* The last weakness of the superDAC is what I call "abuse of the DAC analogy". Let's face it, the killer app in the crypto-space has always been and will always be one thing: currency. And to be a good store of value, any coin that maintains the sanctity of scarce supply at the protocol layer, will be leaps and bounds ahead of the competition. What Bitshares gains in "marketing funds" they will lose in investor confidence (from the very investors they are "marketing" to). It is true that running a DAC like a business will result in a more agile and adaptive token. But I would argue that we should run our "business" with the aim of positioning ourselves as the best currency and store of value (the killer app). As I mentioned earlier, I believe the crypto-space is searching for a "unit of account" that will inevitably become something of a global reserve upon which everything else is built. The coin that wins this battle will NOT be Bitcoin (primarily due to the pitfalls of PoW) and it will not be the coin with the most advanced features (see Nxt). The coin that becomes the defacto world reserve must be appealing to governments and serious investors and must be perceived as (i) fairly distributed, (ii) scarce (non-inflationary), (iii) efficient (DPOS), and (iv) secure. Any feature built on top of this coin cannot be done at the expense of these 4 things. The superDAC has failed in distribution/allocation and scarcity.

It seems your premise is BTS is a coin or something like Bitcoin.  I would prescribe more reading to understand the importance of free markets via the block chain and the benefits of the profitable-apps that are being built in to BTS that make it a value creator for its owners and users.  Perhaps the wiki and all of BM's posts. 

A toast to toast

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaYtFLGELB8

Quote from: tonyk on October 22, 2014, 12:12:54 am

The other difference of course is I have proposed far less non working 'improvements' on the market engine [and have tried to explain why his will not work; as well as why I think so...something that he feels is below him(aka explaining to the less gifted of us)] and the voting scheme but.... no one is perfect.

Tony, what "non working improvements" for the market engine are you talking about?

I proposed the need and method for getting price feeds into the system:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=5704.0

I originally proposed the rule to use those feeds: "no shorting below median feed price" and I vigorously defended and argued for its implementation in multiple threads including here:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=7816.0
You strongly argued against me on this rule in this same thread.  I think this rule is central and critical for bitUSD to work.  I don't think bitUSD works without using the price feed like this.  BitUSD could have crashed without implementation of this.

I argued that prioritizing shorts by collateral was better than prioritizing by paying the highest spread and I still think this is a true improvement.  And I discussed and defended why I feel that way when we talked here:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9512.msg123926#msg123926

Bytemaster went on to say that prioritization by interest rate paid as a yield to bitUSD holders could be an even further improvement but never said the original change didn't work or was wrong.  For what it's worth, it's still my personal preference to prioritize by collateral instead of interest rate paid as yield to bitUSD.

You obviously disagree with me on bitUSD mechanics but I also met you in Vegas and I would have been happy to talk about bitUSD but I think we were both too busy drinking.

I also think it's unfair to say I don't put in effort.  When I had a different idea for DNS incentives I wrote a full 8 page whitepaper describing it and it took time to write and you still say I don't put in effort.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=6561.msg87104#msg87104

I also think people are misinterpreting me and calling me rude when I actually am just more busy than I want to be and I'm trying my best.

I thought tonyk was being facetious, and I think he may actually have a great deal of respect for your contributions, maybe I am wrong


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Feel free to launch your own DACs - if you have a better proposal and marketing and launch, people may follow you to ends of the earth too


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not very happy about PTS not being liquid.  The vesting period needs to be a lot shorter.  PTS is getting screwed.  0

I'm not even sure marketing one big DAC is that great of an idea.  Metcalfe's or not.  We're a currency, but also DNS provider, but we do voting too !   Is this easier to market ?   How about using it?  I guess one blockchain with separate front ends ?   No one had to even mention PTS/AGS previously in marketing.  Now we have a million different things under 1 roof. 

I suppose it might be better because I don't particularly disagree with Metcalfe's/network effect but you guys better think real carefully before blindly following a law.  There is a real problem with technical people applying stuff like this and having utter faith in it but failing to see the limitations of men in some regard.

So are there going to be separate front ends ?

So how many steps have we taken backwards from a point of stability ? 

Adam Ernest now gets 1% of BTS because he did what ? 

This is sort of what I was worried about when I first read Dan's initial posting.

Adam earnest gets 1%? For real?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Congrats and

Seize the day, boys.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk