-
Here is an article describing MaidSafe's IPO using Mastercoin protocol. I found it while doing a search of news on bitShares. Perhaps if bitshares Me comes out before April 22 we can persuade them to do an ipo with bitshares instead.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/04/08/beyond-bitcoin-crypto-ownership-companies-hope-youre-ready-to-decentralize-everything-on-the-internet/
Also wondering if ppl think this is something worth investing in. Maidsafe seems like a great idea but I'm a little hesitant in investing in anything done on the mastercoin protocol.
-
Now if this pushes through , a big blow for bitshare and I3 . MaidSafe may be a great partner. Well Mastercoin already has its exchange working for nearly a month. MaidSafe dev has confidence in them. This is really a challenge for I3 to come up with option to pursue and convince Maidsafe or still scrutinize and fine tune its product then seek another database-oriented DAC dev to be its partners.
-
I think we'll have to concede this one...
I'm not terribly worried. It'll save us a lot of trouble explaining ME.
-
Also consider the piggy-back riding nature of Mastercoin. If bitcoin dev have alter some attributes in its architecture, SafeCoin will be affected.
-
I think we'll have to concede this one...
I'm not terribly worried. It'll save us a lot of trouble explaining ME.
Yes, but I don't think that the underlying technical advantages of delegate pos or Tapos will be enough to take ppls attention off of mastercoin. Ppl seem to have a hard time understanding these methods of consensus and why they are better than using mining or building on top of the bitcoin blockchain or using nxt. I could be wrong but I dont think ppl will be that interested with bithsares Me upon its release.
-
Also consider the piggy-back riding nature of Mastercoin. If bitcoin dev have alter some attributes in its architecture, SafeCoin will be affected.
Yeah, thats why I don't want to invest even though I would really like to invest in maidsafe. I think they have a great product in the works.
-
I think we'll have to concede this one...
I'm not terribly worried. It'll save us a lot of trouble explaining ME.
Yes, but I don't think that the underlying technical advantages of delegate pos or Tapos will be enough to take ppls attention off of mastercoin. Ppl seem to have a hard time understanding these methods of consensus and why they are better than using mining or building on top of the bitcoin blockchain or using nxt. I could be wrong but I dont think ppl will be that interested with bithsares Me upon its release.
Making connections is CRUCIAL!
edit: Let's not be arrogant to think it doesn't matter.
-
We talked with maidsafe today and will be using our Dns system and they will be consulting with us on the economics of their system.
In the end the mastercoin ipo will be insignificant compared to our partnership potential.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
-
Also don't forget that in theory it is very easy to do a MSC -> ME migration...
-
We talked with maidsafe today and will be using our Dns system and they will be consulting with us on the economics of their system.
In the end the mastercoin ipo will be insignificant compared to our partnership potential.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
+5%
Now you are talking , this is what we are hoping for as investors.
-
We talked with maidsafe today and will be using our Dns system and they will be consulting with us on the economics of their system.
In the end the mastercoin ipo will be insignificant compared to our partnership potential.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
+5%
-
We talked with maidsafe today and will be using our Dns system and they will be consulting with us on the economics of their system.
In the end the mastercoin ipo will be insignificant compared to our partnership potential.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Congratulations!!
-
Now if this pushes through , a big blow for bitshare and I3 . MaidSafe may be a great partner. Well Mastercoin already has its exchange working for nearly a month. MaidSafe dev has confidence in them. This is really a challenge for I3 to come up with option to pursue and convince Maidsafe or still scrutinize and fine tune its product then seek another database-oriented DAC dev to be its partners.
Why chase after Maidsafe? Just develop something exclusively for Bitshares. Also there will be Bitcloud.
-
Now if this pushes through , a big blow for bitshare and I3 . MaidSafe may be a great partner. Well Mastercoin already has its exchange working for nearly a month. MaidSafe dev has confidence in them. This is really a challenge for I3 to come up with option to pursue and convince Maidsafe or still scrutinize and fine tune its product then seek another database-oriented DAC dev to be its partners.
Why chase after Maidsafe? Just develop something exclusively for Bitshares. Also there will be Bitcloud.
Good developers and development time are a limited source especially in a more an d more competitive field.... So partnering makes sense...
-
Now if this pushes through , a big blow for bitshare and I3 . MaidSafe may be a great partner. Well Mastercoin already has its exchange working for nearly a month. MaidSafe dev has confidence in them. This is really a challenge for I3 to come up with option to pursue and convince Maidsafe or still scrutinize and fine tune its product then seek another database-oriented DAC dev to be its partners.
Why chase after Maidsafe? Just develop something exclusively for Bitshares. Also there will be Bitcloud.
Good developers and development time are a limited source especially in a more an d more competitive field.... So partnering makes sense...
This. Partnering with others when possible to realize greater potential from their ideas is better than isolating ourselves and antagonizing everyone. Market competition is a great way to handle conflicts, but creating superfluous conflict is still counterproductive.
-
We talked with maidsafe today and will be using our Dns system and they will be consulting with us on the economics of their system.
In the end the mastercoin ipo will be insignificant compared to our partnership potential.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Excellent :)
-
We talked with maidsafe today and will be using our Dns system and they will be consulting with us on the economics of their system.
In the end the mastercoin ipo will be insignificant compared to our partnership potential.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQtIaP_CcWF-Rj8GvB4n6wY2MuT6c7Km6yJsa-isFZCAUf8V_E8yg)
PS 1) clout I think you must change your post title ;)
2) When will take place an official announcement from both party's about the potential of partnership or even something like a comment (like you made) from Maidsafe part ?
-
This. Partnering with others when possible to realize greater potential from their ideas is better than isolating ourselves and antagonizing everyone. Market competition is a great way to handle conflicts, but creating superfluous conflict is still counterproductive.
Agree
There are still lots of and more important work left to be done about BTS kernal ecosystem
-
We talked with maidsafe today and will be using our Dns system and they will be consulting with us on the economics of their system.
In the end the mastercoin ipo will be insignificant compared to our partnership potential.
VERY nice!
+5%
-
We talked with maidsafe today and will be using our Dns system and they will be consulting with us on the economics of their system.
In the end the mastercoin ipo will be insignificant compared to our partnership potential.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
I figured they would have figured out the economics by now if they're launching an IPO later this month. What are your thoughts on their token-based system vs a system that just uses Bitcoin for escrow? We've thought about the economics of a token-based system for something like MaidSafe/Bitcloud a lot at Bitcloud, but it seems that tokens really complicate things. Here are a few issues:
1) Most people in this space would rather use bitcoins than convert to a new token.
2) A token basically averages out the quality of the storage nodes on the network, so you have low quality nodes and high quality nodes getting paid the same rate. This leads to average quality storage and hosting.
3) Legal implications of profiting off a system that will undoubtedly be used for illegal purposes.
4) How can you increase the value of a token without also having the services paid for with that token become more expensive (for example storage)?
-
My initial understanding was apparently wrong, but I think the incentives are wrong. Their coin is not divisible, their network is likely vulnerable to Sybil attacks.
But perhaps I am just biased by my own r&d in this space.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
-
4) How can you increase the value of a token without also having the services paid for with that token become more expensive (for example storage)?
Yeah they seem to not provide any explanation on why their coin will have any value. They basically have no business model.
I don't see why one should give them BTC or run a node to have a worthless coin.
-
4) How can you increase the value of a token without also having the services paid for with that token become more expensive (for example storage)?
Yeah they seem to not provide any explanation on why their coin will have any value. They basically have no business model.
I don't see why one should give them BTC or run a node to have a worthless coin.
I see you there bringing up fundamentals in relation to crypto-equities..
big mistake, don't ever bring up fundamentals
jk :)
-
Also don't forget that in theory it is very easy to do a MSC -> ME migration...
BTW what is the status of ME?
I can't see the thread anymore!
-
Also don't forget that in theory it is very easy to do a MSC -> ME migration...
BTW what is the status of ME?
I can't see the thread anymore!
think you should look on this sub board
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?board=49.0
correct my if i'm wrong - hoe this helps
c
-
4) How can you increase the value of a token without also having the services paid for with that token become more expensive (for example storage)?
Does Maidsafe even require its token to access its services? I can't see where it does.
-
We talked with maidsafe today and will be using our Dns system and they will be consulting with us on the economics of their system.
In the end the mastercoin ipo will be insignificant compared to our partnership potential.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
I figured they would have figured out the economics by now if they're launching an IPO later this month. What are your thoughts on their token-based system vs a system that just uses Bitcoin for escrow? We've thought about the economics of a token-based system for something like MaidSafe/Bitcloud a lot at Bitcloud, but it seems that tokens really complicate things. Here are a few issues:
1) Most people in this space would rather use bitcoins than convert to a new token.
2) A token basically averages out the quality of the storage nodes on the network, so you have low quality nodes and high quality nodes getting paid the same rate. This leads to average quality storage and hosting.
3) Legal implications of profiting off a system that will undoubtedly be used for illegal purposes.
4) How can you increase the value of a token without also having the services paid for with that token become more expensive (for example storage)?
I wouldn't rather use Bitcoin. What if the Bitcoin price goes way up after I send it?
It's better to use a credit token divorced from Bitcoin. It's only credit tokens, not going to be a functional currency which works outside of MaidSafe as far as I know.
So if I were going to buy an Amazon gift card or gift token I would rather buy it with cash than with Bitcoin. A fiat exchange for this would make the most sense. The only reason to use Bitcoins is if there is no fiat exchange or else you risk losing money through volatility.
3) Legal implications of profiting off a system that will undoubtedly be used for illegal purposes.
The legal implications, what legal implications? If it's used for illegal purposes then an internal mechanism based enforced by the source code is the law. You cannot police information. It's debatable whether or not information should be policed in the first place.
But you can decide not to promote or share certain information. I'm assuming you're worried about the risk to intellectual property, copyright infringement. If you believe in intellectual property then pay a bit extra to have code developed to isolate that information using a distributed process. Pay the network participants to enforce your intellectual property rights in some way and then that information would be censored, but the use of legal threats to protect your business model is an unfair advantage that no other business model has.
4) How can you increase the value of a token without also having the services paid for with that token become more expensive (for example storage)?
Whether or not the value of the token increases, I'm actually skeptical about that part too and that probably isn't the goal anyway if it's just credit. You pre-order the tokens and if you have a lot of tokens you can get a lot of service. You don't necessarily have to increase the value.
If you want a world with a decentralized drop box then you're going to have to regulate in a different way if you're a regulator, profit in a different way if you're dropbox (or in a business which profits exclusively from intellectual property), and of course I'm all for building regulation protocols into the network itself.
However in order for something to be censored the nework of users have to decide it should be censored and not some external entity trying to enforce it's will on thousands if not millions of users. So of course if you want some information taken down or censored and you'll pay people a fee for them to remove it then it should be removed. But by making the censorship organization pay the fee it would make censorship far more rare and not as simple as making a phone call or sending a threatening letter.
Let's be fair, if you're the average person you don't have the ability to get sites to take down information about you. You can't protect yourself from the Internet and if your business is failing you cannot call your lawyer, your politician and your police to crush the competitor.
-
My initial understanding was apparently wrong, but I think the incentives are wrong. Their coin is not divisible, their network is likely vulnerable to Sybil attacks.
But perhaps I am just biased by my own r&d in this space.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Guess we gotta wait and see. I don't know if their coins will have any value since they aren't revealing what exactly 1 Safecoin will buy. I assume when enough apps are developed it can have tremendous value so it has potential but I don't know.
https://github.com/maidsafe/Whitepapers/blob/master/Project-Safe.md
-
My initial understanding was apparently wrong, but I think the incentives are wrong. Their coin is not divisible, their network is likely vulnerable to Sybil attacks.
But perhaps I am just biased by my own r&d in this space.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Guess we gotta wait and see. I don't know if their coins will have any value since they aren't revealing what exactly 1 Safecoin will buy. I assume when enough apps are developed it can have tremendous value so it has potential but I don't know.
https://github.com/maidsafe/Whitepapers/blob/master/Project-Safe.md
The apps also earn by mining coins as well as far as I can see. I see nowhere where people need to spend these coins to access services. I'd love if somebody enlightened me.
-
Seems mastercoin is going up now because of this IPO from maidsafe taking place in 3 Days !!!
For 1 BTC they give 17.000 Safecoins and for 1 Mastecoin they give 3.400 Safecoins that means as long 1 Mastercoin is below 0.2 BTC it prefferable to buy with Mastercoin so everybody interrested to buy safecoins will buy first mastercoins (as long the price is under 0.2 BTC). And thats really happening right now and mastercoin has increased its price from 0.08 btc to 0.13 btc until now... Hope bitshares makes something identical someday ;)
http://www.buysafecoins.com/
-
Would'n it be not better when bitshares was in place of mastercoin right now? If bitshares was ready sooner I bet MaidSafe would constribute their safecoin's via BitsharesX...
Hope we loose not more oportunities like this one...
-
I believe it is a lost. What can we do is to wait for another opportunity. There are so many possibilities when the DPOS designed blockchain comes out. Just think of it this way, bitshare does its own ecosystem. No piggy back design to bitcoin or any other cryto currencies for that matter. For sure a lot of business entities will adapt a decentralized manner of transactions. Less operating expenses, efficient products and services and most of all a reliable money making business model . :)
-
We talked with maidsafe today and will be using our Dns system and they will be consulting with us on the economics of their system.
In the end the mastercoin ipo will be insignificant compared to our partnership potential.
VERY nice!
+5%
wow wow wow +5%
-
It seems like the Maidsafe people might be getting taken advantage of by the Mastercoin people. Basically the whole recent run up in the mastercoin price is because people are essentially forced to buy MSC in order to get safecoins and then Maidsafe is going to be left holding the bag with a TON of these worthless MSC that the mastercoin people dumped on them at inflated prices.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=577149.40
Various quotes below:
"Backers will receive 17,000 MaidSafeCoins per bitcoin
Backers will receive 3,400 MaidSafeCoins per mastercoin---from http://buysafecoins.com
This means 1msc=0.2btc,how did they decide the exchange rate?
As I know, 1msc=0.08btc before this released, why don't they let the market decide the rate?
I think this is a way to let the msc big holders to sell them msc high."
