0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Riverhead on February 23, 2016, 02:58:46 amQuote from: merockstar on February 23, 2016, 02:55:22 amHow about "Liquid"'Liquid' is nice. It signifies fluidity. But perhaps it needs a simple name to convey the concept of shares in a co-operative, pricefeed-less market-based peg and an interest-paying instrument backed by tx fees.
Quote from: merockstar on February 23, 2016, 02:55:22 amHow about "Liquid"
How about "Liquid"
Link to dShares forum?
Quote from: tonyk on February 23, 2016, 03:19:58 amI mean apple and half eaten apple as a logo (I know what the half-eaten apple probably refers to, but 99.9 of the customers do not) worked well enough.Does it have to do with Alan Turing?
I mean apple and half eaten apple as a logo (I know what the half-eaten apple probably refers to, but 99.9 of the customers do not) worked well enough.
I don't think that you have considered all of the consequences. At a bare minimum a forked chain in an "overlapping market" will be competing for readily available capital.I also think it likely that some BTS hodlers will sell in order to buy more stake in the forked chain's crowdfunder. The downward pressure on BTS will be substantial. Tonyk is proposing that the "dshares" be priced at 1/7 BTS. BTS dumpers will be expecting a dshares pump.They will want to get 7 times the number of "dshares" as they sell BTS and then hope that they can sell some of these dshares at a quick profit in terms of DOGE or whatever. If Tonyk had the leadership ability and personality to be a successful team or business leader then he would continue, and be able, to garner support for the changes he wants within the BitShares consensus mechanism. But he does not. He does not have that kind of ability or personality. His considerable strenghts lie elsewhere. So he is instead attempts a very divisive fork at a time when we should be pulling together as a community which is on the verge of major innovation and progress. Frustrated ego appears to have gotten the best of him.Or has tonyk come up with some new consensus mechanism more to his liking to enable in this fork of his? Let us not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory people.
Quote from: CLains on February 23, 2016, 12:24:42 amforking should include rebranding on all levels, even drastic technical improvements go largely unnoticedIt's a clean slate with some of the best tech in the industry. Focus on a few key points, make the branding consistent and interfaces easy to use. BitShares will still continue to expand items such as the PM, bonds, VMs on and on. I don't see them as competing, just different markets that have overlap.
forking should include rebranding on all levels, even drastic technical improvements go largely unnoticed
d in dShares stands for - digital; dex; "da shares" and dan - I will still insist on that, if I have a choice.
Just for the record, DSHARES was the original name for my early ideas on stable crypto... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=213588.0
When resources are scarce, it will hurt badly even if only a little of them are lost. Not everybody are going to jump on the new chain, but even if only few people leave Bitshares, it will have negative consequences. We have already lost lots of active community members and developers.
Quote from: gamey on February 21, 2016, 08:08:20 pmQuote from: Samupaha on February 21, 2016, 04:51:35 pmIf there is going to be fork, it has to be done properly. The goal should be the destruction of Bitshares so that there won't be two competing projects that will eat each others resources.Huh?By half-assed fork I mean that it's useless to "just try something because it sounds interesting". If there is a fork, it's goal should be that it is better than Bitshares. If it's not better than Bitshares, it's stupid to waste resources on that. If it's better than Bitshares, it should get everybody from Bitshares onboard. It should be like transition from 0.9 to 2.0 when everybody abandoned the old chain. Of course not everybody are going to do that, but it should be the goal of the fork.
Quote from: Samupaha on February 21, 2016, 04:51:35 pmIf there is going to be fork, it has to be done properly. The goal should be the destruction of Bitshares so that there won't be two competing projects that will eat each others resources.Huh?
If there is going to be fork, it has to be done properly. The goal should be the destruction of Bitshares so that there won't be two competing projects that will eat each others resources.
By half-assed fork I mean that it's useless to "just try something because it sounds interesting". If there is a fork, it's goal should be that it is better than Bitshares. If it's not better than Bitshares, it's stupid to waste resources on that. If it's better than Bitshares, it should get everybody from Bitshares onboard. It should be like transition from 0.9 to 2.0 when everybody abandoned the old chain. Of course not everybody are going to do that, but it should be the goal of the fork.
Quote from: tonyk on February 22, 2016, 07:39:36 amwell, I am neither wild, nor a pig when it comes to development.PSHope this makes sense to anybody but myself.We get it. You are all bts in your development.
well, I am neither wild, nor a pig when it comes to development.PSHope this makes sense to anybody but myself.
