Non-Bitcoinian Geometry

[Ben Mason]

Stan, I love your vision and the way you've encouraged this community to always question dogma.  Unless one knows everything, the search for truth and the constant re-examination of beliefs (no matter how firmly held) is illogical only logical.

No doubt there is Darwinism occurring as we speak......may the most agile & flexible minds bring forth the most wonderful & inspiring technologies.

Edit required for a rather important correction....

[xeroc]

Stop!  Red Flags!  Are you saying that we should do away with the current bitshares distribution and make one that accommodates large investors?  So give BTS owners only 20% in the new stake and 80% for the new chain to new partners? This was my greatest fear wit cryptomex.

He did NOT!

Being a natural rebel, and not having anything better to do one lazy Sunday afternoon, I stopped to ponder whether there were any similar postulates worth violating in Unified Bitcoin Theory.  You know, something that would make me famous and hated and rich!

He was only giving some hints to what others may do to achieve a different goal ..
By now circumstance will CNX fork BTS and change the distribution!

[Chuckone]

Non-Bitcoinian Geometry               

If we sacrifice broad token distributions, we can gain support from powerful investors and partners who are motivated by owning a bigger than average stake.

I know, I know.  "To be a valid currency, you need to have a wide distribution with no central concentrations of wealth or power." But not every block chain has to be an unbacked currency.  We seem to be OK with stadium builders having the rights to sell tickets to every seat. If you are going to back a ticket with a seat, why can't you back a token with an asset?  And why should you have to give those token-based rights to your assets away for free? 

Stop!  Red Flags!  Are you saying that we should do away with the current bitshares distribution and make one that accommodates large investors?  So give BTS owners only 20% in the new stake and 80% for the new chain to new partners? This was my greatest fear wit cryptomex.

Bitshares distribution won't change from what it is right now when migrating to 2.0

The only way for deep pockets to become large stakeholders is simply to buy more shares from weak hands. Which in turns can only be good for us, hodlers.

Edit: And I encourage any potential whale to significantly increase their position. We need long term whales, badly.

[topcandle]

Non-Bitcoinian Geometry               

If we sacrifice broad token distributions, we can gain support from powerful investors and partners who are motivated by owning a bigger than average stake.

I know, I know.  "To be a valid currency, you need to have a wide distribution with no central concentrations of wealth or power." But not every block chain has to be an unbacked currency.  We seem to be OK with stadium builders having the rights to sell tickets to every seat. If you are going to back a ticket with a seat, why can't you back a token with an asset?  And why should you have to give those token-based rights to your assets away for free? 

Stop!  Red Flags!  Are you saying that we should do away with the current bitshares distribution and make one that accommodates large investors?  So give BTS owners only 20% in the new stake and 80% for the new chain to new partners? This was my greatest fear wit cryptomex.

[topcandle]

This might work just like Flat Earth Theory stopped most of mankind from discovering the New World. 

Just to correct, no one (with any education) believed the earth was flat, that myth was made up after the fact to ridicule the church.

Actually, they had correctly calculated the circumference of the earth, and everyone thought Columbus would run out of supplies 1/3 of the way through his journey, but Columbus thought the earth was 1/3 the size it actually is. Lucky for him he ran into an unknown continent.

(Kindof like how we ran out of money 1/3 of the way through and luckily ran into paid delegates and cryptonomex funding).

Yeah stop perpetuating myths. 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

[Permie]

My interpretation of this post is that BitShares can spread it's tendrils into as many markets as possible and profit and educate the people of each market about the benefits of freedom.

If BTS was forbidden to cooperate with 'big-business-bad-guys' then the billions of people who participate in those markets will never see the escape-opportunity BTS provides.
The valuations of Facebook, Snapchat and Whatsapp demonstrate that the value of a social product is in it's userbase, the Network Effect.
You can't convert a customer if they never see your product or principles, so BTS needs to infiltrate markets that do not share the principles of freedom and then convert them with the efficiency and ease-of-use of a free market.

[Stan]

It very early here and im not sure im quite catching stan's drift as yet. However, i think you are implying adjusting to accommodate the needs and wants of financial institutions and using them as a means to a greater end. Whilst my initial instinct is to not get in bed with the devil, i can see that if you're even going to win the war it going to be in baby steps rather than one decisive blow. Hence its ultimately in our best interest to work with them as a means to a greater goal. Agreed.

Can we discuss this on the mumble?

Yes.  I will try to bring this up for you in Mumble if you are not in attendance to do so yourself.  If you are--knock it out of the park.  But remember this will be a question for Stan!

Rats.  I'm on the road today during the Mumble.

[Stan]

How would that apply to Bitshares??

Most of these questions don't apply to BitShares - it's rules are now in concrete.

But BitShares is an example of what can be achieved by challenging old rules to identify new opportunities in the industry.

[Stan]

Most of this OP was saying that there may be lots of new markets for new block chains with new assumptions.

BitShares achieved new heights, in part, because it set aside several sacred Bitcoin "truths".

What other opportunities might be discoverable if we deliberately challenge other such "truths"?

This was mostly a challenge to folks (on other forums, of course) who critique new ideas as being dangerously outside the box they were taught to stay inside -- back in Bitcoin Grammar School.

