Author Topic: MaidSafe IPO on Mastercoin  (Read 100588 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani
I expected you to figure out another way to give people stake in Bitshares without asking them for cash money because it seemed like that was an important part of the strategy that was being wholly discarded because you improperly anticipated demand. 

For those of you who hung out on one of the recent Mumble / Beyond Bitcoin calls I discussed a give away strategy that I believe would make everyone from all camps happy.  I am also keeping that strategy a secret to be revealed when we launch so that other coins cannot copy it.

It is sure to generate a ton of buzz.   


Offline liondani

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


You forgot to mention/post a potential virtual :) graph with the btsX value,  most PTS holder's have also that value in their pockets !!!, because of the first snapshot on PTS wallets at 28 februar...
Example: I have 1000 PTS, since I bought  them I "lost" say 30% BUT I have more than 1000 BTSX added for "free" because of the snapshot... Ok I don't know yet the BTSX value but I am confident that PTS+BTSX= much more ROI then if I had NXT shares (Just my opinion). But even if the value will not be the expected one, it has nothing to do with what you wanted to "promote" with your posted graph's. Hope "you" understand the real picture now...
« Last Edit: May 17, 2014, 12:15:11 pm by liondani »

Tuck Fheman

  • Guest

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
Quote
Daniel just overcompensated, went from 100% selfless (you can't buy it from us, just the market or mine it by contributing to the network) to 100% capture.   I think there was a middle ground but the whole concept of mining, computational or not was in the crosshairs and it seems we only deal in black or white.

We went to

50% support of the mining paradigm (PTS)
and
50% support of the donation paradigm (AGS).

A consensus forged by long discussions from every point of view.
For every future BitShares DAC.
Fifty-Fifty.  Perfect balance. 
Something for everybody!   
:)
« Last Edit: May 17, 2014, 01:28:11 am by Stan »
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
It would be nice if we could separate things we've disagreed about in the past from things that can affect the future in a positive way.  We are interested in hearing everyone's thoughts about next steps.  But repeated weekly ad-hominem bashings about past decisions we've made that we can't change (and wouldn't change if we could) is not going to bring about any positive result.  We respectfully listened to all this before we made the decisions that were ours to make.   And then we have patiently explained those decisions over and over and over again.   Those who approved of those decisions stayed and supported them.  Those who didn't went off to find opportunities more to their liking.

Since it is clear that all this is water under the bridge,  such recurring bitter postings can have only one result:  to damage the BitShares brand, scare off newbies, and sow fear, uncertainty and doubt.  We are big boys, we can take it.  But it is grossly unfair to the rest of BitShares investors who have real assets being damaged every time this weekly hairball gets coughed back onto the carpet.

There are many other venues where the classic mining-centric point of view still reigns supreme.  This is one of the very few places where people who think differently are working to blaze a new trail. 

Can we simply agree to respect that?



« Last Edit: May 17, 2014, 01:31:57 am by Stan »
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline AdamBLevine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 492
    • View Profile
    • Let's Talk Bitcoin!
And that's the difference, I believe that "mining" as a metaphor (you'll notice my LTBCOIN project features Proof of Tipping and Proof of Commenting and Proof of Publishing, all non-monetary actions that vest participants who add value to the system.  Whatever the system.   I don't care about computational mining, and I never talk about it in those terms.  I am talking about non-monetary distribution, and the metaphor we use for that to this point is Mining with your computer! 

Of course there is cost, but it is not additional and explicit cost as when you have to actually buy something. There is cost in making a comment on a blog too, but people don't think about it like that because it is not a meaningful cost relative to the percieved value you gain.   You had to read the content then sit there and think about it until you have something to say, then you have to say it.  You had to do that to the exclusion of doing something else with your time, that is valuable.  Your contribution (whatever it is) is ranked not against some absolute standard but against all other participants doing the same type of incentivized action within the system.

So with that understood, does "We have abandoned non-monetary means of getting involved in the Bitshares project" make more sense?  This is why I mention bounties, because that's a way that lets people work towards community or invictus set goals with the idea that if they achieve it best and first they've got a clear reward that will vest them in the ecosystem they have just contributed to.

