0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
How is a DAC toolkit anything other than a toolkit for specifying a set of smart contracts?Just because you can't dynamically add new contracts doesn't make it not smart contracts...
Guys, my whole point is that different systems need different consensus models in order to optimize their utility.
DACs make no sense without smart contracts and guess what there are now two ventures building them both are not called Invictus. A DAC tookit isn't in demand, IPOs definitely are and will continue to be for the foreseeable future.
Would you agree on the following: A smart contract is everything that is conditional + involves more than one economic entity (doesn't have to be human) + uses a blockchain to store the data, for example:1) Any multisig transaction2) Ethereum style conditional payments that can be activated with ether (many different smart contracts all on the ethereum blockchain)3) A Bitshares style DAC. Lottery for example says "IF you buy a lottery ticket THEN you will get a (a) % chance of winning (b) (which depends on how many other others are playing) which is paid out in way (c). Every "smart contract" has its own chain. (2) and (3) are basically the same (both are smart contracts and in both systems the contracts have to be activated with the native currency) except:- one blockchain vs. many blockchains - C++ vs. Ethereum's custom scripting languages. Both are turring complete.
Quote from: ʞʎuoʇ on August 08, 2014, 04:21:00 pmGiving the future workers 3.5 times bigger stake than the total stake of all current owners is a bigger thread to all stakeholders (big or small), IMHO.What I mean is the current voting system may be the best for selecting delegates [block producers], but it is a terrible system to vote on dilution on one’s ownership.The way I look at the allocation is simply this: initial owners paid for about 1 year of development and those development funds will run out. To maintain future growth and development necessary to really grow the network will require an effort about 3x larger than the first year of development. The labor contributed in years 2, 3 and 4 is of equal value to the labor contributed in year 1. In year 5 everyone has ownership proportional to their contribution (value for value).Now if the original owners from year one vote to fund unproductive work in years 2-4 then that is a problem.... I think large stake holders will be pro-active in making sure no unprofitable dilution occurs.
Giving the future workers 3.5 times bigger stake than the total stake of all current owners is a bigger thread to all stakeholders (big or small), IMHO.What I mean is the current voting system may be the best for selecting delegates [block producers], but it is a terrible system to vote on dilution on one’s ownership.
Right, this is what DPOS is. Pick 101 people to do the work regardless of their token ownership. If there is a lot of work to do then you pick 101 teams with each team being arbitrarily large with their own allocation strategy.
Quote from: tonyk on August 08, 2014, 03:34:20 pmQuote from: charleshoskinson on August 08, 2014, 03:19:39 pmIt makes no sense to me that somehow ownership of the token system ought to be the deciding factor in who benefits from providing the work to provide these services. It ought to be the people actually doing the work regardless of their token ownership.I on the other hand, see a dangerous shift in his thinking in that direction. Hope it does not turn deadly…Miners of the World Unite!The concept that the network is owned by the "workers" and not those who are providing capital seems is down right socialist. Ie: someone who does not own the system should benefit instead and that their benefit should be derived from something other than a free market exchange at the expense of those who own it. Property Rights and Value-for-Value exchange is the foundation of what we build. Looks like you have drifted to a different foundation.
Quote from: charleshoskinson on August 08, 2014, 03:19:39 pmIt makes no sense to me that somehow ownership of the token system ought to be the deciding factor in who benefits from providing the work to provide these services. It ought to be the people actually doing the work regardless of their token ownership.I on the other hand, see a dangerous shift in his thinking in that direction. Hope it does not turn deadly…
It makes no sense to me that somehow ownership of the token system ought to be the deciding factor in who benefits from providing the work to provide these services. It ought to be the people actually doing the work regardless of their token ownership.
It makes no sense to me that somehow ownership of the token ought to be the deciding factor in who benefits from providing the work to provide these services. It ought to be the people actually doing the work regardless of their token ownership.