"price manipulation 2.0, featuring the mastercoin foundation"
"This is about coning a small Scottish tech firm into generating funds for the final days of Mastercoin. Everyone involved should be ashamed. No doubt you're ecstatic... pathetic I hope Karma get's you all."
"Poor bastards worked for 8 years to feed a bunch of cunts by the look of it."
"I think it's probably David Irvine is simply a gullible liberal guy who simply hasn't got a clue what he's doing, or hasn't had the time to put much thought into it and taken the advice of the mastercoin team. The worrying thing isn't the fact he's manipulated the price of mastercoin by 400% it's the fact he's saying he has to buy between 20-70% of all mastercoins ever issued for this his IPO target (fuck u prophetx) to even be possible!"
-
It seems like the Maidsafe people might be getting taken advantage of by the Mastercoin people. Basically the whole recent run up in the mastercoin price is because people are essentially forced to buy MSC in order to get safecoins and then Maidsafe is going to be left holding the bag with a TON of these worthless MSC that the mastercoin people dumped on them at inflated prices.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=577149.40
Various quotes below:
"Backers will receive 17,000 MaidSafeCoins per bitcoin
Backers will receive 3,400 MaidSafeCoins per mastercoin---from http://buysafecoins.com
This means 1msc=0.2btc,how did they decide the exchange rate?
As I know, 1msc=0.08btc before this released, why don't they let the market decide the rate?
I think this is a way to let the msc big holders to sell them msc high."
"price manipulation 2.0, featuring the mastercoin foundation"
"This is about coning a small Scottish tech firm into generating funds for the final days of Mastercoin. Everyone involved should be ashamed. No doubt you're ecstatic... pathetic I hope Karma get's you all."
"Poor bastards worked for 8 years to feed a bunch of cunts by the look of it."
"I think it's probably David Irvine is simply a gullible liberal guy who simply hasn't got a clue what he's doing, or hasn't had the time to put much thought into it and taken the advice of the mastercoin team. The worrying thing isn't the fact he's manipulated the price of mastercoin by 400% it's the fact he's saying he has to buy between 20-70% of all mastercoins ever issued for this his IPO target (fuck u prophetx) to even be possible!"
Wow what a disaster
-
It seems like the Maidsafe people might be getting taken advantage of by the Mastercoin people. Basically the whole recent run up in the mastercoin price is because people are essentially forced to buy MSC in order to get safecoins and then Maidsafe is going to be left holding the bag with a TON of these worthless MSC that the mastercoin people dumped on them at inflated prices.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=577149.40
Various quotes below:
"Backers will receive 17,000 MaidSafeCoins per bitcoin
Backers will receive 3,400 MaidSafeCoins per mastercoin---from http://buysafecoins.com
This means 1msc=0.2btc,how did they decide the exchange rate?
As I know, 1msc=0.08btc before this released, why don't they let the market decide the rate?
I think this is a way to let the msc big holders to sell them msc high."
"price manipulation 2.0, featuring the mastercoin foundation"
"This is about coning a small Scottish tech firm into generating funds for the final days of Mastercoin. Everyone involved should be ashamed. No doubt you're ecstatic... pathetic I hope Karma get's you all."
"Poor bastards worked for 8 years to feed a bunch of cunts by the look of it."
"I think it's probably David Irvine is simply a gullible liberal guy who simply hasn't got a clue what he's doing, or hasn't had the time to put much thought into it and taken the advice of the mastercoin team. The worrying thing isn't the fact he's manipulated the price of mastercoin by 400% it's the fact he's saying he has to buy between 20-70% of all mastercoins ever issued for this his IPO target (fuck u prophetx) to even be possible!"
Wow what a disaster
Actually David Irvine knows exactly what he's doing. I view this sort of post as anti Mastercoin propaganda and it's not good for the community as a whole to start talking about price manipulations and conspiracies.
Mastercoin does have it's problems but its problems are from the Bitcoin core developers and not from some sort of price fixing conspiracy.
Anyway I've managed to Dump all my 700 odd mastercoin at a big loss. Looks like David the director has been conned into paying $10m usd asset issuance by mastercoin foundation scum!(equiv $1 on counterparty hahaha). Shame would have loved to invest clever guy (in one way) and great project. Hard to believe someone so clever can be so stupid but check out the facts yourselves.
The guy who wrote it is anti Mastercoin. Talking about how he dumped it at a big loss and attacking the Mastercoin foundation.
-
"it's not good for the community as a whole to start talking about price manipulations and conspiracies."
It's not good if it's not true, but if it is true, it's not helpful to ignore it.
In any case, I didn't make the original claims and just wanted to bring the discussion to people's attention.
I really can't see what value MasterCoin is bringing to them;
Why set it up so you get more safecoin/$ by contributing MSC instead of BTC?
-
Indeed, the way the rules are written for the MaidSafe Crowdsale they NEEDED to fix a price for MSC and given the extremely low liquidity of mastercoin the .2 price is conservative. Right now MSC is priced based on no good exchanges and no uses, post Maidsafe it will be a very different value proposition.
I agree with Luckybit, we should not be cheering for failure - we WANT them to succeed because it sets a precedent for our success.
-
"it's not good for the community as a whole to start talking about price manipulations and conspiracies."
It's not good if it's not true, but if it is true, it's not helpful to ignore it.
In any case, I didn't make the original claims and just wanted to bring the discussion to people's attention.
I really can't see what value MasterCoin is bringing to them;
Why set it up so you get more safecoin/$ by contributing MSC instead of BTC?
In that case people who have too many MSC will have a reason to sell some of them and the distribution of MSC will improve.
-
the way the rules are written for the MaidSafe Crowdsale they NEEDED to fix a price for MSC
Yea, that's the problem: someone convinced them to write the rules this way. There are ways of doing an IPO that don't involve fixing the price of MSC.
The guy who wrote it is anti Mastercoin. Talking about how he dumped it at a big loss and attacking the Mastercoin foundation.
The guy posting on bitcointalk didn't have a grudge against MSC; he just bought MSC today because of the Maidsafe IPO and was pumping the whole thing and telling people to buy MSC until other people made observations and he looked at it closer and changed his mind. He wasn't the only one pointing out problems.
I think if the bitshares community could show them a way of doing their IPO in a less convoluted and controversial way, it could help them and help us collaborate with them.
Even the appearance of impropriety is horrible for an IPO. Same reason Eddie Corral dumped ZenithCoin for the Music DAC after spending money on it.
-
Indeed, the way the rules are written for the MaidSafe Crowdsale they NEEDED to fix a price for MSC and given the extremely low liquidity of mastercoin the .2 price is conservative.
That doesn't make sense. Price has nothing to do with liquidity.
-
also adam, what were you saying about mastercoin having to pay fines?
-
lastly, i just read the maidsafe whitepaper. they essentially have mining without a difficulty adjustment or reduction of mining reward so the issuence of new safecoins is determined by moores law. this is an entirely inflationary system that serves to dilute continually dilute the value of previously issued safecoin:
(https://raw.github.com/maidsafe/Whitepapers/master/resources/end_users.png)
unfortunately maidsafe is trying to assert that the price of safecoin is negatively correlated to the cost of resources
(https://raw.github.com/maidsafe/Whitepapers/master/resources/resources_graph.png)
maybe i missed something, but that doesnt make sense.
i think that maidsafe has a great product and it will certainly change the world, but as far as being a good investment strategy i dont really think it is one.
-
I agree with Luckybit, we should not be cheering for failure - we WANT them to succeed because it sets a precedent for our success.
+5% I wish them well, as I wish my neighbor selling his house for twice what it's worth. ;)
-
The challenge they face now is that the ipo is set in motion and cannot easily be changed. Just like we learn As we make mistakes so will they.
We here in the bts community have one critical edge over every other project: we understand economics better than everyone else.
I have warned the maidsafe guys about their broken economic model, but they have too much momentum to change.
They plan to try and then fix it if it fails. It will.
Hopefully they can recognize it and fix it ASAP, but that will set them back on schedule.
Our strength of being willing to admit our designs are flawed is that our schedule slips. Others rush ahead with flawed (significantly so) systems. We are the turtle they are the hare. We will win in the end with steady improvement and open minds that are willing to adjust course.
Maidsafe has great software and I want them to be successful. In time we will be integrating keyhotee with them. We just need to help them fix the economic model.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
-
The challenge they face now is that the ipo is set in motion and cannot easily be changed. Just like we learn As we make mistakes so will they.
We here in the bts community have one critical edge over every other project: we understand economics better than everyone else.
I have warned the maidsafe guys about their broken economic model, but they have too much momentum to change.
They plan to try and then fix it if it fails. It will.
Hopefully they can recognize it and fix it ASAP, but that will set them back on schedule.
Our strength of being willing to admit our designs are flawed is that our schedule slips. Others rush ahead with flawed (significantly so) systems. We are the turtle they are the hare. We will win in the end with steady improvement and open minds that are willing to adjust course.
Maidsafe has great software and I want them to be successful. In time we will be integrating keyhotee with them. We just need to help them fix the economic model.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
sounds great
-
lastly, i just read the maidsafe whitepaper. they essentially have mining without a difficulty adjustment or reduction of mining reward so the issuence of new safecoins is determined by moores law. this is an entirely inflationary system that serves to dilute continually dilute the value of previously issued safecoin:
(https://raw.github.com/maidsafe/Whitepapers/master/resources/end_users.png)
unfortunately maidsafe is trying to assert that the price of safecoin is negatively correlated to the cost of resources
maybe i missed something, but that doesnt make sense.
i think that maidsafe has a great product and it will certainly change the world, but as far as being a good investment strategy i dont really think it is one.
Is there no cap of safecoins issued?
In the whitepaper they say that a cap of 4 billions safecoin will exist.
They also write:
The mining speed per vault is projected as
Time Number of coins
first day 800
first week 1800
first month 4000
first year 19000
So it looks like the difficulty will increase over time. Am I missing something?
-
I have asked the following question at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/maidsafe-development/1jrH-Qqqb2w :
In the whitepaper it's unclear how the difficulty of generating safecoins will increase over time.
There is no mechanism provided. And if they aren't any basically the cost of generating safecoin will decrease with Moore law (so will do the price...).
And this is David Irvine's answer:
It's controlled by the mining algorithm that's exponential. There is also a space that the hash of a mining attempt must fit into, this is 2^32 and gets exponentially (^2) more difficult with each mining success.
Many factors will influence this, number of users, Builders, Farmers etc. It is not time based and all calculations are mute wrt time. The premise is that as more use of the network happens, it must be valued. As this is the case Farmers are incentivised to Farm and builders build. This value should increase the value of safecoin and related uses of it (perhaps even buying resources as we go along).
-
I have asked the following question at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/maidsafe-development/1jrH-Qqqb2w :
In the whitepaper it's unclear how the difficulty of generating safecoins will increase over time.
There is no mechanism provided. And if they aren't any basically the cost of generating safecoin will decrease with Moore law (so will do the price...).
And this is David Irvine's answer:
It's controlled by the mining algorithm that's exponential. There is also a space that the hash of a mining attempt must fit into, this is 2^32 and gets exponentially (^2) more difficult with each mining success.
Many factors will influence this, number of users, Builders, Farmers etc. It is not time based and all calculations are mute wrt time. The premise is that as more use of the network happens, it must be valued. As this is the case Farmers are incentivised to Farm and builders build. This value should increase the value of safecoin and related uses of it (perhaps even buying resources as we go along).
:o this is so disturbing that I am glad they IPOd on mastercoin
-
:o this is so disturbing that I am glad they IPOd on mastercoin
Driven by hunger, a fox tried to reach some grapes hanging high on the vine but was unable to, although he leaped with all his strength. As he went away, the fox remarked 'Oh, you aren't even ripe yet! I don't need any sour grapes.' ...
-
I have asked the following question at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/maidsafe-development/1jrH-Qqqb2w :
In the whitepaper it's unclear how the difficulty of generating safecoins will increase over time.
There is no mechanism provided. And if they aren't any basically the cost of generating safecoin will decrease with Moore law (so will do the price...).
And this is David Irvine's answer:
It's controlled by the mining algorithm that's exponential. There is also a space that the hash of a mining attempt must fit into, this is 2^32 and gets exponentially (^2) more difficult with each mining success.
Many factors will influence this, number of users, Builders, Farmers etc. It is not time based and all calculations are mute wrt time. The premise is that as more use of the network happens, it must be valued. As this is the case Farmers are incentivised to Farm and builders build. This value should increase the value of safecoin and related uses of it (perhaps even buying resources as we go along).
:o this is so disturbing that I am glad they IPOd on mastercoin
The economic model is confusing for sure, but the system itself is incredible
-
...
The economic model is confusing for sure, but the system itself is incredible
Hopefully whoever fixes the economic model will give the original developers a stake in the new genesis block. Ideally whoever fixes it should do so working with them, but I'm sure it will get done eventually either way.
-
They are doing proof of burn are they not? If so, nobody is going to be holding "useless" MSC since it would be destroyed
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
If I wanted to mine do I have to wait until later this year when the network launches? Maybe a stupid question but I just wanted to make sure I'm not missing something.
-
...
The economic model is confusing for sure, but the system itself is incredible
Hopefully whoever fixes the economic model will give the original developers a stake in the new genesis block. Ideally whoever fixes it should do so working with them, but I'm sure it will get done eventually either way.
Don't do it like that. Simply snapshot it so everyone who donated to the original Maidsafe in the crowdfunding period would get Maidshares later with improved economic potential.
-
...
The economic model is confusing for sure, but the system itself is incredible
Hopefully whoever fixes the economic model will give the original developers a stake in the new genesis block. Ideally whoever fixes it should do so working with them, but I'm sure it will get done eventually either way.
Don't do it like that. Simply snapshot it so everyone who donated to the original Maidsafe in the crowdfunding period would get Maidshares later with improved economic potential.
+5. We need to stay classy.
-
Its pretty apparent what they need to do to correct this although I don't know if they eventually will. If they don't generate more safecoin through por mining and instead charge a fee for usage in safecoin and pay the miners (or farmers) either a portion or all of the fee, then the price of safecoin is sure to appreciate and the market can easily find a price for the service provided.
