0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Because the most reasonable on-ramp gateways into BTS still rely on BTC deposit. If someone were to develop a legitimate cash>BTS or cash>bitAsset gateway then it would be more appropriate to conceptually price BTS in terms of that baseline.
Bitshares are too difficult to use.With each release there is something new to learn and only insiders can keep up with that pace. I am an experienced computer geek, but I have difficulties to keep up with that chaos myself.Marketing guy made many mistakes like starting bitshares.tv series in 240p! (with a $5 usb camera from before year 2000 I suppose).Or by repeating over and over how the big world is "ramping up" to use BitShares already. Instead of being short and informative he decided to bore viewers to death.I stopped watching as these series turned out to be lies to temporarily pump up the price.I myself tried to use bitshares many times but was unable to due to unusable javascript wallet. I suppose javascript technology was a gamble to make it more popular in web ecosystem. Time will tell if this strategy is right. If BitShares were about to succeed this indeed could speed up future development. But for my typical desktop use I am simply discouraged. Each time I dare to launch the wallet I am praying to the gods, old and new, to keep my keys safe. From time to time I also try to educate myself more on recent changes in BitShares, but I end up dismissing browser 404 pages or trying to navigate through ocean of useless information regarding obsolete incarnations of previous bitshares projects. Finally, the graveyard of unfinished BitShares assets doesn't bring comfort to any investor.Sorry for dropping harsh words. But this is how it is from perspective of potential user.
without real user's support, price just depend on whales.
So yea we should change that backup warning and make the backup process smoother.
Have you guys seen how the wallet/exchange changed (read: improved) since launch?Not satisfied yet? Think you can do better? Go and fork it and do so!!
2. Any source or binaries are for single-user use only and may not be used to deploy a mulit-user website.
Quote from: tbone on November 01, 2015, 12:40:03 pmIt's shocking that some here would reduce this to a question of promising y and delivering x. You try conceiving, building and delivering - under extremely difficult circumstances and on a shoestring budget - one of the great technical wonders of the world and see how that goes. I'm not saying everything is perfect, but geeze louise. I am also shocked that people expect near perfection at launch and attribute price to that not being the case. I mostly predicted an incomplete project months ago:Quote from: Helikopterben on August 31, 2015, 03:43:46 amAs investors, do we really think this next iteration will be the final version? I have my doubts. I have a feeling MPA's will be difficult to get right, but eventually the correct formula will be found. Bitshares has been rebooted twice now. First with the "merger" and now with 2.0. I could foresee another reboot being necessary if this next version doesn't go exactly according to plan, but at least the dev team is willing to take on that task if necessary and not just try to patch things up if it doesn't work.Bitshares is still far ahead of its closest competitor, ethereum, which is cli only and only for use by developers at this point. I think we are seeing a bottom in price here, although I wouldn't be surprised to see a final push down to about 1000 sat to shake out the remaining weak hands. IMO, we should see a bottom form and a steady uptrend develop near the first of the year. [/speculation]edit: Keep in mind, these projects are still and experiment and work in progress. I foresee a few more years before we see real production level protocols. Bitcoin is the only project that is close. I would say that once the block size debate is solved, then bitcoin could be considered in a production level environment... and bitcoin has been a work in progress for 7 years now. 2.0 projects, including bitshares have been around for only a few years and are much more complicated that bitcoin.
It's shocking that some here would reduce this to a question of promising y and delivering x. You try conceiving, building and delivering - under extremely difficult circumstances and on a shoestring budget - one of the great technical wonders of the world and see how that goes. I'm not saying everything is perfect, but geeze louise.
As investors, do we really think this next iteration will be the final version? I have my doubts. I have a feeling MPA's will be difficult to get right, but eventually the correct formula will be found. Bitshares has been rebooted twice now. First with the "merger" and now with 2.0. I could foresee another reboot being necessary if this next version doesn't go exactly according to plan, but at least the dev team is willing to take on that task if necessary and not just try to patch things up if it doesn't work.
With all due respect, Adam (big fan of your work here), if the user hasn't backed up within a certain period of time, there's a link right at the bottom that says "BACKUP REQUIRED". If you click on that, it takes you to a screen to perform a backup. What's the problem with that? And beyond that, what about the interface reminds you of a very early Mastercoin wallet?
