Well, 5% fee for not doing anything, or confiscating 5% of your account, comes out at the same.
Can anyone post a link or explanation on how this will operate?
Well, 5% fee for not doing anything, or confiscating 5% of your account, comes out at the same.
Can anyone post a link or explanation on how this will operate?
What fees are charged to users of BitShares XT?
A small percentage fee is assessed for every trade on the exchange, a 5% margin call fee is assessed to every user subject to a margin call, and a 5% inactivity fee is assessed to every address that has had no activity for a full year.
Well, 5% fee for not doing anything, or confiscating 5% of your account, comes out at the same.
Can anyone post a link or explanation on how this will operate?
The details are that that as long as you move your funds once per year... at the expense of a normal TRX fee you will not be charged 5%.
This proves ownership, allows the network to recapture 'lost keys', and helps clean up delegate votes.
This also provides an opportunity for increased privacy because all money is moving frequently others don't know if transfers are to your self or to someone else.
Does anyone think this hurts their property rights?
The idea is as a shareholder there would be some vote you would have to take part of every X time or your shares would be removed. This would also work great on top of air drops. I think it'd make the system more responsive etc. Less likely for a minority to have too much power due to apathy of the majority. In the end I think it could be a better proposition to those who wish to own a DAC.
I'm only partially trolling.
Thoughts ?
Does anyone think this hurts their property rights?
After I read this topic here, I sold all my PTS. This is insider moaning - without vision.Translation: You don't want to investigate before investing?! blame themselves
Besides: What are Votes? Where? For what? I dont want to study to understand Bitshares.
After I read this topic here, I sold all my PTS. This is insider moaning - without vision.Translation: You don't want to investigate before investing?! blame themselves
Besides: What are Votes? Where? For what? I dont want to study to understand Bitshares.
After I read this topic here, I sold all my PTS. This is insider moaning - without vision.Translation: You don't want to investigate before investing?! blame themselves
Besides: What are Votes? Where? For what? I dont want to study to understand Bitshares.
Worth hashing over it for an hour sometime? Some conversations that started out small have taking literally almost our entire hour...so it is very possible.
After I read this topic here, I sold all my PTS. This is insider moaning - without vision.
Besides: What are Votes? Where? For what? I dont want to study to understand Bitshares.
Obviously up to the DAC creators, but I think this would put people off, having any additional inactivity fee. Especially if it wasnt *entirely* clear i.e. in your face reminder about the fact.Well, 5% fee for not doing anything, or confiscating 5% of your account, comes out at the same.
Can anyone post a link or explanation on how this will operate?
This doesn't affect PTS. This is for future DACs only, and should be made clear by each individual DAC developer.
I'm going to post a comment here that is perhaps not entirely OT.Talking about Thomas Piketty is certainly the worst way to advocate that fee.
According to Bytemaster the act of moving funds around is beneficial to the network.
The "silent long term holders, who might not have the technical knowledge, time, or interest to continually remember to shuffle around shares in various DACs" are exactly the people that should be negatively incentived to actively care for the network, rather than sit on their money and passively watch it grow.
Keyhotee (afaik) is a possible solution for the myriad of online holdings one will acquire over the years.
Up the inactivity fee to 50% for all I care.
Thomas Piketty anyone? :)
Does anyone think this hurts their property rights?
Communism has many forms….
-----------------------------------------------------Full ownership rights agreement ( and Deed)[/b]
1. You have full ownership rights on this piece of land. ( description____)
2. To continue having this right you must:
-plow it no earlier or later than 1st of May
-grow only corn (put exact brand here______)
- Use only combines provided by (put company name here______)
- Sell your entire crop @ 4.00 BTS/cryptomarketvolume to ((put company name here______)
3.Failiour to comply with any of 2. Will result in you losing 5% to 100% of your property…
--------------------------------------------------
So, is this infragments one’s property rights:
YES
Are you willing to accept it, personally:
In the form suggested probably yes, BUT not without keep an eye where it progresses from this semi-acceptable level!
The moral justification for doing this I think would depend on a squatter's rights based foundation of the right to property, and the idea that claiming ownership of property requires providing some way for interested parties to determine that the property in question is actively owned. Any wallet software should automatically prevent the "inactivity fee" from coming into action as long as the wallet is brought online from time to time.
Airdrops are bad.
This is true, The I3 DACs aren't going to be sharedropped. The problem is they'll take so long to release each one that the XT will probably be forked a few times before Bitshares X is even released and then Bitshares X will probably get forked too. Basically they are the leaders and everyone will have to upgrade their forks to follow what I3 invents until other people know enough to innovate.Quote1) I3 official DACs - Unlikely to be airdropped to a random altcoin. (Actually not sure how these allocations will work.)
