According to publicly available data, there are people who make 190k, 180k, 150k (all USD) and Vitalik's 137k Swiss Frank which is also about 150k USD. Presumably, the people making these salaries are the core developer founders, which I assume refers to Gavin, Jeff, Taylor, and Vitalik.
These salaries turn me off the entire project. IMO this shows they have very little faith in the actual 'product' itself.
They got big amounts of premine that will be worth millions if they succeed. In most start-ups (stop calling Ethereum a non-profit) the founders work on very low salary. Often in the 40-60K range. Just enough to support themselves and pour the rest into the actual project.
This sheds light on why Ethereum is struggling with funds. They literally splurge
The foundation is not a for-profit company you know. There's no business model. Ethereum is like the Apache Web Server, the Ethereum Foundation is like the Apache Foundation. Pretending it's a startup is ridiculous.
Do they not have tens of millions BTS each? Do they not have a +50 million BTS reserve still?
The BTS shares received from the AGS/PTS donations and what they mined fairly in the begining, which turned into 100 million if not more BTS, should be plenty of incentive to finish what they started. The $3.6 million from AGS were they paid themselves $100K salaries last year should be more than enough to work for two years comfortably and never have to touch their personal large BTS holdings for funding. Now the team is complaining because they received $100k last year and only $28k in BTS this year and still going. I would gladly take $100k the first year and $30k the next year all while sitting on a huge gold mine if I just got off my ass and laid the finishing tracks.
I am going to come right out and say that experienced software developers doing cryptography and advanced c++ work in major cities like NY or CA can easily justify a $150 to $200K salary. Those *ARE* market rates. That said, web developers do not earn those rates and typically make much less than a c++ developer. So not all developers are equal in the market.
In order for me to hire people at $100K I had to look for "inexperienced" yet highly motivated individuals straight out of school and be located in Blacksburg, a relatively low cost of living. Overall I am very happy with the skill level of this team and am certain they could all earn over $100K at other companies.
That said, this same amazing team has been earning just $36K plus delegate pay for all of 2015.
The BTS in the angle fund are gone because we sold them off over the past 6 months at ridiculous prices just to pay the developers $36K/year each.
As far as newmine's claim that "our stake from mining PTS" of over 100M should be enough to motivate us to complete it completely ignores the following facts:
1. Mining PTS was not free, we had to PAY to buy that stake.
2. We would have to sell the stake to pay for development leaving 0 stake at the end.
Our team is highly motivated by principles and goals. We work for the love of the job and so far have asked for relatively little compensation.
Sounds like the Ethereum community is going through similar growing pains as BitShares experienced.
Since most here seem to like the term incentive over interests, I'm very concerned over potential problems with the conflict of incentives in the move to cryptonomex/bitshares2.0.
Since most here seem to like the term incentive over interests, I'm very concerned over potential problems with the conflict of incentives in the move to cryptonomex/bitshares2.0.
Wow, +5% to that entire post. I too have noticed that in this community, it's always been more about profit and comparing salaries to Google employees then freedom and building a fair financial system. Recently, I've been seriously questioning whether cryptocurrency will change anything when it's human nature that's fucked up. Even if we pay lip service to "liberty", our God is money.
Since most here seem to like the term incentive over interests, I'm very concerned over potential problems with the conflict of incentives in the move to cryptonomex/bitshares2.0.
Wow, +5% to that entire post. I too have noticed that in this community, it's always been more about profit and comparing salaries to Google employees then freedom and building a fair financial system. Recently, I've been seriously questioning whether cryptocurrency will change anything when it's human nature that's fucked up. Even if we pay lip service to "liberty", our God is money.
Profit must exist for any system to be sustainable. Above market profit must exist for any system to grow.
Since most here seem to like the term incentive over interests, I'm very concerned over potential problems with the conflict of incentives in the move to cryptonomex/bitshares2.0.
Wow, +5% to that entire post. I too have noticed that in this community, it's always been more about profit and comparing salaries to Google employees then freedom and building a fair financial system. Recently, I've been seriously questioning whether cryptocurrency will change anything when it's human nature that's fucked up. Even if we pay lip service to "liberty", our God is money.
Profit must exist for any system to be sustainable. Above market profit must exist for any system to grow.
This. It's amazing to me how many critics expect professional-grade development to be implemented yesterday for free. ::)
Since most here seem to like the term incentive over interests, I'm very concerned over potential problems with the conflict of incentives in the move to cryptonomex/bitshares2.0.
Wow, +5% to that entire post. I too have noticed that in this community, it's always been more about profit and comparing salaries to Google employees then freedom and building a fair financial system. Recently, I've been seriously questioning whether cryptocurrency will change anything when it's human nature that's fucked up. Even if we pay lip service to "liberty", our God is money.
Financial INCENTIVES must be aligned to produce freedom. It is crazy to think that we can build a platform that secures life, liberty, and property while depending upon individuals doing something against their best interest. Profit must exist for any system to be sustainable. Above market profit must exist for any system to grow.
I think the root cause of the angst in the BTS (and every other crypto community) is the bear market we've been in for over a year. If the bottom didn't fall out of crypto nobody would even be having these discussions.
We were told developers sold BTS to pay for taxes. Now its developers sold BTS to pay for personal expenses? What a shift in tone. Especially when it was given that they would use Bitusd for all transactions. Just another pipedream.....
We were told developers sold BTS to pay for taxes. Now its developers sold BTS to pay for personal expenses? What a shift in tone. Especially when it was given that they would use Bitusd for all transactions. Just another pipedream.....
What shift? Personal taxes are personal expenses. The IRS is not to be trifled with or you get to see just how personal it is :-X .
I am going to come right out and say that experienced software developers doing cryptography and advanced c++ work in major cities like NY or CA can easily justify a $150 to $200K salary. Those *ARE* market rates. That said, web developers do not earn those rates and typically make much less than a c++ developer. So not all developers are equal in the market.
In order for me to hire people at $100K I had to look for "inexperienced" yet highly motivated individuals straight out of school and be located in Blacksburg, a relatively low cost of living. Overall I am very happy with the skill level of this team and am certain they could all earn over $100K at other companies.
That said, this same amazing team has been earning just $36K plus delegate pay for all of 2015.
The BTS in the angle fund are gone because we sold them off over the past 6 months at ridiculous prices just to pay the developers $36K/year each.
As far as newmine's claim that "our stake from mining PTS" of over 100M should be enough to motivate us to complete it completely ignores the following facts:
1. Mining PTS was not free, we had to PAY to buy that stake.
2. We would have to sell the stake to pay for development leaving 0 stake at the end.
Our team is highly motivated by principles and goals. We work for the love of the job and so far have asked for relatively little compensation.
Wow, tell that to any Soldier who died in any battle anywhere in the world.Since most here seem to like the term incentive over interests, I'm very concerned over potential problems with the conflict of incentives in the move to cryptonomex/bitshares2.0.
Wow, +5% to that entire post. I too have noticed that in this community, it's always been more about profit and comparing salaries to Google employees then freedom and building a fair financial system. Recently, I've been seriously questioning whether cryptocurrency will change anything when it's human nature that's fucked up. Even if we pay lip service to "liberty", our God is money.
Financial INCENTIVES must be aligned to produce freedom. It is crazy to think that we can build a platform that secures life, liberty, and property while depending upon individuals doing something against their best interest. Profit must exist for any system to be sustainable. Above market profit must exist for any system to grow.
It's really a bit sad to see such a wild mix of negativity. You are just attacking the person. Why else (for what other final argument) would you throw in arguments about "altering belief"? It dosn't make any sense to discuss any of that in detail. But you may want to check your own motivations. Why do throw so much negativity around? Probably in order to throw negativity around which satisfies you. If you were just "objectively" negative about the prospects of Bitshares / the team around Bytemaster then you would have just sold and you would be done or you would put forward critique that helps to improve - both is not the case.I am going to come right out and say that experienced software developers doing cryptography and advanced c++ work in major cities like NY or CA can easily justify a $150 to $200K salary. Those *ARE* market rates. That said, web developers do not earn those rates and typically make much less than a c++ developer. So not all developers are equal in the market.
In order for me to hire people at $100K I had to look for "inexperienced" yet highly motivated individuals straight out of school and be located in Blacksburg, a relatively low cost of living. Overall I am very happy with the skill level of this team and am certain they could all earn over $100K at other companies.
That said, this same amazing team has been earning just $36K plus delegate pay for all of 2015.
The BTS in the angle fund are gone because we sold them off over the past 6 months at ridiculous prices just to pay the developers $36K/year each.
As far as newmine's claim that "our stake from mining PTS" of over 100M should be enough to motivate us to complete it completely ignores the following facts:
1. Mining PTS was not free, we had to PAY to buy that stake.
2. We would have to sell the stake to pay for development leaving 0 stake at the end.
Our team is highly motivated by principles and goals. We work for the love of the job and so far have asked for relatively little compensation.
