1
Muse/SoundDAC / Re: NOTES are listed ar CMC
« on: June 04, 2015, 03:54:29 am »
Ander I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
i don't care about the viability of one project over another
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!?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 blockchain
Disclaimer: 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.
For the record, I'm not at all convinced by "secret sauce". The idea seems to go like this:Christo, are you questioning the existence of a disruptive business model or Peertracks ability to execute? the issue here is that we are having to make assumptions based on limited information and you quite rightly point out that what we have gleaned is incomplete. I think a lot of questions have been asked and the sense that the community seems to have been willing to accept very little information is about trust.
1. If the music industry hears about our plans they will recognise their brilliance and steal them. The music industry has the capability and the will to do what we are doing, they just haven't had the great idea we have had yet.
2. If the music industry heard about the PeerTracks music business model or software architecture etc. they could revolutionise the music industry for the benefit of artists instead of us!
3. Therefore we have to keep the idea secret until we demonstrate it is effective by getting artists on board.
4. The music industry, though they have such resources to compete with us if we tell them the idea, cannot possibly catch us once we get a few months lead time to build the system.
There are several things wrong with this line of reasoning but everyone here seems to take it on face value without question.
I can go into more detail if anyone is interested. Of course if I have something wrong here please let me know.
I believe peertracks has a new business model, powered by Bitshares and they have been doing their best to build the platform and stay ahead of the competition. My biggest concern is around what happens once the time for secrecy has passed. It will become clear pretty quickly if they have succeeded in building a disruptive business model and if they have failed, then we try again.
...
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.
There is no need for a separate blockchain. Any BitShares Music features could be implemented on the BTS blockchain. But that would require another "merger" and diluting BTS even more to absorb Note holders and the right to use all BTC collected in the crowdsale. I don't think anyone wants to go through that again.
Can't NOTEs be used as the underlying currency, like BTS is used in BitShares? It seems to be quite redundant to have NoteUSD and it brings with it its own problems.
Because the average user needs a stable currency, if he puts 10$ in he should still have $10 worth a month later if he hasn't spent it. Also because songs etc should have a stable price, not 10 BTS today, 15 BTS tomorrow, 5 BTS next week.It seems like NoteUSD is the equivalent of BitUSD except orchestrated by a separate blockchain that uses Notes instead of BTS.
My question is why not use BitUSD and BitShares instead of NoteUSD and Notes?
Because it's on a different blockchain with it's own version of assets specifically tailored to artists.
LOL yeah but why doesn't BitShares have the capability to do that?
Mixing the two doesn't seem like a good idea to me, Music will have very specific requirements for it's assets and user issued assets that will be very different from Bitshares. Let Bitshares be a financial DAC and Music be a music DAC imo.
Can't NOTEs be used as the underlying currency, like BTS is used in BitShares? It seems to be quite redundant to have NoteUSD and it brings with it its own problems.
Because the average user needs a stable currency, if he puts 10$ in he should still have $10 worth a month later if he hasn't spent it. Also because songs etc should have a stable price, not 10 BTS today, 15 BTS tomorrow, 5 BTS next week.It seems like NoteUSD is the equivalent of BitUSD except orchestrated by a separate blockchain that uses Notes instead of BTS.
My question is why not use BitUSD and BitShares instead of NoteUSD and Notes?
Because it's on a different blockchain with it's own version of assets specifically tailored to artists.
there is a link at the bottom of the infographic to some of its data sources.