0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
For instance, a user could lock up some bts for 1 year but also create bitassets out of that locked bts to be traded on the dex for that period of 1 year. A margin call would cancel this contract. Perhaps users who do this could be paid more. This would give the network the full benefit of those bts by also providing liquidity to the dex.
"We" have a great idea,but lack of money --------PTSOh wait!"We" haven't get enough fund through the rule we make !blame to the envil miner!it 's fine,let 's change the rule to... --------AGSyeah!we have money now....whatever you can do to contribute the community we can offer you a big sum of money!brian page,toast,the bitgold gateway guy....It 's all right,cause we are the "new money" guy!Oh shit! We are running out of fund!it 's fine,let 's change the rule to... --------merge+delegate paypay by the "blockchain"!(or the poor invetment people who got involved since 2013?) genius?haha!?Oh,no! the price keeps going down!why?this is such a good product!we should blame for the market!it has noting to do with the merge and dilution...but the delegate pay can't fit our STOMACH now!it 's fine,let 's change the rule to... ------worker propsalyou poor investment people don't vote for me to get a big sum of moneyI will leave the product half cooked and we can go to the ideal of communism together and forget our invetmentnow again,I have a great new idea. it has nothing to do with dilution...
I've been out of touch with this forum for some months, so I may have certain things incorrect or out of context. However, I feel I must express my concerns over this blog post concept, despite the disclaimers that this is just conceptual and not an idea for implementation (yet), so that hopefully others can offer me an alternative perspective.I am concerned that any implementation of this blog post idea would detract significant value from BTS. I do not feel it would reward behaviour of any material value, that it would unfairly penalise smaller BTS experimenters.There is a presumption that long term investors add value to liquidity demanders, but I feel this conflates the separate economic concepts of market liquidity and interest. I would offer a different view around each of these as follows:In economics, the cost of demanding liquidity is the market spread. The provider of that liquidity is the market maker, who receives the spread. The hoarder has no part in this equation, and is not present in the market at all. As a result, BTS users need to source liquidity from other parties, and it is those parties that earn the spread return. Regarding interest, interest is demanded by capital providers to accommodate time preference - that is, the preference, all else equal, to consume today rather than in the future. While its reasonable for parties willing to lend an asset to demand interest, interest is to be paid by the party borrowing that capital or good for current use. Interest is not paid by all holders of the asset to long term investors/lenders, because the service provided (use or consumption of the asset) is not a common good from which all parties have benefited. (I should add that simple hoarding of an asset does not add any utility or income on that asset to other owners, even if there is a marginal support for the price at the point of initial purchase by such investors, offset by the marginal pressure on price at the point such investors exit in order to realise their investment).As a result, it's not clear to me why any owner of BTS would be willing to bear up to 15% dilution, paid to holders that are not clearly contributing any value back to them (ie. it's not clear what real work, for the common benefit, has been performed). This forces all owners to either lock away funds to avoid dilution, or to exit and not participate in the system at all. This would seem to repel potential users who may want to use BTS for everyday transactions (e.g. wages, services, purchase etc), smaller stakeholders wishing to experiment with BTS, as well as value-adders such as service providers, and market-makers.Rather than reward those locking away funds, for whom there is no beneficiary, I'd focus on rewarding contributions to the network. While prima-facie it seems that running an army of computers around the world to solve exotic mathematical problems might be an unnecessary cost to secure a network, certainly a meaningful cost is required to secure the network whether that is PoW or PoS. I'd always thought that for PoS that is the strength of the governance structure that supports the selection and monitoring of the block producers. Greater investment in that governance structure creates higher barriers to attack. If there were a way to reward all the contributors to that governance structure, apart from just the block-producers themselves, that to me would seem to strengthen the overall network, and be a cost owners would be willing to bear.Also, from the DAC perspective, there is value in work done to support the development and future utility of the network and BTS. That seemed to be the purpose of the introduction of initial dilution on BTS.However, the blog post suggests rewarding for behaviour directed at neither of these outcomes, and may merely centralise ownership/control even further over time and away from many other stakeholders that have supported this project through using and experimenting with BTS. If the market perceives this the same way, I feel the negative impact on BTS would outweigh any perceived advantage seen from locking away a portion of the supply.
Quote from: monsterer on January 07, 2016, 05:00:22 pmQuote from: btswildpig on January 07, 2016, 04:20:20 pmOther alt coin didn't spend millions of dollars to "build features that adds values" . You can't seriously compare the downtrend with zero development shitcoins . Otherwise , you'll demonstrating that development did bitshares no good than other shitcoins .Sometimes value is outside the control of things which are logicalClassic quote! Meme coins only have one life - they last as long as you can keep the meme going.BitShares is a platform with as many lives as there are business models to be built on it.Whenever I see a down day, I always remember this: Are we better off now than we were when we started in 2013?If we were willing to start a new business back then with nothing but Bitcoin to build on, how much more willing are we to start a new business today with the BitShares platform and community and team and experience to build on? How much less does it cost to start a business with all that infrastructure in place than it did when we had nothing?So, from our perspective, we can now do exciting new things with 10% of the resources it took to do the first one. And so can everyone else with a vision. Each can have its own brand and business model at a fraction of the startup costs. As a general purpose platform, BitShares is obviously much more useful and lower risk today than it was back when it was just a white paper. Those are the First Principles behind BitShares' ultimate value. Would we decide to invest again? Yes! Several times a year for the foreseeable future.
