0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Empirical1.1 on January 13, 2015, 04:02:52 pmQuote from: islandking on January 13, 2015, 02:49:42 pmQuote from: nomoreheroes7 on January 13, 2015, 01:35:04 pmQuote from: Empirical1.1 on January 13, 2015, 12:27:51 pmUnfortunately we're not well positioned to take advantage of it yet so it's likely we'll continue to fall in unison for the time being.Unless of course bitcoin goes back up...It can happen.....right? RIGHT??Keep buying nomoreheroes. Nothing has changed, Bitshares is still the crypto project with the most potential.Well we can start pulling away and looking like the next decentralized contender in line for the throne.However if a casual observer looked at BitSharesX 3 months ago and looked at BitShares today, the only difference they'd see is this version has given up 20% Equity and introduced inflation. They actually have to see what's being worked on actualised as well as BitAsset growth to start to give us a higher valuation and some forward momentum.There have been some really opportune times for BitShares to be 'ready'. This certainly ranks as one. Instead, we have to hope that we'll create our own favorable winds when the time comes!
Quote from: islandking on January 13, 2015, 02:49:42 pmQuote from: nomoreheroes7 on January 13, 2015, 01:35:04 pmQuote from: Empirical1.1 on January 13, 2015, 12:27:51 pmUnfortunately we're not well positioned to take advantage of it yet so it's likely we'll continue to fall in unison for the time being.Unless of course bitcoin goes back up...It can happen.....right? RIGHT??Keep buying nomoreheroes. Nothing has changed, Bitshares is still the crypto project with the most potential.Well we can start pulling away and looking like the next decentralized contender in line for the throne.However if a casual observer looked at BitSharesX 3 months ago and looked at BitShares today, the only difference they'd see is this version has given up 20% Equity and introduced inflation. They actually have to see what's being worked on actualised as well as BitAsset growth to start to give us a higher valuation and some forward momentum.
Quote from: nomoreheroes7 on January 13, 2015, 01:35:04 pmQuote from: Empirical1.1 on January 13, 2015, 12:27:51 pmUnfortunately we're not well positioned to take advantage of it yet so it's likely we'll continue to fall in unison for the time being.Unless of course bitcoin goes back up...It can happen.....right? RIGHT??Keep buying nomoreheroes. Nothing has changed, Bitshares is still the crypto project with the most potential.
Quote from: Empirical1.1 on January 13, 2015, 12:27:51 pmUnfortunately we're not well positioned to take advantage of it yet so it's likely we'll continue to fall in unison for the time being.Unless of course bitcoin goes back up...It can happen.....right? RIGHT??
Unfortunately we're not well positioned to take advantage of it yet so it's likely we'll continue to fall in unison for the time being.
this summer
Quote from: donkeypong on January 08, 2015, 10:49:11 pmThere was a thread on Reddit /r/Bitcoin the other day referencing Roger Ver's tweet or posting that he'd been denied a U.S. visa to travel to the Miami conference. (Personally, as much as I respect what Roger Ver did, he basically said he didn't need the U.S. anymore and now he's whining that they won't let him back in when he does need it. Anyway, my opinion is irrelevant.) I mention this here because the comments on that thread really surprised me. Bruce Fenton weighed in regularly on RV's behalf, which was predictable. But while a year or two ago, 100% of the comments would have been blindly in favor of Roger Ver, Bruce Fenton, and Bitcoin, nearly half of the comments there were negative or questioning. My point: Plenty of people are supportive of Bitcoin and its icons. But there may be fewer 'blind' supporters than we think. A one year bear market + all these scandals is taking a toll. People are willing to question some things now. And that's healthy.What Roger was saying was that he chooses to no longer be a citizen and pay taxes to the state that imprisoned him for criticizing the abuses of ATF, using his ebay sales of farmers bird scarers as "fireworks" as a convenient excuse (while none of the other 8 sellers on ebay were prosecuted).Roger's bitterness toward the US government is completely justified - claiming he is "whining" about being denied entry to visit family and conduct business is bullshit.The politics being played regarding that are nothing but petty revenge by the US government - it is quite obvious that he is being individually targeted, just as he was 15 years ago.Here's Roger's story if you haven't read it:http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/11/12/bitcoin-venture-capitalist-roger-vers-journey-to-anarchism/The fact that 100% of the bitcoin community isn't completely supportive of Roger just goes to show how much it has been invaded by morally bankrupt boot-lickers who would gladly sell away your liberty to see their shiny new bitcoin investment increase another 10%./rant
There was a thread on Reddit /r/Bitcoin the other day referencing Roger Ver's tweet or posting that he'd been denied a U.S. visa to travel to the Miami conference. (Personally, as much as I respect what Roger Ver did, he basically said he didn't need the U.S. anymore and now he's whining that they won't let him back in when he does need it. Anyway, my opinion is irrelevant.) I mention this here because the comments on that thread really surprised me. Bruce Fenton weighed in regularly on RV's behalf, which was predictable. But while a year or two ago, 100% of the comments would have been blindly in favor of Roger Ver, Bruce Fenton, and Bitcoin, nearly half of the comments there were negative or questioning. My point: Plenty of people are supportive of Bitcoin and its icons. But there may be fewer 'blind' supporters than we think. A one year bear market + all these scandals is taking a toll. People are willing to question some things now. And that's healthy.
