Show Posts

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.


Messages - AdamBLevine

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ... 33
241
General Discussion / Re: Today, I really lose the confidence about 3I
« on: May 17, 2014, 10:09:25 pm »
Stan, I'm looking for something in your response besides 'It must be a problem with translation or comprehension' - Did I miss it?

242
General Discussion / Re: Mid May.Future?
« on: May 17, 2014, 10:01:34 pm »
Quote from: smiley35 on May 17, 2014, 08:10:23 pm
Quote from: AdamBLevine on May 15, 2014, 08:38:24 pm
Quote from: Stan on May 15, 2014, 04:50:49 pm
Quote from: AdamBLevine on May 15, 2014, 03:32:34 pm
Quote from: amatoB on May 14, 2014, 06:03:20 am
It's my hope that Bitshares XT and at least 1 or 2 other DACs will be launched and fully tested/debugged well before the Beyond Bitcoin conference in early July. That way, some Bitshares flagship DACs can be marketed in the lead-up to the conference. Even better if Bitshares X will have been launched by then, but that may be asking for a lot...

It'd be a shame not to use this giant, upcoming opportunity to showcase some things!

The Beyond Bitcoin conference was canceled as far as I know.

Deferred, not canceled, until we have several DACs in the top ten at coinmarketcap.com.   :)

lol

Hey Adam, I've been a listener since last mayish and I came here because of you.

And I think you're not alone, which is why I feel these forums incorrectly represent the level of risk and history associated with this project.  This is exactly why I switched to posting under my real name in early January when I felt like things were not going as I had thought they would and I needed to get my concerns on the record for people who had come here because of my support of the project, and who didn't have the time to read every post in every forum as I have subjected myself to at times of need.

I'm not trying to be selfless, my reputation is at stake here.

243
General Discussion / Re: Mid May.Future?
« on: May 17, 2014, 09:46:14 pm »
Quote from: smiley35 on May 17, 2014, 08:10:23 pm
Quote from: AdamBLevine on May 15, 2014, 08:38:24 pm
Quote from: Stan on May 15, 2014, 04:50:49 pm
Quote from: AdamBLevine on May 15, 2014, 03:32:34 pm
Quote from: amatoB on May 14, 2014, 06:03:20 am
It's my hope that Bitshares XT and at least 1 or 2 other DACs will be launched and fully tested/debugged well before the Beyond Bitcoin conference in early July. That way, some Bitshares flagship DACs can be marketed in the lead-up to the conference. Even better if Bitshares X will have been launched by then, but that may be asking for a lot...

It'd be a shame not to use this giant, upcoming opportunity to showcase some things!

The Beyond Bitcoin conference was canceled as far as I know.

Deferred, not canceled, until we have several DACs in the top ten at coinmarketcap.com.   :)

lol

Hey Adam, I've been a listener since last mayish and I came here because of you. I'm not trying to attack you or anything, just wondering why you have such an attitude on these forums. Yes the products are late, we have also been kept up to date the whole time on the reasoning (DPOS) and progress being made. We are on the edge of breakthrough here and I can't figure out why you're being so negative. I'm not looking for a fight, I just want to know where your coming from?

Because Invictus has set and broken many many many self imposed deadlines, adopted an investment strategy I wholly disagree with and provided what I feel was a better and less restrictive (for invictus) model and feel their decision has delivered bad results with development dominated by the one player who already proved to miss deadlines and not be able to do many things at once.

Most recently, Dan has bet the entire project on an experimental lower level transaction processing technology (DPOS) before the actual point of the project (Betting, Assets, etc) can be developed.  This came after a previous attempt at doing the same thing with a new experimental lower level transaction processing technology (TAPOS) that was worked on for a few weeks and then abandoned when they ran into unforeseen problems.   

There is nothing stopping that from being the case with DPOS, it just hasn't happened yet.   Even worse would be to launch quickly with the completely untested tech, have it "used with real money" as they say it needs to be in order to test it, and then people get that "real money" stolen due to a previously unknown exploit.   