Quote from: btswildpig on January 07, 2016, 04:20:20 pmOther alt coin didn't spend millions of dollars to "build features that adds values" . You can't seriously compare the downtrend with zero development shitcoins . Otherwise , you'll demonstrating that development did bitshares no good than other shitcoins .Sometimes value is outside the control of things which are logical
Other alt coin didn't spend millions of dollars to "build features that adds values" . You can't seriously compare the downtrend with zero development shitcoins . Otherwise , you'll demonstrating that development did bitshares no good than other shitcoins .
I am tired of playing nice with you FUDers.Picture of guy with gun
Quote from: Empirical1.2 on January 08, 2016, 01:39:33 pmQuote from: CoinHoarder on January 08, 2016, 12:57:40 pmYou need to learn patience, it is a good skill to have in life. We can't build a billion dollar company without dilution to fund the development of our product. Ending dilution (and therefore development) this early in the game would be a death sentence to Bitshares. If you don't like it please sell your stake and let those that share the vision reap the rewards.Caring so much is a good indication you have not diversified your cryptocurrency portfolio sufficiently. The only coin I own more than 6% of my portfolio in is Bitcoin.Quote from: CoinHoarder on January 08, 2016, 01:12:14 pmQuote from: oldmine on January 08, 2016, 12:53:50 pmQuote from: Stan on January 07, 2016, 06:41:19 pmBitShares is a platform with as many lives as there are business models to be built on it.Whenever I see a down day, I always remember this: Are we better off now than we were when we started in 2013?A fundraising mechanism to pay BM's rent is not a business model. Business models require profit. Where are the profits?BitShares is the reason I dont have any Bitcoin right now, so Im not sure Im better off than in late 2013.You've been an investor in Bitshares since 2013, yet you just show up a few months ago to state your disdain for the direction the project is headed. Whose fault is that, really? You've had plenty of chances to shape the direction of the project. Being too lazy to sign up for a forum and voice your opinion is not an excuse.I am tired of playing nice with you FUDers.Lol Not that I agree with oldmine's sentiments but you chose to leave BTS and stop helping shape the direction of project for 11 months from Nov 2014 to Oct 2015 & also your last post in 2014, expressed the complete opposite view of the one you are saying now. Quote from: CoinHoarder on November 20, 2014, 05:35:17 amNow, even though the dilution is more controlled (you can only dilute for developers, marketers, etc), it is still dilution and something I.. as a very small shareholder.. have no control over.A couple controversial things have happened in recent history that I personally (I know I'm not alone) and others do not agree with. Those things have to do with dilution and altering the social contract. Whether you agree with this or not.. I do not care.. but it has had some affect on the price and public perception.Trust me, I want good things for Bitshares shareholders.. I just cannot continue to sit back and bite my tongue on some issues. Think for yourselves people, as the saying goes.. more heads are better than one... echoing thoughts and opinions doesn't help anyone... specifically getting Bitshares to where it needs to be. An echo chamber is not what makes successful communities, companies, or currencies. Yes, I have been incredibly hard on Bitshares lately, but that is because I feel like hardly anyone else in this community is, and that is what is required to be successful.Do you see me complaining about the direction of the projec? Am I not allowed to change my opinion after thinking it over for a year. I took a break from the cryptocurrency community for about a year because it is such a hostile and toxic environment. I was going through a rough time in my life and didn't need the negativety. So that negates my opinions now?I fought hard against dilution and lost. I didn't get my way, but I learned to accept it and eventually was able to.see the pros instead of just the cons. I see here and now people that feel like they are not getting their way and they are giving up, FUDing, or selling their stake and it frustrates me. Enough with all the negativity already. At the time I was objecting to diilution.. that was the big debate at the time... everyone was picking one side or the other.Now, everyone's complaining about everything. You guys are fooling yourselves if think this public discourse does not negatively effect the price. We are under attack on Bitcointalk which is negatively effecting public perception (go take a look for yourself), and we are under attack on our forums. Enough already.Ps.. at work and typing on phone.. sorry no time to formulate my sentences and thoughts properly and grammar and such.. this post annoyede so much I felt the need to.respond now.
