Consensus reached on Mumble session regarding BM's "Fix-all" proposal

[bytemaster]

DNS and VOTE are online.

[JoeyD]

Need a bit more clarity on proposal.

PTS + AGS + BTSX => BTS
DNS => ?
VOTE => ?
PLAY => ?

Any third party dacs as I understand it will stay separate.

As far as I know, bytemaster was thinking out loud on the forums when he posted the proposal, but hadn't discussed it yet with Vote or DNS/Toast. But his idea was to have all DACS currently developed in house by the bitshares team be part of bitshares (BTS) and that  probably means talking to Vote and DNS to see if they are willing to join.

[Gentso1]

Need a bit more clarity on proposal.

PTS + AGS + BTSX => BTS
DNS => ?
VOTE => ?
PLAY => ?

Any third party dacs as I understand it will stay separate.

[bitcoinerS]

Need a bit more clarity on proposal.

PTS + AGS + BTSX => BTS
DNS => ?
VOTE => ?
PLAY => ?

[vegolino]

Empirical1.1

However as I've said before my BitShares investment is primarily an investment in Bytemasters grand vision. BitAssets also have a short window of opportunity to take their shot at the world. So the sooner we get things resolved and push forward the better.

My thoughts exactly 

[arhag]

It was my understanding that they wouldn't be free-riding at least for the first couple years considering that development has already been paid for through AGS donations.

Perhaps we can survive against competitors with the limited funds from AGS. Or perhaps we will not. It is not clear. What I do know is that the probability of success will be MUCH better if we allow shareholders to vote on capital infusion to fund many important projects including the marketing and on-ramps that are targeted to bring value specifically to BTS. Also, see this post by bytemaster.

Then again how do you know for sure that given 2 DACs, the one with no dilution wouldn't be more popular, bring in more revenue thereby causing the dilution DAC to "free-ride" on the other DAC's increased market cap and momentum in development?

I don't know for sure. But what I do know is that the one with dilution will be able to spend the funds on marketing itself and getting on-ramps to it rather than to its competitor, and this gives it a huge competitive advantage. Also, the largest source of growth will be regular users who want to hold BitAssets. They probably won't even care about the "stock" of the "company" and whether it is being diluted or not. This is a much larger source of growth than the current relatively tiny cryptocurrency community who take such a hard line view regarding dilution.

[oldman]

That said, IMO if indeed a major restructuring is necessary, then the time is now before the DAC gets too big. I remember discussions a while back about how the first implementation of bitshares may have to be redone.  So this is fine with me as long as distributed consensus is maintained and the majority of shareholders are required to approve the decisions.

Yep.

[bitmeat]

It was a mistake to do the Feb 28th snapshot. That said I think this fixes many problems.

In fact it fixes one thing I've been bitching about since day 1 - it makes AGS liquid.

Just make sure future snapshots could be easily awarded with command line if you control an asset. This will definitely make it easier for new DACs to be created and will attract more developers.

[amencon]

If you have one DAC and it employs dilution and there is a potential user/investor that doesn't like dilution then you have no products for them to invest in.

The DACs with no dilution will be free riding off the public goods funded by the DACs with dilution (see my post here). During these early stages we have so much common infrastructure that we need to fund, develop, and market to the masses. We are better off keeping things unified into a massive DAC with large network effect than splitting things up (at least for now). There can still be small third party DACs, but they will be at a disadvantage because of the weak network effect (by design). That is the cost they need to pay if they don't want to be part of BTS and pay their fair share of the common infrastructure through dilution. We want to make sure that if they opt-out of BTS and paying for the common infrastructure then they will be very unlikely to ever kill off BTS by gaining a larger network effect.

Eventually, we will get to a stage where we can afford to spin-off into multiple DACs. All the heavy lifting will have been done and we will have escaped the Earth's gravitational pull and into outer space (to continue Stan's analogy). We can then afford to split into multiple DACs that specialize into different industries and attract shareholders who only care about those industries.

It was my understanding that they wouldn't be free-riding at least for the first couple years considering that development has already been paid for through AGS donations.

Also since the separate DACs would have differnt teams, a DAC with successful dilution could re-target those funds towards that same particular DAC.  It's true though that at least some of that paid for development would benefit other DACs in way of improvements to the general toolkit.

Then again how do you know for sure that given 2 DACs, the one with no dilution wouldn't be more popular, bring in more revenue thereby causing the dilution DAC to "free-ride" on the other DAC's increased market cap and momentum in development?

You might be right that dilution is the way to go and we need to consolidate DACs, I don't share the same opinion but could very certainly be wrong.  In any case it will be interesting to see what happens.

[Helikopterben]

First of all, does anyone have an ELI5 on this?  This really looks like a mess:

This is not "one chain to rule them all".   
(Bytemaster merely mentioned that such claims would be incorrectly made.)

Two or three synergistic chains would be merged.

@bytemaster, is it possible to clarify which DACs/funtionalities would be included into BTSX?

Everything we would have ever implemented.

Secondly, I hope BM and others aren't acting irrational because of a simple correction in price.  The market cap and price increased over 800% in less than one month and is experiencing a correction that looks very similar to early bitcoin fractals.  Markets don't go up in a straight line.  This price decline is normal.  Please take a step back and make sure these decisions are what is best for the company.

That said, IMO if indeed a major restructuring is necessary, then the time is now before the DAC gets too big.  I remember discussions a while back about how the first implementation of bitshares may have to be redone.  So this is fine with me as long as distributed consensus is maintained and the majority of shareholders are required to approve the decisions.

[davidpbrown]

Is there a legal liability to combining all into one?.. or is that not known, which perhaps is the same??.. It does seem that provoking risk relative to PTS; AGS; BTSX with basics not resolved, is likely to cause anxiety and stress. Not to suggest it should not happen but substantial change should be well considered. Which again is why I think separating out the close of PTS and the merger of DACs might be sensible; one perhaps needs a longer conversation than the other.

[xeroc]

If you have one DAC and it employs dilution and there is a potential user/investor that doesn't like dilution then you have no products for them to invest in.

The DACs with no dilution will be free riding off the public goods funded by the DACs with dilution (see my post here). During these early stages we have so much common infrastructure that we need to fund, develop, and market to the masses. We are better off keeping things unified into a massive DAC with large network effect than splitting things up (at least for now). There can still be small third party DACs, but they will be at a disadvantage because of the weak network effect (by design). That is the cost they need to pay if they don't want to be part of BTS and pay their fair share of the common infrastructure through dilution. We want to make sure that if they opt-out of BTS and paying for the common infrastructure then they will be very unlikely to ever kill off BTS by gaining a larger network effect.

Eventually, we will get to a stage where we can afford to spin-off into multiple DACs. All the heavy lifting will have been done and we will have escaped the Earth's gravitational pull and into outer space (to continue Stan's analogy). We can then afford to split into multiple DACs that specialize into different industries and attract shareholders who only care about those industries.

I fully agree with everything said!

I like the analogy of 'spin-offs' instead of "merged-mined' blockchains .. or side chains .. we are talking BUSINESS .. not mining, nor chains ..

[arhag]

If you have one DAC and it employs dilution and there is a potential user/investor that doesn't like dilution then you have no products for them to invest in.

The DACs with no dilution will be free riding off the public goods funded by the DACs with dilution (see my post here). During these early stages we have so much common infrastructure that we need to fund, develop, and market to the masses. We are better off keeping things unified into a massive DAC with large network effect than splitting things up (at least for now). There can still be small third party DACs, but they will be at a disadvantage because of the weak network effect (by design). That is the cost they need to pay if they don't want to be part of BTS and pay their fair share of the common infrastructure through dilution. We want to make sure that if they opt-out of BTS and paying for the common infrastructure then they will be very unlikely to ever kill off BTS by gaining a larger network effect.

Eventually, we will get to a stage where we can afford to spin-off into multiple DACs. All the heavy lifting will have been done and we will have escaped the Earth's gravitational pull and into outer space (to continue Stan's analogy). We can then afford to split into multiple DACs that specialize into different industries and attract shareholders who only care about those industries.

[Ben Mason]

Do it, merge all into BitsharesX.  All funding should go into 1 DAC, and that funding can be distributed according to each DAC's need, so if someone doesn't know where to fund, they just fund the main DAC.

 

The devs have my full support to implement the BTS merger, and the sooner the better.

The DAC fragmentation/naming etc was a major stumbling block for marketing and investment.

Now folks can just buy BTS to invest in BTC 2.0.

Simple, clean and easy.

  We need an allocation drawn up for everyone to review that is as fair as possible so we can get on and agree it.  Then we need to implement asap so the market can see the benefits and stand amazed that a crypto company can be so nimble whilst retaining it's integrity! DPOS rules!

[Empirical1.1]

Can you explain why most of your concerns were alleviated?  This proposal is a major departure from the original plan.  I liked the idea of an ecosystem.  One where you could weight your investments based on the core purpose of each DAC and it's other features and merits.

With a single chain that's lost.  Now if you see value in the vote feature (or whatever) you have to pony up for all the other features of the DAC as well.

I'm also not a fan of dilution, I don't believe there will be a way to accurately and conclusively determine the added value it will bring and the decision to dilute will most likely come from emotional campaigns or suggestion from I3.

Add that this is essentially a huge statement from I3 that their stated goals mean little and are subject to massive changed at whim, not usually a good signal to woo future potential investors.

I listened to the recording and it essentially sounds like BM wants to change his mind on how the ecosystem will be built because of backlash from BTSX holders due to poorly planned communications by BM that had them speculating that the Vote DAC was going to eat their lunch.

Can you describe exactly what it was that he said that assuaged your concerns about this radical change?  It sounds like you also liked the idea of multiple competing chains, is that now not the case?  I only ask because I didn't hear anything that changed my mind about what I like.

Oh don't get me wrong I still don't agree with the single blockchain concept and the proposal is not the way I like things to go. But I also understand the practical implications that if adoption fails and a certain threshold of adoptions is not reached this entire project will be dead in the water. So like you said, I'm not in favor of the single blockchain at all. What alleviated my concern was, that I realized that should the bitshares-project gain enough adoption and because of the opensource toolkit. It will allow for forks and spinoffs and help convince others to try and follow the same concepts and pos. The proposal is more for these separate chains to not be the sole responsibility of the bitshares team. Which is a good thing in my book, eventhough investors/speculators/stake holders might feel otherwise. Like I said, I'm an idealist, so I don't really give all that much about my stake as long as the world improves, I'm all for it.

