I  don't think anything needs to be anywhere near perfect but would say I think the brand image is quite important in the beginning and I think the first DAC's have to be pretty strong.(so for example I was a bit concerned about the Zenith Music thing which has since been sorted out. Also if we were given shares in really weak DAC's and we sold heavily, it may reflect badly on the idea that PTS & AGS are good supporters and donors.) Most of the DAC's in the pipeline look really strong + exciting though so it shouldn't be a problem and Bitshares XT is a great one to start with imo.

Well I agree that I'm very impressed with many of the choices Dan Larimer and his team have made, such as how he setup the AGS-fundraiser and his flexible approach to problem solving instead of just putting out crap and see where it floats. Also his solution in the shape of bitsharesX was very clever if also very ambitious for a first DAC, but I can see how it is an essential one to help get loads of other decentralized projects up and running and a brilliant way to circumvent subjective gatekeepers and reinstate free traffic.  I'm also hearing some other so called "2.0" projects starting to repeat a lot of things that Dan Larimer has worked out, so I hope he gets his ideas up and running before some of the others beat him to it and take credit for his work.

Yeah that seems like it's true, I brought up a similar thing

[...]

It's one of those things that seems obvious now, but tbh I think I was around at the time and I didn't pick it up that something different might have been better.

Yeah hindsight is 20/20 and seeing how new I am to the crypto scene I probably wouldn't have been outspoken enough even if I had known earlier.


@Delulo: Sorry man I missed your post, didn't want to ignore you, but the showdown between Toast and Fuznuts made your remark a bit harder to notice.

I'm not trying to drive a wedge between Ethereum and Bitshares working together, hell Ethereum's smart contracts are a very nice fit for an idea of a DAC. But, I do take offence to a lot of things Hoskinson has been saying and repeatedly so. I'll give you a couple of examples.

On several occasions he has described alt-coins and free experimentation as bad thing and signs of a disease, which is one of the most used FUD rhetorics used by convicted monopolists and patent trolls to counter open source software and licensing. This tells me he either doesn't understand how open-source software and business works or that he is not of the open-source mentality. When he then starts to muse about being a Microsoft stake holder and being the new app-store, that does not give me confidence that this man is focused on decentralization and removal of gates, walls and restrictions.

He uses mud-slinging on other projects (just like he did with his comment here) to promote his own, while at the same time stealing the ideas and results of those "diseased" experiments and trying to take credit for them. I also find his use of the term Turing-completeness disturbing in the way that he's trying to suggest other projects are not or incapable of being "complete". This rhetoric trick to try to suggest that other projects would be lacking (Turing completeness) is very misleading if not a complete deception. I've also heard him put words in Satoshi Nakamotos mouth and twisting it as if the plan behind bitcoin was to make Ethereum all along, while that is most definitely not why the deliberate choice for limited scripting options in bitcoin was made. Instead of informing potential investors of the risk, this instead pulls away attention of the big security and stability issues that a Turing complete scripting language introduces.

And before I receive flack about this, I have tried to point out the things I've said above and a few others repeatedly on several public channels (I do not have a personal connection to anyone on the Ethereum team) and even in a personal discussion with one of Ethereum core developers on bitcointalk. But after me personally pointing out this behaviour to one of his colleagues who's so close to him that he has assured me he's shared the same sleeping quarters with Hoskinson on several occasions and then seeing that post by Hoskinson here, that really rubs me the wrong way and does not look like he has any intentions of changing his methods.

So my take on Ethereum is that I like some of their ideas, but I'm not convinced that everyone behind the project has freedom and decentralization as their main goals. I don't believe the world needs another monopoly and I'm certainly not willing to subsidize the exact same problem that I think the decentralized blockchain-invention is supposed to solve.

When I hear Dan Larimer talk about making it as easy as possible to fork, compete and experiment to your hearts content and even describing solutions in the event one blockchain gets taken over by a single (hostile) power, then that inspires me with a lot more confidence about his motivations and focus. I also like that there is a social contract instead of a walled-garden/vendor-lockin/patent-troll "solution". Also other than pointing out the risks of mining and centralization I have not heard Dan Larimer talk shit about other projects or dismissing them as inferior concepts in public interviews or channels.

But should Dan Larimer ever turn into Gates or Windows or some other form of limitation or this community ever stray from the path into a beautiful closed compound, then I'm out no matter how profitable it may be or how many losses I'll concur.

How about some names that can use alliteration effectively helping possible marketing of the name as well.

I suggest CoNote, possible with emphasis on the "te" part. No only does it sound similar to the KeyHotee, but it suggest collaboration, cooperation as well. Hmm, maybe CoCoNote would work as well then.

