Author Topic: Article on btcgeek.com: Bitshares is Trying What MemoryCoin Did a Year Ago (to D  (Read 5112 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline btswildpig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1424
    • View Profile
LOL , one day they tell us Chinese hold all the coins , the next day they tell us Invictus hold all the coins .....

But this is also the reason why I said we need to pay attention on PR at this stage .  :o

You need 3 month to build reputation , and only take one day for someone to attack when they find it .

 ::)
« Last Edit: January 02, 2015, 03:27:08 am by btswildpig »
这个是私人账号,表达的一切言论均不代表任何团队和任何人。This is my personal account , anything I said with this account will be my opinion alone and has nothing to do with any group.

Offline eagleeye

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 931
    • View Profile

Offline Agent86

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 471
  • BTSX: agent86
    • View Profile
The big difference between BTS and MMC is approval voting.  Real time approval voting on the blockchain solves the "group trap" problem and allows blockchains to hire workers (or use delegates as workers) that are motivated to act in the best interest of the system as a whole instead of a smaller group of supporters.  Without this realization, "Self-funding DACs" and blockchain hiring doesn't work.   Without approval voting MMC hadn't solved the problem, which is why it was a disaster.

I still don't really agree with how we are doing things though and I would much rather see us separate workers from delegates and require over 50% approval (of "active stake") for workers to be elected… For instance, you could say that any stake that isn't voting for at least one delegate isn't considered active for the purpose of worker elections (voting for at least one delegate would be considered a basic shareholder duty because delegates are required for the network to function).  You can say stake that hasn't moved in a year isn't active and people could also voluntarily abstain.  I think a 50% threshold approval of active stake is achievable and worth achieving.


Offline Empirical1.1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile
Yeah I did say in this thread that it came to my attention MMC technically did it first, so we left ourselves open to a PR attack with that angle.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=12789.0

Centralisation of voting stake is something I've been keen to address too, specifically measures to keep less on the major exchanges and transparency wherever possible on general voting stakes as this is the obvious angle that will be played as BTS gains attention. A decentralised system responsible for voting for dilution to the tunes of millions of dollars will have to address these very issues more and more.

For the opposite and counter PR argument we only have to look at POW. Taken at the value when the coins were mined, LTC has paid miners over $80 million in 2014, for security that could be achieved for less than a few hundred thousand dollars and their blockchain hasn't been improved at all.

Other possible improvements..

1. Keep a comprehensive, publicised, updated list of all delegates on more than 3% with a short paragraph explaining the value they add to BTS.

2. Consider measuring delegate approval by % of claimed stake not total stake if that's not already the case?
« Last Edit: January 01, 2015, 09:08:22 pm by Empirical1.1 »

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
dritz3r, you received BTS from the last sharedrop to AGS and PTS. As a result you also received DVS.

Offline onceuponatime

Wow, is this some sort of PR attack by ethereum?

Possibly a PR attack by OP. He is a disgruntled investor. (See his only other post.)

The link will drive traffic to an otherwise obscure website (Got me and you to go there  ;) )
« Last Edit: January 01, 2015, 08:42:21 pm by onceuponatime »

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
Wow, is this some sort of PR attack by an ethereum investor?

Most of what they say is true and are real concerns, but not really a big deal long term. Then they basically fabricate a terrible lie: "As observers know, Bitshares is one of the most centralized serious cryptocurrency system in existence today, with (former) Invictus members holding most of the tokens."

A person who reads this with no prior exposure to bitshares will assume this is true and will have the idea that BTS has bad distribution influence all their impressions of bitshares. Terrible tactics.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2015, 08:31:14 pm by Rune »

Offline dritz3r

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 67
    • View Profile
"First person to get directly hired by a blockchain!” Sound futuristic? That’s what one of the lead developers of Bitshares, Nikolai, told Reddit. The reason it’s surprising is that this isn’t true, and the developer certainly knows it isn’t true"

http://btcgeek.com/bitshares-trying-memorycoin-year-ago-disastrous-ends/#comment-5396