0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: donkeypong on November 24, 2015, 05:15:19 amQuote from: roadscape on November 24, 2015, 12:59:58 amQuote from: tonyk on November 24, 2015, 12:45:53 amActually I am kind of a fan of a step less than that [It very well be my conservative thinking; or inability to see things as liberal as most here]But free to everything BTS related should have been enough. I really do not want other chains (MUSE, PLAY, player X) getting the stuff that BTS holders paid for, for free.If you want it - make yourself a DAPP on BTS, or pay to CNX or whoever developed that particular feature. The idea it to generally prevent even the thought of milk-cowing BTS, passing anybody's mind.Anyway, definitely better than the current state, in my view. Yes, well done.. definitely better.. BUT, while BTS is still trying to figure out it's business model, maybe we should be a little more conservative. I'm concerned about fragmentation of the network effect, and to some extent leeching, as tonyk mentioned. Just revive the Social Consensus. Why am I the only poster who brings that up anymore? Look back over the last six months on this forum and I'll bet the last six posts on the Social Consensus have all been mine. Between licensing and stealing something for free lies the community's expectation that anyone using this technology will sharedrop a small percentage. If they don't, we blackball them rather than inviting them to Beyond Bitcoin. If they do honor the Social Consensus, then they have the full weight of this community behind their product. I think it's a great notion and I believe we should expect that of everyone using this technology (the development of which this community has supported technologically, financially, and morally). Makes sense.
Quote from: roadscape on November 24, 2015, 12:59:58 amQuote from: tonyk on November 24, 2015, 12:45:53 amActually I am kind of a fan of a step less than that [It very well be my conservative thinking; or inability to see things as liberal as most here]But free to everything BTS related should have been enough. I really do not want other chains (MUSE, PLAY, player X) getting the stuff that BTS holders paid for, for free.If you want it - make yourself a DAPP on BTS, or pay to CNX or whoever developed that particular feature. The idea it to generally prevent even the thought of milk-cowing BTS, passing anybody's mind.Anyway, definitely better than the current state, in my view. Yes, well done.. definitely better.. BUT, while BTS is still trying to figure out it's business model, maybe we should be a little more conservative. I'm concerned about fragmentation of the network effect, and to some extent leeching, as tonyk mentioned. Just revive the Social Consensus. Why am I the only poster who brings that up anymore? Look back over the last six months on this forum and I'll bet the last six posts on the Social Consensus have all been mine. Between licensing and stealing something for free lies the community's expectation that anyone using this technology will sharedrop a small percentage. If they don't, we blackball them rather than inviting them to Beyond Bitcoin. If they do honor the Social Consensus, then they have the full weight of this community behind their product. I think it's a great notion and I believe we should expect that of everyone using this technology (the development of which this community has supported technologically, financially, and morally).
Quote from: tonyk on November 24, 2015, 12:45:53 amActually I am kind of a fan of a step less than that [It very well be my conservative thinking; or inability to see things as liberal as most here]But free to everything BTS related should have been enough. I really do not want other chains (MUSE, PLAY, player X) getting the stuff that BTS holders paid for, for free.If you want it - make yourself a DAPP on BTS, or pay to CNX or whoever developed that particular feature. The idea it to generally prevent even the thought of milk-cowing BTS, passing anybody's mind.Anyway, definitely better than the current state, in my view. Yes, well done.. definitely better.. BUT, while BTS is still trying to figure out it's business model, maybe we should be a little more conservative. I'm concerned about fragmentation of the network effect, and to some extent leeching, as tonyk mentioned.
Actually I am kind of a fan of a step less than that [It very well be my conservative thinking; or inability to see things as liberal as most here]But free to everything BTS related should have been enough. I really do not want other chains (MUSE, PLAY, player X) getting the stuff that BTS holders paid for, for free.If you want it - make yourself a DAPP on BTS, or pay to CNX or whoever developed that particular feature. The idea it to generally prevent even the thought of milk-cowing BTS, passing anybody's mind.Anyway, definitely better than the current state, in my view.
