Litecoin Sharedrop Fork

[fuzzy]

Lol, upvote the strawman anti-charles opinion. You guys are funny.

Get relevant


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh he will be relevant when Ethereum waits for all the crypto 2.0 out there to fund the technical leg work while they purchase political connections (that give them King-Making power) with their 25 Million USD from their "Non-IPO" through Switzerland.  It is just too rich man....

NSA is what I think, but who knows...he sure isn't saying.

Let's stop talking about overreactive Amygdala's (the fear center of the brain) and lets get rid of the NSA statement for the moment.  First this is not about me (I am a self-professed Libertarian (if we must abide by labels) and nothing close to what is called, today, a "conservative" or "democrat" in case it is that important). 

Let's talk about what Ethereum is doing and why good ol' Charles is here.  Hint...it is not to help us, but to get us to run experiments for him so "his" team doesn't have to later take the risk with their own "non-IPO" money. 

Bitcoin is what they want to displace as number 1, so watching how something like this works with bitshares as a test case--with Litecoin--is the point we need to get back to. 

I am actually really into the idea of sharedropping superior products on cult members who own coins that are going, literally, nowhere with regard to actual value (think Dogeparty).  Why?  Because it shows users very quickly what they failed to see before they had a stake in a better project.  Ethereum is not even a product...but a dream with lots of money to buy the innovative devs in the space.  It is a psychological trick...make the devs of ethereum look like they are the most brilliant and coolest nerds on the block so everyone wants to fight each other to be part of the clique.

I am for one don't like feeling like I have to bring up difficult questions about Charles.  But I don't trust him.  Period.  I hope he proves me wrong and builds a Utopia where everyone is a sovereign with privacy and an overabundance of all necessities in life...but Charles is a Salesman who never directly answers the most important questions (note he didn't answer any of the questions I asked and instead chose to attempt to deface my argument that he could be an agent working to coopt the crypto-movement). 

I do not look for boogeymen everywhere, but it is absolutely insane that most of the cryptocommunity fails to recognize that the very institutions Crypto was meant to free us from will not just simply say "oh well...I guess we lose".  No, this to them is a war against the lemmings...the plebs for whom bread and circuses is enough to pacify.  The Amygdala is a part of the brain that is meant to help us quickly react to POTENTIAL danger before we have a chance to reason those dangers away.  Please tell me what Charles has given any of you that gives you a real argument for reasoning this away. 

This is not to sew seeds of hatred toward all the no-doubt wonderful and idealistic people playing with the idea (that is all there currently is--that and a lot of money) of Ethereum.  And I don't hate Charles!  I actually want him to prove me wrong so I can move on and not feel concerned over his motives!  Let us remember, Charles professes to want Ether to be the "oil to bitcoin's gold" or, in other words, the crypto version of the Petro Dollar--The World's Reserve Currency for the past 100+ years.  They want to create a completely new programming language (how many backdoors do you suppose it will have?) which means that all forks/clones could still have security flaws inherent in them and, as such, forking or cloning would do nothing to fix the dangers it represents. 

It is being said because I personally feel it is important to put my opinion on the subject out there as a constant reminder to everyone it is precisely our willful ignorance to the very real dangers of this world that largely account for why bad things happen to good people.  Why? Because good people tend to project their own intentions onto others, believing that if they are open, loving and helpful people that anyone who smiles at them is as benevolent as they are. Some of those people who smile back (approximately 1%) are psychopaths (http://news.uchicago.edu/article/2013/04/24/psychopaths-are-not-neurally-equipped-have-concern-others).

Charles.  If you are a legit guy who is really working hard to make the world a better place for my baby, I hope you will take my sincere apologies for being so hard on you.   

Eagleeye is very correct on a few things he says about this being "war" of sorts.  Although we can be altruistic and want to fix all the problems of the world together, we shouldn't forget that many people out there do consider this war.  This is always true in business and economics
Very worthwhile book (and apparently a free audio book version is available! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L03BHTlRfXg

[CoinHoarder]

I can tell you with 100% certainty that the Litecoin community views any innovation that doesn't help with improving the ease of use of Litecoin to be an unneeded gimmick, built to feed the appetite of crypto nerds, and any cryptocurrency with them will never achieve mass adoption because they are too complicated. I've heard them call any new features.. no matter how innovative... gimmicks, whiz bang features, shiny new balls, gizmos, doodads, gadgets, crypto feature circle jerks... I'm probably missing a few. 

That is why I am starting to get involved with cryptocoin 2.0 projects and leaving Bitcoin/Litecoin behind. The cryptocoin 2.0s are the ones that are truly pushing cryptocurrency technology forward. The big 2 cryptocurrencies' development has somewhat halted due to lack of development funds, too many opposing opinions (think congress.. democrats vs republicans,) and the majority thinking they are perfect just the way they are.

In summary, on top of it being a poor business decision for Bitshares, they wouldn't be interested in it anyways.

[charleshoskinson]

I felt the explanation in the paper was solid. Basically as good as any textbook and it's free to read. Principles of transaction oriented database recovery if anyone isninterested.

[charleshoskinson]

To be fair I recall it being a question asking what are atomic transactions in relation to databases and I cited the ACID paper. That's like citing Dr. Codd's paper when talking about RDMSs

[jae208]

If anyone has has read any of my previous posts you can clearly see that I don't lean conservative.
(FYI I think I lean more libertarian, I guess, I don't like labels) 

I read an article once about a study in the difference between "conservative" and "liberal" brains and what stood out to
me was that conservatives have greater activity in the amygdala which means that they are always looking for danger and tend to have a more paranoid mentality. (liberals had higher openness to experience and didn't have as active of an amygdala) Neither is necessarily better than the other as they both serve important roles in society. Although, sometimes I truly wish that the more  radical conservative side would open their eyes to science and accept that the world was not created by some bearded white dude in the sky (from the middle east?) 6,000 years ago. Or the fact that global warming (climate change is the same thing) does indeed exist and it isn't about some elites trying to just tax us.

I bring this up because although I do think that there are people out there that try to control entire nations whether through monetary policy or NSA, I really don't think that the people at the top have sufficient brain power or enough attention span to be one step ahead of us. At least not at all times. In other words I don't think that Charles is some Illuminati puppet or something like that, sent here to manipulate us. For instance, I do honestly think that he has the drive and the people skills necessary to cozy up with mainstream media and use them to spread his message and this isn't the result of his elite friends.

[charleshoskinson]

Oh he will be relevant when Ethereum waits for all the crypto 2.0 out there to fund the technical leg work while they purchase political connections (that give them King-Making power) with their 25 Million USD from their "Non-IPO" through Switzerland.  It is just too rich man....

NSA is what I think, but who knows...he sure isn't saying.

The NSA is a signals intelligence agency. You should be barking up a broader mandated agency like CIA's InQTel. Then at least the conspiracy theory fits.

[fuzzy]

Lol, upvote the strawman anti-charles opinion. You guys are funny.

Get relevant


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh he will be relevant when Ethereum waits for all the crypto 2.0 out there to fund the technical leg work while they purchase political connections (that give them King-Making power) with their 25 Million USD from their "Non-IPO" through Switzerland.  It is just too rich man....

