0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: sumantso on August 29, 2015, 01:55:11 amWait, Dan and Stan are 2 out of the 4 for Identabit? And then Stan says with a straight face that the Brownie sharedrop awarded by Identabit was John Underwood's own personal decision and they didn't even influence it?I joined Bitshares back in 2013 enthused by BM's philosophy, and even when the price was going down I held through as I believed the project needed support. Now I am starting to think (have been for sometime) that we were fooled.If you scroll down the main website, you get to 'The Originators' who are receiving 10% of initial equity. http://identabit.com/It may well have been John's decision though. I'm certainly not one to speculate negatively on things I know so little about (In fairness though, some of my posts have been quite negative lately so apologies community, I'll take a break for a few weeks unless I have something positive to say.)
Wait, Dan and Stan are 2 out of the 4 for Identabit? And then Stan says with a straight face that the Brownie sharedrop awarded by Identabit was John Underwood's own personal decision and they didn't even influence it?I joined Bitshares back in 2013 enthused by BM's philosophy, and even when the price was going down I held through as I believed the project needed support. Now I am starting to think (have been for sometime) that we were fooled.
Quote from: triox on August 13, 2015, 04:44:13 pmQuote from: Stan on August 13, 2015, 03:14:52 pm John found it to be the best available mailing list for what he wanted to do.Yeah, and I'm sure you had nooooothing to do with it, right? Instead of negotiating a 20% drop on shareholders, as per the original social contract, you negotiated 10 % to the community and 10% to your private coin where you own 100% of the supply (or 99% of the potential future supply if you don't count Brownies released to date as yours). Doesn't anyone else see this as a serious breach of confidence?To clarify: I don't actually believe you'll release 3 billion Brownies to yourselves prior to the snapshot, but I am sure that you'll try to get away with as much as the marks will let you.It was John's decision. I pointed it out to him as an option when he explained what he wanted to accomplish.The numbers are 20% to BTS and 20% to Brownie.PTS in the genesis supply. Read up on Proof of Appreciation at IDentabit.com to understand how a fixed amount of limited new supply is trickled into circulation (like Bitcoin and BitShares) but in such a way as to preserve value for genesis hodlers. No appreciation -- no new supply.You can choose to view Brownies as a private coin or as a suggested list of Founders deserving shares based on an expert assessment of relative contribution to the company being formed. How do you think any private company allocates shares among its Founders?Ultimately, John is the decider. If he doesn't like how the Brownie distribution is evolving he can always make adjustments.
Quote from: Stan on August 13, 2015, 03:14:52 pm John found it to be the best available mailing list for what he wanted to do.Yeah, and I'm sure you had nooooothing to do with it, right? Instead of negotiating a 20% drop on shareholders, as per the original social contract, you negotiated 10 % to the community and 10% to your private coin where you own 100% of the supply (or 99% of the potential future supply if you don't count Brownies released to date as yours). Doesn't anyone else see this as a serious breach of confidence?To clarify: I don't actually believe you'll release 3 billion Brownies to yourselves prior to the snapshot, but I am sure that you'll try to get away with as much as the marks will let you.
John found it to be the best available mailing list for what he wanted to do.
Quote from: Empirical1.2 on August 28, 2015, 11:39:39 pmQuote from: Akado on August 28, 2015, 11:21:11 pmQuote from: Empirical1.2 on August 28, 2015, 10:44:04 pmBTSX started trading on July 21st. It's average price during the Ether crowdsale was probably something like $0.025would be happy as hell if we could reach that again but im kind of skeptical. what was once the average price, would now be a big achievement.This year Dan has founded CNX, Brownies and Dan & Stan are also 2 of the 4 founders of IDentabit. I think he's also stated that he hasn't added to his BTS position for a looong time, even at these prices. So it's hard to discern how much faith they still have in BTS and their SuperDAC concept when they're diversifying so much elsewhere. As a result, I think investors are fairly cautious and while BTS will rise on the 2.0 release it will probably have to start producing tangible results (new users and/or high BitAsset adoption) to get up to those levels again. Edit: It's like before any of these businesses are profitable you're mostly investing in Dan & team's talent. It used to be that if you had $1000 you'd put it all in BTS to do that. Now if given the choice you might want to diversify between CNX, Brownies, IDBit and BTS. As a result BTS has suffered a bit.You need to think bigger, Pinky.It's not a fixed size pie. All of these projects cross-reinforce each other while pursuing different parts of a very big world population. Soon, people will expect DPOS 2 performance from every chain and dismiss old Model-T's like bitcoin and its alts. Identabit brings in people with totally different values and makes it easier to move into the freedom of BitShares after they take the training wheels off. Brownies reward the doers in this community and it's the doers that will make BitShares grow. Surprisingly only a few members of this forum have inquired about private investment in CNX directly, so that's only a theoretical worry. But keep in mind, the more resources CNX has the faster the pie I mentioned will grow. Right now our biggest anticipated source of revenue in the near term is driving business to BitShares.Better to have people diversifying within the BitShares family where resources get funneled back in to developing new projects while offloading development costs from BitShares. Believe me, Bytemaster has multiple industry-disrupting plans queued up clear out into next year already. To do that we need to raise more funds and get more independent entrepreneurs working on them in parallel.Meanwhile, I have literally bet the family farm on BitShares - mortgaged it to the hilt - all in. And most of Dan's net worth is similarly so invested. He hasn't added to his holdings because he has no other source of income (yet) to buy more BTS and the personal holdings he has are going to pay salaries. The SuperDAC concept has grown into the BitShares Exchange Network (BEN). That makes it a super-duper-DAC because it is also serving as the backbone for many manned not just unmanned businesses. How many announcements and pages of posts have I devoted to Big BEN this summer? How can you say "It's hard to discern?"You shouldn't speculate negatively on that which you know so little about.If you want to speculate in a complete vacuum of knowledge, speculate positively. It will be better for all of us.