Your problem is that you continually compare Bitshares to that of Oracle, Cisco, Microsoft, Apple, IBM etc. You could very easily and deserve $100K plus per year salaries working for one of those companies. Bitshares is not one of those companies. You ever watch Silicon Valley on HBO? You aren't barely to the level of Pied Piper and you had VC funding in that what you received as AGS in the beginning where PP didn't. Those fictional characters were working a "real' job while creating their code, quit their job when they got funding and got paid shit in the meantime despite VC funding.
Stop using terms like "market rate". If it was a market rate you could get, then go get it and stop complaining about how little you receive and stop spending an enormous amount of time searching for ways to get more money. You chose not to take a market rate and work on Bitshares damn well knowing that it might not pan out and you might end up with beans for pay. you have no right to complain about pay in any way and niether does your Dad (for all the crying he does about pay, I am curious how much his pension is by the way ;) ). And I have every right to complain since you are once again changing the social contract. You should go back to your original white paper and see how far away you are from those ideas. I think I remember something about a difference in ideology regarding Charles in the beginning because he wanted a for profit model and you did not and ways were parted. Look at you now. You have somehow altered your stance there and makes me wonder where else you conformed and compromised your original beliefs and ideas of what Bitshares is and should be in order to "get paid" now.
You basically just said you are no different than any politician, Democrat or Republican, who will only vote for a righteous bill if there is some pork in it that benefits himself in some way.-> So here you are basically requesting BM to work for free or very little if the work is in line with his ideals. And so? If he decides that is not appropriate that is his decision. If you are not ok with that entitlement (which is everyone's own decision) move on and sell your shares instead of insulting people (based on the entitlement you expect them to have).
I am going to come right out and say that experienced software developers doing cryptography and advanced c++ work in major cities like NY or CA can easily justify a $150 to $200K salary. Those *ARE* market rates. That said, web developers do not earn those rates and typically make much less than a c++ developer. So not all developers are equal in the market.
In order for me to hire people at $100K I had to look for "inexperienced" yet highly motivated individuals straight out of school and be located in Blacksburg, a relatively low cost of living. Overall I am very happy with the skill level of this team and am certain they could all earn over $100K at other companies.
That said, this same amazing team has been earning just $36K plus delegate pay for all of 2015.
The BTS in the angle fund are gone because we sold them off over the past 6 months at ridiculous prices just to pay the developers $36K/year each.
As far as newmine's claim that "our stake from mining PTS" of over 100M should be enough to motivate us to complete it completely ignores the following facts:
1. Mining PTS was not free, we had to PAY to buy that stake.
2. We would have to sell the stake to pay for development leaving 0 stake at the end.
Our team is highly motivated by principles and goals. We work for the love of the job and so far have asked for relatively little compensation.
Your problem is that you continually compare Bitshares to that of Oracle, Cisco, Microsoft, Apple, IBM etc. You could very easily and deserve $100K plus per year salaries working for one of those companies. Bitshares is not one of those companies. You ever watch Silicon Valley on HBO? You aren't barely to the level of Pied Piper and you had VC funding in that what you received as AGS in the beginning where PP didn't. Those fictional characters were working a "real' job while creating their code, quit their job when they got funding and got paid shit in the meantime despite VC funding.
Stop using terms like "market rate". If it was a market rate you could get, then go get it and stop complaining about how little you receive and stop spending an enormous amount of time searching for ways to get more money. You chose not to take a market rate and work on Bitshares damn well knowing that it might not pan out and you might end up with beans for pay. you have no right to complain about pay in any way and niether does your Dad (for all the crying he does about pay, I am curious how much his pension is by the way ;) ). And I have every right to complain since you are once again changing the social contract. You should go back to your original white paper and see how far away you are from those ideas. I think I remember something about a difference in ideology regarding Charles in the beginning because he wanted a for profit model and you did not and ways were parted. Look at you now. You have somehow altered your stance there and makes me wonder where else you conformed and compromised your original beliefs and ideas of what Bitshares is and should be in order to "get paid" now.
Wow, tell that to any Soldier who died in any battle anywhere in the world.Since most here seem to like the term incentive over interests, I'm very concerned over potential problems with the conflict of incentives in the move to cryptonomex/bitshares2.0.
Wow, +5% to that entire post. I too have noticed that in this community, it's always been more about profit and comparing salaries to Google employees then freedom and building a fair financial system. Recently, I've been seriously questioning whether cryptocurrency will change anything when it's human nature that's fucked up. Even if we pay lip service to "liberty", our God is money.
Financial INCENTIVES must be aligned to produce freedom. It is crazy to think that we can build a platform that secures life, liberty, and property while depending upon individuals doing something against their best interest. Profit must exist for any system to be sustainable. Above market profit must exist for any system to grow.
One's best interest and profit are not dependent on one another. You just decided it was for you. Securing life, liberty and property isnt worth your effort unless you are getting paid to do so. You basically just said you are no different than any politician, Democrat or Republican, who will only vote for a righteous bill if there is some pork in it that benefits himself in some way.
I am going to come right out and say that experienced software developers doing cryptography and advanced c++ work in major cities like NY or CA can easily justify a $150 to $200K salary. Those *ARE* market rates. That said, web developers do not earn those rates and typically make much less than a c++ developer. So not all developers are equal in the market.
In order for me to hire people at $100K I had to look for "inexperienced" yet highly motivated individuals straight out of school and be located in Blacksburg, a relatively low cost of living. Overall I am very happy with the skill level of this team and am certain they could all earn over $100K at other companies.
That said, this same amazing team has been earning just $36K plus delegate pay for all of 2015.
The BTS in the angle fund are gone because we sold them off over the past 6 months at ridiculous prices just to pay the developers $36K/year each.
As far as newmine's claim that "our stake from mining PTS" of over 100M should be enough to motivate us to complete it completely ignores the following facts:
1. Mining PTS was not free, we had to PAY to buy that stake.
2. We would have to sell the stake to pay for development leaving 0 stake at the end.
Our team is highly motivated by principles and goals. We work for the love of the job and so far have asked for relatively little compensation.
Your problem is that you continually compare Bitshares to [/b]
By developing a product that they can sell to make a living, the developers bring new money into the ecosystem instead of relying on BitShares to bear all of the costs itself. BitShares gets free unrestricted use of these products without incurring most of the costs. This maximizes how many people we can have working to grow the ecosystem before the competition realizes what just hit them.
:)
I am going to come right out and say that experienced software developers doing cryptography and advanced c++ work in major cities like NY or CA can easily justify a $150 to $200K salary. Those *ARE* market rates. That said, web developers do not earn those rates and typically make much less than a c++ developer. So not all developers are equal in the market.
In order for me to hire people at $100K I had to look for "inexperienced" yet highly motivated individuals straight out of school and be located in Blacksburg, a relatively low cost of living. Overall I am very happy with the skill level of this team and am certain they could all earn over $100K at other companies.
That said, this same amazing team has been earning just $36K plus delegate pay for all of 2015.
The BTS in the angle fund are gone because we sold them off over the past 6 months at ridiculous prices just to pay the developers $36K/year each.
As far as newmine's claim that "our stake from mining PTS" of over 100M should be enough to motivate us to complete it completely ignores the following facts:
1. Mining PTS was not free, we had to PAY to buy that stake.
2. We would have to sell the stake to pay for development leaving 0 stake at the end.
Our team is highly motivated by principles and goals. We work for the love of the job and so far have asked for relatively little compensation.
Your problem is that you continually compare Bitshares to [/b]
Bytemaster doesn't have the problem. You do.
Your FUD carries weight with fewer people all the time. More and more people see that Bytemaster tries to solve problems to the benefit of all while you try to create them.
Did cryptomex miss the boat?
http://www.newsbtc.com/2015/06/29/royal-bank-of-scotland-taps-ripple-labs-in-tech-revamp/ (http://www.newsbtc.com/2015/06/29/royal-bank-of-scotland-taps-ripple-labs-in-tech-revamp/)
Did cryptomex miss the boat?
http://www.newsbtc.com/2015/06/29/royal-bank-of-scotland-taps-ripple-labs-in-tech-revamp/
Here is an idea for how we could get better alignment on developer pay.
What if we pay developers part in BTS salary and part in "Performance Pay", giving them each a choice about the split they want?
Performance Pay could be structured as payments of BTS that are only exercisable if the BTS price or market cap exceeds some level at some future vesting date (e.g. 3 years). At that point the vested payments would be dilutive, but only if BTS had experienced substantial market cap growth. In this way, it may be that the prospect of future dilution is not viewed as a negative impact on the BTS price (although I accept not all BTS owners would find this acceptable).
