Off the top of my head too -
I think the 'Bitshares is to corporation as Bitcoin is to currency' is going to be a helpful paradigm for the press to explain Bitshares when the time comes. Keep DAC.
community ,I would think of the old lady next door ...
collective , maybe more formal?
Bitshares is a life style 8)C for Church? :o
you're BitShares
we're BitShares
why we try to couple it with existing words ... it's a completely new way of thinking, banking, voting etc ....my 2 cents
BitShares is a global community using a decentralized application to produce the best money in the world.
haha church is nice!Bitshares is a life style 8)C for Church? :o
Something among the lines of Decentralized Platform?Skynet Platform :)
Decentralized Developing Platform? Decentralized Improving Platform? Decentralized Platform for Applications? Decentralized Platform for Application Development? Or simply the above.. Decentralized Platform
Lets face it, "DAC" with "C" standing for company is the best metaphor out there. Taking the "company" out of the DAC is taking out the profit motive which turns the spaceship into a space-lounge. It's the Millenium Falcon pretending to be an asteroid to avoid the detection of the imperial star destroyers. And C3P0 can tell you the odds of successfully navigating an asteroid field are very low.
The question is, does calling Bishares a DAC (company) present such danger to itself that calling it something else is necessary? I'm all for using a combination of alternative metaphors when giving a more detailed explanation, such as "community" or "platform" etc but the key description that makes the most sense to me and grabs the most attention is decentralized autonomous company.
Calling it a "platform" or "business platform" has advantages when attracting businesses to run as delegates. Rather than talking about the toolkit as a platform, BTS itself is a platform and it's beneficial for BTS if entrepreneurs are aware that they could 'run their business' using BTS bitassets and fund it with BTS dilution if they can get elected as a delegate.
We have been using DA(CCCCC) for almost a year now and it has gained a wide acceptance, but despite this others have used DA Organization or simply Decentralized Application to describe the software.
Considering we cannot agree on what the C in DAC stands for and it is becoming quite clear to me that the "autonomous" part is a tad confusing considering the critical role that people and politics play in DPOS perhaps we would all be better off dropping the DAC term all together.
BitShares is a global community using a decentralized application to produce the best money in the world.
I want to get rid of the use of "company" for the description of what BitShares *is* and instead rely on it only for the purposes of explaining the economic design for the purposes of aligning incentives.
These are just random thoughts off the top of my head.... what do you think?
Lets face it, "DAC" with "C" standing for company is the best metaphor out there. Taking the "company" out of the DAC is taking out the profit motive which turns the spaceship into a space-lounge. It's the Millenium Falcon pretending to be an asteroid to avoid the detection of the imperial star destroyers. And C3P0 can tell you the odds of successfully navigating an asteroid field are very low.
The question is, does calling Bishares a DAC (company) present such danger to itself that calling it something else is necessary? I'm all for using a combination of alternative metaphors when giving a more detailed explanation, such as "community" or "platform" etc but the key description that makes the most sense to me and grabs the most attention is decentralized autonomous company.
Calling it a "platform" or "business platform" has advantages when attracting businesses to run as delegates. Rather than talking about the toolkit as a platform, BTS itself is a platform and it's beneficial for BTS if entrepreneurs are aware that they could 'run their business' using BTS bitassets and fund it with BTS dilution if they can get elected as a delegate.
+5% for Decentralized Application Platform (DAP).
We should not worry about this by presupposing a monopoly on naming and description. If we are targeting normal users, DAC would be entirely out of place. When we describe to investors why it is profitable to invest, DAC is perfectly adequate.
The technology we are building has too many facets and too many use cases that it is possible to capture them all succinctly. When we describe it we have to evoke specific use cases, because we cannot expect the people we are educating to creatively deduce all these things.
We misrepresent the technology a little bit in each instance to oversimplify, to promote a certain feel, or to bring to mind certain use cases. Our challenge is to set up a framework that we can easily and effectively navigate to draw in different demographics.
Bitshares is a life style 8)C for Church? :o
Great feedback everyone... I don't see any clear solution, but perhaps we can find a different word for the "A" ..
Decentralized Automated C* - I think Automated better describes things than autonomous.
Off the top of my head too -
I think the 'Bitshares is to corporation as Bitcoin is to currency' is going to be a helpful paradigm for the press to explain Bitshares when the time comes. Keep DAC.
The last thing we want is for the press to say BitShares is a corporation.
