BitShares Music keeps the bts brand together and all the combined 'BitShares' links should help SEO

Quote from: CLains on June 25, 2015, 10:20:09 am

Quote from: bitsharesblog.com on June 25, 2015, 09:32:53 am

Currently the top post on Reddit, bytemaster's conversation with Satoshi almost 5 years ago...
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3b0ycp/the_current_system_where_every_user_is_a_network/

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3b0ycp/the_current_system_where_every_user_is_a_network/csi36pn

dno if this will work, shot in the dark honestly.

We had 7 points on this. Back to 2 now, and -3 to the guy defending it a few posts down.. such maximalists, even though bytemaster is right there in 2010 people still shut their ears. So sad.

I tried to help! In a "roundabout" kind of way

LALALALA just in testing, all in BM's head LALALALA

Good thing BitShares is going the route of providing products and services that the market wants rather than relying on the speculation of bitcoiners.
Let the price punish the ignorant and reward the diligent.

Lol at lukejr proclaiming 'all altcoins are useless'.
Regardless of bitshares it's just factually incorrect. Trading hype-cycles is "useful".

I get the arguments as why the most established/useful CURRENCY will push out competitors - Gresham's law etc.

Gresham's law is an economic principle that states: "When a government overvalues one type of money and undervalues another, the undervalued money will leave the country or disappear from circulation into hoards, while the overvalued money will flood into circulation."

But many fail to recognize that crypto will disrupt more than just currency. There's an entire financial system to be freed.
The phrase "jack of all trades but master of none" comes to mind. Bitcoin makes a great currency but something like BitShares is needed to perform other financial services.
I don't think its possible to be a perfect currency at the same time as a perfect trading-exchange.

Hence our "problem" of how to define BitShares:

The community has a schizophrenic view on BTS as a result of its history. A currency demands very little or no dilution. That's why we had many leave the community when dilution to fund development was introduced. On the other hand, developing a financial platform is a business endeavour that requires a lot of funding in return for profit. That's why CNX has had to establish externally to bitShares, to give the development team other avenues of funding the business. That separation has also upset some of the community. The basic problem is that BTS cannot be both a currency and a development business. In answer to my question on whether bitShares might consider market loans to help fund development (a business need), bytemaster in the Hangout suggested the big problem is aversion to dilution (the currency need). I understand that answer completely.

What I'm suggesting here is a way to potentially meet both needs within the bitShares system. What if we split BTS into separate decentralised currency and business vehicles? It's not fully thought out, and I'm not certain this would be a good idea yet or not - this is just conceptual and posted for feedback.

Essentially, the story goes, Chinese stakeholders have accumulated enough BTSX to censor the development team. They suffered, according to the story, under a dilution of the cost of BitSharesX, and, now disgruntled, want more control over how BitShares is run. “Since Bitshares likes to call itself a company,”  one BitcoinTalk poster, in a thread called ‘Bitcoin oligarchy rears its head,’ says,
 "This development is akin to a hostile corporate takeover, except that the raiding parties have the ability to kill the price in such an illiquid market."

Smells a bit like bitcoiner FUD but how much do we really know about major bts holders?
Holding a few 100m bts and threatening to dump it all at once is a hefty bargaining tool.

Anyways, I made my concerns known regarding BIT-X and BANX, the community can check it or leave it; I myself am not informed or competent enough to come up with any useful digging. I can see a few of the members (incidentally they seem to be active traders) are happy to swallow everything that Stan peddles out and get their pitchforks out for any skeptics.

While I agree members need to be cautious, in this pre-DPOS 2.0 stage I think we are totally in the hands of CMX.
They've build the product that will give every decision over to the members, but it's not out yet.
If you would like to have more personal-certainty then maybe you could get yourself involved in future negotiations somehow.

Re Stan; Perhaps a tad over excited sometimes, but this guy fathered Dan Larimer. Can't imagine how proud he is and I think he shows great restraint in bigging-up his son!
I also agree idolatry shouldn't get in the way, but still - Dan and Stan's free market, libertarian explanations of how bts is designed to solve specific issues is what got me interested in the first place and I wouldn't want anyone to stop giving me 'the big picture'.

If you don't trust BM or Stan or CMX to guide us for another few months then you should adjust your stake accordingly.
If there was no risk or uncertainty here then I doubt you'd be able to pick up a slice of the global-orderbook pie for pennies.

They are clinging to the past. They can't  see where all this innovation could lead because they lack imagination and their agenda is unbelievably narrow in scope.

I don't think governments are stupid, they know exactly what it is that they're stifling.

The message that this or that party is 'incompetent' just hides the malice

Projects like Bitshares are potentially global, autonomous, highly resilient constitutions.

Bts to the rescue! Hopefully soon

This approach is what will move the bigger ones as well. When we reach a tipping point of more users or large group of users using the Super DEX, then those users at other networks are going to cry out for the move because now their liquidity is not looking as hot as they would like it to be compared to what they will see here.

We don't need to do a coinomat btc to vote type contest either.. we can just make it social.. like/tweet stuff perhaps for example.. anything that sends a clear signal from users that the exchange that is named is being asked by its own users to do this

I like the idea of one tweet = one vote, but why would we only want one winner?
Surely every single exchange signing up is the goal?

The problem I see with a vote is that nobody even knows bts exists yet. If we're going to market to people in order to tell them there's a vote going on - then wouldn't it be better to market to people that BTS ACTUALLY EXISTS, lol

Could we set up the vote in such a way that the exchanges themselves would be able to host the polling?
All the votes could be tallied on bts, demonstrating how versatile it is, but the users of the exchange in question immediately see the vote!
If there is a way for the exchange to profit regardless of the voting outcome, then they could be encouraged to do it. It would have to be easy though.
UIA? For large-targets bts shareholders may even wish to contribute to cover the setup fees, so the exchange can operate the poll for free, but still profit somehow.

Not sure if it's possible but it could be great

i'm a fan of the current approach considering BTS to be equity in the business. it gives the 'currency' much more value as representing a token in a network with useful functionality. sure, money transfer networks have value, but that's what BTC and LTC do well...we should keep focusing on our niche and not simply try to replicate things already done well by others.

Startspirit, I like your idea of taking a loan to fund development by vesting a lump sum of bts and selling it cheaper than market-price (or some other enticing benefit, maybe sharedrops of some kind?) to investors willing to take the risk on the medium term success of bts.
Couldn't this be done with a worker proposal?
The shareholders can allocate reserve-pool funds to a vesting account and delegates can publicly vet and announce fiat banking relationships.
I really like the product-freeze mentioned by Cryptonomex.
We're wait ahead in development, now we need to get our products in front of our target audience.
An existing system that can get the job done ~80% efficiently will still advance bts faster than developing a 95% efficient system that takes months in R&D. (Numbers for illustration only.)
We may only need dev-loans for the first year or so, it may not be worth developing a whole new system.
If after a year it turns out that we would benefit from a superior loan system, then bts will be profitable enough to comfortably pay for the R&D due to the dev-loans secured with the tools we currently have.
In which case there would be no point in investing scarce funding in developing a new system right now.

Bitcoin seems to be doing ok as a currency, but neither bts or btc will ever behave as an ideal currency until mass adoption.
If business-BitShares gain mass adoption then they should be fairly stable anyway. If at that point people choose to use bts as a currency then great.
But I don't see the need to jeopardize BitShares' business niche to muck about with trying to make our own brand of currency and expect it to behave as such from the get-go.
It will be highly illiquid and untrusted for ages - so what's the point?
Bitcoin has a 5 year headstart, and no amount of investment can buy the time needed for customers to get comfortable with something brand new and unproven.