DACs make no sense without smart contracts and guess what there are now two ventures building them both are not called Invictus. A DAC tookit isn't in demand, IPOs definitely are and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Second, http://p2pool.in/ exists and it completely removes the negative impact of pool operators. Yes Dan you are correct in that mining power if it is wasting computation is a problem for the little guy; however, you haven't address decentralized storage, general purpose computation and hosting. Despite what you claim, people do pay for these services in their centralized form to the tune of tens of billions of dollars per year. It makes no sense to me that somehow ownership of the token ought to be the deciding factor in who benefits from providing the work to provide these services. It ought to be the people actually doing the work regardless of their token ownership.
In terms of mining centralization, what about P2P pools? Then there are no mining pool operators. Also what if the mining algorithm is work that benefits the network?
QuoteIndeed. 100% of all bitcoins currently in circulation were, by definition,obtained from someone else**so what difference does it make?Sorry but in bitcoin also the early adopters, the geeks have mined enormous amounts in the early days. In a sense isn't it the exact same thing? The small oligarchy of speculators who understood bitcoin hold a substantial stake...All POW coins are controlled now in reality by mining pools and very few people.POS coins also may be available cheaply in reality. Who knows if in 5 yeras 1NXT = 1BTSX=$1,000. Everyone has the choice to speculate on that price and 5 years from now people may say the same things that they say about early adopters as in bitcoin...All in all I believe that none is fair. One is energy efficient the other not. That is the only difference in my head..This wasn't a complaint about acquisition, but rather rights associated with the coin. Again, for cryptoequities like bitshares, it makes sense to have strong voting rights. I think everyone can dream up a case where this doesn't make sense. That's my point. Again I am neither a blind fan of PoW or PoS. I'm saying consensus needs to be directly connected to desired economic incentives and intended utility of the protocol. In terms of mining centralization, what about P2P pools? Then there are no mining pool operators. Also what if the mining algorithm is work that benefits the network? Again, this issue isn't black and white. I will say nothing more about PoW and PoS, this isn't the thread.
Indeed. 100% of all bitcoins currently in circulation were, by definition,obtained from someone else**so what difference does it make?Sorry but in bitcoin also the early adopters, the geeks have mined enormous amounts in the early days. In a sense isn't it the exact same thing? The small oligarchy of speculators who understood bitcoin hold a substantial stake...All POW coins are controlled now in reality by mining pools and very few people.POS coins also may be available cheaply in reality. Who knows if in 5 yeras 1NXT = 1BTSX=$1,000. Everyone has the choice to speculate on that price and 5 years from now people may say the same things that they say about early adopters as in bitcoin...All in all I believe that none is fair. One is energy efficient the other not. That is the only difference in my head..
QuoteHere's my primary problem. PoS is fundamentally controlled by people who own the tokens of the system. If one has developed a non-monetary system such as distributive computation, storage, or hosting services for example, then the vast majority of users likely will not hold a substantial stake in the system's tokens rather a small oligarchy of speculators, early adopters and perhaps infrastructure providers would. Thus you have a system where the people who use the network must accept the demands of a small group as we currently do with the centralized web. Sorry but in bitcoin also the early adopters, the geeks have mined enormous amounts in the early days. In a sense isn't it the exact same thing? The small oligarchy of speculators who understood bitcoin hold a substantial stake... All POW coins are controlled now in reality by mining pools and very few people. POS coins also may be available cheaply in reality. Who knows if in 5 yeras 1NXT = 1BTSX=$1,000. Everyone has the choice to speculate on that price and 5 years from now people may say the same things that they say about early adopters as in bitcoin...All in all I believe that none is fair. One is energy efficient the other not. That is the only difference in my head..
Here's my primary problem. PoS is fundamentally controlled by people who own the tokens of the system. If one has developed a non-monetary system such as distributive computation, storage, or hosting services for example, then the vast majority of users likely will not hold a substantial stake in the system's tokens rather a small oligarchy of speculators, early adopters and perhaps infrastructure providers would. Thus you have a system where the people who use the network must accept the demands of a small group as we currently do with the centralized web.