Quote from: Empirical1.1 on January 10, 2015, 11:09:05 amLiteCoin is $61 million atm...Definitely looks to be on the way out in a hurry.In a downtrend since march. It seems litecoin is pretty much done for.
LiteCoin is $61 million atm...Definitely looks to be on the way out in a hurry.
Actually miners don't have a say in what the community / market adopts. The problem is there is no means to reach a consensus on the upgrade thus everyone is stuck.
Bitcoin will never switch faster than market whales move. Especially considering how vastly different it would be and they wouldn't have all of our features.
Quote from: bytemaster on January 08, 2015, 06:57:28 pmQuote from: mf-tzo on January 08, 2015, 06:55:57 pmI am probably missing something but do we want bitcoin to become POS or DPOS instead of POW? If that happens then undoubtedly nothing could compete with bitcoin and our investment in BTS wouldn't lose it's value? I personally would like bitcoin to remain POW and steadily all bitcoin whales move away from bitcoin by injecting their cash to BTS rather than Bitcoin to switch to DPOS and we lose our competitive advantage..Bitcoin will never switch faster than market whales move. Especially considering how vastly different it would be and they wouldn't have all of our features. The decision to upgrade belongs to bitcoin miners not bitcoin holders. Miners have erected a barrier to entry they won’t give up – the need for huge warehouses full of global warming hardware. BTC miners’ competitive edge is their Darwinian ability to win a global warming device arms race. If miners adopt DPOS, they lose that competitive edge to others better suited to compete in the new arena. Under DPOS, people skilled at attracting voters would have the advantage. It’s like asking soccer players to deliberately change the rules for who wins the World Cup to be a chess match instead of an athletic tournament. A different skill set is required and athletes are unlikely to win a chess competition. So they will keep the rules set to require physical skills so they can continue to win as long as possible.
Quote from: mf-tzo on January 08, 2015, 06:55:57 pmI am probably missing something but do we want bitcoin to become POS or DPOS instead of POW? If that happens then undoubtedly nothing could compete with bitcoin and our investment in BTS wouldn't lose it's value? I personally would like bitcoin to remain POW and steadily all bitcoin whales move away from bitcoin by injecting their cash to BTS rather than Bitcoin to switch to DPOS and we lose our competitive advantage..Bitcoin will never switch faster than market whales move. Especially considering how vastly different it would be and they wouldn't have all of our features.
I am probably missing something but do we want bitcoin to become POS or DPOS instead of POW? If that happens then undoubtedly nothing could compete with bitcoin and our investment in BTS wouldn't lose it's value? I personally would like bitcoin to remain POW and steadily all bitcoin whales move away from bitcoin by injecting their cash to BTS rather than Bitcoin to switch to DPOS and we lose our competitive advantage..
Quote from: Empirical1.1 on January 08, 2015, 06:42:51 pmQuote from: donkeypong on January 04, 2015, 06:56:23 amWe could stand pat and see Litecoin fly by us. POW is dead.Well the most amazing thing is half of Bitcoiners agree with you. A poll in the main discussion area, titled 'should Bitcoin modify to POW + POS' has 2500 views and 48% of Bitcoiners saying YES.https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=914842.0When half of Bitcoin thinks POW is flawed and in need of a POS based modification... The end of POW may be closer than even I thought...How many of those "yes" votes are coming from people who are actually POS or DPOS enthusiasts and only went to bitcointalk to vote because it was linked to from their own forum? I am one.