Quote from: CoinHoarder on January 08, 2016, 12:57:40 pmYou need to learn patience, it is a good skill to have in life. We can't build a billion dollar company without dilution to fund the development of our product. Ending dilution (and therefore development) this early in the game would be a death sentence to Bitshares. If you don't like it please sell your stake and let those that share the vision reap the rewards.Caring so much is a good indication you have not diversified your cryptocurrency portfolio sufficiently. The only coin I own more than 6% of my portfolio in is Bitcoin.Quote from: CoinHoarder on January 08, 2016, 01:12:14 pmQuote from: oldmine on January 08, 2016, 12:53:50 pmQuote from: Stan on January 07, 2016, 06:41:19 pmBitShares is a platform with as many lives as there are business models to be built on it.Whenever I see a down day, I always remember this: Are we better off now than we were when we started in 2013?A fundraising mechanism to pay BM's rent is not a business model. Business models require profit. Where are the profits?BitShares is the reason I dont have any Bitcoin right now, so Im not sure Im better off than in late 2013.You've been an investor in Bitshares since 2013, yet you just show up a few months ago to state your disdain for the direction the project is headed. Whose fault is that, really? You've had plenty of chances to shape the direction of the project. Being too lazy to sign up for a forum and voice your opinion is not an excuse.I am tired of playing nice with you FUDers.Lol Not that I agree with oldmine's sentiments but you chose to leave BTS and stop helping shape the direction of project for 11 months from Nov 2014 to Oct 2015 & also your last post in 2014, expressed the complete opposite view of the one you are saying now. Quote from: CoinHoarder on November 20, 2014, 05:35:17 amNow, even though the dilution is more controlled (you can only dilute for developers, marketers, etc), it is still dilution and something I.. as a very small shareholder.. have no control over.A couple controversial things have happened in recent history that I personally (I know I'm not alone) and others do not agree with. Those things have to do with dilution and altering the social contract. Whether you agree with this or not.. I do not care.. but it has had some affect on the price and public perception.Trust me, I want good things for Bitshares shareholders.. I just cannot continue to sit back and bite my tongue on some issues. Think for yourselves people, as the saying goes.. more heads are better than one... echoing thoughts and opinions doesn't help anyone... specifically getting Bitshares to where it needs to be. An echo chamber is not what makes successful communities, companies, or currencies. Yes, I have been incredibly hard on Bitshares lately, but that is because I feel like hardly anyone else in this community is, and that is what is required to be successful.
You need to learn patience, it is a good skill to have in life. We can't build a billion dollar company without dilution to fund the development of our product. Ending dilution (and therefore development) this early in the game would be a death sentence to Bitshares. If you don't like it please sell your stake and let those that share the vision reap the rewards.Caring so much is a good indication you have not diversified your cryptocurrency portfolio sufficiently. The only coin I own more than 6% of my portfolio in is Bitcoin.
Quote from: oldmine on January 08, 2016, 12:53:50 pmQuote from: Stan on January 07, 2016, 06:41:19 pmBitShares is a platform with as many lives as there are business models to be built on it.Whenever I see a down day, I always remember this: Are we better off now than we were when we started in 2013?A fundraising mechanism to pay BM's rent is not a business model. Business models require profit. Where are the profits?BitShares is the reason I dont have any Bitcoin right now, so Im not sure Im better off than in late 2013.You've been an investor in Bitshares since 2013, yet you just show up a few months ago to state your disdain for the direction the project is headed. Whose fault is that, really? You've had plenty of chances to shape the direction of the project. Being too lazy to sign up for a forum and voice your opinion is not an excuse.I am tired of playing nice with you FUDers.
Quote from: Stan on January 07, 2016, 06:41:19 pmBitShares is a platform with as many lives as there are business models to be built on it.Whenever I see a down day, I always remember this: Are we better off now than we were when we started in 2013?A fundraising mechanism to pay BM's rent is not a business model. Business models require profit. Where are the profits?BitShares is the reason I dont have any Bitcoin right now, so Im not sure Im better off than in late 2013.
BitShares is a platform with as many lives as there are business models to be built on it.Whenever I see a down day, I always remember this: Are we better off now than we were when we started in 2013?
Now, even though the dilution is more controlled (you can only dilute for developers, marketers, etc), it is still dilution and something I.. as a very small shareholder.. have no control over.A couple controversial things have happened in recent history that I personally (I know I'm not alone) and others do not agree with. Those things have to do with dilution and altering the social contract. Whether you agree with this or not.. I do not care.. but it has had some affect on the price and public perception.Trust me, I want good things for Bitshares shareholders.. I just cannot continue to sit back and bite my tongue on some issues. Think for yourselves people, as the saying goes.. more heads are better than one... echoing thoughts and opinions doesn't help anyone... specifically getting Bitshares to where it needs to be. An echo chamber is not what makes successful communities, companies, or currencies. Yes, I have been incredibly hard on Bitshares lately, but that is because I feel like hardly anyone else in this community is, and that is what is required to be successful.
'If you don't like it please sell your stake and let those that share the vision reap the rewards.'
