0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: .yoshi on June 03, 2015, 03:17:31 pmdan was the only reason bitshares was worth anything for a long time. hthStan's meme's are what brought me here, and it's the reason I stay. If you haven't noticed, meme's are today's market makers. Meme's are what's moving this entire crypto-economy.Basically, if your coin is not meme'ing, it's going to die soon. I've tried to keep the meme hashrate up while Stan's mememiner is off, but I will need some help soon or we're all doomed.Secret sauce and actual coding can only take a project so far, meme's take it the rest of the way! So fire up that mememiner Stan and help me raise the meme hashrate back up to desirable levels so we can move this price to teh m00n!
dan was the only reason bitshares was worth anything for a long time. hth
I'm saying BTS price went down because of the endless number of things the community decided to throw their money at that arent BTS.
Ander I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.
That would be worse. This is not only the way it should have been done, but after fundraising for a separate blockchain and spending all the money, you're suggesting they don't even build it and we all should have been using the original BitShares blockchain all along!?
* Eddie is still on the team and is the main reason the project is worth anything IMO.
There's still a proper update vetted by cedric/eddie coming but some of this speculation needs to be addressed:* There is still a blockchain. We will gradually increase the size of test net iterations until it's at a point where we start preserving balances and/or state across version. That's a summary of what all we want to reveal until we have more information after midem.* Notes will still have voting power and will try to capture income.* Eddie is still on the team and is the main reason the project is worth anything IMO.* The *secret sauce* is a centralized monetization strategy for a service which DAC cannot supply directly. It shouldn't be an excuse for anything.
* The *secret sauce* is a centralized monetization strategy for a service which DAC cannot supply directly. It shouldn't be an excuse for anything.
Quote from: xeroc ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ on June 02, 2015, 11:06:51 amQuote from: christo on June 02, 2015, 11:00:21 amThat would be worse. This is not only the way it should have been done, but after fundraising for a separate blockchain and spending all the money, you're suggesting they don't even build it and we all should have been using the original BitShares blockchain all along!?If whatever PEETRACKS is doing with blockchain was already possible with BitShares I would agree ... But I don't think it is ..Also, IIRC and they are going to offer streaming in the MVP already .. then they will need to do alot of development at the frontend and server tech too .. The Peertracks business is NOT just a blockchain .. it's more than that .. and does cost money to develop and maintain .. independent of the ACTUAL blockchainDisclaimer: I am not defending the secrecy around Peertracks and MUSIC .. I'd rather point out to you that Peertracks is not just a blockchain ..I'm not saying Peertracks is not just a blockchain, I'm saying the opposite. Peertracks not a blockchain at all. In the April update Cob saidQuoteThe front end (the PeerTracks web app MVP) is complete and is being readied to plug into the music blockchain. A few pioneer artists will be able to create their profile and token as soon as the blockchain is completed!The blockchain itself is being built as you read this. Most of it is complete and we are approaching testing phase.Great the testing phase must surely be here by now since that was almost two months ago. The front-end is done (that's the bit that is privately owned by Peertracks) and the Blockchain is "being built as you read this". Well I guess since we're still reading this it's still being built. When will it be released? "When it's done". Can we see evidence of progress? "No". Can we have detailed info on the process or the work? "No." What about some hint about the way the money has been spent? "No." The consolation prize is that people can "sell their notes". Well guess what? I happen to actually care about the purpose of the project, the creation of an alternative system for music distribution and commerce. I'm not saying they owe me this. I'm saying my personal assessment of their prospects is based on a demonstrated record of software releases and their response to questions like these (or lack thereof) - not to the number of PR events they report. Perhaps some more of you should consider this method of assessment for this and all crypto projects. Or perhaps you're blinded by sunk cost fallacy.The only reason I'm posting this is because I'm surprised there is so little evidence-based appraisal of the health of this project on a forum that is totally dominated by this project's claims in absence of proof.
Quote from: christo on June 02, 2015, 11:00:21 amThat would be worse. This is not only the way it should have been done, but after fundraising for a separate blockchain and spending all the money, you're suggesting they don't even build it and we all should have been using the original BitShares blockchain all along!?If whatever PEETRACKS is doing with blockchain was already possible with BitShares I would agree ... But I don't think it is ..Also, IIRC and they are going to offer streaming in the MVP already .. then they will need to do alot of development at the frontend and server tech too .. The Peertracks business is NOT just a blockchain .. it's more than that .. and does cost money to develop and maintain .. independent of the ACTUAL blockchainDisclaimer: I am not defending the secrecy around Peertracks and MUSIC .. I'd rather point out to you that Peertracks is not just a blockchain ..
The front end (the PeerTracks web app MVP) is complete and is being readied to plug into the music blockchain. A few pioneer artists will be able to create their profile and token as soon as the blockchain is completed!The blockchain itself is being built as you read this. Most of it is complete and we are approaching testing phase.
Yes. http://mashable.com/2015/04/12/silicon-valley-season-2-premiere-recap/
Quote from: Chuckone on June 02, 2015, 12:02:47 pmAll you say makes perfect sense. The only issue I see is that the pre-sale investors don't have ANY stake in Peertracks itself. It is privately owned by very few people. I'll try to formulate this politely, but using the Bitshares Music pre-sale money to develop a privately owned company raises some serious ethical questions.I agree. Investors have bought into BitShares MUSIC .. not peertracks ... some clarification would be good
All you say makes perfect sense. The only issue I see is that the pre-sale investors don't have ANY stake in Peertracks itself. It is privately owned by very few people. I'll try to formulate this politely, but using the Bitshares Music pre-sale money to develop a privately owned company raises some serious ethical questions.