Quote from: donkeypong on January 04, 2015, 06:56:23 amWe could stand pat and see Litecoin fly by us. POW is dead.Well the most amazing thing is half of Bitcoiners agree with you. A poll in the main discussion area, titled 'should Bitcoin modify to POW + POS' has 2500 views and 48% of Bitcoiners saying YES.https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=914842.0When half of Bitcoin thinks POW is flawed and in need of a POS based modification... The end of POW may be closer than even I thought...
We could stand pat and see Litecoin fly by us. POW is dead.
So two fantastic things are happening LTC is bringing itself within reach and POW as a whole is clearly dying.So passing LTC will make us look very strong indeed.
Quote from: nomoreheroes7 on December 26, 2014, 05:13:24 pmWhether or not these are just reflective of the ideas expressed in the proposals, the problem is that myself and I assume many others were under the impression that what the second sharedrop to PTS and AGS was for was to ultimately buy out PTS and AGS for their features (including having BTS be the new sharedrop target for third parties as well). I was here all through the merger fiasco and not once did I think things would turn out like this, because it wasn't clearly communicated. I can almost guarantee there are many of us who would have strongly opposed the 14% sharedrop inflation to PTS and AGS if we would've known that PTS was gonna continue competing against us and steal resources/spotlight/community etc.PTS is not a competitor to BTS and certainly nobody is "stealing resources" (that's not how open source software works). They are completely different tokens directed towards different applications. BTS is a feature-rich DAC that is intended to disrupt a variety of industries, while PTS is a DAC-agnostic sharedrop token that could never compete with BTS on features or development. No crypto-coin in history has EVER been displaced by a copycat clone or a token with a subset of its features. Other DACs will exist whether we want them to or not. PTS ensures that we get a stake in all of those tokens, many of which will be doing things that BTS doesn't desire to do (see Music for example). It is true that 3rd party DACs (not PTS) will compete with Bitshares and that some of them may be successful despite our wishes. PTS ensures that we own a stake in those tokens too. It is not a zero-sum game. We are not losing anything by holding both the vanilla DPoS sharedrop token (PTS) and the Ferrari of DACs (BTS). Killing one will not increase the value of the other, but having them both will probably lead to some synergy. This is the same reason why Toyota created Lexus, Honda created Acura, etc, etc, etc. They are directed towards different applications (not competitors), and yet they both promote the same underlying technology (DPoS).
Whether or not these are just reflective of the ideas expressed in the proposals, the problem is that myself and I assume many others were under the impression that what the second sharedrop to PTS and AGS was for was to ultimately buy out PTS and AGS for their features (including having BTS be the new sharedrop target for third parties as well). I was here all through the merger fiasco and not once did I think things would turn out like this, because it wasn't clearly communicated. I can almost guarantee there are many of us who would have strongly opposed the 14% sharedrop inflation to PTS and AGS if we would've known that PTS was gonna continue competing against us and steal resources/spotlight/community etc.
PTS is not a competitor to BTS and certainly nobody is "stealing resources" (that's not how open source software works). They are completely different tokens directed towards different applications. BTS is a feature-rich DAC that is intended to disrupt a variety of industries, while PTS is a DAC-agnostic sharedrop token that could never compete with BTS on features or development. No crypto-coin in history has EVER been displaced by a copycat clone or a token with a subset of its features. Other DACs will exist whether we want them to or not. PTS ensures that we get a stake in all of those tokens, many of which will be doing things that BTS doesn't desire to do (see Music for example). It is true that 3rd party DACs (not PTS) will compete with Bitshares and that some of them may be successful despite our wishes. PTS ensures that we own a stake in those tokens too. It is not a zero-sum game. We are not losing anything by holding both the vanilla DPoS sharedrop token (PTS) and the Ferrari of DACs (BTS). Killing one will not increase the value of the other, but having them both will probably lead to some synergy. This is the same reason why Toyota created Lexus, Honda created Acura, etc, etc, etc. They are directed towards different applications (not competitors), and yet they both promote the same underlying technology (DPoS).
