Author [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] Topic: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?  (Read 1099 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
    • View Profile
Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
« on: October 30, 2014, 10:15:56 PM »

I think this deserves its own thread so I'm reposting my feelings on the merger and re-org here.

I see a complete reversal of strategy happening on this forum and, frankly, it is frightening. Some of us have abandoned the “open platform” model of the Bitshares Toolkit in favor of protectionism and centralization. Bytemaster is a smart dude, but the assumption that any innovative idea must have his blessing and must consume his limited resource is just plain wrong. Why should we sink or swim on the basis of a single DAC? The original vision of the Bitshares Toolkit was collaborative and open. 3rd party developers would be encouraged to fork the toolkit and to innovate. Now it seems that we’ve reverted to the very model that Dan campaigned against in the Bitcoin space - that one chain would eventually rule them all. What is the price of all this protectionism? Even if it were true that individual DACs would indirectly compete in the marketplace, why do we assume that this is some sort of a “failure”?

I understand that Dan himself, as an individual, cannot work on competing alternatives. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not to position the Toolkit as an open platform for innovation by 3rd party DACs. When I hear people calling for an end to PTS and AGS, it signals to me that we’ve abandoned this vision. Dan doesn’t need to personally develop each DAC, but I think he can do certain things to keep the platform open and to incentivize development by third parties. For example:

* Keep and promote PTS and AGS as sharedrop instruments for future DACs. (Thank you for the recent change of position on this.)
* Create a reasonable and voluntary divestment strategy for the Bitshares Trust to ensure that 3rd party DACs are incentivized to sharedrop for a fair and balanced distribution.
* Either contribute to, or promote the efforts of others who wish to separate the core DPOS code base from DAC-specific applications such as BTSX, DNS, and Vote. Separating the code base would go a long way towards incentivizing 3rd party development. Not only is this good practice from an engineering perspective, but it lowers the barrier to entry for the developer who has an idea for “the next great DAC”.

If a superior technology is built on the Toolkit, then as shareholders of AGS and PTS we would greatly benefit from it. Pushing 3rd party devs and DACs away from the platform will not prevent the existence of competing alternatives to BTS. More than likely, it will just ensure that those alternatives are built elsewhere and that we as a community do not benefit from them.

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
    • View Profile
Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
« Reply #1 on: October 30, 2014, 10:18:35 PM »
Those who are interested, let me know if you'd like to chat about this on the Mumble server.

Offline monsterer

Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
« Reply #2 on: October 30, 2014, 10:30:07 PM »
I suggested an alternative course of action here, but it didn't get much attention:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10632.msg139815#msg139815
My opinions do not represent those of metaexchange unless explicitly stated.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline happybit

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 87
  • Happy Bit!
    • View Profile
Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
« Reply #3 on: October 30, 2014, 11:12:34 PM »
I totally agree with OP... not in the sense that it "matters" ... what I mean is, I'm looking at it from the (original) philosophical perspective where Dan was really convincing in his early pitch of Bitshares, and to have the project(s) be developed all in separate, competing DACs

and now it is going against it all... I guess others may still take his original ideas, and run with them... create Bitshares Classic as opposed to New Bitshares (yes, trying to make a Coke reference) :)

anyhow, I still think EVERYONE is trying to do the thing that is the best... and also starting to see that there is no way to predict where this project will end up... I'm sure it will be in a happy, bright place in the future!


Offline speedy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1160
    • View Profile
  • BTS: speedy
Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
« Reply #4 on: October 30, 2014, 11:26:47 PM »
Bytemaster had good reasons for merging the DACs. No one is perfect and no one can totally plan ahead every last detail.

Can we please just move on? The rebranded & merged BitShares without the X even sounds simpler, and will be more appealing to new buyers who dont understand every minutia of BTS crypto-lore.

Offline starspirit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 948
  • Financial markets pro over 20 years
    • View Profile
  • BTS: starspirit
Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
« Reply #5 on: October 30, 2014, 11:29:22 PM »
I'm starting to imagine that bitShares is actually evolving into an entire ecosystem with BTS being shares in the accumulated capital of that ecosystem. Ultimately independent and decentralised DACs could be implemented within the ecosystem with their own sets of stakeholders. This is like the thousands of corporations today that interact within the USD fiat system. And DACS could still be launched into external communities using the bitShares toolkit as an export. But they would compete with DACs within the bitShares ecosystem, just as there is global trade and competition today.

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
    • View Profile
Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
« Reply #6 on: October 30, 2014, 11:46:04 PM »
Bytemaster had good reasons for merging the DACs. No one is perfect and no one can totally plan ahead every last detail.