'An echo chamber is not what makes successful communities, companies, or currencies.Yes, I have been incredibly hard on Bitshares lately, but that is because I feel like hardly anyone else in this community is, and that is what is required to be successful'
Quote from: mike623317 on January 07, 2016, 03:12:34 pmWhy is our platform essentially being overlooked?That's the easiest question to answer this board has ever seen. It's because Bitshares is designed by engineers for engineers.1) Bitshares is a lifestyle rather than a currency - The consensus mechanism requires constant user input and attention when the #1 thing people want out of a currency is straightforward simplicity. If you wanted to keep voting for some reason, you would need a fallback mechanism that occurs when people don't vote, like automatically voting for whoever puts up the largest amount of collateral locked for an extended period of time. Larimer's new blog post about PoW even favors scraping voting entirely for a collateral bid system where users are required to lock coins for a duration in order to be selected as miners/delegates.On the other hand...BitShares is a platform full of currencies of all types. You don't need to vote to use any of them. One of the currencies represents ownership in the platform. If you hold that you can vote, but that is not required or desired if you are just making a quick trade with BTS for some reason. Mose users won't even know about BTS unless they dig into it. So this constitutes no deterrent to casual users.2) Bitshares is anti-new user with high barrier of entry - To lure in large amounts of new capital, it's required that people be able to buy their way in as delegates instead of having to campaign to become one. The essence of all proof of stake systems relies on large investors not trying to destroy their investments on purpose, so it's completely foolish to try and diverge from that idea. The campaigning part also creates centralization by having information gatekeepers control the election process, which currently consists of one website (this one). You control the flow of information and you control the election process.On the other hand...Most whales have no interest in being a witness (there are no delegates) and if they do want control they can buy their way in by owning a percent of the voting shares. Are you saying the flow of info is in any way restricted on this forum? What about reddit and bitcointalk and beyondbitcoin, et. al?3) The "shares" terminology probably never should have even been used in the first place - The native currency of any crypto will always be more important than any of it's derivatives. "Smart coins" are by definition just a bucket shop. The platform should be focused on the value of it's native currency over anything else. Having an exchange or whatever is just a side benefit.On the other hand..."Shares" quickly communicates that they represent ownership in the blockchain implying voting rights and revenue sharing. The value of the native currency is a function of how much demand there is for it. Some of that demand comes from a desire for voting rights. Most of it comes from speculation about growth in demand. In the future demand will come from desire to share in the revenue in various ways. All the other specialty coins give people reasons to use the exchange to generate that revenue.4) Larimer insistence on running a business the opposite of how any normal business is run - Businesses in the real world run at a loss until they can attract clients. Larimer keeps insisting Bitshares run at a profit when there are no actual customers using the platform for the system to generate profit from. If there's only 1 user instead of your expected million users, you don't raise transaction fees on the 1 user to make up for it.On the other hand...It's a balancing act. There needs to be enough revenue to offset some of the expenses of customer acquisition and development. One man's "run at a loss" is another man's "dilution" and so we set the fees to keep everyone equally unhappy.5) Referral system - The vast majority of crypto users see the referral system as some kind of late night infomercial scheme that severely devalues the integrity of the product in general and will cause people to avoid Bitshares entirelyOn the other hand...The referral system can come in many flavors since the sales pitch is determined by whoever is doing the referring. Those with a distasteful style will go out of business. Those who stay in business must not be that distasteful. So in the long run, the referral program will evolve to what works best via natural selection.The list goes on....
Why is our platform essentially being overlooked?
Actually, I think we've been very clear.
It seems to me that several people in the bitcoin community have mentioned that our technology is great. Bitshares to do things theirs cant. The same for Ethereum. I think everyone agrees that the technology improved dramatically from bitshares 1.0 to 2.0, yet our market cap went down. Also, we seem to be consistently overlooked by the press each and every time. We dont have devs knocking down our doors even though the technology has been out there for a while now.It makes me wonder if we need to ask some fundamental questions rather than just focusing on the UI or a particular new feature. Why is our platform essentially being overlooked? Why are the devs not getting involved like they do for ethereum? Why is our market cap not recovering? Is it perceived that one group has too much control? Is it our overall vision? Is it our documentation? Is there too much change? Is it not user friendly enough?I don't know the answer but i would like to hear others opinions.
STAN "So, from our perspective, we can now do exciting new things with 10% of the resources it took to do the first one. And so can everyone else with a vision. Each can have its own brand and business model at a fraction of the startup costs. As a general purpose platform, BitShares is obviously much more useful and lower risk today than it was back when it was just a white paper. "Perhaps we need a clear and comprehensive white paper for everyone to reference or perhaps we just need a few good businesses to take us up and use as good examples. I can't help but feel sometimes were struggling to get the word out of exactly what we are, what exactly we can do etc. for example, some sort of sandbox area where we could have an example business, ACME, built on bitshares with well documented steps and references for others to follow. Like a 1, 2, 3 step by step guide using the platform. (Full disclosure .. Before I get ridiculed by the devs, I am not technical at all but as a layman how would I go about creating a business).
Quote from: mike623317 on January 07, 2016, 03:12:34 pmIt makes me wonder if we need to ask some fundamental questions rather than just focusing on the UI or a particular new feature. Why is our platform essentially being overlooked? Why are the devs not getting involved like they do for ethereum? Why is our market cap not recovering? Is it perceived that one group has too much control? Is it our overall vision? Is it our documentation? Is there too much change? Is it not user friendly enough?I don't know the answer but i would like to hear others opinions.IMO bitshares looks like toy experiment to the big players outside the industry because there are no whitepapers worth anything; so when the big players employ experts to do their analysis, they overlook bitshares because there is no formal analysis on the underlying technology, unlike ethereum/ripple which is replete with whitepapers and documentation.edit: probably a lot of the downtrend is nothing do with bitshares at all. It's probable that all altcoins go through the exact same cycles. I bet if you overlay the lifetime price graphs of every altcoin in the top 10, they'll overlay exactly.