I'm a long time supporter, but projects like this have forum turnover where new users aren't aware of the history of promises made and broken before they joined the project.  With that context, things look less optimistic.  Invictus could turn things around but I'm results oriented and so far the results from invictus have been atrocious.

 Now they've spent enough time and collected enough money that there is incredible pressure being brought to bear on them to produce results, I'm a squeaky wheel not Invictus's real problem by any means.  People do not develop well under that sort of pressure, I don't have high hopes.

I have been pounding on these same issues with Invictus for a very long time, so my exasperation is exactly that - exasperation.  It is frustrating as hell to see them walk into the same predictable landmines.  Do you know how long it took them to get a Blog to centralize important information about Bitshares for people who have invested?  Nearly six months. My concern about Angelshares is Invictus was on the one side making it harder for people to get them "for free" during the initial bootstrap of the Bitshares network, but also the risk of sucking up all the money available for investment and Invictus BECOMING the ecosystem rather than becoming a catalyzing player in the ecosystem.      We've now seen how Invictus becoming the ecosystem has smothered it since they have so much going on they don't have time to make good decisions to steward its growth.

I'm still here because, among other things, Bitshares is the only project who still holds my investment trapped.  Angelshares have not delivered as advertised, Protoshares have had their value smooshed so it's in my economic best interest to stick around and try to correct the boat on Bitshares.  I am a squeaky wheel, I'm not special but I do tend to be early so the fact that the situation with Invictus is as troubling to a guy like me should be a warning sign.

I can't quote from this thread, but you can see the early discussion about Invictus starting something like Angelshares. I went by Lighthouse at the time. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1397.0 

244
General Discussion / Re: MaidSafe IPO on Mastercoin
« on: May 17, 2014, 12:50:57 am »
And that's the difference, I believe that "mining" as a metaphor (you'll notice my LTBCOIN project features Proof of Tipping and Proof of Commenting and Proof of Publishing, all non-monetary actions that vest participants who add value to the system.  Whatever the system.   I don't care about computational mining, and I never talk about it in those terms.  I am talking about non-monetary distribution, and the metaphor we use for that to this point is Mining with your computer! 

Of course there is cost, but it is not additional and explicit cost as when you have to actually buy something. There is cost in making a comment on a blog too, but people don't think about it like that because it is not a meaningful cost relative to the percieved value you gain.   You had to read the content then sit there and think about it until you have something to say, then you have to say it.  You had to do that to the exclusion of doing something else with your time, that is valuable.  Your contribution (whatever it is) is ranked not against some absolute standard but against all other participants doing the same type of incentivized action within the system.

So with that understood, does "We have abandoned non-monetary means of getting involved in the Bitshares project" make more sense?  This is why I mention bounties, because that's a way that lets people work towards community or invictus set goals with the idea that if they achieve it best and first they've got a clear reward that will vest them in the ecosystem they have just contributed to.

Daniel just overcompensated, went from 100% selfless (you can't buy it from us, just the market or mine it by contributing to the network) to 100% capture.   I think there was a middle ground but the whole concept of mining, computational or not was in the crosshairs and it seems we only deal in black or white.

Invictus thought the Bitcoin distribution was also unfair, which is why they didn't want to sell tokens because it allowed that unfairness to continue in the new system.    It seems like you want to abandon the idea of equitable, non-monetary distribution because Protoshares failed to achieve that goal and others have failed before.  I think that was one of the primary draws for Bitshares, that it would have everybody vested in it.  It might be naive to assume that, but I was explicitly told this by Invictus at the time they were appealing to my audience for participation and just because Daniel abandoned the idea doesn't mean it was the right choice.   

It's not shocking you agree with Daniel's position, I'd be more surprised if you didn't.

245
General Discussion / Re: MaidSafe IPO on Mastercoin
« on: May 17, 2014, 12:04:02 am »
A big part of the vision was the democratization of mining, so by "non-monetary" I mean you don't have to get out your credit card, you just have to run your personal computer just like early Bitcoin mining except the goal was to design a system that would not have the scaling arms race we've seen with everything else.