Quote from: Samupaha on February 21, 2016, 04:51:35 pmBTS-owners will get new shares in sharedrop, but it seems to me that tonyk have no idea what he is doing. Quick and half-assed fork will probably fail and the value of new shares will remain very low, so it doesn't compensate the losses from BTS price decline.This is nonsensical. Either Tonyk has no idea what he is doing and it will fail .. or is a legitimate concern. Above you talk about how everyone will abandon BTS. (people are stupid / TonyK is smart) Now you make your argument on TonyK failing. It really remains to be seen whom he would be able to hire. In all fairness, the guy has been around and contributed more in discussion and counter-thought than anyone else. Why would it be a "half-assed fork" when he has pretty much defined what he wants to do. A half-assed fork does little in the change of features.
BTS-owners will get new shares in sharedrop, but it seems to me that tonyk have no idea what he is doing. Quick and half-assed fork will probably fail and the value of new shares will remain very low, so it doesn't compensate the losses from BTS price decline.
Quote from: btswildpig on February 21, 2016, 03:16:16 pmQuote from: mint chocolate chip on February 21, 2016, 03:06:51 pmQuote from: tonyk on August 07, 2015, 06:52:42 amWhen the lead developer of the project wants the BTS price to go down* who am I to argue with him. And as I have no other means to short BTS I did the next best thing - sold (not now but within days of the brownie points announcement) and am waiting for the price to at least cut in half to buy back.When the lead developer of Mutiny wants the BTS price to go down* who am I to argue with him. And as he has no other means to short BTS he did the next best thing - forked (not now but needed just an announcement) and is waiting for the price to at least cut in half to buy back.really, dilution didn't hurt the price but a random guy named tonyk who just posted a thread about forking it (who has no experience on development)can hurt the price ? If that's the case , then I'm gonna short the hell out of BTS on polo and start my own fork to profit big time .I am becoming annoyed and drinking my monthly rations and thus posting out of sequence.TonyK can take up for himself but how do you know that he has "no experience on development"? You have no clue about such matters.This is becoming so absurd.
Quote from: mint chocolate chip on February 21, 2016, 03:06:51 pmQuote from: tonyk on August 07, 2015, 06:52:42 amWhen the lead developer of the project wants the BTS price to go down* who am I to argue with him. And as I have no other means to short BTS I did the next best thing - sold (not now but within days of the brownie points announcement) and am waiting for the price to at least cut in half to buy back.When the lead developer of Mutiny wants the BTS price to go down* who am I to argue with him. And as he has no other means to short BTS he did the next best thing - forked (not now but needed just an announcement) and is waiting for the price to at least cut in half to buy back.really, dilution didn't hurt the price but a random guy named tonyk who just posted a thread about forking it (who has no experience on development)can hurt the price ? If that's the case , then I'm gonna short the hell out of BTS on polo and start my own fork to profit big time .
Quote from: tonyk on August 07, 2015, 06:52:42 amWhen the lead developer of the project wants the BTS price to go down* who am I to argue with him. And as I have no other means to short BTS I did the next best thing - sold (not now but within days of the brownie points announcement) and am waiting for the price to at least cut in half to buy back.When the lead developer of Mutiny wants the BTS price to go down* who am I to argue with him. And as he has no other means to short BTS he did the next best thing - forked (not now but needed just an announcement) and is waiting for the price to at least cut in half to buy back.
When the lead developer of the project wants the BTS price to go down* who am I to argue with him. And as I have no other means to short BTS I did the next best thing - sold (not now but within days of the brownie points announcement) and am waiting for the price to at least cut in half to buy back.
