Author Topic: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?  (Read 9374 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline amencon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 227
    • View Profile
hi AB, i can understand where you're coming, but i dont think the vision has changed. the timeline for implementing the vision has merely become more realistic

The way i see it, the old vision fragmented development of several products and pigeonholed the bitshares toolkit developers into working on their own projects in relative isolation. from what i can tell, the bitshares toolkit still requires some major development time, and realistically there are only a handful of developers alive that currently have the know how to do so.

 the old plan essentially dictated that key devs like Toast, HackFisher etc would have to stop developing the toolkit (which is critical to DAC industry growth) and work on their own projects. between coding, taking on the role of project manager, providing support for delegates and users, etc i cant imagine there would be any time left for them to help develop the toolkit. software development is rarely a one man job and for good reason imho

developing separate, competing DACs is a great idea (and inevitable if bitshares succeeds) but the infrastructure needs to be sufficient first
I understood it differently.  My take was that there would be independent teams building features for their DAC project but that many of those features after being tested in production would likely find their way back to the toolkit, thereby making it a stronger code base.  Multiple independent teams making their own leaps and innovations, the best of which could be communicated to the other teams and the toolkit itself.

Not only that but with multiple DACs you could essentially do better A/B testing of features.  Let's say dilution works great in a couple different DACs, well maybe it's determined to be added to the toolkit.  What if the few that utilize it crash and burn?  Well at least you have a diverse ecosystem that can assimilate that information and be stronger for it as well.

It may very well be that the merger will help the toolkit grow faster and stronger than it would have under the old paradigm though.  Time will tell.

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile
We haven't really changed directions:

1) I still believe in competing DACs and lowering the barrier to entry.
2) I still believe that 3rd party developers should recognize those who built the software they are using as a foundation.
3) I still believe in the company metaphor for economic development.
4) I still believe in NO CONTRACTS and NO OBLIGATIONS on any party (us or 3rd party developers)
5) I still believe that all DA(CCCCC) metaphors apply and are useful:  Currency, Company, Co-Op, Community, Country
6) I still support 3rd party DACs as being good, just so long as I don't have to spend more than an hour or so per week helping them.

So all that has happened is that I demanded a unified project to work on and the options were: create a competitor to BTSX or adapt BTSX.   This was entirely within the realm of the original planning. 

So I fully support your efforts on Launching your own PTS currency based upon your core tenants.   No need to fight any one.  Just go and do it.

In summary we haven't changed course, but all things are a matter of perspective and from some perspectives the course may have changed.   I would say the primary course correct was to "grow and then divide" rather than "divide and then grow".... and course correction was not optional, the original plan was unsustainable.

Dan, I totally understand your position. Can you clarify the following:

1) Are you willing to accept the divestiture strategy I proposed for the Bitshares Trust PTS Angel fund (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10701.0)? For many who are working on the PTS upgrade project, this is of paramount importance.

2) You've already stated that PTS/AGS will live on (after the merger), but can you confirm that it is I3's position that the social contract should also continue to be honored by future DACs (10+%PTS/10+%AGS)?

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
Why would a third-party DAC want to credit AGS/PTS now if they do not get support using I3's funds anymore and they also do not sharedrop to strong hands who won't dump their stake when the market opens up?

It makes far more sense for the third-party developers to instead sharedrop to asset that there is a lot of support around (BTS). I also think it is preferable that they do some crowdfunding (despite possible SEC risks) to both raise capital and get self-selected strong hands in the genesis block, similar to what BitShares Music is doing with their Note pre-sale.

I agree with others that this is a dead horse but this thinking is backwards too.  BTS holders interests are aligned against that of AGS/PTS holders.  PTS/AGS holders specifically want to support new third party DACs.  BTS people will likely just dump of shares of a third party DAC.  I've never heard the case for why people would want to drop to BTS that makes sense except it happens to be there and is the basis of the toolkit.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline oldman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
    • View Profile
6) I still support 3rd party DACs as being good, just so long as I don't have to spend more than an hour or so per week helping them.