Quote from: Akado on August 28, 2015, 11:21:11 pmQuote from: Empirical1.2 on August 28, 2015, 10:44:04 pmBTSX started trading on July 21st. It's average price during the Ether crowdsale was probably something like $0.025would be happy as hell if we could reach that again but im kind of skeptical. what was once the average price, would now be a big achievement.This year Dan has founded CNX, Brownies and Dan & Stan are also 2 of the 4 founders of IDentabit. I think he's also stated that he hasn't added to his BTS position for a looong time, even at these prices. So it's hard to discern how much faith they still have in BTS and their SuperDAC concept when they're diversifying so much elsewhere. As a result, I think investors are fairly cautious and while BTS will rise on the 2.0 release it will probably have to start producing tangible results (new users and/or high BitAsset adoption) to get up to those levels again. Edit: It's like before any of these businesses are profitable you're mostly investing in Dan & team's talent. It used to be that if you had $1000 you'd put it all in BTS to do that. Now if given the choice you might want to diversify between CNX, Brownies, IDBit and BTS. As a result BTS has suffered a bit.
Quote from: Empirical1.2 on August 28, 2015, 10:44:04 pmBTSX started trading on July 21st. It's average price during the Ether crowdsale was probably something like $0.025would be happy as hell if we could reach that again but im kind of skeptical. what was once the average price, would now be a big achievement.
BTSX started trading on July 21st. It's average price during the Ether crowdsale was probably something like $0.025
You shouldn't speculate negatively on that which you know so little about.If you want to speculate in a complete vacuum of knowledge, speculate positively. It will be better for all of us.
Quote from: Empirical1.2 on August 28, 2015, 10:38:25 pmQuote from: Ander on August 28, 2015, 10:37:27 pmQuote from: Empirical1.2 on August 28, 2015, 10:31:23 pmQuote from: xeroc on August 28, 2015, 01:34:18 pmQuote from: luckybit on August 28, 2015, 09:18:46 amQuote from: joele on August 28, 2015, 09:08:10 amI'm used to in Bitshares regular and surprising changes.In Augur, they corrected/extend 1 day the 10%off date and holders overreacted to it. They should try Bitshares and they will get used to it. I'm sure a lot of the Bitshares community has diversified into Augur.Why that?Well if person A diversified $200 000 from BTS into Ether during their crowdsale, today he would be a millionaire, if he didn't today he would have less than $30 000. So it's tempting not to miss an Ethereum related crowdsale. They still have another month to go though, so personally I'm holding off diversifying and seeing how BTS plays out in the next few weeks.I dont believe that BTS was even trading yet when the Ether crowdsale was happening.Yeah it was, I'm sure I worked out the numbers a few weeks ago. One minute...I guess Protoshares was trading back then??
Quote from: Ander on August 28, 2015, 10:37:27 pmQuote from: Empirical1.2 on August 28, 2015, 10:31:23 pmQuote from: xeroc on August 28, 2015, 01:34:18 pmQuote from: luckybit on August 28, 2015, 09:18:46 amQuote from: joele on August 28, 2015, 09:08:10 amI'm used to in Bitshares regular and surprising changes.In Augur, they corrected/extend 1 day the 10%off date and holders overreacted to it. They should try Bitshares and they will get used to it. I'm sure a lot of the Bitshares community has diversified into Augur.Why that?Well if person A diversified $200 000 from BTS into Ether during their crowdsale, today he would be a millionaire, if he didn't today he would have less than $30 000. So it's tempting not to miss an Ethereum related crowdsale. They still have another month to go though, so personally I'm holding off diversifying and seeing how BTS plays out in the next few weeks.I dont believe that BTS was even trading yet when the Ether crowdsale was happening.Yeah it was, I'm sure I worked out the numbers a few weeks ago. One minute...