Developer staff could have the following choices:
- Work for bitshares and receive pay of X BTS (less than market rate) - in this case they are like a salaried employee
- Work for bitShares and receive Performance Pay, with an underlying of X+Y BTS (will be worth more that straight salary if BTS is ultimately successful) - in this case, they are like workers in a startup business
- Work for some combination in the middle of these two extremes, depending on individual needs
- Work for IBM or Apple if they want and just invest in BTS, but potentially forgoing all the intangible benefits of working inside bitShares, such as future recognition and reputation value
Possibly such a structure could align everyone's interests better. Although something we must be alert to, as where executive options of this type are used in traditional industries, is that beneficiaries do not start focusing more on BTS price and trying to pump it through hype, than they do on underlying BTS progress and performance.
This is not the only possible solution I'm sure. But I think we would all be better served by creatively exploring the choices we can create, rather than irresolvable issues like rights, entitlements, or the fuzziness of future intents.
Here is an idea for how we could get better alignment on developer pay.
What if we pay developers part in BTS salary and part in "Performance Pay", giving them each a choice about the split they want?
Performance Pay could be structured as payments of BTS that are only exercisable if the BTS price or market cap exceeds some level at some future vesting date (e.g. 3 years). At that point the vested payments would be dilutive, but only if BTS had experienced substantial market cap growth. In this way, it may be that the prospect of future dilution is not viewed as a negative impact on the BTS price (although I accept not all BTS owners would find this acceptable).
Developer staff could have the following choices:
- Work for bitshares and receive pay of X BTS (less than market rate) - in this case they are like a salaried employee
- Work for bitShares and receive Performance Pay, with an underlying of X+Y BTS (will be worth more that straight salary if BTS is ultimately successful) - in this case, they are like workers in a startup business
- Work for some combination in the middle of these two extremes, depending on individual needs
- Work for IBM or Apple if they want and just invest in BTS, but potentially forgoing all the intangible benefits of working inside bitShares, such as future recognition and reputation value
Possibly such a structure could align everyone's interests better. Although something we must be alert to, as where executive options of this type are used in traditional industries, is that beneficiaries do not start focusing more on BTS price and trying to pump it through hype, than they do on underlying BTS progress and performance.
This is not the only possible solution I'm sure. But I think we would all be better served by creatively exploring the choices we can create, rather than irresolvable issues like rights, entitlements, or the fuzziness of future intents.
Here is an idea for how we could get better alignment on developer pay.
What if we pay developers part in BTS salary and part in "Performance Pay", giving them each a choice about the split they want?
Performance Pay could be structured as payments of BTS that are only exercisable if the BTS price or market cap exceeds some level at some future vesting date (e.g. 3 years). At that point the vested payments would be dilutive, but only if BTS had experienced substantial market cap growth. In this way, it may be that the prospect of future dilution is not viewed as a negative impact on the BTS price (although I accept not all BTS owners would find this acceptable).
Developer staff could have the following choices:
- Work for bitshares and receive pay of X BTS (less than market rate) - in this case they are like a salaried employee
- Work for bitShares and receive Performance Pay, with an underlying of X+Y BTS (will be worth more that straight salary if BTS is ultimately successful) - in this case, they are like workers in a startup business
- Work for some combination in the middle of these two extremes, depending on individual needs
- Work for IBM or Apple if they want and just invest in BTS, but potentially forgoing all the intangible benefits of working inside bitShares, such as future recognition and reputation value
Possibly such a structure could align everyone's interests better. Although something we must be alert to, as where executive options of this type are used in traditional industries, is that beneficiaries do not start focusing more on BTS price and trying to pump it through hype, than they do on underlying BTS progress and performance.
This is not the only possible solution I'm sure. But I think we would all be better served by creatively exploring the choices we can create, rather than irresolvable issues like rights, entitlements, or the fuzziness of future intents.
Do you know this approach?
https://open.bufferapp.com/introducing-open-salaries-at-buffer-including-our-transparent-formula-and-all-individual-salaries/
Our position has always been that block chains should be designed to be profitable and that all economics is about aligning profit driven incentives to produce a desired outcome. No change. Perfectly consistent.
@newmine: do you know the differences of open source licenses like GPL, LGPL. Apache, and MIT?Yes.
Except that you are double, no, quintuple dipping. Owning a BTS was what was to produce a profit and still is for everyone not I3 related. Now I3/Cryptonomex/Larimers/Devs get to profit off the code by selling it and "plug ins" to the highest bidder for extra dough in your pocket plus keeping your BTS. It's a win win for Cryptonomex and a win lose for everyone else.
"No change. Perfectly consistent." What utter bullshit. Go read that original white paper and tell me no change. Was Cryptonomex owning the code base in that or any incarnation of the white paper to date?
It's funny that no one here thinks that Cryptonomex's business model won't hinder adoption and outside development. Good luck with that
How much per hour do you get paid at your job?
How much per hour do you get paid at your job?
FUD job, or normal job? :D
Except that you are double, no, quintuple dipping. Owning a BTS was what was to produce a profit and still is for everyone not I3 related. Now I3/Cryptonomex/Larimers/Devs get to profit off the code by selling it and "plug ins" to the highest bidder for extra dough in your pocket plus keeping your BTS. It's a win win for Cryptonomex and a win lose for everyone else.
Except that you are double, no, quintuple dipping. Owning a BTS was what was to produce a profit and still is for everyone not I3 related. Now I3/Cryptonomex/Larimers/Devs get to profit off the code by selling it and "plug ins" to the highest bidder for extra dough in your pocket plus keeping your BTS. It's a win win for Cryptonomex and a win lose for everyone else.
"No change. Perfectly consistent." What utter bullshit. Go read that original white paper and tell me no change. Was Cryptonomex owning the code base in that or any incarnation of the white paper to date?
It's funny that no one here thinks that Cryptonomex's business model won't hinder adoption and outside development. Good luck with that
@newmine we will never reach consensus so long as you continue to attack a straw man. Lets identify some points of agreement, let me know which statements you disagree with and why:
1. Original BitShares Plan - use proof of work to mine 100% of everything with 0 pre-mine. A $500,000 budget from Angel funding was available to accomplish this plan. I3 had to purchase vast majority of its stake via electrical costs, cloud computing costs, mining hardware costs, or direct purchases. Any stake I3 had came at the expense of the budget for development.Plan 1's conclusion is pure speculation in favor of the path you chose. Invalid Argument.
a. Was that plan fair? "Yes"
b. Was that plan sustainable? "No", lacking funds to develop BTS would never materialize and PTS would be worthless.
c. What options would I3 have: a) don't mine or buy more PTS, b) sell any PTS we did acquire and use fund for Plan B and be accused of running a Pump and Dump.
d. Under this plan I3 makes no profit (0 dips)
2. BitShares Plan B.. Angel Shares. Under this plan I3 grew its budget from $500,000 to $2M (after BTC price decline) which allowed BTS to be built and released creating $10M of value for PTS holders and $10M of value for AGS holders.
a. I3 developers received an average paycheck for their time: a fair trade.
b. I3 retained 0 stake in BTS from AGS outside their paycheck.
So far the community gave $2M and received $20M using post-bear market prices... unequal trade favoring community.
So far the developers gave $2M worth of labor and received $2M worth of value.... equal trade, hardly selfish, greedy, or double dipping.
3. Is everything fair at this point? If so then the developers are free to walk away, they did their job the best they could with the budget they had.
a. If you assume the developers had 0 savings at the start, how do you propose they continue from this point forward? How many man-hours of labor do you feel is enough before the developers are free to move on with a clean conscience and the moral high ground? Give us an actual number.
4. Once we know how much labor the DEVS owed the community for their $2M worth of BTC, they can know when they are free to quit without being greedy. Assume the DEVs worked every hour they owed. What options do we have?
a. The devs can quit, but that wouldn't be good for BTS
b. The devs could work part time, and work on BTS as a hobby (but why should they? they have no more debt nor any stake in BTS).
c. The devs could start a new blockchain that they actually own a cut in using the public domain work of BTS. Not good for BTS, but great for Devs.
d. The devs could write all new code and start a new blockchain
e. The devs could allow stakeholders to vote in dilution so that the Devs could continue to work. How many man hours do the Devs owe the network in exchange for the meager 4000 BTS per day per person before they are not considered greedy?
@newmine for all your accusations of the devs being greedy, you seem to have missed that every single developer has received less money than they could have made working elsewhere and simply buying BTS with their surplus income. From this perspective, every single developer has been giving their time to BitShares for free in what amounts to charity work because they are poorer today for having worked on BTS than having worked other jobs.
So... I have just TWO questions for you @newmine how much labor do we owe you and what dollar value did we receive in exchange for that labor? How much per hour do you get paid at your job?
It's kind of like if Ford came to you and said "we need to build a factory with a revolutionary thing called an assembly line and you will be a partial owner of it, will you fund us?"
-we say, "hell yes, here's is a couple million"
-Ford says "cool it will be ready in a couple months. Then profit time for everyone !"
