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 - Thom

Pages: 1 ... 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 [99] 100 101 102 103 104 105
1471
KeyID / Re: DNS DAC Question About Current Model
« on: September 29, 2014, 09:35:37 pm »
Quote from: donkeypong on September 22, 2014, 06:38:42 pm
Quote from: toast on September 22, 2014, 06:31:20 pm

The model I'm planning has a one-time up-front cost.

I guess some of us missed the memo.

No kidding! Is this the place where the DNS DAC is discussed? I recall reading a rather lengthy discussion of the pros and cons of the auction scheme, but I never saw a fixed cost model ever on the table. How does that make the DNS DAC any different than the traditional DNS in terms of purchase / ownership rights? I understand it provides protection from ICANN shutting down your website and DNS redirection, but I thought one of the main goals for the DNS DAC was to eliminate name squatting. How does a fixed cost / non auctioned "buy your DNS name here" scheme accomplish that?

1472
Technical Support / Re: How to profit from Music DAC Snapshot
« on: September 29, 2014, 08:33:49 pm »
Quote from: donkeypong on September 29, 2014, 05:33:15 pm
I think if you want to interest someone in the 'investment' opportunity, then tell them to load up on their PTS now.

Ut oh, another newbie alert - My understanding is that PTS is POW blockchain and the first public release took place on Feb 28 this year. I see it can be purchased on exchanges, such as bter.com

Questions:

1) As a shareholder of BTSX, can I trade BTSX shares for PTS shares?
2) Can this be accomplished through the BTSX or PTS wallets, neither of them or both of them?
3) Can PTS shares be held in a wallet like Electrum?
4) I could liquidate BTSX into BTC, then buy PTS with BTC. That doesn't sound very wise, or is it?
5) Right now my entire stake is in BTSX. Should I even consider buying PTS before 1/1/2015 or whenever PTS changes to PoS?
6) If I converted my entire BTSX stake into PTS now, would I get it back in BTSX dividends later?
7) Does my strong interest in the DNS DAC specifically relevant to these questions?

1473
General Discussion / Re: Bitcointalk Censoring old posts of me exchanging messages with Satoshi
« on: September 29, 2014, 07:35:41 pm »
Quote from: Stan on September 29, 2014, 06:30:47 pm

I don't think it's anything personal.  It's just business. It's not an argument that can even be won. The buggy whip industry did not want to see the emergence of horseless carriages.  Miners don't want to see the demise of mining.

:)

Whether it's personal or not is irrelevant. My point is it's a vulnerability, a potential weakness and point of attack. The whole I3 team should be well aware of the implications of the technology they're building, and who it will affect. Those are mighty powerful groups and I'd be shocked if those forces haven't been discussed or are considered too distant to worry about now. Perhaps so, but when then?

At some point the giants will awake and try to stop their discomfort. Is I3's blindly gambling they can design a revolutionary tech, build it, test it, refine the design and get it marketed and adopted by enough people fast enough so it can't be stopped?

That depends on when the giants awake, and if BitShares has enough of the process completed to make squashing the irritation too costly or impractical.

1474
General Discussion / Re: Bitcointalk Censoring old posts of me exchanging messages with Satoshi
« on: September 29, 2014, 04:26:01 pm »
Quote from: luckybit on September 29, 2014, 06:41:22 am
Quote from: edilliam on September 28, 2014, 10:41:35 pm
If people are trying to censor and hide stuff like this, can we turn it around and actually get it more exposure à la Streisand effect?

The fact that they are willing to use tactics like censorship and other underhanded political machinations, it leads me to believe that perhaps a lot of people have a lot of money/power at stake and Bytemaster could be interfering with that.

I don't know who has it out for Bytemaster or who Bytemaster may have pissed off. I'm someone who looks squarely at the technology and I admire what Bytemaster has been able to accomplish with Bitshares X. Some of the solutions are quite novel and even the people who might not like Bitshares or Bytemaster will probably copy these solutions.

The code should speak for itself. There shouldn't be any reason to start trying to erase history but the fact that Bitcointalk is willing and capable of doing that means the same could happen on this forum. History can be changed with a few keystrokes.
+5% +5% +5%

Is there any doubt what bitshares tech will accomplish? I have none, and what you suggest above seems inevitable, in which case bytemaster will come under serious attack if he hasn't already. I sure hope I3 has given this ample thought and have plans in place to deal with this when it happens.

Could this "censorship" be the start? It doesn't look like it to me based on what MeTHoDx has found, but that is far from an exhaustive investigation. If this is the start of some effort the erode bytemaster's rep or alter his historical role with satoshi it will take more evidence to convince me firmly either way, but it "looks" like it was just a stupid moderator.