Quote from: Empirical1.2 on August 28, 2015, 10:31:23 pmQuote from: xeroc on August 28, 2015, 01:34:18 pmQuote from: luckybit on August 28, 2015, 09:18:46 amQuote from: joele on August 28, 2015, 09:08:10 amI'm used to in Bitshares regular and surprising changes.In Augur, they corrected/extend 1 day the 10%off date and holders overreacted to it. They should try Bitshares and they will get used to it. I'm sure a lot of the Bitshares community has diversified into Augur.Why that?Well if person A diversified $200 000 from BTS into Ether during their crowdsale, today he would be a millionaire, if he didn't today he would have less than $30 000. So it's tempting not to miss an Ethereum related crowdsale. They still have another month to go though, so personally I'm holding off diversifying and seeing how BTS plays out in the next few weeks.I dont believe that BTS was even trading yet when the Ether crowdsale was happening.
Quote from: xeroc on August 28, 2015, 01:34:18 pmQuote from: luckybit on August 28, 2015, 09:18:46 amQuote from: joele on August 28, 2015, 09:08:10 amI'm used to in Bitshares regular and surprising changes.In Augur, they corrected/extend 1 day the 10%off date and holders overreacted to it. They should try Bitshares and they will get used to it. I'm sure a lot of the Bitshares community has diversified into Augur.Why that?Well if person A diversified $200 000 from BTS into Ether during their crowdsale, today he would be a millionaire, if he didn't today he would have less than $30 000. So it's tempting not to miss an Ethereum related crowdsale. They still have another month to go though, so personally I'm holding off diversifying and seeing how BTS plays out in the next few weeks.
Quote from: luckybit on August 28, 2015, 09:18:46 amQuote from: joele on August 28, 2015, 09:08:10 amI'm used to in Bitshares regular and surprising changes.In Augur, they corrected/extend 1 day the 10%off date and holders overreacted to it. They should try Bitshares and they will get used to it. I'm sure a lot of the Bitshares community has diversified into Augur.Why that?
Quote from: joele on August 28, 2015, 09:08:10 amI'm used to in Bitshares regular and surprising changes.In Augur, they corrected/extend 1 day the 10%off date and holders overreacted to it. They should try Bitshares and they will get used to it. I'm sure a lot of the Bitshares community has diversified into Augur.
I'm used to in Bitshares regular and surprising changes.In Augur, they corrected/extend 1 day the 10%off date and holders overreacted to it. They should try Bitshares and they will get used to it.
Quote from: betax on August 24, 2015, 11:13:31 am we all can disagree on Follow my vote but we might get a surprise in one of the announcements.Doesn't Follow my vote require some form of identity verification? In which case it seems more likely the potential it has will probably benefit IDentabit.
we all can disagree on Follow my vote but we might get a surprise in one of the announcements.
Should we not have a sub-board for user issued assets like Brownies. Right now, Brownies are front and center and as such are given lots of attention/credibility; if we have lots of assets are we going to have them all be front and center as well and have actual BitShares discussions mixed in?
Quote from: jakub on August 24, 2015, 03:07:15 pmGuys, BM is a free human being and we do not own him. When he announced the brownie points he specifically declared that it is a UIA governed by his own rules and subjective criteria. He is FREE to do it.And he is also free to change the rules as he likes as it is his own reputation on the line, nothing to do with us.If you don't like anything about BM's brownie points, go ahead and create your own "brownie points" and distribute them according to the rules you prefer.No one is saying he isnt free to do it. He is free to do whatever he wants.But we are noticing that as a result of him having done it, and then getting partners to sharedrop partially onto it and less onto BTS, that some BTS investors are bailing as a result, causing BTS to drop. BEcause BTS whales are free to do that as well. And they will, if they think the value of BTS is being degraded by brownies.
Guys, BM is a free human being and we do not own him. When he announced the brownie points he specifically declared that it is a UIA governed by his own rules and subjective criteria. He is FREE to do it.And he is also free to change the rules as he likes as it is his own reputation on the line, nothing to do with us.If you don't like anything about BM's brownie points, go ahead and create your own "brownie points" and distribute them according to the rules you prefer.
Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.
this summer
Brownie points should be make more clear, at least the how many are going to be distributed. The total supply, etc. This will avoid creating a market were people might end up upset.
Like it or not, Brownie was another wrong step (for us, might be good for BM and CNX).
After the whole AGS/PTS merger fiasco it's mind-boggling to think that we'd be walking this path again, yet here we are. Brownies are just another point of controversy that shouldn't be.
If the later occurred then BM / CNX did indeed decide to "change the rules of the game" by changing the nature of brownies, and in that case there is a basis for complaint.