Quote from: gamey on February 21, 2016, 04:15:55 pmSince the sharedrop is 1:1 with no shares brought into existence, then it does not follow to me that BItShares stake holders will be hurt. BitShares might be hurt or might be helped, but it seems likely that shareholders would benefit. Forks didn't kill Bitcoin. They spawned a legion of developers.Bitshares will definitely hurt. Some developers move to the new chain which will slow down development. Some investors will sell their BTS to buy shares from new chain, which will lower the price. We might very well get all time low, if other traders realize that developers are leaving Bitshares for a new project. Some active users will leave our internal exchange, which decreases trading. Some members of our current community will stop marketing Bitshares and focus on the new chain.BitShares would be able to implement any and all changes to other source code base. We can come up with a ton of pros and cons. I am not going to go into all of them. So you are saying all the altcoins hurt Bitcoin in the longrun? I can list a bunch of things that can happen and treat them as fate.BTS-owners will get new shares in sharedrop, but it seems to me that tonyk have no idea what he is doing. Quick and half-assed fork will probably fail and the value of new shares will remain very low, so it doesn't compensate the losses from BTS price decline.This is nonsensical. Either Tonyk has no idea what he is doing and it will fail .. or is a legitimate concern. Above you talk about how everyone will abandon BTS. (people are stupid / TonyK is smart) Now you make your argument on TonyK failing. It really remains to be seen whom he would be able to hire. In all fairness, the guy has been around and contributed more in discussion and counter-thought than anyone else. Why would it be a "half-assed fork" when he has pretty much defined what he wants to do. A half-assed fork does little in the change of features. We are not in the same position as Bitcoin was. There is no surplus of developers eagerly waiting to join a development team. Talent has been already scattered in hundreds of different projects and it's quite difficult for new projects to attract people who know what they are doing. It might happen but I wouldn't count on it, especially if the project is founded quickly and haphazardly.Yes and BTC gave up being controlled by one person a long time ago. If TonyK wants to vet his ideas and can manage to get someone to implement them. I do agree about the supply of developers. He seems to get along well with the Chinese guys .. maybe they'd work for him without dilution.If there is going to be fork, it has to be done properly. The goal should be the destruction of Bitshares so that there won't be two competing projects that will eat each others resources.Huh?
Since the sharedrop is 1:1 with no shares brought into existence, then it does not follow to me that BItShares stake holders will be hurt. BitShares might be hurt or might be helped, but it seems likely that shareholders would benefit. Forks didn't kill Bitcoin. They spawned a legion of developers.
The free market is free. Not everyone has to support the fork idea but would be nice if we didn't devolve into protectionism.
Quote from: Samupaha on February 21, 2016, 07:06:50 amQuote from: Pheonike on February 21, 2016, 06:57:38 amThe cat is out of the bag as far bts goes. Its nearly impossible to teturn all bts back onto dex. The amount of resources it would take would be better used going forward with liquidity plans already in place. A system like this has to be implemented from scratch in a new chain. Its a waste of time trying to undo what has been done in bts.I still think that creation of bitBTS would solve the transition problem from current system to a non-transferable BTS. Other exchanges could easily transform their BTS to bitBTS (or trade it in our internal exchange) and continue like nothing happened.I thought about this idea... when I think about how it would go I believe it would just never allow the entire transfer to become complete. All it takes is a few jerks to keep from the completion of the transfer. We couldn't unilaterally remove their rights, it would all have to be voluntary.
Quote from: Pheonike on February 21, 2016, 06:57:38 amThe cat is out of the bag as far bts goes. Its nearly impossible to teturn all bts back onto dex. The amount of resources it would take would be better used going forward with liquidity plans already in place. A system like this has to be implemented from scratch in a new chain. Its a waste of time trying to undo what has been done in bts.I still think that creation of bitBTS would solve the transition problem from current system to a non-transferable BTS. Other exchanges could easily transform their BTS to bitBTS (or trade it in our internal exchange) and continue like nothing happened.
The cat is out of the bag as far bts goes. Its nearly impossible to teturn all bts back onto dex. The amount of resources it would take would be better used going forward with liquidity plans already in place. A system like this has to be implemented from scratch in a new chain. Its a waste of time trying to undo what has been done in bts.
Tonyk's proposal should be implemented on the main chain or not at all, just like any other proposal.
so are you saying if people want to destroy BTS's marketcap , they just need to fork it ? Then people will not feel safe buying BTS either . They don't know when will some one fork it.