Now let's examine PoS in general. If one admits a solely store of value system, then PoS is economically aligned with the best interests of the entire network. The majority should be reasonably expected to use PoS to attempt to increase the value of their personal holdings. Also implementations of PoS are considerably simpler than PoW. As I said above, DPOS also adds network health to the list of considerations via the judgement of the voters. Here's my primary problem. PoS is fundamentally controlled by people who own the tokens of the system. If one has developed a non-monetary system such as distributive computation, storage, or hosting services for example, then the vast majority of users likely will not hold a substantial stake in the system's tokens rather a small oligarchy of speculators, early adopters and perhaps infrastructure providers would. Thus you have a system where the people who use the network must accept the demands of a small group as we currently do with the centralized web. There are probably some soft corrections that could be implemented; however, from a philosophical viewpoint, it's not necessarily the best idea to endow the holders of a token to be the voting class of a network. For cryptoequities, matters of corporate governance, DACs in general, this structure makes perfect sense. In systems where the vast majority of users control only an aggregate small amount of tokens, then it doesn't seem to align interests properly. I hope that explains my viewpoint.
Charles Charles Charles, enough with this pow btc stuff plz. How many times can we beat a dead horse
QuoteI really do not want to undervalue your effort to collect that much more money. I know it is hard, very hard.My point is that Ether and Bitshares X will not likely fail (if they do) because the product was not well financed, i.e in a result of not being well developed (coded). Either of them will fail because the core ideas were not workable. Not meant to work in the real world. My point wasn't the raw amount of money collected, it was strictly about adoption. Ideas are worthless without people who subscribe to them. Even flawed ideas can be more powerful than pure ones if there is a legion of followers- look at a lot of wack job religions. Ethereum in its sale numbers has demonstrated a large community of people who now have a financial interest in being advocates for the ecosystem and its ideology. That was my point. QuoteI did lol a bit.I just want to hear good reasons for why someone supports POW at this point. Not really POW vs POS, just expecting thorough reasoning. Charles, you put so much thought into your words that I expect only the best. I don't argue with everyone, just those of which I have high expectations. If such a person says something that doesn't make sense to me or seems wrong, I like to engage them. Thats why I ended up here. Blame it on Dan.Yanno, you don't meet people like Charles at the local watering hole.....So one starts with a database (the blockchain) that contains an initial state and transitions to another state. The fundamental question is how one verifies that the state change is correct versus any other proposed change. PoW and PoS are both mechanisms to accomplish state transition in a decentralized way. PoW is an algorithmic meritocracy taking work in the form of something that runs O(n) with an associated global difficulty and verifies in O(1). This requirement has prevented people from using PoW for beneficial tasks as most need either human judgement for verification or verify in same time as the work. In principle, I like PoW if one can bundle activities that benefit the health of the overall network and then reward the largest contributors. In fact, Dan is attempting to do this with DPOS via delegate competition- those who do the most for the network at the lowest cost per user are most likely to be voted a delegate. No one has yet established a mechanism to accomplish this in a trustless, automated algorithm. So yes PoW is a waste of resources. Now let's examine PoS in general. If one admits a solely store of value system, then PoS is economically aligned with the best interests of the entire network. The majority should be reasonably expected to use PoS to attempt to increase the value of their personal holdings. Also implementations of PoS are considerably simpler than PoW. As I said above, DPOS also adds network health to the list of considerations via the judgement of the voters. Here's my primary problem. PoS is fundamentally controlled by people who own the tokens of the system. If one has developed a non-monetary system such as distributive computation, storage, or hosting services for example, then the vast majority of users likely will not hold a substantial stake in the system's tokens rather a small oligarchy of speculators, early adopters and perhaps infrastructure providers would. Thus you have a system where the people who use the network must accept the demands of a small group as we currently do with the centralized web. There are probably some soft corrections that could be implemented; however, from a philosophical viewpoint, it's not necessarily the best idea to endow the holders of a token to be the voting class of a network. For cryptoequities, matters of corporate governance, DACs in general, this structure makes perfect sense. In systems where the vast majority of users control only an aggregate small amount of tokens, then it doesn't seem to align interests properly. I hope that explains my viewpoint. QuoteWhat DACs should DPOS be applied to instead? If not a DAC but a brick and mortar business what advantages does it have to manage the IPO, board voting rights etc. with DPOS (apart from it being illegal to do an IPO (real IPO with hard promises) without a lot of additional (legal) work)It's not necessarily illegal to do an online IPO in all jurisdictions and in fact some ecourage it. I've spent the last six months studying the topic very deeply to a great degree of recent success . In terms of what ought to be the focus on Invictus's efforts, if I was the CEO, then I'd build a licensed IPO platform that would allow companies to conduct crowdsales via launching specialized bitshares chains that would require honoring some part of AGS and PTS positions. Had they made a compelling enough system, then most of the recent coin sales would have likely been launched using Invictus software. It makes more sense to chase profits stemming from a badly managed space instead of going after apple with music, enduring the dubious legality of gambling, and going after DNS without any public browser compatibility strategy. I could go into greater detail; however, it's a waste of time, I'm not the CEO of Invictus.
