BitShares Forum

Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: bytemaster on November 10, 2014, 02:10:15 pm

Title: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: bytemaster on November 10, 2014, 02:10:15 pm
We have been using DA(CCCCC) for almost a year now and it has gained a wide acceptance, but despite this others have used DA Organization or simply Decentralized Application to describe the software.

Considering we cannot agree on what the C in DAC stands for and it is becoming quite clear to me that the "autonomous" part is a tad confusing considering the critical role that people and politics play in DPOS perhaps we would all be better off dropping the DAC term all together.   

BitShares is a global community using a decentralized application to produce the best money in the world.

I want to get rid of the use of "company" for the description of what BitShares *is* and instead rely on it only for the purposes of explaining the economic design for the purposes of aligning incentives.

These are just random thoughts off the top of my head.... what do you think?


Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: FreeTrade on November 10, 2014, 02:12:56 pm
Off the top of my head too -

I think the 'Bitshares is to corporation as Bitcoin is to currency' is going to be a helpful paradigm for the press to explain Bitshares when the time comes. Keep DAC.
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: bytemaster on November 10, 2014, 02:14:45 pm
Off the top of my head too -

I think the 'Bitshares is to corporation as Bitcoin is to currency' is going to be a helpful paradigm for the press to explain Bitshares when the time comes. Keep DAC.

The last thing we want is for the press to say BitShares is a corporation.
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: btswildpig on November 10, 2014, 02:14:59 pm
community ,I would think of the old lady next door ...

collective , maybe more formal?
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: bytemaster on November 10, 2014, 02:33:56 pm
community ,I would think of the old lady next door ...

collective , maybe more formal?

I don't think the A-autonomous is terribly accurate. 

Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: JWF on November 10, 2014, 02:42:10 pm
I am in favor of dropping the "DAC" term. Running through the various synonyms for the 3 words does not give much that seems any easier to understand and explain to others though.

"Decentralized" is about as succinct as can you can get
"Autonomous" for sure should change as I have also had an issue with this word since people play a MAJOR role in this venture
"Corporation" has been struck
"Community" could work well
Other synonyms:
-Alliance
-Affiliation
-Collective
-Group
-Association
 
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: cass on November 10, 2014, 02:55:14 pm
Bitshares is a life style  8)
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: cass on November 10, 2014, 02:56:36 pm
you're BitShares
we're BitShares

why we try to couple it with existing words ... it's a completely new way of thinking, banking, voting etc ....my 2 cents

BitShares is you and me!
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: xeroc on November 10, 2014, 02:56:48 pm
Bitshares is a life style  8)
C for Church?  :o
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: xeroc on November 10, 2014, 02:57:25 pm
you're BitShares
we're BitShares

why we try to couple it with existing words ... it's a completely new way of thinking, banking, voting etc ....my 2 cents

YES, BitShares can!  8)
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: cass on November 10, 2014, 02:59:25 pm
and i like to see bitshares as a platform for building dapps
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: vlight on November 10, 2014, 03:00:41 pm
People's Blockchain of Bitshares

 ::)
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: G1ng3rBr34dM4n on November 10, 2014, 03:03:53 pm
I agree - "DAC" has the potential to back us into a corner that doesn't fully encompass the potential of BitShares

BitShares is a global community using a decentralized application to produce the best money in the world.

I like the direction this is heading, but I believe there are a few key words from this description that may be too subjective to gain mass market understanding:


Here's my attempt:

BitShares is a free market solution using open source software to purposefully design the most efficient worldwide monetary system.
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: Ben Mason on November 10, 2014, 03:04:18 pm
I like decentralized application

Bitshares is a decentralized application enabling a global community to free world markets

Bitshares is decentralized software that records the transactions for a global community


Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: Ben Mason on November 10, 2014, 03:08:58 pm
A blockchain is better than a bank

Bitshares is a decentralized application enabling a global community to manage their blockchains
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: santaclause102 on November 10, 2014, 03:09:13 pm
Bitshares is a life style  8)
C for Church?  :o
haha church is nice!

I thought of: Bitshares is a community based decentralized network providing accounting services (on a competitive level) and a platform for applications to make use of the "decentralized accounting".

I would always ad that it (among other things) behaves like a company, except that there are no legal obligations. Just because the company analogy helps a lot in understanding everything. But only if it does not have undesirable legal implications.
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: xeroc on November 10, 2014, 03:09:42 pm
Isn't BitShares more like a decentralized operating system (core software or KERNEL) and things like bitAssets/VOTE/keyID .. are DApps ontop of it?
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: Ben Mason on November 10, 2014, 03:14:01 pm
Bitshares is anything you want it to be.....

Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: Akado on November 10, 2014, 03:18:23 pm
Something among the lines of Decentralized Platform?

Decentralized Developing Platform? Decentralized Improving Platform? Decentralized Platform for Applications? Decentralized Platform for Application Development? Or simply the above.. Decentralized Platform
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: xeroc on November 10, 2014, 03:31:00 pm
Something among the lines of Decentralized Platform?

Decentralized Developing Platform? Decentralized Improving Platform? Decentralized Platform for Applications? Decentralized Platform for Application Development? Or simply the above.. Decentralized Platform
Skynet Platform :)

How about:
- Decentralized Kernel
- Decentral Kernel
- Distributed Kernel

But I like "platform" too!
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: wuyanren on November 10, 2014, 03:32:27 pm
Called the commune.
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: matt608 on November 10, 2014, 03:32:38 pm
Lets face it, "DAC" with "C" standing for company is the best metaphor out there.  Taking the "company" out of the DAC is taking out the profit motive which turns the spaceship into a space-lounge.  It's the Millenium Falcon pretending to be an asteroid to avoid the detection of the imperial star destroyers.  And C3P0 can tell you the odds of successfully navigating an asteroid field are very low.

The question is, does calling Bishares a DAC (company) present such danger to itself that calling it something else is necessary?  I'm all for using a combination of alternative metaphors when giving a more detailed explanation, such as "community" or "platform" etc but the key description that makes the most sense to me and grabs the most attention is decentralized autonomous company.

Calling it a "platform" or "business platform" has advantages when attracting businesses to run as delegates.  Rather than talking about the toolkit as a platform, BTS itself is a platform and it's beneficial for BTS if entrepreneurs are aware that they could 'run their business' using BTS bitassets and fund it with BTS dilution if they can get elected as a delegate.
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: Rune on November 10, 2014, 03:48:23 pm
I honestly think the best description of what bitshares "is", would be "blockchain". DAC works too, but from what i understand then DAC is synonymous with blockchain. There are plenty of established english words that work well as metaphors for describing and simplifying what bitshares is; company, community, cooperative etc. But all these words are just approximations, and I dont think we will ever be able to find an established word that properly defines bitshares, because nothing even remotely like bitshares existed before bitcoin.

