0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: starspirit on October 24, 2014, 11:36:37 pmalphaBar, I think you mistakenly framed this thread as a challenge to the SuperDAC, and that has resulted in defensive positions against your idea. If we just accept that BTS is a different beast (being like a company) and can be successful in its own right, then the idea of a money competitor as a separate DAC is no longer a threat, but potentially something all BTS holders may ultimately benefit from. Totally agree. It was a trade-off between provoking a strong debate and provoking strong opposition.
alphaBar, I think you mistakenly framed this thread as a challenge to the SuperDAC, and that has resulted in defensive positions against your idea. If we just accept that BTS is a different beast (being like a company) and can be successful in its own right, then the idea of a money competitor as a separate DAC is no longer a threat, but potentially something all BTS holders may ultimately benefit from.
You're attempting to do what every other coin developer has failed at: combining the appreciation of crypto with the stability of fiat. Even Bitcoin has not managed this with a market cap of billions of dollars; apparently it would require much more to create true stability. BitShares accomplishes this by using one app with two currencies, both of them freely interchangeable. BitUSD is as stable as fiat, yet backed by the appreciating BTSX, and it even provides a return for holding fiat. At any point, with a couple of clicks, you can move any amount into BTSX and back and forth. This is the best of both worlds. If you think you can do better, go for it. In the experience of every other coin developer, some of whom are among the smartest people working in the fields of technology and economics, you get both the positives and negatives of appreciation + volatility when you try to combine them in the same package. I don't see how your idea works any better.
I say we go after both the "digital corporation" application AND the "digital currency" application. The caveat here is that the banking and exchange DAC may require the properties of currency to be viable. Time will tell.
Quote from: starspirit on October 24, 2014, 04:07:09 amI think the OP makes at least one excellent point - there is a burning opportunity to unseat bitcoin as the dominant digital currency, and bitshares themselves do not have the right characteristics to do that.Bitcoin was designed to be a new money to compete against fiat. Pegged assets like bitUSD are competing as a more efficient method for transferring the value of money. They could be pegged to fiat or crypto. bitShares is designed to earn business profit, which requires risk, and is not suitable as money.These are different buckets in my view, although I know BM has argued they merely sit on a spectrum. It might be a powerful opportunity for bitShares to create something clearly designed to be money, but with properties superior to bitcoin and fiat, and using the DPoS framework that other crypto currencies cannot yet match. To elaborate on this point, each model has different properties that make it suitable for different purposes. I think some/many people were more in agreement with the model of BTSX than the superDAC because it had properties that made it better suited for currency (specifically the deflationary protocol and the slightly less arbitrary allocation). Personally, I think the rapid change and adaptation that may enable corporations to adapt to their competitive landscape can be hurtful to a currency-DAC. To build on the analogy, shares in a corporation are poorly suited as a medium of exchange for an entire society (think mpesa). The coin that wins adoption as the backbone currency will have properties that are hugely different from those of a "digital corporation". Currency is the most risk-averse investment/application that can be built using this technology, and it also has the greatest potential for growth & adoption. I say we go after both the "digital corporation" application AND the "digital currency" application. The caveat here is that the banking and exchange DAC may require the properties of currency to be viable. Time will tell.
I think the OP makes at least one excellent point - there is a burning opportunity to unseat bitcoin as the dominant digital currency, and bitshares themselves do not have the right characteristics to do that.Bitcoin was designed to be a new money to compete against fiat. Pegged assets like bitUSD are competing as a more efficient method for transferring the value of money. They could be pegged to fiat or crypto. bitShares is designed to earn business profit, which requires risk, and is not suitable as money.These are different buckets in my view, although I know BM has argued they merely sit on a spectrum. It might be a powerful opportunity for bitShares to create something clearly designed to be money, but with properties superior to bitcoin and fiat, and using the DPoS framework that other crypto currencies cannot yet match.
