Isn't that what Bitshares DNS is supposed to offer? A decentralized internet?

Not sure, I've not looked into BitShares DNS much yet.  Should do that...

Quote from: speedy on December 24, 2014, 04:30:25 pm

Quote from: Rune on December 24, 2014, 01:24:49 pm

We want to create our own network that competes with maidsafe and eventually corners their market. We will be able to monetize it much more efficiently and will be able to leverage the network effect from all our other services to kickstart popularity.

Why are you so confident? It seems easier for them to copy the idea of BitUSD* than for us to copy decentralized file storage (which David Irvine has been working on since 2006). In terms of market effect, their system will skyrocket when it quickly becomes the go-to place for every bootlegged film & music imaginable.

*I agree that we will obviously get BitUSD onramps up and running first.

I think the best thing to do is to invest in both things. Im just annoyed that I missed out on their crowdfunder stage.

I guess I'm just pretty skeptic at its usefulness in the short term beyond hosting child porn. Market pegged assets has much more potential at kickstarting a huge userbase, that we can then leverage with new blockchain services to create even more value.

I'm not so sure BitShares is competing in the same space, from my non-technical understanding you can't build the Internet on a blockchain.  Maidsafe will be so much more than a place for darknet stuff.  It's a secure version of the Internet.   There will be a secure facebook alternative and a secure version of every type of site that currently exists.  Imagine a having a site that can't be censored, shut down or traced to your identity.  It will be an explosion of free speech.  Companies will want to use it to protect themselves from corporate espionage.  Individuals will want to use it to protect their personal freedom.  I've wondered if BitShares community communication should be done on a Maidesafe app/site.  As much as possible should be done in-house clearly, but what BitShares can't do, could spill over into Maidsafe.  The delegate profiles/social network I heard rumblings about perhaps could go on Maidsafe.  Could delegates be hosted on maidsafe?  That could increase BitShares network security.

All BitShares communication should take place on a secure platform as soon as possible.  Maidsafe stands for freedom of the Internet, freedom of speech.  BitShares, if I may be so bold, stands for these same things with a special focus on free trade.  We are natural ideological partners with Maidsafe.  Maidsafe has a good brand image (in my mind).  BitShares could benefit from leading by example and working with all the freedom-tools available.

Disclaimer:  I'm a fan of Maidsafe and own a small amount (relative to my BTS) of Maidsafecoin. 

As for a Maidsafe bitasset, I've no opinion, not sure if there's enough demand.

Its about cultivating a particular entrepreneurial mindset.  Not a dependency mindset.

BitShares is all about stimulating an entire decentralized ecosystem and one of its tactics is to encourage start-ups and spin-offs.  Throughout this year we have experimented with various ways to encourage the emergence of a decentralized community of entrepreneurs.  Grants and bounties and stipends and rewards and prizes have been used and now paid delegates are part of the mix.

Some delegate jobs make sense to be permanently funded exclusively by the blockchain.  Others may just need a temporary start-up boost - and that should be part of their proposal.

Then people can vote for whether they like sponsoring a delegate who plans to be dependent on the blockchain forever vs. one that just wants help bootstrapping a profitable business that grows our ecosystem.  I expect the market will produce lots of variations on this for voters to consider.

We need to make it socially acceptable, even praiseworthy, for a delegate to combine multiple income streams one of which comes from the block chain.  (Until 100% pay reaches the value of a full time salary, this is almost essential for some delegates.)

While BM may be the classic example of someone who can easily justify being 100% paid by the blockchain forever, sometimes he has to lead by example. 

Any trickle of funds he might raise from his example are incidental to the point he is trying to make.

I can see the merit of this approach.  It generates lots of questions though in terms of ownership of the content. 

Is his blog owned by the stakeholders because it's delegate funded, or is his delegate pay not enough to fund the blog on top of dev work, and he is claiming independent ownership of the blog?  These websites (bitsharesblocks, metaexchange, bm blog) are all BitShares assets and I have been assuming, due to them being delegate funded, that they are owned by BitShares, not the creators.

If I used delegate pay to pay for Spanish + Chinese translations of BM's blog, it would all be owned by the stakeholders, like state-owned media.  I could be free to assume BM would be fine with me doing that as it would all be done for the good of BitShares.  If his blog is not not owned by the stakeholders, he might want me to pay him for the right to use the content on another site, which would cost BitShares more money.