 +5% This is key. This is what I care about. Every working hour devs paid by BTS spend helping other third-party DACs is an hour that isn't spent doing the million things on the list for this ambitious project we call BitShares.

 +5% yup indeed .. noticed this also last 3 weeks... i'll focus totally on BTS now... when i got time to...i'll help other DACs as well :)!
I've changed my priority list...

If there's one thing shareholders should be paying attention to, it's this.

To those dumping BTSX.... oops.

Offline cass

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4311
  • /(┬.┬)\
    • View Profile
6) I still support 3rd party DACs as being good, just so long as I don't have to spend more than an hour or so per week helping them.

 +5% This is key. This is what I care about. Every working hour devs paid by BTS spend helping other third-party DACs is an hour that isn't spent doing the million things on the list for this ambitious project we call BitShares.

 +5% yup indeed .. noticed this also last 3 weeks... i'll focus totally on BTS now... when i got time to...i'll help other DACs as well :)!
I've changed my priority list...
█║▌║║█  - - -  The quieter you become, the more you are able to hear  - - -  █║▌║║█

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
6) I still support 3rd party DACs as being good, just so long as I don't have to spend more than an hour or so per week helping them.

 +5% This is key. This is what I care about. Every working hour devs paid by BTS spend helping other third-party DACs is an hour that isn't spent doing the million things on the list for this ambitious project we call BitShares.

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
Our views mostly differ on our marketing and business strategy. Both may work within a given niche or application. The difference is that I'm not railing against your idea saying that it will never work. Even worse, you have literally nothing to lose but everything to gain if I am right. Just a shame...

I have expressed my views on why I don't think the approach you have outlined is a good one to achieve success. And I don't consider Doge a success. The only cryptoasset that can even be considered close to a success at this point is BTC, and I expect (or at least hope) that will change thanks to BTS.

That said, I am not against anyone trying different approaches and creating other DACs. I don't think the approach you outlined is a recipe for success but who knows, I could be wrong. My main concern is to not fragment the community and thus reduce the network effect of BTS. This is why I have bothered to even share my opinions on the strategy you have proposed despite the fact that I think it is flawed. I have explained why I think it is flawed and why I think it is a waste of our network effect for people in this community to distract themselves with such effort. My hope is that people will see the reasoning behind my arguments and be convinced. If they are not, then so be it.

Offline bytemaster

We haven't really changed directions:

1) I still believe in competing DACs and lowering the barrier to entry.
2) I still believe that 3rd party developers should recognize those who built the software they are using as a foundation.
3) I still believe in the company metaphor for economic development.
4) I still believe in NO CONTRACTS and NO OBLIGATIONS on any party (us or 3rd party developers)
5) I still believe that all DA(CCCCC) metaphors apply and are useful:  Currency, Company, Co-Op, Community, Country
6) I still support 3rd party DACs as being good, just so long as I don't have to spend more than an hour or so per week helping them.

So all that has happened is that I demanded a unified project to work on and the options were: create a competitor to BTSX or adapt BTSX.   This was entirely within the realm of the original planning. 

So I fully support your efforts on Launching your own PTS currency based upon your core tenants.   No need to fight any one.  Just go and do it.

In summary we haven't changed course, but all things are a matter of perspective and from some perspectives the course may have changed.   I would say the primary course correct was to "grow and then divide" rather than "divide and then grow".... and course correction was not optional, the original plan was unsustainable.




For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline Pheonike


Quote
You believe:
1) PoW distribution is not the best method of allocation.
2) A DAC cannot succeed without a solid funding model.
3) A DAC cannot succeed without strong developers and technical superiority.