The whole REASON for protoshares was to make as many people stakeholders in what Invictus was doing as possible, because that represented a huge distribution base they could then use to extract the terms in the Social Contract from others who wanted to use their audience.   it was going to be the system that was most fairly and broadly distributed and so have instant network effect for new coins who work with it.

You don't remember this because it was abandoned with little fanfare and now there is no concept of an individual doing anything besides buying on an exchange to get vested.   Despite you not knowing about it, at one point not too long ago it was a major part of Invictus's entire market outlook, and one I think was not incorrect.  Someone is more interested in a crypto-token if they can get some for "free" and then learn about it after they have it than learn about it first then spend money to buy it. 

Anyhow, If you have specific questions I'll answer them but I really think I've explained my train of thought many times.   Do you still not see why this was a reactionary deviation from the plan?

246
General Discussion / Re: MaidSafe IPO on Mastercoin
« on: May 16, 2014, 11:40:24 pm »
Quote from: bytemaster on May 16, 2014, 11:11:02 pm
Adam,
   I don't think you are a greedy asshole and obviously your service was very much appreciated under that model.   My only point was that even in the middle of things where you had first hand knowledge of how mining was really distributing the PTS you still favor it as a distribution model.  To think that you could solve this by technical means is a testament to it not being your area of expertise.

   You had no need to out yourself to defend yourself.  When I mentioned you above, I was merely pointing out that you have performed that function and that if you don't perform it then someone else will (Cryptsy, Bter, etc).   

   I and others on this forum have a very hard time understanding you and your motivations because you say you support BTS and want us to be successful and then show up as the most controversial member on the forum.  I know it isn't me because everyone else is confused about your stance. 

   I am a firm believer in not making assumptions about peoples motives and to the extent that I do that I apologize.   In these forums most of what we see is projection from ourself onto what others are saying.  Learning to recognize that it applies to yourself and others could help keep things civil and productive in conversations.

A big part of the Bitshares project was to make mining so that a person with a normal computer could do it.  I thought PTS was the first experiment in this, not the only one.  When it failed, I expected you to figure out another way to give people stake in Bitshares without asking them for cash money because it seemed like that was an important part of the strategy that was being wholly discarded because you improperly anticipated demand.  Do I remember that wrong? 

I am the most controversial member of this forum (if you say so) because this forum is very hostile to users who do not think you know absolutely what you're doing.  Look through old posts, you'll find them and note that they all left.   Most people pick a project, maybe two and stick with it.  I pick all the projects, invest in them all and try to help them all when they are doing the wrong thing.  Look at NXT or Counterparty's forums and you'll see the same thing.  I don't currently comment on Ethereum because they're doing just fine. 

I'm sorry I don't think you're doing a great job with Invictus, I really really don't.  This project is by far in last place when compared against the serious players in the space and impugning my motives just further pushes away one of your biggest supporters.

Quote from: bytemaster on May 16, 2014, 11:33:54 pm
Quote
So from where I sit, it seems you very much liked the idea of profiting from being the middle man between the mass-production miners and the average guy on the street who has to buy from you because mining is way to slow or difficult to purchase more than a token amount (equal to perhaps 3x your power bill).

Yeah, that was a cheap shot... and actually doesn't reflect what I really think because I know you better.   But if I were an independent onlooker it is the conclusion I would draw if I wanted to make assumptions about your motivations.   Nothing else makes sense and that is why I am so confused by you.   

I know you intend well and have good motives and are an honorable man but for the life of me the things you say on this forum confuse me.

My motives are simple, I disagree with the direction and think people have lost sight of the original vision because all the critical observers like myself have left since they have other options of projects to spend their time on.   

I appreciate the clarification, I was pretty shocked that you would think that about me.

247
General Discussion / Re: MaidSafe IPO on Mastercoin
« on: May 16, 2014, 10:52:41 pm »
Quote from: bytemaster on May 16, 2014, 09:58:18 pm
Quote
So when Angelshares came into play, that ratio went from mostly vesting stakeholders for "work" to vesting stakeholders for paying Invictus.   Because that "for your work" segment is no longer available, having been sold by Invictus, it means anybody coming into Bitshares now will have to buy them for real money up front instead of being able to just participate and be compensated at a minimal level as was promised.

