Quote from: Stan on November 23, 2015, 09:32:29 pm

We should try to separate two independent issues:

1.  If an entrepreneur develops a new DAPP and offers it to BitShares with a revenue sharing model, are we going to vote to install it? 

     (The first time we turn down such an offer will probably be the last time we get one.)

2.  What are all the insanely great ideas for funding such upgrades to BitShares?

We should care about any upgrade's safety, use of resources, and impact on BitShares reputation, etc..  We should not care about how the developer raised funds to develop it or speculate on her motivations for doing so.    Most especially, it is none of our business what method they use to raise their development funds.  Encourage them to innovate.

We should go forth and tell the world about all the ways there are for investors and developers to make money using the BitShares platform.  This should build interest in BitShares more than anything I can think of.  What's the  best thing about Ethereum?  Its attractive to developers.  What's most attractive to developers?  A way to profit from their efforts.

Folks who want to confiscate their profits or cap their upside are being penny wise and pound foolish.

In general, the more a developer/investor can earn from starting a new business on our blockchain, the more they are likely to reinvest in that business to make it more profitable.  That means more features, more polish, and more promotion effort from the developer/investor.  As long as BitShares is getting a cut to cover network costs and earn a profit for its own investors, everybody wins.

The more profitable businesses that are motivated to build on our platform, the more customers will use it, and the more attractive it will be for other businesses.

A virtuous cycle.

I'm sure no one really cares how they raise their funds... The biggest contention here is using funds from a worker proposal and then selling that feature to other chains.  If a company (say cnx) were to create a worker proposal for prediction markets, bts should have a right to profits from the selling that feature to any of the other chains (muse, identabit, etc) since bts is an investor.

And this is where IP becomes a thorny issue that is ultimately slowing us down. If we try to compete based upon IP it is like a country trying to compete by placing tariffs on imports/exports. Ultimately the only thing that "protectionism" does is increase costs to the citizens of the country while hurting the competitiveness of the country and subsidizing unprofitable businesses.

Tony, you certaintly have a way with words.  Thank you for this poll, it is missing just one option:  "CmdrTaco hasn't adopted BTS yet".

Getting to 80% is my strength, finishing the last 20% is my weakness and has long been the case even before BitShares. BitShares is the single project I have stuck with the longest in my life and which has actually reached a usable product in the hands of thousands of users.   

Everyone wants us to focus on "ONE THING" and I largely agree with that. It had better be the right "ONE THING" though or we are dead. 

My personality type is INTJ (http://www.16personalities.com/intj-personality) and I am constantly challening my beliefs and understanding to make things better. I have a very hard time working toward a sub-optimal solution and what is optimal is constantly changing as knowledge increases.  I am smart enough to recognize the value of focusing on one thing as well as the futility of pursuing something to completion that will be outdated by the time it gets there.

I would say that to put my skills to their best use, I should solve problems, prove the concept, and hand it off to people that are good at taking it all the way. 

Anyway, BitShares is a lifelong project that will evolve in the direction this community takes it. It must become bigger than CNX and bigger than me.

That is why we are moving toward open sourcing everything.  Once we open source it, we can continue to improve / develop it together. I have long term plans for it, but obviously need to blend it with short terms needs.

At the end of the day, complaining about others is the least effective means of change. Either do something to help, shut up, or leave.  CNX will do everything we can to avoid being the bottleneck to progress and give the community room to do what is necessary.

i like the idea

but would suggest some changes

1. make it possible that a UIA is created for the investor
2. the UIA can be in control of the committee members and the investor
3. create a automated buyback mechanism etc.
4. the fees for this UIA should only be paid on top of a normal transaction. so if a normal transaction costs 20 cent and the stealth fees say 30 cents and then split the 30 cent like discribed.

With this we can finance many more project in the pipline

you want a prediction market? done, create UIA get the project funded

with this we can create multiple automated UIA assets on our blockchain who will be traded and give our bitshares exchange some unic assets.

This is exactly what we discussed over lunch today. It seems like a great way to crowdfund features. After all the value of a feature is the present value of its projected future revenue to the network. With a few small changes it could even be set up such that a minimum amount of funding must be achieved or the BTS are returned. Very much like an automated kickstarter.

I have been approached by a community member who has offered to cover the $45,000 to implement stealth transfers in the GUI *IF* he can get his money back through stealth transfer fees.

Stealth transfers cannot participate in the referral program. The fee for a stealth transfer can be higher (premium service) at about $0.50, with $0.10 going to the network and $0.40 going to the individual who funds this improvement to the GUI.  After the first 20 Million BTS worth of fees have been paid to this individual, the split would reverse, with $0.10 going to him and $0.40 going to the network.