Quote from: btswildpig on February 21, 2016, 05:50:55 amQuote from: CoinHoarder on February 21, 2016, 05:31:02 amQuote from: btswildpig on February 21, 2016, 05:17:06 amQuote from: CoinHoarder on February 21, 2016, 05:13:38 amQuote from: Riverhead on February 21, 2016, 02:43:33 amThe free market will decide. That's one of the reasons it has the license it does.I suppose you are right, but forking every time someone doesn't get their way sets a bad precedence for the future. Furthermore, simply talking about forking Bitshares is certain to negatively affect the price. I see all time lows for Bitshares in the near future, and I am glad I don't own any at the moment. Bytemaster's dilution-subsidized liquidity provisions will have less of a negative effect on the price than a Bitshares fork will.I suggest implementing Tonyk's idea on the main Bitshares chain, or not implementing at all. Forking Bitshares is bad for both parties involved as it is unclear whether a fork of Bitshares will have sufficient liquidity to function as intended, and forking Bitshares is bad for Bitshares.Doge was forked from Litecoin .Muse was forked from BTS.Play was forked from BTS. BTS2.0 was forked from BTS1.0 . Everyday people are forking .Apples and oranges.Muse/Play were not forked to compete directly with the coin they forked from (BTS). They all are going after different markets, and that is justification for the fork.This fork Tony is proposing will compete head-to-head with Bitshares for the same target market. Muse/Play were not created out of a rebellious uprising that forked a community. This reminds me of the Sparkles debacle: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11634.0It is quite the stretch to call BTS 2.0 a fork of BTS 1.0 ...Doge is a different story. Doge was not created out of a rebellious uprising inside the Litecoin community. Otherwise, I think it would have had negative effects on Litecoin. You are comparing apples and oranges.so you're saying after all the pain and suffering that dilution has brought upon BTS on the name of further and competitive development , BTS project will be threaten by a random guy on the forum named TonyK ?? Then why the hell should people buy BTS when it can be beaten by some random guy ? A. Tonyk's chain can get diluted just as easy as the original BTS chain. With a 70% BTS sharedrop, large BTS shareholders will have a lot of sway.B. I don't think that BTS will be threatened by Tonyk's fork, as Bitshares has garnered a network effect and forks are generally seen as inferior to their parents (see BTC vs alt coins, or Ripple vs Stellar, etc.) I do think however it will split the community, marketing efforts, development efforts, liquidity, etc... and lower the Bitshares price to all time lows.
Quote from: CoinHoarder on February 21, 2016, 05:31:02 amQuote from: btswildpig on February 21, 2016, 05:17:06 amQuote from: CoinHoarder on February 21, 2016, 05:13:38 amQuote from: Riverhead on February 21, 2016, 02:43:33 amThe free market will decide. That's one of the reasons it has the license it does.I suppose you are right, but forking every time someone doesn't get their way sets a bad precedence for the future. Furthermore, simply talking about forking Bitshares is certain to negatively affect the price. I see all time lows for Bitshares in the near future, and I am glad I don't own any at the moment. Bytemaster's dilution-subsidized liquidity provisions will have less of a negative effect on the price than a Bitshares fork will.I suggest implementing Tonyk's idea on the main Bitshares chain, or not implementing at all. Forking Bitshares is bad for both parties involved as it is unclear whether a fork of Bitshares will have sufficient liquidity to function as intended, and forking Bitshares is bad for Bitshares.Doge was forked from Litecoin .Muse was forked from BTS.Play was forked from BTS. BTS2.0 was forked from BTS1.0 . Everyday people are forking .Apples and oranges.Muse/Play were not forked to compete directly with the coin they forked from (BTS). They all are going after different markets, and that is justification for the fork.This fork Tony is proposing will compete head-to-head with Bitshares for the same target market. Muse/Play were not created out of a rebellious uprising that forked a community. This reminds me of the Sparkles debacle: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11634.0It is quite the stretch to call BTS 2.0 a fork of BTS 1.0 ...Doge is a different story. Doge was not created out of a rebellious uprising inside the Litecoin community. Otherwise, I think it would have had negative effects on Litecoin. You are comparing apples and oranges.so you're saying after all the pain and suffering that dilution has brought upon BTS on the name of further and competitive development , BTS project will be threaten by a random guy on the forum named TonyK ?? Then why the hell should people buy BTS when it can be beaten by some random guy ?
Quote from: btswildpig on February 21, 2016, 05:17:06 amQuote from: CoinHoarder on February 21, 2016, 05:13:38 amQuote from: Riverhead on February 21, 2016, 02:43:33 amThe free market will decide. That's one of the reasons it has the license it does.I suppose you are right, but forking every time someone doesn't get their way sets a bad precedence for the future. Furthermore, simply talking about forking Bitshares is certain to negatively affect the price. I see all time lows for Bitshares in the near future, and I am glad I don't own any at the moment. Bytemaster's dilution-subsidized liquidity provisions will have less of a negative effect on the price than a Bitshares fork will.I suggest implementing Tonyk's idea on the main Bitshares chain, or not implementing at all. Forking Bitshares is bad for both parties involved as it is unclear whether a fork of Bitshares will have sufficient liquidity to function as intended, and forking Bitshares is bad for Bitshares.Doge was forked from Litecoin .Muse was forked from BTS.Play was forked from BTS. BTS2.0 was forked from BTS1.0 . Everyday people are forking .Apples and oranges.Muse/Play were not forked to compete directly with the coin they forked from (BTS). They all are going after different markets, and that is justification for the fork.This fork Tony is proposing will compete head-to-head with Bitshares for the same target market. Muse/Play were not created out of a rebellious uprising that forked a community. This reminds me of the Sparkles debacle: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11634.0It is quite the stretch to call BTS 2.0 a fork of BTS 1.0 ...Doge is a different story. Doge was not created out of a rebellious uprising inside the Litecoin community. Otherwise, I think it would have had negative effects on Litecoin. You are comparing apples and oranges.