Daniel just overcompensated, went from 100% selfless (you can't buy it from us, just the market or mine it by contributing to the network) to 100% capture.   I think there was a middle ground but the whole concept of mining, computational or not was in the crosshairs and it seems we only deal in black or white.

Invictus thought the Bitcoin distribution was also unfair, which is why they didn't want to sell tokens because it allowed that unfairness to continue in the new system.    It seems like you want to abandon the idea of equitable, non-monetary distribution because Protoshares failed to achieve that goal and others have failed before.  I think that was one of the primary draws for Bitshares, that it would have everybody vested in it.  It might be naive to assume that, but I was explicitly told this by Invictus at the time they were appealing to my audience for participation and just because Daniel abandoned the idea doesn't mean it was the right choice.   

It's not shocking you agree with Daniel's position, I'd be more surprised if you didn't.
Email me at adam@letstalkbitcoin.com

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
A big part of the vision was the democratization of mining, so by "non-monetary" I mean you don't have to get out your credit card, you just have to run your personal computer just like early Bitcoin mining except the goal was to design a system that would not have the scaling arms race we've seen with everything else.

The whole REASON for protoshares was to make as many people stakeholders in what Invictus was doing as possible, because that represented a huge distribution base they could then use to extract the terms in the Social Contract from others who wanted to use their audience.   it was going to be the system that was most fairly and broadly distributed and so have instant network effect for new coins who work with it.

You don't remember this because it was abandoned with little fanfare and now there is no concept of an individual doing anything besides buying on an exchange to get vested. Despite you not knowing about it, at one point not too long ago it was a major part of Invictus's entire market outlook, and one I think was not incorrect.  Someone is more interested in a crypto-token if they can get some for "free" and then learn about it after they have it than learn about it first then spend money to buy it. 

Anyhow, If you have specific questions I'll answer them but I really think I've explained my train of thought many times. Do you still not see why this was a reactionary deviation from the plan?

Quote
A big part of the vision was the democratization of mining, so by "non-monetary" I mean you don't have to get out your credit card, you just have to run your personal computer just like early Bitcoin mining except the goal was to design a system that would not have the scaling arms race we've seen with everything else.
I believe this is not possible at all. What we know is that many tried it over time (Litecoin, Protoshares, who else?) and failed miserably. Economies of scale and ever ongoing techn. developement plays against us there.

Quote
The whole REASON for protoshares was to make as many people stakeholders in what Invictus was doing as possible, because that represented a huge distribution base they could then use to extract the terms in the Social Contract from others who wanted to use their audience.   it was going to be the system that was most fairly and broadly distributed and so have instant network effect for new coins who work with it.
I agree 100% with the goal of a fair distribution. But mining can not help to realize this! The only thing that helps is that many people know it! In reference to your statement about the early mining of Bitcoin: Super little people know about it --> Super uneven distribution of Bitcoin today. That has nothing to do with technology. Many people know about it like today -> Increase in demand for Bitcoin -> arms race -> economies of scale (like you said) and super high barriers for entry which is horrible for gives big money an advantage.
 

Quote
You don't remember this because it was abandoned with little fanfare and now there is no concept of an individual doing anything besides buying on an exchange to get vested. Despite you not knowing about it, at one point not too long ago it was a major part of Invictus's entire market outlook, and one I think was not incorrect.  Someone is more interested in a crypto-token if they can get some for "free" and then learn about it after they have it than learn about it first then spend money to buy it. 
You mean it was Invictus' market outlook to get a fair distribution?
A agree with the last sentence in the quote above in so far there is some (irrational) gamification involved in mining. But you still call it getting something "for free". Mined tokens are not free! Please feel free to contend the above on a rational basis. The costs of mined tokens are: Initial investment for mining equipement + electricity costs. There are professionals that do this today - and home users can not compete while not making a loss - who sell the mined tokens with a little margin. They seem free under one circumstance though: When very little people know about it compared to their value / potential value increase. But that has nothing to do with mining / POW vs. POS. When no one knew about NXT (POS) is was also cheap as hell as Bitcoin (POW) was...

