Quote from: Erlich Bachman on April 20, 2016, 07:37:43 pm

Sure !

100k BTC donation for someone to find out how GETGEMZ got their crypto app on IOS so we can do exactly what they did.

Is there anyone else out there besides onceuponatime and myself who is willing to throw six figures at our current development funding issues?

Come on team, let's all pony up a significant chunk of our investment for the greater good of the community (like the Monero community did):

0. finish stealth support
1. finish the rate limited free transaction feature
2. implement margin trading / bond market
3. implement BM's "sell voting power for development funds" idea
4. implement sidechaining

If we all work together, we can fund these projects.

Eric V is realizing how hard it is to fund effective development in this industry, and so are we!

He is not giving up, and neither am I.

Are you?

100k BTC donation???

Sent from a place unknown to man

I'm pretty sure he meant 100k BTS, not 100k BTC

Quote from: onceuponatime on April 20, 2016, 02:03:03 am

Quote from: tonyk on April 20, 2016, 01:26:50 am

Quote from: onceuponatime on April 18, 2016, 09:38:24 pm

Quote from: liondani on April 18, 2016, 10:52:21 am

Quote from: Empirical1.2 on April 18, 2016, 10:28:02 am

My wild speculation is that when you funded STEALTH you were unaware of another DAC being concurrently developed. I think it's a possibility you have been given some of the 80% of STEEM they initially mined themselves (& obfuscated in their Bitcointslk announcement) as some form of compensation, hence your multiple post support for a DAC  that I would think you would otherwise not be thrilled about in your position.

I am sure! (or something similar) 
I can't  find myself another explanation   

You may have a mean spirited and grasping myopia if you can't find yourself another explanation.

The fact of the matter is that Bytemaster offered to reimburse me from his own pocket  the full amount of the investment that I had made into the STEALTH project when he determined that the vulnerability of inexperienced or careless users to losing their funds would be too high and unfixable within the time frame of our original agreement.

I found his offer to be extraordinarily generous and indicative of his honest character and the integrity of his overall vision.

After much consultation with Dan and members of the STEALTH Board, I have accepted a 6 million BTS payment from Dan in return for 800,000 STEALTH. I reluctantly did this because I am in need of funds for other BitShares projects I am contributing to and because I had expected the STEALTH project to be at a level whereby I would be accumulating funds from it by now.

The new Plan:

I will pay 20,000 STEALTH each to two Team Leaders to move forward  the implementation of STEALTH (in its new, more limited blinded functionality). Since they are being paid only STEALTH it will be in their interest to maximize the value of STEALTH shares in any way they can come up with (temporary fees, or whatever). This would benefit all holders of the STEALTH FBA.

I will provide the Team Leaders with a significant (but not unlimited) budget from my own pocket to contract the necessary talent to implement development of STEALTH up to an agreed upon functionality.

I will use a percentage of the payment from Bytemaster to help provide liquidity in the new STEEM ecosystem

I will use the remainder of the BTS from Dan, after the above disbursements, to create liquidity in the bitCAD, bitEURO and bitSILVER markets in preparation for hopefully widespread adoption of Ken's POS system and as a marketing tool for my presentation to a centralized exchange to entice them to add BTS, bitCAD and bitUSD (and possibly bitSILVER and bitEURO) to their current lineup of bitcoin and ether, fiat CDN and fiat USD. That way, merchants could move bitCAD or bitUSD they receive from their customers to that exchange and then withdraw fiat CDN or USD to their bank accounts to pay their bills.

I have not been given any position by Bytemaster in the STEEM initiative, and in fact I am, in comparison to many of you, at a disadvantage because I am not a miner. But I can read White Papers and I am a fairly good judge of character - so STEEM has my full support.

Interesting... so I have narrow minded view of facts because:
-My similar size investment in BTS never got an offer to be refunded/bought back.... so I should take your take on facts not mine correct? Or I will be labeled short-sighted/narrow minded, right?

-----
Let's assume the facts are as you state them... so you provide 45K for the development of BTS.... you did not care if other more important features are skipped because of it (let's call it a difference in judgments and your stealth was the best could happen to BTS as far as you are concerned)....But after 3+ month nothing comes out of it...all the rest is stopped...even more...a new competing chain is developed in total secrecy by the leader of BTS....
and you still support BM's vision? Vision where he promises and not deliveres, and instead launches a new 'personally owned chain'
-----------
You getting back 6mil bts for 45K USD and 20% of not finish (mostly useless) feature might speak for your generosity and or desire to sponsor BM... but what is the reason you included that info above anyway? Paying 15K for non existing and never paying for itself feature is not a sign of a great vision you self claim (inferred by accusing other of short sightedness)?...
What I am coming to is...NOW you gonna take you efforts of providing liquidity? Now after 3 months in which you virtually delayed this feature by forcing another feature (that ultimately failed) in front of that?
-----
You can like STEEM all you want, but do not forget that your 'sponsorship' provided the best ground for it to be developed in private.... and STEEM is nothing more than a centralized entity trying to take advantage of 2 established cultural phenomenon (blockchain and social midia sites) in an effort to not do much more but grab money for 'select few'... maybe that is your intersection of yours and BM ideals...idk.

The purpose of your post?

To gather/understand "what is the good that came out of you sponsorship of stealth"...per your perspective.

Well, we won't know that until the Fat Lady sings, now will we?

