0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
hi AB, i can understand where you're coming, but i dont think the vision has changed. the timeline for implementing the vision has merely become more realisticThe way i see it, the old vision fragmented development of several products and pigeonholed the bitshares toolkit developers into working on their own projects in relative isolation. from what i can tell, the bitshares toolkit still requires some major development time, and realistically there are only a handful of developers alive that currently have the know how to do so. the old plan essentially dictated that key devs like Toast, HackFisher etc would have to stop developing the toolkit (which is critical to DAC industry growth) and work on their own projects. between coding, taking on the role of project manager, providing support for delegates and users, etc i cant imagine there would be any time left for them to help develop the toolkit. software development is rarely a one man job and for good reason imhodeveloping separate, competing DACs is a great idea (and inevitable if bitshares succeeds) but the infrastructure needs to be sufficient first
We haven't really changed directions:1) I still believe in competing DACs and lowering the barrier to entry.2) I still believe that 3rd party developers should recognize those who built the software they are using as a foundation.3) I still believe in the company metaphor for economic development. 4) I still believe in NO CONTRACTS and NO OBLIGATIONS on any party (us or 3rd party developers) 5) I still believe that all DA(CCCCC) metaphors apply and are useful: Currency, Company, Co-Op, Community, Country6) I still support 3rd party DACs as being good, just so long as I don't have to spend more than an hour or so per week helping them. So all that has happened is that I demanded a unified project to work on and the options were: create a competitor to BTSX or adapt BTSX. This was entirely within the realm of the original planning. So I fully support your efforts on Launching your own PTS currency based upon your core tenants. No need to fight any one. Just go and do it.In summary we haven't changed course, but all things are a matter of perspective and from some perspectives the course may have changed. I would say the primary course correct was to "grow and then divide" rather than "divide and then grow".... and course correction was not optional, the original plan was unsustainable.
Why would a third-party DAC want to credit AGS/PTS now if they do not get support using I3's funds anymore and they also do not sharedrop to strong hands who won't dump their stake when the market opens up?It makes far more sense for the third-party developers to instead sharedrop to asset that there is a lot of support around (BTS). I also think it is preferable that they do some crowdfunding (despite possible SEC risks) to both raise capital and get self-selected strong hands in the genesis block, similar to what BitShares Music is doing with their Note pre-sale.
Quote from: arhag on October 31, 2014, 06:44:32 pmQuote from: bytemaster on October 31, 2014, 06:35:19 pm6) I still support 3rd party DACs as being good, just so long as I don't have to spend more than an hour or so per week helping them. This is key. This is what I care about. Every working hour devs paid by BTS spend helping other third-party DACs is an hour that isn't spent doing the million things on the list for this ambitious project we call BitShares. yup indeed .. noticed this also last 3 weeks... i'll focus totally on BTS now... when i got time to...i'll help other DACs as well !I've changed my priority list...
Quote from: bytemaster on October 31, 2014, 06:35:19 pm6) I still support 3rd party DACs as being good, just so long as I don't have to spend more than an hour or so per week helping them. This is key. This is what I care about. Every working hour devs paid by BTS spend helping other third-party DACs is an hour that isn't spent doing the million things on the list for this ambitious project we call BitShares.
6) I still support 3rd party DACs as being good, just so long as I don't have to spend more than an hour or so per week helping them.
Our views mostly differ on our marketing and business strategy. Both may work within a given niche or application. The difference is that I'm not railing against your idea saying that it will never work. Even worse, you have literally nothing to lose but everything to gain if I am right. Just a shame...
You believe:1) PoW distribution is not the best method of allocation.2) A DAC cannot succeed without a solid funding model.3) A DAC cannot succeed without strong developers and technical superiority.I believe:1) Without diverging from the topic, most people in the crypto space disagree with you on point #1.2) A good currency and sharedropping coin CAN succeed without technical superiority.3) The most important attributes of this coin are: (i) fair distribution, (ii) strong scarcity (non-inflationary), (iii) efficiency and secuirty (DPOS).Our views mostly differ on our marketing and business strategy. Both may work within a given niche or application. The difference is that I'm not railing against your idea saying that it will never work. Even worse, you have literally nothing to lose but everything to gain if I am right. Just a shame...