Quote from: puppies on August 21, 2015, 11:40:59 pmQuote from: topcandle on August 21, 2015, 10:18:11 pmIt's so dumb that anyone would value brownie points the same as bts when it gets an equal 20%. There is little distinction in free market value. But that's exactly what happened. Dev team is devaluing bitshares with the introduction of brownie points because by that deal, brownie points are worth more right now. Brownie points goes up in value and bitshares goes down. This is not a zero sum game. There is no reason to believe that identabit would have would have given a 40% stake to to bts instead of 20% if brownies did not exist. They have the right to disperse their digital tokens as they see fit.I think they would've, especially as it would've meant that they were following the social consensus without any controversy.Like it or not, Brownie was another wrong step (for us, might be good for BM and CNX). My first post in that thread (on Page 3 IIRC) was pointing out the concern, while all around everyone was busy posting their addresses. We reap what we sow.
Quote from: topcandle on August 21, 2015, 10:18:11 pmIt's so dumb that anyone would value brownie points the same as bts when it gets an equal 20%. There is little distinction in free market value. But that's exactly what happened. Dev team is devaluing bitshares with the introduction of brownie points because by that deal, brownie points are worth more right now. Brownie points goes up in value and bitshares goes down. This is not a zero sum game. There is no reason to believe that identabit would have would have given a 40% stake to to bts instead of 20% if brownies did not exist. They have the right to disperse their digital tokens as they see fit.
It's so dumb that anyone would value brownie points the same as bts when it gets an equal 20%. There is little distinction in free market value. But that's exactly what happened. Dev team is devaluing bitshares with the introduction of brownie points because by that deal, brownie points are worth more right now. Brownie points goes up in value and bitshares goes down.
Quote from: Troglodactyl on August 22, 2015, 01:09:33 amQuote from: konelectric on August 22, 2015, 12:56:50 amQuote from: profitofthegods on August 21, 2015, 07:39:22 pmPlease try to make just one damn thing work (commercially speaking) before screwing it off to go and make something else.You don't like how things are going. This is why we have Voting.Indeed. Which is why top priority should be getting BitShares to the point at which it is independent with an effective and user friendly voting system to generate consensus on how it needs to adapt. Bytemaster has indicated that he's all in favor of BitShares outgrowing its dependence on him, so it just remains to see whether he follows through on that. If he does, I think it may become unstoppable, but if he cripples it with IP/licensing nonsense then who knows.BM has literally said "if we vote on X then they won't vote right"...
Quote from: konelectric on August 22, 2015, 12:56:50 amQuote from: profitofthegods on August 21, 2015, 07:39:22 pmPlease try to make just one damn thing work (commercially speaking) before screwing it off to go and make something else.You don't like how things are going. This is why we have Voting.Indeed. Which is why top priority should be getting BitShares to the point at which it is independent with an effective and user friendly voting system to generate consensus on how it needs to adapt. Bytemaster has indicated that he's all in favor of BitShares outgrowing its dependence on him, so it just remains to see whether he follows through on that. If he does, I think it may become unstoppable, but if he cripples it with IP/licensing nonsense then who knows.
Quote from: profitofthegods on August 21, 2015, 07:39:22 pmPlease try to make just one damn thing work (commercially speaking) before screwing it off to go and make something else.You don't like how things are going. This is why we have Voting.
Please try to make just one damn thing work (commercially speaking) before screwing it off to go and make something else.
- I'm not sure there's any new BitShares toolkit? The toolkit BTS will be using is Graphene owned by CNX & if they want to sell it to start-ups or large companies I don't think BTS is guaranteed a piece of it?I think that was originally one of the appeals of BitShares - that you would get a piece of lot of different DAC's. In a way Ethereum has picked up that mantle because they aim to make building Dapps easy and so as a holder of Ether you may get some value out of any Dapp that is built on it that ends up being successful even if 99/100 are duds.