The bottom line is that rather than diluting to pay for this feature, it will be entirely funded from future revenue generated by the feature itself.  As fees are set in terms of BTS, we would allow the individual who paid for this feature to set the fee until the first 20M BTS have been paid, then the committee members would take over setting this particular fee.

Without paying for this work there would be few transfers of this type. So the network doesn't lose much nor take much risk.

I have put this as a $1000 worker proposal because it requires a hard fork to add the fee splitting and it requires stakeholder approval.  $1000 is a token amount to show that the stakeholders standby this decision.

I am still working through the details with the individual who has made the offer, but we cannot do this unilaterally.

Quote from: bytemaster on November 20, 2015, 10:44:31 pm

Quote from: tonyk on November 20, 2015, 10:31:17 pm

Quote from: bytemaster on November 20, 2015, 10:00:55 pm

No software company offers a warranty on a FREE product provided WITHOUT WARRANTY.

If you think BitShares should have a software support contract that covers a certain amount of bug fixes then that may be the proper way to structure things.

Software bugs cost people money, if we had to take out liability insurance for any and all losses as a result of software then our rates would be $1000 per hour or more. It would be totally impractical to produce software on an kind of market competitive schedule.

It is not liability insurance, it is fixing the non working coffee makers coming out of your factory. (as in not compensating the people killed by it, just fixing the one that fail at making coffee)

Really?

The warranty would be 9 times greater than the product itself???

This is one hell of a shitty product, if it costs 9x more to repair all defects than to produce it in the first place.

In software terms there are always bugs and things that can be considered "non-working". That said, we DID come back and fix things without charge.  The reason we pointed out that we didn't ...HAVE TO... is merely to protect us against unbounded liability for making fixes to bugs / issues that come up.

A 9x markup represents how much longer it would take to audit the code and ensure it is free of bugs. It represents the time it would take to implement all the extra tests required to increase the quality of all of the code to the level of perfection demanded by some.

You better believe that if a coffee pot manufacturer was giving away free products that had some minor defects they wouldn't offer to fix them.  Especially if it came with no warranty as being fit for any purpose.

Like I said above, we overcommitted to what we could deliver in a USER INTERFACE.  We also quickly retracted the bond market commitment a week after announcement. 

This whole "blame game" is not really productive.  Unrealistic expectations lead to disappointment. It is up to each of us to manage our own personal expectations.

Please just answer my question! Will the other chains get the improvements that bts pays for?!?

PS I'm a top 50 largest shareholder... And if I'm bringing up these points what do you think compettitors are saying?

Yes.  If we do it then we are the copyright holders and will have unrestricted use.

Ultimately each service provider is providing a plugin to the wallet and has their own unique needs / UI requirements.

I think the main page should be organized by service providers including logo's a brief description, and a link to their website.

This particular page has exploded faster than I had expected!  I is a nice problem to have so many service providers competing for business and integrated directly into the wallet. It certainly makes the services more discoverable.

Quote from: bytemaster on November 20, 2015, 10:00:55 pm

No software company offers a warranty on a FREE product provided WITHOUT WARRANTY.

If you think BitShares should have a software support contract that covers a certain amount of bug fixes then that may be the proper way to structure things.

Software bugs cost people money, if we had to take out liability insurance for any and all losses as a result of software then our rates would be $1000 per hour or more. It would be totally impractical to produce software on an kind of market competitive schedule.

It is not liability insurance, it is fixing the non working coffee makers coming out of your factory. (as in not compensating the people killed by it, just fixing the one that fail at making coffee)

Really?

The warranty would be 9 times greater than the product itself???

This is one hell of a shitty product, if it costs 9x more to repair all defects than to produce it in the first place.

In software terms there are always bugs and things that can be considered "non-working". That said, we DID come back and fix things without charge.  The reason we pointed out that we didn't ...HAVE TO... is merely to protect us against unbounded liability for making fixes to bugs / issues that come up.

A 9x markup represents how much longer it would take to audit the code and ensure it is free of bugs. It represents the time it would take to implement all the extra tests required to increase the quality of all of the code to the level of perfection demanded by some.

You better believe that if a coffee pot manufacturer was giving away free products that had some minor defects they wouldn't offer to fix them.  Especially if it came with no warranty as being fit for any purpose.

Like I said above, we overcommitted to what we could deliver in a USER INTERFACE.  We also quickly retracted the bond market commitment a week after announcement. 

This whole "blame game" is not really productive.  Unrealistic expectations lead to disappointment. It is up to each of us to manage our own personal expectations.