Quote from: fuzzy on October 31, 2014, 02:09:02 amI see the old single-dac-chains as potentially having innovations that get 3rd party Devs recognized by SuperDACs (like BTS/Ethereum). Is there a flaw to my logic here? Why wouldn't 3rd party Devs want to develop on those smaller, less competitive DACs? Well, for one, funding would likely be a bigger issue on the smaller, less competitive DACs. They either need to have earned a huge amount of money from an ICO to fund all the development they need, which we are slowly moving away from in favor of the dilution model, or they would need the stake of their DAC to have a high enough market cap to fund development (either by selling off some of their initial genesis stake or even better getting paid with stakeholder approval through dilution of the stake). If the market cap of the DAC is puny it will be too difficult to generate high enough salaries to pay the developers. If the developers are creating technology that can bring value to BTS stakeholders, then it would be smart for the BTS stakeholders to pay those developers through BTS dilution (which they can afford to do because of a much higher market cap) to create the technology and add that value to BTS.Quote from: fuzzy on October 31, 2014, 02:09:02 amIn this way, it would essentially be a way to lower barrier to entry for talented Devs who have no other way of proving themselves to a broader community.If the devs hasn't proved themselves yet, then people probably wouldn't donate to an ICO to allow the devs to carry out their vision. They would also likely dump the stake that the devs generated through snapshots because of lack of confidence in the devs. A dev first needs to prove himself/herself. If they have some background that would make BTS stakeholders think they can actually pull it off, they can appeal to stakeholders and get hired as a developer paid for by BTS dilution. As they start proving themselves they can get paid more to grow their team and accomplish their grander vision. If they don't even have enough credentials to get elected by stakeholders, then I guess they have to first build that reputation by contributing to the open source project for free. If some devs have proven themselves (say through the above actions), they might have gained enough of a reputation to then launch their own competing DAC if they really wanted to take it along a different path. Ideally BitShares as a platform with Turing complete scripts would be flexible enough to allow them to accomplish their goals within the blockchain, but if for some reason their vision requires fundamental changes that are incompatible with BTS, then they have to launch their own chain. Their reputation can then allow them to get the necessary funding through an ICO, or if they don't want to deal with the legal issues with that, they could even snapshot BTS (and potentially other tokens) and still have enough strong hands who believe in their vision to not dump the genesis stake.
I see the old single-dac-chains as potentially having innovations that get 3rd party Devs recognized by SuperDACs (like BTS/Ethereum). Is there a flaw to my logic here? Why wouldn't 3rd party Devs want to develop on those smaller, less competitive DACs?
In this way, it would essentially be a way to lower barrier to entry for talented Devs who have no other way of proving themselves to a broader community.
Quote from: donkeypong on October 30, 2014, 11:48:45 pmGet over it, AB. This is beating a dead horse of a non-argument. Don't you have your own forum now?This is exactly the type of shallow, non-productive response and attitude I was referring to in my post. Why don't you address the substance of my argument instead of being so dismissive? If anything what you've provided is the very definition of a "non-argument".
Get over it, AB. This is beating a dead horse of a non-argument. Don't you have your own forum now?
Quote from: alphaBar on October 31, 2014, 01:17:55 amEdit: Also you have somehow interpreted "3rd party developer" to mean only developers who have no vested stake in PTS/AGS. There are plenty of talented developers who are invested in PTS and AGS (I know many of them), and would be willing to try and build a new DAC if it were encouraged. If we position PTS properly we can gain a lot of traction from developers both inside and outside of our community.I'll make these talented developers a few offers. They can either allocate the genesis stake 100% to PTS, OR 50% to PTS and 50% to AGS, OR 90% to BTS and 10% to themselves. Which do you think they are more likely to take?If BTS has the greater network effect than PTS or AGS (which it is pretty much guaranteed to have) AND BTS holders are no more opposed to the developers' vision than PTS holders AND the developers own less than 10% of PTS/AGS (which I am fairly confident is true), the rational decision is to take the third offer.So it all comes down to whether the BTS holders or PTS holders are more likely to dump the new DAC's stake. If the new DAC isn't competition against BTS, I see no reason why BTS holders would be more likely to dump than PTS holders. If it is competition, then you are basically saying people's purpose for holding PTS is to compete with BTS. The talented developers could certainly try to compete against BTS despite the much weaker network effect they inherit from PTS, but I would argue that if they are giving up strong network effect then they are more likely to realize their vision if they just do an ICO instead of snapshotting PTS. Or they might find that BTS holders are actually open to pay them (through BTS dilution) to realize their vision on the BitShares platform instead of competing with BTS.