2) DACs that are basically forks of altcoins to show off DPOS
3) Independent DACs.Independent DACs we do not really control.
#2 is where I agree with airdrops because it is basically the definition of a forked coin. The debate should be around finding it acceptable to honor PTS/AGS at a lower % than 10%/10%.
#3 is going to be up to the developer. If someone writes a DAC then it will be up to them what mixture of allotment they wish to use. I am interesting in discussing this because of all the possible variations to align incentives. This is partially why I started this thread.
#1 I3 DACs. Kinda pointless to even debate it here either, because I think Dan & others have changed their mind on the value of airdrops.
Airdrops are bad.
We need to realize there are 3 different types of DACs and form this discussion around those distinct categories.
1) I3 official DACs - Unlikely to be airdropped to a random altcoin. (Actually not sure how these allocations will work.)
2) DACs that are basically forks of altcoins to show off DPOS
3) Independent DACs.
#2 is where I agree with airdrops because it is basically the definition of a forked coin. The debate should be around finding it acceptable to honor PTS/AGS at a lower % than 10%/10%.
#3 is going to be up to the developer. If someone writes a DAC then it will be up to them what mixture of allotment they wish to use. I am interesting in discussing this because of all the possible variations to align incentives. This is partially why I started this thread.
#1 I3 DACs. Kinda pointless to even debate it here either, because I think Dan & others have changed their mind on the value of airdrops.
So if anyone wants to have the bad/good discussion on airdrops, it would be nice to see your thoughts qualified.
I realise with '2' you're saying we're essentially going to clone most of the features that make a coin unique but add something like DPOS.
Considering the centralisation and inflation of POW, provided we aren't too greedy these switchovers should have a real shot.
In which case >90% going to holders of the existing POW coin means a much higher likelihood of success. Something like a successful Litecoin switchover would be epic.
In the first part you go out of your way to agree with me that independent DACs are up to their creator. Then later you say they should never be made without innovations and list qualifications. Whaaat !??
The irony is that I made this post to help us and others from talking past each other. I have failed incredibly.
It seems obvious to me that diluting the equity in a coin with 50/50 will kill any consideration of it actually being used.
Airdrops are bad.
We need to realize there are 3 different types of DACs and form this discussion around those distinct categories.
1) I3 official DACs - Unlikely to be airdropped to a random altcoin. (Actually not sure how these allocations will work.)
2) DACs that are basically forks of altcoins to show off DPOS
3) Independent DACs.
#2 is where I agree with airdrops because it is basically the definition of a forked coin. The debate should be around finding it acceptable to honor PTS/AGS at a lower % than 10%/10%.
#3 is going to be up to the developer. If someone writes a DAC then it will be up to them what mixture of allotment they wish to use. I am interesting in discussing this because of all the possible variations to align incentives. This is partially why I started this thread.
#1 I3 DACs. Kinda pointless to even debate it here either, because I think Dan & others have changed their mind on the value of airdrops.
So if anyone wants to have the bad/good discussion on airdrops, it would be nice to see your thoughts qualified.
+5%
I realise with '2' you're saying we're essentially going to clone most of the features that make a coin unique but add something like DPOS.
Considering the centralisation and inflation of POW, provided we aren't too greedy these switchovers should have a real shot.
In which case >90% going to holders of the existing POW coin means a much higher likelihood of success. Something like a successful Litecoin switchover would be epic.
You are the one inventing the argument that bitassets are tied into cloned/forking/merging a coin.
A misconception you may have is that you believe the Liteshares chain should be Litecoin 2. It's never going to be Litecoin 2. Just as Blackshares as I described was not meant to replace Blackcoin. It's meant to be an additional custom chain with the Blackcoin logo. It's to be our DAC which we share with Blackcoin community by branding and the 50/50 split. It could easily be 90% for us and 10% for the Blackcoin community, but then they would say it's unfair because it has their branding.
Bitshares has BitBTC in it right? Does that mean we owe the Bitcoin community 90% of the stake because it has BitBTC in it? Even if you put a Bitcoin skin on top and called it Bitcoinshares it still makes no sense to gift 90 of it to a sharedrop because the purpose of a sharedrop is to achieve long term support and participation.
I don't believe in these sorts of "gifts". That is the point. I also don't see why we should assume they deserve even a 50% stake. If we develop the fork we can give them whatever stake we feel is right and that could be 90% for us and 10% for them. And that would mean more people from our community would use the chain but when they are getting 10% of something for free which they'll dump for Bitcoins or Litecoins I don't see what difference it makes.
With a PoS community I would say these communities are likely to be active supporters of the DAC. They might actually start developing and updating the code. We might see new features that their developers put into it in the future. 50/50 would still be a good deal for them because we'd split it half and half. I don't think it's the same proposition with a PoS community because what if they decide not to dump and actually start using the DAC enough to compete with us in network effect?