I believe:
1) Without diverging from the topic, most people in the crypto space disagree with you on point #1.
2) A good currency and sharedropping coin CAN succeed without technical superiority.
3) The most important attributes of this coin are: (i) fair distribution, (ii) strong scarcity (non-inflationary), (iii) efficiency and secuirty (DPOS).

Our views mostly differ on our marketing and business strategy. Both may work within a given niche or application. The difference is that I'm not railing against your idea saying that it will never work. Even worse, you have literally nothing to lose but everything to gain if I am right. Just a shame...


If we based what we do on what most ppl in Crypto as a whole believe, BitShares would not exist.

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile
I see the old single-dac-chains as potentially having innovations that get 3rd party Devs recognized by SuperDACs (like BTS/Ethereum).  Is there a flaw to my logic here?  Why wouldn't 3rd party Devs want to develop on those smaller, less competitive DACs?

Well, for one, funding would likely be a bigger issue on the smaller, less competitive DACs. They either need to have earned a huge amount of money from an ICO to fund all the development they need, which we are slowly moving away from in favor of the dilution model, or they would need the stake of their DAC to have a high enough market cap to fund development (either by selling off some of their initial genesis stake or even better getting paid with stakeholder approval through dilution of the stake). If the market cap of the DAC is puny it will be too difficult to generate high enough salaries to pay the developers.

If the developers are creating technology that can bring value to BTS stakeholders, then it would be smart for the BTS stakeholders to pay those developers through BTS dilution (which they can afford to do because of a much higher market cap) to create the technology and add that value to BTS.

In this way, it would essentially be a way to lower barrier to entry for talented Devs who have no other way of proving themselves to a broader community.

If the devs hasn't proved themselves yet, then people probably wouldn't donate to an ICO to allow the devs to carry out their vision. They would also likely dump the stake that the devs generated through snapshots because of lack of confidence in the devs. A dev first needs to prove himself/herself. If they have some background that would make BTS stakeholders think they can actually pull it off, they can appeal to stakeholders and get hired as a developer paid for by BTS dilution. As they start proving themselves they can get paid more to grow their team and accomplish their grander vision. If they don't even have enough credentials to get elected by stakeholders, then I guess they have to first build that reputation by contributing to the open source project for free.

If some devs have proven themselves (say through the above actions), they might have gained enough of a reputation to then launch their own competing DAC if they really wanted to take it along a different path. Ideally BitShares as a platform with Turing complete scripts would be flexible enough to allow them to accomplish their goals within the blockchain, but if for some reason their vision requires fundamental changes that are incompatible with BTS, then they have to launch their own chain. Their reputation can then allow them to get the necessary funding through an ICO, or if they don't want to deal with the legal issues with that, they could even snapshot BTS (and potentially other tokens) and still have enough strong hands who believe in their vision to not dump the genesis stake.

Your main points are again about not being able to secure funding and about technical superiority (my devs are smarter than your devs). I'm afraid your trapped in the paradigm of the "profitable DAC", which is not applicable in every situation. Doge did not ascend to the place it currently holds with any development or funding. If I say "no crypto can possibly succeed without fulfilling requirements A and B" and there is an existing crypto that is literally the polar opposite of requirements A and B, then I need to take a step back and think about what I am saying.

The requirements you've outlined are fine, and they may lead to a wildly successful DAC that meets a particular need or fulfills a particular application nicely. The problem I have is that you've closed your mind to the possibility that alternative business models exist and that you lose nothing by stopping this pointless battle against openness, competition, and diversity. Let me distill it for you again:

You believe:
1) PoW distribution is not the best method of allocation.
2) A DAC cannot succeed without a solid funding model.
3) A DAC cannot succeed without strong developers and technical superiority.

I believe:
1) Without diverging from the topic, most people in the crypto space disagree with you on point #1.
2) A good currency and sharedropping coin CAN succeed without technical superiority.
3) The most important attributes of this coin are: (i) fair distribution, (ii) strong scarcity (non-inflationary), (iii) efficiency and secuirty (DPOS).