NSA is what I think, but who knows...he sure isn't saying.

[tonyk]

Lol, upvote the strawman anti-charles opinion. You guys are funny.

Get relevant

LOL, the best post per letter, ever! 

[bitbro]

Lol, upvote the strawman anti-charles opinion. You guys are funny.

Get relevant


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[charleshoskinson]

Lol, upvote the strawman anti-charles opinion. You guys are funny.

[James212]

All these coins are going to fail.  Bitshares being involved directly with any other coin besides BTSX and Bitshares ME is not a good idea.  There will be only a handful of coins that retain any meaningful value.   Why dilute the brand at this point just to see something go up and back down.

What I am confused is why Charles said we have "IPO in a Box" and therefore to not pursue Music/DNS aka "low hanging fruit".  Yet he loves the idea of yet another coin.  Charles, any way to clarify for us what you see in creating yet another coin that has same functionality of an existing coin ?

 

[James212]

I'm not sure I see the point. Sure, we may get some new fans (Litecoin users), but wouldn't this just make competition for BitsharesX, and give Litecoin users a half stake in that competition for doing absolutely nothing? I don't think it would be fair to snapshot participants, or even people whom have bought since then.

Forking BitsharesX at this point before the user base is mature seems like shooting yourself in the foot, and would reduce liquidity on both centralized exchanges and in the bitasset marketplace.

On top of that, all of the Litecoin users could just dump on the market and it would be a risky investment for anyone that isn't a AGS/Protoshare/Litecoin investor. As it is now with BitsharesX, everyone has invested something to get their stake. Whether it be investing BTC/PTS in AGS, providing CPU processing power for (or investing in) PTS, or purchasing their BTSX on the free market, this all provides incentive for people not to dump BTSX on the market for less than what they put in and upholds the price. If you make a fork and give 50% of the money supply away for free, this incentive would not be as strong for the 50% who got it for free.

BitsharesX is too small right now to try to fork the the community IMO.

Did anyone read this? I feel like I had some good points... Replace Litecoin in the post with Bitcoin... Ripple.. Stellar... I still feel the same way. This is a business and creating competition for BitsharesX and giving a group of people equity for free is not a good idea at this time.

 

[James212]

Charles -

If you say you will be leaving crypto, then leave crypto.

We don't need to your wonky, slanted, subversive outsider ideas here.  Get with the objectives or get lost.  Obviously this type of share drop code fork thing will happen.  However, coming from you, it's clear your ego problems are all over this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For everyone that doesn't remember, we are trying to start a company here.  We need to act accordingly.

Charles is a jaded scientist with no vested interest in our project.  Taking leadership from him would be counter productive.  I advise others to tell him to get lost just as the many projects in recent months have.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fuzzy]

I 100% agree with you on this actually.  The only problem is that it fails to speak to the underlying point.  How does Charles find himself in all these different countries...roaming the world, making deals in Switzerland while "on vacation from crypto"?  Who funds his ventures? How does his pet project end up being promoted via video commercials on youtube before funding even began?  How does he so easily get onto mainstream media outlets to endorse said project (without even having a product) when most all other "coins" don't even make it onto the radar? 

Literally all these questions require answering.  Otherwise it is silly for Charles to think any action he wants to take to "help" the community will be trusted.  Trust is earned...

Hard work Fuz. A lot of hard work. Literally every day I'd get up at 6-7 AM and work until 11 at night sometimes even longer. Also leverage networks properly. This is one of my best talents and what's been missing from Bitshares since my departure in October. But don't worry Bitbrio will be here soon enough to discount my contributions

As for getting on TV, it's not hard if you have the right branding, marketing and time the news cycle. MSM wants to talk about high tech cool new stuff.

Can you answer these q's each individually?  I honestly would appreciate it. 

[charleshoskinson]

I 100% agree with you on this actually.  The only problem is that it fails to speak to the underlying point.  How does Charles find himself in all these different countries...roaming the world, making deals in Switzerland while "on vacation from crypto"?  Who funds his ventures? How does his pet project end up being promoted via video commercials on youtube before funding even began?  How does he so easily get onto mainstream media outlets to endorse said project (without even having a product) when most all other "coins" don't even make it onto the radar? 

Literally all these questions require answering.  Otherwise it is silly for Charles to think any action he wants to take to "help" the community will be trusted.  Trust is earned...

Hard work Fuz. A lot of hard work. Literally every day I'd get up at 6-7 AM and work until 11 at night sometimes even longer. Also leverage networks properly. This is one of my best talents and what's been missing from Bitshares since my departure in October. But don't worry Bitbrio will be here soon enough to discount my contributions

As for getting on TV, it's not hard if you have the right branding, marketing and time the news cycle. MSM wants to talk about high tech cool new stuff.

[fuzzy]

If we surpass them on coinmarket cap that is when the idea of a fork would make sense to discuss in my opinion. Also we should know what we are doing because without us to maintain the pegs it would be completely useless.

What we do agree on is calling it Liteshares. That is a badass name.

[emailtooaj]

If we surpass them on coinmarket cap that is when the idea of a fork would make sense to discuss in my opinion. Also we should know what we are doing because without us to maintain the pegs it would be completely useless.

What we do agree on is calling it Liteshares. That is a badass name.

 

[fuzzy]

The DIY innovator doesn't need any "scientific credentials. "
We are all born scientist unfortunately our educational system just teaches us
To memorize facts and squashes curiosity. In a different time and place this worked well but not anymore.

I'm just trying to say that Charles doesn't need to have scientific credentials to run this experiment. It would be like saying Dan needs to have a PHD in economics in order for him to run the experiment that is Bitshares.

I 100% agree with you on this actually.  The only problem is that it fails to speak to the underlying point.  How does Charles find himself in all these different countries...roaming the world, making deals in Switzerland while "on vacation from crypto"?  Who funds his ventures? How does his pet project end up being promoted via video commercials on youtube before funding even began?  How does he so easily get onto mainstream media outlets to endorse said project (without even having a product) when most all other "coins" don't even make it onto the radar? 

Literally all these questions require answering.  Otherwise it is silly for Charles to think any action he wants to take to "help" the community will be trusted.  Trust is earned...

I know it is hard to ask and even sounds outright mean...but we have to really think about why we are all here.  Sure a small part of it is to make money and retire early on an island somewhere...but this world has real problems and the real Satoshi Nakamoto even put his/her/their primary reason for Bitcoin's creation into the Genesis Block:

// The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks

Do we think Satoshi would have stayed anonymous if he/she/they felt there were no genuine risks posed by these powers that are fueled by Debt and Death?   
If we spoke to Satoshi today, would he/she/they laughingly ignore claims of the NSA's total surveillance grid?  What of the obvious centralization of power into the hands of a few?  Manipulated Markets?  The sadistic cult-like organizations that grow up around any power that goes unchecked for a century?

What Would Satoshi Say about the enemies to technologies that decentralize power down to the level of sovereign individuals?  Would he/she/they laughingly deny secret societies (societies of powerful people colluding in secret--I know never happened before)?  Would he/she/they laugh if I said releasing this technology would make enemies among these groups?
 