It makes me wonder if we need to ask some fundamental questions rather than just focusing on the UI or a particular new feature. Why is our platform essentially being overlooked? Why are the devs not getting involved like they do for ethereum? Why is our market cap not recovering? Is it perceived that one group has too much control? Is it our overall vision? Is it our documentation? Is there too much change? Is it not user friendly enough?I don't know the answer but i would like to hear others opinions.
Quote from: BTSdac on January 07, 2016, 04:40:33 amAs my observation, the crowd in China never trust bm now , I basically oppose this , It is thing make me feel distressed,The post made it very clear up front that these thoughts have nothing to do with BitShares.They are just concepts put out there for discussion and as a new way to talk with POW fans about what's really important in blockchain security algorithms. An attempt to advance the thinking in the industry.So how can this cause opposition, distrust and distress?
As my observation, the crowd in China never trust bm now , I basically oppose this , It is thing make me feel distressed,
Quote from: bitcrab on January 07, 2016, 05:04:17 amQuote from: lil_jay890 on January 06, 2016, 06:16:35 pmQuote from: chryspano on January 06, 2016, 05:19:23 pmQuote from: lil_jay890 on January 06, 2016, 02:41:00 pmfiesty... plus CNX can push through anything they want. Market realizes it and that's why your seeing people sell. Centralization.Who exactly our my friends?No, they can't push through anything they want, and market often realizes $h!t!I would like to know what market "realized" when btc price fell to $3, I supose those that didn't listen to "market" back then and bought btc with a 30% premium from virwox or ebay were complete idiots. If they want to sell, let them sell.There is a 90% you can try to get votes from, but often I see people focusing on the less than 10% that "BM and friends" has. Where is your call to arms? If you didn't manage to get any votes/support.....maybe you are in the minority.Ok so bitcoin is a success story where people were wrong about the direction, that happens very rarely. Companies that lose 90% of their value almost never come back. Also, what about all the other alts that have been crushed and stayed crushed??? paycoin anyone?People are assuming that I think the projects that CNX are doing are bad and will hurt BTS. I never said that. I think CNX having the ability to control all projects and features added to BTS is the roadblock.The problem is, and it's been stated before by many people, is that CNX has the ability at any time to vote in a proposal via their voting power and their minion's proxies. Don't kid yourself and think that somehow thousands of strangers from across the planet will somehow come together and vote in unison. CNX also controls the majority of the committee via direct supporters or inits. BTS has been crushed by the merger, the never there 1.0, and the botched released of bitshare 1.666 (2.0 - some original features). These events were all centrally controlled and coordinated by CNX. If everything they have ever done has caused BTS to lose value, why would you think their next "feature" would come to any other result? It's this fear that is keeping other devs and business's from building on BTS. It's the ever shifting rules. I have lobbied for CNX to step away from the table and let stability creep in, but that will never happen since CNX is the main benificiary of the BTS charity.Bottom line: Until CNX is not the Dominant player in Intellectual BTS capital AND actual BTS... Bitshares will be viewed as a centralized coin. They can be one of the above, but not both.agree, that's why I insist to push the decentralization process of Bitshares.now seems there's only one way to go - invite exchanges to vote.https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20856.msg269530.html#msg269530here u go .. !
Quote from: lil_jay890 on January 06, 2016, 06:16:35 pmQuote from: chryspano on January 06, 2016, 05:19:23 pmQuote from: lil_jay890 on January 06, 2016, 02:41:00 pmfiesty... plus CNX can push through anything they want. Market realizes it and that's why your seeing people sell. Centralization.Who exactly our my friends?No, they can't push through anything they want, and market often realizes $h!t!I would like to know what market "realized" when btc price fell to $3, I supose those that didn't listen to "market" back then and bought btc with a 30% premium from virwox or ebay were complete idiots. If they want to sell, let them sell.There is a 90% you can try to get votes from, but often I see people focusing on the less than 10% that "BM and friends" has. Where is your call to arms? If you didn't manage to get any votes/support.....maybe you are in the minority.Ok so bitcoin is a success story where people were wrong about the direction, that happens very rarely. Companies that lose 90% of their value almost never come back. Also, what about all the other alts that have been crushed and stayed crushed??? paycoin anyone?People are assuming that I think the projects that CNX are doing are bad and will hurt BTS. I never said that. I think CNX having the ability to control all projects and features added to BTS is the roadblock.The problem is, and it's been stated before by many people, is that CNX has the ability at any time to vote in a proposal via their voting power and their minion's proxies. Don't kid yourself and think that somehow thousands of strangers from across the planet will somehow come together and vote in unison. CNX also controls the majority of the committee via direct supporters or inits. BTS has been crushed by the merger, the never there 1.0, and the botched released of bitshare 1.666 (2.0 - some original features). These events were all centrally controlled and coordinated by CNX. If everything they have ever done has caused BTS to lose value, why would you think their next "feature" would come to any other result? It's this fear that is keeping other devs and business's from building on BTS. It's the ever shifting rules. I have lobbied for CNX to step away from the table and let stability creep in, but that will never happen since CNX is the main benificiary of the BTS charity.Bottom line: Until CNX is not the Dominant player in Intellectual BTS capital AND actual BTS... Bitshares will be viewed as a centralized coin. They can be one of the above, but not both.agree, that's why I insist to push the decentralization process of Bitshares.now seems there's only one way to go - invite exchanges to vote.