Couple months go by
-we say, "hey what's going on"
-they say, "we came up with a cooler idea and had to redesign"
-we say, "ok, when will it be done"
-they say, " a couple months"
A couple months go by
-they say, "we have the assembly line built, but it only has the ability to build 1/4 of a automobile"
-we say, " awesome. How long till it's fully completed?"
-they say, "a couple months, and we are coordinating a massive ad campaign to go along."
-we say, "sweet, can't wait"
A couple months go by, the assembly line is running better but still only builds 1/3 of an automobile
-they say "hey we are out of funds and need more money to finish. We have this great idea that we can pay ourselves in bits and pieces of what the assembly line produces to fund ourselves till the end of time. If you don't agree, we will go work for GM"
-we say, "just get us a completed assembly line and it's cool."
-they say, "no problem. We got this."
Assembly line then starts to stall because certain sections were installed backwards.
-we say, "hey, we walked through the plant and you have a problem that needs fixed"
-they say "we know. We are working on it"
A couple months go by
-we say, "Why hasn't the problem been fixed? We are losing money because of this.
-they say, "we are working on it, we know there is a problem. It will be done in a few months"
-then next week they say, "guess what? We built a better assembly line that we will lease to you for free. But if you want upgrades, or fixes, you will have to pay us because we own the assembly line. Oh, and we reserve the right to help other people create assembly lines exactly like yours. AND, we will make people pay that want to partner up or streamline your assembly line in ways we cannot. And you guys dont get to profit off our other ventures even though you basically paid us to create this while we were supposed to be working on the original line. And we are going to continue cashing in on the bits and pieces from the old line and then the new line when its released."
-I say, "WTF?"
You took the money to create Bitshares and promised a delivery date of March 2014, then you delivered a half ass shitware in July 2014, then promised a 1.0 version in November 2014. And here we are in June 2015, no 1.0 and promises of a 2.0.damn right
You took the money to create Bitshares and promised a delivery date of March 2014, then you delivered a half ass shitware in July 2014, then promised a 1.0 version in November 2014. And here we are in June 2015, no 1.0 and promises of a 2.0.damn right
You owe me a ..........
It's kind of like if Ford came to you and said "we need to build a factory with a revolutionary thing called an assembly line and you will be a partial owner of it, will you fund us?"
-we say, "hell yes, here's is a couple million"
-Ford says "cool it will be ready in a couple months. Then profit time for everyone !"
Couple months go by
-we say, "hey what's going on"
-they say, "we came up with a cooler idea and had to redesign"
-we say, "ok, when will it be done"
-they say, " a couple months"
A couple months go by
-they say, "we have the assembly line built, but it only has the ability to build 1/4 of a automobile"
-we say, " awesome. How long till it's fully completed?"
-they say, "a couple months, and we are coordinating a massive ad campaign to go along."
-we say, "sweet, can't wait"
A couple months go by, the assembly line is running better but still only builds 1/3 of an automobile
-they say "hey we are out of funds and need more money to finish. We have this great idea that we can pay ourselves in bits and pieces of what the assembly line produces to fund ourselves till the end of time. If you don't agree, we will go work for GM"
-we say, "just get us a completed assembly line and it's cool."
-they say, "no problem. We got this."
Assembly line then starts to stall because certain sections were installed backwards.
-we say, "hey, we walked through the plant and you have a problem that needs fixed"
-they say "we know. We are working on it"
A couple months go by
-we say, "Why hasn't the problem been fixed? We are losing money because of this.
-they say, "we are working on it, we know there is a problem. It will be done in a few months"
-then next week they say, "guess what? We built a better assembly line that we will lease to you for free. But if you want upgrades, or fixes, you will have to pay us because we own the assembly line. Oh, and we reserve the right to help other people create assembly lines exactly like yours. AND, we will make people pay that want to partner up or streamline your assembly line in ways we cannot. And you guys dont get to profit off our other ventures even though you basically paid us to create this while we were supposed to be working on the original line. And we are going to continue cashing in on the bits and pieces from the old line and then the new line when its released."
-I say, "WTF?"
Here's the shorter version from a different perspective:
Ford says: we need to build a factory with a revolutionary thing called an assembly line and you will be a partial owner of it, will you fund us?
We: Sure! Here's a pile of cash. Good luck!
Time passes.
Ford: Well, the assembly line had some flaws that is preventing it from being able to build a car for a profit. No one is buying our cars. Also...we're out of money so...ya.
We: wtf? You had so much when the market was at its highest point in history! Why did you not foresee this crash and manage the funds better? Is Crystal Ball 1.0 broken?
Ford: Anyway, we have a dedicated team of engineers who have decided to band together and build something meaningful. Ya, the first attempt didn't work out as we had hopped. Risky venture is risky. We can't come back to you and ask for more money so we need to figure out how to fund ourselves.
We: Wait, what? We paid you for this and it doesn't work! WTF? Everyone knows investments in experimental technology always pan out!
Ford: OK, relax. We have come up with a new assembly line that we think will work amazingly well. We didn't want to come to you for more money so we basically did this on our own dime. Never the less, we are still going to give it to you for free. We probably should have just said sorry, out of funds, project failed. Anyone is welcome to pick up where we left off but we're done with Bitshares and are going to get jobs elsewhere. Kthxbye.
It's kind of like if Ford came to you and said "we need to build a factory with a revolutionary thing called an assembly line and you will be a partial owner of it, will you fund us?"
-we say, "hell yes, here's is a couple million"
-Ford says "cool it will be ready in a couple months. Then profit time for everyone !"
Couple months go by
-we say, "hey what's going on"
-they say, "we came up with a cooler idea and had to redesign"
-we say, "ok, when will it be done"
-they say, " a couple months"
A couple months go by
-they say, "we have the assembly line built, but it only has the ability to build 1/4 of a automobile"
-we say, " awesome. How long till it's fully completed?"
-they say, "a couple months, and we are coordinating a massive ad campaign to go along."
-we say, "sweet, can't wait"
A couple months go by, the assembly line is running better but still only builds 1/3 of an automobile
-they say "hey we are out of funds and need more money to finish. We have this great idea that we can pay ourselves in bits and pieces of what the assembly line produces to fund ourselves till the end of time. If you don't agree, we will go work for GM"
-we say, "just get us a completed assembly line and it's cool."
-they say, "no problem. We got this."
Assembly line then starts to stall because certain sections were installed backwards.
-we say, "hey, we walked through the plant and you have a problem that needs fixed"
-they say "we know. We are working on it"
A couple months go by
-we say, "Why hasn't the problem been fixed? We are losing money because of this.
-they say, "we are working on it, we know there is a problem. It will be done in a few months"
-then next week they say, "guess what? We built a better assembly line that we will lease to you for free. But if you want upgrades, or fixes, you will have to pay us because we own the assembly line. Oh, and we reserve the right to help other people create assembly lines exactly like yours. AND, we will make people pay that want to partner up or streamline your assembly line in ways we cannot. And you guys dont get to profit off our other ventures even though you basically paid us to create this while we were supposed to be working on the original line. And we are going to continue cashing in on the bits and pieces from the old line and then the new line when its released."
-I say, "WTF?"
Abbreviating Cryptonomex as CMX. (Should it be CNX?)
1) Could BTS holders get revenue from licensing the Bitshares toolkit?
* Before CMX: No, it was open source.
* After CMX: Still no.
Verdict: Same as before.
2) Can the dev team get revenue from licensing the bitshares toolkit?
* Before CMX: No, it was open source.
* After CMX: Yes. If the core dev team generates revenue from this, then less dilution of BTS is required to support the dev team.
Verdict: Probably improves funding situation of Bitshares.
3) Could competitors steal/copy Bitshares toolkit?
* Before CMX: Yes.
* After CMX: No, unless CMX lets them, which they *probably* wont do without getting compensation for BTS in some way. Unless you believe CMX will just completely screw over BTS holders. Which by the way, CMX collectively is a huge one of.
Verdict: Either the same as before if you dont trust that CMX cares about the future of Bitshares, or better if you do.
4) Can independent developers build new projects on the Bitshares toolkit?
* Before CMX: Yes. Hopefully they would sharedrop on BTS if they did, but there was no guarantee of this.
* After CMX: If they get permission of CMX. Hopefully CMX would ask for compensation ot BTS holders, such as a sharedrop.
Verdict: The same or better if CMX acts to benefit Bitshares. However, could potentially be worse if an independent developer is turned off by this, and chooses not to develop something and sharedrop on BTS?
5) Will dev team abandon Bitshares to pursue better opportunities? (Ex. 'job at google', 'build blockchain platform for goldman sachs', and other ideas of varying realisticness).Agreed.
* Before CMX: This was always a possibility, especially when the funding situation was very dire. Which it still is at current prices, if their only revenue source was BTS dilution.
* After CMX: Still possible.