I also realized during the session that a colossal structure would probably not be able to compete with specialized and more agile spinoffs. Also the promise by the bitshares team to support people honoring the stake in the social contract, would probably be enough for new DACs to get a better start in the future. So now I see a possibility for more independence from the bitshares team with these separate dacs, which might not be what stake holders want to hear.

So I agree looking for the easy way out is bad and communication is not being done well, I'm now seeing other ways of distributed developments more independent from bytemaster and the tiny bitshares team. I would have loved them being able to setup this entire ecosystem with competition and all, but with their current resources, funds and team-members I can see how they are not able to do that currently.

Feel free to correct my mistaken logic when you see it, I may very well be confused, I've not been sleeping well and my mind could very well have started playing tricks on me. The hangout happened in the middle of the night for me and I was already exhausted when it started. I finished the uploads and posted the links at 3:30am means my brain is not firing on all cylinders today and caffeine is no longer up to the task.

Gotta run, sorry if I'm not making sense, I'm typing this as fast as I can and I'm not a native english speaker.

Thanks for the detailed reply, you are making sense. 

It's a good point about team size and resources.  Originally I believe the plan was for each DAC to be "championed" by someone from their team with their own resources, for instance toast was heading up the KeyID development.  That way I3 could develop multiple ideas at once and hopefully compare notes and share among themselves so each new DAC could be built stronger.  Perhaps they now realize it's too much to grow their team large enough to fragment it to accommodate the development of multiple DACs at once.  Plenty of companies stumble when trying to cross the chasm from one man shop to small business, then again going from small business to medium sized.

Hopefully the right decisions are being made, hard to know without having all the facts.  I do feel that now it is known that this is what I3 wants and will likely happen no matter what, some investors are just painting on a smile and agreeing this is "great news" to help ease the turbulent market effects all these comments and proposals have had.  Very reminiscent of the "this is actually great news" meme in Bitcoin.  Thank you for backing up your reasoning in all this, makes a bit more sense to me.

I think you have made some insightful observations there.

I would add though that one DAC would simplify things and maximise the network effect. (Spin-offs can still happen though if a DAC is more competitive separately.)Also having key talent like Bytemasters undivided focus on a single DAC is pretty priceless.

Controlled focus is like a laser beam that can cut through anything that seems to be stopping you. 

- Tony Robbins

Trying to get consensus on all these issues is going to be tough, you just can't please everyone. I don't know what the full extent of the fallout or unintended consequences will be.

However as I've said before my BitShares investment is primarily an investment in Bytemasters grand vision. BitAssets also have a short window of opportunity to take their shot at the world. So the sooner we get things resolved and push forward the better.

[matt608]

How can we ever how to reach any kind of a mainstream adoption when many have agreed we are message is far to complex?

I don't understand why marketing many DACs becomes different by being all within one BitShares brand. Each DAC will need its own effort and perhaps marketing to different audiences and interests.

It would be vastly more expensive having a separate marketing team for each dac. My own opinion is that it would be so much easier to understand at a consumer level to just push one name. I dont think bitshares has nearly enough size to warrant having separate stand alone marketing teams. In the future after adoption is achieved, standalone chains with independent dev teams and marketing teams would be great. Would you agree that it is easier to grow one large business compared to a few small one? If you consider that the small businesses a still a bit away from even turning a profit I think it furthers the argument. Look at the delegate situation for btsx. I am not sure but I am assuming vote would be setup the same way. I would also bet that delegates their may be put in the same position. I think its wise to learn from what we have experienced with the first released product.

What advantages would their be to not combine?

That's easy.  With separate DACs you don't have to convince people to spend more for all the features in a swiss army knife DAC.  Let's say someone is only interested in one aspect of the DAC, well now you have to convince them that's it's worth their money spending it on all the functions within the DAC for access to the one feature they are interested in.

Further, multiple DACs let you experiment with various DAC features.  Dilution is an obvious one.  If you have one DAC and it employs dilution and there is a potential user/investor that doesn't like dilution then you have no products for them to invest in.  With multiple DACs you have a greater chance of apealing to a greater cross section of users and investors overall.

The thing is the DAC's job is to sell bitassets.  That's the 1 core business model potential investors need to be convinced of, that bitassets are awesome and can be sold and repackaged to countless markets in various of creative ways.  Each feature or 'merged dac' is really just another way to sell bitassets.  Investors just need to be convinced that the product (bitassets) is great.

It's like we have a multi-purpose product, bitassets.  There will be disagreements about which is the best way to sell the bitassets (which features/dacs to integrate), but its better to have one DAC selling bitassets in many ways than 20 DACS giving their bitassets the same name and coming up with similar ways to sell them (get merchants to accept them!  Get everyone to use them!). 

Full steam ahead!

[oldman]

Do it, merge all into BitsharesX.  All funding should go into 1 DAC, and that funding can be distributed according to each DAC's need, so if someone doesn't know where to fund, they just fund the main DAC.

 

The devs have my full support to implement the BTS merger, and the sooner the better.

The DAC fragmentation/naming etc was a major stumbling block for marketing and investment.

Now folks can just buy BTS to invest in BTC 2.0.

Simple, clean and easy.

[amencon]

How can we ever how to reach any kind of a mainstream adoption when many have agreed we are message is far to complex?

I don't understand why marketing many DACs becomes different by being all within one BitShares brand. Each DAC will need its own effort and perhaps marketing to different audiences and interests.

It would be vastly more expensive having a separate marketing team for each dac. My own opinion is that it would be so much easier to understand at a consumer level to just push one name. I dont think bitshares has nearly enough size to warrant having separate stand alone marketing teams. In the future after adoption is achieved, standalone chains with independent dev teams and marketing teams would be great. Would you agree that it is easier to grow one large business compared to a few small one? If you consider that the small businesses a still a bit away from even turning a profit I think it furthers the argument. Look at the delegate situation for btsx. I am not sure but I am assuming vote would be setup the same way. I would also bet that delegates their may be put in the same position. I think its wise to learn from what we have experienced with the first released product.

What advantages would their be to not combine?

That's easy.  With separate DACs you don't have to convince people to spend more for all the features in a swiss army knife DAC.  Let's say someone is only interested in one aspect of the DAC, well now you have to convince them that's it's worth their money spending it on all the functions within the DAC for access to the one feature they are interested in.

Further, multiple DACs let you experiment with various DAC features.  Dilution is an obvious one.  If you have one DAC and it employs dilution and there is a potential user/investor that doesn't like dilution then you have no products for them to invest in.  With multiple DACs you have a greater chance of apealing to a greater cross section of users and investors overall.

[bluebit]

Do it, merge all into BitsharesX.  All funding should go into 1 DAC, and that funding can be distributed according to each DAC's need, so if someone doesn't know where to fund, they just fund the main DAC.

[amencon]

Can you explain why most of your concerns were alleviated?  This proposal is a major departure from the original plan.  I liked the idea of an ecosystem.  One where you could weight your investments based on the core purpose of each DAC and it's other features and merits.

With a single chain that's lost.  Now if you see value in the vote feature (or whatever) you have to pony up for all the other features of the DAC as well.

I'm also not a fan of dilution, I don't believe there will be a way to accurately and conclusively determine the added value it will bring and the decision to dilute will most likely come from emotional campaigns or suggestion from I3.

Add that this is essentially a huge statement from I3 that their stated goals mean little and are subject to massive changed at whim, not usually a good signal to woo future potential investors.

I listened to the recording and it essentially sounds like BM wants to change his mind on how the ecosystem will be built because of backlash from BTSX holders due to poorly planned communications by BM that had them speculating that the Vote DAC was going to eat their lunch.

Can you describe exactly what it was that he said that assuaged your concerns about this radical change?  It sounds like you also liked the idea of multiple competing chains, is that now not the case?  I only ask because I didn't hear anything that changed my mind about what I like.

Oh don't get me wrong I still don't agree with the single blockchain concept and the proposal is not the way I like things to go. But I also understand the practical implications that if adoption fails and a certain threshold of adoptions is not reached this entire project will be dead in the water. So like you said, I'm not in favor of the single blockchain at all. What alleviated my concern was, that I realized that should the bitshares-project gain enough adoption and because of the opensource toolkit. It will allow for forks and spinoffs and help convince others to try and follow the same concepts and pos. The proposal is more for these separate chains to not be the sole responsibility of the bitshares team. Which is a good thing in my book, eventhough investors/speculators/stake holders might feel otherwise. Like I said, I'm an idealist, so I don't really give all that much about my stake as long as the world improves, I'm all for it.

I also realized during the session that a colossal structure would probably not be able to compete with specialized and more agile spinoffs. Also the promise by the bitshares team to support people honoring the stake in the social contract, would probably be enough for new DACs to get a better start in the future. So now I see a possibility for more independence from the bitshares team with these separate dacs, which might not be what stake holders want to hear.

So I agree looking for the easy way out is bad and communication is not being done well, I'm now seeing other ways of distributed developments more independent from bytemaster and the tiny bitshares team. I would have loved them being able to setup this entire ecosystem with competition and all, but with their current resources, funds and team-members I can see how they are not able to do that currently.

Feel free to correct my mistaken logic when you see it, I may very well be confused, I've not been sleeping well and my mind could very well have started playing tricks on me. The hangout happened in the middle of the night for me and I was already exhausted when it started. I finished the uploads and posted the links at 3:30am means my brain is not firing on all cylinders today and caffeine is no longer up to the task.

Gotta run, sorry if I'm not making sense, I'm typing this as fast as I can and I'm not a native english speaker.

Thanks for the detailed reply, you are making sense. 