So given that satoshi decided to name his invention "the blockchain", we might as well use that name too (if DAC causes confusion due to the company part)
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: werneo on November 10, 2014, 03:57:28 pm
Lets face it, "DAC" with "C" standing for company is the best metaphor out there.  Taking the "company" out of the DAC is taking out the profit motive which turns the spaceship into a space-lounge.  It's the Millenium Falcon pretending to be an asteroid to avoid the detection of the imperial star destroyers.  And C3P0 can tell you the odds of successfully navigating an asteroid field are very low.

The question is, does calling Bishares a DAC (company) present such danger to itself that calling it something else is necessary?  I'm all for using a combination of alternative metaphors when giving a more detailed explanation, such as "community" or "platform" etc but the key description that makes the most sense to me and grabs the most attention is decentralized autonomous company.

Calling it a "platform" or "business platform" has advantages when attracting businesses to run as delegates.  Rather than talking about the toolkit as a platform, BTS itself is a platform and it's beneficial for BTS if entrepreneurs are aware that they could 'run their business' using BTS bitassets and fund it with BTS dilution if they can get elected as a delegate.

 +5%

I think DAC (like "blockchain") is a term that is entering the popular lexicon at this very moment. It is widely recognized that bytemaster coined the term. So, distancing bitshares from the term DAC is a bit self defeating, IMO.

Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: davidpbrown on November 10, 2014, 04:02:36 pm
I've never liked "DAC", as it's too abstract - 'company' or 'tool' would be simpler. There is little point in noobs spending time trying to decypher what DAC means, when all that is trying to convey is the principal idea behind that instance of activity.

Perhaps there needs to be another word for the product that is each DAC instance. Perhaps each DAC could be talked of as a company in its own right? I was going to suggest "BitShares is a Decentralised Toolkit" but I'm less convinced now.. that would be easier for people to accept.. or you could opt for analogy that BitShares is the trunk and there are many branches of activity looking to provide different fruits.

Worth noting perhaps that BitShares [dev team and community] is different from a BitShare(s) [BTS]; so, perhaps do talk of BitShares dev team and community explicitly, rather than just BitShares; that will help instil confidence about the support BitShares community provides each 'DAC' and avoid confusion with the two meanings of BitShares.
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: mint chocolate chip on November 10, 2014, 04:03:31 pm
I like the words partnership (a business or firm owned and run by two or more partners) or enterprise (a project or undertaking, typically one that is difficult or requires effort; a business or company)

blockchain partnership
blockchain enterprise
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: fluxer555 on November 10, 2014, 04:08:52 pm
I love how the DAC term morphs based on context, and I love how many 'C' words there are that are relevant metaphors (or metamorphs, perhaps?).

I don't think we should kill the DACronym. It beautifully encapsulates the many-interpretation nature of blockchain technology.

It's also nicer to say than DA, DAPP, or DAO.
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: luckybit on November 10, 2014, 04:20:42 pm
We have been using DA(CCCCC) for almost a year now and it has gained a wide acceptance, but despite this others have used DA Organization or simply Decentralized Application to describe the software.

Considering we cannot agree on what the C in DAC stands for and it is becoming quite clear to me that the "autonomous" part is a tad confusing considering the critical role that people and politics play in DPOS perhaps we would all be better off dropping the DAC term all together.   

BitShares is a global community using a decentralized application to produce the best money in the world.

I want to get rid of the use of "company" for the description of what BitShares *is* and instead rely on it only for the purposes of explaining the economic design for the purposes of aligning incentives.

These are just random thoughts off the top of my head.... what do you think?

Definitely don't kill the DAC. It's too important and it's a meme which is already popular even outside of the crypto communities.

Some call it distributed autonomous community, some call it decentralized autonomous corporation, but the idea of a DAC is basically what everyone is working toward even before they know what to call it. So I say stick with it but change company to community.

The DAC is what people are working toward. It does not mean we currently have to have it but it's a unifying idea and idealists need that.
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: freebit on November 10, 2014, 04:23:10 pm
Autonomous payment system
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: luckybit on November 10, 2014, 04:23:58 pm
Lets face it, "DAC" with "C" standing for company is the best metaphor out there.  Taking the "company" out of the DAC is taking out the profit motive which turns the spaceship into a space-lounge.  It's the Millenium Falcon pretending to be an asteroid to avoid the detection of the imperial star destroyers.  And C3P0 can tell you the odds of successfully navigating an asteroid field are very low.

The question is, does calling Bishares a DAC (company) present such danger to itself that calling it something else is necessary?  I'm all for using a combination of alternative metaphors when giving a more detailed explanation, such as "community" or "platform" etc but the key description that makes the most sense to me and grabs the most attention is decentralized autonomous company.

Calling it a "platform" or "business platform" has advantages when attracting businesses to run as delegates.  Rather than talking about the toolkit as a platform, BTS itself is a platform and it's beneficial for BTS if entrepreneurs are aware that they could 'run their business' using BTS bitassets and fund it with BTS dilution if they can get elected as a delegate.

You could call it a Decentralized Autonomous Cooperative and it would be just as good to me. It really depends on your audience but I see no reason to move away from the DAC acronym itself when we can simply reframe the same acronym for different audiences.
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: Frodo on November 10, 2014, 04:33:16 pm
Personally I have nothing against the "DACronym", but I can see that it might be too specific to appeal to everybody.
So here is my try:

self-sustaining blockchain infrastructure

IMO blockchain infrastructure is general enough to apply to pretty much every possible application, including banking as financial infrastructure. I am not so sure about self-sustaining, might suggest too much independence from the outside world just like autonomous. But still,  all incentive driving development, voting etc. is provided by itself.
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: pseudoscops on November 10, 2014, 04:52:12 pm
I vote for keeping DAC and for Cooperative to replace the C in DAC. I think there is also merit to being able to be flexible with the C (Company, Community, Cooperative, Cabal), but being flexible with the C makes marketing more difficult and might actually confuse newcomers.

Decentralized application just makes me think of some new take on peer to peer tech, which to some extent is the truth. It just doesn't sound as compelling. If I didn't know better and I was new to BitShares, or even Blockchain technology, it might make me just think 'Meh. That doesn't sound interesting or revolutionary.'  Digital Autonomous Corporation does sound interesting and revolutionary, perhaps even more so than Cooperative. But I understand the need to perhaps move away from the Corporation metaphor and it could be argued that Cooperative is more accurate any way.