This is great news and certainly a step in the right direction both from an ideological and business perspective.One thing to keep in mind about "people using what we paid for": How much have we paid for the c++ compilers, the BOOST licenses, the SSL libraries, etc. etc. etc. that is the core of BTS?The space needs more building blocks.
Muse like chains do not need our userbase or expertise. They hire cnx, get users on peertracks, bitusd muse will get better liquidy .....
Quote from: Akado on November 24, 2015, 09:13:14 amI'm skeptical of this. I also dont want other chains to get for free what BTSshareholders paid for. They can get them, as long as they pay too.Couldn't we create some kind of consensus where if a chain wants certainfeature, has to pay something like 25% of it's original price by buying thatamount of BTS at the time and burning it or something?and like it was mantioned, what keeps other projects from taking all we've paidfor and do it on a sidechain or whatever? a popular enough project likeethereum and it's btc version could pull that off while leaving BTS in the dustright? Even if their chains are not as optimized as ours, they still win thepopularity contestIsn't that what the social consensus is doing for us? If a chain wants to haveour "support" and user base, they need to sharedrop their shares onto BTSholders?It all comes down to USER BASE! That's why whatsapp is worth $20B and we shouldwork as hard as possible to have the user base grow in our own chain.
I'm skeptical of this. I also dont want other chains to get for free what BTSshareholders paid for. They can get them, as long as they pay too.Couldn't we create some kind of consensus where if a chain wants certainfeature, has to pay something like 25% of it's original price by buying thatamount of BTS at the time and burning it or something?and like it was mantioned, what keeps other projects from taking all we've paidfor and do it on a sidechain or whatever? a popular enough project likeethereum and it's btc version could pull that off while leaving BTS in the dustright? Even if their chains are not as optimized as ours, they still win thepopularity contest
Actually I am kind of a fan of a step less than that [It very well be my conservative thinking; or inability to see things as liberal as most here]But free to everything BTS related should have been enough. I really do not want other chains (MUSE, PLAY, player X) getting the stuff that BTS holders paid for, for free.If you want it - make yourself a DAPP on BTS, or pay to CNX or whoever developed that particular feature. The idea it to generally prevent even the thought of milk-cowing BTS, passing through anybody's mind.Anyway, definitely better than the current state, in my view.
That's pretty much what I was saying.. the power we have now though is like a 10 lumen LED ... sure it's power.. but when we are up to 300k lumen floods.. then its noticeable... and powerful. I would caution the expect and demanding though.. that could very quickly come across the wrong way. The whole idea of the social consensus was just that.. social.. demanding it is not very social.. neither is expecting. We can very fairly offer it.. and if the offering is accepted willingly and with joy.. then great. I am say though that they will look at it just like I said already and see that they are the losers in that deal and will not be so excited about it. Those that don't simply don't get our unique brand of support. I just hope what follows that doesn't lead to others not even wanting to engage us.
@bytemaster: is this means, that bitshares will be truly open, and now I will be able to legally create my own blockchain based on graphene code?
Quote from: BunkerChain Labs on November 24, 2015, 05:38:16 amThe community has to revive its value proposition in order for this to work. If the value of the community doesn't equal what is expected out of some kind of share, then it doesn't make sense. When the 'community' numbers in the millions.. then you have something to bargain with.. otherwise you are asking a business to give up something for essentially nothing.. in their estimation anyways. They can just go ahead without sharedrop and the consequences of the community not supporting wouldn't even register.Ye of little faith. Expect and demand it, that's what we should do. They can be on our good side or our bad side. We have that power now and it will only grow with more users and a larger community.
The community has to revive its value proposition in order for this to work. If the value of the community doesn't equal what is expected out of some kind of share, then it doesn't make sense. When the 'community' numbers in the millions.. then you have something to bargain with.. otherwise you are asking a business to give up something for essentially nothing.. in their estimation anyways. They can just go ahead without sharedrop and the consequences of the community not supporting wouldn't even register.
Copyright (c) <year>, <copyright holder>All rights reserved.Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or withoutmodification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. * Neither the name of the <organization> nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" ANDANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIEDWARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AREDISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL <COPYRIGHT HOLDER> BE LIABLE FOR ANYDIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED ANDON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT(INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THISSOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.