to double spend like we do the signers).

[masterOfDisaster]

As BCE is used as kind of “settlement network” for the trades, only the confirmation times of the BCE blockchain are limiting the speed of (verified!) transactions - unless you can even speed that up by having a system that allows off-chain trades (how to make that both fast and secure?).

I think it might be possible to make 0-confirmation trades, but it will be important to care for edge cases. If withdrawing funds from an account is only possible after the trade, that brought the funds to the account, has some confirmations, not much can go wrong.

But maybe I’m just lacking imagination how to attack such a system.

[JordanLee]

Augur would be an important win for us as well and is certainly worth pursuing.

Someone already on this? Or how can we help to make this happen?

I am not aware of anyone working on this. @TomJoad has done things like that in the past. @Sentinelrv may also be interested in helping. Any volunteers to approach the Augur community about this?

One other matter I neglected to mention in my previous post is that it seems like implementing fixed cost liquidity as first envisioned by @Nagalim would be a major improvement in liquidity operations for a modest effort. @desrever, @woolly_sammoth @Nagalim: what would it take to see this on Poloniex and other exchanges?

[Nagalim]

implementing fixed cost liquidity

This is done. It’s in ALP v2 (as crfc, which can esaily be run as fixed cost by using a target of 0 nbt). We’re waiting for the NuBot release.

(If we decide we cant wait anymore, other pool operators are free to use the fc_server.py file in my repo. I can help anyone figure it out that needs it.)

[Sentinelrv]

I am not aware of anyone working on this. @TomJoad has done things like that in the past. @Sentinelrv may also be interested in helping. Any volunteers to approach the Augur community about this?

@tomjoad actually posted before that he had contact with them some months ago. Maybe we should do a follow up just to maintain contact with them about it. We shouldn’t take their previous response for granted. I think it would be best to show shareholders continued interest in working with them. Maybe a thread in their forum where NuShareholders can introduce themselves to the community, offer our services and ask what they would need from us in the future so that we can prepare. It helps show them we are taking the initiative. Here was Tom’s quote by the way…

Reality check on ethereum

I spoke with the Augur team some number of months ago. They indicated they would add NuBits once Bitcoin sidechains are completed, which may or may not occur. However, there’s no question NBT are the perfect cryptocurrency for Augur, and Augur has massive potential.

This is done. It’s in ALP v2 (as crfc, which can esaily be run as fixed cost by using a target of 0 nbt). We’re waiting for the NuBot release.

So just to be clear, the ALP v2 server software is already completed by Woolly? We’re only waiting for Des to finish testing NuBot compatibility? Also, fixed reward was abandoned and not included in ALP v2 correct, only fixed cost?

[Nagalim]

finish testing NuBot compatibility

Something like that

Also, fixed reward was abandoned and not included in ALP v2 correct, only fixed cost

CRFC (Combined Reward Fixed Cost) has been implemented in ALP v2. This implementation should give us the best of both worlds, where we have fixed cost when the pool is above target and a form of fixed reward when the pool is below target. The biggest difference when the pool is below target is that the buy and sell side will combine to form a fixed reward, but the reward will be given to both sides equally such that even below target there will be a balancing incentive.

How is liquidity provision incentivized?

If the operator puts up 20 nbt with a 10,000 target, that’s a 0.2% expected rate. So now let’s say there’s only 100 nbt in buy and 400 nbt in sell. That’s 500 total liquidity, which is 5% of target, so only 20*.05=1 nbt is given out. That 1 nbt is split 50:50 between buy and sell, so the buy side earns 0.5/100=0.5% and sell earns 0.5/400=0.125%.

With the same operator but 10,000 buy and 2,500 sell:Now the combined liquidity is over target, so we cap out at our 20 nbt. Split 50:50 that’s 10 nbt buy and 10 nbt sell. So buy side gets 0.1% and sell gets 0.4%.

[Sabreiib]

http://opentransactions.org/wiki/index.php?title=Category:Voting_Pools

I do believe our B&C signers can put up voting pool and implement fast & off-chain micropayment.

@JordanLee Can we develope a B&C version “Open Transaction” if sufficient fund is collected?

[Raythma]

I am more and more convinced that we should make Nubits as desirable currency as we can (user friendly wallet, liquidity providing, fiat exchange services, incentives for merchant acceptance, offchain transactions, Loyality gifts and interests and all kinds of profitable and non profitable offchain centralized or decentralized services) to the point that Nu is as good deal as paypal or better.

Then we should depend on Volume-dependent Transaction Fees to profit from the big chunks settlment transactions.
So answering @nagalim question; yes we are a settlments network for the wealthy (blockchains can’t be more than that), but we achieve that not by being a multinational super corporation, but by offering a real commonly used currency with the offchain efforts of the shareholders.
The question is, would that fees ever be enough? Not if we can have other revenu streams because I can’t see we have other choices.

[Sabreiib]

The question is, would that fees ever be enough? Not if we can have other revenu streams because I can’t see we have other choices.

I don’t think hosting a i7 desktop machine 24X7 is costly, leave along several raspberries. Perhaps we can buy cheap outdated SHA256 minting rig to speed up off chain transaction?

BTC has been wasting 99.99% hardware hash rate. PoW = low efficiency.