On the subject of Autonomous, well I think Autonomous is exactly what BitShares is and is striving to be. Being autonomous is not the same thing as being unmanned:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/autonomy

I've said it in previous posts, if we have to move away from the Company metaphor, and there are some benefits to doing so, then Digital Autonomous Cooperative would be top of my list.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cooperative

Cooperative speaks to me of both people and economic activity and cooperation. It makes me think of an entity that does something useful and is actually productive too. A single cooperative often produces more than one product - traditionally it might have been wine, olives, cheese and/or wheat, in more recent times a cooperative may look like any other more centrally orchestrated big brand producing more than one good or service too (e.g. the John Lewis Partnership or The Cooperative here in the UK). The idea that people who join a Cooperative can just branch out and start cooperating to sell strawberries alongside their olives, wine and wheat is appealing and fits with how I at least see the SuperDAC evolving over time. Swap out these crops for X, DNS, VOTE, etc and you can see where I'm going with this metaphor. If there's enough interest in 'growing' a new product then members of the cooperative will organise together an make it happen.

Digital Autonomous Cooperative is still intriguing enough and accessible enough for the average non-geek to want to go and find out more. Also most people understand what a cooperative is and that it has some economic component that aims to distribute wealth in an fairer more even handed way. This is why I much prefer it to Community which I see as a more nebulous and less accurate description.

I agree with some of the other commenters that DAC has started to enter the lexicon and as such I think it would be a real shame to kill the term from a marketing point of view. The marketing capital that has undoubtedly built up surrounding the term, or at least the acronym, is important and hard won. I'm in favor of trying to keep the term DAC in some form if we can.

Blockchain and decentralized application - these are not terms that are going to resonate with your Average Joe IMHO. With my geek hat on I can see why they might appeal though.
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: GaltReport on November 10, 2014, 04:55:35 pm
 +5% for Decentralized Application Platform (DAP).
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: bytemaster on November 10, 2014, 05:00:27 pm
Great feedback everyone...  I don't see any clear solution, but perhaps we can find a different word for the "A" ..

Decentralized Automated C*   - I think Automated better describes things than autonomous. 
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: matt608 on November 10, 2014, 05:01:02 pm
+5% for Decentralized Application Platform (DAP).

Brings new meaning to "I'm a dapper Dan man!"  :P
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hni4OIJXG4 (skip 35 secs)



Self-aware blockchain?
Conscious blockchain?

Those could grab headlines in pop-sci blogs or just be something that bitshares "has".
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: CLains on November 10, 2014, 05:16:26 pm
We should not worry about this by presupposing a monopoly on naming and description. If we are targeting normal users, DAC would be entirely out of place. When we describe to investors why it is profitable to invest, DAC is perfectly adequate.

The technology we are building has too many facets and too many use cases that it is possible to capture them all succinctly. When we describe it we have to evoke specific use cases, because we cannot expect the people we are educating to creatively deduce all these things.

We misrepresent the technology a little bit in each instance to oversimplify, to promote a certain feel, or to bring to mind certain use cases. Our challenge is to set up a framework that we can easily and effectively navigate to draw in different demographics.
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: matt608 on November 10, 2014, 05:18:39 pm
We should not worry about this by presupposing a monopoly on naming and description. If we are targeting normal users, DAC would be entirely out of place. When we describe to investors why it is profitable to invest, DAC is perfectly adequate.

The technology we are building has too many facets and too many use cases that it is possible to capture them all succinctly. When we describe it we have to evoke specific use cases, because we cannot expect the people we are educating to creatively deduce all these things.

We misrepresent the technology a little bit in each instance to oversimplify, to promote a certain feel, or to bring to mind certain use cases. Our challenge is to set up a framework that we can easily and effectively navigate to draw in different demographics.

Google does lots of things, but it's still just a company. 
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: CLains on November 10, 2014, 05:20:14 pm
I would also say that I agree wholeheartedly with BM's original suggestion relative to normal people who just want to use bitUSD and BTS as a bank.
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: bobmaloney on November 10, 2014, 05:24:24 pm
Bitshares is a life style  8)
C for Church?  :o

This is similar to what continues to bother me about using the term "community".

 Although those of us here can see it and understand it in the proper perspective, I can easily imagine those hostile to the Bitshares concept attempting to define and frame it as having Amway type exclusivity.

Define our be defined.
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: bobmaloney on November 10, 2014, 05:33:37 pm
BTW, Bitshares is...Bitshares.

I don't know if we need a more descriptive explanation for use by the broader population.

For business pitches, I would guess that describing it as a "Blockchain-based platform for decentralized applications" might be sufficient.
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: teenagecheese on November 10, 2014, 05:55:08 pm
Decentralized Blockchain Application Platform (DBAP).

...probably will just be referred to as a BAP in common usage, decentralized being a specific descriptor of the general concept of a BAP
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: hadrian on November 10, 2014, 05:55:43 pm
Great feedback everyone...  I don't see any clear solution, but perhaps we can find a different word for the "A" ..

Decentralized Automated C*   - I think Automated better describes things than autonomous.

I agree with your reasoning in favor of 'Automated'.
Similarly we could consider 'Distributed' as a replacement for 'Decentralized'.
But does 'Distributed Automatic C*' sound worse than 'Decentralized Automatic C*'?
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: lord_potatoe on November 10, 2014, 06:01:31 pm
Off the top of my head too -

I think the 'Bitshares is to corporation as Bitcoin is to currency' is going to be a helpful paradigm for the press to explain Bitshares when the time comes. Keep DAC.

The last thing we want is for the press to say BitShares is a corporation.

Translation: you want to change up all the language used in BitShares because you realized you might get in trouble with the feds for using language like corporation, shares, interest, investment, securities etc and you are scared. Seems like a cop out to me, you should have just stayed anonymous man. All you are doing is just confusing people even more.
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: Ander on November 10, 2014, 06:04:55 pm
I dont think anyone out there has a negative connotation attached to the words 'deentralized application'.  But some do to 'corporation'. 

Still, bitshares has been using DAC so long that it even managed to spread to other crypto communities.
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: starspirit on November 10, 2014, 06:56:38 pm
A Decentralised Economy
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: bytemaster on November 10, 2014, 07:14:36 pm
Distributed Automated C*
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: hadrian on November 10, 2014, 07:17:11 pm
"BitShares is a platform for Decentralized Approved Consensus"

or "Distributed Approved Consensus"

DAC is hard to use as a noun in this instance :-\
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: donkeypong on November 10, 2014, 07:19:09 pm
"Community" is fine. I also like "company". It's not the same as "corporation" . See definition below from Dictionary.com (emphasis is mine):

Company
 noun, plural companies.
1.
a number of individuals assembled or associated together; group of people.
2.
a guest or guests:
We're having company for dinner.
3.
an assemblage of persons for social purposes.
4.
companionship; fellowship; association:
I always enjoy her company.
5.
one's usual companions:
I don't like the company he keeps.
6.
society collectively.
7.
a number of persons united or incorporated for joint action, especially for business:
a publishing company; a dance company.
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: Ander on November 10, 2014, 07:22:51 pm
I think we should keep using DAC.