Quote from: Empirical1.2 on August 23, 2015, 02:42:43 pmQuote from: d3adh3ad on August 23, 2015, 11:02:19 amIdentabit is using Graphene for their chain. They owe BTS nothing. They made an arrangement with a group of private devs called CNX to do so. These devs also owe BTS nothing. CNX chose to give BTS Graphene. Identabit chose to sharedrop. They didn't have to. Just like CNX didn't have to give BTS Graphene. Perhaps we should try to accept this new paradigm. It's my opinion that we as a community sound like whiny children right now. We do not own these devs or other chains that choose to sharedrop.Sent from my iPad using TapatalkThat's absolutely correct. The question investors are trying to answer though is what is BTS worth then? I've previously described BTS as Quote from: Empirical1.2 on August 21, 2015, 11:31:46 amImagine if the founder of Microsoft left when it was still a struggling start-up, taking all the talent with him to form another company and then told Microsoft shareholders that they would now only receive a free windows license and if they wanted any further work done by Bill Gates or the talent that they would have to pay market rates. How much would Microsoft be worth in that scenario? (Especially if Microsoft couldn't afford to pay market rates because it was still a struggling start-up and also paying off an expensive merger from just 9 months prior that it had largely engaged in to retain it's founder.) If BTS has run out of money & the founder and talent of BTS have formed another company and will only work post BTS 2.0 for market rates. It seems like now BTS's main claim to fame is a free windows license (Graphene) Nobody owes it/you/me anything it's just a question for serious investors of determining why they should put their hard earned money into BTS at this point. For me the answer is that it's a punt that BitAssets 2.0, the good partnerships and the referral system are going to combine to rapidly gain traction and if they don't, it's curtains. So very speculative at this point.Windows was not open sourced, Bitshares is. I think the new licencing stops the likes of IBM, Oracle, Microsoft, or just an start up etc to come here, create a fork, deploy it internally and thanks everyone for giving me this free product. Bitshares can now longer live and developers can be sure that nobody will come up with a competing chain using the same code, hence removing their only way of living and passion.They will make millions with this, excellent. Good for them.Newcomers can get cheaper BTS than we did, well thanks for the Brownie points the active community will get some shares. I believe that is has been impossible to be active in the past few months before the 2.0 announcement as the ones in the know could not say anything, and the ones that did not know, there was not opportunity to help. (It makes me wonder why I was testing in DevShares for a while.)They could not have told everyone that they were working on a better product, it will have been admitting failure on the first one (even if for me works..)What I want to see is a new bitshares toolkit, with a licensing that is clear and you can pitch to the likes of IBM, Oracle, Microsoft, or just an start up.For example 20% minimum to BTS, what is considered a competing chain and what is not. Examples of how to extend the toolkit etc. If it cannot be a new chain, but a valid addition to the chain by creating a hard fork, how you ensure revenue for the new company.
Quote from: d3adh3ad on August 23, 2015, 11:02:19 amIdentabit is using Graphene for their chain. They owe BTS nothing. They made an arrangement with a group of private devs called CNX to do so. These devs also owe BTS nothing. CNX chose to give BTS Graphene. Identabit chose to sharedrop. They didn't have to. Just like CNX didn't have to give BTS Graphene. Perhaps we should try to accept this new paradigm. It's my opinion that we as a community sound like whiny children right now. We do not own these devs or other chains that choose to sharedrop.Sent from my iPad using TapatalkThat's absolutely correct. The question investors are trying to answer though is what is BTS worth then? I've previously described BTS as Quote from: Empirical1.2 on August 21, 2015, 11:31:46 amImagine if the founder of Microsoft left when it was still a struggling start-up, taking all the talent with him to form another company and then told Microsoft shareholders that they would now only receive a free windows license and if they wanted any further work done by Bill Gates or the talent that they would have to pay market rates. How much would Microsoft be worth in that scenario? (Especially if Microsoft couldn't afford to pay market rates because it was still a struggling start-up and also paying off an expensive merger from just 9 months prior that it had largely engaged in to retain it's founder.) If BTS has run out of money & the founder and talent of BTS have formed another company and will only work post BTS 2.0 for market rates. It seems like now BTS's main claim to fame is a free windows license (Graphene) Nobody owes it/you/me anything it's just a question for serious investors of determining why they should put their hard earned money into BTS at this point. For me the answer is that it's a punt that BitAssets 2.0, the good partnerships and the referral system are going to combine to rapidly gain traction and if they don't, it's curtains. So very speculative at this point.
Identabit is using Graphene for their chain. They owe BTS nothing. They made an arrangement with a group of private devs called CNX to do so. These devs also owe BTS nothing. CNX chose to give BTS Graphene. Identabit chose to sharedrop. They didn't have to. Just like CNX didn't have to give BTS Graphene. Perhaps we should try to accept this new paradigm. It's my opinion that we as a community sound like whiny children right now. We do not own these devs or other chains that choose to sharedrop.Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Imagine if the founder of Microsoft left when it was still a struggling start-up, taking all the talent with him to form another company and then told Microsoft shareholders that they would now only receive a free windows license and if they wanted any further work done by Bill Gates or the talent that they would have to pay market rates. How much would Microsoft be worth in that scenario? (Especially if Microsoft couldn't afford to pay market rates because it was still a struggling start-up and also paying off an expensive merger from just 9 months prior that it had largely engaged in to retain it's founder.)
Quote from: jakub on August 23, 2015, 11:12:02 amQuote from: d3adh3ad on August 23, 2015, 11:02:19 amIdentabit is using Graphene for their chain. They owe BTS nothing. They made an arrangement with a group of private devs called CNX to do so. These devs also owe BTS nothing. CNX chose to give BTS Graphene. Identabit chose to sharedrop. They didn't have to. Just like CNX didn't have to give BTS Graphene. Perhaps we should try to accept this new paradigm. It's my opinion that we as a community sound like whiny children right now. We do not own these devs or other chains that choose to sharedrop. That's a healthy attitude. All this "you-owe-me-something" culture is producing is disappointment. Well said!