Quote from: alphaBar on October 24, 2014, 03:20:42 amQuote from: roadkill on October 24, 2014, 03:07:16 amIs the idea to essentially launch a DPOS PTS DAC and promote it as currency rather than sharedrop instrument?It could be both. The honest truth is that Nxt was lightyears ahead of every other crypto until Bitshares launched, but they had only marginal success. Ask yourself why. To this day, Nxt has features that Bitshares hasn't implemented (multi-gateway trustless exchange between BTC-NXT/BTC-LTC/BTC-DOGE and digital goods store come to mind). No matter how superior they were in features and functionality, they could not overcome the stigma associated with their flawed IPO. Bitshares is better, but is it good enough? Time will tell. My argument is that a "purist" version of DPOS has a fighting chance for mass adoption, maybe even a better chance than a feature rich coin with a fumbled allocation problem and variable inflation (superDAC).As for the second part of your question, I would also argue that such a "purist" DPOS coin is also ideally suited for sharedropping by the "feature-rich" coins. If it weren't for Gavin, I personally think Vitalik would have share-dropped to PTS/AGS for Ethereum. I think neither Vitalik nor Gavin nor any other rational developer would sharedrop to the superDAC. The ideal instrument for sharedropping is a fairly launched pure proof of work coin with no premine. This is PTS by definition. The same properties that make PTS well suited for currency also make it an ideal instrument for sharedropping/distribution by feature-based coins.Thoughts:It's an interesting idea and I don't think anyone would be opposed. The biggest supporter of PTS has parted ways, and it's the perfect opportunity to transfer its momentum by re-launching it. Would be nice to see more discussion regarding the future of PTS.
Quote from: roadkill on October 24, 2014, 03:07:16 amIs the idea to essentially launch a DPOS PTS DAC and promote it as currency rather than sharedrop instrument?It could be both. The honest truth is that Nxt was lightyears ahead of every other crypto until Bitshares launched, but they had only marginal success. Ask yourself why. To this day, Nxt has features that Bitshares hasn't implemented (multi-gateway trustless exchange between BTC-NXT/BTC-LTC/BTC-DOGE and digital goods store come to mind). No matter how superior they were in features and functionality, they could not overcome the stigma associated with their flawed IPO. Bitshares is better, but is it good enough? Time will tell. My argument is that a "purist" version of DPOS has a fighting chance for mass adoption, maybe even a better chance than a feature rich coin with a fumbled allocation problem and variable inflation (superDAC).As for the second part of your question, I would also argue that such a "purist" DPOS coin is also ideally suited for sharedropping by the "feature-rich" coins. If it weren't for Gavin, I personally think Vitalik would have share-dropped to PTS/AGS for Ethereum. I think neither Vitalik nor Gavin nor any other rational developer would sharedrop to the superDAC. The ideal instrument for sharedropping is a fairly launched pure proof of work coin with no premine. This is PTS by definition. The same properties that make PTS well suited for currency also make it an ideal instrument for sharedropping/distribution by feature-based coins.
Is the idea to essentially launch a DPOS PTS DAC and promote it as currency rather than sharedrop instrument?
To any developers who are watching the current fiasco unfold, I have a suggestion for creating a DAC that I believe has a decent shot at beating the superDAC with minimal effort and expense. The Bitshares superDAC has the following weaknesses:* The threshold for inflation is too low. By allowing inflation of up to 8% perpetually in the protocol, you end up with a situation where large stakeholders are able to "write their own paycheck" for lack of a better term. The biggest stakeholders in the superDAC will be I3, and for all intents and purposes they will be setting their own pay. It would take an almost impossible amount of stake (if you consider the avg participation rate) to "disagree" with their payrate and to vote them out. Any currency (even Bitcoin) allows for inflation. The difference is that inflation is not baked into the protocol, and would therefore require a far greater "stake" to implement (by modifying the protocol). Bitshares has ignored one of the main principles of crypto community: that scarcity should be (almost) inviolable.* The second weakness of the superDAC is distribution. AGS distribution has already alienated a huge number of Bitcoin purists who are adamantly against "IPO coins". I don't necessarily agree with their philosophy, but there is a large segment of crypto users who will only invest in coins that have no IPO, no premine, and ONLY PoW distribution. The chaos that is unfolding with the superDAC has amplified the problem, possibly causing irreparable harm in PR and public distrust. I'm not speaking to intentions here. As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions...* The last weakness of the superDAC is what I call "abuse of the DAC analogy". Let's face it, the killer app in the crypto-space has always been and will always be one thing: currency. And to be a good store of value, any coin that maintains the sanctity of scarce supply at the protocol layer, will be leaps and bounds ahead of the competition. What Bitshares gains in "marketing funds" they will lose in investor confidence (from the very investors they are "marketing" to). It is true that running a DAC like a business will result in a more agile and adaptive token. But I would argue that we should run our "business" with the aim of positioning ourselves as the best currency and store of value (the killer app). As I mentioned earlier, I believe the crypto-space is searching for a "unit of account" that will inevitably become something of a global reserve upon which everything else is built. The coin that wins this battle will NOT be Bitcoin (primarily due to the pitfalls of PoW) and it will not be the coin with the most advanced features (see Nxt). The coin that becomes the defacto world reserve must be appealing to governments and serious investors and must be perceived as (i) fairly distributed, (ii) scarce (non-inflationary), (iii) efficient (DPOS), and (iv) secure. Any feature built on top of this coin cannot be done at the expense of these 4 things. The superDAC has failed in distribution/allocation and scarcity.Here is my proposal:Someone should fork the Bitshares Toolkit and create a new Bitshares PTS that launches on November 5th (the date of snapshot). The new PTS should have nothing but the core Toolkit functionality (DPOS+TITAN). With DPOS technology, no inflation, and pure proof of work distribution, I argue that the new Bitshares PTS has a shot at dethroning the superDAC.This is an experiment that can be conducted with minimal cost. The new PTS can always benefit from improvements made to the Toolkit, and if PTS wins I am sure Dan and the rest of the devs from I3 will jump on board (since they will have a large stake in PTS as well). If it loses then nothing much is lost.
Quote from: alphaBar on October 24, 2014, 02:09:47 am* The last weakness of the superDAC is what I call "abuse of the DAC analogy". Let's face it, the killer app in the crypto-space has always been and will always be one thing: currency. And to be a good store of value, any coin that maintains the sanctity of scarce supply at the protocol layer, will be leaps and bounds ahead of the competition. What Bitshares gains in "marketing funds" they will lose in investor confidence (from the very investors they are "marketing" to). It is true that running a DAC like a business will result in a more agile and adaptive token. But I would argue that we should run our "business" with the aim of positioning ourselves as the best currency and store of value (the killer app). As I mentioned earlier, I believe the crypto-space is searching for a "unit of account" that will inevitably become something of a global reserve upon which everything else is built. The coin that wins this battle will NOT be Bitcoin (primarily due to the pitfalls of PoW) and it will not be the coin with the most advanced features (see Nxt). The coin that becomes the defacto world reserve must be appealing to governments and serious investors and must be perceived as (i) fairly distributed, (ii) scarce (non-inflationary), (iii) efficient (DPOS), and (iv) secure. Any feature built on top of this coin cannot be done at the expense of these 4 things. The superDAC has failed in distribution/allocation and scarcity.It seems your premise is BTS is a coin or something like Bitcoin. I would prescribe more reading to understand the importance of free markets via the block chain and the benefits of the profitable-apps that are being built in to BTS that make it a value creator for its owners and users. Perhaps the wiki and all of BM's posts.
* The last weakness of the superDAC is what I call "abuse of the DAC analogy". Let's face it, the killer app in the crypto-space has always been and will always be one thing: currency. And to be a good store of value, any coin that maintains the sanctity of scarce supply at the protocol layer, will be leaps and bounds ahead of the competition. What Bitshares gains in "marketing funds" they will lose in investor confidence (from the very investors they are "marketing" to). It is true that running a DAC like a business will result in a more agile and adaptive token. But I would argue that we should run our "business" with the aim of positioning ourselves as the best currency and store of value (the killer app). As I mentioned earlier, I believe the crypto-space is searching for a "unit of account" that will inevitably become something of a global reserve upon which everything else is built. The coin that wins this battle will NOT be Bitcoin (primarily due to the pitfalls of PoW) and it will not be the coin with the most advanced features (see Nxt). The coin that becomes the defacto world reserve must be appealing to governments and serious investors and must be perceived as (i) fairly distributed, (ii) scarce (non-inflationary), (iii) efficient (DPOS), and (iv) secure. Any feature built on top of this coin cannot be done at the expense of these 4 things. The superDAC has failed in distribution/allocation and scarcity.