Keep calling the C community, if we cannot be a company.

This community invented 'DAC', we shouldnt kill it off.
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: bytemaster on November 10, 2014, 07:32:38 pm
I think we should keep using DAC.

Keep calling the C community, if we cannot be a company.

This community invented 'DAC', we shouldnt kill it off.

This is a good point... we should probably tweak the words we use for DAC but keep DAC.

Distributed is better than decentralized
Automated is better than autonomous or automatic
C*  - all of the above apply from various perspectives.

Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: matt608 on November 10, 2014, 07:40:51 pm
I think we should keep using DAC.

Keep calling the C community, if we cannot be a company.

This community invented 'DAC', we shouldnt kill it off.

This is a good point... we should probably tweak the words we use for DAC but keep DAC.

Distributed is better than decentralized
Automated is better than autonomous or automatic
C*  - all of the above apply from various perspectives.

But it is autonomous, not automated, because it's people voting that decides into which areas of business the DAC will grow.
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: hadrian on November 10, 2014, 07:44:47 pm
I think we should keep using DAC.

Keep calling the C community, if we cannot be a company.

This community invented 'DAC', we shouldnt kill it off.

This is a good point... we should probably tweak the words we use for DAC but keep DAC.

Distributed is better than decentralized
Automated is better than autonomous or automatic
C*  - all of the above apply from various perspectives.

Does it matter if it doesn't work as a noun? For example, would these be considered?:


By the way, if these were potentially viable, I think my previous suggestion of changing 'Decentralized' to 'Distributed' can be reconsidered!
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: Chuckone on November 10, 2014, 07:49:07 pm
I think we should keep using DAC.

Keep calling the C community, if we cannot be a company.

This community invented 'DAC', we shouldnt kill it off.

This is a good point... we should probably tweak the words we use for DAC but keep DAC.

Distributed is better than decentralized
Automated is better than autonomous or automatic
C*  - all of the above apply from various perspectives.

But it is autonomous, not automated, because it's people voting that decides into which areas of business the DAC will grow.

Yes you're right about the "strategic" decisions, they're not automated. Those decisions will most likely always be done by humans. But the whole day to day operation is automated and hard coded, that's what I think automated refers to.
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: Vizzini on November 10, 2014, 07:53:46 pm
Chain. The "c" is a chain. Decentralized Autonomous Chain.
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: Method-X on November 10, 2014, 08:03:27 pm
I think it's a mistake to "officially" drop the company metaphor. If Satoshi described Bitcoin as "p2p money", BitShares can be described as a "p2p company". It's a decentralized company on a blockchain that's censorship resistant and cannot be controlled by governments.

I fail to see why dropping the company metaphor is at all useful.
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: hadrian on November 10, 2014, 08:04:44 pm
Just thought of Distributed Automated Chronicle

chron·i·cle
ˈkränək(ə)l/
noun
noun: chronicle; plural noun: chronicles

    1.
    a factual written account of important or historical events in the order of their occurrence.
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: feedthemcake on November 10, 2014, 08:17:55 pm
Just thought of Distributed Automated Chronicle

chron·i·cle
ˈkränək(ə)l/
noun
noun: chronicle; plural noun: chronicles

    1.
    a factual written account of important or historical events in the order of their occurrence.
nice
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: donkeypong on November 10, 2014, 08:18:44 pm
Decentralized Autonomous Network (D.A.N.) ?

Edit: I like 'Company' best.
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: Murderistic on November 10, 2014, 08:19:48 pm
I think it's a mistake to "officially" drop the company metaphor. If Satoshi described Bitcoin as "p2p money", BitShares can be described as a "p2p company". It's a decentralized company on a blockchain that's censorship resistant and cannot be controlled by governments.

I fail to see why dropping the company metaphor is at all useful.

I agree on many levels.
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: lord_potatoe on November 10, 2014, 08:31:06 pm
I think it's a mistake to "officially" drop the company metaphor. If Satoshi described Bitcoin as "p2p money", BitShares can be described as a "p2p company". It's a decentralized company on a blockchain that's censorship resistant and cannot be controlled by governments.

I fail to see why dropping the company metaphor is at all useful.

It's only useful in that it doesn't immediately draw attention from the governments claiming to be resistant against. You can call it a "company" or a "community", use "tokens" or something instead of "shares" and "distribution" instead of "dividend", "rewards" instead of "interest" etc... but a duck is a duck. Pretty wimpy move IMO. Also a major flip flop of what has been marketed and constantly pushed since bitshares started.
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: bytemaster on November 10, 2014, 08:41:23 pm
I think it's a mistake to "officially" drop the company metaphor. If Satoshi described Bitcoin as "p2p money", BitShares can be described as a "p2p company". It's a decentralized company on a blockchain that's censorship resistant and cannot be controlled by governments.

I fail to see why dropping the company metaphor is at all useful.

It's only useful in that it doesn't immediately draw attention from the governments claiming to be resistant against. You can call it a "company" or a "community", use "tokens" or something instead of "shares" and "distribution" instead of "dividend", "rewards" instead of "interest" etc... but a duck is a duck. Pretty wimpy move IMO. Also a major flip flop of what has been marketed and constantly pushed since bitshares started.

Actually with the SEC what you call it matters more than what it is... I originally adopted the company metaphor based upon the "duck is a duck" mentality... but sadly that is not the case with regulators.   They care about whether or not you are attempting to use terms the public places trust in to persuade others to part with their money.  If you can convince someone to part with their money for a stake in a community then it is very different than selling a share in a company despite the economic result being the same.
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: islandking on November 10, 2014, 08:43:34 pm
I think it's a mistake to "officially" drop the company metaphor. If Satoshi described Bitcoin as "p2p money", BitShares can be described as a "p2p company". It's a decentralized company on a blockchain that's censorship resistant and cannot be controlled by governments.

I fail to see why dropping the company metaphor is at all useful.

It's only useful in that it doesn't immediately draw attention from the governments claiming to be resistant against. You can call it a "company" or a "community", use "tokens" or something instead of "shares" and "distribution" instead of "dividend", "rewards" instead of "interest" etc... but a duck is a duck. Pretty wimpy move IMO. Also a major flip flop of what has been marketed and constantly pushed since bitshares started.

Actually with the SEC what you call it matters more than what it is... I originally adopted the company metaphor based upon the "duck is a duck" mentality... but sadly that is not the case with regulators.   They care about whether or not you are attempting to use terms the public places trust in to persuade others to part with their money.  If you can convince someone to part with their money for a stake in a community then it is very different than selling a share in a company despite the economic result being the same.