Adam it appears you are blind to the mining farms that control things these days.   Doing worthless work and paying for it destroys value and produces nothing.  Apparently you feel people should pay electric companies rather than giving the money to us.   Either way it is charity.    Everyone already had to buy them for real with money up front... also, PTS mining is still available for people that think like you.

Lastly we only ever said 10% and never the 20% number you mentioned.   

Bottom line:  mining difficulty would increase with the value of our idea and thus consume 100% of the millions of dollars contributed to this idea allowing those who operate large mining farms (like you did early on) to profit.    You told me you made more money from PTS in 2 weeks than you did with LTB in any month.  You were working with large mining operations acquiring and reselling to major players in the market a very large percentage of the PTS being mined every day.  In fact, I would venture to say that you may have made more from PTS than I did.   

So from where I sit, it seems you very much liked the idea of profiting from being the middle man between the mass-production miners and the average guy on the street who has to buy from you because mining is way to slow or difficult to purchase more than a token amount (equal to perhaps 3x your power bill).

So we cut out the middle man (you) and those doing worthless work (mass miners) and 'sold' direct to consumers which then gives us money that is is being spent to increase the value of what they received where as the money they gave you and the mass miners did nothing to help their investment succeed.

You're correct on the 10% vs. 20%, that was a mis-rememberence on my part.

Regarding the rest of it, wow Daniel, you really think I'm a greedy asshole, I had no idea.

In case anybody is wondering, I went by Lighthouse on the forums and was the first member providing escrow and large volume transaction at a time when Protoshares was not listed on any exchanges and had many scammers stealing bitcoin or PTS from new users.   

Taking this role, even under a completely reputation-less name led me to becoming a broker for a single large miner who contacted me on the forums (I openly bought from all miners and subsequently met a lot of them).  All of my trades happened before November 18th, so less than two weeks after launch and well before the move away from POW was discussed. 

I performed this service until it stopped being required, and then I stopped performing it because I was only doing it to provide the trust to enable the market.  Actually you Daniel were my last volume customer, and were my most frequent customer so really it seems like you would only have paid me if I was providing you a service.
Why would you have bought from me if I was exploitative, did I have a monopoly?  Was I even mining myself?  No.  Nobody even knew I have a show, which is why I didn't use my real name.  Later I switched to my real name because I wanted my concerns to be on the record because it was obvious Invictus was missing deadlines and not responding to gentle prodding.

So thanks for giving just enough information that I need to out myself in order to provide proper context to defend my reputation.   


Quote
So from where I sit, it seems you very much liked the idea of profiting from being the middle man between the mass-production miners and the average guy on the street who has to buy from you because mining is way to slow or difficult to purchase more than a token amount (equal to perhaps 3x your power bill).
Having read my perspective, I hope that you correct this assessment.   I very much liked the idea of the Bitshares project as it was described which involved a minority of shares being designated for the PTS holders and most of them available to people through non-monetary means.      The goal was to make it so everyone could mine, remember?   I don't really get how mis-calibrating the first attempt means you throw out the entire notion and come up with something new.

Hell, I'm not even against coming up with something new - I just don't understand why it took precedence over developing the core Bitshares technology which is based around assets, betting etc.   Nothing to do with transactional lower level stuff.

I think I've made my case really clearly Daniel, you quoted one small section of my very long and detailed reply and then dismissed my entire perspective by dropping incomplete disclosure of previously non-public information .   Do you have any responses to the actual meat of it, or are we just throwing mud at this point? 

Also, are all off-the-record conversations now on-the-record?

248
General Discussion / Re: MaidSafe IPO on Mastercoin
« on: May 16, 2014, 06:54:37 pm »

JoeyD:
I'm not a native English speaker and was neither offended nor addressing you personally, which I think is impossible to do via forums anyway. It seems I completely failed in trying to communicate what I was trying to say, so I'll try again and add some specific examples, even-though I still think it would have been better to do so in a separate thread, instead of in response to a completely unrelated topic.

Adam:
Ok

In your comments you assume too much and that is the very definition of arrogance (google translate assumption -> latin) and it gets in the way of some of the valid points you make and in the discussion afterwards.