I disagree. BTS was never intended to be a store of value or global currency, its an investment. The bitassets are the product, they are scarce because they track the price of real-world commodities. Bitassets meets your requirements "(i) fairly distributed, (ii) scarce (non-inflationary), (iii) efficient (DPOS), and (iv) secure." (you could argue they are inflationary but they're not really because users have to buy them so equivalent value flows into the system).
Quote from: alphaBar on October 24, 2014, 03:20:42 amThe honest truth is that Nxt was lightyears ahead of every other crypto until Bitshares launched, but they had only marginal success. Ask yourself why. To this day, Nxt has features that Bitshares hasn't implemented (multi-gateway trustless exchange between BTC-NXT/BTC-LTC/BTC-DOGE and digital goods store come to mind). No matter how superior they were in features and functionality, they could not overcome the stigma associated with their flawed IPO.NXT's IPO did not help them but neither does an anonymous development team, poor marketing, poor branding, and less focused platform... which just goes to show that BitShares treats it like a business because it's a true company.
The honest truth is that Nxt was lightyears ahead of every other crypto until Bitshares launched, but they had only marginal success. Ask yourself why. To this day, Nxt has features that Bitshares hasn't implemented (multi-gateway trustless exchange between BTC-NXT/BTC-LTC/BTC-DOGE and digital goods store come to mind). No matter how superior they were in features and functionality, they could not overcome the stigma associated with their flawed IPO.
AB, you have my nomination for the position of official PTS archivist. For the last three days, you've shown more interest in this dying institution than it's received in the last three months.
You may be right that this is not enough of a competitive advantage - that the powerful features of the superDAC will be more appealing than strong scarcity and pure PoW distribution. But it is certainly a different approach that some people may prefer.
Quote from: alphaBar on October 24, 2014, 02:56:50 amQuote from: yellowecho on October 24, 2014, 02:50:14 amI'm interested in building and investing in the best decentralized autonomous company the market can offer. Company mergers are extremely beneficial when entering new markets and introducing new products via R&D as it can:1) Streamline administrative functions2) Increase market share3) Lower operational costs4) Offer financial leveraging5) Improve profitability6) Increase earnings per share.The merger will be beneficial to all stakeholders and continues to lower the barrier to entry. The merger raises my confidence in BitShares the company and the leadership of I3, the core developers, and the marketing team because it demonstrates they understand the above and how to build value. I wish you luck with your proposal because you're going to need it competing against such a team.This is certainly one view of the world, and it may very well be the right one. I would argue that there is no inherent relationship between the Toolkit and the philosophical leanings of I3. One could just as easily fork the toolkit with a coin that maintains the core principles I've outlined above (different from those of the superDAC, but well suited for PTS), still derive value from the work of I3 developers, and possibly provide value to both the developers and the community at large if it succeeds. At the very least the new PTS would be better suited for sharedropping than the superDAC (for obvious reasons). Not much lost in attempting this, but possibly much to be gained.In order for the fork to be successful and compete against BitShares it will have to add value and offer a competitive advantage over BitShares and (in my opinion) your proposal does neither. Unless the fork comes with a Bytemaster, a Toast, an Alt, etc. it's going to have a hard time surviving in this brutal crypro-space long term.
