https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZaB4hM8SQ4

Bram Cohen, creator of BitTorrent, spoke on the challenges of removing the waste from cryptocurrencies:

"Expending electricity on unproductive work is inherent to Bitcoin's security. Multiple approaches to eliminating this have been proposed, none of which solve the problem satisfactorily, and are usually unusable, insecure, or completely fallacious. I'll explain what Bitcoin at core is, why and how much waste there is in it, what approaches to removing that waste are, and how they fail."

Interesting and funny talk. BitShares is mentioned once, but apparently Cohen hasn't looked into it and doesn't know anything about 2.0.

This is just thinking out loud, not a serious proposal for Bitshares.

Would it make any sense if DAC had two kinds of shares?

Share A is meant for people who are interested in taking care of the DAC:
- able to vote
- if not used in voting in a period of time, will lose a small percentage of the shares (something like 5 % per year)
- if used in voting, will get the shares from non-voters (this will effectively be like an interest)

Share B is meant for people who will just want to hold and enjoy the value going up:
- not able to vote

Both shares can be used for shorting to create bitassets (or whatever they will be called).

This would mostly solve the problem of voter apathy. Those who are not interested in voting would just buy B-shares, and those are interested in voting, would have even more incentives for it (they could gain or lose shares).

Quote from: Samupaha on June 14, 2015, 08:04:59 pm

Quote from: profitofthegods on June 14, 2015, 07:26:11 pm

Please don't call this kind of thing FUD - these are legitimate concerns whether you agree with them or not.

C'mon, claiming that the supercoolest proposal ever is going to destroy BitShares is totally absurd.

Anyway, if somebody thinks that BitShares doesn't have a future with now proposed 2.0, then maybe he should just sell his shares. This is DAC, so this is like a company. And what you do when you think that company is doing something stupid? You sell your shares and invest your money to something better.

Good shareholders don't use their empoylees time on discussing on the forum about far-fetched worst case scenarios. Good shareholders let their employees do the job and ship the product.

Well as a matter of fact I did just dump a few dozen thousand. But I still own >100k because I don't think this will definitely destroy Bitshares by any means, but there is a whole lot of ground between 'destroying bitshares' and 'this is total FUD with no valid point' which you seem to just want to ignore.

The art of trolling is to spread FUD with couple of semi-valid points. The OP was so far away from constructive critisism that it can be ignored. It's clear that he didn't want to raise any kind of reasonable discussion on valid points. Declaring that Bitshares will lose "its soul and fundamental raison d'etre" is just bullshit.

Uhh, so much FUD.

But I have to say that I'm not really surprised. This is what you get when you choose to use IP. It's unethical and typically used in harmful and evil ways so people will assume that there is something bad also this time.

How front running is handled in the 2.0? I happened to stumble upon this blog post:

Bitshare’s Daniel Larimer has a very informative article called “How Bitshares prevents frontrunning” , which describes the problem better than I can, but unfortunately makes a terrible conclusion. The conclusion of the article is that they can’t prevent frontrunning, so you should just assume that you are being front run. This conclusions seems to be missing the whole entire point of having a limit order book. If you cannot provide a fair and orderly execution, you should just provide an auction system where orders are not automatically executed and users can choose the orders they execute against. Using a limit order book gives a dangerous illusion that the system is fair, when it is inherently rigged in favor of the miners.

We (BTS) not only needs to be 'different', 'better', than all the others out there, but we need to be able to quickly and easily get that information/understanding into any and all newcomer's hands.   

Yeah, this has been a problem. Essential information has been scattered on the website, wiki, forum, youtube videos, hangout recordings, etc. It has been a challenge to learn all the important things about Bitshares. On the other hand, this is somewhat understandable. Development has been fast and lots of different things has been tried.

I hope this is going to be changed when the 2.0 comes out. The new website is already a big step forward with clear explanations of the important features.

No RSS feed for blog posts?