These were just a few examples off the top of my head.  What other such dogmatic Axioms did I miss?

[santaclause102]

As I reminded other people before , mining is not 100% waste .

The biggest promotion for bitcoin come from mining machine producers and big miners .

The deep market depth for bitcoin come from mining machine producers and big miners , because they want to sustain the mining business for a long time and actually care if bitcoin lives or dies , for the simple reason that they've invested too much equipment and investment in it .

For machine producers and big miners , if Bitcoin dies , they will suffer great lost . so they have more incentive to keep bitcoin alive . For delegates of bitshares . if BTS dies , they will simply lose a job .

So , what do you think big miners would do ? Promote bitcoin , sustain the market depth ....... At least that's how it works with the big ones .

I know big miners would take out a bank loan to avoid selling Bitcoin at a very disturbing price , would BTS delegates do that ? I highly doubt it .

Without mining , there will be zero those "resource" for bitcoin to begin with .

You can watch the market depth of Doge coin , it's 10 times deeper than BTS , especially since the "merge mining " thing with LTC . Because now LTC miners has incentive to sustain Doge coin as part of their business . This is a perfect example of how mining created a " interest group" that makes the coin harder to die . Of course , ,it has to be the right group . XPM miners can't do that .

So I think the one thing that BTS is lack of right now , is a interest group --------- A group with great power/resources , and would suffer enormous lost if BTS fails or its price drops , and they can't simply say "oops , I can find another job at ....." or "oops , I can sell BTS and buy other coins ".   What do we have to offer such a group ? That's what we should think about more .

Good points!!   +5%

The interest group interested in the success of Bitshares are BTS holders. They also can't just sell their stake in BTS if they are big enough and the market is too illiquid like right now. This interest group (compared to miners) doesn't have to continuously exhaust resources but still has an interest in Bitshares. But you bring up some excellent points. You might be interested in this discussion: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,17696.0.html

@Stan

If we sacrifice broad token distributions, we can gain support from powerful investors and partners who are motivated by owning a bigger than average stake.

How would that apply to Bitshares??

[fuzzy]

It very early here and im not sure im quite catching stan's drift as yet. However, i think you are implying adjusting to accommodate the needs and wants of financial institutions and using them as a means to a greater end. Whilst my initial instinct is to not get in bed with the devil, i can see that if you're even going to win the war it going to be in baby steps rather than one decisive blow. Hence its ultimately in our best interest to work with them as a means to a greater goal. Agreed.

Can we discuss this on the mumble?

Yes.  I will try to bring this up for you in Mumble if you are not in attendance to do so yourself.  If you are--knock it out of the park.  But remember this will be a question for Stan!

[xeroc]

Did you guys know that a student of the great Pythagoras was drowned by his teacher because he wanted to introduce irrational numbers? Hope @Stan can swim :P

[rgcrypto]

This might work just like Flat Earth Theory stopped most of mankind from discovering the New World.

As you can see below, circumnavigation is possible on the flat earth.


If your brain scream right now, you might just have hit one of those untouchable axiom Stan is talking about.


So...what's up with the U.N Flag? A flat earth careful divided into 33 parts like a bullseye?
That's smells fishy...

;)


Moral of the Story? Question your axioms and test EVERYTHING.

[btswildpig]

As I reminded other people before , mining is not 100% waste .

The biggest promotion for bitcoin come from mining machine producers and big miners .

The deep market depth for bitcoin come from mining machine producers and big miners , because they want to sustain the mining business for a long time and actually care if bitcoin lives or dies , for the simple reason that they've invested too much equipment and investment in it .

For machine producers and big miners , if Bitcoin dies , they will suffer great lost . so they have more incentive to keep bitcoin alive . For delegates of bitshares . if BTS dies , they will simply lose a job .

So , what do you think big miners would do ? Promote bitcoin , sustain the market depth ....... At least that's how it works with the big ones .

I know big miners would take out a bank loan to avoid selling Bitcoin at a very disturbing price , would BTS delegates do that ? I highly doubt it .

Without mining , there will be zero those "resource" for bitcoin to begin with .

You can watch the market depth of Doge coin , it's 10 times deeper than BTS , especially since the "merge mining " thing with LTC . Because now LTC miners has incentive to sustain Doge coin as part of their business . This is a perfect example of how mining created a " interest group" that makes the coin harder to die . Of course , ,it has to be the right group . XPM miners can't do that .

So I think the one thing that BTS is lack of right now , is a interest group --------- A group with great power/resources , and would suffer enormous lost if BTS fails or its price drops , and they can't simply say "oops , I can find another job at ....." or "oops , I can sell BTS and buy other coins ".   What do we have to offer such a group ? That's what we should think about more .

[mike623317]

It very early here and im not sure im quite catching stan's drift as yet. However, i think you are implying adjusting to accommodate the needs and wants of financial institutions and using them as a means to a greater end. Whilst my initial instinct is to not get in bed with the devil, i can see that if you're even going to win the war it going to be in baby steps rather than one decisive blow. Hence its ultimately in our best interest to work with them as a means to a greater goal. Agreed.

Can we discuss this on the mumble?