Author Topic: Bitshares versus Counterparty?  (Read 9562 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline fuzzy

Acting like Lizard Men (from some other dimension?) are the dictatorial hand pushing these agendas is purely naive.  I assure you cartels and "secret" societies are a distinctly natural phenomenon.



The government as a whole is a cartel conspiracy :)

 +5%

now lets get back to productive conversations about counterparty?



XCP guys seem to be rather hardcore. They're finally hiring someone for PR and decide to just pay it out of their own pocket rather than explicitly asking for community funding.

Asking for community funding and giving the community opportunity are two sides of the same coin.  Suppose I created bitshares entirely from my own funds and then kept one hundred percent of the money supply for myself Or sold it After it was on the market.  I could just imagine the accusations I would get then. 

This business of demonizing people who fund raise And at the same time demonizing people to do 100% premine is ludicrous.  You can't have it both ways everyone wants something for nothing.   

Even if you could fund it by yourself giving others an opportunity to get involved is a great way to build a community.   

Ripple didn't do any community fundraising and look where got them. 

Double standards and unreasonable expectations abound.

Everyone wants the creator to take 100% of the risk and get none of the profit. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That isn't exactly a fair characterization.  I know of a group of people right now in the marketing section under a post called "Team Viral" where people are actually donating their time and efforts to helping our community...to my knowledge none of them are on payroll and all could sit back and hope others act. 

I can tell you for 100% certain that I am not part of it because of monetary gain (though it would be a nice ancillary benefit).  Instead, I am here because you guys thus far have earned my trust (probably the same with many others)...watch what happens if it is lost--though pretty confident it won't ;) 
« Last Edit: March 14, 2014, 12:32:56 am by fuznuts »
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline blackbeard

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Acting like Lizard Men (from some other dimension?) are the dictatorial hand pushing these agendas is purely naive.  I assure you cartels and "secret" societies are a distinctly natural phenomenon.



The government as a whole is a cartel conspiracy :)

Offline fuzzy


3) proof-of-burn is idiotic


Sure not one of your best statements...

100% agreed, yet don't we all act like fools at times?

Bytemaster takes a LOT of shit from people. I sit here and watch it over, and over, and over...which is fine, but if someone who gets poked and prodded often enough, I tend to think its ok for them to occasionally make misstatement.

Invictus and Bytemaster are pretty friggin selfless people.  I mean Keyhotee is going to be FREE for anyone who mines their ID?  Some people *cough cough* would like to monetize such beautiful tech, and push a majority of the world's population into a place where economic circumstances govern their right to privacy.  Not Bytemaster and crew...once again lets just let this ridiculousness rest and give them credit where it is due, and a couple mulligans here and there.  I'm sure if you posted 40,000 posts a day you'd eventually say something in a manner construed as dickish :)


And Satoshi show us that funding is not mandatory to make great things!


Satoshi was funded by the NSA
Yeah... and the NSA is controled by the Illuminatis who are actually a bunch of Annunakis.

LOL...you see, you had to throw aliens in there.  Otherwise, to say "secret" societies do not exist to ensure the consolidation and/or protection of their own power is to have a fundamental lack of understanding with regard to human nature.  People Conspire for personal gain on low levels from getting a pay-raise at work to high-level-- international drug cartels (CIA controls the poppy supply in afghanistan for instance and uses "Operation Enduring Freedom" not to liberate the people, but to give no option but for them to participate or be the enemy).

Conspiracies, throughout history are the rule...not the exception.  And "Illuminati" is just as good a name as "NSA", "CIA", "Sinaloa Cartel", "Anonymous", "Bilderberg"...etc.  Groups of people collectively tend to label the networks to which they belong...and all groups tend to push collectively to have their perceived agenda fulfilled but not all agendas are intended to uplift the rest of humanity along with them. 

Acting like Lizard Men (from some other dimension?) are the only possible dictatorial hand pushing these agendas is purely naive.  I assure you cartels and "secret" societies are a distinctly natural phenomenon...though the internet has largely destroyed the "secret" part of their societies.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2014, 11:05:54 pm by fuznuts »
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline BldSwtTrs

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 220
    • View Profile
And Satoshi show us that funding is not mandatory to make great things!


Satoshi was funded by the NSA
Yeah... and the NSA is controled by the Illuminatis who are actually a bunch of Annunakis.