I'm done with this part of the topic though and hope we can get back to the idea of future btsx forks. 

In light of the prior summoning of Satoshi's ghost in this post, I'd ask in response to the thoughts of forking to Litecoin:
What would Satoshi Do?   I believe the answers to these questions are all found in why Bitcoin was released to the world.  If ANY of us stray from that reason...I think we are also straying from what will be best for all our portfolios in the end.  Just my two btsx. 

[Gentso1]

Don't get involved with the actual forking, if they do it let them do it on their own. IF they do it and IF they honor the social contract (the higher the percent the more incentive of course) then we should support it.

The toolkit is free so why not get something out of it.

I find it odd that many crypto types don't look at other crypto's for what they are: Competitors : someone who is trying to win or do better than all others especially in business or sports : someone who is competing : b :  one selling or buying goods or services in the same market as another

We are all in the same market. Many of us have the same broad goals. No one wanted to make friends or partner with us in any meaningful way until we made a splash. We should make strategic alliances and help dev's of coins that help us other then that....... I say lets bleed the market cap of every non-innovative coin out their. Its a crypto war so let the best technology win.

“Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.”


― H.L. Mencken, Prejudices: First Series
 

Forks are fine but blatant copies are not. Honestly we shouldn't be pushing for a fork until we know how to use what we have.

What is the true wealth of what we have with the Bitshares toolkit? What untapped ideas do we have which can be used creatively with the Bitshares toolkit?

I always push for 50/50 split between AGS PTS and the community we want to sharedrop to. I also push for added value to both communities. To create value you have to figure out something people couldn't do efficiently before and find a way to empower people to do it in a DAC.

I think you can have a new Bitshares X chain but we don't need it right now. We need more DACs though to spread DPoS.

I wasn't very clear, I was saying IF it is forked then we should support it. I am not for forking but IF it happens ( don't think it will).

As for the wealth of the toolkit, isn't it available for anyone to use? I agree their are tons of untapped ideas but the kit itself is free. Its the community and support we give that is supposed to make honoring pts/ags worth the price of the social contract.

I also agree we don't need a new bitshares x chain. This one is just getting started not reason to create another one yet.

In the end my ideas are simple suck market cap/liquidity (I think these are fine gauges for a banking platform) out of alts that have no unique features, are out dated or are not being actively developed.
Use said market cap/liquidity to make a platform that is a bank account and exchange all in one across a decentralized network.

Profit?

[tonyk]

I fully support anyone planning to do this but I think it will be a spectacular failure. No AGS resources should be committed to this.

And/or  time (in any way shape or form) by you or anybody in the development team*.

* 'development team' in its broadest definition.

[charleshoskinson]

Dan doesn't have a PhD!!!??? Anyway sorry guys for being snippy. Hal ' s death made me a bit sad.

[jae208]

The DIY innovator doesn't need any "scientific credentials. "
We are all born scientist unfortunately our educational system just teaches us
To memorize facts and squashes curiosity. In a different time and place this worked well but not anymore.

I'm just trying to say that Charles doesn't need to have scientific credentials to run this experiment. It would be like saying Dan needs to have a PHD in economics in order for him to run the experiment that is Bitshares.

[fuzzy]

what are your scientific credentials again?

New World Order academy for a few years and then went on to the Illuminati group for while. You know they do a lot of human experiments

Nice dodge charles, but really I think it is kind of important for an actual answer. Why is it so hard?

Id think you would want to open up so everyone can know you can be trusted.  Just think how much that simple gesture would help when you are trying to get community involvement--which nearly always ends up with you frustrated.

I mean is it really so silly to think that the old paradigm would see crypto as both a great opportunity...and a great threat?   And if this is true, would they not send agents with agendas? If I were you id go out of my way to ensure people know im not part of that effort.

Cant believe im going to say this...but im actually trying to help you! I like some of your ideas..and even agree with them.  Good luck with everything charles...really. please consider my points.

[gamey]

So much will be marketing.  If some kid does this in his basement it isn't going to be near as successful as a name to make it shine in the crypto-light.  Lets make it happen !

The thing is forking BTSX means you're going to be at a loss going forward merging the changes.  You're almost better not even forking it.  We just need some better splash art.  You like your picture with or without beard, Charles ?

CHLiteCoin  chiclit's.  hrmmmm.. 

Anyway, I kid.. sorta..  but if you want to partner up give me a holla

[charleshoskinson]

I should have been more clear. I expect "it" to be a failure in the sense that it will demonstrate that sharedrops on random crypto-equities will not cause value transfer like they do for PTS. From the perspective it being an experiment there is of course no way to "fail" - I'm saying I think it's not worth even trying, we won't learn enough.

Which is entirely why I'm soliciting advice about features, functionality and also transfer methodology (sharedrops, PoB). There is this abstract notion of stickiness in a network where people tend to stay in a network once it acquires a critical mass even when the network is inferior in features to another (think operating systems, social networks and search engines for example). With a value transfer, you have an explicit economic layer that's built in.

I expect "it" to be a failure in the sense that it will demonstrate that sharedrops on random crypto-equities will not cause value transfer like they do for PTS

Actually this result would be very good data because then you can refine future experiments against a benchmark.

what are your scientific credentials again?

New World Order academy for a few years and then went on to the Illuminati group for while. You know they do a lot of human experiments

[toast]

I fully support anyone planning to do this but I think it will be a spectacular failure. No AGS resources should be committed to this.

Jesus christ. Alright one last time and then I'm done trying to explain what I'm discussing. This has NOTHING TO DO WITH CREATING A PARTICULAR ALTCOIN. It's a question about how to measure and transfer the value of a given cryptocurrency. I am arguing that price and liquidity alone are poor measures of the actual value of the network. So I'm asking how to structure an experiment to actually validate a measure hypothesis as well as examine how transfer works. I am conjecturing that Litecoin is the best testbed for the experiment. The goal is to understand this in general and not make a fucking altcoin.

You guys seem to have this enormous mental block.

I should have been more clear. I expect "it" to be a failure in the sense that it will demonstrate that sharedrops on random crypto-equities will not cause value transfer like they do for PTS. From the perspective it being an experiment there is of course no way to "fail" - I'm saying I think it's not worth even trying, we won't learn enough.

[charleshoskinson]

I fully support anyone planning to do this but I think it will be a spectacular failure. No AGS resources should be committed to this.

Jesus christ. Alright one last time and then I'm done trying to explain what I'm discussing. This has NOTHING TO DO WITH CREATING A PARTICULAR ALTCOIN. It's a question about how to measure and transfer the value of a given cryptocurrency. I am arguing that price and liquidity alone are poor measures of the actual value of the network. So I'm asking how to structure an experiment to actually validate a measure hypothesis as well as examine how transfer works. I am conjecturing that Litecoin is the best testbed for the experiment. The goal is to understand this in general and not make a fucking altcoin.

You guys seem to have this enormous mental block. Experiments are designed to provide insight into something you want to study. If no one migrates, then you've probably learned something. Also, I don't need, have ever sought, nor will accept AGS funds for any experiment I conduct.

[gamey]

No that's not what I said and if you don't understand then I don't have time to explain it I'm sorry. This has nothing to do with creating a coin as an end goal. I've created too many coins already.

