Stan - Bitcoin is not the gold, it's an investment account - Marketing

[gamey]

Anyone?

If and when someone makes a web-client we'll know the feature set is there.

Honestly the problem with this sort of thing is the centralized nature of it.  It is likely very hard to avoid regulations so that really limits who would run such a thing.  So while the software might be doable, no one will want to host it.  Sending an email to Itnom of Bitsaphhire might give more clues.

This is largely conjecture though.  Money transmitter laws are such a ridiculous thing.

[sumantso]

I think you are over selling the desire for bitBTC by BTC holders.  They have a digital currency, they don't need a derivative of their digital currency.  BTC is basically the cash of the crypto-world.  Putting it into bitBTC doesn't strike me as a strong selling point.

Maybe you will turn out to be right, but there is no harm in trying. The reason is that there is much less infrastructure needed to be built, we just need a light BTC wallet which also supports BitBTC, and a few exchanges offering BitBTC/BTC pair. Let see how that turns out.

[hpenvy]

Anyone?

[hpenvy]

There's some disagreements on the exact features of the end product, however, it sounds like we're all on the page that it's a good idea to promote a Bitcoin wallet that provides interest.

What are our next steps?
Will official marketing get on board?
Do we need to create a bounty for development?
Who do we need to talk to?

This approach goes beyond just the Bitcointalk type personality, it extends to every publication (Wired, NYT, WSJ) that covers Bitcoin but rarely mentions any alternatives.

[Xeldal]

It doesn't matter which is the greater value proposition(BTC or USD), all options would be available.  Of course more people use USD than BTC, but more people currently use crypto BTC than crypto USD, and nobody has a decentralized way to hedge BTC. 

This wallet would specifically target bitcoin users.  Its not the only bitshares wallet, and certainly not the primary bitshares wallet.  Its a bitcoin wallet that you can hedge in anyway you like, or if you're die hard bitcoin, you can at the very least capture 5% on your hodl.

the appeal is similar to inputs.io and coinlenders, if you remember them.  where you could earn close to 30% interest on your bitcoins if you locked them in a CD or less just by holding them in their wallet, only they were centralized and obviously vulnerable to attack as they lost everything.  This wallet would offer far more diverse hedging options in a decentralized user controlled way. 

There's already a large group of people who already use bitcoin, it would not be a hard sell.  You wouldn't have to explain anything.  If its popular, now you have a grass roots army of bitcoin(powered by bitshares) evangelists. 

Bottom line, if its not too difficult to make a simple lightweight client like this.  Why wouldn't you?  It seems to me, an easy way to leverage the existing bitcoin userbase.  And at the time when bitshares is accepted everywhere, this wallet would still work and you could use bitUSD or whatever you like for all your purchases etc. (advanced setting | 'Change Focus=>bitUSD' |)

I think you are over selling the desire for bitBTC by BTC holders.  They have a digital currency, they don't need a derivative of their digital currency.  BTC is basically the cash of the crypto-world.  Putting it into bitBTC doesn't strike me as a strong selling point.

I think we would start to muddy up the marketing message of such a site.  Perhaps as a later feature, but I still think the interaction between bitUSD and bts to be of a lot more value.  bitBTC is more for people who are already in the bitshares world and want it to hedge, not people who are in btc.

Its not solely about bitBTC, and is not the primary selling point.   Its a bitcoin wallet with ALL the functionality of bitshares. 

bitBTC is the LEAST this wallet could do, it not the focal point.

The point is with this wallet, as a BTC holder.  I can now, without trusting any centralized exchange or wallet provider, transmute my coins into any number of assets as a hedge or purely for speculation and earn interest at the same time.   And as a baseline, its everything my previous bitcoin wallet was only now I can earn interest on my bitcoin as well.  (again, as a BASELINE, the LEAST significant aspect)

Its essentially a bitshares wallet under the hood.  By making the focus by default, a bitcoin wallet, it appeals to the vast majority of existing crypto users.

I should probably say it again.  bitBTC is a miniscule portion of the functionality of this wallet. It serves merely as a baseline feature, where even if you didn't want/need any of the other astounding features, at the very least you can earn some percentage on your bitcoin just for using this wallet. 