Quote from: d3adh3ad on August 23, 2015, 11:02:19 amIdentabit is using Graphene for their chain. They owe BTS nothing. They made an arrangement with a group of private devs called CNX to do so. These devs also owe BTS nothing. CNX chose to give BTS Graphene. Identabit chose to sharedrop. They didn't have to. Just like CNX didn't have to give BTS Graphene. Perhaps we should try to accept this new paradigm. It's my opinion that we as a community sound like whiny children right now. We do not own these devs or other chains that choose to sharedrop. That's a healthy attitude. All this "you-owe-me-something" culture is producing is disappointment.
Identabit is using Graphene for their chain. They owe BTS nothing. They made an arrangement with a group of private devs called CNX to do so. These devs also owe BTS nothing. CNX chose to give BTS Graphene. Identabit chose to sharedrop. They didn't have to. Just like CNX didn't have to give BTS Graphene. Perhaps we should try to accept this new paradigm. It's my opinion that we as a community sound like whiny children right now. We do not own these devs or other chains that choose to sharedrop.
That's a healthy attitude. All this "you-owe-me-something" culture is producing disappointment.
These is not competition just fraud. First PTS, then AGS, BTSX, Delegates, now Brownie. Who Know what is next. As a post 2/28 investor I still collecting PTS dust. In development of these beautiful technology (fraud) I invested a lot. Result: few PTS. I even didn't received all BTS I need to wait December or something. Thank you. Now Borownie.Points is more valuable than AGS. Brilliant way for stealing.
However, with the advent of AngelShares we have a new obligation to do all we can to motivate 3rd Parties to honor those who built the ecosystem they are enjoying. Our promise to promote, support and endorse only those 3rd Party DACs that honor our stakeholder's contributions is an important benefit that 3rd Party developer's get for honoring the Social Consensus. To dilute that for future DACs would be counterproductive and contrary to the expanded Social Consensus developed in December. This is being codified further in the Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) bounty.
Quote from: DMo09 on August 21, 2015, 09:32:08 pmBts is an entrepreneurial venture of unprecedented kind. I completely understand why there is evolving change as things unfold. It's not like we're funding a lemonade stand. We're writing history. Yes, it has been frustrating in the short-term. But this is a marathon through uncharted territory. And I have only seen proof that the Bts team will work as long and hard as it takes to make this project a success.
Bts is an entrepreneurial venture of unprecedented kind. I completely understand why there is evolving change as things unfold. It's not like we're funding a lemonade stand. We're writing history. Yes, it has been frustrating in the short-term. But this is a marathon through uncharted territory. And I have only seen proof that the Bts team will work as long and hard as it takes to make this project a success.
Competition is always useful and highly appreciated! BM and CNX are players/developers like you (should be). If you speculate on something brand-new, don't blame the others. Get active and contribute :-) Spread the word, help beta testing, fork everything if you like to, and design markets and tools for real people.
BTS was DEAD when BM announced the merge.
...I joined is because this group is more technically and philosophically advanced than any other.
Without change that results from innovation, Bitshares would already be worthless. It is revolutionary experimental software on the bleeding edge of network technology. Honestly, what do you expect?The constant fretting about sharesdrops and 'value proposition' is pretty ugly. Developers must do what is best for their project. Anyone can create an asset in Bitshares. Bitshares has enormous potential value irrespective of a future gift.
Quote from: Stan on August 21, 2015, 08:00:55 pmWe take this very seriously. We learn, adapt, improve, ... compete. Have you read the reasoning behind the decision? It was not made on a whim.I am quite sure that you didn't do it on a whim. I'm not saying that. But the changes - in terms of the value a person gains from various actions (buying pts, ags, or bts promoting Bitshares, or trying to build an allied business), as well as the core way that Bitshares is structured and its features have been subject to near constant changes from the start. My point is that when making such changes so often, regardless of how positive and well thought out those changes are, you make it very difficult for newcomers to get to grips with how to get involved, and potentially burn people who are already involved and trying to do something. What's more this brownie point thing in particular is just another way of drawing value from the decentralized Bitshares to Cryptonomex. It feels like yet another example of what seems to be a general disregard for people who have actually bought into this thing in some way - either financially or with time and effort.
We take this very seriously. We learn, adapt, improve, ... compete. Have you read the reasoning behind the decision? It was not made on a whim.
Wasting my time may not be a big deal, but it is indicative and I'm sure I'm not alone in this kind of experience.
Quote from: Ander on August 21, 2015, 09:01:16 pmQuote from: lakerta06 on August 21, 2015, 08:52:20 pmQuote from: raginglikeaboss on August 21, 2015, 08:06:10 pmYes, progress is good. Yes, change is tough. But completely changing the monetary incentive to use a system to a new one that does not favor new investment is a scary proposition.what changed? 20% goes to BTS if you are referring to the identabit sharedropThe 20% is a lie. Its only 10%, of final supply. They are doing 20% of initial distribution but only 10% in reality, to make it look better. Any comment on this Stan?
