Quote from: AdamBLevine on May 23, 2014, 11:12:59 pm

Quote from: toast on May 23, 2014, 10:59:21 pm

If DPOS fails we can always use POW with miner rewards paid from dividends as was the very initial plan back when BTS X was just "bitshares"

That's actually exactly the point, we could have started with that and would have had the product long since out for testing, ideation and expansion.  Do you think it was better to do it in the order performed?

Where we are now, yes, though I'll admit that a priori there was no way of knowing if it was a good decision. But also I don't expect to be able to sell you on "the delays due to architecture improvements will pay dividends in the long run!" so I will shut up and go back to work.

Yup I don't think anything more will resolved through discussion at this point.  Finish it and let a successful DPOS system be your at least partial vindication for any deviation from the original sales pitch.

Of course even then I don't think it will definitively answer which course of action would have been "better", but with a working new platform released I don't think many will care much.  Then the focus will be on marketing and other DACs.

Happy coding Toast.

People can change so it is not wise to judge someone by their past beliefs.   Just their current beliefs. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Unfortunately most people don't change (not that they can't, they just rarely do).  Also you can't ever really know what anyone's current beliefs are.  So what we are left with as the next best way to infer someone's current beliefs is to examine their past actions.

sigh. 

I believe that mining would have served the purpose of enabling transactions in a reliable, proven way for Bitshares and that over time they could have moved to a Proof of Stake model if that is what is desirable.  They are doing this now with PTS so it's not like I'm inventing something that would never happen.

Daniel and I spoke extensively about a post-mining world in December, I am very much a proponant of this view - but I am also a pragmatic investor who supported a concept that did in fact involve mining and more importantly that would be distribution 90% of the total tokens through non-monetary means.  That is to say, people don't have to buy Bitshares to get bitshares, they just have to run their computer.  Remember this was also when the Invictus refrain was that Bitshares would be the coin EVERYBODY could mine and get vested in for just some of their time.

That was a whole three months ago so most people here have forgotten.   As I like to say, when you leave money on the table in an open source world you're inviting someone well suited to come along and build a business picking up that money - that 90% was important because it's the ultimate onboarding mechanism.  A taste for free, if they're believers the efficient thing to do is buy a bunch.

When Angelshares rolled out, I suggested it be 10% to match the 10% of PTS but rather than take a middle step, we went 100% to the other extreme.

It should also be noted we only launched Angelshares because Invictus didn't get many Protoshares, because they wanted EVERYTHING to be as fair as possible which meant not taking any of the tokens.   I suggested several times prior to launch taking 10-25% of the tokens since after all the Invictus company was the entity giving value to PTS.   They didn't want to do that because they were too extreme in the other direction, so Angelshares was an unfortunate 100% shift from TOTALLY INCLUSIVE to TOTALLY MONETARY.

This was sold as "a better deal" because it increased the share from 10% to 50% for PTS holders, but it's like 50% of a much much smaller pie.   My cries of "Don't change the deal" are attempts to explain this - When you make the deal better for ANY PARTY, you are making it worse for someone else.   When you take money that would otherwise be left on the table, you remove the opportunity for someone to build a business picking it up.   That's the Bitshares ecosystem in a nutshell, Invictus hoovered up all the money with Angelshares and now they're doing stuff we hope will work with zero accountability.

Hmm interesting, thanks for the recap.  When I learned of Bitshares and I3 I think AGS was launched already (or it wasn't but was by the time I wrapped my head around what I3 was trying to do and how to invest in their plans).

Even if it feels to you like a total echo chamber on these forums at times, I hope you stick around and continue to voice your opinion on matters.  Reading through this thread I had no idea who "Adam B Levine" was but your complaints are well articulated and I think can bring out healthy discussion as I've learned a bit reading these last pages that I apparently missed over the last few months.

