61
General Discussion / Re: Make Functionality of the Full Wallet a Priorty?
« on: December 28, 2014, 04:46:07 am »
Hahaha. I guess it's not on soundcloud yet, could you tell me where it is? Thanks.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
62
General Discussion / Re: Make Functionality of the Full Wallet a Priorty?
« on: December 28, 2014, 04:39:33 am »
Thanks I will
63
General Discussion / Make Functionality of the Full Wallet a Priorty?
« on: December 28, 2014, 04:23:38 am »
As an early adopter (I've been into PTS>BitShares for over a year) I am having a seriously hard time being an early adopter (that sentence was not a typo). I have been trying to sync my newly updated wallet for over a day now to send my friend BitShares that I bought for him. I know from past experience that eventually I will get it synced, but this is unacceptable. Disclaimer: I am computer literate, the software really doesn't work well.
In addition to just being annoying, this is actually detrimental. Why? Because if early adopters (the critical main user base, I'm sure you know the concept already) can barely use the software even if they really want to, you will have less people spreading the word, as well as less people providing precious liquidity.
I know the light wallet is supposed to be fast and easy and bla bla, but my theory is that a significant portion of early adopters (as opposed to the general public that the light wallet targets) want the full functionality and security of the full wallet. I know I do.
Bitcoin's QT wallet wasn't pretty, but at least it worked.
Sorry if this sounded aggressive, I don't want to retype it. I meant it to be a call for discussion on the proposed theory of the priority of the full wallet as opposed to the light wallet. Curious to hear your thoughts.
In addition to just being annoying, this is actually detrimental. Why? Because if early adopters (the critical main user base, I'm sure you know the concept already) can barely use the software even if they really want to, you will have less people spreading the word, as well as less people providing precious liquidity.
I know the light wallet is supposed to be fast and easy and bla bla, but my theory is that a significant portion of early adopters (as opposed to the general public that the light wallet targets) want the full functionality and security of the full wallet. I know I do.
Bitcoin's QT wallet wasn't pretty, but at least it worked.
Sorry if this sounded aggressive, I don't want to retype it. I meant it to be a call for discussion on the proposed theory of the priority of the full wallet as opposed to the light wallet. Curious to hear your thoughts.
64
General Discussion / Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?
« on: December 28, 2014, 03:59:31 am »
Abraham Lincoln; I googled that quote...anyway, I was thinking a primary focus of BitShares should be to partner with all of these semi-centralized "bit__" companies, e.g., bitreserve, bitgold.com, etc. Get them to work with us instead of against us. If the utility they offer alone was not already enough of an incentive, their name is actually a blessing in disguise.
Doing so would strengthen the peg by offering a path to actual reserves of bitassets, yet would not compromise the fundamental decentralized foundation of BitShares.
Any thoughts? Is this already happening and I just missed it? Anyone (maybe a potential delegate, hint hint a good way to get elected) interested in doing this?
Doing so would strengthen the peg by offering a path to actual reserves of bitassets, yet would not compromise the fundamental decentralized foundation of BitShares.
Any thoughts? Is this already happening and I just missed it? Anyone (maybe a potential delegate, hint hint a good way to get elected) interested in doing this?
65
General Discussion / Re: Accounting question
« on: December 16, 2014, 04:22:06 am »
NewMine, there is some announcement somewhere from follow my vote that explains this but, I know Follow My Vote started with support from the Virginia Tech entrepreneurial community before they joined Bitshares. I believe they were originally granted some "VOTES" as a reward for their help back before Follow My Vote merged with Bitshares as it is now. So this would just be honoring that donation and is legit.
66
General Discussion / Re: Is the Official Marketing Team Sleeping?
« on: December 15, 2014, 05:08:25 pm »There's some stuff that can't be done until 1.0 is released, but there's PLENTY of other stuff to do in the meantime. Just check out Nullstreet....
The lack of communication (or PR, as BM calls it) from the marketing team is concerning, but so is the lack of ACTION. There were a million issues brought up with the new Bitshares.org like a month ago and nothing has been changed at all....that's a HUGE issue that's not very difficult to resolve....what has the team been doing with its time??
My thoughts exactly! The inaction on the website is especially shameful. Like you said, the active marketing campaign can't really begin until 1.0, but any passive informational marketing resource like the website needs to be providing the best information possible for people who happen to discover it in the mean time.
67
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares.org suggestions
« on: December 03, 2014, 09:38:15 pm »The website definitely needs to be more mobile friendly. I would have a separate design that is mobile friendly and you can just use a script that detects whether or not they are using a mobile device. A lot of internet traffic is mobile so making the website easy to use for mobile users is extremely important.