Quote from: lakerta06 on August 21, 2015, 08:52:20 pmQuote from: raginglikeaboss on August 21, 2015, 08:06:10 pmYes, progress is good. Yes, change is tough. But completely changing the monetary incentive to use a system to a new one that does not favor new investment is a scary proposition.what changed? 20% goes to BTS if you are referring to the identabit sharedropThe 20% is a lie. Its only 10%, of final supply. They are doing 20% of initial distribution but only 10% in reality, to make it look better.
Quote from: raginglikeaboss on August 21, 2015, 08:06:10 pmYes, progress is good. Yes, change is tough. But completely changing the monetary incentive to use a system to a new one that does not favor new investment is a scary proposition.what changed? 20% goes to BTS if you are referring to the identabit sharedrop
Yes, progress is good. Yes, change is tough. But completely changing the monetary incentive to use a system to a new one that does not favor new investment is a scary proposition.
Question mentioned on Mumble that didn't get answered:Paraphrasing..."Don't chains that sharedrop 20% and then dilute violate the Social Consensus?"Answer: No violation. After you get your full 20% then you have to decide whether to cash it out or let it ride.If you let it ride you are freely deciding that your are OK with the expected growth vs. the expected dilution.So what happens after genesis is in your control, and you shouldn't expect a developer to take that into account for you.In the case of Identabit's Proof of Appreciation guarantees that no dilution will occur at all for a while until the algorithm has validated that offsetting appreciation has occurred.So the worry about what the supply will be at some distant point in the future is unknowable and moot. You start out sharing 20% and have plenty of time to decide your own fate (and opt out if you want) before any change in the supply ever happens.
Quote from: Ander on August 21, 2015, 09:40:02 pmQuote from: lakerta06 on August 21, 2015, 09:29:53 pmQuote from: Ander on August 21, 2015, 09:01:16 pmQuote from: lakerta06 on August 21, 2015, 08:52:20 pmQuote from: raginglikeaboss on August 21, 2015, 08:06:10 pmYes, progress is good. Yes, change is tough. But completely changing the monetary incentive to use a system to a new one that does not favor new investment is a scary proposition.what changed? 20% goes to BTS if you are referring to the identabit sharedropThe 20% is a lie. Its only 10%, of final supply. They are doing 20% of initial distribution but only 10% in reality, to make it look better. Any comment on this Stan?In my mind it only half meets the social consensus by being 10% of final supply. If you also hold brownies at least in proportion to your BTS stake then you are fine and get your 20%. However, everyone out there without brownies is missing out.I believe that this is the cause of the most recent BTS decline. The price was at .033 and rising when this news came out, and its been nonstop downward spiral since. Everyone who was buying BTS as a sharedrop target just realized that they get only half what they expected because half the sharedrops are being throw at brownie now, and so they bailed.The Brownie allocation is actually 20% of initial supply being awarded to Bytemaster. It is completely under his control and as was stated when the sharedrop was announced...Quote from: bytemaster on August 12, 2015, 10:46:32 pmNote brownies are subject to dilution at will and supplies can change. - 10% of the IDentabit supply goes to the originators and Stan & Dan are 2 of the 4 originators. - 10% of the IDentabit supply goes to the IDentabit developers and presumably BM is the largest recipient in that group. - 20% goes to BTS of which BM is hopefully the largest holder. I think that's fine but between CNX which owns Graphene and IDentabit, BTS is the project they may have the least incentive to make a long term success. I'm currently holding a lot of BTS and have held much more in the past, but I'm certainly on my toes about whether it's the right thing to be doing.
Quote from: lakerta06 on August 21, 2015, 09:29:53 pmQuote from: Ander on August 21, 2015, 09:01:16 pmQuote from: lakerta06 on August 21, 2015, 08:52:20 pmQuote from: raginglikeaboss on August 21, 2015, 08:06:10 pmYes, progress is good. Yes, change is tough. But completely changing the monetary incentive to use a system to a new one that does not favor new investment is a scary proposition.what changed? 20% goes to BTS if you are referring to the identabit sharedropThe 20% is a lie. Its only 10%, of final supply. They are doing 20% of initial distribution but only 10% in reality, to make it look better. Any comment on this Stan?In my mind it only half meets the social consensus by being 10% of final supply. If you also hold brownies at least in proportion to your BTS stake then you are fine and get your 20%. However, everyone out there without brownies is missing out.I believe that this is the cause of the most recent BTS decline. The price was at .033 and rising when this news came out, and its been nonstop downward spiral since. Everyone who was buying BTS as a sharedrop target just realized that they get only half what they expected because half the sharedrops are being throw at brownie now, and so they bailed.
Note brownies are subject to dilution at will and supplies can change.