I really do not want to undervalue your effort to collect that much more money. I know it is hard, very hard.My point is that Ether and Bitshares X will not likely fail (if they do) because the product was not well financed, i.e in a result of not being well developed (coded). Either of them will fail because the core ideas were not workable. Not meant to work in the real world.
I did lol a bit.I just want to hear good reasons for why someone supports POW at this point. Not really POW vs POS, just expecting thorough reasoning. Charles, you put so much thought into your words that I expect only the best. I don't argue with everyone, just those of which I have high expectations. If such a person says something that doesn't make sense to me or seems wrong, I like to engage them. Thats why I ended up here. Blame it on Dan.Yanno, you don't meet people like Charles at the local watering hole.....
What DACs should DPOS be applied to instead? If not a DAC but a brick and mortar business what advantages does it have to manage the IPO, board voting rights etc. with DPOS (apart from it being illegal to do an IPO (real IPO with hard promises) without a lot of additional (legal) work)
QuoteCan you expand and be specific about what you mean here?The point is guys that Dan invented IPO in a box. I was pointing out that it shouldn't be wasted on low hanging fruit like music and lottery games.
Can you expand and be specific about what you mean here?
QuoteThis isn't correct. POS gives a great deal more flexibility to distribution. Theoretically you do not have to distribute all coins on day one. The distribution allowed by POS is way more flexible than you seem to believe. In fact I could write a chain that just paid out to hashers who didn't provide security, if I chose. I would actually have to buy-in to the belief that somehow miners are a more valued way to distribute coins to consider such silliness, but it is at least possible.With POW you do not have near this flexibility. POW defines both security and distribution for the most part. This isn't near the case with POS. POW miners do not necessarily have incentives aligned with helping the network, so I can't begin to fathom why you think distributing to them is betterIf the people who have all the power are coin holders, then why would coin holders accept deterioration of their holdings to broaden distribution? I agree one could develop all kinds of schemes with PoS to handle distribution differently from a 100 percent premine; however, no one seems to have done so at the moment with any degree of success. For the record, I really dislike PoW in its current form. I think rewards ought to be connected to network maintenance, upgrades, increases in interoperability and driving adoption. At the very least, it would be nice to develop a socially beneficial PoW doing something like folding proteins, unfortunately that whole O(n) -> O(1) requirement is a pain in the ass.
This isn't correct. POS gives a great deal more flexibility to distribution. Theoretically you do not have to distribute all coins on day one. The distribution allowed by POS is way more flexible than you seem to believe. In fact I could write a chain that just paid out to hashers who didn't provide security, if I chose. I would actually have to buy-in to the belief that somehow miners are a more valued way to distribute coins to consider such silliness, but it is at least possible.With POW you do not have near this flexibility. POW defines both security and distribution for the most part. This isn't near the case with POS. POW miners do not necessarily have incentives aligned with helping the network, so I can't begin to fathom why you think distributing to them is better
Quote from: charleshoskinson on August 06, 2014, 02:44:08 amQuoteUgg - All I want is a killer financial system (well, and a revolution in the music industry)I've been building it one step at a time. With Bitshares you have the best new stock market and IPO system. Ethereum explores how to deploy smart contracts. What if we had efficient atomic cross chain pegging. Then you could link all those BitUSD together. If only there was a venture to bundle everything together charleshoskinson the venture that bundles everything together! If I am Dan I will take this deal... for 98% (of 22,500 BTC) of their IPO
QuoteUgg - All I want is a killer financial system (well, and a revolution in the music industry)I've been building it one step at a time. With Bitshares you have the best new stock market and IPO system. Ethereum explores how to deploy smart contracts. What if we had efficient atomic cross chain pegging. Then you could link all those BitUSD together. If only there was a venture to bundle everything together
Ugg - All I want is a killer financial system (well, and a revolution in the music industry)
Storage is what's getting in the way of atomic cross chain trading? Can you elaborate, not sure I follow
Quote from: bed on August 06, 2014, 02:45:31 amWhat would we need for such a venture? Honestly once you have something like FileCoin/StorJ/MaidSAFE that actually offers reliable storage, all the chains can just live on the cloud. Then cross-chain transactions will be a no-brainer.