Ok, you think I'm arrogant.


I agree with most of your points about Invictus dropping the ball in regards to marketing, stimulating community involvement, attracting investment etcetera. However at the same time you completely destroy those points by stating as facts some of your personal assumptions that are dubious to say the least.

Okay, so you agree with all of my arguements except the ones you don't and the ones you don't agree with invalidate all the things you think I'm right about.


For example the statement that everything would have worked out fine if Invictus would have stuck to the plan. This is however not corroborated by any facts. Plans fail the moment you execute them and you are supposed to adapt after that. What you most definitely should not do, is stick to the plan after it failed. While you might have missed the statements Dan Larimer made regarding this and I agree that Invictus could and should have done a better job at communicating the reasons for the change of plans, your alternate, oversimplified and personal version of the situation does more harm then good at clearing things up.

I am not claiming everything will work out to the letter, I am saying it is much less risky and speculative to attack the problems Bitshares intended (hedging, asset issuance, DNS registration, etc.)   Here's a talk given by Daniel and Charles revealing the project, see how many times they talk about the need to replace mining as the transactional processing layer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKfzA4Y36kk.  It's not there, because that wasn't the point of the project until it became the entire focus, making it a dramatically different project.

Your proposed solution of going with some multi-staged, patch-work, unmaintainable, easily attacked and guaranteed to fail pow-blockchain and then migrating to a new POS-system, sounds completely ludicrous. If Invictus had gone that Dr. Frankenstein route I would have had no faith in their abilities and walked away laughing. Talk about waste of time, effort and resources and suicidal pr move.

My proposal was to solve the problems the Bitshares project and Invictus said they were trying to solve while doing this research into new experimental types of transaction processing.   I'm not saying it's bad no matter what happens, just over and over again that it's an unneccesary risk to take when there are options that can suffice through the alpha period.   This is EXACTLY what Ethereum has done, they have not decided on their proof of work because that's a hard question to answer so they are using I think SHA while developing several alternative solutions.  They're on their fourth public, networked alpha because of this decision.  If they had waited until the ultimate mining solution they're going to use was released, they would be months behind in terms of external development... Sorta like Bitshares... 

What criteria you use to judge invictus is of course your own decision, but I would have rather seen steady, incremental releases built on proven tech while having alternate teams (you know, what we're supposed to have given them funds for Angelshares to make happen) work on the revolutionary game changing tech.    It is *not* difficult to migrate from one blockchain to another, a blockchain is a giant ledger.  Proof of burn (or "token swap") makes this process easy, and frankly Invictus has already said they'll be doing something exactly like this when they move Protoshares onto the new technology so we're arguing about the volume, not the tune.

 

Also I don't get what your beef with the AGS fundraiser is, especially seeing how PTS is still there. I have yet to see a better solution for a public fundraiser anywhere else. I have not seen any evidence as of yet of Invictus being particularly frugal or irresponsible with those funds, but I'd be more than happy to be enlightened if you have some information we mere forum-dwellers do not.

When I invested in PTS, the deal was PTS got 20% and people with normal computers would mine the other 80%.  Heavily featured in the original marketing was the fact that Protoshares was an investment you could acquire through non-monetary means, which is to say you could run it on your computer and earn your shares instead of needing to buy them. 

That 80% was important to me, because I thought that Mastercoin had run into a fundamental problem in pre-selling ALL of the tokens which meant lots of people didn't like the project because they wern't invested in it and hadn't bothered to understand it.

Invictus's solution allowed them to raise funds and pre-price the Bitshares ecosystem investment through Protoshares which would then make it easier for them to raise money since their not-even-released product had a good market valuation.  Daniel, feel free to correct me on anything I'm wrong about here.

So when Angelshares came into play, that ratio went from mostly vesting stakeholders for "work" to vesting stakeholders for paying Invictus.   Because that "for your work" segment is no longer available, having been sold by Invictus, it means anybody coming into Bitshares now will have to buy them for real money up front instead of being able to just participate and be compensated at a minimal level as was promised.