-
Anybody knows what is happening? Why maidsafe don't list the mastercoin address 1ARjWDkZ7kT9fwjPrjcQyvbXDkEySzKHwu anymore and continue to list only the bitcoin address 1KHfLixa2idRnZXMUfEisBati1vpywaH6E for fundraising? ??? Have they problems with the particular address due to traffic or something like that or could it be something "bigger" than that ?
PS until now (2 hours) they received about $1.200.000 only from bitcoins*
I suppose they have get more from mastercoins due the best deal for fundraisers...
PS2 After they taked the mastercoin address out MSC price has dropped from 0.17 btc to 0.09 btc !!!
* https://blockchain.info/address/1KHfLixa2idRnZXMUfEisBati1vpywaH6E?offset=0&filter=0
-
from https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=577149.140
What happened to the mastercoin ipo address? why is it removed from the homepage?
I remember reading that they were expecting 70% ++ of the coins to be coming from BTC. But instead it looks like it was the other way around and everyone was cashing in on their MSC instead.
This is absurd. I bought mastercoins only to convert them to safecoins and now I am at a loss (like 50%) only because I am 3 hours late.
They should have done their calculations before, not changing the rule of the game while the IPO is going.
I feel scammed.
It's like a sort of pump and dump on mastercoin prices.
If not scam, it's too silly for a company who have such great plans.
The same here.
Allow me to add to the confusion and fuckeduppery.
I sent some Bitcoins to this party. Are people who sent a coin of significantly less value going to receive significantly more of these magiccoins than me?
It seems so.
To make things worse, now that the MSC adress has been removed from the safecoin site the MSC dump has started following the last few days pump. Gotta say this was a very bad way of doing fund-raising, definitely makes the Mastercoin foundation look very bad in my eyes.. Not sure what to think of the Maidsafe guys, were they "in on it" or just duped?
from https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=577149.140
-
MaidSafe guys indeed suck at economics.
They hide the MSC address because they received 4/5 of the founds in MSC whereas they expected MSC funding to be marginal.
They are learning Gresham Law the hard way.
*DON'T FIXE PRICES*
-
Anybody knows what is happening? Why maidsafe don't list the mastercoin address 1ARjWDkZ7kT9fwjPrjcQyvbXDkEySzKHwu anymore and continue to list only the bitcoin address 1KHfLixa2idRnZXMUfEisBati1vpywaH6E for fundraising? ??? Have they problems with the particular address due to traffic or something like that or could it be something "bigger" than that ?
PS until now (2 hours) they received about $1.200.000 only from bitcoins*
I suppose they have get more from mastercoins due the best deal for fundraisers...
PS2 After they taked the mastercoin address out MSC price has dropped from 0.17 btc to 0.09 btc !!!
* https://blockchain.info/address/1KHfLixa2idRnZXMUfEisBati1vpywaH6E?offset=0&filter=0
The crowd sale is sold out. It appears that a few guys from Mastercoin bought all the Safecoins.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/maidsafe-development/9QTj0d2pGPo
If confirmed, then Safecoin must be forked.
-
Anybody knows what is happening? Why maidsafe don't list the mastercoin address 1ARjWDkZ7kT9fwjPrjcQyvbXDkEySzKHwu anymore and continue to list only the bitcoin address 1KHfLixa2idRnZXMUfEisBati1vpywaH6E for fundraising? ??? Have they problems with the particular address due to traffic or something like that or could it be something "bigger" than that ?
PS until now (2 hours) they received about $1.200.000 only from bitcoins*
I suppose they have get more from mastercoins due the best deal for fundraisers...
PS2 After they taked the mastercoin address out MSC price has dropped from 0.17 btc to 0.09 btc !!!
* https://blockchain.info/address/1KHfLixa2idRnZXMUfEisBati1vpywaH6E?offset=0&filter=0
The crowd sale is sold out. It appears that a few guys from Mastercoin bought all the Safecoins.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/maidsafe-development/9QTj0d2pGPo
If confirmed, then Safecoin must be forked.
What does it practical mean?
-
This stuff is hard for everyone and we are all learning lessons the hard way.
We all have different lessons to learn... adapting is key.
We learned that giving away our 'IPO' via mining was a terrible idea. We learned mining itself was a bad idea. Since then we learned that AGS was slightly better than the original master coin fund raiser, but liquidity is vastly preferred.
Changing strategies as we go is perhaps looked down upon, but is ultimately necessary to recover from mistakes. Every project out there has made mistakes and we are all learning.
The maidsafe guys are well intentioned and admit the economic ignorance. We will probably have to work with them to bailout their IPO and I have some ideas on that front.
-
How did they 'sell out'.... they price fixed and put a limit on sales??? Economic insanity!
-
Ouch, I see a big problem here.
"I wish I heard about this project earlier, maybe it would struck my
mind to warn you about this. If you would have paid attention to
cryptocurrency scene, you might have envisioned this scenario.
Currently 92535 MSC are donated, as you can see on
http://www.mymastercoins.com/ (just enter the
address 1ARjWDkZ7kT9fwjPrjcQyvbXDkEySzKHwu at the bottom of the page
to see the balance).
Current market price is 0.17 BTC as you can see on
https://masterxchange.com/ and clearly you can see the on the right
graph that almost no one wants to buy mastercoins. There is huge ask
instead.
0.17*17000=2890
Here's what will happen:
MaidSAFE team will want to exchange MSC for cash in order to fund the
project, therefore will try to sell 15% of all MSC in existence. This
will drive the price to nearly zero, because the volume of such
marginal altcoin is very small, and very few people will want to buy
it. People who are holding MSC are aware that happening and already
started to preemptively sell their MSC.
The biggest problem is that you guarantee to give 3400 SAFE for each
MSC, which might have been tru when the funding started. But will be
way off the real price when it finishes. You should have said that
you will give amount of SAFE respectively to current MSC price.
Now people who hold MSC saw a great opportunity to finally get rid of
their niche altcoin with low volume, for something that actually is
pretty great.
I am very sorry that this is happening, and I hope that the amount of
money you will collect from BTC will at least partially offset what
is happening.
Alternatively you might change your policy and instead of rewarding
3400 SAFE for each MSC you can give amount of SAFE proportional to
current MSC price. This will piss off greatly the MSC early adopters,
who currently hold a majority of MaidSAFE issued currency. This may
be only four to six people, but we don't know how powerful they are.
And what their wrath might be.
ouch before I fnished this email the price dropped to 0.09, therefore
currently:
0.09*17000=1530
1530/3400 = 0.45
you are currently selling your high valued SAFE coins at below half their intended price. This drives more people to convert their bitcoins into MSC and buy SAFE using MSC. I am afraid that this feedback loop will have even worse side effect on MaidSAFE.
Maybe the best would be to return all coins to their respective
sender addresses (both BTC and MSC).
Post a big apology for not knowing how cryptocurrency scene works,
and restart this process in next week.
best regards"
--
Janek Kozicki
-
How did they 'sell out'.... they price fixed and put a limit on sales??? Economic insanity!
For the record someone on this thread warned about the possibility of price fixing. I don't think that part was the problem. The problem is they set some ridiculous cap on sales which allowed the sale to sell out in a matter of hours.
The price of Mastercoins seems to have gone up because people intended to use them for this crowd sale. Now people are stuck with Mastercoins and if something isn't done about it they will probably dump them in mass. Also Mastercoin holders have to worry about Maidsafe themselves dumping the Mastercoins.
It is now apparent that the Maidsafe team doesn't understand the cryptospace or economics. There may have been ways to prevent or rectify, but how will they do that without pissing thousands of people off?
I think all sides had good intentions here and the technology is incredibly important. I just think they should have structured their sale to not have a cap and scale up with the level of investment.
I hope team Ethereum learns from this event.
-
An easy solution could be to simply reduce all advantages that were given to Mastercoin buyers so that Mastercoin buyers are on an even playing field. Unfortunately that is not likely to happen even if one guy bought all the Safecoins with his stash of Mastercoins.
Maybe the best would be to return all coins to their respective
sender addresses (both BTC and MSC).
Post a big apology for not knowing how cryptocurrency scene works,
and restart this process in next week.
This is the best solution. Just reset it and remove the Mastercoin advantages.
-
An easy solution could be to simply reduce all advantages that were given to Mastercoin buyers so that Mastercoin buyers are on an even playing field. Unfortunately that is not likely to happen even if one guy bought all the Safecoins with his stash of Mastercoins.
Maybe the best would be to return all coins to their respective
sender addresses (both BTC and MSC).
Post a big apology for not knowing how cryptocurrency scene works,
and restart this process in next week.
This is the best solution. Just reset it and remove the Mastercoin advantages.
Don't forget that a lot of people are allready fu$#@ up buying mastercoins at prices near 0.17 BTC... How will they fix that? They shouldn't at least hide the mastercoin address after 1 hour the fundraising begun... so they could buy maidsafe/safecoins with .30 advantage over BTC funders and not loose half of their money because they could not use the MSCs any more because some smartass concluded to change the rules over night.
-
The maidsafe guys are well intentioned and admit the economic ignorance. We will probably have to work with them to bailout their IPO and I have some ideas on that front.
Do what Google does and buy innovative start ups with potential.
-
The maidsafe guys are well intentioned and admit the economic ignorance. We will probably have to work with them to bailout their IPO and I have some ideas on that front.
bitshares to the rescue!
-
The maidsafe guys are well intentioned and admit the economic ignorance. We will probably have to work with them to bailout their IPO and I have some ideas on that front.
bitshares to the rescue!
:)
-
The challenge they face now is that the ipo is set in motion and cannot easily be changed. Just like we learn As we make mistakes so will they.
We here in the bts community have one critical edge over every other project: we understand economics better than everyone else.
I have warned the maidsafe guys about their broken economic model, but they have too much momentum to change.
They plan to try and then fix it if it fails. It will.
Hopefully they can recognize it and fix it ASAP, but that will set them back on schedule.
Our strength of being willing to admit our designs are flawed is that our schedule slips. Others rush ahead with flawed (significantly so) systems. We are the turtle they are the hare. We will win in the end with steady improvement and open minds that are willing to adjust course.
Maidsafe has great software and I want them to be successful. In time we will be integrating keyhotee with them. We just need to help them fix the economic model.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
is bytemaster a prophet ?
(http://mormonsoprano.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/prophet-jeremiah.jpg)
-
The challenge they face now is that the ipo is set in motion and cannot easily be changed. Just like we learn As we make mistakes so will they.
We here in the bts community have one critical edge over every other project: we understand economics better than everyone else.
I have warned the maidsafe guys about their broken economic model, but they have too much momentum to change.
They plan to try and then fix it if it fails. It will.
Hopefully they can recognize it and fix it ASAP, but that will set them back on schedule.
Our strength of being willing to admit our designs are flawed is that our schedule slips. Others rush ahead with flawed (significantly so) systems. We are the turtle they are the hare. We will win in the end with steady improvement and open minds that are willing to adjust course.
Maidsafe has great software and I want them to be successful. In time we will be integrating keyhotee with them. We just need to help them fix the economic model.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
is bytemaster a prophet ?
(http://mormonsoprano.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/prophet-jeremiah.jpg)
we'll see :)
-
""Representatively fair"? The implied exchange rate between MSC and BTC was very clear. If you can't do the math, it's your own fault.
I feel bad for MSC buyers who got stuck with them. They are the ones who got screwed here.
Fortunately, I did not partake in this little charade, but now I understand why the AngelShares/BitShares fundraiser/IPO was so convoluted, with a set amount sold per day in an "auction" format. It may have been hard to understand at the time, but now I see the wisdom of it."
From: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=577149.200
-
On the last posts on page 11 bitshares is mentionned in a good way so it is an oportunity for members here to comment there also so more people on the bitcoin community recognizes the strong advantages of bitshares over the "competition"...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=577149.new#new
-
now I understand why the AngelShares/BitShares fundraiser/IPO was so convoluted, with a set amount sold per day in an "auction" format. It may have been hard to understand at the time, but now I see the wisdom of it."
From: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=577149.200
I agree with this 100%.
On a side note: One of the benefits I've noticed - gained directly from following bitshares, daily, for the past 6 months - is that: I've found my understanding of the high level economics of the crypto world, has developed much faster than those I've noticed around me; who are part of other alt-coin communities. I jokingly like to think of my journey of understanding bitshares, as my 'unofficial econ minor' ;) You guys got a test and a certificate??
In all seriousness, the more I look back at the decisions made early on by the bitshares crew, before I understood what was going on, the more I'm convinced about the level of understanding of economics this team has, and the greater my confidence becomes. You guys KNOW economics. There are a lot of people that have been vocalizing how they are wary of the pivots taken - but after in-depth analysis and deep thinking, I don't know how anyone could think the current path isn't the way to go.
-
The maidsafe guys are well intentioned and admit the economic ignorance. We will probably have to work with them to bailout their IPO and I have some ideas on that front.
I hope this bailout will also benefit your loyalists (like us) in some way.
-
The maidsafe guys are well intentioned and admit the economic ignorance. We will probably have to work with them to bailout their IPO and I have some ideas on that front.
I hope this bailout will also benefit your loyalists (like us) in some way.
I do not mean financial bailout... after reading the bitcointalk thread it appears they are OK on that front right now.
Anything I do is done to benefit loyalists.
-
The maidsafe guys are well intentioned and admit the economic ignorance. We will probably have to work with them to bailout their IPO and I have some ideas on that front.
I hope this bailout will also benefit your loyalists (like us) in some way.
I do not mean financial bailout... after reading the bitcointalk thread it appears they are OK on that front right now.
Anything I do is done to benefit loyalists.
Bytemaster for president!!
-
now I understand why the AngelShares/BitShares fundraiser/IPO was so convoluted, with a set amount sold per day in an "auction" format. It may have been hard to understand at the time, but now I see the wisdom of it."
From: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=577149.200
I agree with this 100%.
On a side note: One of the benefits I've noticed - gained directly from following bitshares, daily, for the past 6 months - is that: I've found my understanding of the high level economics of the crypto world, has developed much faster than those I've noticed around me; who are part of other alt-coin communities. I jokingly like to think of my journey of understanding bitshares, as my 'unofficial econ minor' ;) You guys got a test and a certificate??
In all seriousness, the more I look back at the decisions made early on by the bitshares crew, before I understood what was going on, the more I'm convinced about the level of understanding of economics this team has, and the greater my confidence becomes. You guys KNOW economics. There are a lot of people that have been vocalizing how they are wary of the pivots taken - but after in-depth analysis and deep thinking, I don't know how anyone could think the current path isn't the way to go.