I think we should keep using DAC.
Keep calling the C community, if we cannot be a company.
This community invented 'DAC', we shouldnt kill it off.
I think we should keep using DAC.
Keep calling the C community, if we cannot be a company.
This community invented 'DAC', we shouldnt kill it off.
This is a good point... we should probably tweak the words we use for DAC but keep DAC.
Distributed is better than decentralized
Automated is better than autonomous or automatic
C* - all of the above apply from various perspectives.
I think we should keep using DAC.
Keep calling the C community, if we cannot be a company.
This community invented 'DAC', we shouldnt kill it off.
This is a good point... we should probably tweak the words we use for DAC but keep DAC.
Distributed is better than decentralized
Automated is better than autonomous or automatic
C* - all of the above apply from various perspectives.
I think we should keep using DAC.
Keep calling the C community, if we cannot be a company.
This community invented 'DAC', we shouldnt kill it off.
This is a good point... we should probably tweak the words we use for DAC but keep DAC.
Distributed is better than decentralized
Automated is better than autonomous or automatic
C* - all of the above apply from various perspectives.
But it is autonomous, not automated, because it's people voting that decides into which areas of business the DAC will grow.
Just thought of Distributed Automated Chroniclenice
chron·i·cle
ˈkränək(ə)l/
noun
noun: chronicle; plural noun: chronicles
1.
a factual written account of important or historical events in the order of their occurrence.
I think it's a mistake to "officially" drop the company metaphor. If Satoshi described Bitcoin as "p2p money", BitShares can be described as a "p2p company". It's a decentralized company on a blockchain that's censorship resistant and cannot be controlled by governments.
I fail to see why dropping the company metaphor is at all useful.
I think it's a mistake to "officially" drop the company metaphor. If Satoshi described Bitcoin as "p2p money", BitShares can be described as a "p2p company". It's a decentralized company on a blockchain that's censorship resistant and cannot be controlled by governments.
I fail to see why dropping the company metaphor is at all useful.
I think it's a mistake to "officially" drop the company metaphor. If Satoshi described Bitcoin as "p2p money", BitShares can be described as a "p2p company". It's a decentralized company on a blockchain that's censorship resistant and cannot be controlled by governments.
I fail to see why dropping the company metaphor is at all useful.
It's only useful in that it doesn't immediately draw attention from the governments claiming to be resistant against. You can call it a "company" or a "community", use "tokens" or something instead of "shares" and "distribution" instead of "dividend", "rewards" instead of "interest" etc... but a duck is a duck. Pretty wimpy move IMO. Also a major flip flop of what has been marketed and constantly pushed since bitshares started.
I think it's a mistake to "officially" drop the company metaphor. If Satoshi described Bitcoin as "p2p money", BitShares can be described as a "p2p company". It's a decentralized company on a blockchain that's censorship resistant and cannot be controlled by governments.
I fail to see why dropping the company metaphor is at all useful.
It's only useful in that it doesn't immediately draw attention from the governments claiming to be resistant against. You can call it a "company" or a "community", use "tokens" or something instead of "shares" and "distribution" instead of "dividend", "rewards" instead of "interest" etc... but a duck is a duck. Pretty wimpy move IMO. Also a major flip flop of what has been marketed and constantly pushed since bitshares started.
Actually with the SEC what you call it matters more than what it is... I originally adopted the company metaphor based upon the "duck is a duck" mentality... but sadly that is not the case with regulators. They care about whether or not you are attempting to use terms the public places trust in to persuade others to part with their money. If you can convince someone to part with their money for a stake in a community then it is very different than selling a share in a company despite the economic result being the same.
Actually with the SEC what you call it matters more than what it is... I originally adopted the company metaphor based upon the "duck is a duck" mentality... but sadly that is not the case with regulators. They care about whether or not you are attempting to use terms the public places trust in to persuade others to part with their money. If you can convince someone to part with their money for a stake in a community then it is very different than selling a share in a company despite the economic result being the same.
I think it's a mistake to "officially" drop the company metaphor. If Satoshi described Bitcoin as "p2p money", BitShares can be described as a "p2p company". It's a decentralized company on a blockchain that's censorship resistant and cannot be controlled by governments.
I fail to see why dropping the company metaphor is at all useful.