Verdict: If Goldman Sachs wanted to hire the Bitshares dev team away to work on a platform for them, then it doesnt really matter if they are referred to as 'The Bitshares Dev team' or 'Cryptonomex'. Its the same result.
Overall the change improves the funding situation significantly. It also prevents competitors from copying Bitshares. It might hurt the potential for third party development efforts.
Some people worry that the existence of Cryptonomex could make the dev team abandon Bitshares. That risk was present before, its not new. I don't think the new situation increases the risk at all. The best way to diminish this risk is for the crypto bear market to end.
Unfortunately Bm has said he must pay child support which means if he doesn't get paid he could go to jail.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
BM is not as smart as I thought if....
Unfortunately Bm has said he must pay child support which means if he doesn't get paid he could go to jail.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
BM is not as smart as I thought if he took this on knowing the probability of success was rather small while having life obligations and responsibilities as you claim.
Unfortunately Bm has said he must pay child support which means if he doesn't get paid he could go to jail.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
BM is not as smart as I thought if he took this on knowing the probability of success was rather small while having life obligations and responsibilities as you claim.
Of all the things you could have responded to, you choose this? Newmine, you are a great conversation starter but you have created the impression with me that you are unable to see beyond the points you make. You never seem to open your mind to a broader context. And finally, you seem to resort to discourtesy too readily. If you can't let this go, you will miss the enjoyment of the successes to come (should they arrive.) Don't live with bitterness, life is too short.
So the devs sold off all bts they had and still working for bts at low pay? Completely BS.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Abbreviating Cryptonomex as CMX. (Should it be CNX?)
1) Could BTS holders get revenue from licensing the Bitshares toolkit?
* Before CMX: No, it was open source.
* After CMX: Still no.
Verdict: Same as before.
No, there was this whole theory of sharedropping from new chains. Your verdict is wrong.Quote2) Can the dev team get revenue from licensing the bitshares toolkit?
* Before CMX: No, it was open source.
* After CMX: Yes. If the core dev team generates revenue from this, then less dilution of BTS is required to support the dev team.
Verdict: Probably improves funding situation of Bitshares.
Your verdict is right but the way you got there is questionable.Quote
3) Could competitors steal/copy Bitshares toolkit?
* Before CMX: Yes.
* After CMX: No, unless CMX lets them, which they *probably* wont do without getting compensation for BTS in some way. Unless you believe CMX will just completely screw over BTS holders. Which by the way, CMX collectively is a huge one of.
Verdict: Either the same as before if you dont trust that CMX cares about the future of Bitshares, or better if you do.
Well they have to steal it from pre-1.0 or they could always do it anonymously from bts 2.0 if their opsec is good and they find it worth their time. I've never heard that crytonomex will pay licensing fees back to BTS but I don't follow so closely anymore. It isn't that CMX doesn't care about Bitshares, I'm sure they do, but there are other things going on that have to be considered.Quote4) Can independent developers build new projects on the Bitshares toolkit?
* Before CMX: Yes. Hopefully they would sharedrop on BTS if they did, but there was no guarantee of this.
* After CMX: If they get permission of CMX. Hopefully CMX would ask for compensation ot BTS holders, such as a sharedrop.
Verdict: The same or better if CMX acts to benefit Bitshares. However, could potentially be worse if an independent developer is turned off by this, and chooses not to develop something and sharedrop on BTS?
With all the switching around directions etc it would appear the social consensus was effectively buried in the ground. The .9.2 codebase is probably decent enough for some things, but a toolkit it is not. The whole FC fiasco. I've never heard anyone speak positively about it. Yea, lets build a distributed p2p consensus toolkit/stack on software that is poorly documented and only one guy in the whole world promotes usage. .... really? yes!Quote5) Will dev team abandon Bitshares to pursue better opportunities? (Ex. 'job at google', 'build blockchain platform for goldman sachs', and other ideas of varying realisticness).Agreed.
* Before CMX: This was always a possibility, especially when the funding situation was very dire. Which it still is at current prices, if their only revenue source was BTS dilution.
* After CMX: Still possible.
Verdict: If Goldman Sachs wanted to hire the Bitshares dev team away to work on a platform for them, then it doesnt really matter if they are referred to as 'The Bitshares Dev team' or 'Cryptonomex'. Its the same result.QuoteOverall the change improves the funding situation significantly. It also prevents competitors from copying Bitshares. It might hurt the potential for third party development efforts.
Some people worry that the existence of Cryptonomex could make the dev team abandon Bitshares. That risk was present before, its not new. I don't think the new situation increases the risk at all. The best way to diminish this risk is for the crypto bear market to end.
I think cryptonomex is a definite positive for BTS but not for the original vision which the family pushed and us suckers ate it up. I'm glad that the developers are being paid more. I want to see BTS succeed, as I rebought at some point. If this is what needs to happen then so be it, but this putting lipstick on a pig is too much at times.
I do have a question though. I could swear devs were given 50k bonuses at the end of the year. Now I read 36k is all they've been paid. Is that 36k + 50k bonus or what? Is my memory wrong? Not that I care I've just learned to really question the family when they speak. I personally aided in chasing off some critics which I have grown to regret, but there is fair criticism and there is nonsense. Newmines jumps around between the 2.
I really think that Dan & crew have likely came up with a good set of functionality. I believe they learned a LOT from pre 1.0. This will add a lot of value to the project. It has far more potential than most all other crypto projects, yet the potential is still not what I felt it was a year ago.
I was hoping VC money came through and we got a new captain of sorts. When that PR thing was just blindly cut and pasted to the blog it showed the maturity of the Bitshares leader. I mean, if you know me well you know I can get all druuunnnk and send off crazy emails (even if the content is very wise :), so no one is perfect. However when you're the public leader and people have invested a lot of their time and effort then they deserve better, regardless of how you might feel about their altruism.
I do have a question though. I could swear devs were given 50k bonuses at the end of the year. Now I read 36k is all they've been paid. Is that 36k + 50k bonus or what? Is my memory wrong? Not that I care I've just learned to really question the family when they speak. I personally aided in chasing off some critics which I have grown to regret, but there is fair criticism and there is nonsense. Newmines jumps around between the 2.
I do have a question though. I could swear devs were given 50k bonuses at the end of the year. Now I read 36k is all they've been paid. Is that 36k + 50k bonus or what? Is my memory wrong? Not that I care I've just learned to really question the family when they speak. I personally aided in chasing off some critics which I have grown to regret, but there is fair criticism and there is nonsense. Newmines jumps around between the 2.
Here is my personal situation in regard to bonus - it was paid in BTS in December, so as a big BitShares believer I kept all my savings in BTS until I had to pay my taxes in April, so I just said thank you to all other BitShares stakeholders that were dumping while I was holding and sold the bonus to pay my taxes. I have no idea what other 36k Newmine is referring to, since December my compensation was substantially smaller.
I do have a question though. I could swear devs were given 50k bonuses at the end of the year. Now I read 36k is all they've been paid. Is that 36k + 50k bonus or what? Is my memory wrong? Not that I care I've just learned to really question the family when they speak. I personally aided in chasing off some critics which I have grown to regret, but there is fair criticism and there is nonsense. Newmines jumps around between the 2.
Here is my personal situation in regard to bonus - it was paid in BTS in December, so as a big BitShares believer I kept all my savings in BTS until I had to pay my taxes in April, so I just said thank you to all other BitShares stakeholders that were dumping while I was holding and sold the bonus to pay my taxes. I have no idea what other 36k Newmine is referring to, since December my compensation was substantially smaller.
Let's get the facts straight.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,17292.msg220240.html#msg220240
I said you made, if you are a 100% delegate and Dev, $28K at current BTS prices in BTS pay. 3 million BTS bonus on December 31 which I will count as this years pay as it was originally intended for but dished out for tax reasons I3 could avoid as a Co. Then add the 4277 BTS per day the Dev has been making all year. The 3 million BTS was worth $50K at the time it was dished out at current market prices. Mind you it also dropped down near $10 k in worth for a few months. We/I can only call it out at its current value unless you a disclose where you sold.
Bytemaster, your boss came up with $36K.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,17292.msg220275.html#msg220275
Perhaps there is $8K worth of BTS payments that have not been disclosed to you or me?
Stan never delivered the accounting info as he promised months ago. I find that interesting. Do you?
Ethereum devs are taking the heat pretty hard too right now.
They got paid significantly more than the Bitshares devs did by the way.
The bitch threads on reddit and bitcointalk about ethereum are at least as bad as anything newmine could post about BTS.
Newmine,
I'm not following your calculations. 36K bytemaster mentioned is on yearly bases, so 18K for this year is pretty close to real numbers.
50K bonus turned down to 10K right around the time I needed to pay taxes from this bonus, so effectively it turned out into negative amount.
Newmine,
I'm not following your calculations. 36K bytemaster mentioned is on yearly bases, so 18K for this year is pretty close to real numbers.