I know it was meant to be a joke, but I would love to do some kind of small, basic course (a certficate would be nice too). This field is both fascinating and schocking (in the sense that how easy it is for smart, greedy people to screw everyone else over). I don't intend to leave my current field and I have dialed down my crypto activities and only engage here, but having a proper understanding of finance/economics basics wouldn't hurt.
-
is bytemaster a prophet ?
(http://mormonsoprano.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/prophet-jeremiah.jpg)
Geeze. Give this young fellow a break. He doesn't need to be prophet or a demi-god. He just needs to be garden-variety visionary with great coding skills. Being Moses is too much pressure, brah.
-
As bad as this is for MaidSafe, what do you guys think happens to Mastercoin? Will they recover from this? Did one iceberg just sink two ships? Will this help or hurt bitshares in the 2.0 space?
-
I'd like to hear some possible positive outcomes from this.
Hopefully they can spin it in a good way, but what happened today seems unfortunate for Maidsafe and Mastercoin.
This is how I'm currently seeing it being viewed by the majority of people:
Whoever negotiated the Mastercoin exchange rate with the Maidsafe team took advantage of their market ignorance for their own benefit.
Not a crime, but in bad taste and at the cost of a significant amount of trust and good will in the Mastercoin team.
Maidsafe made matters worse by cutting off Mastercoin purchases and imposing the 50/50 rule out of nowhere.
Now Maidsafe seems joined to Mastercoin in a manner reminiscent to China being joined with the US due to their US Treasury holdings.
-
Now Maidsafe seems joined to Mastercoin in a manner reminiscent to China being joined with the US due to their US Treasury holdings.
Then perhaps they ought to exchange those Mastercoins for some bitGold!
-
is bytemaster a prophet ?
(http://mormonsoprano.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/prophet-jeremiah.jpg)
Geeze. Give this young fellow a break. He doesn't need to be prophet or a demi-god. He just needs to be garden-variety visionary with great coding skills. Being Moses is too much pressure, brah.
Profits! He was talking about "profits"!
(http://abovethelaw.com/uploads/2011/04/Profit-graph-260x259.jpg)
-
is bytemaster a prophet ?
(http://mormonsoprano.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/prophet-jeremiah.jpg)
Geeze. Give this young fellow a break. He doesn't need to be prophet or a demi-god. He just needs to be garden-variety visionary with great coding skills. Being Moses is too much pressure, brah.
Profits! He was talking about "profits"!
Not to mention that this was your 666th post !
-
Glad I've got that one over with!
-
:o this is so disturbing that I am glad they IPOd on mastercoin
Driven by hunger, a fox tried to reach some grapes hanging high on the vine but was unable to, although he leaped with all his strength. As he went away, the fox remarked 'Oh, you aren't even ripe yet! I don't need any sour grapes.' ...
Might I suggest you have a slice of humble pie?
Now Maidsafe seems joined to Mastercoin in a manner reminiscent to China being joined with the US due to their US Treasury holdings.
Then perhaps they ought to exchange those Mastercoins for some bitGold!
Quick, issue BitMSCs and BitSFCs.
I still have no idea what this Maidsafe software is supposed to be. Can anybody mention in a couple of lines?
-
It will decentralize the internet and provide secure communication, which is unable to track kinda like Tor + Dropbox. Except I think they are just in concept stage and I think we will have to wait quite a bit before we see anything happen.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
:o this is so disturbing that I am glad they IPOd on mastercoin
Driven by hunger, a fox tried to reach some grapes hanging high on the vine but was unable to, although he leaped with all his strength. As he went away, the fox remarked 'Oh, you aren't even ripe yet! I don't need any sour grapes.' ...
Might I suggest you have a slice of humble pie?
well :D
-
Is it known yet much BTC/USD the Maidsafe IPO has collected? /Maidsafe marketcap
-
I still have no idea what this Maidsafe software is supposed to be. Can anybody mention in a couple of lines?
The SAFE network takes all the Internet services currently available today and decentralizes them, removing servers and other central points of weakness enabling privacy, security and anonymity to all Internet users.
Since MaidSafe is a platform, the protocols are based on a voluntary ‘contract’ between self-authenticating users and the network itself. Essentially, this eliminates the need for third party involvement, password transmission or interaction from other humans.
To get a basic idea on how the MaidSafe network operates, take a look at existing cryptography-based cloud storage such as https://mega.co.nz/# which have incorporated a crypto-based encryption process that secures data and keeps it totally anonymous.
The SAFE network is made up of unused hard drive space, CPU and communications capabilities of commodity computers. These computers are likely owned by the very users of the system, but need not be limited to that. Each computer will effectively mine for credits which can be traded for many other goods and services. These credits are called safecoin.
-
Cheers asenski and liondani.
So how does it provide value to holders? You need these tokens (safecoins) which I guess will be limited in number to do stuff in this system?
-
So how does it provide value to holders? You need these tokens (safecoins) which I guess will be limited in number to do stuff in this system?
Yes, that seems to be the case. So, services providers can put there address in the software and receive payment for those. If you're providing resource to the network, then you can get paid too. For those not offering resource and using the network, then they pay in coins.
-
Cheers asenski and liondani.
So how does it provide value to holders? You need these tokens (safecoins) which I guess will be limited in number to do stuff in this system?
This is the gaping hole in the current available information: it's not really clear what these Safecoins will be used for. I guess this is what bytemaster referred to as their lacking economic understanding and flawed business model. As of right now there's no reason why the Safecoin value should ever appreciate, as the only use announced so far seems to be paying app developers and rewards for mining. Safecoins will have a big initial market cap due to the fund-raiser, but until there's an actual product and use for the coins I don't see the value increasing.
Unless I'm mistaken access is supposed to be free, if so where's the value in Safecoin? Short answer: there isn't any, at least for now..
-
Cheers asenski and liondani.
So how does it provide value to holders? You need these tokens (safecoins) which I guess will be limited in number to do stuff in this system?
This is the gaping hole in the current available information: it's not really clear what these Safecoins will be used for. I guess this is what bytemaster referred to as their lacking economic understanding and flawed business model. As of right now there's no reason why the Safecoin value should ever appreciate, as the only use announced so far seems to be paying app developers and rewards for mining. Safecoins will have a big initial market cap due to the fund-raiser, but until there's an actual product and use for the coins I don't see the value increasing.
Unless I'm mistaken access is supposed to be free, if so where's the value in Safecoin? Short answer: there isn't any, at least for now..
where is bitcoin's value?
The miners get the coins because they use ASICs giving NOTHING to society (only to the ASIC industry) and wasting energy for that reason...
where is safecoin's value*?
The "farmers" get the coins because they gave they resources to the public for decentralized data storage... sounds better to me!
where is bitshares value?
"profits" ;D
* Unlike many currencies, the distribution of safecoin is backed by information. This information represents the world’s data and grows exponentially. Unlike gold, which only increases at circa 1.5% per annum, the quantity of safecoin will initially burgeon. This is akin to the California gold rush, where the quantity of gold grew quickly with enthusiastic miners. In safecoin this is mirrored by the network building to the stage where it is protecting all of the world’s data. During that time the mining frequency will be exponentially decreasing.
When all of the world’s data is secured, mining will naturally slow to a pace that just keeps up with the fungibility of the whole system and the increased resources under it's protection. This will be possible as people trade safecoin for network resources. These resources are initially data, but will likely grow to be bandwidth (to allow satellite and mesh networks) and processing power (for decentralised mass calculation work) amongst others.
The number of resources will be calculated by the network dynamically and in perpetuity. The value of individual safecoin will be market determined and this is an important notion. The number of coins in circulation is network led and the individual value is market driven. As people trade safecoin for goods and services this market value will be realised.
-
Bitcoin's value is from it's network effect as a payment system.
Paying people coins doesn't give them value. How is demand for safecoin generated?
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
-
How is demand for safecoin generated?
Surely that follows directly from the demand for the Maidsafe network. Developers will get paid for the services they provide. Normal users might get some reward for providing resources but their use of the network will have to be subsidized via safecoin.
-
That's what I imagined but the thing is that they have no description anywhere explaining how safecoin is to be spent to get services from the network
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
-
maidsafe doesn't charge users for consuming resources, in fact it appears to reward App developers for consuming resources.
The coins are not divisible like Bitcoin, they are more like tokens. The security model on their system is complex and depends upon randomization to limit ability to collude and voting of a small subset to establish consensus. Basically, you ask the set of peers around a given coin's address who it belongs to.
As a result of this structure I expect lots of trouble for transacting in large quantities of safe coin. People will be earning a ton of safecoin by providing resources to the network and most will be looking to sell it.
-
Bitcoin's value is from it's network effect as a payment system.
Paying people coins doesn't give them value. How is demand for safecoin generated?
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
from the "farmers"/miners
Right now on the crypto community exist a lot of altcoin miners...
That means people (included me) have their computers 24 hours a day open, so if I have unused hard drive space (i have enough) why not participate on SAFE network and earn some extra safecoins knowing I make it for a good cause? (decentralized Internet )
-
That's what I imagined but the thing is that they have no description anywhere explaining how safecoin is to be spent to get services from the network
Yep.
I looked at their google group to understand why their coin should have value and when someone bring the economics flaw of their model, the only answer was that economics law are not truth, that they are here to create new paradigm with new ideas, that economics fuck up the planet and some other random nonsense: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/maidsafe-development/vkr5mty4k4s
That's pretty scary.
-
The other problem they have is that resources are load-balanced in a deterministic (centralized way) rather than market dynamics.
A proper solution to this problem has each node decide for itself what to host that will earn it the most profit. Their solution removes this control from nodes which have no say over what they must host.
-
People will be earning a ton of safecoin by providing resources to the network and most will be looking to sell it.
Will that not create a network effect as a payment system to ?
Because a ton of safecoin's will go to a "ton" of people?
-
Who will trade their bitcoin for safecoin in order to buy things? Who will not trade their safecoin for bitcoin when they receive it?
Our DACs have concrete, clear answers to the above, in terms of real life needs and wants. If you don't you will be eaten by bitcoin.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
-
People will be earning a ton of safecoin by providing resources to the network and most will be looking to sell it.
Will that not create a network effect as a payment system to ?
Because a ton of safecoin's will go to a "ton" of people?
A ton of air is going to a ton of people... what is its value? Why buy what you can earn. The network effect you want is demand based on scarcity and not supply based on abundance.
Price is driven by supply and demand, with safe coin there is ample supply but no demand. Those that hold it are constantly debased to fund the growing of the network.
Maidsafe is a case study in the same supply-side economics that is destroying the fiat economy.
-
Byte master you are missing the forest for the trees. Once you have a secure layer of storage and messaging, all sorts of decentralized solutions built on top of that will emerge. It may take some time but the demand will be there. Your viewpoint is a tad narrow minded here. Yes the initial investment may not be worth for people donating in BTC, but they have a surprisingly well WORKING software. That will really propel them. Also if the supply has no demand many will not provide their storage so it will eventually balance itself out. Then there will be quality of service, and those who are on 24/7 reliably will get more clients.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I feel like I am going insane. If the high level save the world application layer services do not accept *exclusively* safecoin, their amazingness will still have no impact on the price.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
-
Byte master you are missing the forest for the trees. Once you have a secure layer of storage and messaging, all sorts of decentralized solutions built on top of that will emerge. It may take some time but the demand will be there. Your viewpoint is a tad narrow minded here. Yes the initial investment may not be worth for people donating in BTC, but they have a surprisingly well WORKING software. That will really propel them. Also if the supply has no demand many will not provide their storage so it will eventually balance itself out. Then there will be quality of service, and those who are on 24/7 reliably will get more clients.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I totally recognize the VALUE of what they are producing which is independent of the VALUE of the SAFE coins. I was working in their problem domain prior to inventing BitShares X. Decentralized hosting of arbitrary content is huge if it can achieve high performance..... think freenet with speed.
To get the high performance though requires more than just solid software, it requires a solid economic model. Theirs is broken and as a result will likely perform only a little better than other P2P distributed hosting systems.
-
Seems like there are **loads** of features or things that could be arbitrarily offered for safecoins. All they have to do is offer a customization/parts suite that comes as a default bookmark and make Safecoin the cheapest option. The market has a good reason to value the safecoins, there is no per-piece cost for anything sold on this platform for safecoins and the safecoins can be sold back onto the market at this supported price.
They may not have done this yet, but it's a trivial thing to do once the platform is there - I'm a little curious what great insight you have Daniel? I've already got folks onboard with an angelshares-like model and the various work is open source.
-
What reason do they have to accept the cost of not offering the cheapest they are able directly in btc? To prop up safecoin? What will they do against people who accept btc at those prices?
I want someone to break down why two parties will consistently choose to trade their preffered money into and out of safecoin before performing their exchange. The only way for this to happen is if the DAC doesn't work unless you do, and you can only get people to accept that cost is for the value add from the DAC (not from the other party in the exchange!!) is greater than that cost.
Maidsafe is facilitating transactions for free (at cost even??) and then promoting a maidsafe-brand cryptocurrency on the side.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
-
Seems like there are **loads** of features or things that could be arbitrarily offered for safecoins. All they have to do is offer a customization/parts suite that comes as a default bookmark and make Safecoin the cheapest option. The market has a good reason to value the safecoins, there is no per-piece cost for anything sold on this platform for safecoins and the safecoins can be sold back onto the market at this supported price.
They may not have done this yet, but it's a trivial thing to do once the platform is there - I'm a little curious what great insight you have Daniel? I've already got folks onboard with an angelshares-like model and the various work is open source.
Anything can be used as money... the issue is whether people want to hold an inflationary currency in a market where there are deflationary alternatives. Yes you could offer services for safecoins, but there is little reason to be exclusively safecoin when you could accept something else.
The market will place a speculative price on anything, it will all come down to where exclusive demand for safecoins will come from and the relative inflation rate.