Quote from: chryspano on January 06, 2016, 05:19:23 pmQuote from: lil_jay890 on January 06, 2016, 02:41:00 pmfiesty... plus CNX can push through anything they want. Market realizes it and that's why your seeing people sell. Centralization.Who exactly our my friends?No, they can't push through anything they want, and market often realizes $h!t!I would like to know what market "realized" when btc price fell to $3, I supose those that didn't listen to "market" back then and bought btc with a 30% premium from virwox or ebay were complete idiots. If they want to sell, let them sell.There is a 90% you can try to get votes from, but often I see people focusing on the less than 10% that "BM and friends" has. Where is your call to arms? If you didn't manage to get any votes/support.....maybe you are in the minority.Ok so bitcoin is a success story where people were wrong about the direction, that happens very rarely. Companies that lose 90% of their value almost never come back. Also, what about all the other alts that have been crushed and stayed crushed??? paycoin anyone?People are assuming that I think the projects that CNX are doing are bad and will hurt BTS. I never said that. I think CNX having the ability to control all projects and features added to BTS is the roadblock.The problem is, and it's been stated before by many people, is that CNX has the ability at any time to vote in a proposal via their voting power and their minion's proxies. Don't kid yourself and think that somehow thousands of strangers from across the planet will somehow come together and vote in unison. CNX also controls the majority of the committee via direct supporters or inits. BTS has been crushed by the merger, the never there 1.0, and the botched released of bitshare 1.666 (2.0 - some original features). These events were all centrally controlled and coordinated by CNX. If everything they have ever done has caused BTS to lose value, why would you think their next "feature" would come to any other result? It's this fear that is keeping other devs and business's from building on BTS. It's the ever shifting rules. I have lobbied for CNX to step away from the table and let stability creep in, but that will never happen since CNX is the main benificiary of the BTS charity.Bottom line: Until CNX is not the Dominant player in Intellectual BTS capital AND actual BTS... Bitshares will be viewed as a centralized coin. They can be one of the above, but not both.
Quote from: lil_jay890 on January 06, 2016, 02:41:00 pmfiesty... plus CNX can push through anything they want. Market realizes it and that's why your seeing people sell. Centralization.Who exactly our my friends?No, they can't push through anything they want, and market often realizes $h!t!I would like to know what market "realized" when btc price fell to $3, I supose those that didn't listen to "market" back then and bought btc with a 30% premium from virwox or ebay were complete idiots. If they want to sell, let them sell.There is a 90% you can try to get votes from, but often I see people focusing on the less than 10% that "BM and friends" has. Where is your call to arms? If you didn't manage to get any votes/support.....maybe you are in the minority.
fiesty... plus CNX can push through anything they want. Market realizes it and that's why your seeing people sell. Centralization.Who exactly our my friends?
Quote from: FreeTrade on January 06, 2016, 09:49:09 amThat said, I do like the idea of fixed-deposit interest payments in the blockchain. Are there any altcoins that implement this yet?If not, I think a simple altcoin with interest payments would be easy for people to understand and exciting to both investors and speculators.Little bit of discussion on this -https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1317065.0
That said, I do like the idea of fixed-deposit interest payments in the blockchain. Are there any altcoins that implement this yet?If not, I think a simple altcoin with interest payments would be easy for people to understand and exciting to both investors and speculators.
Quote from: Stan on January 06, 2016, 02:42:39 amQuote from: BTSdac on January 06, 2016, 01:33:24 amit is bad to hear that bm start to post blog ,:)Those who complain that we are good at technology but bad at marketing should make up their minds. One BM blog article draws more attention to BitShares that almost anything else I can think of.Oh Stan. My Stan. You are smart, you are amazing, you are incredible.
Quote from: BTSdac on January 06, 2016, 01:33:24 amit is bad to hear that bm start to post blog ,:)Those who complain that we are good at technology but bad at marketing should make up their minds. One BM blog article draws more attention to BitShares that almost anything else I can think of.
it is bad to hear that bm start to post blog ,:)
Good to see Dan blogging. The most effective thing he could do is learn to write well and explain BitShares to the general Bitcoin user/investor. I think there is a temptation for a developer to think that if he adds just one more killer feature, it'll be the one where everyone finally recognizes how good the product is and investors will pile in. I think the opposite. BitShares is too much of a moving target for investors. Stop innovating, tidy up the loose ends, call it finished, and explain what the heck it is.
Quote from: Empirical1.2 on January 06, 2016, 02:48:58 pmQuote from: xeroc on January 06, 2016, 02:45:16 pmCNX can not .. they do not have more shares then others combined .. my proxy plus the proxies of bitcrab, jakub and Harvey, we have WAY more voting power combined than Dan alone .. periodAre you a CNX shareholder xeroc?Yes I am .. puts me in a conflict of interest, doesnt it?My point is still valid though even if you remove me from the equation ..
Quote from: xeroc on January 06, 2016, 02:45:16 pmCNX can not .. they do not have more shares then others combined .. my proxy plus the proxies of bitcrab, jakub and Harvey, we have WAY more voting power combined than Dan alone .. periodAre you a CNX shareholder xeroc?