Our views mostly differ on our marketing and business strategy. Both may work within a given niche or application. The difference is that I'm not railing against your idea saying that it will never work. Even worse, you have literally nothing to lose but everything to gain if I am right. Just a shame...

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
I see the old single-dac-chains as potentially having innovations that get 3rd party Devs recognized by SuperDACs (like BTS/Ethereum).  Is there a flaw to my logic here?  Why wouldn't 3rd party Devs want to develop on those smaller, less competitive DACs?

Well, for one, funding would likely be a bigger issue on the smaller, less competitive DACs. They either need to have earned a huge amount of money from an ICO to fund all the development they need, which we are slowly moving away from in favor of the dilution model, or they would need the stake of their DAC to have a high enough market cap to fund development (either by selling off some of their initial genesis stake or even better getting paid with stakeholder approval through dilution of the stake). If the market cap of the DAC is puny it will be too difficult to generate high enough salaries to pay the developers.

If the developers are creating technology that can bring value to BTS stakeholders, then it would be smart for the BTS stakeholders to pay those developers through BTS dilution (which they can afford to do because of a much higher market cap) to create the technology and add that value to BTS.

In this way, it would essentially be a way to lower barrier to entry for talented Devs who have no other way of proving themselves to a broader community.

If the devs hasn't proved themselves yet, then people probably wouldn't donate to an ICO to allow the devs to carry out their vision. They would also likely dump the stake that the devs generated through snapshots because of lack of confidence in the devs. A dev first needs to prove himself/herself. If they have some background that would make BTS stakeholders think they can actually pull it off, they can appeal to stakeholders and get hired as a developer paid for by BTS dilution. As they start proving themselves they can get paid more to grow their team and accomplish their grander vision. If they don't even have enough credentials to get elected by stakeholders, then I guess they have to first build that reputation by contributing to the open source project for free.

If some devs have proven themselves (say through the above actions), they might have gained enough of a reputation to then launch their own competing DAC if they really wanted to take it along a different path. Ideally BitShares as a platform with Turing complete scripts would be flexible enough to allow them to accomplish their goals within the blockchain, but if for some reason their vision requires fundamental changes that are incompatible with BTS, then they have to launch their own chain. Their reputation can then allow them to get the necessary funding through an ICO, or if they don't want to deal with the legal issues with that, they could even snapshot BTS (and potentially other tokens) and still have enough strong hands who believe in their vision to not dump the genesis stake.

« Last Edit: October 31, 2014, 02:44:58 am by arhag »

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile
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".

I've spent far too much time countering some of your "arguments" on a substantive level. This is probably the tenth post I've made in one of your threads over the last week or so. And yet you don't seem to get the fact that this community has moved past your efforts to divide. Once more: I support your efforts to resurrect PTS. But your divisive rhetoric is not welcome, yet you bring this up again and again. This could have been a team effort. Instead, it's going to be you and a couple of buddies. How good is the forum you created? Why aren't you having this debate on there instead of here? We've moved on. You clearly have not.

Offline fuzzy

Edit: Also you have somehow interpreted "3rd party developer" to mean only developers who have no vested stake in PTS/AGS. There are plenty of talented developers who are invested in PTS and AGS (I know many of them), and would be willing to try and build a new DAC if it were encouraged. If we position PTS properly we can gain a lot of traction from developers both inside and outside of our community.

I'll make these talented developers a few offers. They can either allocate the genesis stake 100% to PTS, OR 50% to PTS and 50% to AGS, OR 90% to BTS and 10% to themselves. Which do you think they are more likely to take?

If BTS has the greater network effect than PTS or AGS (which it is pretty much guaranteed to have) AND BTS holders are no more opposed to the developers' vision than PTS holders AND the developers own less than 10% of PTS/AGS (which I am fairly confident is true), the rational decision is to take the third offer.