There were other threads. 

For clarity from me - I am also addressing the previous threads where you were very strongly in favor of a new coin.  I'm trying to get the overall CH view because I suspect you've put far more thought into long term strategies than 99%+ of the users here.

[luckybit]

Don't get involved with the actual forking, if they do it let them do it on their own. IF they do it and IF they honor the social contract (the higher the percent the more incentive of course) then we should support it.

The toolkit is free so why not get something out of it.

I find it odd that many crypto types don't look at other crypto's for what they are: Competitors : someone who is trying to win or do better than all others especially in business or sports : someone who is competing : b :  one selling or buying goods or services in the same market as another

We are all in the same market. Many of us have the same broad goals. No one wanted to make friends or partner with us in any meaningful way until we made a splash. We should make strategic alliances and help dev's of coins that help us other then that....... I say lets bleed the market cap of every non-innovative coin out their. Its a crypto war so let the best technology win.

“Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.”


― H.L. Mencken, Prejudices: First Series
 

Forks are fine but blatant copies are not. Honestly we shouldn't be pushing for a fork until we know how to use what we have.

What is the true wealth of what we have with the Bitshares toolkit? What untapped ideas do we have which can be used creatively with the Bitshares toolkit?

I always push for 50/50 split between AGS PTS and the community we want to sharedrop to. I also push for added value to both communities. To create value you have to figure out something people couldn't do efficiently before and find a way to empower people to do it in a DAC.

I think you can have a new Bitshares X chain but we don't need it right now. We need more DACs though to spread DPoS.

[toast]

I fully support anyone planning to do this but I think it will be a spectacular failure. No AGS resources should be committed to this.

[charleshoskinson]

No that's not what I said and if you don't understand then I don't have time to explain it I'm sorry. This has nothing to do with creating a coin as an end goal. I've created too many coins already.

[gamey]

So you're looking for the best coin to sharedrop to so you can cash some loot ?  I'm seriously lost after reading below.  You've been enamored with making yet another coin since you started posting on here.  I mean of all the worthless things one can do with their time...  I understand it is fun creating your own coin and maybe making some money,  but I just fail to see how you can value such an enterprise then be dismissive of other Bitshares projects which have unique functionality.  It is puzzling to me to say the least.

Always interesting to read your thoughts.

What I am confused is why Charles said we have "IPO in a Box" and therefore to not pursue Music/DNS aka "low hanging fruit".  Yet he loves the idea of yet another coin.  Charles, any way to clarify for us what you see in creating yet another coin that has same functionality of an existing coin ?

Lot of straw man in your paragraph soup here. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding in what I'm asking so let me try again. After the recent spike in Bitshares price, I started thinking about what market cap really is measuring considering there are so many factors unique to this space in the price of a token like BTS or BTC. Mastercoin is worth several million as a network, but has roughly 500-1000 dollars in trading volume effectively meaning the tokens can never really be sold. So price and liquidity are both required.

In reality, what I'm looking for is the notion of incumbency value of the entire network, which probably is best measured as the sum of nodes in the network given each node has at least the following characteristics:
1) Network resources contributed for a given time interval
2) Virality of the node
3) Some measure of the cost to move the node to a new network (its stickiness)
4) The overall wealth of the node's controller
5) The willingness of the node to contribute resources from his wealth to the network or to enhance network functionality

I am certain there are more factors to identify, but in any event, what I'm looking for is a metric to appraise how valuable a particular coin is given its node set as well as the cost of moving the node set to a new network. Then we could more accurately price the value of a coin without referencing a meaningless fiat benchmark that ripple can manipulate at any time for example. Also you can price the cost of node acquisition (and no it's not the market price of the tokens they hold because you want people not tokens, tokens can be conjured at any time with a fork click).

Litecoin seems to me to be the perfect testbed for experimentation as the network is poorly maintained, has a large population, and there is a lot of potential incumbency value there. As for using the code base of Bitshares, there is no way I'd ever attempt to maintain a full C++ codebase. It's like asking to take care of an 800 pound bull with diabetes and anger management issues.

Finally, I'll mention cryptoequities. They are completely different from cryptocurrencies in that they are attached to a real entity directly or indirectly. If I want to have an IPO, then I currently have to go to Goldman Sachs and kiss the golden ring. With an IPO toolkit, you could have a custom sale connected to any terms and conditions and enforce them in the real world via Unidroit and also all the exchange mechanisms necessary to avoid having to use a traditional stock market. AGS honoring in exchange for maintenance and support of the custom chains would potentially a very profitable model. You just have to worry about fungibility of the Bitassets between chains (google's BitUSD needs to be worth as much as overstock's) or at the very least there needs to be a bridge mechanism for market makers to even prices via arbitrage strategies (ripple is using this approach for gateway IOUs).

Think strategically people! This is a business that will DEPEND on strategic partnerships and forking code to increase our brand recognition, portfolio diversification, positive marketing by forcing altcoin value to be based off of valuable dev-driven innovation--hard to beat bitshares here!--is the only way to move forward.  Why do you think Ethereum is trying to get all platforms to work under their common umbrella?
 

I think people here have more fun labeling me a jaded scientist that should be avoided at all costs. You are correct in the umbrella strategy. There needs to be effective heterogeneity in the cryptoscape.

[fuzzy]

I think people here have more fun labeling me a jaded scientist that should be avoided at all costs. You are correct in the umbrella strategy. There needs to be effective heterogeneity in the cryptoscape.

I definitely don't label you as that (what are your scientific credentials again?).  You have a great many connections and it just makes one wonder how an individual gets so many high up connections.  I mean, I never saw you before crypto--but it sure was easy for you to get onto mainstream media (and we all know who owns mainstream media).  LOTS of questions for people to ponder but I refuse to keep going there--I have my opinion and nothing (yet) has changed it. 

As far as some of your points--they are in my opinion all valid.  We need to really ask ourselves if we want BitShares to be a Ubiquitous, massively adopted technology (which will make all of us filthy rich--ethically) or if we want to be playing poker on our own little island, pretending we will always be the only game in town.

[charleshoskinson]

What I am confused is why Charles said we have "IPO in a Box" and therefore to not pursue Music/DNS aka "low hanging fruit".  Yet he loves the idea of yet another coin.  Charles, any way to clarify for us what you see in creating yet another coin that has same functionality of an existing coin ?

Lot of straw man in your paragraph soup here. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding in what I'm asking so let me try again. After the recent spike in Bitshares price, I started thinking about what market cap really is measuring considering there are so many factors unique to this space in the price of a token like BTS or BTC. Mastercoin is worth several million as a network, but has roughly 500-1000 dollars in trading volume effectively meaning the tokens can never really be sold. So price and liquidity are both required.

