Estimated Price of 1 Bitshare

[Brent.Allsop]

Hi Dan,

Thanks for the feedback.  That helps.  And the following is just my current newbee opinion, so I would much enjoy any further feedback anyone may have.

Canonizer.com is just a small prototype, so yes, we haven't yet done much work to eliminate things like Sybil attack potentials.  But those kinds of things are fairly easy problems to solve.  For example Keyhotee IDs, integrated in the identity system would go a long way towards this, and there are other solutions.  It just hasn't been a problem or part of the minimum viable product yet.

Who the 'experts' are is determined by the users of Canonizer.com.  You do this by selecting the Canonizer algorithm on the side bar.  The goal is to give users the ability to configure, mix and match any canonizer algorithm they like.  The most popular 'expert' canonizers are the 'peer ranking' ones.  For example, all the "Mind Experts" are peer ranking each other for that Canonizer.  See: http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/81 .  Canponizer.com is all about enabling everyone to recognize and trust the minority best experts as soon as possible.  It's about providing information to the experts and leaders about what the lagging crowd is still thinking, and why, and most importantly what will be required to convince them, so they can be more rapidly brought on board with the right thing to do.  That which you can measure, improves.

The goal of Canonizer.com isn't to get to any "Truth".  One goal is simply to enable large crowds to politely communicate, concisely and quantitatively, about controversial and painful topics.  With Canonizer.com Instead of heated debates, edit wars, and flame threads people just join and help wiki a camp, end of argument.  The nature of forums that talk about consciousness or any other controversial topic dramatically changes once Canonizer.com is introduced.  The crowd finally starts making progress instead of just eternal demoralizing arguments that drive everyone away.  Diversity in the crowd can then be valued and drive things forward instead of feared because it always drives everyone apart.

Canonizer.com is the most powerful consensus building system out there.  No matter how much agreement people have, they always find less important things to disagree and focus on.  Everyone gets hurt, nothing gets done and consensus is destroyed.  But Canonizer.com completely avoids this problem by enabling such lesser issues to be pushed out of the way to lower sub camps, where they are not lost or censored.  Such is valued, concisely and quantitatively measured.  This enables the focus to remain on what is most important, what everyone needs to be on board, and what the consensus needs to be about so the crowd can move forward and act, decisively and quickly.

As things progress, the more this crypto currency war will depend on the intelligence and agility of the competing currencies.  Dumb currencies that can't change will be weeded out very quickly when faced with currencies able to act more intelligently and rapidly.  Hierarchically managed currencies will be more intelligent, but the intelligence of any hierarchy is an extreme bottleneck, to say nothing of how this crowd will reject any such.  Leaders that aren't interested in knowing, concisely, quantitatively, and in real time, what everyone wants, will make many more mistakes driving away ever more potential supporters.

Right now, there are lots of people that think that a dumb hard coded can't change rate of introduction of the currency into the economy is a good thing.  So all those people will tend to flock to dumb flash in the pan currencies, avoiding more intelligent and agile ones able to make such drastic changes.  My prediction is that many currencies will continue to flash, crash and burn, with the holders of such loosing lots of money, till the crowd recognized the importance of intelligent and agile currencies.

Intelligent people will flock to the currencies that will win, long term, and make lots of money doing so.  Currencies that are able to attract and help amplify the wisdom of their holders in a consensus building leaderless way will do far better than the short term flash in the pan losers.  And if a currency can amplify and leverage that wisdom, to be far more intelligent than any hierarchy.  If a currency can train it's potential holders to build consensus and learn from and trust the wisdom of the crowd, faster and more completely than the holders of its competitors, Such a currency will ultimately be the final winner, easily blowing away all less intelligent competitors.

Upwards,

Brent Allsop

[bytemaster]

I hear and understand all the pros for removing uncertainty.

But don't forget that you'll have troubles motivating people to get involved in a test that doesn't count.  I'd have troubles getting motivated to be involved, and there is no way it would be anywhere close to the real thing test.

Another problem is, if one person makes the decision to start all over, you'll surely make some people mad, and lose their trust, and possibly their participation.

If you used a canonization survey process to find out, concisely and quantitatively, what everyone thinks, and let everyone provide input if they wanted, all crowd sourcing informing an expert decision of whether you should restart, or not, you could not only find out concisely and quantitatively, just how many people you'll piss off, and why, but you'll significantly reduce the number of people that would be pissed off, because everyone would better know, sooner, why a particular decision was being made.

Heck, it may take more than one restart to get things right.  And if the entire crowd agrees that a 3rd restart was better for everyone, making such a decision would be all the more easy.

Your process is very similar to a company I tried to start many moons ago.  The problem is that the process used by canonizer is not conductive to human nature.  I would suggest that less than 1 in 100 people would even consider using such a structured debate system because the reality is that most people don't care to find the "truth".   Most experts have financial ties to their current 'camps' and cannot change.  Cognitive Dissonance and Double Think apply to experts too and thus make the results from Canonizer questionable.   Canonizer is also subject to Sybil attacks and who gets to declare themselves an 'expert'? 