Do you understand why Angelshares was bad for marketing when looking at it through my perspective?

Angelshares has been bad for the community for reason I've already described in detail - You said you agree with my stance about community involvement above but here you've said you don't know what my beef with Angelshares is.   Do you now understand?   

Again I'd rather have the discussion about the past, present and future failings of Invictus in a dedicated thread with all information easily accessible, instead of having to tell people to read someones entire post history, expect them to wade to an unholy amount of incoherent and irrelevant rubbish and then suggest to enlighten them should they prove to be too stupid to know what I mean. Your posts should stand on their own and not need to be unlocked by your own personal "expertise", because as you say your person should be completely irrelevant to the discussion.


The reason I know so much about Bitshares and frankly all the other projects interesting to me is because I spend much of my time absorbing all the information, discussions, ideas and activity around all of them.  You are free to ignore me, I have not spoken to you once when you have not initiated.   

I don't want this to be about me, so I don't want to start a post.  I have articulated all of my concerns to Daniel, Stan and Invictus broadly since november when I told Daniel it was not necessary for Protoshares to be 100% open mining for it to be "fair" since the thing giving it value in the first place was his company.  I've tried it before being both helpful and critical and it never helps.  So now I post to educate people because they clearly do not understand the long term context of this project.   If you got excited about Bitshares because of DPOS, this is your project now for better or worse.


The worst part about all of this is, there's no more margin for error.  DPOS MUST work because so much time has been invested in this pivot after the previous pivot, TAPOS, ran into unforeseen, intractable problems.    Right or wrong, Invictus took this risk for all of us.

249
General Discussion / Re: Unleashing the community
« on: May 16, 2014, 02:25:29 am »
They don't want to unleash the community, they have a very clear direction they're devoting resources and brain bandwidth too and the idea that anybody can do anything, that's just a vestigial limb at this point in the evolution.  Invictus was *going* to unleash the community back when we were all in it together mining for Protoshares working towards a january 1st blockchain launch. In those idealistic days the thought of selling a pre-mine like mastercoin did was viewed as unelegant and exploitative. 

Once angelshares started, the community became irrelevent because enough people were excited about bitshares that Angelshares was seeing success and they could salary themselves and do whatever they want with the funds.  This is why conferences became so important, people who go to conferences about Bitcoin have the resources to invest in Angelshares which is a pot of money that invictus has the keys too and does not want community input on how to spend. 

This would have been ok (inefficient, but OK) but invictus did not follow through with their plan and failed to do really anything to cultivate their nascent dac ecosystem, even "deferring" the Shark Tank DAC pitch event because of lack of interest from qualified participants   Have you been to a hackathon for Bitcoin or Ethereum?  There is absolutely no shortage of qualified applicants, Invictus has just failed to attract them.   

And when it didn't see success I'm sure Invictus is cycling into angelshares their own or their investors money.  They have said they have the right to do at advantageous times, which means when few other people are doing so. 

The folks are invictus are not bad people, they are engineers, out of their depth and have been short-sighted reactionary from the word go of this project. were very burned by their inability to deal with the popularity of Protoshares and then over-compensated from their 0% pre-mine to a 100% pre-mine if we're using the old parlance.

Angelshares was always a bad idea if the plan was for this to be a partnership with the community.  By taking the money from angelshares, you ask and incentivize us to delegate our ability to make things happen (i.e. pay a developer, invest in a project) because invictus already took most of the communities liquid investment funds but aren't doing what they said they would with them.  If you want to unleash the community, Invictus has to first think there is some value they haven't already extracted from it.  Mostly Invictus uses the forum for alpha testing, ideation and most importantly but least prioritized is damage control.   

250
General Discussion / Re: Mid May.Future?
« on: May 15, 2014, 08:38:24 pm »
Quote from: Stan on May 15, 2014, 04:50:49 pm
Quote from: AdamBLevine on May 15, 2014, 03:32:34 pm
Quote from: amatoB on May 14, 2014, 06:03:20 am
It's my hope that Bitshares XT and at least 1 or 2 other DACs will be launched and fully tested/debugged well before the Beyond Bitcoin conference in early July. That way, some Bitshares flagship DACs can be marketed in the lead-up to the conference. Even better if Bitshares X will have been launched by then, but that may be asking for a lot...