In reality, what I'm looking for is the notion of incumbency value of the entire network, which probably is best measured as the sum of nodes in the network given each node has at least the following characteristics:
1) Network resources contributed for a given time interval
2) Virality of the node
3) Some measure of the cost to move the node to a new network (its stickiness)
4) The overall wealth of the node's controller
5) The willingness of the node to contribute resources from his wealth to the network or to enhance network functionality

I am certain there are more factors to identify, but in any event, what I'm looking for is a metric to appraise how valuable a particular coin is given its node set as well as the cost of moving the node set to a new network. Then we could more accurately price the value of a coin without referencing a meaningless fiat benchmark that ripple can manipulate at any time for example. Also you can price the cost of node acquisition (and no it's not the market price of the tokens they hold because you want people not tokens, tokens can be conjured at any time with a fork click).

Litecoin seems to me to be the perfect testbed for experimentation as the network is poorly maintained, has a large population, and there is a lot of potential incumbency value there. As for using the code base of Bitshares, there is no way I'd ever attempt to maintain a full C++ codebase. It's like asking to take care of an 800 pound bull with diabetes and anger management issues.

Finally, I'll mention cryptoequities. They are completely different from cryptocurrencies in that they are attached to a real entity directly or indirectly. If I want to have an IPO, then I currently have to go to Goldman Sachs and kiss the golden ring. With an IPO toolkit, you could have a custom sale connected to any terms and conditions and enforce them in the real world via Unidroit and also all the exchange mechanisms necessary to avoid having to use a traditional stock market. AGS honoring in exchange for maintenance and support of the custom chains would potentially a very profitable model. You just have to worry about fungibility of the Bitassets between chains (google's BitUSD needs to be worth as much as overstock's) or at the very least there needs to be a bridge mechanism for market makers to even prices via arbitrage strategies (ripple is using this approach for gateway IOUs).

Think strategically people! This is a business that will DEPEND on strategic partnerships and forking code to increase our brand recognition, portfolio diversification, positive marketing by forcing altcoin value to be based off of valuable dev-driven innovation--hard to beat bitshares here!--is the only way to move forward.  Why do you think Ethereum is trying to get all platforms to work under their common umbrella?
 

I think people here have more fun labeling me a jaded scientist that should be avoided at all costs. You are correct in the umbrella strategy. There needs to be effective heterogeneity in the cryptoscape.

[Gentso1]

Don't get involved with the actual forking, if they do it let them do it on their own. IF they do it and IF they honor the social contract (the higher the percent the more incentive of course) then we should support it.

The toolkit is free so why not get something out of it.

I find it odd that many crypto types don't look at other crypto's for what they are: Competitors : someone who is trying to win or do better than all others especially in business or sports : someone who is competing : b :  one selling or buying goods or services in the same market as another

We are all in the same market. Many of us have the same broad goals. No one wanted to make friends or partner with us in any meaningful way until we made a splash. We should make strategic alliances and help dev's of coins that help us other then that....... I say lets bleed the market cap of every non-innovative coin out their. Its a crypto war so let the best technology win.

“Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.”


― H.L. Mencken, Prejudices: First Series
   

[fuzzy]

Couldn't agree more (except I see room for 1000's of valuable "coins" when coupled with a BitShares Toolkit-built infrastructure).  Invictus should have NO place in ever forking any of their code.  They should only be available to give feedback to devs wanting to do so themselves (and only if they have guaranteed to sufficiently honor PTS/AGS).

The problem is these 1000s of coins don't serve unique services or value anymore if they're just more forks muddying up the ecosystem.

agreed...which goes back to innovation--so we are actually not in disagreement.  If 1000's of coins use the BitShares toolkit to build truly innovative infrastructure (that accepts the native coin), then 1000's of coins could easily coexist.  If not, then you are 100% correct.

[gamey]

Couldn't agree more (except I see room for 1000's of valuable "coins" when coupled with a BitShares Toolkit-built infrastructure).  Invictus should have NO place in ever forking any of their code.  They should only be available to give feedback to devs wanting to do so themselves (and only if they have guaranteed to sufficiently honor PTS/AGS).

The problem is these 1000s of coins don't serve unique services or value anymore if they're just more forks muddying up the ecosystem.

[fuzzy]

持有LTC的人得到你给的Litecoinshares之后抛售欲望会非常强烈，毕竟是赠送的0成本的，他们想的更多的可能是在发布前多买些LTC，这样有助于LTC的涨价。这个跟PTS/AGS持有者不一样，大多数的持有者都是对BTSX或者其他DACS都有兴趣积极参与测试和社区讨论。“社会共识”就是需要参与者真正参与进来，而不是简单的买卖。再者，FORK之后是自主创新呢还是跟着I3的技术走，如果是一直跟着走，将会非常被动。产值也会非常低效。
不过还是很欢迎你这么做，这样可以推广DPOS，顺便让更多人参与DACS的建设。

Thank you google translate: 

"LTC holders who get after you give Litecoinshares very strong desire to sell , after all, is a gift 0 cost , they want more likely to buy more before posting LTC, which helps LTC price increases . This with PTS / AGS holders are not the same , most of the owners are right BTSX or other DACS are interested in actively participating in testing and community discussions . " Social consensus " is the true needs of the participants involved, rather than simply trading . Furthermore, after FORK independent innovation it or go along with I3 technology , if it is always to follow , will be very passive . Output will be very inefficient.
But still very welcome to do so , so you can promote DPOS, the way to allow more people to participate in the construction of DACS ."

Just so it is clear.  I don't care if a third party does this.  It will happen eventually almost guaranteed.  I do object to I3 spending any significant resources supporting this outside of basic developer support/bugs.

If you go out and you talk to bitcoin people, you hear scam coin ! just a way to get money ! a scam !  blah blah.  And you know what?  They're partially correct.  There are a ton of guys making coins out there that really do very little if anything innovative.  The innovation itself is spread so thin that few if any of the coins stand out.  (Anyone know which ones?)

There will not be many coins that live on.  There just isn't much need for them and they all damage each other's adoption.  So only a few coins will survive and have real use outside of niche crypto-markets.  I don't see why I3 needs to lower itself to that game.  Let someone else do it and don't have the Bitshares name tarnished as another money grabber scammer by being directly involved in creating more coins just because they can.

Couldn't agree more (except I see room for 1000's of valuable "coins" when coupled with a BitShares Toolkit-built infrastructure).  Invictus should have NO place in ever forking any of their code.  They should only be available to give feedback to devs wanting to do so themselves (and only if they have guaranteed to sufficiently honor PTS/AGS).

[gamey]

Just so it is clear.  I don't care if a third party does this.  It will happen eventually almost guaranteed.  I do object to I3 spending any significant resources supporting this outside of basic developer support/bugs.

If you go out and you talk to bitcoin people, you hear scam coin ! just a way to get money ! a scam !  blah blah.  And you know what?  They're partially correct.  There are a ton of guys making coins out there that really do very little if anything innovative.  The innovation itself is spread so thin that few if any of the coins stand out.  (Anyone know which ones?)

There will not be many coins that live on.  There just isn't much need for them and they all damage each other's adoption.  So only a few coins will survive and have real use outside of niche crypto-markets.  I don't see why I3 needs to lower itself to that game.  Let someone else do it and don't have the Bitshares name tarnished as another money grabber scammer by being directly involved in creating more coins just because they can.

[fuzzy]

Anyone who knows me knows I would be the first to jump on the hoskinson-spanking party. But I dont see this as divisive at all. Potentially risky? Yes. Potentially hugely profitable? Definitely.