By the way, perhaps you're not aware that this is a reference design. Many of us understand the point of it to be a usable wallet for the community to jump start the new governance model, for early adopters and investors to use more generally, and at the same time a working demonstration of the features business builders can design into their own product/service offerings built atop the Bitshares 2.0 platform and aimed at the end-user masses. Obviously it's not perfect, but I think it's delivering on that promise.
As for the API, like anything else clearly there were/are some kinks to be worked out. But I really doubt it will be overly difficult for you to integrate Bitshares 2.0 into your platform.
Quote from: Helikopterben on November 01, 2015, 12:19:24 pmQuote from: kuro112 on October 31, 2015, 05:39:41 pmThat being said from my perspective (end user of bitshares) nothing has changed between 0.9x and 2.0, i mean that when i say nothing, the wallet is just as hard to set up and use, importing or making accounts is still confusing, using the rpc functions is still obscure and requires a lot of clarification etc, if your an enduser of crypto and don't care about how good the new code is, im certain you find all of this very annoying and that is my primary point.That doesn't sound like an end user perspective. From an end user perspective, I no longer have to download a clunky client. I can just create an account on the openledger website. I can move fairly seemlessly through markets. I can delegate my vote. I can easily create bitassets. From an end user perspective, this client interface is far superior to 1.0. What is missing? 1) liquidity2) 2fa or multi fa, if necessary3) an easy-to-use tool for offline cold storage4) bond market - leveraged trading5) probably other things that I can't think of right now6) liquidityIMO bitshares is the most undervalued project out there right now. Markets are often irrational for periods of time. This is one of those times. It looks to me like the price has been basing for 6 months now and could easily enter a real uptrend at any time. The web interface does not engender trust, it reminds me of the very early Mastercoin web wallets and I was particularly disturbed by "you're responsible for backing up your wallet..." with the dot dot dot and no button or link immediately visible to actually take care of that fact really gives me the feeling that even the active participants and like "We're doing our best but this might not work and good luck getting help if something does go wrong so, meh?"the only thing on your list of six that matter to me is #5, I am very much hoping that Bitshares offers a relatively easy way to integrate Bitshares into my project Tokenly but from what i'm hearing that is not easy.
Quote from: kuro112 on October 31, 2015, 05:39:41 pmThat being said from my perspective (end user of bitshares) nothing has changed between 0.9x and 2.0, i mean that when i say nothing, the wallet is just as hard to set up and use, importing or making accounts is still confusing, using the rpc functions is still obscure and requires a lot of clarification etc, if your an enduser of crypto and don't care about how good the new code is, im certain you find all of this very annoying and that is my primary point.That doesn't sound like an end user perspective. From an end user perspective, I no longer have to download a clunky client. I can just create an account on the openledger website. I can move fairly seemlessly through markets. I can delegate my vote. I can easily create bitassets. From an end user perspective, this client interface is far superior to 1.0. What is missing? 1) liquidity2) 2fa or multi fa, if necessary3) an easy-to-use tool for offline cold storage4) bond market - leveraged trading5) probably other things that I can't think of right now6) liquidityIMO bitshares is the most undervalued project out there right now. Markets are often irrational for periods of time. This is one of those times. It looks to me like the price has been basing for 6 months now and could easily enter a real uptrend at any time.
That being said from my perspective (end user of bitshares) nothing has changed between 0.9x and 2.0, i mean that when i say nothing, the wallet is just as hard to set up and use, importing or making accounts is still confusing, using the rpc functions is still obscure and requires a lot of clarification etc, if your an enduser of crypto and don't care about how good the new code is, im certain you find all of this very annoying and that is my primary point.
Quote from: sittingduck on October 31, 2015, 04:02:09 pmIn a contract you have a paying side which enables the completion of work. Graphene is a roadmap of unlimited scope. There is no need to force someone to do more than 100% effort. Any company that demands a fixed price contract will pay a massive premium as the contractor pads everything enough to more or less guarantee they will not lose money on the job. Most customers gamble on time and materials and most contractors prefer that. The only time fixed price makes sense is if something is fully specified in advance and there exists objective measures of fulfillment. Time. Quality or cost. Pick any two. What I'm saying is cnx has a track record of doing things to 80% completion. If I were to hire them to do a certain job, how could I ensure that job is done to 100% completion? The question is still out there as well, would you hire cnx as a contractor based on their project history?