It's only useful in that it doesn't immediately draw attention from the governments claiming to be resistant against. You can call it a "company" or a "community", use "tokens" or something instead of "shares" and "distribution" instead of "dividend", "rewards" instead of "interest" etc... but a duck is a duck. Pretty wimpy move IMO. Also a major flip flop of what has been marketed and constantly pushed since bitshares started.
Actually with the SEC what you call it matters more than what it is... I originally adopted the company metaphor based upon the "duck is a duck" mentality... but sadly that is not the case with regulators. They care about whether or not you are attempting to use terms the public places trust in to persuade others to part with their money. If you can convince someone to part with their money for a stake in a community then it is very different than selling a share in a company despite the economic result being the same.
Why do we care about the SEC? Bitshares is a decentralized worldwide platform which they cannot really stop.
Why must we conform to their regulations?
I think it's a mistake to "officially" drop the company metaphor. If Satoshi described Bitcoin as "p2p money", BitShares can be described as a "p2p company". It's a decentralized company on a blockchain that's censorship resistant and cannot be controlled by governments.
I fail to see why dropping the company metaphor is at all useful.
It's only useful in that it doesn't immediately draw attention from the governments claiming to be resistant against. You can call it a "company" or a "community", use "tokens" or something instead of "shares" and "distribution" instead of "dividend", "rewards" instead of "interest" etc... but a duck is a duck. Pretty wimpy move IMO. Also a major flip flop of what has been marketed and constantly pushed since bitshares started.
Actually with the SEC what you call it matters more than what it is... I originally adopted the company metaphor based upon the "duck is a duck" mentality... but sadly that is not the case with regulators. They care about whether or not you are attempting to use terms the public places trust in to persuade others to part with their money. If you can convince someone to part with their money for a stake in a community then it is very different than selling a share in a company despite the economic result being the same.
Why do we care about the SEC? Bitshares is a decentralized worldwide platform which they cannot really stop.
Why must we conform to their regulations?
I think it's a mistake to "officially" drop the company metaphor. If Satoshi described Bitcoin as "p2p money", BitShares can be described as a "p2p company". It's a decentralized company on a blockchain that's censorship resistant and cannot be controlled by governments.
I fail to see why dropping the company metaphor is at all useful.
It's only useful in that it doesn't immediately draw attention from the governments claiming to be resistant against. You can call it a "company" or a "community", use "tokens" or something instead of "shares" and "distribution" instead of "dividend", "rewards" instead of "interest" etc... but a duck is a duck. Pretty wimpy move IMO. Also a major flip flop of what has been marketed and constantly pushed since bitshares started.
Actually with the SEC what you call it matters more than what it is... I originally adopted the company metaphor based upon the "duck is a duck" mentality... but sadly that is not the case with regulators. They care about whether or not you are attempting to use terms the public places trust in to persuade others to part with their money. If you can convince someone to part with their money for a stake in a community then it is very different than selling a share in a company despite the economic result being the same.
Why do we care about the SEC? Bitshares is a decentralized worldwide platform which they cannot really stop.
Why must we conform to their regulations?
+5% Agree. Invictus is ending so that's no longer an attack vector. Bitshares has the ability to fund it's own growth in a decentralized way... I don't understand this constant fear of American regulators. Delegates can locate anywhere on Earth.
Just call it Decentralized Application or DApp. Everybody is using apps on iPhone or Android so they should get this quickly.
I honestly think the best description of what bitshares "is", would be "blockchain". DAC works too, but from what i understand then DAC is synonymous with blockchain. There are plenty of established english words that work well as metaphors for describing and simplifying what bitshares is; company, community, cooperative etc. But all these words are just approximations, and I dont think we will ever be able to find an established word that properly defines bitshares, because nothing even remotely like bitshares existed before bitcoin.
So given that satoshi decided to name his invention "the blockchain", we might as well use that name too (if DAC causes confusion due to the company part)
I think it's a mistake to "officially" drop the company metaphor. If Satoshi described Bitcoin as "p2p money", BitShares can be described as a "p2p company". It's a decentralized company on a blockchain that's censorship resistant and cannot be controlled by governments.
I fail to see why dropping the company metaphor is at all useful.
It's only useful in that it doesn't immediately draw attention from the governments claiming to be resistant against. You can call it a "company" or a "community", use "tokens" or something instead of "shares" and "distribution" instead of "dividend", "rewards" instead of "interest" etc... but a duck is a duck. Pretty wimpy move IMO. Also a major flip flop of what has been marketed and constantly pushed since bitshares started.