Lets make one thing clear... I like maidsafe's network solution (KAD + UDT) ... I like that they are thinking outside the box and have the 7th major design alternative when it comes to coins.
bitcoin: proof of work - losses
ripple: proof of debt + consensus - profitable
peercoin: proof of stake hybrid - inflationary / losses
nxt: pure proof of stake - break even
opentransactions: federated servers issuing debt + voting pools
bitshares: delegated proof of stake + profits
maidsafe: individual tokens with no block chain... first decentralized transaction ledger - inflationary
So any critiques I have against Maidsafe are not on the value of the problem they are solving, but on technique they think will solve it, but which I do not think has a strong economic foundation.
To improve upon their system I would:
1) eliminate inflation all together and power the network by better unit of account
2) move the responsibility for load balancing and replication to local nodes
3) charge users any time they consume more than they produce
-
What reason do they have to accept the cost of not offering the cheapest they are able directly in btc? To prop up safecoin? What will they do against people who accept btc at those prices?
I want someone to break down why two parties will consistently choose to trade their preffered money into and out of safecoin before performing their exchange. The only way for this to happen is if the DAC doesn't work unless you do, and you can only get people to accept that cost is for the value add from the DAC (not from the other party in the exchange!!) is greater than that cost.
Maidsafe is facilitating transactions for free (at cost even??) and then promoting a maidsafe-brand cryptocurrency on the side.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
+1 conversion into and out of safecoin is just as costly as conversion into and out of an alt coin. This is why people transact only in bitcoin right now and few places accept anything else. It is cheaper to accept bitcoin because there is one less exchange delay between converting back to fiat.
-
Byte master you are missing the forest for the trees. Once you have a secure layer of storage and messaging, all sorts of decentralized solutions built on top of that will emerge. It may take some time but the demand will be there. Your viewpoint is a tad narrow minded here. Yes the initial investment may not be worth for people donating in BTC, but they have a surprisingly well WORKING software. That will really propel them. Also if the supply has no demand many will not provide their storage so it will eventually balance itself out. Then there will be quality of service, and those who are on 24/7 reliably will get more clients.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Couldn't a large company provide storage at a loss under the same belief that you have?
-
What reason do they have to accept the cost of not offering the cheapest they are able directly in btc? To prop up safecoin? What will they do against people who accept btc at those prices?
I want someone to break down why two parties will consistently choose to trade their preffered money into and out of safecoin before performing their exchange. The only way for this to happen is if the DAC doesn't work unless you do, and you can only get people to accept that cost is for the value add from the DAC (not from the other party in the exchange!!) is greater than that cost.
Maidsafe is facilitating transactions for free (at cost even??) and then promoting a maidsafe-brand cryptocurrency on the side.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
Because it's the token of the network, and acceptance gives it value. Everybody running on the safecoin network will have safecoin, so everyone is vested in its success. Nobody says it has to be the only token, but being the native token and all participants being vested through non-monetary means means you have an enormous community just like doge except there is actual value here.
You guys are seeing this as a negative, but to my eyes it is a positive - people who want a lot buy it, people who want a little farm it. The market will value it. More options is better unless they step on each other.
Also you keep calling Bitcoin inflationary but it's only technically inflationary, in practice is is and always has been deflationary because demand far outstripes increases in supply. I would argue you can look at CoinmarketCap and find many tokens who have deflationary fundamentals but because of failure to penetrate the mindshare and achieve critical mass they are inflationary in practice since demand falls away but supply remains. Ripple is an excellent example of this.
seriously, launch something before you take the time to gloat about other peoples success. Will we in fact see a release next week? I want to believe but have really no faith left after every single self imposed deadline has been blown with very little commentary. We like talking about other peoples failures and our successes, but it would be great if there were some personal successes to talk about that don't conclude with "And that was promising"
-
Adam,
You are using the loosy-goosy definition of inflation/deflation used by the media to deceive the public about the true economic effects of government printing money.
Sure bitcoin masks monetary inflation with increases in demand, it just means that people have a harder time measuring their losses. This is deceptive and temporary. Fact of the matter is that all monetary inflation is a reallocation of wealth from those that hold it to those who receive new coins. Therefore safe coin is having all users pay to subsidize the growth of the network.... it then offers the services of the network for free.
We did not promise anything or set any deadlines... I just made an estimate that may or may not be overly ambitious. Your attempt to deflect our arguments against maidsafes design by ad homium and/or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_accomplishment is poor taste.
-
You are using "inflation" like in "price inflation" and like in "money supply inflation" as if they are the same thing. There is an old sticky in the bitcoin forum:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140793.0
This is clearly contributing a huge disagreement between us about the relationship between maidsafe-the-technology and the safecoin-the-equity. Usually I feel like I have some clarity into systems like this but right now I am fumbling to understand how you think the pieces fit together.
"Show me your success!" is not really a counterargument, I can assure you those complaints have been noted.
-
Quotes from: AdamBLevine on Today at 05:57:24 PM
...I'm a little curious what great insight you have Daniel?
launch something before you take the time to gloat about other peoples success.
Set him up, then smack him down. Nice.
-
The problem of decentralized storage really boils down to something very simple:
1) Produce software that turns your computer into a bandwidth / storage vending machine
2) Provide a means to be easily discovered by customers
3) Simplify micropayment
4) Automate inventory management to maximize revenue.
Safecoin as a concept is independent to the steps above. While it could in theory be used for step 3... it is actually less suited for this step than bitcoin because the coins are not easily divisible. Not only that, Safecoin isn't being used for this payment step.
So the closest analogy I can think of for safecoin is that it is an inflationary altcoin that is issued by proof-of-bandwidth. Its use as an altcoin is independent of everything else in the maidsafe system. Those that hold this coin pay to provide free service for everyone on the maidsafe network.
So it is innovative and will work until the value of safecoin crashes as it is competing against more profitable alternatives. Buying safecoin is the equavlent of donating to support the maidsafe network.
-
Buying safecoin is the equavlent of donating to support the maidsafe network.
+5% I fail to grasp how safecoin will generate value unless it creates a walled-garden market place; which seems to me, would contradict the ideals of the platform itself...
-
Quotes from: AdamBLevine on Today at 05:57:24 PM
...I'm a little curious what "great insight" you have Daniel?
launch something before you take the time to gloat about other peoples success.
Set him up, then smack him down. Nice.
It was obvious misstyped... they don't set him up.
-
Quotes from: AdamBLevine on Today at 05:57:24 PM
...I'm a little curious what great insight you have Daniel?
launch something before you take the time to gloat about other peoples success.
Set him up, then smack him down. Nice.
the schadenfreude was going on way before I showed up, he was not defining it just saying that he would help them fix, and of course flatly saying that nobody understands economics.
Sorry guys, I spend about 5% the time on your project I used to so I don't have time to respond to everything. I just wish you would work instead of talking about everybody elses failings when you are so unable to deal with your own.
-
Guys, let's be civil. Bytemaster - back to work :) I'm sure it will be a rocky road for them as well. But I also think we will learn a great deal from the exercise.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Yea, when everything I read seemed to suggest the service was supposed to be free and not paid for in safecoin I didn't post it because it just seemed so crazy that I thought there had to be a misunderstanding. I guess not.
Adam,
don't worry if these posts are down on maidsafecoin, not many of the investors are reading this. If you bought MSC before the run up in price and got in on the IPO I think you'll be ok for a good while.
I wouldn't recommend sending BTC; even though the MSC side is closed David Johnston with MSC/bitangels has been responding to posts by angry MSC bagholders by telling them not to worry and to email him because he will "hook them up"
So anyone else who overpaid for MSC and didn't wake up at 3AM for the IPO, email David, maybe he can hook you up.
-
To improve upon their system I would:
1) eliminate inflation all together and power the network by better unit of account
2) move the responsibility for load balancing and replication to local nodes
3) charge users any time they consume more than they produce
Hope David Irvine will read your advices...
since I am also invested on maidsafe project :-[
-
even though the MSC side is closed David Johnston with MSC/bitangels has been responding to posts by angry MSC bagholders by telling them not to worry and to email him because he will "hook them up"
So anyone else who overpaid for MSC and didn't wake up at 3AM for the IPO, email David, maybe he can hook you up.
Give links next time, nobody would believe you if they not allready know that :)
Mastercoin people are good people :P
https://www.facebook.com/groups/mastercoin/282284711939016/?notif_t=group_comment_reply
David A. Johnston This is a good question and I can actually provide some clarity here. I was participating from the 3:00 a.m. central time start and pestering David and Nick with questions the whole way through.
The crowdsale went faster than anyone expected is now completely sold out. All the MSAFE tokens (429,000,000) were generated in the first four or five hours (just check the addresses to confirm).
The MSC address came down from the website when the crowdsale was ended. Those MSAFE for sale now are re-sales from the crowdsale.
Some bigger buyers agreed to let the MaidSafe team sell their MSAFE at the crowdsale price (bonus included) so that they could balance out the MSC and BTC ratio they received. Which looks like it will end up around 50% BTC / 50% MSC.
Last I hear there was about 1,500 BTC left for re-sale which can be bought directly off the Safecoin.io website.
It was pretty amazing how fast it went. I'm sure some will be disappointed they missed the window, but our SAFE Network project got a ton of support and it really shows how excited this community is for the project.
If you have MSC and wanted MSAFE shoot me a PM I got more than expected because of the bonus and so I can help a few people out (I'm not charging any fee, I just want to support the community members who believe in this project).
-
To improve upon their system I would:
1) eliminate inflation all together and power the network by better unit of account
2) move the responsibility for load balancing and replication to local nodes
3) charge users any time they consume more than they produce
Hope David Irvine will read your advices...
since I am also invested on maidsafe project :-[
+5% agreed, a worthy project and advice from BM.
It would be great to see a BitShares/MaidSafe collaboration downstream, kudos to all involved.
-
To improve upon their system I would:
1) eliminate inflation all together and power the network by better unit of account
2) move the responsibility for load balancing and replication to local nodes
3) charge users any time they consume more than they produce
You said MaidSafe will consulting with you, is it still relevant?
-
To improve upon their system I would:
1) eliminate inflation all together and power the network by better unit of account
2) move the responsibility for load balancing and replication to local nodes
3) charge users any time they consume more than they produce
You said MaidSafe will consulting with you, is it still relevant?
yes, but we have to get our products done first...
-
back to work
-
Quotes from: AdamBLevine on Today at 05:57:24 PM
...I'm a little curious what great insight you have Daniel?
launch something before you take the time to gloat about other peoples success.
Set him up, then smack him down. Nice.
the schadenfreude was going on way before I showed up, he was not defining it just saying that he would help them fix, and of course flatly saying that nobody understands economics.
Sorry guys, I spend about 5% the time on your project I used to so I don't have time to respond to everything. I just wish you would work instead of talking about everybody elses failings when you are so unable to deal with your own.
On a sidenote:
Your presence has a positive influence on troop morale, and, apart from that, discussions like these make it worth to browse these boards. Do stick around.
-
Quotes from: AdamBLevine on Today at 05:57:24 PM
...I'm a little curious what great insight you have Daniel?
launch something before you take the time to gloat about other peoples success.
Set him up, then smack him down. Nice.
the schadenfreude was going on way before I showed up, he was not defining it just saying that he would help them fix, and of course flatly saying that nobody understands economics.
Sorry guys, I spend about 5% the time on your project I used to so I don't have time to respond to everything. I just wish you would work instead of talking about everybody elses failings when you are so unable to deal with your own.
"I just wish you would work instead of talking about everybody elses failings" Im sure something similar is going through a lot of heads as they read this string but lets not forget that you have to be fiercely competitive to win and that is all you are seeing here, bring it on chaps!
-
So what happens when someone forks Safecoin with an initial coin distribution based on the current distribution of bitcoins?
-
So what happens when someone forks Safecoin with an initial coin distribution based on the current distribution of bitcoins?
Or based on the current distribution of PTS... wink wink... ;)
Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2
-
Yeah or maybe at the expense of an Angelshare airdrop :)
-
It would make no difference, that doesn't have anything to do with what we were discussing... initial distribution does not significantly affect deman
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
-
Surly the demand comes from people wanting to use more computer power than they have, and that supply is met by thous with extra computer power selling there spare capacity. The medium of exchange is safecoin?
To my mind its impossible to know if they have a good economic model until we see what people do with the system, will people demand more power than they have (price goes up) or will there be more power than people demand (price goes down).
What could be done with all that processing power? unimaginably virtual worlds? Extremely cheap laptops where you pay purely for what processing power bandwidth you use.
What a great time it is to be alive and see all this unfold and evolve
-
Surly the demand comes from people wanting to use more computer power than they have, and that supply is met by thous with extra computer power selling there spare capacity. The medium of exchange is safecoin?
To my mind its impossible to know if they have a good economic model until we see what people do with the system, will people demand more power than they have (price goes up) or will there be more power than people demand (price goes down).
What could be done with all that processing power? unimaginably virtual worlds? Extremely cheap laptops where you pay purely for what processing power bandwidth you use.
What a great time it is to be alive and see all this unfold and evolve
If they implement bytemaster's advice:
3) charge* users any time they consume more than they produce
* I think it's obvious they must charge safecoins...
-
Surly the demand comes from people wanting to use more computer power than they have, and that supply is met by thous with extra computer power selling there spare capacity. The medium of exchange is safecoin?
To my mind its impossible to know if they have a good economic model until we see what people do with the system, will people demand more power than they have (price goes up) or will there be more power than people demand (price goes down).
What could be done with all that processing power? unimaginably virtual worlds? Extremely cheap laptops where you pay purely for what processing power bandwidth you use.
What a great time it is to be alive and see all this unfold and evolve
If they implement bytemaster's advice:
3) charge* users any time they consume more than they produce
* I think it's obvious they must charge safecoins...
how else would it work if you didn't charge users for using resources? If they didn't put that in the white paper it must have been a case of not needing to state the obvious?.... i hope!
-
how else would it work if you didn't charge users for using resources? If they didn't put that in the white paper it must have been a case of not needing to state the obvious?.... i hope!
I hope too! But we live in a crazy world...
-
Surly the demand comes from people wanting to use more computer power than they have, and that supply is met by thous with extra computer power selling there spare capacity. The medium of exchange is safecoin?
To my mind its impossible to know if they have a good economic model until we see what people do with the system, will people demand more power than they have (price goes up) or will there be more power than people demand (price goes down).
What could be done with all that processing power? unimaginably virtual worlds? Extremely cheap laptops where you pay purely for what processing power bandwidth you use.