It's a good point about team size and resources.  Originally I believe the plan was for each DAC to be "championed" by someone from their team with their own resources, for instance toast was heading up the KeyID development.  That way I3 could develop multiple ideas at once and hopefully compare notes and share among themselves so each new DAC could be built stronger.  Perhaps they now realize it's too much to grow their team large enough to fragment it to accommodate the development of multiple DACs at once.  Plenty of companies stumble when trying to cross the chasm from one man shop to small business, then again going from small business to medium sized.

Hopefully the right decisions are being made, hard to know without having all the facts.  I do feel that now it is known that this is what I3 wants and will likely happen no matter what, some investors are just painting on a smile and agreeing this is "great news" to help ease the turbulent market effects all these comments and proposals have had.  Very reminiscent of the "this is actually great news" meme in Bitcoin.  Thank you for backing up your reasoning in all this, makes a bit more sense to me.

[Gentso1]

How can we ever how to reach any kind of a mainstream adoption when many have agreed we are message is far to complex?

I don't understand why marketing many DACs becomes different by being all within one BitShares brand. Each DAC will need its own effort and perhaps marketing to different audiences and interests.

It would be vastly more expensive having a separate marketing team for each dac. My own opinion is that it would be so much easier to understand at a consumer level to just push one name. I dont think bitshares has nearly enough size to warrant having separate stand alone marketing teams. In the future after adoption is achieved, standalone chains with independent dev teams and marketing teams would be great. Would you agree that it is easier to grow one large business compared to a few small one? If you consider that the small businesses a still a bit away from even turning a profit I think it furthers the argument. Look at the delegate situation for btsx. I am not sure but I am assuming vote would be setup the same way. I would also bet that delegates their may be put in the same position. I think its wise to learn from what we have experienced with the first released product.

What advantages would their be to not combine? 

[davidpbrown]

How can we ever how to reach any kind of a mainstream adoption when many have agreed we are message is far to complex?

I don't understand why marketing many DACs becomes different by being all within one BitShares brand. Each DAC will need its own effort and perhaps marketing to different audiences and interests.

[Gentso1]

I have been a hard on the marketing team in the past because I felt their was a lack of marketing being done.  This lead to the discussion of How do you market bitshares and all of its dac's in a clear way? How can we ever how to reach any kind of a mainstream adoption when many have agreed we are message is far to complex? While having many chains does have the advantage of a more robust network  did we ever fully consider the man power to maintain a develop it?As a pure btsx holder I do give the edge to the Vote DAC. I think in the short term their potential for being used and widely adopted is pretty good. I think in the long term bitsharesx has a chance at being more profitable but it will take much longer to get their because the industry it is trying to break into is not known for its willingness for change. I know both systems would work in the immediate to compliment each other and most likely increase user base far more quickly then either could do on their own.   

I did not invest in ethereum because of the single chain concept. I thought that block chain bloat would be a issue in the long term and I liked the idea of many standalone chains in case one developed a fatal flaw. I still believe many chains is the way to go in the long run.In the short term to have the entire team both marketing and devs working on one chain and one brand will be more efficient and easier to explain. Its because of this and only this that I think it is a better short term move to use a single chain concept to spur adoption. Once adoption hits, bitshares will have a larger market cap, more dev's, and a bigger marketing team. At that point niche chains should be created.

It is faster to bake one cake then it is to bake 5........       

[santaclause102]

4. By the way. Handled properly this is a great PR stunt and campaign.  "The worlds first DAC acquisition."  More excuses to teach people about the DAC analogy of bitshares.

I like the way you think!

Completely agree that this whole many functions into BTSX would be a great PR story for BTSX and contains a lot of good arguments for a value increase of BTSX. The current downswing was entirely irrational and based (my guess) on the confusion of share dilution (to grow the share value) with monetary dilution. Giving BTSX stake to AGS after 28/2 / PTS would be something separate again from the proposed possibility of shareholder approved share dilution / capital infusion, it would be a merger acquisition (which also is only done (if behavior is rational) if it benefits both companies).

[GaltReport]

Everything we would have ever implemented.

what is with lottery/play, DNS, music? All those functionalities would go into BTSX?

I think these are independent.  Not sure though.

[NewMine]

that can be changed.  just recognize newmine is here with "mine" in his name.  he is obviously showing a pow bias before he even speaks.    those who wanted to attend, attended.  to act like it was a net negative...is kind of insane.  just look at the charts before, during and after the speech.

I apologize I wasn't around to attend the mumble session. From now on, I will quit my job just in anticipating of a random mumble session that may or may not happen on any given day. Hell, why don't we just shut the forum down and move all discussions to the mumble since no one wants to give a cliffs notes to anything that was talked about here. Not like its a forum or anything. Usually when someone doesn't want to explain something they either don't understand what it is they are to explain or they are unsure if the explanation is worthy of publicly acknowledging.

History lesson on my user name. I only mine PTS now and actually haven't mined any for a couple months as I got rid of most mining equipment as it became antiquated. So, with that said, I created the account in January when I was still mining BTC, PTS and a few other coins. Mining BTC was never profitable for me and I regretted buying the equipment. PTS has been quite profitable in theory since I transferred most to AGS and BTSX.

What charts should I look at?

What about my post was wrong? I based my assumption on OP's self admitted misleading title.

All I want is answers and explanations. I unfortunately don't have time to listen to 2 hour conference skypes or spend 2 hours sifting through the mega thread that emerged due to this.

No offense intended to any individual.

none taken.  I have thick skin

It is going to be impossible at this juncture to gain 100% consensus for every user.  What happened today was essentially another way to communicate.  Like TonyK said...speech is humanity's primary form of communication.  The mumble server is largely a community service and the fact that BM showed up imho deserves at least a bone tossed his way. 

We ALL know (if we've been around long enough) that BM has a way of occasionally posting a topic in hopes of reaching out transparently to the community.  We also know that sometimes it backfires.  Thankfully, he has always proven he will go out of his way to consider the perspective of his investors...and that is why we had it up and running.  We know you work, but unfortunateley we cannot hold a 24/7 conference with such short notice  

Luckily, we all can record though...and do so you can still listen on the way to work and back, or when you take your shower in the morning...or read the newspaper...etc.  It is really up to the investor to either divest or take what is given them to make the best possible decisions.  As for me, I work too and also pay for the server so we have access to this.  I ask nothing in return and even when i sometimes get tipped by invictus, it is sent out to people who have volunteered to help me. 

As far as the original post, i apologize for that.  We here in the forums have found over time that we run into a great many competitors who make shell accounts and come here specifically to sell FUD.  Sorry if we are sometimes a bit defensive.

Thanks Fuzz. No apology needed.

I will also admit that I can be defensive and offensive at times too.  My primary reasons for that are to protect an investment and keep a front row seat on the best train to a new revolutionary economic freedom gliding on the tracks of cryptocurrency blockchain technology. I do not want to see the train derailed because the unknown future looks better in hindsight to the decisions made which never got a chance to bloom.

A MotherShip DAC is definitely a better way.

Voter approved dilution and allocation of already distributed shares and then a subsequent distribution of newly included shares via AGS and PTS are my concern.

I am not seeing how you can transfer the value of BTSX into a new BTS and also give AGS and PTS part of the new BTS without diluting my current investment. Had I held onto every PTS, I would not care.

The only way is to create assets under BTS for AGS and PTS to be traded individually. But I also remember AGS was funded through Donations and creating an asset is really creating an AGS security that was illegally sold in the US. I see problems.

I'd like to see a locked sticky post addressing all these concerns, as I have stated, sifting through the mega thread for key points is consuming.

[jamesc]

So funny, all weekend I was thinking how controversy is powerful, efficient, entertaining, and CAN be great for a share price in the long run.  Even those directly involved should enjoy the excitement as they must learn the most.  I had no idea I would be satisfied so quickly.  Sorry, this may be controversial in itself but: Wow, what is it going to take to top this?

My perspective is that I'm a value investor.  I fully accept the physics that I am not a fortune teller even though it seems easy at times.  I have only several outs for selling Bitshares: got to have the money (worst nightmare), something better to invest in (my shares are still in BitShares), rebalance to provide diversification (an insurance policy that costs money but makes since going back to point #1; not a fortune teller).  All of this has very little to do with trading on news.  So, with this thinking I can withstand controversy and price swings quite well.  It has been years of doing this, but I even look forward to it now.  It means that there will have to be a better contender and those don't change often.  Basically I save a lot of time by not micro managing the investment.  I encourage this of everyone I talk to.

This means, I have not had to use bitUSD, GLD, etc.. as a hedge and this make me very happy.  Although I'm very much looking forward to using it to exchange assets with merchants.  I needs to be in our economy in a big way very soon it is getting vary hard to do things the old way which is just a waste of time and energy... 

[santaclause102]

Everything we would have ever implemented.

what is with lottery/play, DNS, music? All those functionalities would go into BTSX?

[davidpbrown]

Whatever is to happen to PTS needs to be resolved quickly. I wonder spawning a new asset would be safer and simpler for the value of BTSX. That would allow a simple confident statement asap on the value of BTSX not being affected in anything but a positive way by any other changes mooted.

Right now I suspect the slide we see in price is simply the more cautious and short term are moving to places of safety and that will only continue while there is uncertainty. Turn this to a positive and perhaps we'll see a prompt reversal, especially in key populations of interest, like the Chinese.

I think you are still missing the point...  if PTS continues as a separate asset then people have expectation of competing DACs that don't honor BTS.

Certainly, I do not see a downside to having a simple asset that is a Founders asset; liquid or otherwise, that is then separate from BTSX and doesn't then affect the BTSX price while it is resolved how and when a move from PTS/AGS occurs.

DAC creators will honor whatever they respect and more whatever is to their advantage; if honoring the Founders engages and established audience then that is useful; if it is clear that honoring BTS engages a wide interest group or current users, then that will become more important over time.

[bytemaster]

Everything we would have ever implemented.

[santaclause102]

PTS and AGS will be folded into BTS (AGS and PTS will receive shares in BTS) and DACs will be all "divisions" BTS.

I need to catch up on all the developments that have been happening, but why should we dilute the bts/btsx for AGS/PTS holders when they have already been rewarded for holding AGS/PTS with the initial btsx snapshot? I think a bitasset would be far more preferable than to dilute btsx.