Offline onceuponatime

And Satoshi show us that funding is not mandatory to make great things!


Satoshi was funded by the NSA

That is a very affirmative statement.
Your source?

Offline blackbeard

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
And Satoshi show us that funding is not mandatory to make great things!


Satoshi was funded by the NSA

Offline CWEvans

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 183
    • View Profile
You can't have it both ways everyone wants something for nothing.   

Oddly, this seems to drive many individuals' fascination with mining.

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani

3) proof-of-burn is idiotic


Sure not one of your best statements...

Offline Mrrr

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 94
    • View Profile

XCP guys seem to be rather hardcore. They're finally hiring someone for PR and decide to just pay it out of their own pocket rather than explicitly asking for community funding.

Asking for community funding and giving the community opportunity are two sides of the same coin.  Suppose I created bitshares entirely from my own funds and then kept one hundred percent of the money supply for myself Or sold it After it was on the market.  I could just imagine the accusations I would get then. 

This business of demonizing people who fund raise And at the same time demonizing people to do 100% premine is ludicrous.  You can't have it both ways everyone wants something for nothing.   

Even if you could fund it by yourself giving others an opportunity to get involved is a great way to build a community.   

Ripple didn't do any community fundraising and look where got them. 

Double standards and unreasonable expectations abound.

Everyone wants the creator to take 100% of the risk and get none of the profit. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

With all do respect. XCP gave the community opportunity without asking for a dime. I burned a day's worth of work. Now I fundraised your shiny metal ass with a couple of greenbacks because I honestly believe you got ideas that are of benefit to humanity. I'm not demonizing anyone. I want honesty. III is honest. XCP is honest, gospodjice Buterin is not.

Offline bitcool

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 46
    • View Profile
XCP guys seem to be rather hardcore. They're finally hiring someone for PR and decide to just pay it out of their own pocket rather than explicitly asking for community funding.

Among hundreds of altcoins , IMO, they definitely are among the most trustworthy and respectable. 

For a good team, financial incentive is only part of it; there are other invisible benefits, such as experience, reputation, community trust, personal satisfaction, enjoyment from success ... these are priceless.
 



Offline bytemaster


XCP guys seem to be rather hardcore. They're finally hiring someone for PR and decide to just pay it out of their own pocket rather than explicitly asking for community funding.

Asking for community funding and giving the community opportunity are two sides of the same coin.  Suppose I created bitshares entirely from my own funds and then kept one hundred percent of the money supply for myself Or sold it After it was on the market.  I could just imagine the accusations I would get then. 

This business of demonizing people who fund raise And at the same time demonizing people to do 100% premine is ludicrous.  You can't have it both ways everyone wants something for nothing.   

Even if you could fund it by yourself giving others an opportunity to get involved is a great way to build a community.   

Ripple didn't do any community fundraising and look where got them. 

Double standards and unreasonable expectations abound.

Everyone wants the creator to take 100% of the risk and get none of the profit. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline Mrrr

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 94
    • View Profile
XCP guys seem to be rather hardcore. They're finally hiring someone for PR and decide to just pay it out of their own pocket rather than explicitly asking for community funding.

Offline Empirical1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 884
    • View Profile
I like proof of burn.

There's always a lot of concern in the crypto-community about fairness. If something is perceived as pre-mined, or unfairly distributed it can really have problems. (Memorycoin, NXT, Mastercoin etc.)

The XCP guys didn't get any benefit from the funds, the only way they can make money is if they burn their own BTC and develop and deliver a product that is actually useful. XCP will always have the moral high ground now. This is very valuable.

In the medium term there's a big argument in favour of not wasting those initial funds and putting them towards maintaining and developing something. 

Personally I think Bitshares is likely to deliver the best product, when I view this forum I'm consistently impressed by Bytemasters responses and views, like others have said, don't know where he finds the time. 
I also prefer Proof of Stake and something independent of Bitcoin. Exciting few months ahead!

Offline 520Bit

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
Take a look at the wiki: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_burn

And the discussion on December 17, 2012, 12:32:56 AM: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=131139.msg1404195#msg1404195

The market may choose whatever.
Accept BTC/XCP/MSC: 152oBitoBwHwxR5UpUQnsvWSFjYHkheDJk
PTS: PtPXhrP5jk8BPH5fFcPnBgNSrfmJ6DCFcW
PPC: PRT95iQEKUzJSb2XsPjLgdbyoSyKiDmyb9

Offline cubicdissection

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
    • Cubicdissection
And Satoshi show us that funding is not mandatory to make great things!