What a great time it is to be alive and see all this unfold and evolve
If they implement bytemaster's advice:
3) charge* users any time they consume more than they produce
* I think it's obvious they must charge safecoins...
how else would it work if you didn't charge users for using resources? If they didn't put that in the white paper it must have been a case of not needing to state the obvious?.... i hope!
The idea of having a token cryptocurrency attached to the system is a fairly recent one, which is why it's not very fleshed out at the moment and not in the whitepaper. In the hangout they did introducing the idea of having a Maidsafe token, the lead developer briefly says that the tokens could be used to pay for extra storage space.
So I guess the first use case will be for users who would like extra storage space, users like myself who currently pay ~2$ a month for Google Drive. We'll see once they actually launch their product.
One thing I don't like though is what bytemaster said about the coin not being divisible. This is not good for transactions, as an appreciation in the coin value would probably have to be taken into account by scaling the service offered rather than the price for the service, which seems a bit more complicated but not impossible. At time t1 you get 10gb/1year for 1 Safecoin, at a later time t2 you'll get 20gb/year for 1 Safecoin as their value somehow doubled, instead of now paying 0.5 Safecoins for the same service. Does that make sense? Maybe having so many coins this will never really be a problem, and 1 Safecoin will never be worth enough for something to cost less than 1..
-
Surly the demand comes from people wanting to use more computer power than they have, and that supply is met by thous with extra computer power selling there spare capacity. The medium of exchange is safecoin?
To my mind its impossible to know if they have a good economic model until we see what people do with the system, will people demand more power than they have (price goes up) or will there be more power than people demand (price goes down).
What could be done with all that processing power? unimaginably virtual worlds? Extremely cheap laptops where you pay purely for what processing power bandwidth you use.
What a great time it is to be alive and see all this unfold and evolve
If they implement bytemaster's advice:
3) charge* users any time they consume more than they produce
* I think it's obvious they must charge safecoins...
how else would it work if you didn't charge users for using resources? If they didn't put that in the white paper it must have been a case of not needing to state the obvious?.... i hope!
The idea of having a token cryptocurrency attached to the system is a fairly recent one, which is why it's not very fleshed out at the moment and not in the whitepaper. In the hangout they did introducing the idea of having a Maidsafe token, the lead developer briefly says that the tokens could be used to pay for extra storage space.
So I guess the first use case will be for users who would like extra storage space, users like myself who currently pay ~2$ a month for Google Drive. We'll see once they actually launch their product.
One thing I don't like though is what bytemaster said about the coin not being divisible. This is not good for transactions, as an appreciation in the coin value would probably have to be taken into account by scaling the service offered rather than the price for the service, which seems a bit more complicated but not impossible. At time t1 you get 10gb/1year for 1 Safecoin, at a later time t2 you'll get 20gb/year for 1 Safecoin as their value somehow doubled, instead of now paying 0.5 Safecoins for the same service. Does that make sense? Maybe having so many coins this will never really be a problem, and 1 Safecoin will never be worth enough for something to cost less than 1..
Take that from bitcointalk forum from member FrictionlessCoin
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=579797.220
"Safecoins are proxies for Proof of Resources. So essentially, if you need 120GB then you use SafeCoins to acquire that storage space on the cloud.
Yes, processing power and storage costs do go to zero, but we always need more of it. Look at Bitcoin ASIC hardware, they also go to zero at a pace much faster than processing power or storage, but we always need more of it. The point is though, Safecoin doesn't come for free. You have to spend something to acquire it. Bitcoin burns energy by running a useless calculation, so does every other alt-coin out there. SafeCoin by contrast, does create something of utility, that is, it create storage. The other thing is that, SafeCoin is one of the few coins that provides incentives for running an active node. Bitcoin by contrast only provides incentive for running a miner.
The point I want to make as to why Safecoin has a unique proposition as compared to alt-coins it is likely the only coin out there that creates something of value as a consequence of 'mining'.
As to the price, well.... its pure speculation."
-
Surly the demand comes from people wanting to use more computer power than they have, and that supply is met by thous with extra computer power selling there spare capacity. The medium of exchange is safecoin?
To my mind its impossible to know if they have a good economic model until we see what people do with the system, will people demand more power than they have (price goes up) or will there be more power than people demand (price goes down).
What could be done with all that processing power? unimaginably virtual worlds? Extremely cheap laptops where you pay purely for what processing power bandwidth you use.
What a great time it is to be alive and see all this unfold and evolve
If they implement bytemaster's advice:
3) charge* users any time they consume more than they produce
* I think it's obvious they must charge safecoins...
how else would it work if you didn't charge users for using resources? If they didn't put that in the white paper it must have been a case of not needing to state the obvious?.... i hope!
The idea of having a token cryptocurrency attached to the system is a fairly recent one, which is why it's not very fleshed out at the moment and not in the whitepaper. In the hangout they did introducing the idea of having a Maidsafe token, the lead developer briefly says that the tokens could be used to pay for extra storage space.
So I guess the first use case will be for users who would like extra storage space, users like myself who currently pay ~2$ a month for Google Drive. We'll see once they actually launch their product.
One thing I don't like though is what bytemaster said about the coin not being divisible. This is not good for transactions, as an appreciation in the coin value would probably have to be taken into account by scaling the service offered rather than the price for the service, which seems a bit more complicated but not impossible. At time t1 you get 10gb/1year for 1 Safecoin, at a later time t2 you'll get 20gb/year for 1 Safecoin as their value somehow doubled, instead of now paying 0.5 Safecoins for the same service. Does that make sense? Maybe having so many coins this will never really be a problem, and 1 Safecoin will never be worth enough for something to cost less than 1..
+5%
-
the lead developer briefly says that the tokens could be used to pay for extra storage space.
+5%
Now it makes sense !!!
It is free for everybody for a specific storage lets say 5 GB (dropbox dies after that)
And for extra storage there is a fee payable in safecoins !!!
-
the lead developer briefly says that the tokens could be used to pay for extra storage space.
+5%
Now it makes sense !!!
It is free for everybody for a specific storage lets say 5 GB (dropbox dies after that)
And for extra storage there is a fee payable in safecoins !!!
The purpose here is to make storage free for everyone. Unlimited storage space for all.
But how do we get there? The economic incentives have to take us there. Will it? I think it's highly likely but what if it results in centralization all over again and nothing changes?
Google and Amazon would become the lead farmers, end up with the majority of the Safecoins, and now what? It's a good idea in principle of course and it's a lot more decentralized than what we have now if the code works as intended.
But there is room for improvement. I think we should try to pass suggestions to Dr. Irvine to make these improvements. MaidSafe is incredibly important technology.
-
One thing I don't like though is what bytemaster said about the coin not being divisible.
I wonder that MaidSafeCoin is an intermediary step, rather than the final coin.
from http://www.safecoin.io/
MaidSafeCoins will be swapped for safecoins at a 1:1 ratio
So, those safecoins could be divisible in the usual way.
-
Someone found the stolen MTGOX BTC went to the Maidsafe IPO address (quote from bitcointalk):
Hm, nice investigation. But who would send funds with open comments like that? Anyway, the 64 000 is a lot, but considering that a guy just paid 10 000 BTC for two pizzas a few years ago, it´s possible that an early adopter/miner has such a big stake.
Or those are the guys that stole the bitcoins from MtGox, as they also have to make "legal" bitcoins out of it somehow.
No, I just confirmed it. This are Mtgox's Bitcoins
https://blockchain.info/es/address/1KHfLixa2idRnZXMUfEisBati1vpywaH6E?offset=400&filter=0 - MaidSafe
https://blockchain.info/es/address/1KzHa54Qt7V75VmEsSjP2MddPxb7Mwr1fc
https://blockchain.info/es/address/1Hi2bwsu3W3h7UDrbNUuxRG4x4s4HxtWo7
https://blockchain.info/es/address/1BH8FS6Yd9WvPZ1LDDWNpqXdzX8Q3freL9
https://blockchain.info/es/address/1KGA7TLtUwjZuM5fyyYwGXfviPJdVCc8rY
https://blockchain.info/es/address/1TCEZsNRhcmx4jBtZr7jt1yM59dJXZKoe - 64,000 BTC
https://blockchain.info/es/address/1Drt3c8pSdrkyjuBiwVcSSixZwQtMZ3Tew - Mtgox
I am thinking what should we do if some MTGOX BTC come to AGS.
-
How certain are we that this is GOX BTC?
If we knew with 100% certainty.... I think it would be very hard to divide it up among gox creditors... I would probably scrub it from the genesis block and reallocate the AGS to some noble purpose.
-
Someone found the stolen MTGOX BTC went to the Maidsafe IPO address (quote from bitcointalk):
Hm, nice investigation. But who would send funds with open comments like that? Anyway, the 64 000 is a lot, but considering that a guy just paid 10 000 BTC for two pizzas a few years ago, it´s possible that an early adopter/miner has such a big stake.
Or those are the guys that stole the bitcoins from MtGox, as they also have to make "legal" bitcoins out of it somehow.
No, I just confirmed it. This are Mtgox's Bitcoins
https://blockchain.info/es/address/1KHfLixa2idRnZXMUfEisBati1vpywaH6E?offset=400&filter=0 - MaidSafe
https://blockchain.info/es/address/1KzHa54Qt7V75VmEsSjP2MddPxb7Mwr1fc
https://blockchain.info/es/address/1Hi2bwsu3W3h7UDrbNUuxRG4x4s4HxtWo7
https://blockchain.info/es/address/1BH8FS6Yd9WvPZ1LDDWNpqXdzX8Q3freL9
https://blockchain.info/es/address/1KGA7TLtUwjZuM5fyyYwGXfviPJdVCc8rY
https://blockchain.info/es/address/1TCEZsNRhcmx4jBtZr7jt1yM59dJXZKoe - 64,000 BTC
https://blockchain.info/es/address/1Drt3c8pSdrkyjuBiwVcSSixZwQtMZ3Tew - Mtgox
I am thinking what should we do if some MTGOX BTC come to AGS.
We should alert MaidSafe then.
If these coins are stolen they should not be used, they should be sent back to the address that sent it.
-
Someone found the stolen MTGOX BTC went to the Maidsafe IPO address (quote from bitcointalk):
Hm, nice investigation. But who would send funds with open comments like that? Anyway, the 64 000 is a lot, but considering that a guy just paid 10 000 BTC for two pizzas a few years ago, it´s possible that an early adopter/miner has such a big stake.
Or those are the guys that stole the bitcoins from MtGox, as they also have to make "legal" bitcoins out of it somehow.
No, I just confirmed it. This are Mtgox's Bitcoins
https://blockchain.info/es/address/1KHfLixa2idRnZXMUfEisBati1vpywaH6E?offset=400&filter=0 - MaidSafe
https://blockchain.info/es/address/1KzHa54Qt7V75VmEsSjP2MddPxb7Mwr1fc
https://blockchain.info/es/address/1Hi2bwsu3W3h7UDrbNUuxRG4x4s4HxtWo7
https://blockchain.info/es/address/1BH8FS6Yd9WvPZ1LDDWNpqXdzX8Q3freL9
https://blockchain.info/es/address/1KGA7TLtUwjZuM5fyyYwGXfviPJdVCc8rY
https://blockchain.info/es/address/1TCEZsNRhcmx4jBtZr7jt1yM59dJXZKoe - 64,000 BTC
https://blockchain.info/es/address/1Drt3c8pSdrkyjuBiwVcSSixZwQtMZ3Tew - Mtgox
I am thinking what should we do if some MTGOX BTC come to AGS.
We should alert MaidSafe then.
If these coins are stolen they should not be used, they should be sent back to the address that sent it.
Sending them back to the thief? That makes no sense. They should either be sent to the bankruptcy court, destroyed as dividends to bitcoin holders, or used for development of maidsafe... the only thing that must not happen is the issuance of Safecoin to the thief.
-
http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/news/breaking-mt-gox-maidsafe-gox-coins-flowing-maidsafe-ipo/2014/04/24
Hope maidsafe is not involved on that!
-
http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/news/breaking-mt-gox-maidsafe-gox-coins-flowing-maidsafe-ipo/2014/04/24
Hope maidsafe is not involved on that!
+5%
-
Someone found the stolen MTGOX BTC went to the Maidsafe IPO address (quote from bitcointalk):
Hm, nice investigation. But who would send funds with open comments like that? Anyway, the 64 000 is a lot, but considering that a guy just paid 10 000 BTC for two pizzas a few years ago, it´s possible that an early adopter/miner has such a big stake.
Or those are the guys that stole the bitcoins from MtGox, as they also have to make "legal" bitcoins out of it somehow.
No, I just confirmed it. This are Mtgox's Bitcoins
https://blockchain.info/es/address/1KHfLixa2idRnZXMUfEisBati1vpywaH6E?offset=400&filter=0 - MaidSafe
https://blockchain.info/es/address/1KzHa54Qt7V75VmEsSjP2MddPxb7Mwr1fc
https://blockchain.info/es/address/1Hi2bwsu3W3h7UDrbNUuxRG4x4s4HxtWo7
https://blockchain.info/es/address/1BH8FS6Yd9WvPZ1LDDWNpqXdzX8Q3freL9
https://blockchain.info/es/address/1KGA7TLtUwjZuM5fyyYwGXfviPJdVCc8rY
https://blockchain.info/es/address/1TCEZsNRhcmx4jBtZr7jt1yM59dJXZKoe - 64,000 BTC
https://blockchain.info/es/address/1Drt3c8pSdrkyjuBiwVcSSixZwQtMZ3Tew - Mtgox
I am thinking what should we do if some MTGOX BTC come to AGS.
We should alert MaidSafe then.
If these coins are stolen they should not be used, they should be sent back to the address that sent it.
Sending them back to the thief? That makes no sense. They should either be sent to the bankruptcy court, destroyed as dividends to bitcoin holders, or used for development of maidsafe... the only thing that must not happen is the issuance of Safecoin to the thief.
+5%
Because it could endanger the crowd sale, and could actually be a sort of trap. But you could be right.
Destroying them would be as if MaidSafe stole them from the thief, and while it's not immoral to do this it's probably controversial.
One thing we both agree on for certain, the thief should not get any Safecoins. And you've convinced me that the thief should also not get their Bitcoins back unless the owner of that address is willing to identify themselves.