This is my biggest concern too.  Although if I understand correctly there is $2million dollars in assets(dev funds) that btsx "purchases" when they purchase those DAC's(?)  Again a clear list of pros and cons for each participant would be great.

This "many functions into BTSX" proposal is not primarely about the un-necessity to continue PTS. The reason to give PTS and "AGS after Feb28th donators" a stake in BTSX is that those PTS and AGS investors did except to get the stake in the Vote DAC, the ME DAC and so on as a result from their investment. Now that the plan is to include many of these features into BTSX those investors have to be rewarded by giving them a stake in BTSX. The idea here is that the loss of value due to the capital infusion (giving BTSX stake to AGS after 2/28 / PTS) equals the increase in value due to the added functionalities those investors expected. I guess the value of BTSX will be bigger because of the added advantages described in my longer post above (network effect, marketing simplification etc.) and also because PTS is probably undervalued.
...thats at least how I read it all...

@bytemaster, is it possible to clarify which DACs/funtionalities would be included into BTSX?

[bytemaster]

Whatever is to happen to PTS needs to be resolved quickly. I wonder spawning a new asset would be safer and simpler for the value of BTSX. That would allow a simple confident statement asap on the value of BTSX not being affected in anything but a positive way by any other changes mooted.

Right now I suspect the slide we see in price is simply the more cautious and short term are moving to places of safety and that will only continue while there is uncertainty. Turn this to a positive and perhaps we'll see a prompt reversal, especially in key populations of interest, like the Chinese.

I think you are still missing the point...  if PTS continues as a separate asset then people have expectation of competing DACs that don't honor BTS. 

[Mysto]

4. By the way. Handled properly this is a great PR stunt and campaign.  "The worlds first DAC acquisition."  More excuses to teach people about the DAC analogy of bitshares.

I like the way you think!

[davidpbrown]

Whatever is to happen to PTS needs to be resolved quickly. I wonder spawning a new asset would be safer and simpler for the value of BTSX. That would allow a simple confident statement asap on the value of BTSX not being affected in anything but a positive way by any other changes mooted.

Right now I suspect the slide we see in price is simply the more cautious and short term are moving to places of safety and that will only continue while there is uncertainty. Turn this to a positive and perhaps we'll see a prompt reversal, especially in key populations of interest, like the Chinese.

[bytemaster]

PTS and AGS will be folded into BTS (AGS and PTS will receive shares in BTS) and DACs will be all "divisions" BTS.

I need to catch up on all the developments that have been happening, but why should we dilute the bts/btsx for AGS/PTS holders when they have already been rewarded for holding AGS/PTS with the initial btsx snapshot? I think a bitasset would be far more preferable than to dilute btsx.

This is my biggest concern too.  Although if I understand correctly there is $2million dollars in assets(dev funds) that btsx "purchases" when they purchase those DAC's(?)  Again a clear list of pros and cons for each participant would be great.

Very few cons... biggest con "changing things"

Everything else is a "merger" win/win value for value.  BTSX cap should grow by value of PTS + value of clearer message.

[bitmarket]

PTS and AGS will be folded into BTS (AGS and PTS will receive shares in BTS) and DACs will be all "divisions" BTS.

I need to catch up on all the developments that have been happening, but why should we dilute the bts/btsx for AGS/PTS holders when they have already been rewarded for holding AGS/PTS with the initial btsx snapshot? I think a bitasset would be far more preferable than to dilute btsx.

This is my biggest concern too.  Although if I understand correctly there is $2million dollars in assets(dev funds) that btsx "purchases" when they purchase those DAC's(?)  Again a clear list of pros and cons for each participant would be great.

[bitmarket]

Thoughts.

1. The hard fork voting solution is an important step for this type of panic to never happen again. It also makes "asset infusion" a less scary concept.  Once it is understood dilution cannot happen without voter approval, then most people are humble enough to be not terrified by an idea that many other share holders have voted for.   I for one would  think "I am probably missing something and this will be a good idea if a majority has voted for it." (Unless I had extreme research and due diligence on the topic)   It also becomes understood at a fundamental, cryptographically provable level that BM is not a dictator of BTSX which would give solace to people half a world a way who have never had the pleasure of meeting him AND dont speak his language.   I think we can all agree its pretty hard to trust anyone under those conditions.

2. A recorded call for big announcements like this in the future is a good idea.

3. I still would like to see a list of pro and cons for this deal for each group of actors. btsx holders, ags holders, pts holders, etc. just some bullet points under each one would be fine, but it would make it clear to everyone how they benefit out of the deal.  ( I actually still can't say if I am for or against it until I see this. Although I trust BM and the whole gang a lot so I don't really need much convincing.)

4. By the way. Handled properly this is a great PR stunt and campaign.  "The worlds first DAC acquisition."  More excuses to teach people about the DAC analogy of bitshares.

[bytemaster]

PTS and AGS will be folded into BTS (AGS and PTS will receive shares in BTS) and DACs will be all "divisions" BTS.

I need to catch up on all the developments that have been happening, but why should we dilute the bts/btsx for AGS/PTS holders when they have already been rewarded for holding AGS/PTS with the initial btsx snapshot? I think a bitasset would be far more preferable than to dilute btsx.

Catch up first.  Pts and ags will end so that I don't have to create and support competing dacs. 

[cryptillionaire]

PTS and AGS will be folded into BTS (AGS and PTS will receive shares in BTS) and DACs will be all "divisions" BTS.

I need to catch up on all the developments that have been happening, but why should we dilute the bts/btsx for AGS/PTS holders when they have already been rewarded for holding AGS/PTS with the initial btsx snapshot? I think a bitasset would be far more preferable than to dilute btsx.

[ReWeR]

I think the biggest threat to bitshares is ethereum, they will lanch around new year.

I fear that etheruem will get a bigger network effect than the bitshares dacs in it's current form.

I think this is a fight about who will get the biggest marketcap the fastest.

I feel like this proposal will make us stronger with a unified front and help us become the winner!

[santaclause102]

I did not want to imply wrongness on any one's part. I just wanted to point out that there is confusion content wise.

Yes.. but it was an interesting prompt to my reflection on how sometimes we forget what others do not understand.. and wonder then at their reactions.

I agree with this. An "official" explanation that makes this distinction would (have) help(ed) a lot!

[davidpbrown]

I did not want to imply wrongness on any one's part. I just wanted to point out that there is confusion content wise.

Yes.. but it was an interesting prompt to my reflection on how sometimes we forget what others do not understand.. and wonder then at their reactions.

[santaclause102]

Dilution is misunderstood vastly

It is an error to put the onous on other people. Better to consider that other people do not understand because of you own failing than consider it is their mistake. Not everyone will have time to consider closely all point and if the impression is uncertainty and a cluster of what might be proposals.. but note how proposals can move to become reality, then there is an anxiety created. I see some of this as a natural reaction to change of what had been concrete.

People like certainty. People like certainty so much that they will tolerate certainty that they do not agree with entirely, before ever the risking what they treasure on something that might be good or might be really bad. It's not necessarily a considered reaction but then crowds prehaps dance to a different tune.

I did not want to imply wrongness on any one's part. I just wanted to point out that there is confusion content wise.

[davidpbrown]

Dilution is misunderstood vastly

It is an error to put the onous on other people. Better to consider that other people do not understand because of you own failing than consider it is their mistake. Not everyone will have time to consider closely all point and if the impression is uncertainty and a cluster of what might be proposals.. but note how proposals can move to become reality, then there is an anxiety created. I see some of this as a natural reaction to change of what had been concrete.

People like certainty. People like certainty so much that they will tolerate certainty that they do not agree with entirely, before ever the risking what they treasure on something that might be good or might be really bad. It's not necessarily a considered reaction but then crowds prehaps dance to a different tune.

[santaclause102]

I didn't understand the "panic" / selling in the first place! To me it was:

- A proposal for discussion
- No problem because interests are very well aligned between BM / i3 and all AGS/PTS holders. Our interests are theirs.
- The proposal in itself means change but to me seems to bring a lot of value into BTSX: Adam K. maybe on board, simplifying of marketing message, adding more valuable features to BTSX (!), increased network effect and liqiudity, no need for cross chain trading for now. Those are all major value drivers. I thought the price of BTSX would rather go UP therefore. That it went down might have to do with the need of the (relatively uniformed) market to decide how to react while being in a overall downswing from the first major upswing.
- Dilution is misunderstood vastly! On the one side there is dilution of money which doesnt help the money holders (but can help the overall economy (in the short run)). On the other side there is capital infusion (also called dilution) which is a different thing because in this case shareholders profit because their shares are getting more valuable if the money from the sale of new shares is used to grow the company. We had this discussion before and it is simple too understand if BTSX is not seen as currency units but as shares in the Bitshares(x) company. And it definitely makes sense to see it this way because the BTSX shares will most likely get more valuable through this capital infusion which anyway will only be applied if shareholders think it will increase their share price.
- Capital infusion (often confused as monetary dilution; see above) will only happen if the DAC's shareholders think the capital infusion makes sense in order to grow the value of their shares.
- I more and more treat my stake in BTSX (and the other DACs) as an investment in Dan and the team (like in any other startup; except that the mechanics are based not on enforceable contracts but on social consensus, reputation and network effect). In the long run it will likely be (very) valuable.
- Dan proofed to be great conceptually, a great coder (it seems; can't judge that because not my profession) and seems to have a good sense for business reality (which was my biggest worry initially) and a good speaker http://vimeo.com/user24356268/review/109390470/40926b1e3e. Partnerships are also coming along nicely which I still think are majorly important. i3 is ahead on most of these parameters compared to all the other innovators in the space. So I am long term very bullish.

[matt608]

I've been listening and find myself agreeing with BM. To summarize:

• BM has an obligation to create something for post-28th feb donations and PTS holders, leading to the perceived conflict of interest
• Fusioning all DACs into BTSX under the name BTS would focus BM on a single DAC
• A fusion would be done through a second, final snapshot of PTS/AGS
• This snapshot would create new BTSX to honor current PTS/AGS holders
• This snapshot will focus all the funds on the same project in order to accelerate development
• Any new features such as VOTE would be created inside BTS
• Future scaling problems would be addressed using a spin-off: a snapshot of BTS used to create a new DAC

TLDR: Buying out PTS/AGS to create a bigger, better DAC with more features, more funding, better marketing potential and complete developer focus.