The wallet wouldn't require any explination/introduction or even a mention of bitshares or bitANYTING ... the wallet simply works  ....oh and look its "powered by bitshares"  whats bitshares?  it doesn't matter.

[gamey]

It doesn't matter which is the greater value proposition(BTC or USD), all options would be available.  Of course more people use USD than BTC, but more people currently use crypto BTC than crypto USD, and nobody has a decentralized way to hedge BTC. 

This wallet would specifically target bitcoin users.  Its not the only bitshares wallet, and certainly not the primary bitshares wallet.  Its a bitcoin wallet that you can hedge in anyway you like, or if you're die hard bitcoin, you can at the very least capture 5% on your hodl.

the appeal is similar to inputs.io and coinlenders, if you remember them.  where you could earn close to 30% interest on your bitcoins if you locked them in a CD or less just by holding them in their wallet, only they were centralized and obviously vulnerable to attack as they lost everything.  This wallet would offer far more diverse hedging options in a decentralized user controlled way. 

There's already a large group of people who already use bitcoin, it would not be a hard sell.  You wouldn't have to explain anything.  If its popular, now you have a grass roots army of bitcoin(powered by bitshares) evangelists. 

Bottom line, if its not too difficult to make a simple lightweight client like this.  Why wouldn't you?  It seems to me, an easy way to leverage the existing bitcoin userbase.  And at the time when bitshares is accepted everywhere, this wallet would still work and you could use bitUSD or whatever you like for all your purchases etc. (advanced setting | 'Change Focus=>bitUSD' |)

I think you are over selling the desire for bitBTC by BTC holders.  They have a digital currency, they don't need a derivative of their digital currency.  BTC is basically the cash of the crypto-world.  Putting it into bitBTC doesn't strike me as a strong selling point.

I think we would start to muddy up the marketing message of such a site.  Perhaps as a later feature, but I still think the interaction between bitUSD and bts to be of a lot more value.  bitBTC is more for people who are already in the bitshares world and want it to hedge, not people who are in btc.

[Xeldal]

Need an integrated wallet which uses only BitBTC along with BTC.

Hedging btc by using bitBTC and the 5% yield is not going to be particularly important when it swings that much daily it seems.  So what are your thoughts on  the value here ?

Its a stealth attack. We want to put it into the heads that BitBTC is interchangeable with BTC, and with the advantages it provides (speed, yield, anonymity) might capture a part of the BTC use.

BTS came in a direct competitor, made the Bitcoin community angry and defensive. BitUSD aims for a slightly different userbase, and also has a higher barrier to entry as a lot of infrastructure is needed in place. BitBTC, on the other hand can be marketed as something which makes using BTC easier, and the target would be a community who are not that finicky about user experience and would be willing to meet half way.

The value proposition for bitUSD seems far greater than the value proposition for bitBTC.  bitBTC is more like a toy people can hedge with to be frank. 

I do agree about needing to making bridges with BTC.  I used Proof of Waste in some of the original wiki writings. I removed it because it was too divisive at the time.  (IIRC)  I am not sure it is a good idea to use it all the time either.  How I expect people to respond is not how most people are.  They just push back psychologically.  So..  we definitely need to not draw a line between the 2 projects.

It doesn't matter which is the greater value proposition(BTC or USD), all options would be available.  Of course more people use USD than BTC, but more people currently use crypto BTC than crypto USD, and nobody has a decentralized way to hedge BTC. 

This wallet would specifically target bitcoin users.  Its not the only bitshares wallet, and certainly not the primary bitshares wallet.  Its a bitcoin wallet that you can hedge in anyway you like, or if you're die hard bitcoin, you can at the very least capture 5% on your hodl.

the appeal is similar to inputs.io and coinlenders, if you remember them.  where you could earn close to 30% interest on your bitcoins if you locked them in a CD or less just by holding them in their wallet, only they were centralized and obviously vulnerable to attack as they lost everything.  This wallet would offer far more diverse hedging options in a decentralized user controlled way. 