-
Sending them back to the thief? That makes no sense. They should either be sent to the bankruptcy court, destroyed as dividends to bitcoin holders, or used for development of maidsafe... the only thing that must not happen is the issuance of Safecoin to the thief.
ANSWER from bitcointalk https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=579797.340
I think maidsafe could sent the "stolen coin" to mtgox.
Then give market more ipo. :-*
As Dan Larimer (founder of Bitshares) answered to suggestion's like that:
"Sending them back to the thief? That makes no sense. They should either be sent to the bankruptcy court, destroyed as dividends to bitcoin holders, or used for development of maidsafe... the only thing that must not happen is the issuance of Safecoin to the thief."
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4090.135
Yes , this is good idea.
No it's not, it's by far the stupidest idea yet.
What if one of those intermediary addresses between the "stolen mtgox coins" address and the MaidSafe address is an exchange? The thief dumps some coins on an exchange, and some innocent third party withdraws coins later on and "invests" in ScamSafeMaidSafe. Now MaidSafe hold the coins hostage (not that anyone investing has a signed GPG contract with some indication as to what remedies are available or what arbitration could be accepted) and the poor innocent person is screwed out of their money.
Which is why you should NOT play Bitcoin Police, not even if you believe you have "direct evidence" of someone directly spending coins they have stolen.
-
You took my quote out of context when you cross posted. Please point out my original question regarding how we know for sure.
I am against policing the chain in general, but the suggestion of sending the funds back to a proven thief is the only thing I was Objecting to.
If the case is ambiguous then you might as well keep the funds as the thief will launder it some other way.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
-
Sorry fixed that...
-
Just to note the replies from David Irvine et al at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=579797.msg6375179#msg6375179
This 'MtGox' FUD from templar77 et al, looks to relate to the same address that has caused confusion in the past and then more likely to be BitStamp http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1yxxgf/the_posted_address_with_a_transfers_totaling/
-
Anyone look at coinmarketcap today? Not looking good for Mastercoin:
9 BitShares-PTS $ 7,036,180 $ 4.31 1,631,463 PTS $ 25,147 -0.79 %
10 Mastercoin $ 6,651,626 $ 11.81 563,162 MSC* $ 129,654 -70.69 %
-
On the upside Mastercoin has proven capability for making a launch. The speed and flux took everyone by surprise.
The value there of $11.81 is a bit off from the exchange (https://masterxchange.com/market.php?currency=msc), which looks to be back to roughly the 0.09 that it was before.. that suggesting ~$43
-
I'd like to thank MSC and Maidsafe for the best opera I've seen for quite some time. Good times on the boards. Ran out of popcorn :)
-
I'd like to thank MSC and Maidsafe for the best opera I've seen for quite some time. Good times on the boards. Ran out of popcorn :)
/agree
I'm usually not a big drama guy, but this was a fun read.
-
Anyone look at coinmarketcap today? Not looking good for Mastercoin:
9 BitShares-PTS $ 7,036,180 $ 4.31 1,631,463 PTS $ 25,147 -0.79 %
10 Mastercoin $ 6,651,626 $ 11.81 563,162 MSC* $ 129,654 -70.69 %
Mastercoin is not just involved in this particular event (so called "stolen coin into maidsafe ipo"). They also involved in the "goxcoin" campaign (right after mtgox bursted) in which they asked mtgox victims to support their plan to convert victims' coins in mtgox to goxcoin running on Mastercoin platform. Of course, it turns out not successful, as people quickly identified their link to Mark Karpeles. As a mtgox victim myself, I don't want to get involved in any of Mastercoin projects. >:(
-
Anyone look at coinmarketcap today? Not looking good for Mastercoin:
9 BitShares-PTS $ 7,036,180 $ 4.31 1,631,463 PTS $ 25,147 -0.79 %
10 Mastercoin $ 6,651,626 $ 11.81 563,162 MSC* $ 129,654 -70.69 %
Mastercoin is not just involved in this particular event (so called "stolen coin into maidsafe ipo"). They also involved in the "goxcoin" campaign (right after mtgox bursted) in which they asked mtgox victims to support their plan to convert victims' coins in mtgox to goxcoin running on Mastercoin platform. Of course, it turns out not successful, as people quickly identified their link to Mark Karpeles. As a mtgox victim myself, I don't want to get involved in any of Mastercoin projects. >:(
Served with your popcorn, http://www.humint.is/goxcoin/
-
It seems Maidsafe has a proven capacity to have people talk nonsense.. do we have an ignore feature here too?
Also to note that the marketcap site looks to be glitching, it has the total coins wrong again should be 619478.59338440 MSC, rather than 563162 MSC; so, understated by 10% just for that.
-
Honestly I am not sure how this would work. (Not to be a broken record.. but I am not even referring to their token system.)
I could run it on my VPS to subsidize the cost perhaps?
As a user, I'd be scared whatever is required to maintain my data store would lose enough members to cause corruption. Perhaps some glitch causes irreversible corruption. Just use dropbox/whatever + truecrypt. What else could you purchase of value? An openly available botnet?
What happens if my computer has data from a serious criminal? What would prevent a subpoena from having my computer confiscated if needed for forensic recreation of evidence?
Having a botnet to use could be interesting, but not sure people would want that stuff running off their computers ?
Is there TOR type functionality ? Onion routing ?
Who is their target? Dropbox/google has this stuff already ?
-
Honestly I am not sure how this would work. (Not to be a broken record.. but I am not even referring to their token system.)
I could run it on my VPS to subsidize the cost perhaps?
As a user, I'd be scared whatever is required to maintain my data store would lose enough members to cause corruption. Perhaps some glitch causes irreversible corruption. Just use dropbox/whatever + truecrypt. What else could you purchase of value? An openly available botnet?
What happens if my computer has data from a serious criminal? What would prevent a subpoena from having my computer confiscated if needed for forensic recreation of evidence?
Having a botnet to use could be interesting, but not sure people would want that stuff running off their computers ?
Is there TOR type functionality ? Onion routing ?
Who is their target? Dropbox/google has this stuff already ?
It's decentralized!! ***COIN
-
Who is their target? Dropbox/google has this stuff already ?
They've already done tests with the NHS! http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-01/27/maidsafe-bitcloud
in trial tests conducted for the NHS ( which could do with a secure network), a MaidSafe enabled box to store DICOM images (x-rays, MRI scans, etc) was apparently able to reduce disk space requirements by 48 percent while operating at the same speed.
-
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-01/27/maidsafe-bitcloud
They're getting their name out there. 8 years of development. Holy moly, no wonder why they're trying to get something out the door.
-
Its the Duke Nukem forever of crypto
-
Their marketing is interesting. Always talk of this little town but with far flung experts in all these fields. It sets up your interest level quite a bit.
I won't contrast it with how Dan goes into the origin of his idea, but perhaps a bit of consideration in that area could be useful.
-
Their marketing is interesting. Always talk of this little town but with far flung experts in all these fields. It sets up your interest level quite a bit.
I won't contrast it with how Dan goes into the origin of his idea, but perhaps a bit of consideration in that area could be useful.
+5% I agree!
-
Their marketing is interesting. Always talk of this little town but with far flung experts in all these fields. It sets up your interest level quite a bit.
I won't contrast it with how Dan goes into the origin of his idea, but perhaps a bit of consideration in that area could be useful.
+5% I agree!
Could you elaborate?
-
Their marketing is interesting. Always talk of this little town but with far flung experts in all these fields. It sets up your interest level quite a bit.
I won't contrast it with how Dan goes into the origin of his idea, but perhaps a bit of consideration in that area could be useful.
+5% I agree!
Could you elaborate?
I really think we have a better "product" than our competition ... but I think they sell it a little bit "better"(not for long)...
I think it is not so importand what we say to the people (of course it is) but much more importand is HOW we say it. What our bodylanguage sais to the others. How much we express our Enthusiasm and feelings when we talk to others, how we sell ourselves... Some of us are better on that,some others not, no problem, just use the best of them. The real leaders use always people they are better than the leader... find them! Maybe you allready have some of them on your team but you don't exposed them yet, or enough... Brian Page is not bad at all... let them speak more... Send them alone on the next conferrence you know he will make a great job (at least it seems so). Show to the community that you are 100% dedicated on the project (code writting) and let your co workers and your work speak for the project...You don't have time (or pretend you don't have)... Do you think I appreciate Vitalik more because they are on every single conferrence? It is obvious when we see the founders act like that that they made it because they want to be famous,they want glory... I want founders of projects to work for the society and not for their self... and PURE rocognition and "profits" will come , believe me. Try to hide yourself (but work) and they will find you, try to expose yourself and be forgotten before you know. Expose others.Give them oportunities.Hire talented "sellers", "evangelists" or whatever... You can archieve whatever you want with team work, Sacrifice your self for the bitshares team and soon you rise up, inch by inch, play by play...
I think he speaks better to your spirit than me...
http://youtu.be/oSDhhZtRwFU
-
... Sorry for posting so much guys but I am bitshares addicted ...
Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 997D using Tapatalk
-
The way MaidSafe's economic model appears to work is we had an IPO where we bought Safecoins which are credit tokens. These tokens were a presale of Proof of Resource allocation.
Proof of Resource for storage space would be a situation where the farmer gives a certain amount of storage space to the network and they would be paid in Safecoins from people who don't have any storage space to give. People who don't have Safecoins will have to give to receive and by reciprocity they would have double the storage space (I think this is how it's supposed to work).
If you have Safecoins then you likely have a lifetime supply of storage space. Everyone else will have to provide storage space to the network in order to receive storage space. As a result these Safecoins will become the main way that people buy storage space.
Here is the quote from the whitepaper to back up what I'm saying
https://github.com/maidsafe/Whitepapers/blob/master/Project-Safe.md
5. Economic System With Two Types Of Token
P.O.R is proposed in order to facilitate the exchange of storage space on the SAFE network. However, as it doesn't have a predictable cap number, it may not be considered a genuine virtual currency. To provide a more robust form of exchange, MaidSafe proposes a token system that is totally independent of P.O.R, called safecoin. Safecoin will have a predicatable cap and will be injected into network using the storage space related mining procedure.
A bridge (converting rate) between P.O.R and safecoin can be established by the market solely. With third party upper layer broker applications, it will be possible to use safecoin to buy P.O.R or vice versa (user_A gives safecoin to user_B in exchange for user_B's P.O.R). It is expected that the per unit value of P.O.R will keep decreasing, while the per unit value of safecoin will continue to rise. In this way, it will be possible to buy more and more P.O.R with one safecoin. Safecoin will only be stored in the Maid Account wallet, this can only be updated by the Maid Manager group.
The value one safecoin represents will be recognised by all peers across the network and outside the network. If the economic system works as intended, safecoin will become a ‘virtual currency’ with the SAFE network being used to complete all transactions. Meanwhile, P.O.R will solely be used for exchanging space allowance among users.
Storage space is usually deflationary. Every year we can expect storage space to decrease. Safecoins are capped at 4.3 billion but unfortunately these Safecoins are not divisible. The fact that they are not divisible could be a problem and I'm not sure why it had to be designed like that but I'm guessing because it's designed to exist exclusively within MaidSafe and to track Proof of Resource.
As resources become cheaper 1 Safecoin should be able to buy more resources. That means the buying power of 1 Safecoin should increase with Moore's law and the deflationary spiral of storage space. If these premises hold then Safecoin are like indivisible shares in the resources of MaidSafe itself. Since demand for resources are insatiable, the MaidSafe model will definitely catch on and make many billions of dollars.
There are ways to improve their economic model and the crowd sale was terribly botched. Too many Safecoins are concentrated into the hands of too few, but that is generally what happens.
It's questionable whether or not Safecoins need to be mined but considering how many devices there are in the world you would need at least 1 Safecoin for every device so having around 4 billion does make sense when there are around 3 billion devices. Whether or not people get their ROI depends entirely on whether or not MaidSafe is in demand and really I cannot see how it wouldn't be.
VPNs, MegaUpload/Dropbox, VPS, Amazon, Google, Facebook, even forums such as these would all be able to run on top of MaidSafe as an app. These large corporations if they are somewhat smart would start buying Safecoins so they don't have to buy them later but knowing how they reacted to Bitcoin and other disruptive peer to peer technologies we can expect them to make fun of it or demonize it early on. We can also expect a lot of file sharing to move there and probably be the first killer apps.
-
“Proof of Resource for storage space would be a situation where the farmer gives a certain amount of storage space to the network and they would be paid in Safecoins from people who don't have any storage space to give.”
One with his right mind would think this is the case. Reading the paper though it seems that farmers/miners will receive Safecoins as mining reward for providing the space… who and how much and for what reasons will be looking to buy safecoins is something not totally clear yet.
In other words the craziness to use price fixing in their IPO is just the first of crazy/stupid ideas they have in mind. The second and bigger one seems to be to disconnect the supply of safecoins from the demand for them… All in all I am pretty happy to have dropped 0 money on this IPO as this thingy is going to 0 pretty soon, if those guys do not wake up.
-
The issue is they are looking at it backwards. You want to sell downloads, not storage space. A movie is stored once and downloaded 100000 times. 99% of users need 0 storage space, but consume significant bandwidth.
Storage is free, what you are really selling is bandwidth and access.
-
“Proof of Resource for storage space would be a situation where the farmer gives a certain amount of storage space to the network and they would be paid in Safecoins from people who don't have any storage space to give.”
One with his right mind would think this is the case. Reading the paper though it seems that farmers/miners will receive Safecoins as mining reward for providing the space… who and how much and for what reasons will be looking to buy safecoins is something not totally clear yet.
In other words the craziness to use price fixing in their IPO is just the first of crazy/stupid ideas they have in mind. The second and bigger one seems to be to disconnect the supply of safecoins from the demand for them… All in all I am pretty happy to have dropped 0 money on this IPO as this thingy is going to 0 pretty soon, if those guys do not wake up.
You've got it wrong.
For example what if you run out of hard drives so you can't farm, how will you get more resources?
If you have bandwidth you could give that and get storage. If you have processing power you can get storage. If you don't have one of these resources then you'll have no choice but to buy the Safecoins. Most people aren't going the have data centers in their home and most people aren't ISPs. Farming is going to become heavily centralized and quick forcing most people to buy Safecoins. I'm not convinced it will be able to remain decentralized on the farming end and that is really the only problem with the idea but it will definitely be disruptive and better than what we have by far.