Quote
Anyhow, If you have specific questions I'll answer them but I really think I've explained my train of thought many times.   Do you still not see why this was a reactionary deviation from the plan?
I did recognize your arguments. I replied to the two I could identify (mining helps for fair distribution or can help to achieve that goal; taking money is a bad thing). Are there more (tbh I am interested my self because I like to be critical towards everything too)?  I don't think it is a deviation from the original plan if you can abstract from the very specific announcements that were made and see it more in abstract terms like: Decentralization and control of ownership, building DACS, a working decentralized Bank and Exchange. With any complex project there is a need to adapt over time as problems are solved over time. It's the NATURE of it. I agree with you that a fair/even distribution can not only be seen as a means but an end. But like I said above, mining is surely not a solution there. 
« Last Edit: May 17, 2014, 12:43:01 am by delulo »

Offline AdamBLevine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 492
    • View Profile
    • Let's Talk Bitcoin!
A big part of the vision was the democratization of mining, so by "non-monetary" I mean you don't have to get out your credit card, you just have to run your personal computer just like early Bitcoin mining except the goal was to design a system that would not have the scaling arms race we've seen with everything else.

The whole REASON for protoshares was to make as many people stakeholders in what Invictus was doing as possible, because that represented a huge distribution base they could then use to extract the terms in the Social Contract from others who wanted to use their audience.   it was going to be the system that was most fairly and broadly distributed and so have instant network effect for new coins who work with it.

You don't remember this because it was abandoned with little fanfare and now there is no concept of an individual doing anything besides buying on an exchange to get vested.   Despite you not knowing about it, at one point not too long ago it was a major part of Invictus's entire market outlook, and one I think was not incorrect.  Someone is more interested in a crypto-token if they can get some for "free" and then learn about it after they have it than learn about it first then spend money to buy it. 

Anyhow, If you have specific questions I'll answer them but I really think I've explained my train of thought many times.   Do you still not see why this was a reactionary deviation from the plan?
Email me at adam@letstalkbitcoin.com

Offline bytemaster



LOL... exactly how I feel.   

Quote
lost sight of the original vision

Mining and POW was just a means to my end (decentralization) which is different than your end (some kind of non-monetary way to get involved).    One day you will realize that money is an illusion and that everything is barter, charity, destruction, or theft.    POW is a terrible combination of  barter for destruction in exchange for giveaways.  At the time all I understood was POW for security and POS was some unproven thing that I didn't fully understand.  Peercoin was hybrid so I thought it didn't really solve the mining problem.


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 santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
Quote
So when Angelshares came into play, that ratio went from mostly vesting stakeholders for "work" to vesting stakeholders for paying Invictus.   Because that "for your work" segment is no longer available, having been sold by Invictus, it means anybody coming into Bitshares now will have to buy them for real money up front instead of being able to just participate and be compensated at a minimal level as was promised.

Adam it appears you are blind to the mining farms that control things these days.   Doing worthless work and paying for it destroys value and produces nothing.  Apparently you feel people should pay electric companies rather than giving the money to us.   Either way it is charity.    Everyone already had to buy them for real with money up front... also, PTS mining is still available for people that think like you.

Lastly we only ever said 10% and never the 20% number you mentioned.   

Bottom line:  mining difficulty would increase with the value of our idea and thus consume 100% of the millions of dollars contributed to this idea allowing those who operate large mining farms (like you did early on) to profit.    You told me you made more money from PTS in 2 weeks than you did with LTB in any month.  You were working with large mining operations acquiring and reselling to major players in the market a very large percentage of the PTS being mined every day.  In fact, I would venture to say that you may have made more from PTS than I did.   

So from where I sit, it seems you very much liked the idea of profiting from being the middle man between the mass-production miners and the average guy on the street who has to buy from you because mining is way to slow or difficult to purchase more than a token amount (equal to perhaps 3x your power bill).

So we cut out the middle man (you) and those doing worthless work (mass miners) and 'sold' direct to consumers which then gives us money that is is being spent to increase the value of what they received where as the money they gave you and the mass miners did nothing to help their investment succeed.

You're correct on the 10% vs. 20%, that was a mis-rememberence on my part.

Regarding the rest of it, wow Daniel, you really think I'm a greedy asshole, I had no idea.

In case anybody is wondering, I went by Lighthouse on the forums and was the first member providing escrow and large volume transaction at a time when Protoshares was not listed on any exchanges and had many scammers stealing bitcoin or PTS from new users.   