50K bonus turned down to 10K right around the time I needed to pay taxes from this bonus, so effectively it turned out into negative amount.
Wouldnt you only have to pay taxes based on the amount you got when you sold?
Newmine,
I'm not following your calculations. 36K bytemaster mentioned is on yearly bases, so 18K for this year is pretty close to real numbers.
50K bonus turned down to 10K right around the time I needed to pay taxes from this bonus, so effectively it turned out into negative amount.
Wouldnt you only have to pay taxes based on the amount you got when you sold?
No, it was a bonus, not stocks or securities.
Newmine,
I'm not following your calculations. 36K bytemaster mentioned is on yearly bases, so 18K for this year is pretty close to real numbers.
50K bonus turned down to 10K right around the time I needed to pay taxes from this bonus, so effectively it turned out into negative amount.
Wouldnt you only have to pay taxes based on the amount you got when you sold?
No, it was a bonus, not stocks or securities.
If the bonus was paid in tokens (PTS? BTS?) then wouldnt you pay taxes based on the amount you got from selling them?
Or was the bonus in USD.
Newmine,
I'm not following your calculations. 36K bytemaster mentioned is on yearly bases, so 18K for this year is pretty close to real numbers.
50K bonus turned down to 10K right around the time I needed to pay taxes from this bonus, so effectively it turned out into negative amount.
Wouldnt you only have to pay taxes based on the amount you got when you sold?
No, it was a bonus, not stocks or securities.
If the bonus was paid in tokens (PTS? BTS?) then wouldnt you pay taxes based on the amount you got from selling them?
Or was the bonus in USD.
Wow, that tax system looks like it was designed to screw people out of all of their money if they work on a startup and it doesn't succeed. Ridiculous.I think it's logical, actually. Compare these scenarios:
Newmine,
I'm not following your calculations. 36K bytemaster mentioned is on yearly bases, so 18K for this year is pretty close to real numbers.
50K bonus turned down to 10K right around the time I needed to pay taxes from this bonus, so effectively it turned out into negative amount.
Wouldnt you only have to pay taxes based on the amount you got when you sold?
I suppose that the lesson is that any time you receive $X worth of something as a bonus, you must immediately convert $Y of it to cash, where $Y is what your tax bill is going to be.
Curious, what would be the tax treatment in US for an amount of BTS not paid directly, but only payable at a vesting date, subject to certain conditions (like market cap growth), as I described earlier in this thread? (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,17292.msg220350.html#msg220350)
Under US rules:
Crypto income is taxed on the value the day you received it.
If it drops in value before you sell it you only get to use to use the losses to offset other capital gains (if you have any).
The phantom income is still on your books.
In a secular crypto bear market this is a complete wrecking ball to most people's finances.
And this explains much of what has been happening in the crypto industry this year. The need to pay taxes on phantom income has dramatically increased selling pressure across the industry.
Under US rules:
Crypto income is taxed on the value the day you received it.
If it drops in value before you sell it you only get to use to use the losses to offset other capital gains (if you have any).
The phantom income is still on your books.
In a secular crypto bear market this is a complete wrecking ball to most people's finances.
And this explains much of what has been happening in the crypto industry this year. The need to pay taxes on phantom income has dramatically increased selling pressure across the industry.
Heads they win, tails you lose.+5%
I think that there should be more efforts put into transparency regarding the license.
I think that there should be more efforts put into transparency regarding the license.
Bitshares uses the current version of Graphene toolkit for free. Anyone else using it licenses it from CNX and pays CNX, it has got nothing to do with us.
We can hire CNX to make modules, add features etc and pay for them, but these developed can later be resold to others by CNX only.
Unfortunately Bm has said he must pay child support which means if he doesn't get paid he could go to jail.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
BM is not as smart as I thought if he took this on knowing the probability of success was rather small while having life obligations and responsibilities as you claim.
Of all the things you could have responded to, you choose this? Newmine, you are a great conversation starter but you have created the impression with me that you are unable to see beyond the points you make. You never seem to open your mind to a broader context. And finally, you seem to resort to discourtesy too readily. If you can't let this go, you will miss the enjoyment of the successes to come (should they arrive.) Don't live with bitterness, life is too short.
Pretty sure I responded to all BM's points and questions.
Just wanted to chime in here. I would say I've been a fairly consistent member and have had many wonderful chats and made great connections on this community. I think that the community is the strength of this project. With that said, I think one of the biggest problems that has come about with the cryptonomex/bitshares 2.0 move is the lack of transparency in demands for usage of the code. In the previous version, we knew the unspoken rule was 20% (because it was said that you would be outright ostracized from the community if you didn't sharedrop). I always have liked the idea of sharedropping, but I understand there are numerous ways to get across your means of being able to pay for the services of those who came before. Which is why I have such a problem here. There hasn't been that kind of transparency in terms of demands. Part of this I understand due to the sacrifices (and yes, there were sacrifices made on the dev's end...you'd have to be a fool to not see that). But at what cost? This community has been the driving force behind Bitshares and worked to maintain its relevancy. I think that there should be more efforts put into transparency regarding the license. That's my wishlist item. Other than that, keep doing what you guys are doing. I've been trying to get up to speed with the new code and it is just gorgeous....and the Doxygen file is written very well this time around to the point where I can actually reasonably figure what the hell is going on in the code. All in all, just keep trying for transparency. Everything else will follow. That's my 2 cents. I'm out.
Just wanted to chime in here. I would say I've been a fairly consistent member and have had many wonderful chats and made great connections on this community. I think that the community is the strength of this project. With that said, I think one of the biggest problems that has come about with the cryptonomex/bitshares 2.0 move is the lack of transparency in demands for usage of the code. In the previous version, we knew the unspoken rule was 20% (because it was said that you would be outright ostracized from the community if you didn't sharedrop). I always have liked the idea of sharedropping, but I understand there are numerous ways to get across your means of being able to pay for the services of those who came before. Which is why I have such a problem here. There hasn't been that kind of transparency in terms of demands. Part of this I understand due to the sacrifices (and yes, there were sacrifices made on the dev's end...you'd have to be a fool to not see that). But at what cost? This community has been the driving force behind Bitshares and worked to maintain its relevancy. I think that there should be more efforts put into transparency regarding the license. That's my wishlist item. Other than that, keep doing what you guys are doing. I've been trying to get up to speed with the new code and it is just gorgeous....and the Doxygen file is written very well this time around to the point where I can actually reasonably figure what the hell is going on in the code. All in all, just keep trying for transparency. Everything else will follow. That's my 2 cents. I'm out.
We've already stated that share dropping is the normal expectation but that we can't anticipate all the future scenarios. For example, I wouldn't expect Apple to sharedrop for a private blockchain or for a blockchain that doesn't involve shares to do something that doesn't even make sense. That's as transparent as we can get, because we have learned that we will be smarter tomorrow than we are to day.
In the mean time, much more is yet to be said this summer...
Unfortunately Bm has said he must pay child support which means if he doesn't get paid he could go to jail.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
BM is not as smart as I thought if he took this on knowing the probability of success was rather small while having life obligations and responsibilities as you claim.
Of all the things you could have responded to, you choose this? Newmine, you are a great conversation starter but you have created the impression with me that you are unable to see beyond the points you make. You never seem to open your mind to a broader context. And finally, you seem to resort to discourtesy too readily. If you can't let this go, you will miss the enjoyment of the successes to come (should they arrive.) Don't live with bitterness, life is too short.
Pretty sure I responded to all BM's points and questions.
To be fair, yes you did....I just mean't there were several other points you could have responded to and i was hoping that one of them may have engendered something positive. Never mind though.
Just wanted to chime in here. I would say I've been a fairly consistent member and have had many wonderful chats and made great connections on this community. I think that the community is the strength of this project. With that said, I think one of the biggest problems that has come about with the cryptonomex/bitshares 2.0 move is the lack of transparency in demands for usage of the code. In the previous version, we knew the unspoken rule was 20% (because it was said that you would be outright ostracized from the community if you didn't sharedrop). I always have liked the idea of sharedropping, but I understand there are numerous ways to get across your means of being able to pay for the services of those who came before. Which is why I have such a problem here. There hasn't been that kind of transparency in terms of demands. Part of this I understand due to the sacrifices (and yes, there were sacrifices made on the dev's end...you'd have to be a fool to not see that). But at what cost? This community has been the driving force behind Bitshares and worked to maintain its relevancy. I think that there should be more efforts put into transparency regarding the license. That's my wishlist item. Other than that, keep doing what you guys are doing. I've been trying to get up to speed with the new code and it is just gorgeous....and the Doxygen file is written very well this time around to the point where I can actually reasonably figure what the hell is going on in the code. All in all, just keep trying for transparency. Everything else will follow. That's my 2 cents. I'm out.