So while I don't think Litecoin or Bitcoin would compete on network effect because they don't care (Bitcoin already has Colored Coins, Counterparty and Mastercoin), I don't see the Blackcoin community reacting the same way because they don't have these capabilities yet and clearly have shown that they are moving in this direction.
To sum up why I settle on 50/50 so strongly I look at this
1) Network effect. We have it. 5000 members on our forum and most of the concepts including Sharedrops come from this community.
2) Long term users will mostly come from this community. It makes no sense to reward another community with 90% stake as a gift when the majority will cash out immediately and not be long term users of the technology. They'd just as likely use NXT, Mastercoin, or anything else if they want technology.
3. Without our community backing it then it's likely most altchains will fail. Many will be the same sort of pump and dump scams you see every day with no community behind it. What happened to the Silicon Valley coin? The Bitcointalk coin? These coins all failed because they dropped to a user base that doesn't care enough to use the technology.
I think in most altcoins the primary users will come from this community. So if most of the volume comes from this community then most of the profit comes from this community. If that is the case then if it's not 50/50 then this community will simple be in a position to make a fork of the fork which is 50/50 and use that one. The other fork would get less volume and eventually whither and die.
I realise with '2' you're saying we're essentially going to clone most of the features that make a coin unique but add something like DPOS.
Considering the centralisation and inflation of POW, provided we aren't too greedy these switchovers should have a real shot.
In which case >90% going to holders of the existing POW coin means a much higher likelihood of success. Something like a successful Litecoin switchover would be epic.
The coins we'd fork would not be highly specialized coins, but coins with large market caps that we would improve with the addition of DPOS and the removal of inflation via POW. If the coin is discarded then so be it, but it WILL get the Bitshares name out there. Making it 50/50 or a "merger" seems greedy to me and I suspect it will be perceived that way. With 90/10 we at least have a chance of the coin being taken seriously. I even agree about > 90%. 95%.. whatever. If they want to pump and dump it, it will be coming from their camp. Not ours.
The goal is to win hearts not equity/capital.
I think the entire concept of forking any existing altcoin to make a "2.0" version is very misguided.
How do you think the market would react if you switched out Litecoin's mining algorithm with a different one and then called it Litecoin 2.0 and did the allocation strategy you suggest? This is the same thing...
All these coins are stupid IMO. If a coin doesn't displace another coin via the same userbase, then it is nothing but another scamcoin/shitcoin/whatever. It is already an absurdity with all the different coins. Why create another coin that I see having 100% chance of going nowhere. Why would Blackcoin peopel push a coin with 50% dilution over their own coin? Eventually a small handful of the coins will succeed and most will fall to 0. Give an existing community a real coin that doesn't remove a huge amount of equity and at least it will have the pretense of being successful.Bitshares X isn't a coin. It's something completely different and DPoS is a generation ahead of Litecoin and Bitcoin.
If you split a coin 50/50 then you've just created a coin where NO ONE is happy with except the Bitshares people. So sure, you get a higher equity, but whats the point? Who is going to use the currency? Is the point so we can all hold hands and dance around the crypto-tree under the moonlight? Yea no doubt blackcoin people will take the 50% handout too, but what do you expect them to do with it ? Where is it going ? There are 100s of coins already. If a new Bitshares airdrop to a coin doesn't have the coin displace an existing coin, then it seems like just another bs coin to me.Since Bitshares people are going to make up the majority of users it's more important that our community be happy with it than a community which isn't even onto PoS yet.
I say share because you want to exchange, you don't want to gift.Yes I want to exchange in a way which is a win for both communities. I want symbiosis. I don't want to help another community at the expense of this community.
You lectured everyone about charity, but then when it comes to a real gift you do a complete 180. I'm so confused.I never really lectured about charity. Nothing I promoted was a gift. It was either a marketing strategy or a way to form strategic alliances. I don't know how you can go into business thinking about giving gifts to competitors and charity. I do believe in collaboration but if you're going to collaborate you still have to know what your community is worth and what position you're in. If you're the community who can offer technology to another community then why not?
Whereas POS people have little reason to switch over because they already have a generation 1.5/2.0 technology.PoS communities are signalling that they are headed in our direction. Please go to some different PoS communities and see how receptive they are to Sharedrops compared to Bitcoin and Litecoin. I've done that and Blackcoin as a community was at least receptive enough to send a rep here.
Luckybit, your style of arguing doesn't work with mine. You keep what you're doing, because I know you're a strong supporter of Bitshares. I've pretty much said anything there is to say. To address all your points would just have this thread grow without bounds. I am looking for some sort of consensus and improving of our understanding. I read what you type, but I can't respond to all of it. I am not sure you really even try to read what others say. If you do, then you always seem to ignore what I feel are my more salient points.