Taking this role, even under a completely reputation-less name led me to becoming a broker for a single large miner who contacted me on the forums (I openly bought from all miners and subsequently met a lot of them).  All of my trades happened before November 18th, so less than two weeks after launch and well before the move away from POW was discussed. 

I performed this service until it stopped being required, and then I stopped performing it because I was only doing it to provide the trust to enable the market.  Actually you Daniel were my last volume customer, and were my most frequent customer so really it seems like you would only have paid me if I was providing you a service.
Why would you have bought from me if I was exploitative, did I have a monopoly?  Was I even mining myself?  No.  Nobody even knew I have a show, which is why I didn't use my real name.  Later I switched to my real name because I wanted my concerns to be on the record because it was obvious Invictus was missing deadlines and not responding to gentle prodding.

So thanks for giving just enough information that I need to out myself in order to provide proper context to defend my reputation.   


Quote
So from where I sit, it seems you very much liked the idea of profiting from being the middle man between the mass-production miners and the average guy on the street who has to buy from you because mining is way to slow or difficult to purchase more than a token amount (equal to perhaps 3x your power bill).
Having read my perspective, I hope that you correct this assessment.   I very much liked the idea of the Bitshares project as it was described which involved a minority of shares being designated for the PTS holders and most of them available to people through non-monetary means.      The goal was to make it so everyone could mine, remember?   I don't really get how mis-calibrating the first attempt means you throw out the entire notion and come up with something new.

Hell, I'm not even against coming up with something new - I just don't understand why it took precedence over developing the core Bitshares technology which is based around assets, betting etc.   Nothing to do with transactional lower level stuff.

I think I've made my case really clearly Daniel, you quoted one small section of my very long and detailed reply and then dismissed my entire perspective by dropping incomplete disclosure of previously non-public information .   Do you have any responses to the actual meat of it, or are we just throwing mud at this point? 

Also, are all off-the-record conversations now on-the-record?

you have done a lot for BTS and your approach to media with your LTB model is great but this
Quote
available to people through non-monetary means. The goal was to make it so everyone could mine, remember?
doesn't make any sense. And you keep on insisting on that...
Mining has NOTHING to do with non-monetary means and even less with equality. Mining just raises the barrier of entry (because profitable mining equipment is expensive these days) and it adds a cost to the overall (distribution and transaction) system.

The goal of PTS was CPU mining. As far as I know you need a good GPU now. I don't have one and I guess most would have to buy one as well. That doesnt even matter though. Even if it was profitable with a CPU, money-means are just sent through another arbitrary loop this way. You can just buy thousands of CPUs put them in a data center if you have a lot of money and get shares in return for your money. The only difference is that the money that is paid to burn fossil fuels, the margin of the electricity companies and a little margin for the miner because of the barrier for entry to mining could be used for developing the ecosystem and to profit the shareholders.

You also say that "asking for cash" is bad. I don't see why. This is capitalism at it's core. You invest in order to grow a vision effectively. If anyone has reason not to trust the entity that is asking for money to develope a product just don't invest. 

See my reply to one of your earlier posts here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4292.msg54258#msg54258
Quote
But is mining getting rid of the need to have money to buy in? If mining would give it al the the average guy I would be all for mining. But in the end mining gives the coins just to those that can afford mining equipement that is efficient enough to be run economically. In the end miners are professionals that invest in equipment that bring coins into existence and then sell those coins for a price above electricity costs. If you can not afford this mining equipment you have to buy the coins from the professional miners for the market value of there was no mining + the electricity costs of the miner + a small margin. In the end you can not avoid to distribute the coins based on peoples buying power (money) but making an IPO in addition gives you capital so you can speed up the development process (I am sure dev. would be far back if it would be just Dan coding) and promote the idea to get a wider supporter base....
 

What is the empirical basis for that?
Quote
I'm sorry I don't think you're doing a great job with Invictus, I really really don't.  This project is by far in last place when compared against the serious players in the space and impugning my motives just further pushes away one of your biggest supporters.