Since XCP rides on the BTC blockchain, I believe in this case it was actually necessary.  I could be wrong though.
Pqta6v7Q6CR7Qfy8ma25KkFki3xpKxgTtV

Offline BldSwtTrs

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 220
    • View Profile
And Satoshi show us that funding is not mandatory to make great things!

Offline Mrrr

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 94
    • View Profile
Quote
Here a small explanation of Proof of Burn with a link to a larger wiki.

http://www.economicsofbitcoin.com/2012/12/the-economics-of-avoiding-real-resource.html

With proof of work you waste energy for no other reason than proving commitment. Proof of Burn doesn't consume energy. The 2124 BTC that were 'burned' weren't wasted: their value was distributed amongst all bitcoin holders. (thanks to Counterparty your BTC is now worth 0.017257947% more)

Apart from that it is a way of 'investing' in a concept without needing to trust the developer. If the Mastercoin team had decided to make a run for it they'd all be left with a villa on the Caymans. If the Counterparty team had decided to make a run for it they'd be left with 5000$ in change and the 'best prank in the universe' award.

Quote
Yes, it paid a dividend to BTC holders but how does paying a dividend to the BTC holders help either the developers of Counterparty or the new stake holders of Counterparty?   

It did not. I think its the lesser evil. It did however make possible a fair IPO. It also negotiated the risk of scamming by the dev team and it was a well executed test of faith for the investors. I burned 80$, but some burned ten-thousands. Now that takes balls.

@clout: its already functional but not finished and not yet user friendly (command line only, GUI eta 2 weeks)

EDIT: On my way to the loo I realized the burning of 2124 BTC has a ritualistic touch to it. I sacrificed part of my wealth for something that I believe in. Others will infer that no sane person would make this sacrifice unless they really believed they had something to gain from it. This significantly increases the credibility of the project. Benefiting both zealots and developers since donations will pour in as the project becomes more popular.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2014, 05:50:31 pm by Mrrr »

clout

  • Guest
Are people using Counterparty now? Where is it in development relative to bitshares?

Offline bytemaster

Here a small explanation of Proof of Burn with a link to a larger wiki.

http://www.economicsofbitcoin.com/2012/12/the-economics-of-avoiding-real-resource.html

With proof of work you waste energy for no other reason than proving commitment. Proof of Burn doesn't consume energy. The 2124 BTC that were 'burned' weren't wasted: their value was distributed amongst all bitcoin holders. (thanks to Counterparty your BTC is now worth 0.017257947% more)

Apart from that it is a way of 'investing' in a concept without needing to trust the developer. If the Mastercoin team had decided to make a run for it they'd all be left with a villa on the Caymans. If the Counterparty team had decided to make a run for it they'd be left with 5000$ in change and the 'best prank in the universe' award.

Yes, it paid a dividend to BTC holders but how does paying a dividend to the BTC holders help either the developers of Counterparty or the new stake holders of Counterparty?   
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline Mrrr

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 94
    • View Profile
Here a small explanation of Proof of Burn with a link to a larger wiki.

http://www.economicsofbitcoin.com/2012/12/the-economics-of-avoiding-real-resource.html

With proof of work you waste energy for no other reason than proving commitment. Proof of Burn doesn't consume energy. The 2124 BTC that were 'burned' weren't wasted: their value was distributed amongst all bitcoin holders. (thanks to Counterparty your BTC is now worth 0.017257947% more)

Apart from that it is a way of 'investing' in a concept without needing to trust the developer. If the Mastercoin team had decided to make a run for it they'd all be left with a villa on the Caymans. If the Counterparty team had decided to make a run for it they'd be left with 5000$ in change and the 'best prank in the universe' award.

Offline xxeyes

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
Thanks for the responses.  I'm neither an economist nor a computer scientist.  I've only recently stumbled upon the world of digital currencies and DACs.  I find it fascinating, but difficult to follow because of the complexity, and increasingly because of the incredible growth in activity.

From my very limited understanding of proof of burn, it does sound a bit "idiotic".  I would think Proof of Donate would be a more sensible concept - money is "burned" by donating to a charity (which cannot give refunds).  Would such a thing be possible?