What would we need for such a venture?
I also think Invictus has terrible marketing, a lack of strategic vision and a dilution of development efforts. Love me or hate me, the ether sale I helped sculpt is now at over 22,400 BTC https://blockchain.info/address/36PrZ1KHYMpqSyAQXSG8VwbUiq2EogxLo2. That's more than money, it's community belief in a project and a desire to participate. If you walked into the room and said this is bitshares! It's going to take IPOs away from goldman sachs and hand them back to the very companies launching them alongside all the infrastructure for the market to price and trade stock, then I think you would get a lot of support. Instead it's bitcoin is a badly run version of a DAC and we build better DACs- check out our music, lottery and DNS stuff. Oh forget about that Keyhotee thing too while you're at it.
I do not see any irreconcilable differences between mine and your POV, do you?
Assuming you are the CEO of the company that is just about to launch this experiment. Wouldn't you consider launch your 5 other products that at its best will be worth 1/50 of this one, BUT their chance for success is not depending on anything untested in the real world. This is a backup plan! I am the one asking 3-4 times a week 'Where is bitUSD? When is it coming? Market functionality, please!', but what Dan do makes a business sense.
We can argue all day if basket works better than gold. And if this is the main issue we argue about, we are as close as it gets. So, Gold is there, basket is easy to add for those that find it a better choice
Gold is neither deflationary nor inflationary. Gold is value.... If money are constant you do not have to hold them in 'money' to appreciate. All other problems are non existent - you do not need other 'exchange' currency, or 'City of New York' currency. The money goes to credit, because there is no concerns of devaluation, there is no floating exchange rates and so on and so on...
In your last two post I feel almost as if bitUSD etc. gets lapsed. Isn't this Daniel's way of solving the problem of having market-cap meddle with asset transfers? It's okay to be skeptical that it will work, but in Daniel's shoes the focus is exactly there. If I got it wrong it would be interesting to hear more about what the difference there is.
I'm still not sold on something intended on being a currency having the total supply distributed on day zero. While, outside providing a nice pool of randomness, PoW is a waste of resources, it does provide a marginally better distribution model than the developers trying to figure it out on day one- or an IPO style sale.
a next generation equity and governance system for the developed and developing world
I respect you too much to let you loose you talent chasing utopian future, if I can help it.If my initial comment was dubious. I meant, do not solve problems excising only because currant state is based on wrong foundation.
If you take advice from strangers - dig in the opposite direction...
QuoteBest wishes to you, Charles. I hope you have a very restful time to recuperate and get your bearings.And after you have freshened up a bit, I really hope that you and Invictus could figure it out. My 2c.Thanks Werneo. I think Invictus the company is on its way out yielding to a structure more friendly to the needs of Bitshares the ecosystem. I don't think I have a place in either of these ventures; however, there is also the pool of AGS donors and PTS holders. I'd love to do something including them amongst others.Lately I've been spending a great deal of time addressing the scalability and consensus problems facing the cryptoscape (see I used a new word; happy anti-currency people ). DPOS seems nicely suited to a company equity model. Efficient atomic cross chain trading seems to be a stopgap solution for the ocean of coins we seem to be forced to sail. This said, I'm more inclined to develop a single master chain that can be effectively broken into thousands of different pieces and distributed in a way that preserves the trustlessness of a homogeneous model. I'm still not sold on something intended on being a currency having the total supply distributed on day zero. While, outside providing a nice pool of randomness, PoW is a waste of resources, it does provide a marginally better distribution model than the developers trying to figure it out on day one- or an IPO style sale. Economically I live in a camp that doesn't like massive appreciation in an instrument intended on being a means of exchange (see Professor Nell's work -> http://vimeo.com/70393015 & spend some time with capacity exchange -> http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/business/economic-research-and-information/research-publications/Documents/research-2012/Capacity%20Trading%20Update%20Report.pdf)In any event, we as an community (the cryptoscape not just bitshares) are very close to a revolution. It's now just an assembly problem of different technologies with the right team, marketing and philosophy. First person to win gets a bill gates sized fortune.