In a contract you have a paying side which enables the completion of work. Graphene is a roadmap of unlimited scope. There is no need to force someone to do more than 100% effort. Any company that demands a fixed price contract will pay a massive premium as the contractor pads everything enough to more or less guarantee they will not lose money on the job. Most customers gamble on time and materials and most contractors prefer that. The only time fixed price makes sense is if something is fully specified in advance and there exists objective measures of fulfillment. Time. Quality or cost. Pick any two.
I Quote from: NewMine on October 31, 2015, 03:32:40 pmQuote from: mint chocolate chip on October 31, 2015, 05:06:46 amQuote from: kuro112 on October 31, 2015, 04:53:24 amHonestly, I think this has a lot to do with the fact that the tech isn't quite as grand as promised, I love what bitshares is doing but if the user experience was more polished from the start we would probably not be seeing such a dramatic drop, overall as we all work to improve the experience for users and administrators, lower the learning curve and increase the adaptability the price will rise again to historic levels.We have a great foundation to build upon; the future of this enterprise is bright.It was supposed to be more than a foundation. There was supposed to be at the bare minimum a door. Couldn't even get that. Hell, a lot of people can't even find the place on the map because of the importing keys debacle.Quote from: NewMine on October 31, 2015, 03:32:40 pmQuote from: mint chocolate chip on October 31, 2015, 05:06:46 amQuote from: kuro112 on October 31, 2015, 04:53:24 amHonestly, I think this has a lot to do with the fact that the tech isn't quite as grand as promised, I love what bitshares is doing but if the user experience was more polished from the start we would probably not be seeing such a dramatic drop, overall as we all work to improve the experience for users and administrators, lower the learning curve and increase the adaptability the price will rise again to historic levels.We have a great foundation to build upon; the future of this enterprise is bright.It was supposed to be more than a foundation. There was supposed to be at the bare minimum a door. Couldn't even get that. Hell, a lot of people can't even find the place on the map because of the importing keys debacle.I do remember bm saying being able to import keys was the highest priority when they were developing graphene. I didn't have a problem, but it sounds like many people are.On a side note I have a question. If you were a business looking for development on a blockchain, would you hire cnx based on their track record? I know they created a very complex system, but it only included about 75% of what was originally promised. How would a contract be structured in order to force them to complete everything that is agreed upon at the project outset?
Quote from: mint chocolate chip on October 31, 2015, 05:06:46 amQuote from: kuro112 on October 31, 2015, 04:53:24 amHonestly, I think this has a lot to do with the fact that the tech isn't quite as grand as promised, I love what bitshares is doing but if the user experience was more polished from the start we would probably not be seeing such a dramatic drop, overall as we all work to improve the experience for users and administrators, lower the learning curve and increase the adaptability the price will rise again to historic levels.We have a great foundation to build upon; the future of this enterprise is bright.It was supposed to be more than a foundation. There was supposed to be at the bare minimum a door. Couldn't even get that. Hell, a lot of people can't even find the place on the map because of the importing keys debacle.
Quote from: kuro112 on October 31, 2015, 04:53:24 amHonestly, I think this has a lot to do with the fact that the tech isn't quite as grand as promised, I love what bitshares is doing but if the user experience was more polished from the start we would probably not be seeing such a dramatic drop, overall as we all work to improve the experience for users and administrators, lower the learning curve and increase the adaptability the price will rise again to historic levels.We have a great foundation to build upon; the future of this enterprise is bright.
Honestly, I think this has a lot to do with the fact that the tech isn't quite as grand as promised, I love what bitshares is doing but if the user experience was more polished from the start we would probably not be seeing such a dramatic drop, overall as we all work to improve the experience for users and administrators, lower the learning curve and increase the adaptability the price will rise again to historic levels.
I don't get why people take the BTC price of BTS .. that makes no sense to me .. would anyone be so kind and enlighten me... please?
24H low 1253...