Offline thisisausername

Proof of burn is riskier than PTS/AGS as well.   Keep in mind:

"Disclaimer: The code being released here is of alpha-quality and under heavy development. You should expect to encounter significant bugs when using it. It is even possible that a bug might cause you might lose some money. The Counterparty team will do everything in its power to prevent this from happening, but this technology is very new, and the implementation is not yet well-tested. In particular, we may at some point have to change the Counterparty protocol in a not backwards-compatible way, if such a change is necessary to fix a bad bug or an exploit. As always, don't invest more than you can afford to lose."

PTS and AGS have no such issue.  If the test bitshares fail due to bugs, they fail; but test bitshares 2 will simply take on the mantle and carry on.
Pjo39s6hfpWexsZ6gEBC9iwH9HTAgiEXTG

Offline bytemaster

3) proof-of-burn is idiotic

You keep making that point but I don't think you have as strong a case as you think. I think your main argument is that they could have injected 2100 btc into XCP development instead of burning them. Really I think it's actually the same model as PTS.

Think of it like 2100btc worth of capital made the bet that this btc would be worth more if it were labeled XCP. It's no different from trading BTC for PTS, they just "traded" BTC for XCP by redistributing the value of those BTC to remaining BTC holders (everyone implicitly shorting XCP).

You still have 2100btc worth of capital (actually more since the price doubled) and now it's *permanently commited* to working in the XCP ecosystem. Sure the XCP developers specifically didn't raise much money, but you guys didn't raise money from PTS either.

Well PTS is idiotic in the sense that millions were spent on mining hardware and electric consumption, but at least it created a coin and provided some measure of security for the burning. 

I guess it doesn't matter after the fact whether XCP was created by burning or funding development.  XCP's value doesn't come from the PoB.
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline toast

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nikolai
3) proof-of-burn is idiotic

You keep making that point but I don't think you have as strong a case as you think. I think your main argument is that they could have injected 2100 btc into XCP development instead of burning them. Really I think it's actually the same model as PTS.

Think of it like 2100btc worth of capital made the bet that this btc would be worth more if it were labeled XCP. It's no different from trading BTC for PTS, they just "traded" BTC for XCP by redistributing the value of those BTC to remaining BTC holders (everyone implicitly shorting XCP).

You still have 2100btc worth of capital (actually more since the price doubled) and now it's *permanently commited* to working in the XCP ecosystem. Sure the XCP developers specifically didn't raise much money, but you guys didn't raise money from PTS either.
Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline toast

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nikolai
Quote
Liquidity plays a major role in determining a currency’s viability and that is why XCP has advanced features which enable it to have a liquidity advantage over Protoshares.

The only thing that looks like an argument I could find, and it's a pretty bad argument
Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline JakeThePanda

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 233
    • View Profile
I just came across something called Counterparty, which appears to be a new competitor to Bitshares:
https://counterparty.co/about/

I would be interested to hear people's opinions about it.

Interesting with the following problems:

1) non fungible assets
2) no dividends
3) proof-of-burn is idiotic
4) depends upon price feeds.

FYI.  The below site has a section on why XCP is better than Protoshares.  It doesn't say much.

http://xcpbitcoin.com/
« Last Edit: February 03, 2014, 08:46:49 pm by JakeThePanda »

Offline BldSwtTrs

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 220
    • View Profile
XCP as a metacoin is rather a competitor to MSC. Market cap of MSC was halved since the announcement of XCP.

I burned some BTC. The project seems cool.

Offline Giga

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
  • Futurist & Endless Dreamer
    • View Profile
I just came across something called Counterparty, which appears to be a new competitor to Bitshares:
https://counterparty.co/about/

I would be interested to hear people's opinions about it.

Interesting with the following problems:

1) non fungible assets
2) no dividends
3) proof-of-burn is idiotic
4) depends upon price feeds.

 +5%

Offline bytemaster

I just came across something called Counterparty, which appears to be a new competitor to Bitshares:
https://counterparty.co/about/

I would be interested to hear people's opinions about it.

Interesting with the following problems:

1) non fungible assets
2) no dividends
3) proof-of-burn is idiotic
4) depends upon price feeds.

For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline xxeyes

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
I just came across something called Counterparty, which appears to be a new competitor to Bitshares:
https://counterparty.co/about/

I would be interested to hear people's opinions about it.