1475
Technical Support / Re: How to profit from Music DAC Snapshot
« on: September 29, 2014, 03:35:43 pm »
Forgive my ignorance. but since I'm very interested in the DNS DAC, so its important I understand this.

What exactly is a snapshot? It obviously implies something in motion and saving the state of whatever is in motion.

In this discussion we're talking about the Music DAC, so how is that in motion? I didn't think that was launched yet. Is the Music DAC "in motion" starting from the transactions in a genesis block ongoing to the present, such transactions representing trades between developers of the Music DAC?

I see the term snapshot used fairly often but I haven't found just what it means in a bitshares / DAC context yet.


1476
General Discussion / Re: How committed is the community to bitsharesX as opposed to the next "DAC"?
« on: September 27, 2014, 05:46:24 am »
Quote from: Ander on September 26, 2014, 11:00:50 pm
Quote from: James212 on September 26, 2014, 09:18:36 pm
I like your thinking on this Oldman!  Your thinking aligns with my developing philosophy that Bitshares should be positioning Bitcoin as an ally (at least in these early stages) and not as an adversary as we tend to do now.

I agree.  This is key to getting bitcoiners to keep an open mind and investigate bitshares. 

The following is how I came to buy my first bitshares:

* The blockchain technology is amazing!
* Use the blockchain technology for currency, and you get Bitcoin!
* Use the blockchain technology for stocks and you get.....BITSHARES!  Hey look, they pay dividends!

This is how bitshares needs to be presented, imo.  Bitcoin = your currency.  Bitshares = your stocks (and commodities, and futures...) 

The name is perfect for making this connection.

From my earliest exposure to bitshares back in May where I heard Daniel interviewed, this was the take away point I immediately internalized. I have seen nothing that changes that since then.

Daniel describes how the DAC concept, or viewing bitcoin as a company is a very wasteful operation that can't sustain itself in the long run any more than the U.S. economy can by spending more money into circulation and mortgaging our children's furture to pay for our insatiable greed in the present. Society no longer is willing to defer gratification.

I found his explanation easy to understand, the metaphor a perfect fit. I'm no genius when it comes to stocks, bonds bull, bear, shorts, futures and all that financial jargon I can't seem to keep straight. I didn't hear him getting into the stock market functionality in any detail, only the high level concept of a stock market which people generally understand. I've dabbled in stocks 20 years ago and I see how the market is now rigged. Bitshares is technology that level the playing field for everyone and I can see what the major ramifications of that are. It was an easy sell for a fairly unsophisticated user like me with only limited knowledge of the financial world.

The stock market IS a different animal than what bitcoin represents. Other than the foundational blockchain technology concept, bitshares and bitcoin have little in common. They both address different needs.

Bitshares however provides a superset of functionality that includes cryptoshares that will pay dividends which could be used like a cryptocurrency tho that isn't it's primary role. Just like any asset, shares of a company can be used as a currency, but so can sea shells. Whether that happens or not is not the focus of bitshares success. The measure of bitshares success is whether people see the value in it from what it can do, and that takes time. Marketing of bitshares is as huge an effort as the software is.

I see value in the overall strategy of Invictus products. I'm highly interested in the DNS and Keehotee projects. They will provide HUGE value and I'm a bit unclear how all of these pieces will be rolled out and integrated. Earlier videos and discussions painted a fairly clear picture of the "family of projects", but it's not clear to me if the other projects are moving forward with the same energy and ambition as the bitshares platform. I've looked for more info but I find it far more lacking and less up to date than info on bitshares.

1477
General Discussion / Re: An open letter to Tonyk
« on: September 26, 2014, 03:30:22 pm »
I totally concur with the OP, very well put.

Before I saw this thread I just posted a comment along the same lines in another thread. But the OP here was more comprehensive and said all that needs to be said about tonyk.

To tonyk - hey dude like I know what it's like to be perceived as a guy who communicates with "rough edges" or at times even a "negative tone". It's similar feedback to the OP that helped me to see my communication needed to change. I hope you receive this input with my sincerest of hope you will take it to heart and be a bit more empathetic towards the people you interact with online.

1478
General Discussion / Re: What type of servers are needed for delegates?
« on: September 26, 2014, 03:19:54 pm »
As a relative newbie to the community here I've gotta say tonyk's communication style could use some help. In this thread I find the insult uncalled for. However, I too assumed eagleeye was talking about hosting which is typical when discussing "servers". But eageeye is right, he did NOT mention hosting, only the requirements for server hardware.

xeroc's note that a search would have lead to better threads where this topic is already discussed may be true, but I know from my own experience keyword selection is extremely important in getting good results and often it's very difficult to hit the right ones. Eagleeye mentioned one phrase but it often takes several attempts at searching to get it right, and sometimes after a half dozen attempts with poor results you just figure it's easier to post a new topic.