If you want 'expert consensus' that is what markets are for. 

[Stan]

I hear and understand all the pros for removing uncertainty.

But don't forget that you'll have troubles motivating people to get involved in a test that doesn't count.  I'd have troubles getting motivated to be involved, and there is no way it would be anywhere close to the real thing test.

Another problem is, if one person makes the decision to start all over, you'll surely make some people mad, and lose their trust, and possibly their participation.

If you used a canonization survey process to find out, concisely and quantitatively, what everyone thinks, and let everyone provide input if they wanted, all crowd sourcing informing an expert decision of whether you should restart, or not, you could not only find out concisely and quantitatively, just how many people you'll piss off, and why, but you'll significantly reduce the number of people that would be pissed off, because everyone would better know, sooner, why a particular decision was being made.

Heck, it may take more than one restart to get things right.  And if the entire crowd agrees that a 3rd restart was better for everyone, making such a decision would be all the more easy.

An even simpler approach is to let the market decide.  When any developer offers any upgrade the market always has the option of sticking with what they've got.  To smooth the transition, initialize the upgrade to match the last valid share distribution then get out of the way.

No artificial polling is required.  We have a free market!

[Brent.Allsop]

I hear and understand all the pros for removing uncertainty.

But don't forget that you'll have troubles motivating people to get involved in a test that doesn't count.  I'd have troubles getting motivated to be involved, and there is no way it would be anywhere close to the real thing test.

Another problem is, if one person makes the decision to start all over, you'll surely make some people mad, and lose their trust, and possibly their participation.

If you used a canonization survey process to find out, concisely and quantitatively, what everyone thinks, and let everyone provide input if they wanted, all crowd sourcing informing an expert decision of whether you should restart, or not, you could not only find out concisely and quantitatively, just how many people you'll piss off, and why, but you'll significantly reduce the number of people that would be pissed off, because everyone would better know, sooner, why a particular decision was being made.

Heck, it may take more than one restart to get things right.  And if the entire crowd agrees that a 3rd restart was better for everyone, making such a decision would be all the more easy.

[sumantso]

So why say that "maybe we will make a new snapshot" at all? You might as well commit to that snapshot and re-launch the chain with the same allocation if anything breaks

Thats an interesting idea and will remove a lot of uncertainity in investors minds. I created a topic in the AGS board with the title which includes 'may'. What I realised in the AGS board is that investors are already confused enough.

But I guess there may be a problem with the snapshot itself? In that case a new one has to be taken anyway.

[toast]

So why say that "maybe we will make a new snapshot" at all? You might as well commit to that snapshot and re-launch the chain with the same allocation if anything breaks

[bytemaster]

2. It will be more important that the product publicized to the public is working properly and is secure. A public scandal will be the worst possible outcome.

yes, this !

According to dan's last update he should have consensus mechanism done by the end of this week which means it's *possible* we'll have an MVP with time to try to break it before feb ~20 but the thought of the masses buying in only to find shit doesn't work as advertised is a bad thought and makes me nervous

The snapshot date is not the launch date.  We will hold of the launch if there are still bugs, but we want to make it clear that the XT network is supposed to be a test network with a high probability of finding bugs.  Anyone who holds AGS and PTS for the long haul will be in good shape, the only people that might get burned are the day traders.

[toast]

2. It will be more important that the product publicized to the public is working properly and is secure. A public scandal will be the worst possible outcome.

yes, this !

According to dan's last update he should have consensus mechanism done by the end of this week which means it's *possible* we'll have an MVP with time to try to break it before feb ~20 but the thought of the masses buying in only to find shit doesn't work as advertised is a bad thought and makes me nervous

[CLains]

We made it pretty public in Miami... Dan even interrupted happy hour to announce it.

 

As big as the event was it is still an insider kind of thing until it reaches a news site like Coindesk. Hopefully it reaches a wider audience with the upcoming Let's Talk Bitcoin episode!
With fans like Reggie Middleton and Adam B. Levine you can reach a great mass of people in no time.

[Stan]

Good work Brent.Allsop!

I agree with you that Invictus needs to get the word out lest they be accused of secrecy like NXT was. The NXT cloning that is currently going on is clearly in the spirit of spite against the percieved secrecy of the initial funding.

To avoid this Invictus needs to inform everyone about the time and date of the snapshot, as it may be the official one for Bitshares X.

At least 10 days in advance there should be:
News articles at coindesk and related cryptocurrency news outlets.
Huge threads at Bitcointalk.org,  NXT forums, and other major forums.
...

As Brent points out, this need not be a propaganda campaign. We just need to inform people that this is the first Test Chain, and that it may be the official Chain, and that help is appreciated, and that this is how you get involved, etc.


Arguments against Brent and myself:

1. It won't be the last Bitshares chain, as Invictus will keep releasing new chains and keep rewarding PTS/AGS holders with a stake. People don't miss out on a "final" everything.