Why do we care about the SEC? Bitshares is a decentralized worldwide platform which they cannot really stop.
Why must we conform to their regulations?
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: Ander on November 10, 2014, 08:46:11 pm
Actually with the SEC what you call it matters more than what it is... I originally adopted the company metaphor based upon the "duck is a duck" mentality... but sadly that is not the case with regulators.   They care about whether or not you are attempting to use terms the public places trust in to persuade others to part with their money.  If you can convince someone to part with their money for a stake in a community then it is very different than selling a share in a company despite the economic result being the same.

Given that, I think it is clear that we shouldnt refer to bitshares as a company.


Still, DAC is useful, it is part of our brand, and thus bytemaster's original idea of "Distributed Autonomous Community' is a good one. 


I also like DA for Distributed Application.
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: Shentist on November 10, 2014, 08:48:05 pm
I think it's a mistake to "officially" drop the company metaphor. If Satoshi described Bitcoin as "p2p money", BitShares can be described as a "p2p company". It's a decentralized company on a blockchain that's censorship resistant and cannot be controlled by governments.

I fail to see why dropping the company metaphor is at all useful.

It's only useful in that it doesn't immediately draw attention from the governments claiming to be resistant against. You can call it a "company" or a "community", use "tokens" or something instead of "shares" and "distribution" instead of "dividend", "rewards" instead of "interest" etc... but a duck is a duck. Pretty wimpy move IMO. Also a major flip flop of what has been marketed and constantly pushed since bitshares started.

Actually with the SEC what you call it matters more than what it is... I originally adopted the company metaphor based upon the "duck is a duck" mentality... but sadly that is not the case with regulators.   They care about whether or not you are attempting to use terms the public places trust in to persuade others to part with their money.  If you can convince someone to part with their money for a stake in a community then it is very different than selling a share in a company despite the economic result being the same.


Why do we care about the SEC? Bitshares is a decentralized worldwide platform which they cannot really stop.
Why must we conform to their regulations?

because the developers are all US. i personally don't care about the SEC but the german BAFIN, but i don't think most of you care about them? That's right, because we can do nothing.
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: hadrian on November 10, 2014, 08:51:17 pm
I think it's a mistake to "officially" drop the company metaphor. If Satoshi described Bitcoin as "p2p money", BitShares can be described as a "p2p company". It's a decentralized company on a blockchain that's censorship resistant and cannot be controlled by governments.

I fail to see why dropping the company metaphor is at all useful.

It's only useful in that it doesn't immediately draw attention from the governments claiming to be resistant against. You can call it a "company" or a "community", use "tokens" or something instead of "shares" and "distribution" instead of "dividend", "rewards" instead of "interest" etc... but a duck is a duck. Pretty wimpy move IMO. Also a major flip flop of what has been marketed and constantly pushed since bitshares started.

Actually with the SEC what you call it matters more than what it is... I originally adopted the company metaphor based upon the "duck is a duck" mentality... but sadly that is not the case with regulators.   They care about whether or not you are attempting to use terms the public places trust in to persuade others to part with their money.  If you can convince someone to part with their money for a stake in a community then it is very different than selling a share in a company despite the economic result being the same.


Why do we care about the SEC? Bitshares is a decentralized worldwide platform which they cannot really stop.
Why must we conform to their regulations?

If we want BitShares' usefulness and userbase to be as wide as possible, then the ability to opt in to conforming to regulations matters a great deal. This doesn't mean that all uses and users within BitShares will have to conform to regulations however (I imagine)...
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: Method-X on November 10, 2014, 08:51:40 pm
I think it's a mistake to "officially" drop the company metaphor. If Satoshi described Bitcoin as "p2p money", BitShares can be described as a "p2p company". It's a decentralized company on a blockchain that's censorship resistant and cannot be controlled by governments.

I fail to see why dropping the company metaphor is at all useful.

It's only useful in that it doesn't immediately draw attention from the governments claiming to be resistant against. You can call it a "company" or a "community", use "tokens" or something instead of "shares" and "distribution" instead of "dividend", "rewards" instead of "interest" etc... but a duck is a duck. Pretty wimpy move IMO. Also a major flip flop of what has been marketed and constantly pushed since bitshares started.

Actually with the SEC what you call it matters more than what it is... I originally adopted the company metaphor based upon the "duck is a duck" mentality... but sadly that is not the case with regulators.   They care about whether or not you are attempting to use terms the public places trust in to persuade others to part with their money.  If you can convince someone to part with their money for a stake in a community then it is very different than selling a share in a company despite the economic result being the same.


Why do we care about the SEC? Bitshares is a decentralized worldwide platform which they cannot really stop.
Why must we conform to their regulations?

 +5% Agree. Invictus is ending so that's no longer an attack vector. Bitshares has the ability to fund it's own growth in a decentralized way... I don't understand this constant fear of American regulators. Delegates can locate anywhere on Earth.
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: merockstar on November 10, 2014, 08:58:39 pm
+5% Agree. Invictus is ending so that's no longer an attack vector. Bitshares has the ability to fund it's own growth in a decentralized way... I don't understand this constant fear of American regulators. Delegates can locate anywhere on Earth.

Do you want 10 dollar bitshares 5 years from now, or would you like them 30 years from now after a prolonged, worldwide prohibition?
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: hadrian on November 10, 2014, 08:59:01 pm

(I prefer the latter)
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: sumantso on November 10, 2014, 09:00:36 pm
Just call it Decentralized Application or DApp. Everybody is using apps on iPhone or Android so they should get this quickly.
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: Shentist on November 10, 2014, 09:03:01 pm
if bitshares will be a threat they will fight us!

i agree to take this SEC etc. into our consideration, but if the old bankcartels feel threaten, they will attack us. But would this bad? i don't think so. Much publicity without 1 bitUSD spend - great!
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: hadrian on November 10, 2014, 09:03:08 pm
Just call it Decentralized Application or DApp. Everybody is using apps on iPhone or Android so they should get this quickly.

Distributed Application for Consensus
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: merockstar on November 10, 2014, 09:08:08 pm
I honestly think the best description of what bitshares "is", would be "blockchain". DAC works too, but from what i understand then DAC is synonymous with blockchain. There are plenty of established english words that work well as metaphors for describing and simplifying what bitshares is; company, community, cooperative etc. But all these words are just approximations, and I dont think we will ever be able to find an established word that properly defines bitshares, because nothing even remotely like bitshares existed before bitcoin.

So given that satoshi decided to name his invention "the blockchain", we might as well use that name too (if DAC causes confusion due to the company part)

+5%

we could call them DABs. lol
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: lord_potatoe on November 10, 2014, 09:08:27 pm
I think it's a mistake to "officially" drop the company metaphor. If Satoshi described Bitcoin as "p2p money", BitShares can be described as a "p2p company". It's a decentralized company on a blockchain that's censorship resistant and cannot be controlled by governments.

I fail to see why dropping the company metaphor is at all useful.