We've already stated that share dropping is the normal expectation but that we can't anticipate all the future scenarios. For example, I wouldn't expect Apple to sharedrop for a private blockchain or for a blockchain that doesn't involve shares to do something that doesn't even make sense. That's as transparent as we can get, because we have learned that we will be smarter tomorrow than we are to day.
In the mean time, much more is yet to be said this summer...
Like I said Stan, I understand. Just wish it wasn't so. A man can dream, can he not? In any case, while I'm attempting to contribute to the Github, I will be in contact with both you and Dan for any future ideas that come about.
Unfortunately Bm has said he must pay child support which means if he doesn't get paid he could go to jail.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
BM is not as smart as I thought if he took this on knowing the probability of success was rather small while having life obligations and responsibilities as you claim.
Of all the things you could have responded to, you choose this? Newmine, you are a great conversation starter but you have created the impression with me that you are unable to see beyond the points you make. You never seem to open your mind to a broader context. And finally, you seem to resort to discourtesy too readily. If you can't let this go, you will miss the enjoyment of the successes to come (should they arrive.) Don't live with bitterness, life is too short.
Pretty sure I responded to all BM's points and questions.
To be fair, yes you did....I just mean't there were several other points you could have responded to and i was hoping that one of them may have engendered something positive. Never mind though.
Which point? You have had two posts to call me on it exactly, but you haven't. Why? Oh, never mind though.
Newmine, how much would BTS benefit if a competitor stole the "free" code?
Your attitude of "no one may profit" is pure jealousy and insanity. You would rather we "burn the whole place down" than let anyone walk away with some theoretical profit.
Newmine, how much would BTS benefit if a competitor stole the "free" code?
Your attitude of "no one may profit" is pure jealousy and insanity. You would rather we "burn the whole place down" than let anyone walk away with some theoretical profit.
Bitcoin is doing fine. That seems to have worked quite well and thousands of people tried to copy it and still are.
"Burn the place down", come on. You sound like a CNN/Fox news broadcaster. Scare them into your beliefs. Instead you should point out a project that failed and had some one else profit off an exact replica of a software free and open source licensed.
And yes I am jealous. You guys are creating a new pie based on the ingredients we paid for and not sharing. If you would have said you would airdrop something (can't say stock in Cryptonomex yet)or burn X millions of shares for rights in the future, I might be okay. But you are double dipping and compromising the future of the entire project by making the software proprietary in some way. The path to mass adoption just got bumpier because you are in control of something where control was to be limited and distributed amongst the masses. And a majority of first users are anti control. Decentralized was the key to everything in the beginning and you are going so far away from it now.
The future of Bitshares will rest in your hands and no one, no one can say that in 5 years whether that is truly good or truly bad. I am mainly prodding because a lot of you seem to blindly follow the whimsical cavalier decisions made by I3 errrr Cryptonomex. Plus, I want a piece of that pie. ;)
You have a few points but it would be helpful if you would get a bit more specific: What would you suggest BM should do now? Make graphene open source? Then there might be no incentive for the devs to continue to work on graphene (because they have no valuable shares in Cryptonomex or because an investor in cryptonomex is not there to pay their loans). It is not BM's decision to decide what the indidivual core devs should do. He can just make them offers.Newmine, how much would BTS benefit if a competitor stole the "free" code?
Your attitude of "no one may profit" is pure jealousy and insanity. You would rather we "burn the whole place down" than let anyone walk away with some theoretical profit.
Bitcoin is doing fine. That seems to have worked quite well and thousands of people tried to copy it and still are.
"Burn the place down", come on. You sound like a CNN/Fox news broadcaster. Scare them into your beliefs. Instead you should point out a project that failed and had some one else profit off an exact replica of a software free and open source licensed.
And yes I am jealous. You guys are creating a new pie based on the ingredients we paid for and not sharing. If you would have said you would airdrop something (can't say stock in Cryptonomex yet)or burn X millions of shares for rights in the future, I might be okay. But you are double dipping and compromising the future of the entire project by making the software proprietary in some way. The path to mass adoption just got bumpier because you are in control of something where control was to be limited and distributed amongst the masses. And a majority of first users are anti control. Decentralized was the key to everything in the beginning and you are going so far away from it now.
The future of Bitshares will rest in your hands and no one, no one can say that in 5 years whether that is truly good or truly bad. I am mainly prodding because a lot of you seem to blindly follow the whimsical cavalier decisions made by I3 errrr Cryptonomex. Plus, I want a piece of that pie. ;)
Newmine, how much would BTS benefit if a competitor stole the "free" code?
Your attitude of "no one may profit" is pure jealousy and insanity. You would rather we "burn the whole place down" than let anyone walk away with some theoretical profit.
Bitcoin is doing fine. That seems to have worked quite well and thousands of people tried to copy it and still are.
"Burn the place down", come on. You sound like a CNN/Fox news broadcaster. Scare them into your beliefs. Instead you should point out a project that failed and had some one else profit off an exact replica of a software free and open source licensed.
And yes I am jealous. You guys are creating a new pie based on the ingredients we paid for and not sharing. If you would have said you would airdrop something (can't say stock in Cryptonomex yet)or burn X millions of shares for rights in the future, I might be okay. But you are double dipping and compromising the future of the entire project by making the software proprietary in some way. The path to mass adoption just got bumpier because you are in control of something where control was to be limited and distributed amongst the masses. And a majority of first users are anti control. Decentralized was the key to everything in the beginning and you are going so far away from it now.
The future of Bitshares will rest in your hands and no one, no one can say that in 5 years whether that is truly good or truly bad. I am mainly prodding because a lot of you seem to blindly follow the whimsical cavalier decisions made by I3 errrr Cryptonomex. Plus, I want a piece of that pie. ;)
I suggest you focus on earning brownie points, it will be healthier for everyone involved.
You have a few points but it would be helpful if you would get a bit more specific: What would you suggest BM should do now? Make graphene open source? Then there might be no incentive for the devs to continue to work on graphene (because they have no valuable shares in Cryptonomex or because an investor in cryptonomex is not there to pay their loans). It is not BM's decision to decide what the indidivual core devs should do. He can just make them offers.Newmine, how much would BTS benefit if a competitor stole the "free" code?
Your attitude of "no one may profit" is pure jealousy and insanity. You would rather we "burn the whole place down" than let anyone walk away with some theoretical profit.
Bitcoin is doing fine. That seems to have worked quite well and thousands of people tried to copy it and still are.
"Burn the place down", come on. You sound like a CNN/Fox news broadcaster. Scare them into your beliefs. Instead you should point out a project that failed and had some one else profit off an exact replica of a software free and open source licensed.
And yes I am jealous. You guys are creating a new pie based on the ingredients we paid for and not sharing. If you would have said you would airdrop something (can't say stock in Cryptonomex yet)or burn X millions of shares for rights in the future, I might be okay. But you are double dipping and compromising the future of the entire project by making the software proprietary in some way. The path to mass adoption just got bumpier because you are in control of something where control was to be limited and distributed amongst the masses. And a majority of first users are anti control. Decentralized was the key to everything in the beginning and you are going so far away from it now.
The future of Bitshares will rest in your hands and no one, no one can say that in 5 years whether that is truly good or truly bad. I am mainly prodding because a lot of you seem to blindly follow the whimsical cavalier decisions made by I3 errrr Cryptonomex. Plus, I want a piece of that pie. ;)
Also when you complain about the past: At what specific time should BM have done what specific thing differently?
Overall you critique refuses to accept that it was not possible to build Bitshares to be usable with the money from AGS. Each of your sentences rejects this reality.
You don't get it. You are worried about the crypto-community. We are building this for 99.999% of the population who don't know and may never know what crypto is. But they will still be able to enjoy the benefits of what crypto brings.
You don't get it. You are worried about the crypto-community. We are building this for 99.999% of the population who don't know and may never know what crypto is. But they will still be able to enjoy the benefits of what crypto brings.
You don't get it. You are worried about the crypto-community. We are building this for 99.999% of the population who don't know and may never know what crypto is. But they will still be able to enjoy the benefits of what crypto brings.Ok Bitcoin.
You don't get it. You are worried about the crypto-community. We are building this for 99.999% of the population who don't know and may never know what crypto is. But they will still be able to enjoy the benefits of what crypto brings.
Exactly what I have been telling people.
yes. +5% +5% +5% +5% +5%
You don't get it. You are worried about the crypto-community. We are building this for 99.999% of the population who don't know and may never know what crypto is. But they will still be able to enjoy the benefits of what crypto brings.Ok Bitcoin.
The 99% is going to trade their current comfortable Evil Wall St. banks for a single Cryptonomex? How you gonna sell that?
We are building this for 99.999% of the population who don't know and may never know what crypto is.
You don't get it. You are worried about the crypto-community. We are building this for 99.999% of the population who don't know and may never know what crypto is. But they will still be able to enjoy the benefits of what crypto brings.
Exactly what I have been telling people.
yes. +5% +5% +5% +5% +5%
... the gamers do not even have to understand cryptocurrencies, they are biz as usual but now using them and not even knowing.
