Quote from: btswildpig on February 13, 2016, 03:57:08 pm

dilution after one year whose effect has been devastating on the marketcap . "Marketcap will rise if you let us dilute and keep developing" , which was also the only reason that the stakeholders allowed changing the allocation schedule and ruined the reputation of BitShares in the first place . So ........ Is this objection really that surprising to you ?

BitShares has been a top10 cryptocurrency practically since coinmarketcap started (when it was PTS).

BitShares is the ONLY global source for smartcoins like bitUSD, CNY, etc.

BitShares has less dilution than the bitcoin and Ethereum.

The market cap of BitShares is half of that it needs to be in order to be the first and only profitable DAC on Earth.

BitShares, which has never been hacked, has an amazing reputation.

Every coin's marketcap got destroyed last year, not just BitShares'.  A rising tide lifts all boats.  A falling tide drops us all.

Yeah, the team could have spent their finding better, but Ethereum admittedly wasted waaaaaaaay more money and, sure, it might have hurt their "reputation" but it certainly had no affect on their marketcap, and after all, what do you really care about more?

"reputation"

or

"marketcap"

Would you be crying like this if our marketcap was half a billion like Ethereum's?

Well then stop lying to the community saying that you care about our "reputation" then, and be an honest man and say that you wish that you had more money through a higher market cap like Ethereum who dilutes waaaaay more than we do, and was waaaaaaaaay more reckless with their funding.

The success of Ethereum scientifically and economically proves that neither dillution or dumb money moves affect the marketcap of a coin as much as having a free open source community positively sharing their knowledge.

Didn't you heard ? Ethereum is controlled by the same people in wallstreet who try to enslave us (I must have heard that somewhere around here) . So ..... if BTS is not controlled by the same people in wallstreet , you can't really compare the two in the same condition .

Quote from: BTSdac on February 13, 2016, 02:41:00 pm

please notice what I say

Quote from: BTSdac on February 13, 2016, 06:25:18 am

why not after you do good effort and wait btser to vote . I think if you do really useful work to bts, they must vote support to your worker.

then please explain to me what alt / baozi is doing just now. I certainly does not recognize any value brought to the ecosystem.

If this goes on .. and more shareholders support him .. he could essential force the network to stand still in development ..

I thought that was the exact assurance when BM introduced the dilution : If shareholders do not like the inflation rate , they can vote against it .

On a side note , false development is no development at all . ( dilution and tons of AGS fund has funded a lot of things in 1.0 , and none of it was worth it because by the dev's own word ------1.0 was not usable to users . And graphene was paid by the developer's own dime. ) False development meaning development that just for "workers' sake" instead of those work that's really needed and will have lasting effect on the project instead of every work that has been paid and then be abandoned and move on to another new direction .

I guess he has just seen false development funded by dilution too much .

But then again , the doubt is bound to happen after failing to see result generated from dilution after one year whose effect has been devastating on the marketcap . "Marketcap will rise if you let us dilute and keep developing" , which was also the only reason that the stakeholders allowed changing the allocation schedule and ruined the reputation of BitShares in the first place . So ........ Is this objection really that surprising to you ?

What exactly are you proposing to do? to stop every develpment and worker because you have inflation-phobia? Yes, lets wait a few years doing nothing, I'm sure the price will skyrocket that way!

Your "sure" is right on some level . Dogecoin has shown you .

and they made the fastest blockchain on earth...one that even play thought was worth it to integrate.  so to me it seems to have worked out pretty well.  I guess im just happy to see after 2 years we have largely solved bitcoins (and nearly EVERY other crypto's) tx speed and scalability (and did i mention the fastest blockchain on earth?)
to me that is netter than paying people to just dig holes

hmm , one of the hole digger of Bitcoin was someone I knew . He has promoted Bitcoin in ways that the delegates of BitShares has never done  . So you tell me miners just dig holes ? (assuming it's miners of Bitcoin you're referring to )

Quote from: BTSdac on February 13, 2016, 06:26:54 am

are you shame？
think about many people do many thing for bts , but never ask to pay one bts ,  and also many investor lose their money by investing bts
are you shame？

So you're sitting there complaining about people not working for free to make you rich?

Are YOU shame?

how on earth do you know such work would make him rich ?
I've heard this argument before , right after the merger -------  In order to make everybody rich , you need to pay us to keep working .

And .... here we go .

Quote from: btswildpig on February 12, 2016, 04:55:49 pm

Quote from: jsidhu on February 12, 2016, 04:34:27 pm

It is his right.. Although id like to know if he is selling because as a dev myself i know what this means.

It may mean something for you , but it means nothing in BM's case even if he did sell . Because he can always find ways to generate more BTS to make up for the ones he sold eventually(by ....you know) . So selling at the low price doesn't mean he has no hope for BTS . It just mean he is pretty sure that he has more influence on the dilution budget than the voters think .

Of course if I sold I would have less direct influence. Also, payment via dilution for work is the same as if I payed cash for the diluted shares and then bts stakeholders got to decide where the cash was spent.

If I know I have X votes , and people who vote against me have Y votes (give it time , through observation , it's easy to predict), and I know whomever I sold to on the market barely becomes voters . As long as (X-Sold)>Y , the influence is the same .

localhost dumped another 5M to Polo.

Maybe cryptsy