Sure--We are tying to start a new business, but this isn't your mom and pops proprietary business.  This is a company making decentralized services from completely forkable code.  One of the MOST important things we can do in this community is use sharedrops for strategic purposes. One of the biggest reasons? Setting a precedent for all future forked chains to maximally honor PTS AGS, BTSX holders. Why?  Because if this project is successful and our community doesn't establish this precedent....good luck getting diversified into other chains as they are forked (and they will be). 

Honoring pts /ags is to my undrstanding, in no way legally enforceable, so giving value by forking btsx oursleves under the social consensus...while dictating the circumstances under which it occurs and in such a way that it builds connections with other essential parts of the equation (think Stellar/Ripple gateways people!) in the end could serve us very well in quickly gaining access to costly infrastructure.

Why fork it ourselves to set the precedent? We will be seen as the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of the "greedy bitcoin community" who is largely opposed to competition and collaboration outside of bitcoin ecosystem (that is first). Secondly, many pow lovers dont even know about bitshares and its potential...but sit there crying about the lack of ltc development.  This sets them up to watch the bitshares product improve while theirs stays stagnant.  Quickly we see a measuring stick emerge by which all other altcoins will likely be judged, then let the subsequent screams about "no development" from the ltc community to get louder...and louder.  How do you think that negative advertising (from litecoins own community nonetheless) will effect the professionally maintained one (btsx)?  I'll leave this point at that. 

Better yet, if development somehow increases and ltc becomes the coin it should be--with devs actually caring about infusing their ecosystem with more value..., we are all diversified across another btsx chain and the ltc community will know about the power of the bitshares toolkit.  This means a couple things:
1) now your investment must be attacked on multiple fronts (multiple chains will reinforce the market pegs)
2) altcoin devs who are now in a race to prove themselves can either do so from scratch...or use the toolkit (to gain an speed of development advantage) and honor PTS/AGS holders with stake in their DACs.

Think strategically people! This is a business that will DEPEND on strategic partnerships and forking code to increase our brand recognition, portfolio diversification, positive marketing by forcing altcoin value to be based off of valuable dev-driven innovation--hard to beat bitshares here!--is the only way to move forward.  Why do you think Ethereum is trying to get all platforms to work under their common umbrella? 

P.S.
For anyone who thinks our community will have enough say (in its infancy) to command other altcoins honor social consensus is, to me, a grand dream.  The social consensus derives value from what WE give it.  If we have no gateways, a small (but slowly growing user base) and few people using the decentralized exchange, we are far weaker than if we introduce the value into the system by sharedropping in ways that get us what we establish as necessities for our future success.  Sure some people have honored Bitcoin holders with airdrops on their users' holdings...but mostly there are thousands of altcoins that just get pumped and dumped.  If bitshares is going to be THE Standard...we have to think about this from a slightly different angle. 

[ssjpts]

持有LTC的人得到你给的Litecoinshares之后抛售欲望会非常强烈，毕竟是赠送的0成本的，他们想的更多的可能是在发布前多买些LTC，这样有助于LTC的涨价。这个跟PTS/AGS持有者不一样，大多数的持有者都是对BTSX或者其他DACS都有兴趣积极参与测试和社区讨论。“社会共识”就是需要参与者真正参与进来，而不是简单的买卖。再者，FORK之后是自主创新呢还是跟着I3的技术走，如果是一直跟着走，将会非常被动。产值也会非常低效。
不过还是很欢迎你这么做，这样可以推广DPOS，顺便让更多人参与DACS的建设。

[vegolino]

I'm not sure I see the point. Sure, we may get some new fans (Litecoin users), but wouldn't this just make competition for BitsharesX, and give Litecoin users a half stake in that competition for doing absolutely nothing? I don't think it would be fair to snapshot participants, or even people whom have bought since then.

Forking BitsharesX at this point before the user base is mature seems like shooting yourself in the foot, and would reduce liquidity on both centralized exchanges and in the bitasset marketplace.

On top of that, all of the Litecoin users could just dump on the market and it would be a risky investment for anyone that isn't a AGS/Protoshare/Litecoin investor. As it is now with BitsharesX, everyone has invested something to get their stake. Whether it be investing BTC/PTS in AGS, providing CPU processing power for (or investing in) PTS, or purchasing their BTSX on the free market, this all provides incentive for people not to dump BTSX on the market for less than what they put in and upholds the price. If you make a fork and give 50% of the money supply away for free, this incentive would not be as strong for the 50% who got it for free.

BitsharesX is too small right now to try to fork the the community IMO.

[gamey]

All these coins are going to fail.  Bitshares being involved directly with any other coin besides BTSX and Bitshares ME is not a good idea.  There will be only a handful of coins that retain any meaningful value.   Why dilute the brand at this point just to see something go up and back down.

What I am confused is why Charles said we have "IPO in a Box" and therefore to not pursue Music/DNS aka "low hanging fruit".  Yet he loves the idea of yet another coin.  Charles, any way to clarify for us what you see in creating yet another coin that has same functionality of an existing coin ?

[Fox]

I'm really asking about notion of transfer of incumbency value.

@charleshoskinson
In what direction do you see the incumbency value transferring between PTS/AGS <--> LTC at a specific ratio?  Perhaps three: 50/50, higher and lower.  Bistshares is the incumbent for DPOS technology and LTC is incumbent for altcoin.

How does a given sharedrop scenario benefit PTS/AGS holders more than a direct value transfer of LTC into BTSX through the open market?

[Agent86]

This is a business and creating competition for BitsharesX and giving a group of people equity for free is not a good idea at this time.

[charleshoskinson]

First I'd never touch a line of c++ code. Something functional and easy to maintain. Second, I'm really asking about notion of transfer of incumbency value.  Litecoin appears to be a good test set.

[CoinHoarder]

Sure, sharedrop everybody....no need to wait until theres a stable release on all platforms, lets just give them our bugs

Yes, another good reason.

[sschechter]

Sure, sharedrop everybody....no need to wait until theres a stable release on all platforms, lets just give them our bugs

[CoinHoarder]

I'm not sure I see the point. Sure, we may get some new fans (Litecoin users), but wouldn't this just make competition for BitsharesX, and give Litecoin users a half stake in that competition for doing absolutely nothing? I don't think it would be fair to snapshot participants, or even people whom have bought since then.

Forking BitsharesX at this point before the user base is mature seems like shooting yourself in the foot, and would reduce liquidity on both centralized exchanges and in the bitasset marketplace.

On top of that, all of the Litecoin users could just dump on the market and it would be a risky investment for anyone that isn't a AGS/Protoshare/Litecoin investor. As it is now with BitsharesX, everyone has invested something to get their stake. Whether it be investing BTC/PTS in AGS, providing CPU processing power for (or investing in) PTS, or purchasing their BTSX on the free market, this all provides incentive for people not to dump BTSX on the market for less than what they put in and upholds the price. If you make a fork and give 50% of the money supply away for free, this incentive would not be as strong for the 50% who got it for free.

BitsharesX is too small right now to try to fork the the community IMO.