It'd be a shame not to use this giant, upcoming opportunity to showcase some things!

The Beyond Bitcoin conference was canceled as far as I know.

Deferred, not canceled, until we have several DACs in the top ten at coinmarketcap.com.   :)

lol

251
General Discussion / Re: Mid May.Future?
« on: May 15, 2014, 03:32:34 pm »
Quote from: amatoB on May 14, 2014, 06:03:20 am
It's my hope that Bitshares XT and at least 1 or 2 other DACs will be launched and fully tested/debugged well before the Beyond Bitcoin conference in early July. That way, some Bitshares flagship DACs can be marketed in the lead-up to the conference. Even better if Bitshares X will have been launched by then, but that may be asking for a lot...

It'd be a shame not to use this giant, upcoming opportunity to showcase some things!

The Beyond Bitcoin conference was canceled as far as I know.

252
General Discussion / Re: MaidSafe IPO on Mastercoin
« on: May 14, 2014, 10:52:45 pm »
Quote from: bed on May 14, 2014, 10:51:28 pm
Quote from: AdamBLevine on May 14, 2014, 10:34:13 pm
Quote from: JoeyD on May 14, 2014, 10:08:53 pm
Quote from: AdamBLevine on May 14, 2014, 03:51:52 pm
I don't really care if you value my comments or not, I'm putting my complaints and suggestions on the record.   You can read my entire posting history and see all the context of my current irritation with Invictus.   If you have specific questions I'm happy to educate.

Nice.

For the record I did try asking nicely with sugar on top and this is your response. Sorry if I'm not part of your little club, but why in hell should I be bothered wasting my time researching each and every posts from someone who can't be bothered to explain his current comments or respond in a normal way. So if you don't care if your points come across, you consequently can't blame people for ignoring what you write.

Why would I want to be "educated" by you anyway, are you some computer science super genius or Nobel-price winner for economics? The whole reason I wanted to discus things with you is because I think you made some factual errors and that there are some actual real technical reasons why things can't work the way you want them to. I'm not particularly interested in a lesson in arrogance, I had my fair share of that in university.

It seems like you're taking things really personally, what exactly did I say that offended you?  I assumed you didn't want to take the time to get the full picture, which is why I offered to answer any specific questions you might have had.  Answering your question about stuff that I've taken the time to learn about and you haven't sure seems like education to me and yet you bristle at the term.   

Did you actually have any question, or do you just like complaining about me?

Adam is his own echo chamber

It sometimes feels that way.

253
General Discussion / Re: MaidSafe IPO on Mastercoin
« on: May 14, 2014, 10:34:13 pm »
Quote from: JoeyD on May 14, 2014, 10:08:53 pm
Quote from: AdamBLevine on May 14, 2014, 03:51:52 pm
I don't really care if you value my comments or not, I'm putting my complaints and suggestions on the record.   You can read my entire posting history and see all the context of my current irritation with Invictus.   If you have specific questions I'm happy to educate.

Nice.

For the record I did try asking nicely with sugar on top and this is your response. Sorry if I'm not part of your little club, but why in hell should I be bothered wasting my time researching each and every posts from someone who can't be bothered to explain his current comments or respond in a normal way. So if you don't care if your points come across, you consequently can't blame people for ignoring what you write.

Why would I want to be "educated" by you anyway, are you some computer science super genius or Nobel-price winner for economics? The whole reason I wanted to discus things with you is because I think you made some factual errors and that there are some actual real technical reasons why things can't work the way you want them to. I'm not particularly interested in a lesson in arrogance, I had my fair share of that in university.

It seems like you're taking things really personally, what exactly did I say that offended you?  I assumed you didn't want to take the time to get the full picture, which is why I offered to answer any specific questions you might have had.  Answering your question about stuff that I've taken the time to learn about and you haven't sure seems like education to me and yet you bristle at the term.   

Did you actually have any question, or do you just like complaining about me?