Could you summarize your critique points?
« Last Edit: May 16, 2014, 11:58:30 pm by delulo »

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile

Offline AdamBLevine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 492
    • View Profile
    • Let's Talk Bitcoin!
Adam,
   I don't think you are a greedy asshole and obviously your service was very much appreciated under that model.   My only point was that even in the middle of things where you had first hand knowledge of how mining was really distributing the PTS you still favor it as a distribution model.  To think that you could solve this by technical means is a testament to it not being your area of expertise.

   You had no need to out yourself to defend yourself.  When I mentioned you above, I was merely pointing out that you have performed that function and that if you don't perform it then someone else will (Cryptsy, Bter, etc).   

   I and others on this forum have a very hard time understanding you and your motivations because you say you support BTS and want us to be successful and then show up as the most controversial member on the forum.  I know it isn't me because everyone else is confused about your stance. 

   I am a firm believer in not making assumptions about peoples motives and to the extent that I do that I apologize.   In these forums most of what we see is projection from ourself onto what others are saying.  Learning to recognize that it applies to yourself and others could help keep things civil and productive in conversations.

A big part of the Bitshares project was to make mining so that a person with a normal computer could do it.  I thought PTS was the first experiment in this, not the only one.  When it failed, I expected you to figure out another way to give people stake in Bitshares without asking them for cash money because it seemed like that was an important part of the strategy that was being wholly discarded because you improperly anticipated demand.  Do I remember that wrong? 

I am the most controversial member of this forum (if you say so) because this forum is very hostile to users who do not think you know absolutely what you're doing.  Look through old posts, you'll find them and note that they all left.   Most people pick a project, maybe two and stick with it.  I pick all the projects, invest in them all and try to help them all when they are doing the wrong thing.  Look at NXT or Counterparty's forums and you'll see the same thing.  I don't currently comment on Ethereum because they're doing just fine. 

I'm sorry I don't think you're doing a great job with Invictus, I really really don't.  This project is by far in last place when compared against the serious players in the space and impugning my motives just further pushes away one of your biggest supporters.

Quote
So from where I sit, it seems you very much liked the idea of profiting from being the middle man between the mass-production miners and the average guy on the street who has to buy from you because mining is way to slow or difficult to purchase more than a token amount (equal to perhaps 3x your power bill).

Yeah, that was a cheap shot... and actually doesn't reflect what I really think because I know you better.   But if I were an independent onlooker it is the conclusion I would draw if I wanted to make assumptions about your motivations.   Nothing else makes sense and that is why I am so confused by you.   

I know you intend well and have good motives and are an honorable man but for the life of me the things you say on this forum confuse me.

My motives are simple, I disagree with the direction and think people have lost sight of the original vision because all the critical observers like myself have left since they have other options of projects to spend their time on.   

I appreciate the clarification, I was pretty shocked that you would think that about me.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2014, 11:42:15 pm by AdamBLevine »
Email me at adam@letstalkbitcoin.com

Offline bytemaster

Quote
So from where I sit, it seems you very much liked the idea of profiting from being the middle man between the mass-production miners and the average guy on the street who has to buy from you because mining is way to slow or difficult to purchase more than a token amount (equal to perhaps 3x your power bill).

Yeah, that was a cheap shot... and actually doesn't reflect what I really think because I know you better.   But if I were an independent onlooker it is the conclusion I would draw if I wanted to make assumptions about your motivations.   Nothing else makes sense and that is why I am so confused by you.   

I know you intend well and have good motives and are an honorable man but for the life of me the things you say on this forum confuse me.
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 bytemaster

Adam,
   I don't think you are a greedy asshole and obviously your service was very much appreciated under that model.   My only point was that even in the middle of things where you had first hand knowledge of how mining was really distributing the PTS you still favor it as a distribution model.  To think that you could solve this by technical means is a testament to it not being your area of expertise.

   You had no need to out yourself to defend yourself.  When I mentioned you above, I was merely pointing out that you have performed that function and that if you don't perform it then someone else will (Cryptsy, Bter, etc).   

   I and others on this forum have a very hard time understanding you and your motivations because you say you support BTS and want us to be successful and then show up as the most controversial member on the forum.  I know it isn't me because everyone else is confused about your stance. 