It's only useful in that it doesn't immediately draw attention from the governments claiming to be resistant against. You can call it a "company" or a "community", use "tokens" or something instead of "shares" and "distribution" instead of "dividend", "rewards" instead of "interest" etc... but a duck is a duck. Pretty wimpy move IMO. Also a major flip flop of what has been marketed and constantly pushed since bitshares started.

Actually with the SEC what you call it matters more than what it is... I originally adopted the company metaphor based upon the "duck is a duck" mentality... but sadly that is not the case with regulators.   They care about whether or not you are attempting to use terms the public places trust in to persuade others to part with their money.  If you can convince someone to part with their money for a stake in a community then it is very different than selling a share in a company despite the economic result being the same.

Yeah sure, until they change their mind spontaneously. What do you do when they come after people involved in BitShares even though you insist that it is purely "community" and not business and investment? Just shut the whole project down to prevent any harm to yourself? It sounds like this project is *very* prone to censorship and regulator interference if pre-emptive moves like this are being made. There is a good reason Satoshi is anonymous you know...
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: Method-X on November 10, 2014, 09:08:58 pm
+5% Agree. Invictus is ending so that's no longer an attack vector. Bitshares has the ability to fund it's own growth in a decentralized way... I don't understand this constant fear of American regulators. Delegates can locate anywhere on Earth.

Do you want 10 dollar bitshares 5 years from now, or would you like them 30 years from now after a prolonged, worldwide prohibition?

A worldwide ban on BitAssets is unlikely because Bitshares can be described as a p2p company. If regulators are out to get us, they will "get us" no matter what language we use. Should BitUSD be rebranded because it might be confused with real USD?
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: Ander on November 10, 2014, 09:10:44 pm
Yeah sure, until they change their mind spontaneously. What do you do when they come after people involved in BitShares even though you insist that it is purely "community" and not business and investment? Just shut the whole project down to prevent any harm to yourself? It sounds like this project is *very* prone to censorship and regulator interference if pre-emptive moves like this are being made. There is a good reason Satoshi is anonymous you know...

This is exactly why they are being proactive now, to ensure the survival of bitshares no matter what happens.

The move to make bitshares self funding is a big part of this. 
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: starspirit on November 10, 2014, 09:19:04 pm
A few suggestions:

1) Its not clear whether DAC is meant to be referring to the community of block-chain users or to the block-chain itself that it uses as a tool . One is automated, one is human.

2) If we are referring to the block-chain, the "C" in DAC could stand for Capital. Whether the metaphor of a company, country, currency is most useful at any point in time, the distinguishing feature of bitShares is that it produces something of value, and therefore is capital in nature.

3) While retaining the DAC terminology for legacy purposes may be useful, it already feels like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Maybe in conjunction with this we need to think about the rebranding of bitShares from a marketing perspective and give it a powerful tagline telling people the space we plan to dominate - for example, bitShares - building the decentralised economy.
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: merockstar on November 10, 2014, 09:25:56 pm
+5% Agree. Invictus is ending so that's no longer an attack vector. Bitshares has the ability to fund it's own growth in a decentralized way... I don't understand this constant fear of American regulators. Delegates can locate anywhere on Earth.

Do you want 10 dollar bitshares 5 years from now, or would you like them 30 years from now after a prolonged, worldwide prohibition?

A worldwide ban on BitAssets is unlikely because Bitshares can be described as a p2p company. If regulators are out to get us, they will "get us" no matter what language we use. Should BitUSD be rebranded because it might be confused with real USD?

I'm not so sure about that.

Look at marijuana. William Randolph Hearst spun it in a way that is completely ridiculous, calling a duck a tiger.

Next thing you know it's illegal worldwide.

The U.S. is not above making laws based on pedantic nitpicking. How we present this could well impact how accepting governments might be.
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: mira on November 10, 2014, 09:26:35 pm
I think losing the word autonomous is a terrible idea, for a few reasons:

1) It's an opportunity to reintroduce the concept of autonomy (freedom from external control or influence; independence), to those in whom it is absent

2) "Decentralized Autonomous" speaks to the vision you articulated in A Philosophy of Freedom published on bitshares.org:  "The point of the Invictus Movement is to show a new way, the DAC way, of governing society in a decentralized voluntary way. A way that is entirely non-violent and yet inescapable in its ability to motivate just outcomes, fair trade, and enforcement of contracts." 

In relation to the idea of governance the word automated invokes in me, and I think it would for many others, a chilling dread.  The word automated feels dead, static.  The word autonomous is dynamic, requires action...

Automated/Application leaves room in the imagination for the Borg.  Autonomous leaves room in the imagination for non-violence and just outcomes.

3) While the blockchain is an automated application, a DAC by this or any other name requires the participation of people to be brought to life, so I'd emphasize the involvement aspect/benefits in your marketing.



“Words belong to those who use them only till someone else steals them back.”
― Hakim Bey, TAZ: The Temporary Autonomous Zone
 

If I were the benevolent dictator  :) ;) :D     I would go with Decentralized Autonomous Zone.   

Zone:  noun 1. any continuous tract or area that differs in some respect, or is distinguished for some purpose, from adjoining tracts or areas, or within which certain distinctive circumstances exist or are established.

Within a Zone you could have corporations, companies, communities, cooperatives, clowns, and all the other letters of the alphabet.

Besides, the anacronym DAZ has more pizzazz!

Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: hadrian on November 10, 2014, 09:44:55 pm
Besides, the anacronym DAZ has more pizzazz!

I don't want to detract from your post, but "DAZ" reminded me of "The DAZ Doorstep Challenge" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeO0AhKPW5Y (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeO0AhKPW5Y)

Sorry...a bit of light relief  :P
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: mira on November 10, 2014, 09:49:45 pm
Besides, the anacronym DAZ has more pizzazz!

I don't want to detract from your post, but "DAZ" reminded me of "The DAZ Doorstep Challenge" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeO0AhKPW5Y (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeO0AhKPW5Y)

Sorry...a bit of light relief  :P


lol! 

Well, since it has to do with laundry soap, I'll continue with the stream-of-consciousness links: "Instant Mix Imperial Democracy, Buy One Get One Free:     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLnMWZ_VQ5M (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLnMWZ_VQ5M)

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3441.htm (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3441.htm)
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: xh3 on November 10, 2014, 10:56:34 pm
Isn't BitShares more like a decentralized operating system (core software or KERNEL) and things like bitAssets/VOTE/keyID .. are DApps ontop of it?

DOS
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: Ander on November 10, 2014, 10:57:54 pm
Isn't BitShares more like a decentralized operating system (core software or KERNEL) and things like bitAssets/VOTE/keyID .. are DApps ontop of it?