2. It will be more important that the product publicized to the public is working properly and is secure. A public scandal will be the worst possible outcome.

...

We made it pretty public in Miami... Dan even interrupted happy hour to announce it.

 

[CLains]

Good work Brent.Allsop!

I agree with you that Invictus needs to get the word out lest they be accused of secrecy like NXT was. The NXT cloning that is currently going on is clearly in the spirit of spite against the percieved secrecy of the initial funding.

To avoid this Invictus needs to inform everyone about the time and date of the snapshot, as it may be the official one for Bitshares X.

At least 10 days in advance there should be:
News articles at coindesk and related cryptocurrency news outlets.
Huge threads at Bitcointalk.org,  NXT forums, and other major forums.
...

As Brent points out, this need not be a propaganda campaign. We just need to inform people that this is the first Test Chain, and that it may be the official Chain, and that help is appreciated, and that this is how you get involved, etc.


Arguments against Brent and myself:

1. It won't be the last Bitshares chain, as Invictus will keep releasing new chains and keep rewarding PTS/AGS holders with a stake. People don't miss out on a "final" everything.

2. It will be more important that the product publicized to the public is working properly and is secure. A public scandal will be the worst possible outcome.

...

[Brent.Allsop]

Folks,

I've created a new "What is the best currency" survey topic camp for Invictus Innovations Bitshares:

http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/150/7

And I've started a publicly editable wiki Google doc to produce the first draft of a statement:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GGswp7QM7GgCLxMkjBxlmP82_qK5ct-LIcb1WpqVWCU/edit?usp=sharing

and seeded it with a few of the crude ideas that make it one of the best currencies for me.

I'm hopping some of you experts can help significantly improve the first version of the statement.

And I hope more of you will support the camp at Canonizer.com so we can communicate to the world the significance of this.

Brent Allsop

[Markus]

[…]  Not only are there drastically fewer Bitshares, […]

If you think it is important where the decimal mark is I suggest 42coin. They are quite expensive though, one trades at 250 000 USD.

[Brent.Allsop]

Exactly... we will not start our major marketing push until we have it battle hardened.

Marketing and advertizing is very different than communication done in a peer reviewed, level playing field place like canonizaer.com.

If Ether is shit, and Bitshares are way better than Bitcoin, people need to know, concisely and quantitatively, how many people think this, and they need to know, concisely and quantitatively, how many people think differently, and they need to be able to track this consensus information in real time.  And people need to be able to invest in the right organization, not the wrong one, significantly increasing the efficiency and the speed of development of this market.

At least that's my Newbie opinion.

[Brent.Allsop]

Ethereum is an interesting academic exercise and a great way for people to explore the DAC space, but anything worthwhile that can be made into a "true" DAC will be cloned, made more profitable and scalable, and made to honor PTS =D

Shit, I just saw this:

"0.5X ether will be mined per year forever after that point (ie. permanent linear inflation)"

That's a 50% per year tax on the holders of Either, right?  I see more and more of these kinds of dumb things being done by that group, and they are loosing my trust, fast.  Nobody is going to want to pay that tax rate.  Why would they?

Also, the fact that Vitalic was involved in the "Dark Wallet", really destroys my trust.  We need to be as open as possible, and have a mantra that everyone know everything, if you ask me.  Dan Laramer, and Invictus Innovations is more open than any other organization I've seen, that's another reason I'm loving this camp better and better.

But yes BTS blows all altcoins out of the water, the only advantage BTC has is confidence in the code. I think we shouldn't be in a rush to market until the code is battle-hardened a bit

It's not advertizement, it's simply communication and being open.  Any secret thinking along these lines will destroy our reputation.  The reason the securities and exchange commission regulates the hell out of the IPO process is precisely to solve this problem:  people getting blindsided, and loosing lots of money.  Being open and communicating to everyone, in a trusted way, is the only way to avoid having the hell regulated out of the crypto currency market.  Without good communication, the general population will be thinking:

"Those bastard geeks just stole all my money, since I didn't know what they were up to, they should be thrown in jail, and all their money should be confiscated so this doesn't happen again for anyone else."

As much as possible, we need to make it so they think:

"Wow, I heard about that, and if I would have listened and sold then, I wouldn't have lost all this money.  Next time I will pay more attention, and I'll be the one profiting."

Sure the Invictus code isn't battle hardened yet.  We need to make sure all such is part of the communication, and this is the difference between advertizing.  We need to vet the ideas as much as possible, pros and cons, so everyone can know in a peer reviewed way, what is coming, before it comes, and also so any problems can be uncovered as soon as possible.  And Invictus code can be fixed, so that doesn't bother me, it's just a matter of time.

I propose we start a new camp to communicate what we are doing here, so people can see how the experts compare Bitshares to all other competitors as soon as possible:

http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/150

I propose a camp name of "Bitshares"

Are there any better experts than me that would be willing to make a first draft of a camp statement, or at least help with such, with all this information contained in it?

Brent Allsop