254
General Discussion / Re: MaidSafe IPO on Mastercoin
« on: May 14, 2014, 03:51:52 pm »
Quote from: JoeyD on May 14, 2014, 08:30:02 am
Quote from: AdamBLevine on May 14, 2014, 02:20:12 am
Quote from: liondani on May 13, 2014, 11:47:21 pm
Quote from: tonyk on May 13, 2014, 11:42:25 pm
Did you advise them for Bitshare products inclusion or against? After such shares become available off course.

Loaded question  ???

I told them to not put all their eggs in one basket and to be a solution agnostic platform that would let them be friends and provide exchange services between all the protocols that seem worthwhile.

You seem to think I don't like Bitshares, why would you think that?   I just don't like that every self imposed deadline has been blown and now we've put all our eggs in the DPOS basket which might work but might just as easily have a horrible glaring flaw that could not be foreseen because nobody has done it before.  I would rather have launched the products as described (Keyhotee and Bitshares) then worked on obsoleting mining in subsequent rounds of innovation.   

Bitshares is not being excluded or conspired against by anyone, there just isn't much to talk about and what there IS to talk about has been very poorly articulated by Invictus, mostly buried in these echo-chamber forums.  When they have a great product and somehow nobody is including them in their exchange, then you can cry conspiracy.  Until then the only people you should be complaining to are invictus for not having a product to even consider for inclusion.

I've asked this before a few times, so lets hope you do read this comment this time. Would you be prepared to discuss your points somewhere?

Your type of hit and run remarks are not really solving the "echo-chamber" problem you perceive, nor are they helping someone like me, who only joined the forums after the discussion you seem to have had, to understand the points you are trying to make. Also some of your points are not as clear cut to me as you make them out to be, such as the mining would have worked assumption. I also get the impression you always feel personally attacked and the need to defend yourself by attacking others when you post here.

I'm not saying this is what you meant to say, but without the rest of the information your post comes across as: You should have gone with mining, told you so and all the real information is buried on this forum because of all ya fanboys here talking nonsense.

You can't really blame people for not valuing your comments as much as you feel they should if you respond in this manner. You do not participate in the discussion following your comments and in just about every post you make you throw around some odd snide remarks geared toward the entirety of the forum members, or concentrate on persons instead of arguments. I think the way people respond to you and the voiced theories directed at your person are caused by the way you choose to "participate".  You might have some very good and valid points, but what you're doing now only provokes irritation and makes you come across like a troll more than anything else, because you don't provide the information needed to understand your points.

Again this is not a conspiracy theory or a personal attack, I just want to understand what you're trying to say, but I don't think you're making that as easy as it could be.

I don't really care if you value my comments or not, I'm putting my complaints and suggestions on the record.   You can read my entire posting history and see all the context of my current irritation with Invictus.   If you have specific questions I'm happy to educate.

255
General Discussion / Re: MaidSafe IPO on Mastercoin
« on: May 14, 2014, 02:20:12 am »
Quote from: liondani on May 13, 2014, 11:47:21 pm
Quote from: tonyk on May 13, 2014, 11:42:25 pm
Did you advise them for Bitshare products inclusion or against? After such shares become available off course.

Loaded question  ???

I told them to not put all their eggs in one basket and to be a solution agnostic platform that would let them be friends and provide exchange services between all the protocols that seem worthwhile.

You seem to think I don't like Bitshares, why would you think that?   I just don't like that every self imposed deadline has been blown and now we've put all our eggs in the DPOS basket which might work but might just as easily have a horrible glaring flaw that could not be foreseen because nobody has done it before.  I would rather have launched the products as described (Keyhotee and Bitshares) then worked on obsoleting mining in subsequent rounds of innovation.   

Bitshares is not being excluded or conspired against by anyone, there just isn't much to talk about and what there IS to talk about has been very poorly articulated by Invictus, mostly buried in these echo-chamber forums.  When they have a great product and somehow nobody is including them in their exchange, then you can cry conspiracy.  Until then the only people you should be complaining to are invictus for not having a product to even consider for inclusion.

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ... 33

Page created in 0.023 seconds with 22 queries.