Did anyone read this? I feel like I had some good points... Replace Litecoin in the post with Bitcoin... Ripple.. Stellar... I still feel the same way. This is a business and creating competition for BitsharesX and giving a group of people equity for free is not a good idea at this time.

[liondani]

what about dropping to BTC?
I don't see Litecoin as our competitor...

[CLains]

BitShares has no plans to create a "coin" - the first project to do this, teaming up with marketing etc. and honoring the 10/10 social consensus is going to the moon.. That's just how it is.

Dropping to Litecoin is just a marketing strategy that must be evaluated promotion/cost.

[xeroc]

For everyone that doesn't remember, we are trying to start a company here.  We need to act accordingly.

Charles is a jaded scientist with no vested interest in our project.  Taking leadership from him would be counter productive.  I advise others to tell him to get lost just as the many projects in recent months have.

You seem to be in a very bad mood today :-(

[biophil]

I'm pretty ambivalent about any such sharedrop. However, I'll echo what other people around here are saying: whatever your percentage for LTC, you will be doing yourself a great disservice if you do not drop 10% to PTS (and 10% to AGS, but it looks like you're already thinking about that).

If you give to AGS and not PTS, you're flouting the social consensus! People do not take well to that around here!

[jae208]

I don't see any reason to fork BitSharesX, but I do think a generic DPOS coin sharedropped onto Litecoin would be a very interesting experiment.  I would suggest 10% PTS 10% AGS and 80% LTC.  As  bitshares supporters we already have a reason to want this chain to succeed.  The bigger danger would be litecoiners dumping it IMO.  I say lets give them 80% and call it exactly what it is. It is a gift of superior technology.

I was thinking the same. 
If Litecoiners dump it and if the network has any value whatsoever it'll start to concentrate in the hands of the few as it always does.

[puppies]

I don't see any reason to fork BitSharesX, but I do think a generic DPOS coin sharedropped onto Litecoin would be a very interesting experiment.  I would suggest 10% PTS 10% AGS and 80% LTC.  As  bitshares supporters we already have a reason to want this chain to succeed.  The bigger danger would be litecoiners dumping it IMO.  I say lets give them 80% and call it exactly what it is.  It is a gift of superior technology.

[jae208]

I'm also curious to see if the incumbency value of Litecoin would transfer to a new chain. If 100% of Litecoin's value transferred to this new chain(most likely wouldn't) and assuming that AGS/PTS got at least 20% that is over $30,000,000 worth of value transferred to AGS/PTS holders. I'm also assuming that a fork wouldn't destroy the current BitsharesX network. Bitcoin has been cloned countless times but its still king.


However, no one is really obligated to give AGS/PTS holders anything but of course that would mean no support from our part.
BTW Lottoshares has $9,000,000 market cap and is number 10 not sure how it happened and if AGS/PTS holders have anything to do with that.

Also, it is actually good to spread the seed of DPOS far and wide so others can adopt and improve upon it and hopefully we all benefit from having a more robust system.

[xeroc]

Just a reminder ... if you do not sharedrop AGS and PTS by at least 10% .. you will not honor the social consensus and probably not receive much support from most parts of the community.

[fuzzy]

This one sounds mostly like an academic exercise

Exactly.  And BitsharesX is a company so we should approach this as a business decision.  Would sharedropping add value to BitsharesX?  If so can that same value be achieved another way for cheaper?

IMO BitsharesX brings more value to Litecoin than Litecoin brings to BitsharesX.  The academic exercises can can be done for cheaper using other less expensive chains.. in fact, that same exercise could be done with PTS conversion.

Sharedropping for valuable tech like gateways  or Ethereum would be a different story..

Do it, then Sharedrop to Ripple or Stellar (15%) in addition to PTS (10%)/AGS (10%)/btsx (15%)/LTC (50%).  Make it part of the consensus for Ripple/Stellar that in order for their holders to receive the sharedrop, they must agree to work on gateways for all forks of btsx that sharedrop on their holders (Stellar would give a better PR image though, imo, and--later--access to social media).

Add functionality to the bitsharesx wallet so holders of bitsharesx forks can use only the bitsharesx wallet to claim shares in literally all subsequent forks (that honor social consensus).  Enable people to easily switch between exchanges and send transactions from chain to chain.  This would further arbitration opportunities between chains and would get a huge user base (nearly all litecoin's and stellars' holders) to download the bitshares^x wallet.  These are huge incentives we can offer in return for forks honoring social consensus...and we all get more price stability across chains in addition to a larger user base and incentivize all users to download and use the bitshares^x wallet.

[yellowecho]

This one sounds mostly like an academic exercise

Exactly.  And BitsharesX is a company so we should approach this as a business decision.  Would sharedropping add value to BitsharesX?  If so can that same value be achieved another way for cheaper?

IMO BitsharesX brings more value to Litecoin than Litecoin brings to BitsharesX.  The academic exercises can can be done for cheaper using other less expensive chains.. in fact, that same exercise could be done with PTS conversion.

Sharedropping for valuable tech like gateways  or Ethereum would be a different story..

[CoinHoarder]

I'm not sure I see the point. Sure, we may get some new fans (Litecoin users), but wouldn't this just make competition for BitsharesX, and give Litecoin users a half stake in that competition for doing absolutely nothing? I don't think it would be fair to snapshot participants, or even people whom have bought since then.

Forking BitsharesX at this point before the user base is mature seems like shooting yourself in the foot, and would reduce liquidity on both centralized exchanges and in the bitasset marketplace.

On top of that, all of the Litecoin users could just dump on the market and it would be a risky investment for anyone that isn't a AGS/Protoshare/Litecoin investor. As it is now with BitsharesX, everyone has invested something to get their stake. Whether it be investing BTC/PTS in AGS, providing CPU processing power for (or investing in) PTS, or purchasing their BTSX on the free market, this all provides incentive for people not to dump BTSX on the market for less than what they put in and upholds the price. If you make a fork and give 50% of the money supply away for free, this incentive would not be as strong for the 50% who got it for free.

BitsharesX is too small right now to try to fork the the community IMO.

[donkeypong]

We're a very practical crowd here. I'm in favor of sharedrops from a marketing perspective when they are well-conceived. This one sounds mostly like an academic exercise, something to put out there in the...ether...and see what happens. Go for it, though I'm not quite sure what it builds.

Be sure you fork per the Social Consensus with allocations to PTS and AGS. If not, you know what happens to those who fork:

[tonyk]

I also think it is pointless experiment right now.
It was a good idea to do it before BTS X launch, just to test the DPOS. Maybe drop not only on Litecoin, but probably on the top 20 + BTC(with some scaling down).

I disagree. As with many in this community, you seem to be caught up in the "how does it make bitshares more awesome or make me more money" thought process. I'm considering the notion of transfer of incumbency value from one chain to another. If there will be a heterogeneous ecosystem of chains floating around in the cloud, then it seems like a good idea to understand how value can be transferred as an aggregate unit from one chain to another.

Litecoin is an ideal candidate because there is significant incumbency value, a healthy community and rather poor maintenance of the code of the project. Data collected from a whole chain value transfer would prove invaluable in strategizing how to do so with bitcoin itself.

if you so believe just try it. At the end of the day even 2.5% for  PTS and 2.5% for  AGS will be acceptable, if you take all the effort to do it (your developers to do it) and do not bother the Bitshares developers even with a single email/PM.