Also, IIRC and they are going to offer streaming in the MVP already .. then they will need to do alot of development at the frontend and server tech too .. The Peertracks business is NOT just a blockchain .. it's more than that .. and does cost money to develop and maintain .. independent of the ACTUAL blockchainDisclaimer: I am not defending the secrecy around Peertracks and MUSIC .. I'd rather point out to you that Peertracks is not just a blockchain ..
I'm not chasing you around christo, promise I just wanted to add a different perspective.....have you considered that there might be negotiations going on to bring Peertracks onto the main Bitshares blockchain?
Quote from: Chuckone on May 13, 2015, 01:20:36 pm...Up to now, what percentage of the crowdfunding money went into developing Peertracks compared to the music blockchain? Maybe @cob might be able to answer this one. I know this question have already been asked, but IIRC there wasn't a crystal clear answer. That answer matters, because my initial understanding when I donated to the pre-sale was that the money was to be used to develop the blockchain, not some privately held front-end.Bravo! I asked this question and was told to wait a few months until March. Well it's June now and there is still no answer to this basic question. What is being done with the money? How much is being put into a private company called PeerTracks and how much is being put into a blockchain resource that we can all use whether it is called BitShares Music or anything else?When the answer is missing, the reasonable conclusion is that the people who have the money want to spend it without being accountable for how they spend it. (edit: and that's putting it very nicely!)
...Up to now, what percentage of the crowdfunding money went into developing Peertracks compared to the music blockchain? Maybe @cob might be able to answer this one. I know this question have already been asked, but IIRC there wasn't a crystal clear answer. That answer matters, because my initial understanding when I donated to the pre-sale was that the money was to be used to develop the blockchain, not some privately held front-end.
Wouldn't you NOT want the price to be so high that the income stream cannot compensate for the people selling their free sharedrop?
Quote from: liondani on May 12, 2015, 06:24:13 pmQuote from: toast on May 12, 2015, 06:04:54 pmWe've been pretty clear that peertracks will not be all public in the way bitshares is, and are giving everyone an opportunity to get out (at higher than the crowdsale price no less) if they don't like thatis this FUD ? Any reason for doing this?I really can't believe what I am reading! It's because there's no point answering to huge groups of stakeholders we don't know who only care about short-term returns and generally act like a hivemind. We would rather start at a low price and have real growth than to have a huge speculative market with a potential for big losses for everyone.
Quote from: toast on May 12, 2015, 06:04:54 pmWe've been pretty clear that peertracks will not be all public in the way bitshares is, and are giving everyone an opportunity to get out (at higher than the crowdsale price no less) if they don't like thatis this FUD ? Any reason for doing this?I really can't believe what I am reading!
We've been pretty clear that peertracks will not be all public in the way bitshares is, and are giving everyone an opportunity to get out (at higher than the crowdsale price no less) if they don't like that
Quote from: cube on May 14, 2015, 03:30:32 pmQuote from: toast on May 12, 2015, 11:29:04 pmMaybe "real slow growth" was a bad way to explain. Let me phrase it another way. If you actually believe NOTEs will become an income-producing asset (or something close enough), wouldn't you want them to be as cheap as possible before the system actually launches? Wouldn't you NOT want the price to be so high that the income stream cannot compensate for the people selling their free sharedrop?I love this 'real growth and not hype' plan for NOTES. Why is NOTES listed on CMC when there is absolutely nothing to show yet? because you made it liquid!!!
Quote from: toast on May 12, 2015, 11:29:04 pmMaybe "real slow growth" was a bad way to explain. Let me phrase it another way. If you actually believe NOTEs will become an income-producing asset (or something close enough), wouldn't you want them to be as cheap as possible before the system actually launches? Wouldn't you NOT want the price to be so high that the income stream cannot compensate for the people selling their free sharedrop?I love this 'real growth and not hype' plan for NOTES. Why is NOTES listed on CMC when there is absolutely nothing to show yet?
Maybe "real slow growth" was a bad way to explain. Let me phrase it another way. If you actually believe NOTEs will become an income-producing asset (or something close enough), wouldn't you want them to be as cheap as possible before the system actually launches? Wouldn't you NOT want the price to be so high that the income stream cannot compensate for the people selling their free sharedrop?
Who would you ideally want as an investor? Resourceful, intelligent people who HODL long term and contribute value to the project. Whatever you say or not say, do or don't do publicly, will shape the demographic who are invested in the project. All in all it becomes an elaborate game to speak in such a way as to reward who you want rewarded.
Bitshares private equity investment
It's because there's no point answering to huge groups of stakeholders we don't know who only care about short-term returns and generally act like a hivemind. We would rather start at a low price and have real growth than to have a huge speculative market with a potential for big losses for everyone.
Quote from: toast on May 12, 2015, 03:22:02 pm-5%. Not called "bitshares music". Wrong icon (pt is not the music chain). Total supply is wrong. Website is wrong.Whose idea was this?And who can be contacted to get it fixed?
-5%. Not called "bitshares music". Wrong icon (pt is not the music chain). Total supply is wrong. Website is wrong.Whose idea was this?
That's what happens will allow an asset to be traded but don't give any details about it...
Nice, with the current Note supply from bitsharesblocks and the price listed on CMC it looks like #23-#24 already, $1.36 million. Good for free advertising. Plus it is probably even higher when you consider the stake not included in that supply number.
http://whatarenotes.info/ you mean