 

[JoeyD]

Can you explain why most of your concerns were alleviated?  This proposal is a major departure from the original plan.  I liked the idea of an ecosystem.  One where you could weight your investments based on the core purpose of each DAC and it's other features and merits.

With a single chain that's lost.  Now if you see value in the vote feature (or whatever) you have to pony up for all the other features of the DAC as well.

I'm also not a fan of dilution, I don't believe there will be a way to accurately and conclusively determine the added value it will bring and the decision to dilute will most likely come from emotional campaigns or suggestion from I3.

Add that this is essentially a huge statement from I3 that their stated goals mean little and are subject to massive changed at whim, not usually a good signal to woo future potential investors.

I listened to the recording and it essentially sounds like BM wants to change his mind on how the ecosystem will be built because of backlash from BTSX holders due to poorly planned communications by BM that had them speculating that the Vote DAC was going to eat their lunch.

Can you describe exactly what it was that he said that assuaged your concerns about this radical change?  It sounds like you also liked the idea of multiple competing chains, is that now not the case?  I only ask because I didn't hear anything that changed my mind about what I like.

Oh don't get me wrong I still don't agree with the single blockchain concept and the proposal is not the way I like things to go. But I also understand the practical implications that if adoption fails and a certain threshold of adoptions is not reached this entire project will be dead in the water. So like you said, I'm not in favor of the single blockchain at all. What alleviated my concern was, that I realized that should the bitshares-project gain enough adoption and because of the opensource toolkit. It will allow for forks and spinoffs and help convince others to try and follow the same concepts and pos. The proposal is more for these separate chains to not be the sole responsibility of the bitshares team. Which is a good thing in my book, eventhough investors/speculators/stake holders might feel otherwise. Like I said, I'm an idealist, so I don't really give all that much about my stake as long as the world improves, I'm all for it.

I also realized during the session that a colossal structure would probably not be able to compete with specialized and more agile spinoffs. Also the promise by the bitshares team to support people honoring the stake in the social contract, would probably be enough for new DACs to get a better start in the future. So now I see a possibility for more independence from the bitshares team with these separate dacs, which might not be what stake holders want to hear.

So I agree looking for the easy way out is bad and communication is not being done well, I'm now seeing other ways of distributed developments more independent from bytemaster and the tiny bitshares team. I would have loved them being able to setup this entire ecosystem with competition and all, but with their current resources, funds and team-members I can see how they are not able to do that currently.

Feel free to correct my mistaken logic when you see it, I may very well be confused, I've not been sleeping well and my mind could very well have started playing tricks on me. The hangout happened in the middle of the night for me and I was already exhausted when it started. I finished the uploads and posted the links at 3:30am means my brain is not firing on all cylinders today and caffeine is no longer up to the task.

Gotta run, sorry if I'm not making sense, I'm typing this as fast as I can and I'm not a native english speaker.

[davidpbrown]

corruption resistant systems

Building robust and therefore distributed systems, is not about doing what is easier. The temptation to not distribute power and wealth; and worse consolidate it, follows from the same attitude.

Obviously, it is possible to consider that all flavours of BitShares DAC, while critically dependant on a few individuals, could benefit from BitShares playing host to all (control and power); and perhaps that is ok, so long as the intent it to later spin off sucessful self-sufficient DACs. However, there is a risk that DACs will not form such strong identities as small fish in a bid pond. While there is not critical mass, perhaps putting them under the same umberella might help.

My instinct is to be tough from the start and I thought that what has been occuring to date was exactly what we wanted to see - that has been what has set BitShares apart from other similar efforts. I wonder what is behind this is simply a level of frustration and impatience. If that is the case, then perhaps such a change would be an error. If all the difference here sums to a couple of years delay and better more robust products for it, then perhaps it is worth keeping DACs separate?

The risk with one brand, is that brand fails. PeerTracks for example could become strong on its own; same with VOTE or DNS. If a FailDAC fails, should that be supported and draw strength away from the stronger DACs?


It seems the core issue is simply the cost of maintaining a PoW PTS, which is unfortunate. As an idea I really liked PTS. I have backed out now into BTSX as a result of all this uncertainty and life is then simpler. Personally, I think I would have opted for a simple hosting of PTS within DPOS and left everything else the same. Too much change, leads to uncertainty. Alternately, if you are to make a change, get it over with sooner rather than later and do not drag it out - that would signal risk to the market.


Edit: rereading this, perhaps the tone is stronger than my opinion but I feel that those thoughts needed to be expressed. I really do not mind what occurs at this stage.. it's early days and I trust the wisdom of those more core to development that I am. Perhaps such an approach as proposed can work. It's all good

[amencon]

So now that I've gotten some sleep and a cup of coffee I'll post my reaction.

First to address some worries about this socalled shareholder meeting. The mumble meeting happened completely unexpectedly and spontaneously, probably mostly because of people wanting to vent their anger. The only person I could find on mumble earlier that day was Gamey, who was busy drowning his worries away because of the proposal and resulting commotion. He then went off to drown his worries some more and nobody has heard off or seen him since. Goodbye Gamey, you will be missed, hopefully by someone with better memory than mine.

I then checked Mumble again later that day, just before going to bed to see if anybody was there so I could do a little venting and forgot to turn it off. Purely by accident I heard gentso1 calling out while I was in another room and out of the blue the channel started filling up with people. Eventually even Bytemaster and Stan showed up, but that much should be clear from the chatlog and unedited recording I uploaded.

Now here is my perspective on what Bytemaster said, but first and formost no final decisions have been made nothing is set in stone, in the mumble session Bytemaster just explained the context of his proposal that was a reaction to people voicing their worries about the voting dac.
If you saw my post in the proposal discussion, you may have noticed I was not happy with the proposal at all and probably made one of the harshest posts in that giant thread. I have been passionate about corruption resistant systems for most of my life and I donated to AGS for the bitsharestoolkit and in hope that it would help bring the developments I've been striving for for more than 20 years to finally become reality. To me the concept of a single blockchain to rule them all is one of the biggest concerns I have.

After listening to Bytemasters point of view, he did manage to alleviate most of my concerns and restore a lot of faith in the future. I'll try to list the important points for me (sorry if it's not the speculator point of view), development of the opensource bitshares toolkit will continue and decentralization still is the main objective. However he feels that, at this embryonic stage, the bitshares team might do better to focus all their efforts on this single proto-dac with all the features of the previously announced separate DACS. This would make things clear for new people, and would help the marketing of bitshares enormously, because now they only have to sell this one project and focus all energy and developments to give the project critical mass / escape velocity.

Bytemaster argues, that in the case bitshares reaches adoption rates similar or beyond that of bitcoin, then decentralization will happen naturally by people making clones of bitshares or successful experimental DACs in this proto-dac spinning off on their own chain when they start to run into limitations and the free market will take care of it on it's own. For the short to medium term however the Bitshares team would  not be creating competition with itself and for now concentrate on assuring the biggest chance of survival for the current projects and maximum focused and efficient use of their current resources, be it manpower, capital or whatever.

Should the proposal gain general acceptance then the social contract will remain intact and Bitshares-team would still offer support to anyone using the toolkit and honoring the percentage stake in this separate chain/DAC if even it is a competing one.

Can you explain why most of your concerns were alleviated?  This proposal is a major departure from the original plan.  I liked the idea of an ecosystem.  One where you could weight your investments based on the core purpose of each DAC and it's other features and merits.

With a single chain that's lost.  Now if you see value in the vote feature (or whatever) you have to pony up for all the other features of the DAC as well.

I'm also not a fan of dilution, I don't believe there will be a way to accurately and conclusively determine the added value it will bring and the decision to dilute will most likely come from emotional campaigns or suggestion from I3.

Add that this is essentially a huge statement from I3 that their stated goals mean little and are subject to massive changed at whim, not usually a good signal to woo future potential investors.

I listened to the recording and it essentially sounds like BM wants to change his mind on how the ecosystem will be built because of backlash from BTSX holders due to poorly planned communications by BM that had them speculating that the Vote DAC was going to eat their lunch.

Can you describe exactly what it was that he said that assuaged your concerns about this radical change?  It sounds like you also liked the idea of multiple competing chains, is that now not the case?  I only ask because I didn't hear anything that changed my mind about what I like.

[sumantso]

Should the proposal gain general acceptance then the social contract will remain intact and Bitshares-team would still offer support to anyone using the toolkit and honoring the percentage stake in this separate chain/DAC if even it is a competing one.

I would like to know how the social contract will be honoured for post Feb 28 AGS/PTS?

[JoeyD]

So now that I've gotten some sleep and a cup of coffee I'll post my reaction.

First to address some worries about this socalled shareholder meeting. The mumble meeting happened completely unexpectedly and spontaneously, probably mostly because of people wanting to vent their anger. The only person I could find on mumble earlier that day was Gamey, who was busy drowning his worries away because of the proposal and resulting commotion. He then went off to drown his worries some more and nobody has heard off or seen him since. Goodbye Gamey, you will be missed, hopefully by someone with better memory than mine.

I then checked Mumble again later that day, just before going to bed to see if anybody was there so I could do a little venting and forgot to turn it off. Purely by accident I heard gentso1 calling out while I was in another room and out of the blue the channel started filling up with people. Eventually even Bytemaster and Stan showed up, but that much should be clear from the chatlog and unedited recording I uploaded.

Now here is my perspective on what Bytemaster said, but first and formost no final decisions have been made nothing is set in stone, in the mumble session Bytemaster just explained the context of his proposal that was a reaction to people voicing their worries about the voting dac.
If you saw my post in the proposal discussion, you may have noticed I was not happy with the proposal at all and probably made one of the harshest posts in that giant thread. I have been passionate about corruption resistant systems for most of my life and I donated to AGS for the bitsharestoolkit and in hope that it would help bring the developments I've been striving for for more than 20 years to finally become reality. To me the concept of a single blockchain to rule them all is one of the biggest concerns I have.