So it all comes down to whether the BTS holders or PTS holders are more likely to dump the new DAC's stake. If the new DAC isn't competition against BTS, I see no reason why BTS holders would be more likely to dump than PTS holders. If it is competition, then you are basically saying people's purpose for holding PTS is to compete with BTS. The talented developers could certainly try to compete against BTS despite the much weaker network effect they inherit from PTS, but I would argue that if they are giving up strong network effect then they are more likely to realize their vision if they just do an ICO instead of snapshotting PTS. Or they might find that BTS holders are actually open to pay them (through BTS dilution) to realize their vision on the BitShares platform instead of competing with BTS.

I see the old single-dac-chains as potentially having innovations that get 3rd party Devs recognized by SuperDACs (like BTS/Ethereum).  Is there a flaw to my logic here?  Why wouldn't 3rd party Devs want to develop on those smaller, less competitive DACs?  Some "young" devs might even choose to work on specific forks of these single, basic chains and "merge" together (like voltron, pheonike) to make SuperDACs that compete with BTS and Ethereum. 

In this way, it would essentially be a way to lower barrier to entry for talented Devs who have no other way of proving themselves to a broader community.  I am ALL for diversification.  In fact, I hope someone will keep DNS chain alive and work on their own innovations with it.   
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
Edit: Also you have somehow interpreted "3rd party developer" to mean only developers who have no vested stake in PTS/AGS. There are plenty of talented developers who are invested in PTS and AGS (I know many of them), and would be willing to try and build a new DAC if it were encouraged. If we position PTS properly we can gain a lot of traction from developers both inside and outside of our community.

I'll make these talented developers a few offers. They can either allocate the genesis stake 100% to PTS, OR 50% to PTS and 50% to AGS, OR 90% to BTS and 10% to themselves. Which do you think they are more likely to take?

If BTS has the greater network effect than PTS or AGS (which it is pretty much guaranteed to have) AND BTS holders are no more opposed to the developers' vision than PTS holders AND the developers own less than 10% of PTS/AGS (which I am fairly confident is true), the rational decision is to take the third offer.

So it all comes down to whether the BTS holders or PTS holders are more likely to dump the new DAC's stake. If the new DAC isn't competition against BTS, I see no reason why BTS holders would be more likely to dump than PTS holders. If it is competition, then you are basically saying people's purpose for holding PTS is to compete with BTS. The talented developers could certainly try to compete against BTS despite the much weaker network effect they inherit from PTS, but I would argue that if they are giving up strong network effect then they are more likely to realize their vision if they just do an ICO instead of snapshotting PTS. Or they might find that BTS holders are actually open to pay them (through BTS dilution) to realize their vision on the BitShares platform instead of competing with BTS.

Offline .yoshi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 82
    • View Profile
hi AB, i can understand where you're coming, but i dont think the vision has changed. the timeline for implementing the vision has merely become more realistic

The way i see it, the old vision fragmented development of several products and pigeonholed the bitshares toolkit developers into working on their own projects in relative isolation. from what i can tell, the bitshares toolkit still requires some major development time, and realistically there are only a handful of developers alive that currently have the know how to do so.

 the old plan essentially dictated that key devs like Toast, HackFisher etc would have to stop developing the toolkit (which is critical to DAC industry growth) and work on their own projects. between coding, taking on the role of project manager, providing support for delegates and users, etc i cant imagine there would be any time left for them to help develop the toolkit. software development is rarely a one man job and for good reason imho

developing separate, competing DACs is a great idea (and inevitable if bitshares succeeds) but the infrastructure needs to be sufficient first

These two things are not mutually exclusive. I3 can do the merger and not stray from the "open" strategy. I am merely saying that I3 should "bless" the open platform strategy and convey it clearly. I outlined some simple bullet points that would be sufficient for doing so.

i totally agree, theyre not mutually exclusive. but i feel like i3 has completely embraced the open platform. sure they could do more, and i like your ideas, but have they changed course? absolutely not