Best wishes to you, Charles. I hope you have a very restful time to recuperate and get your bearings.And after you have freshened up a bit, I really hope that you and Invictus could figure it out. My 2c.
In any event, it's been fun sparring with everyone and building great things. I'm going to spend some time outside of the crypto space. Most likely will return to mathematics. Good luck everyone and thanks for all the fish.
QuoteI actually get along with most people. My health has gotten progressively worst over the past six months and the 12 hour seven day a week pace hasn't helped it much. Ethereum is headed in a great direction and doesn't need me to be there anymore. I need a break mostly.I wish you the best!
I actually get along with most people. My health has gotten progressively worst over the past six months and the 12 hour seven day a week pace hasn't helped it much. Ethereum is headed in a great direction and doesn't need me to be there anymore. I need a break mostly.
I loved to talk with Charles on The Bridge every day and hear what contacts and deals he had made in the past 24 hours. He was a true master at making connections. I agree we have been lacking that since Charles departed.
Anyway my original question had to do with why Hoskinson is a hot potato.
Instead, we have an Invictus that is lopsided in its technical strength and relative marketing weakness.
I'm just wondering if Charles Hoskinson is Paul McCartney in this analogy
What I'm saying is that Vitalik is a very smart guy but he doesn't really look like a 'competent' leader, people person, speaker.
Let us get Charles Hoskinson on Beyond Bitcoin talking about why he left Bitshares and Ethereum..
My theory is he ran out of ether and his contract halted.
Could it be the case he thinks that ether was a big bubble and it was his biggest mistake to leave bitshares at the first place...?
Hoskinson seems like a good talker and someone who is adept at building early relationships. At a certain point in a project, he seems to get the boot.
Hate to be one of those guys, but
I will probably invest if this really happened : D
The alpha/beta paradigm is overused. I'd guess you think Wozniak was a beta, because he was not an ass like Steve Jobs. You make the judgement without really knowing how they interacted.Not everyone has the same preferences on leadership. Dan and Vitalik have both struck me as someone I would trust. That is rarely the case. I want my leaders to be as smart as possible and as straightforward as possible. It was Dan's videos that brought me around here, not Charles'.
It seems very clear to me that economic debates are entertaining, but ultimately will require experimentation. Obviously all new innovations enter a market of skeptics and often appear to contradict conventional thinking. So rather than debating the theory, lets plan the experiment. Bitcoin was an experiment that has left many "economics professors" at a loss and has defied their predictions. Throwing in those credentials at the end as a "disclaimer" is really just the fallacy of "appeal to authority" and should be entirely left out of such a conversation. Such an appeal causes readers to avoid critical thinking and instead be lazy and 'trust' an authority. So when we launch the test network one side will be filled with professors who doubt, the other with believers and the market will show us what actually happens given the set of rules proposed by BitShares.Until we have proved via experimentation that BitUSD will behave as I expect it to, it is merely a conjecture. Once the code is complete it would be trivial to launch a version without dividends and see how it competes. In the end the market will discover what works and what doesn't. In the mean time, lets focus on trading strategies given the proposed set of rules. Explain how you would value BitUSD relative to BitShares, when you would 'short' and when you would go long. For the sake of getting the experiment out the door and settling all debate, I am going to restrict my involvement in this thread to a minimum. If you have ideas on how to run an experiment please post.