Edit: Also you have somehow interpreted "3rd party developer" to mean only developers who have no vested stake in PTS/AGS. There are plenty of talented developers who are invested in PTS and AGS (I know many of them), and would be willing to try and build a new DAC if it were encouraged. If we position PTS properly we can gain a lot of traction from developers both inside and outside of our community.
Quote from: .yoshi on October 31, 2014, 01:20:20 amhi AB, i can understand where you're coming, but i dont think the vision has changed. the timeline for implementing the vision has merely become more realisticThe way i see it, the old vision fragmented development of several products and pigeonholed the bitshares toolkit developers into working on their own projects in relative isolation. from what i can tell, the bitshares toolkit still requires some major development time, and realistically there are only a handful of developers alive that currently have the know how to do so. the old plan essentially dictated that key devs like Toast, HackFisher etc would have to stop developing the toolkit (which is critical to DAC industry growth) and work on their own projects. between coding, taking on the role of project manager, providing support for delegates and users, etc i cant imagine there would be any time left for them to help develop the toolkit. software development is rarely a one man job and for good reason imhodeveloping separate, competing DACs is a great idea (and inevitable if bitshares succeeds) but the infrastructure needs to be sufficient firstThese two things are not mutually exclusive. I3 can do the merger and not stray from the "open" strategy. I am merely saying that I3 should "bless" the open platform strategy and convey it clearly. I outlined some simple bullet points that would be sufficient for doing so.
Proof of work distribution is the only provable and trustless form of distribution.
This is one of the failings of Nxt.
Quote from: alphaBar on October 31, 2014, 12:39:21 amThis post is illustrative of the exact point I was making. You support the merger but differ in your opinion of the strategy (which is fine). But strategy matters and that is exactly why it is absolutely not a waste of time to discuss the issue. As to your point about sharedropping to PTS - there are two issues with this. The first issue is that any person who have a business strategy that competes with the business strategy of BTS would be insane to sharedrop to their competitor. For example, what if I want to create a different DNS DAC or a different Vote DAC? Would I sharedrop to my own competitor. If there is a strong division (say 50/50) in the BTS community about how to move forward or on certain critical business decisions, then it makes a lot of sense to do a 100% snapshot of BTS. This would effectively split the DAC and let the various stakeholders move to a position they like. This would be done despite the fact that it weakens their network effect considerably (Metcalfe's law).If there was a small minority disagreeing, it would not be worth it to split the DAC. Certainly any one of the dissenting minority voices could snapshot the DAC anyway, but since they were small the DAC would have a tiny market cap, tiny network effect, and be unlikely to be successful. It would also not make sense to bother sharedropping to all of BTS in that case, since they would be giving the holders who disagree with their strategy the ability to profit as they dump the new stake. So, in this case it would make more sense to create a new DAC that is allocated according to an ICO, and try to compete with the main chain despite the much smaller network effect. If they were smarter about these different decisions compared to the holders of the bigger chain, they might become successful. In fact, this is the same strategy BitShares is taking vs Bitcoin: why snapshot BTC holders when the vast majority of them don't even believe in the vision of DPOS and BitAssets and would thus just dump anyway?Quote from: alphaBar on October 31, 2014, 12:39:21 amThe second issue is a tangent to the first. Any success, failure, strategy, or implementation that is implemented in BTS would taint its use as a sharedrop instrument. Anyone who disagrees even slightly with any aspect of the DAC would choose not to sharedrop to the DAC. PTS is business-agnostic and DAC-agnostic with a pure proof of work distribution. These properties are ideal for a sharedrop instrument and the open-platform model I have outlined above.What do PTS holders stand for? What do I even know about them anyway? Why would they be strong hands for my particular DAC implementation? They might just dump the genesis stake anyway because they do not agree with the vision of my DAC. It makes no sense to sharedrop to a "business-agnostic" asset holder. If I am giving up network effect entirely, then I might as well ignore AGS/PTS entirely and just do an ICO that self-selects people who believe in the vision of my DAC.
This post is illustrative of the exact point I was making. You support the merger but differ in your opinion of the strategy (which is fine). But strategy matters and that is exactly why it is absolutely not a waste of time to discuss the issue. As to your point about sharedropping to PTS - there are two issues with this. The first issue is that any person who have a business strategy that competes with the business strategy of BTS would be insane to sharedrop to their competitor. For example, what if I want to create a different DNS DAC or a different Vote DAC? Would I sharedrop to my own competitor.