CNX can not .. they do not have more shares then others combined .. my proxy plus the proxies of bitcrab, jakub and Harvey, we have WAY more voting power combined than Dan alone .. period
Quote from: xeroc on January 06, 2016, 02:57:27 pmQuote from: Empirical1.2 on January 06, 2016, 02:48:58 pmQuote from: xeroc on January 06, 2016, 02:45:16 pmCNX can not .. they do not have more shares then others combined .. my proxy plus the proxies of bitcrab, jakub and Harvey, we have WAY more voting power combined than Dan alone .. periodAre you a CNX shareholder xeroc?Yes I am .. puts me in a conflict of interest, doesnt it?My point is still valid though even if you remove me from the equation ..Yes, while I'm sure you make many of your decisions independently and in the best interest of BTS, someone arguing the point that 'CNX' can strongly influence voting would look at the active BTS voting stake owned/proxied to CNX shareholders not just BM himself.
Quote from: lil_jay890 on January 06, 2016, 01:57:01 pmQuote from: chryspano on January 06, 2016, 01:37:09 pmQuote from: btswildpig on January 06, 2016, 03:16:34 amQuote from: Stan on January 06, 2016, 02:42:39 amQuote from: BTSdac on January 06, 2016, 01:33:24 amit is bad to hear that bm start to post blog ,:)Those who complain that we are good at technology but bad at marketing should make up their minds. One BM blog article draws more attention to BitShares that almost anything else I can think of.that's true . every chat group in China is now discussing BM has another big idea on dilution again . Mission achieved . It seems that "every chat group in China" missed that point....Did you missed that too?We have seen before that Dan's rumblings can easily turn into reality...You have still learnd nothing about shareholder approval, have you?Anyway, since your friends have sold their shares they lost any means of taking part in decision making ..
Quote from: chryspano on January 06, 2016, 01:37:09 pmQuote from: btswildpig on January 06, 2016, 03:16:34 amQuote from: Stan on January 06, 2016, 02:42:39 amQuote from: BTSdac on January 06, 2016, 01:33:24 amit is bad to hear that bm start to post blog ,:)Those who complain that we are good at technology but bad at marketing should make up their minds. One BM blog article draws more attention to BitShares that almost anything else I can think of.that's true . every chat group in China is now discussing BM has another big idea on dilution again . Mission achieved . It seems that "every chat group in China" missed that point....Did you missed that too?We have seen before that Dan's rumblings can easily turn into reality...
Quote from: btswildpig on January 06, 2016, 03:16:34 amQuote from: Stan on January 06, 2016, 02:42:39 amQuote from: BTSdac on January 06, 2016, 01:33:24 amit is bad to hear that bm start to post blog ,:)Those who complain that we are good at technology but bad at marketing should make up their minds. One BM blog article draws more attention to BitShares that almost anything else I can think of.that's true . every chat group in China is now discussing BM has another big idea on dilution again . Mission achieved . It seems that "every chat group in China" missed that point....Did you missed that too?
Quote from: Stan on January 06, 2016, 02:42:39 amQuote from: BTSdac on January 06, 2016, 01:33:24 amit is bad to hear that bm start to post blog ,:)Those who complain that we are good at technology but bad at marketing should make up their minds. One BM blog article draws more attention to BitShares that almost anything else I can think of.that's true . every chat group in China is now discussing BM has another big idea on dilution again . Mission achieved .
Quote from: FreeTrade on January 06, 2016, 09:49:09 amThat said, I do like the idea of fixed-deposit interest payments in the blockchain. Are there any altcoins that implement this yet?If not, I think a simple altcoin with interest payments would be easy for people to understand and exciting to both investors and speculators.welcome back .. long time no see .. how it's going ?
Quote from: Stan on January 06, 2016, 02:42:39 amQuote from: BTSdac on January 06, 2016, 01:33:24 amit is bad to hear that bm start to post blog ,:)Those who complain that we are good at technology but bad at marketing should make up their minds. One BM blog article draws more attention to BitShares that almost anything else I can think of.Good to see Dan blogging. The most effective thing he could do is learn to write well and explain BitShares to the general Bitcoin user/investor. I think there is a temptation for a developer to think that if he adds just one more killer feature, it'll be the one where everyone finally recognizes how good the product is and investors will pile in. I think the opposite. BitShares is too much of a moving target for investors. Stop innovating, tidy up the loose ends, call it finished, and explain what the heck it is.
What would be the drawbacks of allowing people to only vote with the stale they locked up .. proportionally to the time its locked up (capped by 10x)?