Quote from: islandking on December 26, 2014, 01:58:17 pmYes please let PTS die like it should have. We paid millions during the merger so PTS should no longer be included in anything. I am confident that the shareholders are going to revolt against anyone supporting PTS through sharedrops.What you are implying (that the merger was a "buyout") is simply a distortion of some early draft proposals. Stan and Dan have both consistently stated that PTS and the social consensus will live on. This anti-diversity view is bizarre and hurtful to BTS, which depends on the success of DPoS to gain wide adoption. We, as a community, should be glad to own the most advanced crypto-coin (BTS) PLUS a share in all future DPoS implementations (via AGS/PTS and the social consensus).
Yes please let PTS die like it should have. We paid millions during the merger so PTS should no longer be included in anything. I am confident that the shareholders are going to revolt against anyone supporting PTS through sharedrops.
Quote from: Empirical1.1 on December 26, 2014, 12:35:44 amQuote from: islandking on December 25, 2014, 11:57:25 pmQuote from: Ander on December 25, 2014, 11:46:06 pmSell your PTS, buy some BTS, and release your video. We all need to be on the same team for this to be extremely successful.By analogy, I think it's fine for shareholders to have positions in and support multiple companies and even direct competitors. But I don't think it's OK to give 33% equity to a competitor in anything without shareholder approval though. Especially, when said shareholders have just paid a fortune to buy out said competitor.I'm with you both on this. Leave PTS behind and focus on building this (BitShares) ecosystem.
Quote from: islandking on December 25, 2014, 11:57:25 pmQuote from: Ander on December 25, 2014, 11:46:06 pmSell your PTS, buy some BTS, and release your video. We all need to be on the same team for this to be extremely successful.By analogy, I think it's fine for shareholders to have positions in and support multiple companies and even direct competitors. But I don't think it's OK to give 33% equity to a competitor in anything without shareholder approval though. Especially, when said shareholders have just paid a fortune to buy out said competitor.
Quote from: Ander on December 25, 2014, 11:46:06 pmSell your PTS, buy some BTS, and release your video. We all need to be on the same team for this to be extremely successful.
Sell your PTS, buy some BTS, and release your video.
Sharedrops are given to the owners/customers of a competitor, not to the competitor. This is a valid concept that may or may not entice some of them away from the competitor.(It hasn't really been tried yet except in some ancient discussion about DNS sharedropping on Namecoin users.)In the case of DevShares, its intended customer base is DPOS developers and ecosystem partners, including those who may prefer the new PTS positioning as a "neutral" share drop target. So naturally its sharedrop should be engineered to attract such customers wherever we can find them. The only other airdroppable source of potential DPOS customers is PLAY and MUSIC. I can see advantages to trying to motivate their developers to use the same test chain as well. Standardization, cross-pollination of ideas, more testing on common code modules and continued code compatibility testing come to mind.Many advantages, come to think of it. Hmmmm....
Quote from: Empirical1.1 on December 26, 2014, 12:35:44 amQuote from: islandking on December 25, 2014, 11:57:25 pmQuote from: Ander on December 25, 2014, 11:46:06 pmSell your PTS, buy some BTS, and release your video. We all need to be on the same team for this to be extremely successful.By analogy, I think it's fine for shareholders to have positions in and support multiple companies and even direct competitors. But I don't think it's OK to give 33% equity to a competitor in anything without shareholder approval though. Especially, when said shareholders have just paid a fortune to buy out said competitor.Sharedrops are given to the owners/customers of a competitor, not to the competitor. This is a valid concept that may or may not entice some of them away from the competitor.(It hasn't really been tried yet except in some ancient discussion about DNS sharedropping on Namecoin users.)In the case of DevShares, its intended customer base is DPOS developers and ecosystem partners, including those who may prefer the new PTS positioning as a "neutral" share drop target. So naturally its sharedrop should be engineered to attract such customers wherever we can find them. The only other airdroppable source of potential DPOS customers is PLAY and MUSIC. I can see advantages to trying to motivate their developers to use the same test chain as well. Standardization, cross-pollination of ideas, more testing on common code modules and continued code compatibility testing come to mind.Many advantages, come to think of it. Hmmmm....