There's already a large group of people who already use bitcoin, it would not be a hard sell.  You wouldn't have to explain anything.  If its popular, now you have a grass roots army of bitcoin(powered by bitshares) evangelists. 

Bottom line, if its not too difficult to make a simple lightweight client like this.  Why wouldn't you?  It seems to me, an easy way to leverage the existing bitcoin userbase.  And at the time when bitshares is accepted everywhere, this wallet would still work and you could use bitUSD or whatever you like for all your purchases etc. (advanced setting | 'Change Focus=>bitUSD' |)

[sumantso]

Yet another thread where they backslap each other and feel great about their PoW https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=860194.0

No point confronting them and waiting them to change their viewpoint. Let NXT and others soften them up. We merely creep in through BitBTC and make them start using it. Just position it as a tech which makes using BTC easier. Arbitrage traders, for starters will find this useful to transfer BTC across exchanges quickly.

Btw, Vitalik seems to be leaning away from PoW. Good work, BM

[gamey]

Need an integrated wallet which uses only BitBTC along with BTC.

Hedging btc by using bitBTC and the 5% yield is not going to be particularly important when it swings that much daily it seems.  So what are your thoughts on  the value here ?

Its a stealth attack. We want to put it into the heads that BitBTC is interchangeable with BTC, and with the advantages it provides (speed, yield, anonymity) might capture a part of the BTC use.

BTS came in a direct competitor, made the Bitcoin community angry and defensive. BitUSD aims for a slightly different userbase, and also has a higher barrier to entry as a lot of infrastructure is needed in place. BitBTC, on the other hand can be marketed as something which makes using BTC easier, and the target would be a community who are not that finicky about user experience and would be willing to meet half way.

The value proposition for bitUSD seems far greater than the value proposition for bitBTC.  bitBTC is more like a toy people can hedge with to be frank. 

I do agree about needing to making bridges with BTC.  I used Proof of Waste in some of the original wiki writings. I removed it because it was too divisive at the time.  (IIRC)  I am not sure it is a good idea to use it all the time either.  How I expect people to respond is not how most people are.  They just push back psychologically.  So..  we definitely need to not draw a line between the 2 projects.

[sumantso]

Need an integrated wallet which uses only BitBTC along with BTC.

Hedging btc by using bitBTC and the 5% yield is not going to be particularly important when it swings that much daily it seems.  So what are your thoughts on  the value here ?

Its a stealth attack. We want to put it into the heads that BitBTC is interchangeable with BTC, and with the advantages it provides (speed, yield, anonymity) might capture a part of the BTC use.

BTS came in a direct competitor, made the Bitcoin community angry and defensive. BitUSD aims for a slightly different userbase, and also has a higher barrier to entry as a lot of infrastructure is needed in place. BitBTC, on the other hand can be marketed as something which makes using BTC easier, and the target would be a community who are not that finicky about user experience and would be willing to meet half way.

[gamey]

Need an integrated wallet which uses only BitBTC along with BTC.

Hedging btc by using bitBTC and the 5% yield is not going to be particularly important when it swings that much daily it seems.  So what are your thoughts on  the value here ?

[sumantso]

Need an integrated wallet which uses only BitBTC along with BTC.

[hpenvy]

Yea, I was just thinking.  That is the nice thing about how using the qt-web or whatever it is.  We could release a wallet that basically just relies on a web based centralized type wallet for BTC.  There may even be centralized wallets that have APIs.  The problem is the Bitshares brand would be very tied into the security and rep of such a centralized system.  Otherwise such a solution is probably relatively easy to do (if there are bitcoin wallet sites with APIs).  THat still doesn't take care of the part where you move bitshares back and forth from BTC.  You need a real market or some peg.  I suppose price feeds would work.  Use the same keys on both chains. It seems doable to me but I haven't really thought about it.

Toast is working on the BTS side of an API.  This discussion to me is about getting a combo BTC wallet with a decent user experience that had value etc. 

Toast's work might actually lead to a combo wallet that is strictly web-based.  Hmmm.  That is probably best anyway, because then official bitshares wallet is never tied into a centralized third party.

Yes!