After listening to Bytemasters point of view, he did manage to alleviate most of my concerns and restore a lot of faith in the future. I'll try to list the important points for me (sorry if it's not the speculator point of view), development of the opensource bitshares toolkit will continue and decentralization still is the main objective. However he feels that, at this embryonic stage, the bitshares team might do better to focus all their efforts on this single proto-dac with all the features of the previously announced separate DACS. This would make things clear for new people, and would help the marketing of bitshares enormously, because now they only have to sell this one project and focus all energy and developments to give the project critical mass / escape velocity.

Bytemaster argues, that in the case bitshares reaches adoption rates similar or beyond that of bitcoin, then decentralization will happen naturally by people making clones of bitshares or successful experimental DACs in this proto-dac spinning off on their own chain when they start to run into limitations and the free market will take care of it on it's own. For the short to medium term however the Bitshares team would  not be creating competition with itself and for now concentrate on assuring the biggest chance of survival for the current projects and maximum focused and efficient use of their current resources, be it manpower, capital or whatever.

Should the proposal gain general acceptance then the social contract will remain intact and Bitshares-team would still offer support to anyone using the toolkit and honoring the percentage stake in this separate chain/DAC if even it is a competing one.

[svk]

I've been listening and find myself agreeing with BM. To summarize:

• BM has an obligation to create something for post-28th feb donations and PTS holders, leading to the perceived conflict of interest
• Fusioning all DACs into BTSX under the name BTS would focus BM on a single DAC
• A fusion would be done through a second, final snapshot of PTS/AGS
• This snapshot would create new BTSX to honor current PTS/AGS holders
• This snapshot will focus all the funds on the same project in order to accelerate development
• Any new features such as VOTE would be created inside BTS
• Future scaling problems would be addressed using a spin-off: a snapshot of BTS used to create a new DAC

TLDR: Buying out PTS/AGS to create a bigger, better DAC with more features, more funding, better marketing potential and complete developer focus.

[fuzzy]

that can be changed.  just recognize newmine is here with "mine" in his name.  he is obviously showing a pow bias before he even speaks.    those who wanted to attend, attended.  to act like it was a net negative...is kind of insane.  just look at the charts before, during and after the speech.

I apologize I wasn't around to attend the mumble session. From now on, I will quit my job just in anticipating of a random mumble session that may or may not happen on any given day. Hell, why don't we just shut the forum down and move all discussions to the mumble since no one wants to give a cliffs notes to anything that was talked about here. Not like its a forum or anything. Usually when someone doesn't want to explain something they either don't understand what it is they are to explain or they are unsure if the explanation is worthy of publicly acknowledging.

History lesson on my user name. I only mine PTS now and actually haven't mined any for a couple months as I got rid of most mining equipment as it became antiquated. So, with that said, I created the account in January when I was still mining BTC, PTS and a few other coins. Mining BTC was never profitable for me and I regretted buying the equipment. PTS has been quite profitable in theory since I transferred most to AGS and BTSX.

What charts should I look at?

What about my post was wrong? I based my assumption on OP's self admitted misleading title.

All I want is answers and explanations. I unfortunately don't have time to listen to 2 hour conference skypes or spend 2 hours sifting through the mega thread that emerged due to this.

No offense intended to any individual.

none taken.  I have thick skin

It is going to be impossible at this juncture to gain 100% consensus for every user.  What happened today was essentially another way to communicate.  Like TonyK said...speech is humanity's primary form of communication.  The mumble server is largely a community service and the fact that BM showed up imho deserves at least a bone tossed his way. 

We ALL know (if we've been around long enough) that BM has a way of occasionally posting a topic in hopes of reaching out transparently to the community.  We also know that sometimes it backfires.  Thankfully, he has always proven he will go out of his way to consider the perspective of his investors...and that is why we had it up and running.  We know you work, but unfortunateley we cannot hold a 24/7 conference with such short notice  

Luckily, we all can record though...and do so you can still listen on the way to work and back, or when you take your shower in the morning...or read the newspaper...etc.  It is really up to the investor to either divest or take what is given them to make the best possible decisions.  As for me, I work too and also pay for the server so we have access to this.  I ask nothing in return and even when i sometimes get tipped by invictus, it is sent out to people who have volunteered to help me. 

As far as the original post, i apologize for that.  We here in the forums have found over time that we run into a great many competitors who make shell accounts and come here specifically to sell FUD.  Sorry if we are sometimes a bit defensive.

It's not about reasoning or understanding or whatever.
If a Chinese guy use mandarin to say "there",it pronounces "nay ger",and if he says that in front of a black crew in America,he would find himself in great trouble,especially when he can't use English to explain.

No one cares what you think or what your intention are,if you confuse them first.You'll have to make great effort to mend that fence.

That's what i'm talking about.How would you expect every new user and future investor to "understand" BM the way I or you did ?

that comes down to marketing and education, of which our mumble sessions are a part.  if you think there should be more (and i agree there could be), I suggest volunteering a bit to the cause.  It actually isn't as complex as many people think....but I do understand how these things can confuse newcomers. 

As far as what someone thinks or his/her intentions are.  People who invest in that someone's product BETTER care.  If not, how would I find out if it is an intentional scam?  As for Bytemaster...I've personally  never seen him change the value proposition for investors in a way that reduces value for them.  Literally never. 

If someone can prove me wrong, please link below: 

[funklr]

 

Wow. I am sure glad all 23 of you came to a consensus for the rest of the community.


How about a detailed plot of what is to happen regarding share stake percentages in already snapshot DAC's, how the new DAC's will fit into the ecosystem, what do AGS get, what do PTS get, how will dilution be voted on(since I3 controls a majority stake) and what circumstance will allow dilution, are the other Devs (Toast, Vikram etc.) on board.......

Numbers matter more than hopeful thoughts.

We didn't "decide" anything.. were merely agreed that the direction was worth pursuing further...

[Brekyrself]

In regard to PTS, what time frame are we thinking for a snapshot date?

[lakerta06]

fuck.people keep dumping shit load of btsx.kill me.

Chance to buy cheap

[lzr1900]

fuck.people keep dumping shit load of btsx.kill me.

[Pheonike]

One way is to start making Bitshares simplifier so there is less confusion for new ppl. Oh wait, hmmm I think that's what he's trying to do...

[fuzzy]

that can be changed.  just recognize newmine is here with "mine" in his name.  he is obviously showing a pow bias before he even speaks.    those who wanted to attend, attended.  to act like it was a net negative...is kind of insane.  just look at the charts before, during and after the speech.

I apologize I wasn't around to attend the mumble session. From now on, I will quit my job just in anticipating of a random mumble session that may or may not happen on any given day. Hell, why don't we just shut the forum down and move all discussions to the mumble since no one wants to give a cliffs notes to anything that was talked about here. Not like its a forum or anything. Usually when someone doesn't want to explain something they either don't understand what it is they are to explain or they are unsure if the explanation is worthy of publicly acknowledging.

History lesson on my user name. I only mine PTS now and actually haven't mined any for a couple months as I got rid of most mining equipment as it became antiquated. So, with that said, I created the account in January when I was still mining BTC, PTS and a few other coins. Mining BTC was never profitable for me and I regretted buying the equipment. PTS has been quite profitable in theory since I transferred most to AGS and BTSX.

What charts should I look at?

What about my post was wrong? I based my assumption on OP's self admitted misleading title.

All I want is answers and explanations. I unfortunately don't have time to listen to 2 hour conference skypes or spend 2 hours sifting through the mega thread that emerged due to this.

No offense intended to any individual.

none taken.  I have thick skin

It is going to be impossible at this juncture to gain 100% consensus for every user.  What happened today was essentially another way to communicate.  Like TonyK said...speech is humanity's primary form of communication.  The mumble server is largely a community service and the fact that BM showed up imho deserves at least a bone tossed his way. 

We ALL know (if we've been around long enough) that BM has a way of occasionally posting a topic in hopes of reaching out transparently to the community.  We also know that sometimes it backfires.  Thankfully, he has always proven he will go out of his way to consider the perspective of his investors...and that is why we had it up and running.  We know you work, but unfortunateley we cannot hold a 24/7 conference with such short notice  

Luckily, we all can record though...and do so you can still listen on the way to work and back, or when you take your shower in the morning...or read the newspaper...etc.  It is really up to the investor to either divest or take what is given them to make the best possible decisions.  As for me, I work too and also pay for the server so we have access to this.  I ask nothing in return and even when i sometimes get tipped by invictus, it is sent out to people who have volunteered to help me. 

As far as the original post, i apologize for that.  We here in the forums have found over time that we run into a great many competitors who make shell accounts and come here specifically to sell FUD.  Sorry if we are sometimes a bit defensive. 

[NewMine]

that can be changed.  just recognize newmine is here with "mine" in his name.  he is obviously showing a pow bias before he even speaks.    those who wanted to attend, attended.  to act like it was a net negative...is kind of insane.  just look at the charts before, during and after the speech.

I apologize I wasn't around to attend the mumble session. From now on, I will quit my job just in anticipating of a random mumble session that may or may not happen on any given day. Hell, why don't we just shut the forum down and move all discussions to the mumble since no one wants to give a cliffs notes to anything that was talked about here. Not like its a forum or anything. Usually when someone doesn't want to explain something they either don't understand what it is they are to explain or they are unsure if the explanation is worthy of publicly acknowledging.

History lesson on my user name. I only mine PTS now and actually haven't mined any for a couple months as I got rid of most mining equipment as it became antiquated. So, with that said, I created the account in January when I was still mining BTC, PTS and a few other coins. Mining BTC was never profitable for me and I regretted buying the equipment. PTS has been quite profitable in theory since I transferred most to AGS and BTSX.

What charts should I look at?

What about my post was wrong? I based my assumption on OP's self admitted misleading title.

All I want is answers and explanations. I unfortunately don't have time to listen to 2 hour conference skypes or spend 2 hours sifting through the mega thread that emerged due to this.

No offense intended to any individual.

[fuzzy]

Thank you for the recorded mumble session.   The board meeting open to us to hear what is going on only shows how sophisticated and progressive the team and I3 is.   Bitshares is one of the best investments I've made in crypto and I am happy to say keeping the faith in this project has proved rewarding and shall continue to forward on from here. 