The second issue is a tangent to the first. Any success, failure, strategy, or implementation that is implemented in BTS would taint its use as a sharedrop instrument. Anyone who disagrees even slightly with any aspect of the DAC would choose not to sharedrop to the DAC. PTS is business-agnostic and DAC-agnostic with a pure proof of work distribution. These properties are ideal for a sharedrop instrument and the open-platform model I have outlined above.
Quote from: alphaBar on October 31, 2014, 12:10:25 amThe new strategy seems to be a radical departure from the original strategy of Bitshares, yet there is little in the form of explanation. Lastly, it is entirely unclear what the role of PTS and AGS play in the new strategy. First they are absorbed, then they live on. But still everyone secretly wants them to die.I will not-at-all-secretly publicly state that I want AGS and PTS to die after the November 5.The purpose for AGS and PTS has ended in my opinion. One purpose was to reward the people who donated the BTC/PTS funds that make I3's approximately 5% stake in BTS possible, which is to be used for developing the future of this ecosystem. The other purpose was to have strong community support. The sharedrop has changed these two purposes. It allows I3 to focus all of the funds in their position to making BTS the best it can be (and we need every penny we can get to accomplish that vision). It also means that after the sharedrop, people who had their allegiance divided between BTSX, AGS, PTS, VOTE, DNS can now focus it all on just one system BTS. If it is true that nearly all of the support has been diverted away from those various assets and to BTS (which I believe it is since the sharedrop seemed pretty fair to me), than the support for AGS/PTS should have significantly dropped. Why would a third-party DAC want to credit AGS/PTS now if they do not get support using I3's funds anymore and they also do not sharedrop to strong hands who won't dump their stake when the market opens up?It makes far more sense for the third-party developers to instead sharedrop to asset that there is a lot of support around (BTS). I also think it is preferable that they do some crowdfunding (despite possible SEC risks) to both raise capital and get self-selected strong hands in the genesis block, similar to what BitShares Music is doing with their Note pre-sale.
The new strategy seems to be a radical departure from the original strategy of Bitshares, yet there is little in the form of explanation. Lastly, it is entirely unclear what the role of PTS and AGS play in the new strategy. First they are absorbed, then they live on. But still everyone secretly wants them to die.
Free riding also doesn't work. Can we all come to a consensus that these third party DACs will be diluting by a fair amount to pay for the core technology development that they all share? How can we enforce that with separate DACs? I like the unified BTS because all BTS holders need to pay for the development/marketing that will benefit all BTS holders. Incentives are aligned. For this to work however, it means we need to have a strong enough network effect to squash any challenger that is daring to take a dominant position away from BTS by copying all of the features and advertising itself as a platform similar to BTS.
Quote from: alphaBar on October 30, 2014, 11:55:08 pmQuote from: donkeypong on October 30, 2014, 11:48:45 pmGet over it, AB. This is beating a dead horse of a non-argument. Don't you have your own forum now?This is exactly the type of shallow, non-productive response and attitude I was referring to in my post. Why don't you address the substance of my argument instead of being so dismissive? If anything what you've provided is the very definition of a "non-argument".Look, you're now a competitor. Don't expect a pat on the back.
The problem initially began with the proposal to "eliminate PTS/AGS" (though that has been reversed) and the ongoing hostility towards even the mere existence of other chains built on the Toolkit. Even though the decision to eliminate PTS/AGS was reversed, there is still another sharedrop to PTS/AGS happening on November 5th which seems totally arbitrary. I argue that we should not re-sharedrop PTS and AGS and that we should support their continued existence as sharedrop instruments for 3rd party DACs. Furthermore, we should separate or support the efforts of others to separate the core Toolkit from the BTS repo to make it easier for 3rd parties to fork the toolkit and develop cool DACs.
Isolationism doesn't work and centralization doesn't work. Bitshares as a platform has far more potential than Bitshares as a swiss-army knife of features built into a single blockchain with a hostile and unwelcoming attitude towards alternative strategies.
Quote from: alphaBar on October 30, 2014, 11:46:04 pmThe problem initially began with the proposal to "eliminate PTS/AGS" (though that has been reversed)Really? When was this reversed?
The problem initially began with the proposal to "eliminate PTS/AGS" (though that has been reversed)
Bytemaster had good reasons for merging the DACs. No one is perfect and no one can totally plan ahead every last detail. Can we please just move on? The rebranded & merged BitShares without the X even sounds simpler, and will be more appealing to new buyers who dont understand every minutia of BTS crypto-lore.