Perception is everything, and making any "official" adjustments to the already stated supply levels will not be seen as a positive change. And all this just to avoid the talk about dilution? Seems a lot  like QE logic by the FED to me, "lets just spend our way out of debt", Keynesian economics. "Lets dilute so we can say we're not diluting".

It's this sort of perception that I am trying to nip in the bud while we are tiny. The FED mints an arbitrary amount of money to spend their way out of debt. Bitshares can't because there is a hard cap on supply of 3.7B. A little over a billion of that is in the reserve pool that we pretend doesn't exist until we need it. I'm puzzled how some feel that's more honest and transparent.

Can you guys organize a professional PR team and marketing team, and make a plan, and execute according to the plan? Everyday some ideas show up and get buried after some days. Actions?

I understand your frustration at the ad hoc nature of these discussions and the seemingly arbitrary implementation or discarding of ideas. The problem is that there isn't a "you guys". Unless you mean the committee? Right now it's just a brainstorming thread IMHO.

Perhaps the proposal put forth for a vote can include a budget for a PR and Marketing team and the making of a plan. Since this is more of a semantic change anyway marketing is basically all this would be.

In practical terms how would we go through a process like this?

There isn't really a process. Most people here know there are 3.7BB BTS. We just typically subtract the reserve fund when communicating supply.

The whole point of this exercise is to get away from the word dilution as it has a pretty bad stigma in many people's mind. It seems the general opinion is somewhere between, "yes the reserve pool should be included in supply" and "No it shouldn't because although they are real (they can be counted) their existence is already factored into the outstanding, i.e not DAC owned, supply."

If the shareholders decide to fund work for the DAC by spending from the reserve pool, and the shareholders own the DAC, it isn't dilution IMHO because no shares were created or destroyed. To be dilution they would have to be newly minted shares of an arbitrary amount. The market does not live with the specter of an unlimited number of funds suddenly being released onto the market. As JonnyBitcoin said it's already factored in as a known quantity.

Since the reserve pool is DAC owned and shareholder controlled the inclusion of them in the published supply shouldn't affect market price since they cannot all of a sudden flood the market any more than they can now. The big difference is "those in the know" understand they are there and the average trader does not.

It is my position that including the shares in the published supply would better illustrate the DAC's ability to fund itself, give a more accurate and public picture how many BTS actually exist, and take some of the political drama out of the DAC paying for work from the reserve fund.

If you call a piece of crap a chocolate, it will not become a chocolate.

I can't tell if this is for or against.

Diluting to fund workers is a current issue.

Anyway it's just semantics. We don't consider pool funds as real but we use them to pay workers...

Thanks cass! Give us your muse address so we can tip you

But: Did you use a similar color scheme on purpose?

http://ujomusic.com

I wouldn't try to imitate their page just to avoid copycat accusations

Hmm. Good observation. I think the Cass page was done before anyone had ever heard of ujomusic but they did get it out there first.

If we look at the total number of BTS in the pool, in circulation, in reserve accounts, etc. there is no dilution. All that can happen is shifting BTS from one bucket to another. It would be best to value your BTS taking all in existence into consideration. Once the reserve pool runs out then we're really in a pickle. So the goal has to be burn the funds we have to make the product profitable enough to rebuild the pool.

The talk of dilution only has meaning when the reserve pool isn't considered. Am I wrong in that no BTS is every created or destroyed only accessible or not?

Assuming this is all correct then what danotestein is asking for (~$200/day at current prices for three+ resources) is a good deal.

Quote from: Riverhead on February 01, 2016, 10:21:09 pm

Quote from: Endless on February 01, 2016, 10:04:36 pm

I looked at the ethereum website, https://www.ethereum.org/ you mean this site? I don't understand what it would do? Would it replace MUSE or just help someone work with it?

The allure I believe @Marky001 is referring to is the positive and verbose press Ethereum has garnered along with a developer-friendly sandbox type atmosphere around Ethereum and Javascript.
However that said although Ethereum is very popular in the Crypto community it doesn't really resonate with the target audience of Peertracks who by and large don't know or care about either project.
What Graphene provides intrinsically in terms of UIA control and network speed is a long way off in Ethereum and would need to be developed independently on top of all the other development work required by Peertracks.

Thanks for the detailed response, I was confused about the difference in features but that explained it well, so Ethereum is really customized for something else not really muse related. So I guess I have the same question already posted earlier, what is in ethereum that is so important tech wise that makes it a deal breaker if not used? Is there some details about some issues in muse that was posted here that I missed? I have been lurking here for a while, but finally got brave enough to dive into this discussion. 

Welcome to the discussion! A better way to think about Ethereum is not so much a product but a distributed smart contract development platform. Developers can write pretty much anything they want and have it execute on the blockchain as a smart contract. Ethereum could handle MUSE but there would be a lot of reinventing the wheel. Also what may have influenced the decision is that Ethereum wasn't released when MUSE/Peertracks started.