Actually with the SEC what you call it matters more than what it is... I originally adopted the company metaphor based upon the "duck is a duck" mentality... but sadly that is not the case with regulators. They care about whether or not you are attempting to use terms the public places trust in to persuade others to part with their money. If you can convince someone to part with their money for a stake in a community then it is very different than selling a share in a company despite the economic result being the same.
+5% Agree. Invictus is ending so that's no longer an attack vector. Bitshares has the ability to fund it's own growth in a decentralized way... I don't understand this constant fear of American regulators. Delegates can locate anywhere on Earth.
Do you want 10 dollar bitshares 5 years from now, or would you like them 30 years from now after a prolonged, worldwide prohibition?
Yeah sure, until they change their mind spontaneously. What do you do when they come after people involved in BitShares even though you insist that it is purely "community" and not business and investment? Just shut the whole project down to prevent any harm to yourself? It sounds like this project is *very* prone to censorship and regulator interference if pre-emptive moves like this are being made. There is a good reason Satoshi is anonymous you know...
+5% Agree. Invictus is ending so that's no longer an attack vector. Bitshares has the ability to fund it's own growth in a decentralized way... I don't understand this constant fear of American regulators. Delegates can locate anywhere on Earth.
Do you want 10 dollar bitshares 5 years from now, or would you like them 30 years from now after a prolonged, worldwide prohibition?
A worldwide ban on BitAssets is unlikely because Bitshares can be described as a p2p company. If regulators are out to get us, they will "get us" no matter what language we use. Should BitUSD be rebranded because it might be confused with real USD?
Besides, the anacronym DAZ has more pizzazz!
Besides, the anacronym DAZ has more pizzazz!
I don't want to detract from your post, but "DAZ" reminded me of "The DAZ Doorstep Challenge" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeO0AhKPW5Y (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeO0AhKPW5Y)
Sorry...a bit of light relief :P
Isn't BitShares more like a decentralized operating system (core software or KERNEL) and things like bitAssets/VOTE/keyID .. are DApps ontop of it?
Isn't BitShares more like a decentralized operating system (core software or KERNEL) and things like bitAssets/VOTE/keyID .. are DApps ontop of it?
DOS
Also, almost no one outside of this tiny world knows what a DAC is. Heck, most don't really know what bitcoin is. Words like decentralized, distributed, autonomous, open-source, etc. have little meaning in this context to them. So it all depends on who this statement is aimed at.
Is this something a member of my blockchain-clueless family would potentially be seeing or is it aimed at crypto nerds?
Positioning Bitshares as an alternative to traditional banking potentially reaches both groups.
Isn't BitShares more like a decentralized operating system (core software or KERNEL) and things like bitAssets/VOTE/keyID .. are DApps ontop of it?
Off the top of my head too -
I think the 'Bitshares is to corporation as Bitcoin is to currency' is going to be a helpful paradigm for the press to explain Bitshares when the time comes. Keep DAC.
The last thing we want is for the press to say BitShares is a corporation.
Translation: you want to change up all the language used in BitShares because you realized you might get in trouble with the feds for using language like corporation, shares, interest, investment, securities etc and you are scared. Seems like a cop out to me, you should have just stayed anonymous man. All you are doing is just confusing people even more.
...
Yeah sure, until they change their mind spontaneously. What do you do when they come after people involved in BitShares even though you insist that it is purely "community" and not business and investment? Just shut the whole project down to prevent any harm to yourself? It sounds like this project is *very* prone to censorship and regulator interference if pre-emptive moves like this are being made. There is a good reason Satoshi is anonymous you know...
Actually with the SEC what you call it matters more than what it is... I originally adopted the company metaphor based upon the "duck is a duck" mentality... but sadly that is not the case with regulators. They care about whether or not you are attempting to use terms the public places trust in to persuade others to part with their money. If you can convince someone to part with their money for a stake in a community then it is very different than selling a share in a company despite the economic result being the same.
Why do we care about the SEC? Bitshares is a decentralized worldwide platform which they cannot really stop.
Why must we conform to their regulations?
if bitshares will be a threat they will fight us!
i agree to take this SEC etc. into our consideration, but if the old bankcartels feel threaten, they will attack us. But would this bad? i don't think so. Much publicity without 1 bitUSD spend - great!