Although it's true a single source for anything the delegates rely on is a form of centralization. in the case of computers the risk is minimal. I certainly would be giving any common systems that became popular to delegates some close scrutiny tho, should some keyloggers or other spy hardware be built in. Custom mobos or odd components would be suspicious.

1479
Technical Support / Re: Delegate voting
« on: September 26, 2014, 02:06:31 am »
Thank you very much for that info cube  +5%

Perhaps my impression is off, but it doesn't seem like the delegates are all that interested in keeping the shareholders informed or up to date on items that might affect their voting appeal.

I'll check out the link you provided and see if my opinion changes.

1480
General Discussion / Re: Talk about a comprehensive project!
« on: September 24, 2014, 11:54:07 pm »
In general I don't think there is any fundamental disagreement between us.

I push back on some of the language you used and I also am somewhat skeptical of Bitnation for a variety of other reasons. It does sound appealing on the surface. I will reserve judgement until I see more information.

Two other important points:

1) you rely on the idea that if the code embodies flawed rules it is only a matter of forking it and carrying on with code that fixes those flaws. I don't disagree with the principle of that, but I'm not convinced it will work very well in practice. By the time a consensus for an alternative and it's implementation is available those operating under the flawed codebase may have already suffered substantial losses. However, forking the code is at least an option to move forward on a different path. Just as with the development of altcoins, competition is great as are the choices to participants, so I consider that a good thing, tho it isn't perfect (nothing is) and may not be easy to get acceptance of the new forked version, thus fragmenting what once was consensus into smaller markets.

2) I don't know if there's anything that can alleviate my skepticism about who controls the codebase. Although those that control it have an incentive to build it and maintain it according to the consensus of the shareholders, I'm just not sure how well that can be accomplished. Perhaps my skepticism is less from logic than from emotion. I could be totally wrong and quality control, safegaurds etc. may be adequate to prevent back doors and hooks from finding their way into production code. Maybe I'm just a doubting Thom.

Perhaps that skepticism stems in part from observations of how corporate policies are influenced by the government over the objections of shareholders. Most of the U.S. manufacturing capacity was off-shored against the wishes of shareholders and even the BODs. Yet corporations also heavily influence government policies, so why the rampant outsourcing?

Kindof like the people that established the chemtrail program. Do they think they breathe different air than the rest of us?

1481
General Discussion / Re: Talk about a comprehensive project!
« on: September 24, 2014, 07:27:43 pm »
Quote from: luckybit on September 24, 2014, 06:22:41 pm
Quote from: Thom on September 24, 2014, 06:17:05 pm
Quote from: luckybit on September 24, 2014, 06:11:40 pm
FACT: There is demand for governent functions even in the anarchist community. Governance doesn't mean centralized but instead decentralized.

FACT: Governance doesn't mean centralized or decentralized it means control.

The demand for "government functions" is a demand for services, and they should be delivered through voluntary, free market cooperation not at the point of a gun.

Government actually does not just mean "control". It means there is an authority which generate the rules of the system. In our system we seek to optimize for decentralization of authority but authority always exists somewhere. We get a choice as to whether we want centralized or decentralized, human-centric or math-based, but rules must be generated even for us.

Respectfully, government does mean control, specifically mind control. Look up the etymology of the word. It seems that you conflate the idea of anarchy with the popular but erroneous notion that anarchy means no rules, chaos. It does not. Anarchy = no ruleRs not no rules. A ruler is a governor, a controller a regulator. I am my own authority, I am the ruler of my destiny, I am responsible for my own actions. I agree to participate in voluntary systems of trade, where ALL are beneficiaries.

I agree with you that we need rules, and that without rules there is no order.

Quote
Do the rules of the Bitshares datachain control the delegates?  It provides order so that transactions on the datachain have meaning. If there were no order at all then there could be no meaning which means you can't have a market. There is no "force" or "control" involved in Bitshares or Bitnation as the rules are in the source code for anyone to read and the arguments you make against government can apply to the source code as well.

I agree with most of that except the last sentence. Unlike government, which is always a win-loose proposition to it's citizens, the blockchain is voluntary.Bitnation like bitcoin may start off that way, but we can all see where POW will lead, to centralized control in the hands of the mega minor companies. The same thing would happen to bitnation, but in that context (if the scope of it became as big and broad as they envision) having centralized control over the blockchain might be difficult to opt out of, especially if nation states own the right to mine the coins bitnation would be based on.