I'm guessing the traditional self referencing acronym is out of the question?

Great Bad projects make the news not ask to be on it.

Lol, you really didn't think that remark through. Bad projects make the news a helluva lot more than good ones.

Back to how to engage Max Keiser and Stacy Herbert, instead of focusing on interviews, and after bitshares has some DACs up and running, you could offer to help them in some of their ongoing projects. I've heard them talk about trying to set up a media orientated crowd-funding/sourcing platform, which may or may not be a good fit for bitshares, especially if it can be combined with maidsafe like networks. Both because it sounded like it had some similarities to the bitsharesmusic concepts and Max Keiser might have some ideas on his own in relation to stocks and trading and they may be interested in censorship resistant solutions.

I figure Max Keiser especially would be interested in Dan Larimers concept of allowing a DAC/Blockchain to be "bought" by some powerful entity, allowing you to just start a different one with the money you got out of that takeover. Ethereums central blockchain has the same Achilles heel as bitcoin with centralization of mining and by design doesn't have the same flexibility. Having a hostile take-over blow up in the aggressors face is a major selling point and a very personal one for Max Keiser.

Catalyst 14 with the proper clpts-v1.2 for that driver on linux is averaging 5100 or possibly slightly more per 280X. I've setup a few gpu's now to try and help keep the network churning along.

Hard to send PTS and get confirmations on time if everyone stops mining PTS altogether.
So and a bit more to help fix the difficulty re-target in case of the opportunistic mining stampedes. Even if the plan is to switch to DPOS the transition period needs to work as well.

I think I've also got some bandwidth issues with my 280X, as a tradeoff my temperature and power usage is very low in comparison to full load of the gpu.

I setup a cheap motherboard + cpu in a remote and cool part of my house and I'm dangling the gpu outside of the case with an pci-riser-cable, so those 2 factors combined might be limiting me to well below the 5000 value mentioned in the first post. Then again I'm running without any overclock, don't know if that has a large impact on the collision-speed.

For now there is not much we can do then speculate how sidechains work, until a whitepaper or working code has been published.

I don't want to downplay the risks Bytemaster mentioned about the current emerging power-struggles and increasing centralization. And I'm also very worried about the way sidechains and lazy implementations of this idea could increase centralization, especially when large numbers of people just blindly follow. But I don't think the idea itself is only useful for increasing the power of miners.

As far as I understand it the sidechain concept is actually closer to atomic crosschain trading than it is to merged mining. The latter being just one of the ways a sidechain could be setup, but it does not appear to be a requirement. The difference with crosschain trading is that the marketprice is fixed and coins are created or destroyed in the "trade" by respectively locking up or freeing bitcoins/mainchain. Supposedly smart-contracts on the bitcoin network can be read and affected from these sidechains, but other than validating these smart-contracts I don't think the idea absolutely requires the miners cooperation or hashing power for its own chain. At least that's what Adam Back wrote himself, how he actually expects to be able to do that has yet to be explained. I'm very curious myself how he intends to solve this without both blockchains needing to keep track of each other.

Even if there is no merge mining, this does leave among others the problems of economy and security. Such as, how do you setup such a separate blockchain-network and ensure its reliability and robustness by trying to figure out a system of incentives for keeping the network plus security up and running plus paying for development either with just transaction fees and at the same time still being interesting/valuable enough for people to want to pay those fees, or by some external fundraising/sponsoring. The latter would imply a very centralized solution, but I could come up with several examples where some entities or corporations would want it. (For example a group of companies having the same very specialized needs, but still wanting to seamlessly integrate in the mainchain, without wanting to setup an exchange, or something like token-tickets for a public transport system etc.) It would also have to be able to deal with massive changes in the amount of tokens on its network, which might be particularly difficult in the edge case just after the inception or just before the death of a sidechain.

I like ByteMasters concept of modularity a lot more. It makes each DAC/blockchain more selfsupporting and independent and makes things less confusing. While cooperation and free interaction is a good thing, interdependence most definitely is not. Also in case of competition the difference in profitability or exchange-rates, would (I imagine) make evaluating each chain on its own merits a lot easier.

As I mentioned at the start, we'll have to wait and see. Maybe the sidechain proposal offers some new insights and hopefully parts of it can also be adapted to help improve cross chain trading or help facilitate interactions between chains.  The ability to have smart contracts on one blockchain/DAC be able to in a decentralized and secure manner affect smart-contracts on another blockchain/DAC does open up a lot of extra possibilities and makes the mind wander. DACs managing parts or even whole sets of other DACs?