   I am a firm believer in not making assumptions about peoples motives and to the extent that I do that I apologize.   In these forums most of what we see is projection from ourself onto what others are saying.  Learning to recognize that it applies to yourself and others could help keep things civil and productive in conversations.

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 AdamBLevine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 492
    • View Profile
    • Let's Talk Bitcoin!
Quote
So when Angelshares came into play, that ratio went from mostly vesting stakeholders for "work" to vesting stakeholders for paying Invictus.   Because that "for your work" segment is no longer available, having been sold by Invictus, it means anybody coming into Bitshares now will have to buy them for real money up front instead of being able to just participate and be compensated at a minimal level as was promised.

Adam it appears you are blind to the mining farms that control things these days.   Doing worthless work and paying for it destroys value and produces nothing.  Apparently you feel people should pay electric companies rather than giving the money to us.   Either way it is charity.    Everyone already had to buy them for real with money up front... also, PTS mining is still available for people that think like you.

Lastly we only ever said 10% and never the 20% number you mentioned.   

Bottom line:  mining difficulty would increase with the value of our idea and thus consume 100% of the millions of dollars contributed to this idea allowing those who operate large mining farms (like you did early on) to profit.    You told me you made more money from PTS in 2 weeks than you did with LTB in any month.  You were working with large mining operations acquiring and reselling to major players in the market a very large percentage of the PTS being mined every day.  In fact, I would venture to say that you may have made more from PTS than I did.   

So from where I sit, it seems you very much liked the idea of profiting from being the middle man between the mass-production miners and the average guy on the street who has to buy from you because mining is way to slow or difficult to purchase more than a token amount (equal to perhaps 3x your power bill).

So we cut out the middle man (you) and those doing worthless work (mass miners) and 'sold' direct to consumers which then gives us money that is is being spent to increase the value of what they received where as the money they gave you and the mass miners did nothing to help their investment succeed.

You're correct on the 10% vs. 20%, that was a mis-rememberence on my part.

Regarding the rest of it, wow Daniel, you really think I'm a greedy asshole, I had no idea.

In case anybody is wondering, I went by Lighthouse on the forums and was the first member providing escrow and large volume transaction at a time when Protoshares was not listed on any exchanges and had many scammers stealing bitcoin or PTS from new users.   

Taking this role, even under a completely reputation-less name led me to becoming a broker for a single large miner who contacted me on the forums (I openly bought from all miners and subsequently met a lot of them).  All of my trades happened before November 18th, so less than two weeks after launch and well before the move away from POW was discussed. 

I performed this service until it stopped being required, and then I stopped performing it because I was only doing it to provide the trust to enable the market.  Actually you Daniel were my last volume customer, and were my most frequent customer so really it seems like you would only have paid me if I was providing you a service.
Why would you have bought from me if I was exploitative, did I have a monopoly?  Was I even mining myself?  No.  Nobody even knew I have a show, which is why I didn't use my real name.  Later I switched to my real name because I wanted my concerns to be on the record because it was obvious Invictus was missing deadlines and not responding to gentle prodding.

So thanks for giving just enough information that I need to out myself in order to provide proper context to defend my reputation.   


Quote
So from where I sit, it seems you very much liked the idea of profiting from being the middle man between the mass-production miners and the average guy on the street who has to buy from you because mining is way to slow or difficult to purchase more than a token amount (equal to perhaps 3x your power bill).
Having read my perspective, I hope that you correct this assessment.   I very much liked the idea of the Bitshares project as it was described which involved a minority of shares being designated for the PTS holders and most of them available to people through non-monetary means.      The goal was to make it so everyone could mine, remember?   I don't really get how mis-calibrating the first attempt means you throw out the entire notion and come up with something new.

Hell, I'm not even against coming up with something new - I just don't understand why it took precedence over developing the core Bitshares technology which is based around assets, betting etc.   Nothing to do with transactional lower level stuff.

I think I've made my case really clearly Daniel, you quoted one small section of my very long and detailed reply and then dismissed my entire perspective by dropping incomplete disclosure of previously non-public information .   Do you have any responses to the actual meat of it, or are we just throwing mud at this point? 

Also, are all off-the-record conversations now on-the-record?
« Last Edit: May 16, 2014, 11:05:38 pm by AdamBLevine »
Email me at adam@letstalkbitcoin.com