[luckybit]

I also think it is pointless experiment right now.
It was a good idea to do it before BTS X launch, just to test the DPOS. Maybe drop not only on Litecoin, but probably on the top 20 + BTC(with some scaling down).

I disagree. As with many in this community, you seem to be caught up in the "how does it make bitshares more awesome or make me more money" thought process. I'm considering the notion of transfer of incumbency value from one chain to another. If there will be a heterogeneous ecosystem of chains floating around in the cloud, then it seems like a good idea to understand how value can be transferred as an aggregate unit from one chain to another.

Litecoin is an ideal candidate because there is significant incumbency value, a healthy community and rather poor maintenance of the code of the project. Data collected from a whole chain value transfer would prove invaluable in strategizing how to do so with bitcoin itself.

Go ahead and sharedrop, watch the result. Who will make the most money? The people who know how to actually use Bitshares X already and the delegates. Not enough time has gone by to educate people on what Bitshares X technology is or how to use it and we want to discuss sharedropping it to the community least up to date on DPoS?

As far as strategy I think sharedropping could make sense but only if it's going to be maintained by developers. Are you going to maintain the chain if Charlie Lee shuns it? And do you have the credibility in the Litecoin community?

The politics is what you're missing in your equations. I discussed these exact ideas for Blackshares and approached the Blackcoin community leaders. They told me they'd get back to me and then launched PoS 2.0.

So if they don't want it should we give it to them anyway? As for 50/50 the math is as simple as you cannot get more fair than to split something 50/50. Let the market determine how the ownership ultimately shakes out but start out as equals.

I don't think incumbency has any value but that is just my personal opinion. I think we should promote innovate or die in the market.

What benefit does sharedropping LTC add that launching bitLTC couldn't?

If the Litecoin chain offered enough innovation (meaning totally different BitAssets, new functionality, new ideas), if it had developer support, then maybe I could get behind it.

The ultimate key is whatever our communities do we must push innovation forward. Innovation is what we can offer to the world and in order to compete on innovation we would need to sharedrop to a community of innovative developers. Litecoin devs just don't seem to be in that mindset so thats why I'm so against it.

Not against sharedrops or forks in general, just against it when it doesn't promote innovation for the world.

[charleshoskinson]

I also think it is pointless experiment right now.
It was a good idea to do it before BTS X launch, just to test the DPOS. Maybe drop not only on Litecoin, but probably on the top 20 + BTC(with some scaling down).

I disagree. As with many in this community, you seem to be caught up in the "how does it make bitshares more awesome or make me more money" thought process. I'm considering the notion of transfer of incumbency value from one chain to another. If there will be a heterogeneous ecosystem of chains floating around in the cloud, then it seems like a good idea to understand how value can be transferred as an aggregate unit from one chain to another.

Litecoin is an ideal candidate because there is significant incumbency value, a healthy community and rather poor maintenance of the code of the project. Data collected from a whole chain value transfer would prove invaluable in strategizing how to do so with bitcoin itself.

[tonyk]

I also think it is pointless experiment right now.
It was a good idea to do it before BTS X launch, just to test the DPOS. Maybe drop not only on Litecoin, but probably on the top 20 + BTC(with some scaling down).

[charleshoskinson]

I'm actually curious about the justification for a particular chosen sharedrop percentage. Is there a rigorous model that could be developed to predict the exodus? Is proof of burn a better transfer mechanism? What consequences does the sudden drop in liquidity have from a mass PoB exodus from one chain to another?

There is also the inductive notion of figuring out the base case and model to onboard people into a CC ecosystem. Once it is sorted for N and you have a clear connection to N+1, it seems evident one could consolidate all chains into a family of related chains.

[yellowecho]

What benefit does sharedropping LTC add that launching bitLTC couldn't?

[luckybit]

20% AGS and 80% LTC I'd rather have 20% of something valuable than 50% of something not as as valuable.
In terms of supply I think it should be like 81,000,000,000 and the fork can be called Liteshares or something.

as far as features go.... Idk something Bitshares doesn't have I guess
Even faster transaction times if possible?

So you'd rather give them your technology because of what? What do they have that is valuable? It's not innovation, their developers probably wont maintain it, the users can't figure out Bitshares X on the main chain yet so we can't expect even less sophisticated users to figure out a Litecoin fork.

If it's not 50/50 all that would happen is someone will fork the fork and make it 50/50. So 50/50 is the only way to get the majority of our community to play nice. If you give one community the advantage over the other it's going to trigger a competitive reaction and waste valuable resources.

The truth of the matter is, if we did that the Litecoin community would likely hilariously dump all their shares on us anyway. But shouldn't we know how our own market works before we spread it and should we wait for the Litecoin community to show signs of interest?

If we surpass them on coinmarket cap that is when the idea of a fork would make sense to discuss in my opinion. Also we should know what we are doing because without us to maintain the pegs it would be completely useless.

What we do agree on is calling it Liteshares. That is a badass name.

[jae208]

I say between 10%-30% AGS and 70%-90% LTC I'd rather have 20% of something valuable than 50% of something not as as valuable.
In terms of supply I think it should be like 81,000,000,000 and the fork can be called Liteshares or something.

as far as features go.... Idk something Bitshares doesn't have I guess
Even faster transaction times if possible?
Smaller number of BitAssets like BTC, USD, CNY

BTW

Charlie Lee does not equal the Litecoin community
I think that the LTC community or any community feels threatened when something new comes out and
threatens to displace it but it doesn't have to be like that. By letting them have a greater percentage of the initial distribution they will hopefully embrace the gift.

[luckybit]

If someone was to hypothetically sharedrop a bitshares inspired fork of Litecoin, then what features would you like to see? What should the ideal AGS/LTC distribution be?

50/50 distribution or don't bother.

As far as features, all the BitAssets have to be different and it needs to experiment with features that the main chain isn't testing. That way we can test out more innovations between the two communities than we could if just one community were doing it.

But I don't think it's a good idea to waste time forking to Litecoin. None of the developers have expressed interest in maintaining the fork. The entrepreneurs aren't expressing interest in BitUSD. The users aren't expressing interest yet (although they might after Bitshares surpasses Litecoin market cap I think it's too soon). Our own community hasn't even figured out Bitshares yet enough to launch BitCNY.

Basically I would see it as a pump and dump if we fork for Litecoin mainly because that is a community of developers who don't care about innovation. Their coin is a clone of Bitcoin to help miners continue to profit and it did have a use back in 2013 but now? If you're going to fork why not just make Litecoin 2.0 and replace the whole Proof of Work?

Then replace all the miners with delegates.

At this point in time I would vote against a Litecoin Sharedrop Fork proposal. Give it to Ethereum or NXT if you're gonna promote a fork. My opinion on this probably isn't going to change until I see Charlie Lee himself endorse the fork because if he doesn't want it then what is the point?

[charleshoskinson]

If someone was to hypothetically sharedrop a bitshares inspired fork of Litecoin, then what features would you like to see? What should the ideal AGS/LTC distribution be?