Quote from: Empirical1.2 on April 18, 2016, 10:28:02 am

My wild speculation is that when you funded STEALTH you were unaware of another DAC being concurrently developed. I think it's a possibility you have been given some of the 80% of STEEM they initially mined themselves (& obfuscated in their Bitcointslk announcement) as some form of compensation, hence your multiple post support for a DAC  that I would think you would otherwise not be thrilled about in your position.

I am sure! (or something similar) 
I can't  find myself another explanation   

You may have a mean spirited and grasping myopia if you can't find yourself another explanation.

The fact of the matter is that Bytemaster offered to reimburse me from his own pocket  the full amount of the investment that I had made into the STEALTH project when he determined that the vulnerability of inexperienced or careless users to losing their funds would be too high and unfixable within the time frame of our original agreement.

I found his offer to be extraordinarily generous and indicative of his honest character and the integrity of his overall vision.

After much consultation with Dan and members of the STEALTH Board, I have accepted a 6 million BTS payment from Dan in return for 800,000 STEALTH. I reluctantly did this because I am in need of funds for other BitShares projects I am contributing to and because I had expected the STEALTH project to be at a level whereby I would be accumulating funds from it by now.

The new Plan:

I will pay 20,000 STEALTH each to two Team Leaders to move forward  the implementation of STEALTH (in its new, more limited blinded functionality). Since they are being paid only STEALTH it will be in their interest to maximize the value of STEALTH shares in any way they can come up with (temporary fees, or whatever). This would benefit all holders of the STEALTH FBA.

I will provide the Team Leaders with a significant (but not unlimited) budget from my own pocket to contract the necessary talent to implement development of STEALTH up to an agreed upon functionality.

I will use a percentage of the payment from Bytemaster to help provide liquidity in the new STEEM ecosystem

I will use the remainder of the BTS from Dan, after the above disbursements, to create liquidity in the bitCAD, bitEURO and bitSILVER markets in preparation for hopefully widespread adoption of Ken's POS system and as a marketing tool for my presentation to a centralized exchange to entice them to add BTS, bitCAD and bitUSD (and possibly bitSILVER and bitEURO) to their current lineup of bitcoin and ether, fiat CDN and fiat USD. That way, merchants could move bitCAD or bitUSD they receive from their customers to that exchange and then withdraw fiat CDN or USD to their bank accounts to pay their bills.

I have not been given any position by Bytemaster in the STEEM initiative, and in fact I am, in comparison to many of you, at a disadvantage because I am not a miner. But I can read White Papers and I am a fairly good judge of character - so STEEM has my full support.

STEEM sounds like elitist bullshit. If you're not going to let this community acquire any, either through a sharedrop, egalitarian mining, or the DEX, then don't expect us to follow you.

See the Whitepaper, page 15. They are going to let anybody acquire it, whether they can fit into your preconceptions or not. To acquire it you don't have to be a miner or have any funds to purchase it.

So who's the elitist bullshitter?

The Problem with the Crypto Debate
FREEMANSPERSPECTIVE · Apr 14th, 2016

There have been some important public debates about cryptography recently, and, unfortunately, the loudest voices have understood the problem the least. So, I’m very pleased to post a paper on the subject by someone who understands the fundamental issue: my associate at Cryptohippie, Jonathan Logan.

If you have any interest in this subject, please give this paper your time. And if you know others who are interested in the debate, please send them the link.

Thanks.

http://www.freemansperspective.com/problem-crypto-debate/

I'll pitch in 2,000

better late than never, right?

It would make it easier for Shentist (and others) to keep track of this at a glance if you followed his OP suggestion to copy the list and add your contribution to it.

1. shentist : 2.000

2. onceuponatime: 1000

3. Pheonike: 500

4. llildur: 174

5. liondani: 600

6. tarantulaz 675

The problem is that e-gold got run out of business and criminally charged for just such a service many years ago.

I don't like private profits being made from something that should be a core feature of bitshares.

I understand and appreciate that @onceuponatime has taken on risk and reduced sell pressure on BTS get Stealth asset implemented but I think this feature would be better as just a standard feature .

I'd like to see @onceuponatime  to sell this feature to bitshares and delete the Stealth asset.

He could sell it for whatever he paid +25% to cover costs and make a profit. This could be done as a worker proposal.

I've never thought Fee Backed Assets for core bitshares functions made any sense whatsoever.

@JonnyBitcoin   I agree with you and Bytemaster that it's best if STEALTH becomes a core feature of the BitShares blockchain under the control of the Committee for setting fees which will then go to all shareholders.

I now own 920,000 of the 1,000,000 STEALTH. I have distributed 20,000 to each of the 4 accounts who, along with myself, are the signatories to the Maintenance Account and are my advisors on the project.

I am willing to sell to you, @JonnyBitcoin, all of my shares at 8.34 BTS each in order for you to be able to accomplish what you say you would like to see.

I think the other 4 accounts would almost certainly sell you their shares at the same rate provided that your plan is to take STEALTH out of existence as a FBA and return the feature to the control of the Committee.

So for my rather significant risk undertaken I am asking for only a virtual break even. This is because I want immediate funds for a couple of projects which require market liquidity in key BitShares markets.  I hope to help provide such liquidity.

And  I would hope that your offer to sell the shares to the blockchain via Worker Proposal would also be reasonable and no more than at a, say, 10% profit?

(This proposal is good until Friday April 8th at  11:59 UTC after which, if not accepted, it will be withdrawn)