New accounts last 24h:

[Riverhead]

Waiting for AAA?

[onceuponatime]

It was mentioned before but I feel compelled to say it again: NameNarWhal did NOTHING wrong. I have to counter svk's comments and others like his that imply he has done something bad. Moreover, it doesn't help to call people names like idiot.

 

I'd say that many of us have been doing what we can to make the sytem better for everyone,  often at considrable personal cost in time, money, attention. Conversely, I think Narwhal is trying to make the system worse for everyone else for a personal gain for himself.  I don't get any feeling at all that he is trying to enhance our project. Quite the contrary.

Is it wrong? Not legally I guess.

[Russ Hanneman]

[fav]

It was mentioned before but I feel compelled to say it again: NameNarWhal did NOTHING wrong. I have to counter svk's comments and others like his that imply he has done something bad. Moreover, it doesn't help to call people names like idiot.

 

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

When did we go from a community that wanted to see many flourishing, competing DACs to just wanting to see only one?

The future could well be an unbounded network of DACs all talking and interacting together.

I don't understand where this convo is going.

Stan already stated very clearly there are options for licensing and certain instances where it just makes sense.

Peertracks is now creating another chain.. so we are already going into 2.0 with more than one.

I think there is some kind of confusion over practical application for where another chain implementation makes sense, and the idealism of being able to do it out of some kind of protest.

The fact is that there is so much utility now to 2.0 that there are not a whole lot of use cases for why you would want to go to all the expense and difficulties of creating another and getting another dev team to work on it.

Perhaps in the early days because it was so under developed, the hope was that other devs would create other chains and a swarm of developers would make the whole of bitshares grow.. that was the ideal of the experiment.. result after all this time?

Experiment failed.

There was not enough devs and interest in the whole thing to make such a swarm and a bunch of innovation.

The 'ideal' sounds nice.. so does the equality of men and women, the elimination of all forms of prejudice, and universal language and education for all. But the practical delivery of realizing all these things is an uphill battle that only the few are willing to endure without some very clear huge payoff in the end. While the many will just go to paypal and watch from the sidelines.

I think you will continue to see multiple chains, there is just less reasons to go to so much trouble. 

[Riverhead]

I haven't read through all 11 pages of this so I apologize if someone already mentioned this:

Bitshares 2.0, or Graphene, is a different chain created by Cryptonomex. They're sales pitch to jump chains is to share drop 100% onto BTS holders and also have all of the core team. All well and good. The takeaway is that it's a new chain with new rules, etc. The names Narwhal has registered will still be alive and well on the BTS blockchain. Granted, that chain is going to be a ghost town until someone decides to pick it back up again to compete with Graphene, but the names will all be there safe and sound.

From what I understand Bitshares 2.0 is still in the proposal stages and things are changing. I don't think there is any sense of, "They closed all my accounts!" since they aren't closed; they're just on a dead chain. Granted it is effectively the same thing.

While I am not a fan of squatters that doesn't mean I have the right to unfairly punish them when they haven't broken any rules. However, if we want to get all nit picky and lawyery about it and say he hasn't done anything wrong because it wasn't coded out then my above paragraph is also true.

Frankly I don't care one way or the other. The best use case for BTS so far is as a backend protocol where no one sees the account names anyway. A simple (in concept) design change to separate account names from DNS names and that could be that.

If it was a thread about rolling back his account names on the BTS1 chain I'd be 100% against it for all the reasons mentioned in this thread. Given the upgrade situation things are a bit less cut and dry.

Carry on.

[starspirit]

When did we go from a community that wanted to see many flourishing, competing DACs to just wanting to see only one?

The future could well be an unbounded network of DACs all talking and interacting together.

[mint chocolate chip]

As for fuzzy's comment that suggests it is a simple matter to fork the BitShares code and deploy it, get supporters, get delegates voted into place and witnesses to buy VPS nodes around the world and get them running and producing blocks, hire developers and find a way to pay them I gotta ask, where have you been all year? You make it sound so easy. Do you think such a plan is even remotely feasible? C'mon!

Did I say somewhere it is easy to do?  Nope.

P.S.  If a 51% of the community makes a decision that 49% dislikes, it is quite easy for the 49% to simply fork and sharedrop in an inverse fashion (sharedrop of 51% for the minority holders in the other chain and 49% to the majority ones here) on the owners who voted with the minority.

[fuzzy]

As for fuzzy's comment that suggests it is a simple matter to fork the BitShares code and deploy it, get supporters, get delegates voted into place and witnesses to buy VPS nodes around the world and get them running and producing blocks, hire developers and find a way to pay them I gotta ask, where have you been all year? You make it sound so easy. Do you think such a plan is even remotely feasible? C'mon!

Did I say somewhere it is easy to do?  Nope. 

But just as with everything it could become easier over time as tools are constructed to accomplish it (of there is a need).  As much as I love bitshares, I do not want there to be only one badass chain like it because then we slowly gravitate right back to where we are today...only this time we are the "ruling elite" so we need to make sure multiple chains exist that take different paths philosophically. 

Do you really think that people are incapable of forking over issues that represent very big divides?   Do you think you could be a bit more respectful in how you give your response? I assure you I've been around all year and have been talking to multiple devs who are interested in making other dpos chains...

When did we go from a community that wanted to see many flourishing, competing DACs to just wanting to see only one?

[Tuck Fheman]

When do we start banning multiple account names on the forum??? Let's get a new thread going on that. All these sockpuppet accounts are being hoarded daily! Someone's obviously trying to corner teh market and it's causing people to get scammed (it could happen). One day, these forum name squatters will probably start selling these premium forum names and once they've proven the business model works, watch out world! We are going to be forum name spammed like it's 6-8-15!

[starspirit]

Just musing on the topic, what if -
- randomly allocated (and meaningless) IDs or aliases are provided by default at network cost (i.e. "free")
- user-defined account aliases all have a cost based on form, with pricing accounting for demand and scarcity.

[Methodise]

FFs.

I previously tried to register my own first name via the faucet, and the faucet swallowed the name. I lost that name.

Then, at 1:30 am on the 9th of June I scrambled to register approximately ten of my own current, active, trademarks, so as to avoid suffering any nasty 'prefix' junk. I chose to use my own BTS funds because:

I can fucking afford to pay my own fees; I don't need the faucet.

The faucet totally fucked up my registration of 'Harry' on the blockchain some months ago.

Please tell me I can keep my damn names. This deadline I'm hearing about the 8th - that got extended until the 17th? for Name Narwhal something... who registered $100 names using a faucet, sorry? 

A little consideration/advise would be appreciated. I had two perfectly decent reasons for not using a faucet, using the faucet wasn't the requirement.. I'm feeling quite tested by the arbitrary and frenetic rule rewriting. Bitshares and block chain appeal lies in permanence.

I'm not squatting. I was legitimately trying to safeguard my own business names. My surname.

[Tuck Fheman]

Posting on this forum to dismantle a competitive advantage is:
__________________(500BTS Bounty for best answer)_____________

__SNAFU__

[logxing]

I really don't get why everyone is being so nice towards this Narwhal character, he's an idiot who spammed the blockchain with useless account names hoping to one day profit from an even bigger idiot wanting to buy one of those useless account names. If it were up to me we'd just exclude his accounts from the migration but lucky for him I'm not in charge..

Squatters don't deserve any respect..

[Tuck Fheman]

Squatters don't deserve any respect..

<very long diatribe> ... </very long diatribe> 

such label. very wantrepreneur.