People do not care about how a cell phone works, they just wanna snapchat dick pics.
Likewise, explaining crypto to them is pointless, turn crypto into things they are familiar with and they will use it.
You don't get it. You are worried about the crypto-community. We are building this for 99.999% of the population who don't know and may never know what crypto is. But they will still be able to enjoy the benefits of what crypto brings.
Exactly what I have been telling people.
yes. +5% +5% +5% +5% +5%
... the gamers do not even have to understand cryptocurrencies, they are biz as usual but now using them and not even knowing.
People do not care about how a cell phone works, they just wanna snapchat dick pics.
Likewise, explaining crypto to them is pointless, turn crypto into things they are familiar with and they will use it.
If 99.999% of the population won't understand or value decentralisation, doesn't that mean you're better off making a private centralised Cryptonomex blockchain which will be cheaper to run and which you and the developers have a much larger stake in?
You don't get it. You are worried about the crypto-community. We are building this for 99.999% of the population who don't know and may never know what crypto is. But they will still be able to enjoy the benefits of what crypto brings.
Exactly what I have been telling people.
yes. +5% +5% +5% +5% +5%
... the gamers do not even have to understand cryptocurrencies, they are biz as usual but now using them and not even knowing.
People do not care about how a cell phone works, they just wanna snapchat dick pics.
Likewise, explaining crypto to them is pointless, turn crypto into things they are familiar with and they will use it.
If 99.999% of the population won't understand or value decentralisation, doesn't that mean you're better off making a private centralised Cryptonomex blockchain which will be cheaper to run and which you and the developers have a much larger stake in?
You don't get it. You are worried about the crypto-community. We are building this for 99.999% of the population who don't know and may never know what crypto is. But they will still be able to enjoy the benefits of what crypto brings.
Exactly what I have been telling people.
yes. +5% +5% +5% +5% +5%
... the gamers do not even have to understand cryptocurrencies, they are biz as usual but now using them and not even knowing.
People do not care about how a cell phone works, they just wanna snapchat dick pics.
Likewise, explaining crypto to them is pointless, turn crypto into things they are familiar with and they will use it.
If 99.999% of the population won't understand or value decentralisation, doesn't that mean you're better off making a private centralised Cryptonomex blockchain which will be cheaper to run and which you and the developers have a much larger stake in?
Just because they don't understand why doesn't make it any less important to do it that way. Alot of people don't understand the dangers of burning fossil fuels but that doesn't make renewable energy any less important to have.
Amen +5%
If Joe Six Pack needs to understand crypto to "use" Bitshares we've failed. He should know as much about crypto as he knows about the underlying protocols used by Visa/MasterCard. Or for a more sophisticated crowed that trades on Scottrade, or any other centralized site, they do not have to know how the back end ledger is implemented.
I am also very happy to see this departure from trying to appease the crypto community. They are small, and close minded. There are bigger fish to fry.
You don't get it. You are worried about the crypto-community. We are building this for 99.999% of the population who don't know and may never know what crypto is. But they will still be able to enjoy the benefits of what crypto brings.
Exactly what I have been telling people.
yes. +5% +5% +5% +5% +5%
... the gamers do not even have to understand cryptocurrencies, they are biz as usual but now using them and not even knowing.
People do not care about how a cell phone works, they just wanna snapchat dick pics.
Likewise, explaining crypto to them is pointless, turn crypto into things they are familiar with and they will use it.
If 99.999% of the population won't understand or value decentralisation, doesn't that mean you're better off making a private centralised Cryptonomex blockchain which will be cheaper to run and which you and the developers have a much larger stake in?
Just because they don't understand why doesn't make it any less important to do it that way. Alot of people don't understand the dangers of burning fossil fuels but that doesn't make renewable energy any less important to have.
YES - proven through the millions of dollars of STUFF I have sold to people over the last few years.
Which fuel do most customers buy? I assume the one that is the cheapest & sold to them at a convenient location.
If a private Cryptonomex blockchain is cheaper to operate (more competitive) and the developers have a much larger stake in it (more incentive) & you and murderistic believe 99.999% of potential customers won't care or understand which blockchain they're using. Then BitShares wins because...?
You don't get it. You are worried about the crypto-community. We are building this for 99.999% of the population who don't know and may never know what crypto is. But they will still be able to enjoy the benefits of what crypto brings.
Exactly what I have been telling people.
yes. +5% +5% +5% +5% +5%
... the gamers do not even have to understand cryptocurrencies, they are biz as usual but now using them and not even knowing.
People do not care about how a cell phone works, they just wanna snapchat dick pics.
Likewise, explaining crypto to them is pointless, turn crypto into things they are familiar with and they will use it.
If 99.999% of the population won't understand or value decentralisation, doesn't that mean you're better off making a private centralised Cryptonomex blockchain which will be cheaper to run and which you and the developers have a much larger stake in?
Just because they don't understand why doesn't make it any less important to do it that way. Alot of people don't understand the dangers of burning fossil fuels but that doesn't make renewable energy any less important to have.
YES - proven through the millions of dollars of STUFF I have sold to people over the last few years.
Which fuel do most customers buy? I assume the one that is the cheapest & sold to them at a convenient location.
If a private Cryptonomex blockchain is cheaper to operate (more competitive) and the developers have a much larger stake in it (more incentive) & you and murderistic believe 99.999% of potential customers won't care or understand which blockchain they're using. Then BitShares wins because...?
[Many many quotes]
Check your formatting.
Are you saying Bitshares wins because you've sold stuff? Wtf?
Newmine, how much would BTS benefit if a competitor stole the "free" code?compromising the future of the entire project by making the software proprietary in some way.
Yes, absolutely, in a way that makes it silly to reinvent the public smartchain but profitable to build apps and merge with it.
The death of the bitcoin clones has proven that you don't need many different blockchains in crypto, only as many as you have the basic political faction:
1. Bitcoin - a simple streamlined store of value for the masses
2. Ripple - the private sector's next generation crypto solution proposed by the villians
3. Dopecoin - a simple streamlined store of value for the youth
4. Darkcoin - a simple streamlined store of value for the heroes
5. BitShares - the public sector's next generation crypto solution proposed by the scientists & philosophers
and from there, you have your smaller factions. Crypto is art imitating human political life.
I like your assessment. Now tell me. Where is Ethereum, MaidSAFE, and Shadowcoin in all of this mess?Ethereum: academical experiment with huge possibilities
I like your assessment. Now tell me. Where is Ethereum, MaidSAFE, and Shadowcoin in all of this mess?Ethereum: academical experiment with huge possibilities
maidsafe: the IT nerds, and backup gurus
shadowcoin: stealth addresses are possible with mostly ANY of the blockchain based system .. no need to have them on a separated blockchain .. what else does it do?
The death of the bitcoin clones has proven that you don't need many different blockchains in crypto, only as many as you have the basic political faction:
1. Bitcoin - a simple streamlined store of value for the masses
2. Ripple - the private sector's next generation crypto solution proposed by the villians
3. Dopecoin - a simple streamlined store of value for the youth
4. Darkcoin - a simple streamlined store of value for the heroes
5. BitShares - the public sector's next generation crypto solution proposed by the scientists & philosophers
and from there, you have your smaller factions. Crypto is art imitating human political life.
I like your assessment. Now tell me. Where is Ethereum, MaidSAFE, and Shadowcoin in all of this mess?
The death of the bitcoin clones has proven that you don't need many different blockchains in crypto, only as many as you have the basic political faction:
1. Bitcoin - a simple streamlined store of value for the masses
2. Ripple - the private sector's next generation crypto solution proposed by the villians
3. Dopecoin - a simple streamlined store of value for the youth
4. Darkcoin - a simple streamlined store of value for the heroes
5. BitShares - the public sector's next generation crypto solution proposed by the scientists & philosophers
and from there, you have your smaller factions. Crypto is art imitating human political life.
I like your assessment. Now tell me. Where is Ethereum, MaidSAFE, and Shadowcoin in all of this mess?
Ethereum, NXT, XCP, Maidsafe are the Science or Tech faction
Shadowcoin,Monero,DASH are all the Hero faction
Who do you have in society? The cops (heroes)(the "excellent man"), the robbers or upper class (takers)(the "mass man")(Ripple), the masses (BTC), the lower or broke class (DOGE), and the scientists who discover new tech / philosophers who discover new knowledge for all mankind
It's all here, Sociology 101
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THCF3w5jlVg&list=PLAD7F6C0959E5D201
Blockchain community development is predictably following the eternal legacy human sociological factions that have never changed throughout all of human history. So yes, there should be at least 5 major blockchains representing the masses (BTC), nerds (BTS), rich (XRP), poor (DOGE), champion for the poor (DASH).
At first bitcoin was just the nerd faction, then when more people got BTC, clones appeared, and factions evolved.