This forum is allowing free speech and all views to be expressed. We are the "genesis" and by duking it out now in the formation stages, we will present a more coherent , progressive front after resolving our differences. If it was possible, i advocate a few rounds with everyone in the ring once in a while.

Censorship and limits would create a very dangerous scenario.

Quote from: barwizi on March 07, 2014, 06:57:20 am

Quote from: Stan on March 07, 2014, 06:05:48 am

Quote from: barwizi on March 07, 2014, 05:56:31 am

Quote from: bytemaster on March 07, 2014, 05:50:10 am

FYI... if we release a bounty then it is no-longer a 3rd party DAC because AGS funds would be paying for it.   The proposal to allocate 30% of the PTS we received from AGS to a single  3rd party DAC and then to suggest that AGS should not be honored is outrageous.

If it is a bounty then that is true since it's paid out of AGS and it is basically owned by III.

False.  The whole concept of "owned by III" is bogus.  We are operating in the role of an honest broker "foundation" with respect to AGS.   We give everything away in cash or services.  The only thing we own is what we mined or purchased just like everyone else.
 

AGS is not III.

 
AGS is a large community of people with a demonstrated willingness to give money to develop this industry.  It is the absolutely BEST select group of individuals in the whole wide world for a DAC developer to be courting.

Actually, you are wrong. III posts the bounties and vets them, making decisions without consultation. If that is not ownership, what is? keep in mind that i am researching for one such bounty, which when submitted becomes a product of III.

Your statement is the one that is bogus.

                                                                       

Quote

AGS is not III.

AGS is controlled by III, control is a major part of ownership.


Your choice to say you do not own it, is just a pointless exercise since you will exert control over it.

Custodianship.  Stewardship.  Trusteeship.
Management of what belongs to others for their benefit.
Captain of a Cruise Ship.  Pilot of an Aircraft.
All are examples of control without ownership.

The point escapes you completely.

Quote from: barwizi on March 07, 2014, 05:56:31 am

Quote from: bytemaster on March 07, 2014, 05:50:10 am

FYI... if we release a bounty then it is no-longer a 3rd party DAC because AGS funds would be paying for it.   The proposal to allocate 30% of the PTS we received from AGS to a single  3rd party DAC and then to suggest that AGS should not be honored is outrageous.

If it is a bounty then that is true since it's paid out of AGS and it is basically owned by III.

False.  The whole concept of "owned by III" is bogus.  We are operating in the role of a not-for-profit foundation with respect to AGS.   We give everything away in cash or services.  The only thing we own is what we mined or purchased just like everyone else.
 

AGS is not III.

 
AGS is a large community of people with a demonstrated willingness to give money to develop this industry.  It is the absolutely BEST select group of individuals in the whole wide world for a DAC developer to be courting.

Actually, you are wrong. III posts the bounties and vets them, making decisions without consultation. If that is not ownership, what is? keep in mind that i am researching for one such bounty, which when submitted becomes a product of III.

Your statement is the one that is bogus.

                                                                       

AGS is not III.

AGS is controlled by III, control is a major part of ownership.


Your choice to say you do not own it, is just a pointless exercise since you will exert control over it.

FYI... if we release a bounty then it is no-longer a 3rd party DAC because AGS funds would be paying for it.   The proposal to allocate 30% of the PTS we received from AGS to a single  3rd party DAC and then to suggest that AGS should not be honored is outrageous.

If it is a bounty then that is true since it's paid out of AGS and it is basically owned by III.

-5%

-5%

Quote

Quote

It's not just Invictus.  Yes, we have a responsibility to vet anything that uses AGS funds, but as we said in the Shark Tank newsletter article:

Quote

Bring us your business plan, win the hearts and minds of our community, and get past the industry leaders on our Panel of Judges at our Las Vegas Beyond Bitcoin Summit and you could win our support in incubating your new company.

You view it as "begging" but I spent my whole career writing proposals to funding sources of all kinds.  Such sources don't just throw money in the street.  They all have a process to make sure the money is used effectively.

We have defined a good-faith process that involves everybody as described in that article.  It offers to put funding in the hands of those who need help to get started based upon a public merit-based competition.

Nothing stops people from pursuing other models.  This is the one we have developed so far and we will keep refining it.

We don't believe people with the resources to develop and deploy a DAC need any more incentive to do so.  A successful DAC is its own reward.

We choose to help those who don't have the resources by removing obstacles in their paths.

You spent your whole career writing proposals, and you want to bring the legacy, bottlenecked system into Invictus?  Way to build the new paradigm

Adam,

We obviously disagree on what constitutes responsible management of resources.  We have promised to use our best judgement to build the industry for the long term.  I outlined all the factors that drive our decision making process here:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3394.msg42988#msg42988

You consistently ignore most of these factors while you lobby to gain control over funds that were donated as a vote of confidence in our offer to manage them responsibly. 

I would encourage you (or someone you nominate) to offer your services as an alternative Industry Developer with a different vision.  Tell everyone how you will manage their contributions and solicit their donations.

I think it would be healthy to give people the option of several developers
each with a different vision and management style.

I would happily support you or your like-minded nominee in the role of Industry Developer. We might even post your angel address right beside ours and give you your own page to explain how you would use other people's funds differently. This would let everyone vote with their donations - the sincerest form of expressing a preferred approach.

I think two or more cooperating Industry Developers each pursuing alternative approaches would be healthier for the community than the current insurgent process of sewing dissatisfaction and discord within the community.  That only hurts all the stakeholders here and drives away newcomers before they even get a chance to understand the potential.

What do you say?  Truce?

I think two or more cooperating Industry Developers each pursuing alternative approaches would be healthier for the community than the current

those who choose to cooperate are moved "off topic".

I would encourage you (or someone you nominate) to offer your services as an alternative Industry Developer with a different vision.  Tell everyone how you will manage their contributions and solicit their donations.

Invictus has already cornered the available funding.


My solution is simple, I have begun creating clean templates with guides for the software side of things, now all people have to do is apply their business models. Rather than shunning these people like you did to me, let them be, you do not own the industry and should not dictate policy, let the community decide by way of interest , not you trying to hide us away "off topic".

Could you nice folks all stop arguing? Its not good for us kids to see the elders fighting.

no no , we aren't fighting. This is how we communicate.