Quote from: CoinHoarder on February 21, 2016, 05:13:38 amQuote from: Riverhead on February 21, 2016, 02:43:33 amThe free market will decide. That's one of the reasons it has the license it does.I suppose you are right, but forking every time someone doesn't get their way sets a bad precedence for the future. Furthermore, simply talking about forking Bitshares is certain to negatively affect the price. I see all time lows for Bitshares in the near future, and I am glad I don't own any at the moment. Bytemaster's dilution-subsidized liquidity provisions will have less of a negative effect on the price than a Bitshares fork will.I suggest implementing Tonyk's idea on the main Bitshares chain, or not implementing at all. Forking Bitshares is bad for both parties involved as it is unclear whether a fork of Bitshares will have sufficient liquidity to function as intended, and forking Bitshares is bad for Bitshares.Doge was forked from Litecoin .Muse was forked from BTS.Play was forked from BTS. BTS2.0 was forked from BTS1.0 . Everyday people are forking .
Quote from: Riverhead on February 21, 2016, 02:43:33 amThe free market will decide. That's one of the reasons it has the license it does.I suppose you are right, but forking every time someone doesn't get their way sets a bad precedence for the future. Furthermore, simply talking about forking Bitshares is certain to negatively affect the price. I see all time lows for Bitshares in the near future, and I am glad I don't own any at the moment. Bytemaster's dilution-subsidized liquidity provisions will have less of a negative effect on the price than a Bitshares fork will.I suggest implementing Tonyk's idea on the main Bitshares chain, or not implementing at all. Forking Bitshares is bad for both parties involved as it is unclear whether a fork of Bitshares will have sufficient liquidity to function as intended, and forking Bitshares is bad for Bitshares.
The free market will decide. That's one of the reasons it has the license it does.
Quote from: CoinHoarder on February 21, 2016, 05:13:38 am I see all time lows for Bitshares in the near future, and I am glad I don't own any at the moment. Bytemaster's dilution-subsidized liquidity provisions will have less of a negative effect on the price than a Bitshares fork will.As far as I recall you sold out way before this idea was proposed.And yet still you are very outspoken about the consequences of it...(negative according to you)One would assume you are trying to pump the price of BTS (by this not being implemented preferably) so you can buy back at higher price?
I see all time lows for Bitshares in the near future, and I am glad I don't own any at the moment. Bytemaster's dilution-subsidized liquidity provisions will have less of a negative effect on the price than a Bitshares fork will.
Your proposal will not work if you fork Bitshares. Take a look at how many alt coins have over 1k USD of volume in a 24 hour period compared to how many alternative coins have less than that. It is likely this fork will fall into the "less than that" category. Thus, Bitshares as-is will have more liquid Smartcoins than your fork. Not to mention all the negatives that come along with forking a project/community.
Why the redacted OP tonyk?Advantium, because we so want the name to sound like Etherium.How about the name... Mutiny/Mutinous
Why the redacted OP tonyk?Advantium, because we so want the name to sound like Etherium.
dexSHARES
Thanks for clarifying what the d was all about.. I have been talking about this idea with others and off the cuff I came up with a name I thought would be more attractive. Advantium Derivative for Advance.. or Advantage. All together gets away from the 'shares' name to show a real separation and reduce confusion in the market.
Quote from: CoinHoarder on February 21, 2016, 12:51:34 amYour proposal will not work if you fork Bitshares. Take a look at how many alt coins have over 1k USD of volume in a 24 hour period compared to how many alternative coins have less than that. It is likely this fork will fall into the "less than that" category. Thus, Bitshares as-is will have more liquid Smartcoins than your fork. Not to mention all the negatives that come along with forking a project/community.'My fork" as in the fork that I have paid for each single share competing with everybody else?Thanks for the "I predict...cause I predict" statement. We are all very good at that... when we decide to.
How about calling it "Slice" instead of dshares. So instead of shares users own slices of the whole.