Quote from: yellowecho on October 24, 2014, 02:50:14 amI'm interested in building and investing in the best decentralized autonomous company the market can offer. Company mergers are extremely beneficial when entering new markets and introducing new products via R&D as it can:1) Streamline administrative functions2) Increase market share3) Lower operational costs4) Offer financial leveraging5) Improve profitability6) Increase earnings per share.The merger will be beneficial to all stakeholders and continues to lower the barrier to entry. The merger raises my confidence in BitShares the company and the leadership of I3, the core developers, and the marketing team because it demonstrates they understand the above and how to build value. I wish you luck with your proposal because you're going to need it competing against such a team.This is certainly one view of the world, and it may very well be the right one. I would argue that there is no inherent relationship between the Toolkit and the philosophical leanings of I3. One could just as easily fork the toolkit with a coin that maintains the core principles I've outlined above (different from those of the superDAC, but well suited for PTS), still derive value from the work of I3 developers, and possibly provide value to both the developers and the community at large if it succeeds. At the very least the new PTS would be better suited for sharedropping than the superDAC (for obvious reasons). Not much lost in attempting this, but possibly much to be gained.
I'm interested in building and investing in the best decentralized autonomous company the market can offer. Company mergers are extremely beneficial when entering new markets and introducing new products via R&D as it can:1) Streamline administrative functions2) Increase market share3) Lower operational costs4) Offer financial leveraging5) Improve profitability6) Increase earnings per share.The merger will be beneficial to all stakeholders and continues to lower the barrier to entry. The merger raises my confidence in BitShares the company and the leadership of I3, the core developers, and the marketing team because it demonstrates they understand the above and how to build value. I wish you luck with your proposal because you're going to need it competing against such a team.
I thought Bitshares is really well distributed both through AGS/PTS and also now via three months on exchanges?I am unable to mine therefor POW won't be fair to me. I was able to purchase BTC and donate to the AGS fund though.
WHat do you mean by weak scarcity ?
Quote from: alphaBar on October 24, 2014, 02:09:47 amThis is an experiment that can be conducted with minimal cost.Splitting the network so its participants can compete with itself has an extremely high cost.
This is an experiment that can be conducted with minimal cost.
Quote from: oco101 on October 24, 2014, 02:37:04 amThis one too is brilliant : Quote from: alphaBar on October 24, 2014, 02:09:47 amLet's face it, the killer app in the crypto-space has always been and will always be one thing: currency. And to be a good store of value, any coin that maintains the sanctity of scarce supply at the protocol layer, will be leaps and bounds ahead of the competitionEdit : Ohh yeah this DAC will be 6x more powerful then the superDAC why ? Well because ..you know !!!! Ask Op he'll do the math for you.The best thing would be if it magically improved your ability to comprehend basic English. But alas, "one chain to rule them all" is doomed to failure...
This one too is brilliant : Quote from: alphaBar on October 24, 2014, 02:09:47 amLet's face it, the killer app in the crypto-space has always been and will always be one thing: currency. And to be a good store of value, any coin that maintains the sanctity of scarce supply at the protocol layer, will be leaps and bounds ahead of the competitionEdit : Ohh yeah this DAC will be 6x more powerful then the superDAC why ? Well because ..you know !!!! Ask Op he'll do the math for you.
Let's face it, the killer app in the crypto-space has always been and will always be one thing: currency. And to be a good store of value, any coin that maintains the sanctity of scarce supply at the protocol layer, will be leaps and bounds ahead of the competition
I am fan of this part:Quote from: alphaBar on October 24, 2014, 02:09:47 amWith DPOS technology, no inflation, and pure proof of work distribution, I argue that the new Bitshares PTS has a shot at dethroning the superDAC.Tell us more about this 'pure proof of work distribution'. I see it as pure CPU mining, no trading allowed and to make the things great it will be done on DPOS chain.
With DPOS technology, no inflation, and pure proof of work distribution, I argue that the new Bitshares PTS has a shot at dethroning the superDAC.
Shouldn't this post be moved to "Third Party DACS"?
Lol lol is this a joke or you really believe it ? I'm mean for real take a deep breath and please don't talk about POW as a solution to anything. I know only one person on this forum that could not get over AGS, and has a large stake of PTS and for some reason he's still in love with the stupidity of POW. For sure you know who is do you....? He has a writing stile similar to yours too. Fantastic !! But please don't stop spreading your wisdom... We still love you. As for your DAC please do it I would really like you to do it to prove your brilliant point.
From what I'm reading it almost seems as if you're interested in something completely different than what Bitshares is. It's all there for the competition to make the best they can and compete. For me I am still MUCH more interested in where Bitshares superdac is going.