DOS

Make it Delegated Decentralized Operating System, and then everyone will think our acronym is something else. :)
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: xh3 on November 10, 2014, 11:04:49 pm
Subtract until it breaks.

 I fully support DA -decentralized application.  Everyone understands these terms, they are accurate, and they are in use by others for similar products.
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: aftw on November 11, 2014, 12:20:49 am
I'm of the opinion that Bitshares should be positioned as an alternative/replacement to traditional banking. It communicates a lot without requiring a lot be said. It also serves as a kind of action statement to those looking for freedom from traditional banking or those who are unbanked.

I vote for decentralized over distributed and like app and application. I also like platform as it is more accurate and gives Bitshares more gravitas than just app or application alone.

Maybe something like:

Bitshares is a global decentralized app platform that functions as an alternative to traditional banking.
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: aftw on November 11, 2014, 12:33:57 am
Also, almost no one outside of this tiny world knows what a DAC is. Heck, most don't really know what bitcoin is. Words like decentralized, distributed, autonomous, open-source, etc. have little meaning in this context to them. So it all depends on who this statement is aimed at.

Is this something a member of my blockchain-clueless family would potentially be seeing or is it aimed at crypto nerds?

Positioning Bitshares as an alternative to traditional banking potentially reaches both groups.
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: Murderistic on November 11, 2014, 02:08:07 am
Also, almost no one outside of this tiny world knows what a DAC is. Heck, most don't really know what bitcoin is. Words like decentralized, distributed, autonomous, open-source, etc. have little meaning in this context to them. So it all depends on who this statement is aimed at.

Is this something a member of my blockchain-clueless family would potentially be seeing or is it aimed at crypto nerds?

Positioning Bitshares as an alternative to traditional banking potentially reaches both groups.

Pretty much the way I continue to view it.

Why Bank, When You Can BitShare?

Or

"You Can Bank, Or Can BitShare"

"There's Banking, And Then There's BitShares"

Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: joele on November 11, 2014, 02:49:25 am
Isn't BitShares more like a decentralized operating system (core software or KERNEL) and things like bitAssets/VOTE/keyID .. are DApps ontop of it?

or Decentralized System
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: Thom on November 11, 2014, 04:47:00 am
Off the top of my head too -

I think the 'Bitshares is to corporation as Bitcoin is to currency' is going to be a helpful paradigm for the press to explain Bitshares when the time comes. Keep DAC.

The last thing we want is for the press to say BitShares is a corporation.

Translation: you want to change up all the language used in BitShares because you realized you might get in trouble with the feds for using language like corporation, shares, interest, investment, securities etc and you are scared. Seems like a cop out to me, you should have just stayed anonymous man. All you are doing is just confusing people even more.
...
Yeah sure, until they change their mind spontaneously. What do you do when they come after people involved in BitShares even though you insist that it is purely "community" and not business and investment? Just shut the whole project down to prevent any harm to yourself? It sounds like this project is *very* prone to censorship and regulator interference if pre-emptive moves like this are being made. There is a good reason Satoshi is anonymous you know...

Actually with the SEC what you call it matters more than what it is... I originally adopted the company metaphor based upon the "duck is a duck" mentality... but sadly that is not the case with regulators.   They care about whether or not you are attempting to use terms the public places trust in to persuade others to part with their money.  If you can convince someone to part with their money for a stake in a community then it is very different than selling a share in a company despite the economic result being the same.

Why do we care about the SEC? Bitshares is a decentralized worldwide platform which they cannot really stop.
Why must we conform to their regulations?

if bitshares will be a threat they will fight us!

i agree to take this SEC etc. into our consideration, but if the old bankcartels feel threaten, they will attack us. But would this bad? i don't think so. Much publicity without 1 bitUSD spend - great!

C'mon bytemaster - are you telling us you never thought "they" wouldn't feel threatened if you succeeded in furthering satoshi's vision? Have you not thought through the ramification of what you started here?

I don't believe it, not for a second. But you really do make me wonder!

1) You decided to keep the name BitShareSZZZZZZZZZZZZ but are worried  about the ambiguous C of DAC??
2) Regulators will change language to suit their violent needs and your word games are powerless to theirs
3) Put fear in it's place and get back on track and in touch with your vision and don't be overly concerned with these word games - don't let your fear destroy your passion to end the violence!
 
If you hadn't before thought of when the financial powers would awaken to counter threats like blockchain technology you've picked a bad time to think of it now. The quotes above are very similar to my own sentiments.

You know you're doing something right when your adversaries begin to attack you. If you're at war what do you do when the enemy attacks? You fight harder! You find more effective strategies or you employ camouflage or flee to fight another day in another way.

Got your passport ready? Spoken to the team on these matters?  G e t  y o u r  d u c k s  b e h i n d  y o u !
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: starspirit on November 11, 2014, 05:04:28 am
For right or wrong, whether there is justification or not, if the SEC or other regulator did come after one or more entities associated with bitShares, what power would they have to stop it? What are their control points?
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: Thom on November 11, 2014, 05:27:00 am
For right or wrong, whether there is justification or not, if the SEC or other regulator did come after one or more entities associated with bitShares, what power would they have to stop it? What are their control points?

Thats just speculation.

There was a thread Stan weighed in on a few weeks ago talking about a SEC muzzle. It was suggested a regular announcement be made daily denying I3 had received such an announcement.

Why wasn't that strategy ever put into practice? It was a good solution, a kind of dead mans switch to let the community know the SEC notified I3 and said not to say a word about it.

When you take on the big boys you better think it through before you piss them off.
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: starspirit on November 11, 2014, 06:05:52 am
For right or wrong, whether there is justification or not, if the SEC or other regulator did come after one or more entities associated with bitShares, what power would they have to stop it? What are their control points?

Thats just speculation.

There was a thread Stan weighed in on a few weeks ago talking about a SEC muzzle. It was suggested a regular announcement be made daily denying I3 had received such an announcement.

Why wasn't that strategy ever put into practice? It was a good solution, a kind of dead mans switch to let the community know the SEC notified I3 and said not to say a word about it.

When you take on the big boys you better think it through before you piss them off.
Actually I'm not speculating whether they have or not. It was a hypothetical about the future.
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: MrJeans on November 11, 2014, 07:31:47 am
Yep, Decentralized Application works for me.
It is easier for the masses to understand. Makes sense. And makes the whole thing more approachable, it makes me want to download it on my phone and start using.

Soon people will be calling them decentralized apps, or daps, and they will be cool  8)
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: julian1 on November 11, 2014, 09:23:24 am
DAO judging by the length of the wikipedia article,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralized_Autonomous_Organization

seems to have attracted recognition.
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: monsterer on November 11, 2014, 09:26:31 am
For right or wrong, whether there is justification or not, if the SEC or other regulator did come after one or more entities associated with bitShares, what power would they have to stop it? What are their control points?