- This idea was about creating an offshoot web wallet (similar to what we'll see with the high risk merchants)
- I would never recommend the official client have this function

[gamey]

Yea, I was just thinking.  That is the nice thing about how using the qt-web or whatever it is.  We could release a wallet that basically just relies on a web based centralized type wallet for BTC.  There may even be centralized wallets that have APIs.  The problem is the Bitshares brand would be very tied into the security and rep of such a centralized system.  Otherwise such a solution is probably relatively easy to do (if there are bitcoin wallet sites with APIs).  THat still doesn't take care of the part where you move bitshares back and forth from BTC.  You need a real market or some peg.  I suppose price feeds would work.  Use the same keys on both chains. It seems doable to me but I haven't really thought about it.

Toast is working on the BTS side of an API.  This discussion to me is about getting a combo BTC wallet with a decent user experience that had value etc. 

Toast's work might actually lead to a combo wallet that is strictly web-based.  Hmmm.  That is probably best anyway, because then official bitshares wallet is never tied into a centralized third party.

[hpenvy]

I was reviewing the last Mumble session. BM mentioned that Toast was working on Bitcoin API type code, might be interesting to see how it could tie into this idea. 

[julian1]

a lightweight bitcoin implementation to have any chance of merging it with our wallet and having a positive user experience.  So... is this possible ?  blockchain.info?  Anything like that?  thoughts?

I would never have found bitcoin, if it wasn't for the ease of testing/experimenting with web-wallets and I'm a cli junkie.

There has to be a limited web-wallet in the pipe if only for the extra ability to generate exposure.

An article or placement covering Bitshares then links straight to the site, and the user is immediately confronted with send, deposit buttons (greyed out when unregistered), and a few of the most prestigious assets (USD, BTC, GOLD). They then wonder if this thing in front of them is novel/useful/amazing.

Bitshares. The front page of personal banking on the Internet!

[gamey]

Everything I hear has a marketing effort pushing towards non-BTC people.  I always said we had to rely on BTC people.  This isn't necessarily true if we have the proper infrastructure and marketing. 

That being said it seems like one area where other marketers are not involved with the current push is the BTC area.  I've heard nothing that leads me to believe this would overlap with current efforts, so that is one major concern removed.

Now developing the 2 wallets in parallel.  Hrmmm.. my thoughts.

I haven't looked at all the open source bitcoin node implementations, but I do know the reference Bitcoin client sucks bad.  This is because the blockchain is 20+ gigs with no pruning in sight from what I know.

So a naive implementor might say hey lets add bitcoin reference implementation.  It is either C or C++ and uses QT & boost (?).  It couldn't be thaaaaat hard.. (famous last words). 

The problem then becomes that the blockchain download hurts the user experience so much that we would require a lightweight bitcoin implementation to have any chance of merging it with our wallet and having a positive user experience.  So... is this possible ?  blockchain.info?  Anything like that?  thoughts?

[hpenvy]

There's no reason to try and replace bitcoin and we have more to gain by embracing and including bitcoin.   

....  "bitshares makes it better"

This comment above to me is key.  For those that are already glued to Bitcoin, let's show how we enhance the experience. For those markets that aren't directly tied to Bitcoin (such as high risk merchants), we can focus on the reoccurring payments and yield options.

Brian and Stan: What are your thoughts?

[sumantso]

For online-merchants (bitUSD) -> avoid recalculating prices everyday, instant confirmation, no chargebacks.

For Bitcoin (bitBTC) -> embrace ideology and terminology/memes - "to the moon" etc, extend, extinguish.

Positioning needs to be different for different end-users.

Thats what I felt. The focus has been too much on BitUSD, but BitBTC has a very different, and more ready market.

The best part is that BitBTC enhances Bitcoin, and so is not a competitor. BitBTC allows people to effectively use BTC with faster transaction times, anonymity and also earn interest.

[julian1]

For online-merchants (bitUSD) -> avoid recalculating prices everyday, instant confirmation, no chargebacks.

For Bitcoin (bitBTC) -> embrace ideology and terminology/memes - "to the moon" etc, extend, extinguish.