Important BitShares sites could become worth a lot of money in the future.  It's necessary that its sorted out early on who owns them.  The bitUSD Argentina portal being created by me + team will be owned by BitShares, because I will pay myself + team back for the expenses so there can be no ownership claim.  If the site became really popular and I realised I could sell it for $xxk, I will be bound not to, as it is not my property.

These websites, owned by BitShares, could be used to help back the market pegged assets.  In the very unlikely event of a blackswan creating uncollateralized bitassets, BitShares websites could be sold to create a bail out fund.

I thought about the idea (just theorising) of launching a crypto-media company that had a startup fund from BitShares for say, 6 months funding.  BitShares would own perhaps, half of the company in exchange, and would receive half the advertising revenue and if the site was sold, half of the income.  BitShares could become invested in many businesses in this way.  I've about the legality though as BitShares is not legally defined (or is it?) so I don't know how well it can interact with companies.

These kind of services are not competitors to BTS. They're gateways, and we could benefit greatly from them integrating with bitshares and issuing their IOUs on our blockchain.

The fact that their names compete with ours isn't really a big deal. Gold derivatives are still more volatile than USD and other national currencies, so there's no reason why they should become a means of payment in the short run. The people who actually use bitshares' bitGOLD will mainly be speculators and investors, and they might be more attracted to the product if we call it market pegged gold, since that clearly explains its value proposition.

Maybe they would make bitGOLD directly exchangeable for their bitgold, like btc38 accepting bitCNY as equivalent to CNY.  It would reward them with purchases from BitShares users, and reward BitShares by having the bitGOLD backed by their bitgold.

bitreserve could do the same thing.

Quote from: islandking on December 23, 2014, 02:13:33 pm

Quote from: nomoreheroes7 on December 23, 2014, 01:56:15 pm

Quote from: sumantso on December 23, 2014, 01:45:14 pm

Quote from: nomoreheroes7 on December 23, 2014, 01:42:45 pm

I still have doubts that third parties will be so willing to sharedrop on either BTS or PTS

Well, Devshares just got 33%

Yea, that's also pretty ridiculous. Why exactly did BTS buy out PTS and AGS if it's going to continue giving them pieces of the BitShares pie? Makes no goddamn sense.

  I agree. It is crazy. In the real world when a company gets bought out that is it, the new company owns it! Everyone holding PTS was more then fairly compensated for their investment. Now it is time to just do a 100% sharedrop on BTS as we are all in this together now because of the merger.

Haha
hahaha

That's why I love you BTSers! You think you gave us just a piece of the pie, when we rob you blind from YOUR test network!

Let me put it in numbers for you!
For 1BTC you could have bought 'dead PTS' easily at 0.0008BTC/PTS. or 1250 PTS for each BTC.
@567 DEVshares/PTS this would have netted you, like it did for me, 708,750 DevShares.

If you were stupid enough you could have bought 22,222 BTS for same 1BTC at 0.000045 BTC/BTS;
or 22,222 BTS for 1 BTC. This would have given you 8,889 DevShares...


If us PTS holders are getting 80 times more Devshares than BTS per 1 BTC invested, tell me who owns your precious test network? You thought you bought us? Keep dreaming. It seems like we owe you and you keep delivering your annual and monthly gifts to the king! The king of PTS!

On a side note, I get the same ratios from Sparkle compared to you BTSers!!! And if I so desire I can even sell my undead PTS for what I paid for them after ripping those 2 benefits, and buy BTS! And you say we PTS are not the greatest?

  

It's a complete fallacy to say that dropping on all 3 is best for DevShares.  Why do we want what is best for DevShares?  If it's not 100% snapshot its a competitor for capital.  It's in the same crypto speculation market.  Some people will buy fewer BitShares to buy DevShares too, or just DevShares.  If Devshare's value to BitShares is divided by 3, then the sharedropping of it over PTS + AGS has to bring a minimum of 3x the value to DevShares that dropping on BitShares alone would do.  Does dropping on PTS + AGS make DVS 3x more valuable than if it was on just BTS?

Unless the devs aren't working for BTS, and are "freelancers" who work for whatever chain they like.  Clarification of that being the case would harm BTS, in which case BTS loyalty is required, at least while it's a sapling. 

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8788676