Can we please just move on? The rebranded & merged BitShares without the X even sounds simpler, and will be more appealing to new buyers who dont understand every minutia of BTS crypto-lore.

Merging multiple DACs is not contrary to the original vision of Bitshares. If it makes sense and if the shareholders agree then there wouldn't be a problem with merging Vote with BTSX, or even possibly DNS (though that seems like a tangent). Also, I've been arguing for a re-brand for a looooong time. Neither of these action is contrary to the original vision of an open Bitshares platform.

The problem initially began with the proposal to "eliminate PTS/AGS" (though that has been reversed) and the ongoing hostility towards even the mere existence of other chains built on the Toolkit. Even though the decision to eliminate PTS/AGS was reversed, there is still another sharedrop to PTS/AGS happening on November 5th which seems totally arbitrary. I argue that we should not re-sharedrop PTS and AGS and that we should support their continued existence as sharedrop instruments for 3rd party DACs. Furthermore, we should separate or support the efforts of others to separate the core Toolkit from the BTS repo to make it easier for 3rd parties to fork the toolkit and develop cool DACs.

Isolationism doesn't work and centralization doesn't work. Bitshares as a platform has far more potential than Bitshares as a swiss-army knife of features built into a single blockchain with a hostile and unwelcoming attitude towards alternative strategies. Would you rather own a single app or the entire operating system? Are we a spider or a starfish? We shouldn't be consolidating around a particular action or product decision (to merge or not to merge). Rather, we should consolidate around a set of core principles that define our mission and identity as a community.

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2331
    • View Profile
Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
« Reply #7 on: October 30, 2014, 11:48:45 PM »
Get over it, AB. This is beating a dead horse of a non-argument. Don't you have your own forum now?

Offline speedy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1160
    • View Profile
  • BTS: speedy
Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
« Reply #8 on: October 30, 2014, 11:50:01 PM »
Get over it, AB. This is beating a dead horse of a non-argument. Don't you have your own forum now?

Im with donkey - lets all move on and embrace the bright future of BitShares.

Offline Pheonike

Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
« Reply #9 on: October 30, 2014, 11:50:37 PM »
We can start big and divide later or start divided and combine later. 

It's either the Voltron model, fight as lions then combine at the end

or the

Agent Smith model, try to fight Neo one on one then split-off in multiple Smiths at the end.


Offline Ander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3499
    • View Profile
  • BTS: Ander
Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
« Reply #10 on: October 30, 2014, 11:51:35 PM »
PTS/AGS are *not* being eliminated.

They will still exist, and 3rd party devs can still sharedrop to them. 

There are already plans for a new DPoS currency coin to be created by a group of PTS holders, following the social consensus of giving to PTS/AGS.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline wasthatawolf

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 188
    • View Profile
  • BTS: loon3
Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
« Reply #11 on: October 30, 2014, 11:53:27 PM »
The problem initially began with the proposal to "eliminate PTS/AGS" (though that has been reversed)

Really?  When was this reversed?

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
    • View Profile
Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
« Reply #12 on: October 30, 2014, 11:55:08 PM »
Get over it, AB. This is beating a dead horse of a non-argument. Don't you have your own forum now?

This is exactly the type of shallow, non-productive response and attitude I was referring to in my post. Why don't you address the substance of my argument instead of being so dismissive? If anything what you've provided is the very definition of a "non-argument".

Offline carpet ride

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 544
    • View Profile
Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
« Reply #13 on: October 30, 2014, 11:56:30 PM »
Get over it, AB. This is beating a dead horse of a non-argument. Don't you have your own forum now?

This is exactly the type of shallow, non-productive response and attitude I was referring to in my post. Why don't you address the substance of my argument instead of being so dismissive? If anything what you've provided is the very definition of a "non-argument".

Look, you're now a competitor.  Don't expect a pat on the back.
All opinions are my own. Anything said on this forum does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation between myself and anyone else.
Check out my blog: http://CertainAssets.com
Buy the ticket, take the ride.

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
    • View Profile
Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
« Reply #14 on: October 30, 2014, 11:58:00 PM »
The problem initially began with the proposal to "eliminate PTS/AGS" (though that has been reversed)

Really?  When was this reversed?

The decision was reversed, but with little explanation or clarity on the future of PTS/AGS. I've put forth a strategy that does nothing to hurt the merged BTS. If anything I am arguing that we can have a stake in both the operating system AND the coolest apps built on top of the OS.

 

Google+