They could ask the owner of bitshares.org to shut down the site, contact the owner of the repository and ask that be shut down, chase the owner of this forum etc.

How much actual power they'd have to do these things, I've no idea, but those are the potential points of influence.
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: starspirit on November 11, 2014, 10:15:50 am
For right or wrong, whether there is justification or not, if the SEC or other regulator did come after one or more entities associated with bitShares, what power would they have to stop it? What are their control points?

They could ask the owner of bitshares.org to shut down the site, contact the owner of the repository and ask that be shut down, chase the owner of this forum etc.

How much actual power they'd have to do these things, I've no idea, but those are the potential points of influence.
I see, I guess that is possible while these things remain centralised...
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: cube on November 11, 2014, 10:43:54 am
I think it's a mistake to "officially" drop the company metaphor. If Satoshi described Bitcoin as "p2p money", BitShares can be described as a "p2p company". It's a decentralized company on a blockchain that's censorship resistant and cannot be controlled by governments.

I fail to see why dropping the company metaphor is at all useful.

It's only useful in that it doesn't immediately draw attention from the governments claiming to be resistant against. You can call it a "company" or a "community", use "tokens" or something instead of "shares" and "distribution" instead of "dividend", "rewards" instead of "interest" etc... but a duck is a duck. Pretty wimpy move IMO. Also a major flip flop of what has been marketed and constantly pushed since bitshares started.

Actually with the SEC what you call it matters more than what it is... I originally adopted the company metaphor based upon the "duck is a duck" mentality... but sadly that is not the case with regulators.   They care about whether or not you are attempting to use terms the public places trust in to persuade others to part with their money.  If you can convince someone to part with their money for a stake in a community then it is very different than selling a share in a company despite the economic result being the same.

I am glad we are getting clearer of the risks that we are facing.  The regulators no doubt will go after the leaders of crypto-firms which they see as breaking the laws.  Bitshare would be in trouble too if its leaders get into trouble.  If we can do something about it now, we should do it without delay.
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: cube on November 11, 2014, 10:52:01 am
...

You know you're doing something right when your adversaries begin to attack you. If you're at war what do you do when the enemy attacks? You fight harder! You find more effective strategies or you employ camouflage or flee to fight another day in another way.

Got your passport ready?
..

Are you serious?
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: Gentso1 on November 11, 2014, 02:42:33 pm
Kill the DAC just call it a DA like other players in the space do. The risk isn't worth the reward of drawing the SEC's wraith.
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: Thom on November 11, 2014, 07:07:17 pm
For right or wrong, whether there is justification or not, if the SEC or other regulator did come after one or more entities associated with bitShares, what power would they have to stop it? What are their control points?

Thats just speculation.

There was a thread Stan weighed in on a few weeks ago talking about a SEC muzzle. It was suggested a regular announcement be made daily denying I3 had received such an announcement.

Why wasn't that strategy ever put into practice? It was a good solution, a kind of dead mans switch to let the community know the SEC notified I3 and said not to say a word about it.

When you take on the big boys you better think it through before you piss them off.
Actually I'm not speculating whether they have or not. It was a hypothetical about the future.

Hypothetical = speculation.

Cube: Yes I'm serious. This is not a game, and the stakes are high. Freedom has always been attained through struggle and BitShares / crypto blockchain projects to gain financial freedom is no different. If you want it to be easy or you don't care what this is all about go get yourself a bank account and play by their rules.
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: FreeTrade on November 12, 2014, 06:14:30 am
Actually with the SEC what you call it matters more than what it is... I originally adopted the company metaphor based upon the "duck is a duck" mentality... but sadly that is not the case with regulators.   They care about whether or not you are attempting to use terms the public places trust in to persuade others to part with their money.  If you can convince someone to part with their money for a stake in a community then it is very different than selling a share in a company despite the economic result being the same.

Okay, in that case I favour 'Cooperative'.

Not sure the objection to the word 'Autonomous' - is it because the blockchain is hiring delegates, and maybe more? A smart agent could be hiring people and still be called autonomous, so could a Distributed Co-operative.
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: wasthatawolf on November 12, 2014, 03:04:19 pm
I've favored Distributed Applications over DACs after reading David Johnston's white paper.  It's a much clearer explanation of the software itself.

Need to nail down what it is exactly you're trying to describe: the software or the community that forms around it.
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: davidpbrown on November 12, 2014, 05:55:44 pm
I thought the principal definition of DAC was Decentralized Autonomous Consensus. On reflection, isn't that often just a fancy way of suggesting "Blockchain"? We see the Blockchain become the trusted third part authority - and it is Distributed; Autonomous; and playing host to a Consensus that agrees it is the One reference point.

So, it seems then DAC as Decentralized Autonomous Company or any other C, maybe rather redundant where it doesn't go much beyond what accounting does.

Now DAC would mean something IF that branch of activity was an algorithm with pretensions of acting like a company in its own right; so, beyond just doing administration and accounting; if it is doing management in some way, then it is not just a Blockchain.
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: can on November 12, 2014, 07:47:53 pm
I think losing the word autonomous is a terrible idea, for a few reasons:

1) It's an opportunity to reintroduce the concept of autonomy (freedom from external control or influence; independence), to those in whom it is absent

2) "Decentralized Autonomous" speaks to the vision you articulated in A Philosophy of Freedom published on bitshares.org:  "The point of the Invictus Movement is to show a new way, the DAC way, of governing society in a decentralized voluntary way. A way that is entirely non-violent and yet inescapable in its ability to motivate just outcomes, fair trade, and enforcement of contracts." 

In relation to the idea of governance the word automated invokes in me, and I think it would for many others, a chilling dread.  The word automated feels dead, static.  The word autonomous is dynamic, requires action...

Automated/Application leaves room in the imagination for the Borg.  Autonomous leaves room in the imagination for non-violence and just outcomes.

3) While the blockchain is an automated application, a DAC by this or any other name requires the participation of people to be brought to life, so I'd emphasize the involvement aspect/benefits in your marketing.

Completely agree.
We can see it as an autonomous organism which includes delegates.
Also, Decentralized might not be the right word for the network topology but it means a lot more than Distributed from a social/economic perspective.

Not nice for marketing but I think we are talking about a Distributed Autonomous Platform to run DA systems on it (apps, organizations, C*s...)
Title: Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
Post by: starspirit on November 12, 2014, 11:18:09 pm
Any label is just how we dress to make ourselves meaningful to the public today.
We do not need to wear the DAC hat forever, so why try to squeeze into yesterday's dress?
What will we wear today? And tomorrow? It will all keep moving so fast...
Let's stay free to evolve, and make our message meaningful to people.
Personally for today, I just like "the future of banking", with something moulded around security, transparency, control, efficiency, freedom etc.