I'm a big fan of what I3 is doing here and in response to criticisms and problems I've appreciated the attitudes taken by BM, Stan and Toast.  I'm hopeful that the wait will materialize as a superior product(s) but am anxious to see something produced.

While I see the merits of Invictus pushing out a product sooner that can be forked later to a better consensus security mechanism, I also see why it would be attractive to work through the problems first to lay solid ground work for Bitshares X before releasing it to be used in the wild.

When you hear or read about "Bitcoin 2.0" technologies, Bitshares seem to rarely be mentioned in any appreciable ratio to Ethereum or Mastercoin or NXT.  As an investor of Bitshares this concerns me the same way it does for you, but I am hopeful that Dan's extra time spent will allow a truly unique and solid product to be release before too long.  A complete, working technology that can be marketed well without the confusion of coming future forks due it coming out half baked.

I don't think I had the same expectations you did when investing with I3, but can understand how the current state of affairs doesn't match with the original vision that was allegedly sold to you.

We will see how things turn out, I'm optimistic good things will happen soon, but I'm also diversified in my investments in case they don't.

Quote from: amencon on April 16, 2014, 03:14:46 am

Quote from: toast on April 16, 2014, 02:49:00 am

Quote from: amencon on April 16, 2014, 02:41:42 am

Sorry if this has been covered elsewhere, but is there any visibility for investors as far as how much of the donated funds have been spent and what they've been spent on?

Would be nice to see how costly development to present has been and how fast funds are used over time.

http://www1.agsexplorer.com/
"view google doc"

Very cool, seen that site but didn't notice the google doc links before.  Definitely like to see this kind of transparency.

I'm assuming someone was hired to manage and track these funds and it's not Dan (or just whoever feels like it) that is maintaining this?  If so my only recommendation would be to have them add a running balance and debit or credit type column.  I realize you can get this information with what's posted but the extra columns would make tracking the history of transactions in and out much easier for the casual viewer wishing to quick audit donation funds.

Thanks for posting these, this kind of disclosure really helps current and future investors trust their investments are in good hands.

Pam and Angelina are in the process of adding these features at the Department sub-spreadsheet level.  They are upgrading the Marketing Department sub-spreadsheet first:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqTwk-e7yzJydG1USVlZS2U3Q1F4RTJrM19TQXFTWHc&usp=sharing

This looks great.

Thank you.

Excellent, thanks Toast and Byte.

So if I understand correctly, assuming one delegate is honest out of 100, this should give us a steady stream of random numbers to use every 15-30 seconds?

What would this random number look like (depends on hash function used?) and how would it be applied to various games?

For instance in a simple lotto how would you correlate a winning ticket with the random number hash streamed by the delegates?

Looks promising, thanks.

Quote from: amencon on April 02, 2014, 06:24:35 pm

Thanks for the summary.  Communicates the issue and proposal well and does it concisely.

The biggest question left in my mind is how readily apparent the voting mechanism will be for the end user.  I assume it will be represented in the GUI of the wallet software?  Also sorry if this has been covered in other threads on this, but to vote will your balance need to be kept in a hot wallet?

I think in designing this system you have to assume that the vast majority of users will not consciously vote.  It was mentioned those users' votes would be determined by the default wallet behavior.  With the assumption that most don't actively vote, is there any vulnerability in giving wallet creators the power to affect voting in a similarly centralized manner as mining pools do in Bitcoin?

Overall the system sounds great and look forward to being able to test in out in the coming months.

Thanks.

Well I suspect what will happen is that those who initially create the DAC will do a solid job with solid defaults.  Voting will only ever become an issue in the event that there is some disturbance and is mostly in there to deal with problems in the unlikely event that they do occur.   Everyone trusts the core developers (they run their binaries after all)...  so trusting them to set solid defaults is probably pretty good.   I think it is mostly just important for everyone to know that should anything happen there is a contingency plan and that they have a voice should they feel the need to exercise it.

Ok thanks, that makes sense.  I'd be comfortable participating in this system with that as the answer.