Quote from: cass on January 05, 2016, 01:54:40 pmQuote from: carpet ride on January 05, 2016, 12:32:11 pmfyi social media buttons on the blog, at least Twitter, is not working works for mehmmm .. comes up for me with no link just text
Quote from: carpet ride on January 05, 2016, 12:32:11 pmfyi social media buttons on the blog, at least Twitter, is not working works for me
fyi social media buttons on the blog, at least Twitter, is not working
Quote from: btswildpig on January 05, 2016, 03:02:19 amThe effect of dilution in a ill-liquid market is not linear . Dilution at the scale of 15% does not mean only 15% value drop . Diluting 15% of the shares to sell on the market could cost 100% or more price drop . And the chain reaction begins , where more people will sell after trigger a certain point of stop-loss . Even only 1 million BTS sell pressure at 0.08 CNY could directly responsible for BTS to drop to 0.03 CNY if we use the theory in the stock market . Anyone decent trader who can read a candle chart could tell you that . I'm surprised you have not figure this out yet , not even one year after the merger.15% may be too high. But it would be delayed I believe as in you may be required to lock up your stake for a year. So for the next 12 months BTS would be removed from circulation without any additional dilution hitting the market. Reducing supply would be price positive during that time, it would also increase value by decreasing the huge amount of stake centralized exchanges control and getting more stake to vote, thereby decentralizing the DAC and increasing the amount of stake an attacker would need. If in 2016 BTS continues adding value to the DEX at a reasonable cost, by way of additional features then combined it could be a very good move. Quote from: morpheus on January 05, 2016, 01:23:44 amAgree 80%. First of all, the speculator often gets a bad wrap, but she plays a vital role in bootstrapping these systems. Investors are really just long-term speculators. I believe in fact that successful speculators, the 5% that succeed (95% of traders fail), have the best understanding of money, markets, and finance than any other demographic and are an excellent group to bring to the table.I like the idea of incentivizing stake-locked voting and I also think it could possibly be taken a step further. Bts is a digital commodity with uses other than just currency or as a share in a company or blockchain. For instance, a user could lock up some bts for 1 year but also create bitassets out of that locked bts to be traded on the dex for that period of 1 year. A margin call would cancel this contract. Perhaps users who do this could be paid more. This would give the network the full benefit of those bts by also providing liquidity to the dex.Using the locked up stake to somehow increase BitAsset CAP, use and liquidity would be great. Perhaps the reward could be paid out in BitAssets too.
The effect of dilution in a ill-liquid market is not linear . Dilution at the scale of 15% does not mean only 15% value drop . Diluting 15% of the shares to sell on the market could cost 100% or more price drop . And the chain reaction begins , where more people will sell after trigger a certain point of stop-loss . Even only 1 million BTS sell pressure at 0.08 CNY could directly responsible for BTS to drop to 0.03 CNY if we use the theory in the stock market . Anyone decent trader who can read a candle chart could tell you that . I'm surprised you have not figure this out yet , not even one year after the merger.
Agree 80%. First of all, the speculator often gets a bad wrap, but she plays a vital role in bootstrapping these systems. Investors are really just long-term speculators. I believe in fact that successful speculators, the 5% that succeed (95% of traders fail), have the best understanding of money, markets, and finance than any other demographic and are an excellent group to bring to the table.I like the idea of incentivizing stake-locked voting and I also think it could possibly be taken a step further. Bts is a digital commodity with uses other than just currency or as a share in a company or blockchain. For instance, a user could lock up some bts for 1 year but also create bitassets out of that locked bts to be traded on the dex for that period of 1 year. A margin call would cancel this contract. Perhaps users who do this could be paid more. This would give the network the full benefit of those bts by also providing liquidity to the dex.
Quote from: monsterer on January 05, 2016, 03:06:47 pmQuote from: sittingduck on January 05, 2016, 01:44:04 pmPrisoners didn't do that work for free. Someone had to pay to hold the prisoners. The cost of slave labor is food, shelter, and clothing as well as guards. How much did the prisoners get paid, then? They were expending the energy, not their guards. You attempt to bring in exogenous elements to prove a point about an objective measure.It isn't what someone is "paid", it is what you would have to pay to get someone else to do something for you. You are looking at it from the perspective of the people doing the work rather than from the perspective of the people who have to get them to do the work.
Quote from: sittingduck on January 05, 2016, 01:44:04 pmPrisoners didn't do that work for free. Someone had to pay to hold the prisoners. The cost of slave labor is food, shelter, and clothing as well as guards. How much did the prisoners get paid, then? They were expending the energy, not their guards. You attempt to bring in exogenous elements to prove a point about an objective measure.
Prisoners didn't do that work for free. Someone had to pay to hold the prisoners. The cost of slave labor is food, shelter, and clothing as well as guards.
In practice, proof-of-work has created a pay-to-play model where those who are willing to spend the most to control the network win.
6 months later the Kool Aid finally starts to kick in. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18013.0/all.htmlhow much longer will this hare continue to sleep while your competitors grow rich implementing your throw away ideas?
Your definition of 'work' is wrong. Take the example of prisoners who worked tirelessly to build the rail roads in the US; by your definition, they did no work, since they weren't paid.'Work' is simply energy expended achieving a task. And by that definition, your proposal cannot be a proof of work, since no work is done by doing nothing.Further, your idea of having block producers hold stake as collateral does nothing to change the inherent security model of the system; attack cost will still be a constant in the amount of stake, vs true POW where attack cost is super linear in the number of blocks produced.If you really want to stick with proof of stake, I have suggested before that simply auto electing the top N staking block producers ranked by their stake will resolve the problem of voter apathy, which is the true failure mode of DPOS.
Interesting post. I agree with you on this 100%.