Positioning needs to be different for different end-users.

[hpenvy]

Bitcoin Wallet (powered by bitshares)  Transmute your coins and earn interest in Bitcoin, Gold, Oil, or USDollars.

Keeping bitcoin as the focus would be important to gain bitcoin purists interest without creating opposition or defensiveness.

Primarily as a bitcoin wallet, you wouldn't even need to mention BTS/bitUSD/bitBTC but that is how it works in the background.  They would still be able to send receive bitUSD etc but it wouldn't be billed as a bitshares wallet.  (perhaps an advanced feature where you could change the wallets 'Focus' from default-bitcoin to BTS or bitUSD etc)

In addition, once we have some automated BTC<>bitBTC transmutation, users of this wallet could then gain all the benefits of named accounts, faster confirmation times, lower transaction fees, etc. between BTC users of this wallet and not even realize they're using the bitshares network.

There's no reason to try and replace bitcoin and we have more to gain by embracing and including bitcoin.   

....  "bitshares makes it better"

Love it!

[Xeldal]

Bitcoin Wallet (powered by bitshares)  Transmute your coins and earn interest in Bitcoin, Gold, Oil, or USDollars.

Keeping bitcoin as the focus would be important to gain bitcoin purists interest without creating opposition or defensiveness.

Primarily as a bitcoin wallet, you wouldn't even need to mention BTS/bitUSD/bitBTC but that is how it works in the background.  They would still be able to send receive bitUSD etc but it wouldn't be billed as a bitshares wallet.  (perhaps an advanced feature where you could change the wallets 'Focus' from default-bitcoin to BTS or bitUSD etc)

In addition, once we have some automated BTC<>bitBTC transmutation, users of this wallet could then gain all the benefits of named accounts, faster confirmation times, lower transaction fees, etc. between BTC users of this wallet and not even realize they're using the bitshares network.

There's no reason to try and replace bitcoin and we have more to gain by embracing and including bitcoin.   

....  "bitshares makes it better"

[sumantso]

Why not just promote BitBTC? 'BTC with interest'

"novel product that bridges between the familiar and the ground-breaking." - Stan

This plan is around the familiar.  It's the same thing they are doing right now, just adding the Bitshares checking/savings.  If that's not possible in one wallet, I see the bitBTC being another option.

Thing is in Crypto community BTC is positioned as a store of value. They even have nice term (born out of a drunken mistake) for it - HODL.

HODLing this BitBTC means earnings on their stores, and I think a better sell right now than BitUSD.

[hpenvy]

Why not just promote BitBTC? 'BTC with interest'

"novel product that bridges between the familiar and the ground-breaking." - Stan

This plan is around the familiar.  It's the same thing they are doing right now, just adding the Bitshares checking/savings.  If that's not possible in one wallet, I see the bitBTC being another option.

[sumantso]

Why not just promote BitBTC? 'BTC with interest'

[hpenvy]

Even if we decide not to pursue a dual wallet, I like the marketing angle when approaching Bitcoin supporters. 

Bitshares checking to Bitcoins investing (or savings)

[hpenvy]

Bitcoin users are living in a cult. They need to discover their own way out, without realizing they're being gently guided, else they'll feel antagonized and become suspicious of our intentions. 'Both is good' is awesome, because they immediately sense we're on their side.

I like what you said about not antagonizing. I don't even want to try to fight against the hardcore Bitcoin or nothing crowd. For every one of them that posts for hours each day on the well known forums, there's a large number of more moderate to casual users viewing the posts. Those are the users that would benefit from this approach almost immediately.  Bitcoin is great for speculation, we're not telling supporters they made a bad choice. We're showing them how their own product should be seen compared to better options for checkings/savings.

Nobody wants to be told their girlfriend is ugly.

I understand we're reaching out to markets outside of crypto. Heck, I'm one of the big supporters of high risk merchants like the adult industry.  I'm saying there's a way to get people that would help evangelize the product if we position it correctly. Let them help spread the Bitcoin wallet that pays yield. Their network effect benefits both of us.  I'd even recommend a landing page targeting the above. Reach out to ever reporter that's ever written a Bitcoin story in the last 6 months. Post on Bitcointalk Bitcoin sections, Reddit, Twitter, Facebook on and on.  Any merchant that's even remotely familiar with Bitcoin could understand how this solves a problem with volatility. 