For right or wrong, whether there is justification or not, if the SEC or other regulator did come after one or more entities associated with bitShares, what power would they have to stop it? What are their control points?
Actually I'm not speculating whether they have or not. It was a hypothetical about the future.For right or wrong, whether there is justification or not, if the SEC or other regulator did come after one or more entities associated with bitShares, what power would they have to stop it? What are their control points?
Thats just speculation.
There was a thread Stan weighed in on a few weeks ago talking about a SEC muzzle. It was suggested a regular announcement be made daily denying I3 had received such an announcement.
Why wasn't that strategy ever put into practice? It was a good solution, a kind of dead mans switch to let the community know the SEC notified I3 and said not to say a word about it.
When you take on the big boys you better think it through before you piss them off.
For right or wrong, whether there is justification or not, if the SEC or other regulator did come after one or more entities associated with bitShares, what power would they have to stop it? What are their control points?
I see, I guess that is possible while these things remain centralised...For right or wrong, whether there is justification or not, if the SEC or other regulator did come after one or more entities associated with bitShares, what power would they have to stop it? What are their control points?
They could ask the owner of bitshares.org to shut down the site, contact the owner of the repository and ask that be shut down, chase the owner of this forum etc.
How much actual power they'd have to do these things, I've no idea, but those are the potential points of influence.
I think it's a mistake to "officially" drop the company metaphor. If Satoshi described Bitcoin as "p2p money", BitShares can be described as a "p2p company". It's a decentralized company on a blockchain that's censorship resistant and cannot be controlled by governments.
I fail to see why dropping the company metaphor is at all useful.
It's only useful in that it doesn't immediately draw attention from the governments claiming to be resistant against. You can call it a "company" or a "community", use "tokens" or something instead of "shares" and "distribution" instead of "dividend", "rewards" instead of "interest" etc... but a duck is a duck. Pretty wimpy move IMO. Also a major flip flop of what has been marketed and constantly pushed since bitshares started.
Actually with the SEC what you call it matters more than what it is... I originally adopted the company metaphor based upon the "duck is a duck" mentality... but sadly that is not the case with regulators. They care about whether or not you are attempting to use terms the public places trust in to persuade others to part with their money. If you can convince someone to part with their money for a stake in a community then it is very different than selling a share in a company despite the economic result being the same.
...
You know you're doing something right when your adversaries begin to attack you. If you're at war what do you do when the enemy attacks? You fight harder! You find more effective strategies or you employ camouflage or flee to fight another day in another way.
Got your passport ready?
..
Actually I'm not speculating whether they have or not. It was a hypothetical about the future.For right or wrong, whether there is justification or not, if the SEC or other regulator did come after one or more entities associated with bitShares, what power would they have to stop it? What are their control points?
Thats just speculation.
There was a thread Stan weighed in on a few weeks ago talking about a SEC muzzle. It was suggested a regular announcement be made daily denying I3 had received such an announcement.
Why wasn't that strategy ever put into practice? It was a good solution, a kind of dead mans switch to let the community know the SEC notified I3 and said not to say a word about it.
When you take on the big boys you better think it through before you piss them off.
Actually with the SEC what you call it matters more than what it is... I originally adopted the company metaphor based upon the "duck is a duck" mentality... but sadly that is not the case with regulators. They care about whether or not you are attempting to use terms the public places trust in to persuade others to part with their money. If you can convince someone to part with their money for a stake in a community then it is very different than selling a share in a company despite the economic result being the same.
I think losing the word autonomous is a terrible idea, for a few reasons:
1) It's an opportunity to reintroduce the concept of autonomy (freedom from external control or influence; independence), to those in whom it is absent
2) "Decentralized Autonomous" speaks to the vision you articulated in A Philosophy of Freedom published on bitshares.org: "The point of the Invictus Movement is to show a new way, the DAC way, of governing society in a decentralized voluntary way. A way that is entirely non-violent and yet inescapable in its ability to motivate just outcomes, fair trade, and enforcement of contracts."
In relation to the idea of governance the word automated invokes in me, and I think it would for many others, a chilling dread. The word automated feels dead, static. The word autonomous is dynamic, requires action...
Automated/Application leaves room in the imagination for the Borg. Autonomous leaves room in the imagination for non-violence and just outcomes.
3) While the blockchain is an automated application, a DAC by this or any other name requires the participation of people to be brought to life, so I'd emphasize the involvement aspect/benefits in your marketing.