Quote
This means a free market requires order if it is to function at all. You cannot agree upon anything if you have no order. If you cannot agree upon a price using price fees or some other mechanism then you don't have a way to exchange anything so even Bitshares relies on voting/consensus.

Bitshares X requires delegates or it couldn't function. These delegates are not our bosses. The bosses are the shareholders. That means the shareholders have decentralized "control" over the platform and thus would be the government according to your definition. In my opinion decentralized governance is the best outcome we can hope for.

Again, I agree with most of what you said except the last two sentences. The delegates are essentially representatives of the shareholders (if the experiment pans out) and the consensus of shareholders establish the rules, assuming changes to the code are managed through consensus of the shareholders.

Based on this old discussion about PTS (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=433.0), I'm not so sure just yet how decisions regarding code changes will be made for bitsharesX, especially in the future. At this point the rules dictated by the code are made mostly through consensus of the development team with input from many sources. Stan had alot to say about Invictus' "Prime Directive" and I wholeheartedly support that. But ultimately the final decisions are made by the controlling interests of Invictus. If those interests diverge from my own or from the general shareholder consensus I may withdraw my participation.

Quote
The idea that you can have a free market without any order is a myth. You cannot even write software without rules built into it. Bitcoin itself has some rules built into it which control how it functions.

Think about the words, rules - free. Don't those terms represent dissimilar concepts? Rules reduce, constrain, limit. The only rule required for a free market is participants must be free to trade or not, which implies they are not coerced or forced to trade.

Manipulation is a form of coercion. You cannot device ANY rule that will guarantee people will interact in virtuous ways. That is a matter of how individuals understand and live out the NAP (Non Aggression Principle).

1482
General Discussion / Re: Talk about a comprehensive project!
« on: September 24, 2014, 06:17:05 pm »
Quote from: luckybit on September 24, 2014, 06:11:40 pm
FACT: There is demand for governent functions even in the anarchist community. Governance doesn't mean centralized but instead decentralized.

FACT: Governance doesn't mean centralized or decentralized it means control.

The demand for "government functions" is a demand for services, and they should be delivered through voluntary, free market cooperation not at the point of a gun, which is all that government is- FORCE!

1483
General Discussion / Re: Talk about a comprehensive project!
« on: September 24, 2014, 05:58:08 pm »
Yeah, I looked at it in more detail after I started this thread and I don't think there's much substance to it. I looked at an interview of the founder on their facebook page and the interviewer asked some questions which she didn't have good answers to, such as (paraphrased) , why would you expect governments to treat BitNation favorably when it's in competition with it and threatens to divert their tax revenue?

It seems to be smoke & mirrors.

This got me to thinking about whether blockchain technology is the next .com bubble in the making. Thoughts about that?

1484
General Discussion / Talk about a comprehensive project!
« on: September 24, 2014, 05:01:36 pm »
I just became of http://www.bitnation.co/, which sounds like a blockchain 2.0 project but I haven't invested the time to check it out thoroughly yet.

The use of the word governance troubles me. Bitnation did popup on reddit too: http://www.reddit.com/r/BitNation/.


1485
General Discussion / Re: Zero To One, by Peter Thiel
« on: September 24, 2014, 12:03:31 am »
Quote from: bytemaster on September 22, 2014, 02:43:10 pm
The article linked was very interesting and got me thinking about "natural monopolies" being beneficial for capital accumulation.

I think it is all a mater of perspective and in the end it all comes down to a single moral principle: don't initiate force against others.    Thus free competition will result in natural monopolies which allow capital accumulation and that is just the nature of good competition.   Unnatural monopolies are the ones that are dangerous (such as those granted to patent / copyright holders) or via regulation.  Anti-trust laws are also a major problem.
+5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5%

Larken Rose would be proud of you Daniel and so am I. This may not be a popular opinion and it may trigger many contrary comments, but I totally agree with you. What you're taking about here is the NAP (Non Agression Principle).

The next battleground for mankind is the field of univerasal morality. Blockchain technology is an excellent tool for removing the teeth from a coercive government that's out of control. But until we as individuals are willing to face the aggressiveness that lives within us and overcome it, violence and force will be the tool of choice for those who wish to seek advantage over others for personal gain at the expense of collective humanity. Those of this community are the counter-force to the immoral violence being done to mankind and our posterity. Wake up and see the big picture before mankind self destructs.

Bravo Daniel for the principles you supported in this thread. They serve to further my confidence in your character and the underlying reasons you're involved in this project. I'm here for the same reasons.




Pages: 1 ... 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 [99] 100 101 102 103 104 105

Page created in 0.022 seconds with 20 queries.