I am not a huge fan of the scroll down pictures with one sentence per picture. I think we should add something with more substance to it.
I would not use this vault picture: http://bitshares.org/#5 It just looks fake to me. A big turn off personally. A lot of the photos need to be changed in my opinion.
I really like the design of this section http://v3.bitshares.org/index.php#industries with showing all the different industries bitshares can be applied to. Maybe we could use part of it for our investors page?
The blog currently has a lot of articles which is good. However the font color of the articles is light grey which I really hate as it makes it hard to read.
The images on the articles also seem to be unprofessional and blurry. Example: http://bitshares.org/the-value-proposition-of-bitsharesx-part-i-core-technology/
All the references to BTSX, AGS, PTS, and BTS XT need to be replaced with BTS. New users will get really confused with all of these old product references.
We need videos! Videos are important to getting new users to use bitshares. I would make a nice overview video of bitshares for the home page. Then you could have a video for the merchant page, developers page, investors page, and users page. It might also be a good idea to have a few tutorial videos for new users on how to setup their account.
I also think that once the website is redesigned the forum could use some work in organizing it better, and maybe changing the design of the forum.
Just my 2 cents. I might post some more feedback later.Hope that helps.
I agree with just about all of what islandking said. Also, personally I think this template looks stylish, but is a bit difficult to use. having to scroll through several "pages" on each page, I don't like.
In contrast, this website http://www.google.com/about/company/ is highly functional, but not stylish.
I suggest looking at other websites, especially ones in the same field and ones of established successful companies and taking hints from them. No reason to reinvent the wheel, but also don't necessarily jump on the bandwagon. By jump on the bandwagon I mean use the trendy template just cause everyone else is. It's not necessarily the best
68
Muse/SoundDAC / Re: How Does bitUSD work on Peertracks?
« on: December 01, 2014, 10:20:22 pm »
Wow that's a lot of words. Skimming over it looks like a good idea, maybe a bit complicated.
I like where you're going regardless, at least you understand my concern. I get the feeling a lot of people think the current situation is sufficient and I am almost positive it is not.
I like where you're going regardless, at least you understand my concern. I get the feeling a lot of people think the current situation is sufficient and I am almost positive it is not.
69
Muse/SoundDAC / Re: How Does bitUSD work on Peertracks?
« on: December 01, 2014, 07:13:19 pm »
That would work. I think there needs to be some kind of subdivision however so small dacs can change their protocol without having to go through the entire bitshares community. Hence, the suggestion of a separate blockchain with the ability to use real bitUSD. I could be wrong about that. A full merger might be sufficient.
Maybe they could be on the same blockchain so they could still benefit from the established delegates, but it could be subdivided in some way to give them power over features which matter to them specifically? I'm sure it's possible in code somehow.
Basic Points Are:
-DACs need access to real bitUSD
-DACs need an easy way to make protocol changes/upgrades specific to them
-A completely separate entity like PeerTracks and the bitshares music blockchain seems unecessary. We already have bitUSD and established delegates how can they be used?
Maybe they could be on the same blockchain so they could still benefit from the established delegates, but it could be subdivided in some way to give them power over features which matter to them specifically? I'm sure it's possible in code somehow.
Basic Points Are:
-DACs need access to real bitUSD
-DACs need an easy way to make protocol changes/upgrades specific to them
-A completely separate entity like PeerTracks and the bitshares music blockchain seems unecessary. We already have bitUSD and established delegates how can they be used?
70
General Discussion / Re: We should have two types of "delegates"
« on: December 01, 2014, 01:56:04 am »
OK. Sounds reasonable to me. Thanks for the response.
71
General Discussion / Re: We should have two types of "delegates"
« on: November 30, 2014, 09:05:32 pm »
It's a problem because then they have to deal with setting up and handling paying other people to do work. You don't ask your I.T. guy to manage your other staff do you?
It could be expanded to multiple people per "employee" also. When you hire a marketing firm to do marketing for your company, you hire them directly and they have their own employees which they manage. This could work the same way. The bitshares bockchain hires a marketing team which is voted for in the same way current delegates are hired. They then manage their employees. Why should they be involved with block validation at all? That is completely unrelated to their duties.
You say there is already too many people to vote for and too much to think about. I agree, a direct democracy voting system is stupid and shareholders should never be expected to do all that work. I believe a solution to that is being worked right now however, as has been discussed, with the development of some sort of delegated slate voting system.