Yes that wild hypothetical situation would not meet the social consesus. Now imagine another hypothetical. New coin launches gives 20% of initial supply to bts, and then slowly mines until a cap of 200% of initial supply is met over several years. Which of these is closest to reality? Would you really still insist on 40% of initial supply?
Quote from: lakerta06 on August 21, 2015, 09:29:53 pmQuote from: Ander on August 21, 2015, 09:01:16 pmQuote from: lakerta06 on August 21, 2015, 08:52:20 pmQuote from: raginglikeaboss on August 21, 2015, 08:06:10 pmYes, progress is good. Yes, change is tough. But completely changing the monetary incentive to use a system to a new one that does not favor new investment is a scary proposition.what changed? 20% goes to BTS if you are referring to the identabit sharedropThe 20% is a lie. Its only 10%, of final supply. They are doing 20% of initial distribution but only 10% in reality, to make it look better. Any comment on this Stan?They claimed that it still meets the social consensus if its 20% of initial supply.However, if someone were to create a coin with an initial supply of like, 100 coins, giving 20 of the 100 coins to BTS holders, and then a final supply of 100 billion coins, with 99.99999 billion of those coins created through mining, dev bonuses, or whatever, then it becomes incredibly clear that that does NOT actually meet the social consensus.In my mind it only half meets the social consensus by being 10% of final supply. If you also hold brownies at least in proportion to your BTS stake then you are fine and get your 20%. However, everyone out there without brownies is missing out.I believe that this is the cause of the most recent BTS decline. The price was at .033 and rising when this news came out, and its been nonstop downward spiral since. Everyone who was buying BTS as a sharedrop target just realized that they get only half what they expected because half the sharedrops are being throw at brownie now, and so they bailed.
I just noticed that Brownie points are now a sharedrop target and might be given other benefits. This is not really a big deal on its own, but it points to something which I think is very important. Every other week the rules of the game change around here, or perhaps to put it more accurately the nature of the value proposition changes. It has been happening constantly, and it is very annoying and off-putting.You can't build a castle on shifting sands.If Bitshares wants to draw people in and get people involved and encourage people to build on it, then the one single most important thing those people need is to have some confidence that they won't have the rug pulled out from under their feet by the powers that be. Personally I would have no confidence in building anything to do with Bitshares, because by the time it was completed things would have changed so much it would probably be unprofitable or impossible. Please try to make just one damn thing work (commercially speaking) before screwing it off to go and make something else.
Or a giant middle finger.
Quote from: profitofthegods on August 21, 2015, 07:39:22 pmI just noticed that Brownie points are now a sharedrop target and might be given other benefits. This is not really a big deal on its own, but it points to something which I think is very important. Every other week the rules of the game change around here, or perhaps to put it more accurately the nature of the value proposition changes. It has been happening constantly, and it is very annoying and off-putting.You can't build a castle on shifting sands.If Bitshares wants to draw people in and get people involved and encourage people to build on it, then the one single most important thing those people need is to have some confidence that they won't have the rug pulled out from under their feet by the powers that be. Personally I would have no confidence in building anything to do with Bitshares, because by the time it was completed things would have changed so much it would probably be unprofitable or impossible. Please try to make just one damn thing work (commercially speaking) before screwing it off to go and make something else.Yep. Every single day we get up and think, "How can we add to the ecosystem value proposition?"I hate it when that happens!
Quote from: Stan on August 21, 2015, 07:46:30 pmQuote from: profitofthegods on August 21, 2015, 07:39:22 pmI just noticed that Brownie points are now a sharedrop target and might be given other benefits. This is not really a big deal on its own, but it points to something which I think is very important. Every other week the rules of the game change around here, or perhaps to put it more accurately the nature of the value proposition changes. It has been happening constantly, and it is very annoying and off-putting.You can't build a castle on shifting sands.If Bitshares wants to draw people in and get people involved and encourage people to build on it, then the one single most important thing those people need is to have some confidence that they won't have the rug pulled out from under their feet by the powers that be. Personally I would have no confidence in building anything to do with Bitshares, because by the time it was completed things would have changed so much it would probably be unprofitable or impossible. Please try to make just one damn thing work (commercially speaking) before screwing it off to go and make something else.Yep. Every single day we get up and think, "How can we add to the ecosystem value proposition?"I hate it when that happens!Obviously you don't take this seriously. But let me give you another example from my personal; experience.I liked the idea of earning interest on BitAssets and thought much more could be done to market this. I started writing articles, published a couple, and was preparing a marketing site focussed especially on BitGold. Before I could actually do anything the rules of the game changed and interest was removed. Wasting my time may not be a big deal, but it is indicative and I'm sure I'm not alone in this kind of experience.You can't have a decentralized business if you keep changing fundamentals. Yes, you may be able to keep coming up with changes that will somehow improve things, but if you do then you will always be still at ground zero with a new product, nothing built around it, and few users / supporters / workers do anything useful.
everyone is free to issue an asset and to sharedrop on whatever they like.