Quote from: Stan on June 15, 2014, 09:22:05 pmQuote from: werneo on June 15, 2014, 08:52:54 pmQuote from: gamey on June 15, 2014, 08:40:22 amThe alpha/beta paradigm is overused. I'd guess you think Wozniak was a beta, because he was not an ass like Steve Jobs. You make the judgement without really knowing how they interacted.Not everyone has the same preferences on leadership. Dan and Vitalik have both struck me as someone I would trust. That is rarely the case. I want my leaders to be as smart as possible and as straightforward as possible. It was Dan's videos that brought me around here, not Charles'.I make the judgment because it's true. Steve Jobs was an alpha who sought leadership. Steve Wozniak was a beta who eschewed leadership.So what does that make Bytemaster? He eschews leadership as long as everybody does what he says...I don't know. Maybe he really can be both Lennon and McCartney, but I don't see it so far. Anyway my original question had to do with why Hoskinson is a hot potato. Because during the time when he was CEO, the company seemed to operate with a nice combination of head and legs. The head talked and the legs moved the body. Nowadays Invictus shows plenty of legwork, but not much in the way of talking-head face-time to educate the public (and "sell the vision") and get positioned to take advantage of the network effect after product release. Instead, we have an Invictus that is lopsided in its technical strength and relative marketing weakness. Just saying.
Quote from: werneo on June 15, 2014, 08:52:54 pmQuote from: gamey on June 15, 2014, 08:40:22 amThe alpha/beta paradigm is overused. I'd guess you think Wozniak was a beta, because he was not an ass like Steve Jobs. You make the judgement without really knowing how they interacted.Not everyone has the same preferences on leadership. Dan and Vitalik have both struck me as someone I would trust. That is rarely the case. I want my leaders to be as smart as possible and as straightforward as possible. It was Dan's videos that brought me around here, not Charles'.I make the judgment because it's true. Steve Jobs was an alpha who sought leadership. Steve Wozniak was a beta who eschewed leadership.So what does that make Bytemaster? He eschews leadership as long as everybody does what he says...
Quote from: gamey on June 15, 2014, 08:40:22 amThe alpha/beta paradigm is overused. I'd guess you think Wozniak was a beta, because he was not an ass like Steve Jobs. You make the judgement without really knowing how they interacted.Not everyone has the same preferences on leadership. Dan and Vitalik have both struck me as someone I would trust. That is rarely the case. I want my leaders to be as smart as possible and as straightforward as possible. It was Dan's videos that brought me around here, not Charles'.I make the judgment because it's true. Steve Jobs was an alpha who sought leadership. Steve Wozniak was a beta who eschewed leadership.
It was Dan's videos that brought me around here, not Charles'.
TrueSteve Jobs wasn't the one with the technical skills when he founded Apple that was Steve Wozniak. We are all human and we still judge whether a leader or CEO is competent based on old evolutionary characteristics that made hunters successful. Such as people skills, looks, testosterone, confidence portrayed.What I'm saying is that Vitalik is a very smart guy but he doesn't really look like a 'competent' leader, people person, speaker.
I still don't really understand why Charles Hoskinson left I3 in the first place. Possibly it has something to do with Daniel's propensity to make on-the-fly changes to the business plan. That kind of quick adaptivity might have been hard for Charles to swallow.Here is Daniel Larimer expressing high confidence in Hoskinson:at about 56 minutes:http://beyondbitcoin.libsyn.com/hangout-051014-dan-larimer ... DL says Charles Hoskinson's work ethic and his ability to communicate a vision was unparalleled.But we still don't know why I3 lost confidence in him.That's too bad, because I honestly think that if there is anyone in the crypto world that could compare to Steve Jobs, it's Charles Hoskinson. Articulate, visionary, passionate. I guess the only thing he lacks is the ability to play well with others.
Quote from: CLains on June 14, 2014, 02:57:09 pmCharles Hoskinson on Beyond Bitcoin talking about why he left Bitshares and Ethereum..link?
Charles Hoskinson on Beyond Bitcoin talking about why he left Bitshares and Ethereum..
Except it was a great I3 masterplan to sent him to the competition to spy them and mess their project* and then let him come back to make the grand TITAN debut * seems the plan was succesfull (maybe we have not bitsharesX live yet but a least the fundraising is about to end when they didn't start it at all... if I remember well they promised to start the ether sale ... midle of May... it seems now, they are much slower than we are, could it be the reason Charlses is moving again? Could it be the case he thinks that ether was a big bubble and it was his biggest mistake to leave bitshares at the first place...?