I have stake in BTSX as well as BTC.

Regards,

You are welcome mbaeichapareiko, and I am certain I speak for bytemaster, too...who had to forego spending time with his children today due to the emergent nature of this meeting.  Unfortunately it was not able to be held for 24 hours straight or we would have had maximum participation.  Fortunately, though, level headed individuals like yourself understood that it was just bad luck you were not around during the time it occurred and are thankful that it occurred at all.  Fortunately (again), it was also recorded and minimally edited to ensure no secrets were left to "insiders" who could have used this as an opportunity to potentially make a good bit of cash off of panic sellers. 

Isn't it AWESOME to have legit devs (we can't forget the masterful toast to whom we owe a great deal for his recent advances, hackfisher, cob and team, and lets not forget Adam Ernest--followmyvote) and volunteers who actually care about the project and protecting YOU as opposed to most of the scams out there? 

Not sure about you, but I think wall street could use a few more people like all of them. 

[Gentso1]

Wow. I am sure glad all 23 of you came to a consensus for the rest of the community.


How about a detailed plot of what is to happen regarding share stake percentages in already snapshot DAC's, how the new DAC's will fit into the ecosystem, what do AGS get, what do PTS get, how will dilution be voted on(since I3 controls a majority stake) and what circumstance will allow dilution, are the other Devs (Toast, Vikram etc.) on board.......

Numbers matter more than hopeful thoughts.

Numbers talk would be the next logical step. The first being a discussion of the idea and walk through the pros and cons (that's what everyone is trying to do now).

It would be nice to for the rest of the devs to state their opinion, thoughtful discussion is how a consensus's should be reached.

The title may be a little off but it was made with good intentions.

I would like to consider myself not punch drunk on bitshares cool-aid but the guys made some compelling points I had not considered.Give it a listen and you will come to the same conclusion that the rest of us did in all likely hood. From their it's just a matter of, how much.

[tonyk]

Proposed listen for all not online and/or not at this forum at that moment... bump.

[mbaeichapareiko]

Thank you for the recorded mumble session.   The board meeting open to us to hear what is going on only shows how sophisticated and progressive the team and I3 is.   Bitshares is one of the best investments I've made in crypto and I am happy to say keeping the faith in this project has proved rewarding and shall continue to forward on from here. 

I have stake in BTSX as well as BTC.

Regards,

[Stan]

Going to hear when I get off work. Quick question - what was the answer to the problems of one chain that BM had mentioned earlier (when Ethereum was the all the talk)?

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10148.msg133033#msg133033

[onceuponatime]

Going to hear when I get off work. Quick question - what was the answer to the problems of one chain that BM had mentioned earlier (when Ethereum was the all the talk)?

If I understood correctly, it is that DACS can be spun off after critical mass is attained (which wouldn't be for quite a while.

[sumantso]

Going to hear when I get off work. Quick question - what was the answer to the problems of one chain that BM had mentioned earlier (when Ethereum was the all the talk)?

[fuzzy]

Wow. I am sure glad all 23 of you came to a consensus for the rest of the community.


How about a detailed plot of what is to happen regarding share stake percentages in already snapshot DAC's, how the new DAC's will fit into the ecosystem, what do AGS get, what do PTS get, how will dilution be voted on(since I3 controls a majority stake) and what circumstance will allow dilution, are the other Devs (Toast, Vikram etc.) on board.......

Numbers matter more than hopeful thoughts.

Sorry, in hindsight the title of this post isn't that great. The point is that we all went into it with bad feelings about the whole thing, many people were completely against the proposal and completely against any share dilution. We were as scared/confused/panicky as this entire forum was for the entire day. And then BM basically explained everything clearly and consicely and we ended up all changing our minds. 23 negative skeptics went in to the mumble server, when we were done not a SINGLE person felt negative about it at all, and many of us were talking afterwards about how exciting it is.

If you're a scared or confused investor who don't know what to make of all this, I HIGHLY recommend listening to the mumble recording. I think all your concerns will be met, and you will be satisfied.

that can be changed.  just recognize newmine is here with "mine" in his name.  he is obviously showing a pow bias before he even speaks.    those who wanted to attend, attended.  to act like it was a net negative...is kind of insane.  just look at the charts before, during and after the speech.

He's obviously interested enough in DPOS to make an account and post on this forum. Yeah, I guess there's a chance he's an evil PoW shill coming to spread FUD, but even with that possibility the best strategy is always to be polite to anyone here, especially newcomers. There is really no point to scare anyone off - if someone is a troll or a spammer it should be handled through the standard channels of forum moderation. Sorry for the rant I'm just tired of the tribal attitude that is growing on this forum, I think it hurts adoption.

I agree and I am partly to blame.  I changed my post before you posted because i'm actively trying to chill out when people make posts that frustrate me.  Never have been one with anger issues, but it gets frustrating to see some of the most honest people i've ever met getting attacked. 

From now on, I hope he will do his best to be respectful as well.  It goes two ways....

[tonyk]

Wow. I am sure glad all 23 of you came to a consensus for the rest of the community.


How about a detailed plot of what is to happen regarding share stake percentages in already snapshot DAC's, how the new DAC's will fit into the ecosystem, what do AGS get, what do PTS get, how will dilution be voted on(since I3 controls a majority stake) and what circumstance will allow dilution, are the other Devs (Toast, Vikram etc.) on board.......

Numbers matter more than hopeful thoughts.

Sorry, in hindsight the title of this post isn't that great. The point is that we all went into it with bad feelings about the whole thing, many people were completely against the proposal and completely against any share dilution. We were as scared/confused/panicky as this entire forum was for the entire day. And then BM basically explained everything clearly and consicely and we ended up all changing our minds. 23 negative skeptics went in to the mumble server, when we were done not a SINGLE person felt negative about it at all, and many of us were talking afterwards about how exciting it is.

If you're a scared or confused investor who don't know what to make of all this, I HIGHLY recommend listening to the mumble recording. I think all your concerns will be met, and you will be satisfied.

that can be changed.  just recognize newmine is here with "mine" in his name.  he is obviously showing a pow bias before he even speaks.    those who wanted to attend, attended.  to act like it was a net negative...is kind of insane.  just look at the charts before, during and after the speech.

It can also mean 'a form of the possessive case of I used as a predicate adjective'/'something that belongs to me'

I have always wondered how he meant it...
I have always been curious what new stuff becomes his everyday....

[Rune]

Wow. I am sure glad all 23 of you came to a consensus for the rest of the community.


How about a detailed plot of what is to happen regarding share stake percentages in already snapshot DAC's, how the new DAC's will fit into the ecosystem, what do AGS get, what do PTS get, how will dilution be voted on(since I3 controls a majority stake) and what circumstance will allow dilution, are the other Devs (Toast, Vikram etc.) on board.......

Numbers matter more than hopeful thoughts.

Sorry, in hindsight the title of this post isn't that great. The point is that we all went into it with bad feelings about the whole thing, many people were completely against the proposal and completely against any share dilution. We were as scared/confused/panicky as this entire forum was for the entire day. And then BM basically explained everything clearly and consicely and we ended up all changing our minds. 23 negative skeptics went in to the mumble server, when we were done not a SINGLE person felt negative about it at all, and many of us were talking afterwards about how exciting it is.

If you're a scared or confused investor who don't know what to make of all this, I HIGHLY recommend listening to the mumble recording. I think all your concerns will be met, and you will be satisfied.

that can be changed.  just recognize newmine is here with "mine" in his name.  he is obviously showing a pow bias before he even speaks.    those who wanted to attend, attended.  to act like it was a net negative...is kind of insane.  just look at the charts before, during and after the speech.

He's obviously interested enough in DPOS to make an account and post on this forum. Yeah, I guess there's a chance he's an evil PoW shill coming to spread FUD, but even with that possibility the best strategy is always to be polite to anyone here, especially newcomers. There is really no point to scare anyone off - if someone is a troll or a spammer it should be handled through the standard channels of forum moderation. Sorry for the rant I'm just tired of the tribal attitude that is growing on this forum, I think it hurts adoption.

[fuzzy]

Wow. I am sure glad all 23 of you came to a consensus for the rest of the community.


How about a detailed plot of what is to happen regarding share stake percentages in already snapshot DAC's, how the new DAC's will fit into the ecosystem, what do AGS get, what do PTS get, how will dilution be voted on(since I3 controls a majority stake) and what circumstance will allow dilution, are the other Devs (Toast, Vikram etc.) on board.......

Numbers matter more than hopeful thoughts.

Just listen to it... nobody came to any decision/consensus. We just thought that another way of communicating (the usual way for humans to communicate, btw - by talking to each other), helped stuff get cleared to a lot of us.

exactly tonyk.  I hope this helps you newmine and I look forward to your continued participation. 

[carpet ride]

Wow. I am sure glad all 23 of you came to a consensus for the rest of the community.


How about a detailed plot of what is to happen regarding share stake percentages in already snapshot DAC's, how the new DAC's will fit into the ecosystem, what do AGS get, what do PTS get, how will dilution be voted on(since I3 controls a majority stake) and what circumstance will allow dilution, are the other Devs (Toast, Vikram etc.) on board.......

Numbers matter more than hopeful thoughts.

Just listen to it... nobody came to any decision/consensus. We just thought that another way of communicating (the usual way for humans to communicate, btw - by talking to each other), helped stuffed get cleared to a lot of us.

Just listened.

1) More shareholder meetings via mumble -> Good idea
2) Building a feature rich DAC will give us more to market to the masses in one campaign
3) A single DAC to spend marketing dollars on will be more effective
4)  The company metaphor is becoming stronger all the time -> BTS shareholders will eventually vote on spin-offs, etc.

All in all, this feels like a huge win for BTS upside

We'll be thru this PR mess shortly enough

[tonyk]

Wow. I am sure glad all 23 of you came to a consensus for the rest of the community.


How about a detailed plot of what is to happen regarding share stake percentages in already snapshot DAC's, how the new DAC's will fit into the ecosystem, what do AGS get, what do PTS get, how will dilution be voted on(since I3 controls a majority stake) and what circumstance will allow dilution, are the other Devs (Toast, Vikram etc.) on board.......