Sticking with the current system is trying to make the blockchain do something it wasn't designed to do. It can work, but it is not optimal because it was not originally inteded to be able to hire and pay people other than traditional delegates. The scope of how what bitshares can do has changed, and so should how it functions.
It could be expanded to multiple people per "employee" also. When you hire a marketing firm to do marketing for your company, you hire them directly and they have their own employees which they manage. This could work the same way. The bitshares bockchain hires a marketing team which is voted for in the same way current delegates are hired. They then manage their employees. Why should they be involved with block validation at all? That is completely unrelated to their duties.
You say there is already too many people to vote for and too much to think about. I agree, a direct democracy voting system is stupid and shareholders should never be expected to do all that work. I believe a solution to that is being worked right now however, as has been discussed, with the development of some sort of delegated slate voting system.
Sticking with the current system is trying to make the blockchain do something it wasn't designed to do. It can work, but it is not optimal because it was not originally inteded to be able to hire and pay people other than traditional delegates. The scope of how what bitshares can do has changed, and so should how it functions.
72
General Discussion / Re: We should have two types of "delegates"
« on: November 30, 2014, 08:19:37 pm »It's a pretty minimal use of time to perform the delegate functions, though. And this will be even less once there is a client that doesn't need all these updates. That doesn't take away from the other things these people are spending their time doing.
Maybe right now it is minimal, but as this network grows it's going to be a serious commitment. Think VISA server center. Regardless, I see no reason not to do it, and that is what I am really looking for.
Is there any reason, besides the time it takes to implement in code, not to do this?
73
Muse/SoundDAC / Re: How Does bitUSD work on Peertracks?
« on: November 30, 2014, 08:12:41 pm »
Xeroc, that is good it will not be called bitUSD, but it still does not solve the same core issue.
I would like to suggest that completely fungible cross-chain trading (at least for bitUSD) be a core element of the bitshares toolkit and that it be one of the priorities for development, maybe just after 1.0 release.
That would be HUGE. ANY future DAC would have immediate access to a stable crypto dollar without having to build a network and sustain a market peg. Yet, they could still have their own blockchain with its own rules and community. It solves all the issues I think.
Devs, any comment on this, can this happen? Are you working on it? Do you agree?
I would like to suggest that completely fungible cross-chain trading (at least for bitUSD) be a core element of the bitshares toolkit and that it be one of the priorities for development, maybe just after 1.0 release.
That would be HUGE. ANY future DAC would have immediate access to a stable crypto dollar without having to build a network and sustain a market peg. Yet, they could still have their own blockchain with its own rules and community. It solves all the issues I think.
Devs, any comment on this, can this happen? Are you working on it? Do you agree?
74
General Discussion / Re: We should have two types of "delegates"
« on: November 30, 2014, 08:03:39 pm »
I feel like you are not understanding what I am suggesting.
The function of another type of delegate would to be able to do anything else that is required other than validating the blocks. I chose marketing as an example and my point is that it is inefficient and unnecessary for a marketer to have to go through the process of partnering with someone who can, or learning how to validate blocks and maintain a server, just to be a paid marketer.
This other type of delegate, who I am calling an employee for now, would be paid by dilution or transaction fees, same as current delegates.
My point even holds true for devs who are currently being paid (or campaigning to be paid) by the blockchain. Even though toast, for example, has the technical ability to run a delegate server, even he should not be required to validate the blocks in order to be paid for his development services. It is an unnecessary distraction and waist of his extremely valuable time. It does not make sense.
The function of another type of delegate would to be able to do anything else that is required other than validating the blocks. I chose marketing as an example and my point is that it is inefficient and unnecessary for a marketer to have to go through the process of partnering with someone who can, or learning how to validate blocks and maintain a server, just to be a paid marketer.
This other type of delegate, who I am calling an employee for now, would be paid by dilution or transaction fees, same as current delegates.
My point even holds true for devs who are currently being paid (or campaigning to be paid) by the blockchain. Even though toast, for example, has the technical ability to run a delegate server, even he should not be required to validate the blocks in order to be paid for his development services. It is an unnecessary distraction and waist of his extremely valuable time. It does not make sense.
75
Muse/SoundDAC / Re: How Does bitUSD work on Peertracks?
« on: November 30, 2014, 06:39:42 pm »
...and I'm really just speaking about bitUSD here. Maybe you could still have your own blockchain, but it somehow is directly linked into the bitUSD of bitshares. I'm not knowledgeable enough about the actual technology, but I think you know what I mean.