Hey merchant (that already accepts Bitcoin), Bitcoin is a proven solution for investing. For your daily transactions, bitUSD .........

[julian1]

Bitcoin users are living in a cult. They need to discover their own way out, without realizing they're being gently guided, else they'll feel antagonized and become suspicious of our intentions. 'Both is good' is awesome, because they immediately sense we're on their side.

[hpenvy]

Anything that gets people to do a side-by-side comparison is good.

"A Bitcoin wallet that pays yield"  ...er, whaat?

Wow! Tell me this is something you guys have been considering. When I read your bank account/savings account post, I figured there was something behind it.

[Stan]

"Both" is good.  Combined checking-and-savings  or combined checking-and-investment or any other novel product that bridges between the familiar and the ground-breaking.

Anything that gets people to do a side-by-side comparison is good.

"A Bitcoin wallet that pays yield"  ...er, whaat?

... (Yes! Just use it to switch your BTC into a BitAsset for yield and then back to BTC to pay at the touch of a button.)

Then realize you never need to switch back.   

Training wheels!  Scaffolding! 

Entrepreneurs.  You can do this.  Everything is there but the glue!

[hpenvy]

This isn't a real suggestion, but just something to ponder.  Assume the development work wasn't super involved, would it make sense to put a legitimate BTC wallet alongside a BTS wallet? 

Assuming you could make the best BTC/BTS wallet..  would that even have value?  At first it strikes me as a good idea (if you don't consider resources required).  Or is it a bad idea?  If it was as good as any wallet, and you could give people something to use it.  Then once they are using the wallet, BTS onramp/offramp is integrated right there somehow?

Yup, we're on the same page with the onramp/offramps.  I don't think it even needs to be the best feature wise, rather, our user friendly entry into a more mainstream market. We're giving BTC a real context and help it combat the volatility criticisms by inserting our own products.  We talk about ourselves as equals solving a different problem.

Nobody wants to hear how bad Chevy sucks when they are driving a Ford.  In other markets, our marketing will be different and targeted.

[gamey]

This isn't a real suggestion, but just something to ponder.  Assume the development work wasn't super involved, would it make sense to put a legitimate BTC wallet alongside a BTS wallet? 

Assuming you could make the best BTC/BTS wallet..  would that even have value?  At first it strikes me as a good idea (if you don't consider resources required).  Or is it a bad idea?  If it was as good as any wallet, and you could give people something to use it.  Then once they are using the wallet, BTS onramp/offramp is integrated right there somehow?

[hpenvy]

UPDATE

I'm recommending a web wallet, not integration into the official client.



Stan, when you started talking about checking and savings account, that caught my attention. I've been beating my head against the wall trying to figure a way to pull in the moderate to casual Bitcoin user. You nailed it with BitUSD being the checking account and BTS is the savings account.  I would go one step further:

1. Forget 'Litecoin the Silver to Bitcoin’s Gold' the comparison should be 'BitUSD is the checking to Bitcoins investments' .  If you didn't like the breakdown, 'BitUSD is the checking to Bitcoin's savings'.
2. This gives a very easy message to the moderate to the casual Bitcoin holder.
3. The wallet allows for BTS, BitUSD and Bitcoin
4. The wallet is designed with few options and very user friendly

This allows us access to the different Bitcoin circles because it adds benefit to Bitcoin. The wallet hitting the mass market is what we're doing for Bitcoin.  The wallet is targeted away from cryptonerds and more for the causal user.  Litecoin plays little brother to Bitcoin with the silver references.  In our scenario, bitUSD takes it place as not a director competitor but something that is strong on its own and enhances Bitcoin.

If you want the investment and associated volatility, you'll work out of that tab of the wallet.  If you want to make day to day transaction, you will pull from your checking tab.

I know we're going after other markets such as high risk merchants, however, I feel there's value in aligning ourselves along giants to help our exposure and media blackout.