Numbers matter more than hopeful thoughts.

Just listen to it... nobody came to any decision/consensus. We just thought that another way of communicating (the usual way for humans to communicate, btw - by talking to each other), helped stuff get cleared to a lot of us.

[Rune]

Wow. I am sure glad all 23 of you came to a consensus for the rest of the community.


How about a detailed plot of what is to happen regarding share stake percentages in already snapshot DAC's, how the new DAC's will fit into the ecosystem, what do AGS get, what do PTS get, how will dilution be voted on(since I3 controls a majority stake) and what circumstance will allow dilution, are the other Devs (Toast, Vikram etc.) on board.......

Numbers matter more than hopeful thoughts.

Sorry, in hindsight the title of this post isn't that great. The point is that we all went into it with bad feelings about the whole thing, many people were completely against the proposal and completely against any share dilution. We were as scared/confused/panicky as this entire forum was for the entire day. And then BM basically explained everything clearly and consicely and we ended up all changing our minds. 23 negative skeptics went in to the mumble server, when we were done not a SINGLE person felt negative about it at all, and many of us were talking afterwards about how exciting it is.

If you're a scared or confused investor who don't know what to make of all this, I HIGHLY recommend listening to the mumble recording. I think all your concerns will be met, and you will be satisfied.

[bytemaster]

Wow. I am sure glad all 23 of you came to a consensus for the rest of the community.


How about a detailed plot of what is to happen regarding share stake percentages in already snapshot DAC's, how the new DAC's will fit into the ecosystem, what do AGS get, what do PTS get, how will dilution be voted on(since I3 controls a majority stake) and what circumstance will allow dilution, are the other Devs (Toast, Vikram etc.) on board.......

Numbers matter more than hopeful thoughts.

We didn't "decide" anything.. were merely agreed that the direction was worth pursuing further...

[NewMine]

Wow. I am sure glad all 23 of you came to a consensus for the rest of the community.


How about a detailed plot of what is to happen regarding share stake percentages in already snapshot DAC's, how the new DAC's will fit into the ecosystem, what do AGS get, what do PTS get, how will dilution be voted on(since I3 controls a majority stake) and what circumstance will allow dilution, are the other Devs (Toast, Vikram etc.) on board.......

Numbers matter more than hopeful thoughts.

[Gentso1]

I will be the first to admit that I am sometimes hard on the guys. When I first read the proposal, my first reaction was a mix of anger,fear and confusion. I jumped on mumble just to talk to community members and vent a bit.

The session started as 5 of us and to say that we were negative would be a understatement. To our surprise Dan and Stan felt came on to do a 2 hour long question and answer. I was nothing short of blown away. Dan's post came from the perspective of a guy that was thinking out loud. He genuinely want to hear from the community about the pros and cons of the thoughts he has been having. The post was really taken out of context. I

Here  are some things to consider

All DAC's that I3 has released would come under one roof
All devs can work as a team and complete projects instead of fracturing their workforce
Super easy to market, You want to invest buy Bitshares
More capital will be made available to DAC's that as just sprouting

I for one heard the word dilution and may have panicked a bit. Not to the point of selling but just a general "if he change this what else will he change kind of feeling". I want every one to know that if you listen to the mumble we hit Stan and Dan with about every question, across the board and I feel even more confident then ever. Everything from marketing, to how will everything work on one chain.

Please give the mumble a listen, what is proposed is a win, win for anyone that has a stake in bitshares or any of its dac's. This opinion is coming from a AGS holder and btsx holder.









 

[werneo]

Download the OGG file from google drive here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B521Uvk7QIpYUlBBQld2b25pTVE/view?usp=sharing

Download the VLC media player here:
http://www.videolan.org/vlc/index.html

Open the the OGG file with the VLC player. It works great.

Bytemaster does not show up until minute 24.

[Rune]

One of the main reasons a unified DAC is so great is that there are many synergies amongst the different DAC functionalities. e.g. the DNS dac can support the bazaar dac, which support the exchange dac. Implementing all three things in the same client will greatly increase user experience and reduce transaction costs and spread.

The Bazaar DAC?

It's just a concept of a future DAC which functionality would be sort of like OB, but where sellers can outsource the running of their store servers to nodes, so they dont have to deal with all the technical stuff unless they want to.

Not sure it will actually become a reality, definitely depends on whether OB takes off like a rocket or not. If it runs into issues, such as lack of user friendliness, then we could launch our own competing system to capture the market.

[JoeyD]

There is something wrong with that link from my end..

Ok I'm looking into a different encoder, give me a moment to figure this out and upload different versions.

[Method-X]

One of the main reasons a unified DAC is so great is that there are many synergies amongst the different DAC functionalities. e.g. the DNS dac can support the bazaar dac, which support the exchange dac. Implementing all three things in the same client will greatly increase user experience and reduce transaction costs and spread.

The Bazaar DAC?

[James212]

There is something wrong with that link from my end..

It is an .OGG file.  You may need to download it.  I know the VCL player will play it. 

[tonyk]

I little history... This thread https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10118.0 ( VOTE DAC Just Got More Interesting 2.0 ) was the proposal that put me personally in 'panic mode' and made me convert 35% of my BTSX holding to bitUSD expecting 'no so bright' future.
Actually the fix all proposal  https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10148.0 Proposal to Resolve a Million Issues at Once) was enormously bright news for me, to begin with. I was truly surprised that the second thread drove the market even more down than the initial thread. It turned out a lot of people had misinterpreted the second thread.

The mumble session in question made virtually all of them change their mind and see the great benefits the proposal offers.

So, please, listen to the recording if you have some disagreements with the proposal 'Fix-all'/'Proposal to Resolve a Million Issues at Once'! You will not be sorry and will end up with much better understanding....



[Disclosure:]  AGS Donator post and before Feb28th; By far mainly BTS(X) holder[have about 3x more BTSX now, than the amount received for donating to AGS]. Have not hold PTS for more than a few hours after the AGS period ended. 100% of my crypto is in Bitshares DACs. BTSX, KeyID, NOTE, VOTE

[Rune]

As a BTSX holder:

Before going in to the mumble session, while I liked the idea of merging all DACs into a singular brand, I was quite scared/confused about what exactly the plan was. BM's writing in the proposal thread was very sparse, and after that he just disappeared completely from the forums. I must admit I kinda panicked, but at least I didn't sell anything at the bottom.

After hearing him and Stan explain everything meticously and with nice analogies to ensure people were able to grasp the main reasons for why merging all DACs into a single DAC is extremely beneficial, I am now more excited than ever for BTS! This is going to be really huge, and these next few months will be absolutely amazing once we can start to get a roadmap up for a unified branding and eventually unified functionality.

One of the main reasons a unified DAC is so great is that there are many synergies amongst the different DAC functionalities. e.g. the DNS dac can support the bazaar dac, which support the exchange dac. Implementing all three things in the same client will greatly increase user experience and reduce transaction costs and spread.

[James212]

Did this session have anybody besides Dan from the core team?

Stan was also there.  It was a very informative session. 

[James212]

I attended the session. bytemaster clarified all of the concerns that we all had.  there were 23 of us on the call.  After the session every one of us felt positive about the BMs proposal.   My focus was on PTS, and BTSX'. 

Basically, the move will get rid of all the complexity the only causes confusion and marketing challenges (this is a very good thing!).  PTS and AGS will be folded into BTS (AGS and PTS will receive shares in BTS) and DACs will be all "divisions" BTS.  I think of it as BTS being like a parent company.  Additionally the capital infusion will allow the Bitshares ecosystem to far far more efficiently......This is a race to network effect and it is critical we move fast!

The plan is solid. I'm currently a buyer :-)

Everyone should check out the audio session which will be posted here shortly. 

[robrigo]

I was on board with the proposal before the session, and my position is even more solidified after listening to Dan explain himself for the following reasons:

1) Simplifying the message (consolidation of DACs that make sense to consolidate, rebranding of BTSX to BTS) will tilt possible future users that are "on the fence" about investing or having trouble understanding (non technical users especially). Snapshotting PTS and combining it with AGS into a user issued asset or buying them out and ending them simplifies my BitShares elevator pitch considerably.

2) Passing the delegated capital infusion (better name for dilution discussed on mumble) measure will future proof BitShares DAC by allowing for opportunities that require more capital to be taken advantage of.

3) Network effect will come more rapidly with multiple pronged approach stemming from one DAC.

4) bitUSD isn't split between the DACs that have the biggest chance at network effect (if VOTE is "cannabilized" by BTS). Thus, volume and liquidity will not be split.

5) Hard Fork approval voting allows the DAC to regulate itself, a very necessary tool for coming to a consensus on the implementation of functionality that the community is divided on.

Full disclosure: I hold BTSX, VOTE snapshot, NOTE snapshot + presale.

[mf-tzo]

There is something wrong with that link from my end..

[JoeyD]

Recording of the spontaneous AMA with Bytemaster on his proposal and ensuing panic. Different ogg encoder
Flac-version
Mp3
AAC/M4A

Plus the chatlog

Not edited, an edited cleaned up version will probably be uploaded later.

I've posted this first so everyone can get it from the horses mouth. I'll make another post to explain my point of view. Short version I was in complete opposition to the proposal and now see it very differently.

[bytemaster]

Did this session have anybody besides Dan from the core team?

Stan...

[toast]

Did this session have anybody besides Dan from the core team?

[Rune]

Around 20 bitshares stakeholders just finished an "emergency" mumble session with bytemaster about the new proposal. Before he joined us the atmosphere was very panicky because people really didn't understood what was going on regarding the merger of all DAC.

To help other stakeholders and community members to understand that there is no need to panic, we will all post our thoughts regarding the proposal before and after hearing BM's explanation.

The mumble recording will be posted in this thread as soon as its ready, I urge everyone to listen to it as it has all the explanation.

Edit: Mumble recording posted here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10181.msg133232#msg133232

My TL;DR of the situation is that Bytemaster was too quick to jump the gun and didn't manage to communicate his proposal properly. It is an incredible good idea but many stakeholders panicked because they thought he was doing a 360 on decentralization or that I3 was running out of funding, or some other crisis.