The issue is they are looking at it backwards. You want to sell downloads, not storage space. A movie is stored once and downloaded 100000 times. 99% of users need 0 storage space, but consume significant bandwidth.
Storage is free, what you are really selling is bandwidth and access.
Why would users store anything locally if they can store their entire virtual harddrive encrypted in the cloud and stream it? I would think most people could use at least a few hundred TB today (and that's just people who download movies like you say).
And then all the mining possibilities where people can create thousands of instances of virtual desktops with CPUs. Demand for storage space is insatiable, demand for computing is insatiable, and demand for bandwidth is insatiable.
You do have a point that bandwidth is the single biggest bottleneck but that is why we will end up using Safecoins. Anyone will be able to start a decentralized autonomous ISP of sorts and provide bandwidth. Small established ISPs are the likely candidate to accept Safecoins in exchange for providing bandwidth but we will have to see.
It's a huge gamble and it's unknown how the industry will react. If they embrace the idea then Safecoins will easily be worth a lot but if they treat it like they do Bitcoin then it will take longer as an industry will have to form around it.
-
One business model I can think of right now is you could put all of PoW mining into the MaidSafe cloud as an app. And not just any kind of mining but you could do actually beneficial Proof of Work in the cloud such as BOINC.
Tokens would determine access so that is what would be for sale. It's a lot like how Mastercoins would become access tokens for the Mastercoin network.
The real interesting thing is this MaidSafe network will change mining forever. Today you have DigitalOcean and similar services which people use to mine with. On MaidSafe you'd have the same thing only it would be ridiculous, where for 1 Safecoin you might be able to mine for a month with 1000 CPUs.
The result is over time mining will be centralized around cloud mining. That is just what I think would happen. As for the bandwidth that is the one component which I can't speculate on what will happen.
-
Here is an interesting blog which highlights many of the issues.
http://bitcloudproject.org/blog/?p=80
Currency Agnostic Alternative
The solution we provide with Bitcloud is radically the contrary: we allow FULL FREE MARKET, and let nodes organize in the form of grids. If you want bandwidth, you either create a grid of nodes with your own resources, or better, demand it in a free market. Grids are free to offer you their prices and features, and Bitcloud will be in charge of ensuring that the contract is fulfilled! Grids provide 100% of their offered bandwidth solely to provide you (the publisher or webmaster) the quality of service you demanded.
Finally and not less important, even residential users are allowed in Bitcloud, and they can create private and or public grids for free by donating part of their connections, for human reasons. We estimate that a lot of grids on Bitcloud are going to be free. People creating illegal grids will not affect the entire network.
We also avoid Sybil attacks (as we are going to explain in another post) simply because the nodes of a grid are in control of what they provide, how and to whom, so they can ban malicious participants in a way that only humans can do. A token system is going to be full of spam and quality will be lower just because it is a fully automated system that cannot be moderated by actual humans. More on the next post.
They are going to rely on the free market to come up with the solution rather than putting an arbitrary token into the system. So in the MaidSafe network you must use Safecoin which means they have to get the incentive structure right or everyone loses. Bitcloud is going to do things a bit different and let everyone set up grids, and then set their own terms.
I think Bitcloud is in a position to watch the mistakes MaidSafe is bound to make, learn from those mistakes, and correct them for their own Platform.
So I would say the Bitshares community should form a partnership with Bitcloud. Bitcloud originally was supposed to be a Bitshares community DAC called WeTube. If they could be convinced to give a favorable relationship to the Bitshares community then the Bitshares community could have Bitcloud as an alternative to MaidSafe.
The problem is Bitcloud is going to take a long time to develop. Apparently it took the MaidSafe team almost a decade to develop it and I can believe that. Freenet has been in development since 2000 or so and never became much of a success.
I don't know how Bitcloud intends to filter for illegal/immoral content. I recommended to the MaidSafe team that they can only really add a moderation system for public shares (like Reddit) so that the spam and malicious content can be pushed down to the fringe. If it's not a public share people wont have to see it and wont know about it.
-
Here is an interesting blog which highlights many of the issues.
http://bitcloudproject.org/blog/?p=80
They are going to rely on the free market to come up with the solution rather than putting an arbitrary token into the system. So in the MaidSafe network you must use Safecoin which means they have to get the incentive structure right or everyone loses. Bitcloud is going to do things a bit different and let everyone set up grids, and then set their own terms.
I think Bitcloud is in a position to watch the mistakes MaidSafe is bound to make, learn from those mistakes, and correct them for their own Platform.
So I would say the Bitshares community should form a partnership with Bitcloud. Bitcloud originally was supposed to be a Bitshares community DAC called WeTube. If they could be convinced to give a favorable relationship to the Bitshares community then the Bitshares community could have Bitcloud as an alternative to MaidSafe.
The problem is Bitcloud is going to take a long time to develop. Apparently it took the MaidSafe team almost a decade to develop it and I can believe that. Freenet has been in development since 2000 or so and never became much of a success.
+ ten
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Bitcloud is starting to get closer to the solution... sadly none of these providers has learned from my own research into the space.
Bitcloud is getting closer... One day when I have more time I will come back to this problem.
-
I will make a prediction and you can all wait to see if it comes true.
The first killer app for MaidSafe will be a decentralized autonomous cloud mining app.
They'll probably make us use our Safe tokens to buy shares and then mine whatever we want from the cloud. The mining operation would scale up dramatically faster. It could host our wallets in the cloud, connect to our Bitcoin address for payout. It could mine anything and do it as hosted mining.
This app alone would guarantee the success of Safecoin in my opinion. If enough of these sorts of decentralized apps exist then they'll replace mining pools pretty quickly, as well as the highly centralized mining cartel as we currently know it.
So I'll be the first to predict that MaidSafe will disrupt the whole Proof of Work culture and community. If it's easy enough to build apps maybe some Bitshares related apps would be really cool because MaidSafe seems to do everything Ethereum is intending to do.
-
I will make a prediction and you can all wait to see if it comes true.
The first killer app for MaidSafe will be a decentralized autonomous cloud mining app.
They'll probably make us use our Safe tokens to buy shares and then mine whatever we want from the cloud. The mining operation would scale up dramatically faster. It could host our wallets in the cloud, connect to our Bitcoin address for payout. It could mine anything and do it as hosted mining.
This app alone would guarantee the success of Safecoin in my opinion. If enough of these sorts of decentralized apps exist then they'll replace mining pools pretty quickly, as well as the highly centralized mining cartel as we currently know it.
So I'll be the first to predict that MaidSafe will disrupt the whole Proof of Work culture and community. If it's easy enough to build apps maybe some Bitshares related apps would be really cool because MaidSafe seems to do everything Ethereum is intending to do.
Enlighten us why do you think so?
-
The way MaidSafe's economic model appears to work is we had an IPO where we bought Safecoins which are credit tokens. These tokens were a presale of Proof of Resource allocation.
Proof of Resource for storage space would be a situation where the farmer gives a certain amount of storage space to the network and they would be paid in Safecoins from people who don't have any storage space to give. People who don't have Safecoins will have to give to receive and by reciprocity they would have double the storage space (I think this is how it's supposed to work).
If you have Safecoins then you likely have a lifetime supply of storage space. Everyone else will have to provide storage space to the network in order to receive storage space. As a result these Safecoins will become the main way that people buy storage space.
Here is the quote from the whitepaper to back up what I'm saying
https://github.com/maidsafe/Whitepapers/blob/master/Project-Safe.md
5. Economic System With Two Types Of Token
P.O.R is proposed in order to facilitate the exchange of storage space on the SAFE network. However, as it doesn't have a predictable cap number, it may not be considered a genuine virtual currency. To provide a more robust form of exchange, MaidSafe proposes a token system that is totally independent of P.O.R, called safecoin. Safecoin will have a predicatable cap and will be injected into network using the storage space related mining procedure.
A bridge (converting rate) between P.O.R and safecoin can be established by the market solely. With third party upper layer broker applications, it will be possible to use safecoin to buy P.O.R or vice versa (user_A gives safecoin to user_B in exchange for user_B's P.O.R). It is expected that the per unit value of P.O.R will keep decreasing, while the per unit value of safecoin will continue to rise. In this way, it will be possible to buy more and more P.O.R with one safecoin. Safecoin will only be stored in the Maid Account wallet, this can only be updated by the Maid Manager group.
The value one safecoin represents will be recognised by all peers across the network and outside the network. If the economic system works as intended, safecoin will become a ‘virtual currency’ with the SAFE network being used to complete all transactions. Meanwhile, P.O.R will solely be used for exchanging space allowance among users.
I think I understand the above. Is what I describe below similar to how it should work? ...
Very simple example: (I know they issued more coins and they don't use 'terrors' I'm just trying to understand the model.)
MaidSafe issue a 1000 SafeCoins - Storage is priced in another currency but payable in Safecoins.
For every Terabyte of space (or divisions thereof) you commit to MaidSafe you get 1 'Terror' which you can exchange for a terabyte of storage on the MaidSafe network or you can sell it at the market price. The price people (who want to use more space than they provide) are willing to pay for 1 Terabyte of MaidSafe Storage.
In the first month, people are willing to pay $1 per MaidSafe 'Terror', however the community is small and new, so there is only demand for 1000 additional 'Terrors'. (demand from people who want to use more space than they provide) Given only 1000 SafeCoins exist, each SafeCoin should be worth at least $1.
In the 2nd month, people realise how cool MaidSafe is and the community expands five-fold, as the community is bigger there is both more additional space for sale as well as more demand from people who need additional space. So the market price for a terror may still stay fairly stable at $1 per 'Terror'. However with the 5x bigger user base, that demand may equal 5000 additional 'Terrors'. As there are still only 1000 SafeCoins, but at least $5000 of new demand, each SafeCoin should be worth at least $5.
So the more popular MaidSafe becomes &/or the more people hoard SafeCoins, the more valuable each SafeCoin will become even if the price people are willing to pay for additional storage (in $/BTC terms) stays the same or decreases over time. Is that kind of how their business model works?
-
This whole thing relies on people providing the service to accept exclusively safecoin at a potential loss. Safecoin-the-blockchain has to add value or people will not hold its shares over better stores of value
-
This whole thing relies on people providing the service to accept exclusively safecoin at a potential loss. Safecoin-the-blockchain has to add value or people will not hold its shares over better stores of value
I think it may be irrelevant whether MaidSafe users hold/sell their shares after the transaction. The value in SafeCoins isn't even derived from profit just from the MaidSafe user base (turnover) expanding.
Kind of like Power of volume shares I described here
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4249.msg53593;boardseen#new
It's pretty exciting that while a service is in it's growth phase (Which can last years) it doesn't even need to be profitable to generate returns for shareholders. Other people don't really seem to get this yet, so I may be missing something...
Edit: Not irrelevant, in that if Maidsafe space sellers hold they will add to upward pressure on SafeCoin price but irrelevant in that the SafeCoin price will at least reflect a multiple of the turnover or daily volume regardless if they sell.
Kind of why the US does everything to keep the petrodollar. Forcing countries to transact in $ for oil, creates a large consistent demand that help give the $ some of its value.
I don't know if people have realised that forcing users of a service/product to conduct in X currency, means X currency will increase in value as volume/turnover expands. So you can become less concerned with profit but more with turnover (popularity) now that we have the power previously held by governments of denominating the transactional currency.
-
I'm guessing here, but I'd guess the motivations for people to put their computer in this network will have little to do with the reality of the economics and more to do with pure geekery joy.
I'd like to see a chart with how many people need your data while online for it to be available and various speeds etc. I forget how various RAIDs work so I really have no clue about requirements for redundancy, but seems to me there are a lot of unknowns and that a certain % of people are just gonna hit the edge case where >X% of their storage providers quit and invalidate the user's whole data store. What is X% ?
I guess redundancy isn't really the issue because space isn't a premium. Like bytemaster said it is the bandwidth. Maybe with enough redundancy we'll be able to saturate a consumer grade internet connection using this..
For me, dropbox + truecrypt works fine. I am far more interested in seeing them work on a TOR type network. With China and their firewall, it might be a more profitable app.
-
For me, dropbox + truecrypt works fine. I am far more interested in seeing them work on a TOR type network. With China and their firewall, it might be a more profitable app.
Dropbox uses a model where X storage is free and you only pay if you use above that and they're worth $5-10 Billon.
If MaidSafe put a CAP on how much space you could use for free on the network regardless of how much space you provide after which point you'd have to pay market price (set by buyers and sellers on an exchange) for any storage above that. Then they'd have a similar model. I think the SafeCoin concept is better than Dropbox so could potentially be a big market there.
-
Dropbox uses a model where X storage is free and you only pay if you use above that and they're worth $5-10 Billon.
If MaidSafe put a CAP on how much space you could use for free on the network regardless of how much space you provide after which point you'd have to pay market price (set by buyers and sellers on an exchange) for any storage above that. Then they'd have a similar model. I think the SafeCoin concept is better than Dropbox so could potentially be a big market there.
The nice thing about dropbox is that in some ways it is less decentralized. If the service goes down, I'll have multiple copies on various computers locally. The only real problem is that data issues propagate to all the devices too.
I assume maidsafe will have a local cache option, because I'd never feel safe putting all my data in a system like that. It is like storing your coins in gox. I'll take my chances with things I understand.
I guess my problem is that it isn't clear if they are privacy advocates or this thing is supposed to sell itself on performance. I don't really "get it" besides it sounds/seems cool.
-
I will make a prediction and you can all wait to see if it comes true.
The first killer app for MaidSafe will be a decentralized autonomous cloud mining app.
They'll probably make us use our Safe tokens to buy shares and then mine whatever we want from the cloud. The mining operation would scale up dramatically faster. It could host our wallets in the cloud, connect to our Bitcoin address for payout. It could mine anything and do it as hosted mining.
This app alone would guarantee the success of Safecoin in my opinion. If enough of these sorts of decentralized apps exist then they'll replace mining pools pretty quickly, as well as the highly centralized mining cartel as we currently know it.
So I'll be the first to predict that MaidSafe will disrupt the whole Proof of Work culture and community. If it's easy enough to build apps maybe some Bitshares related apps would be really cool because MaidSafe seems to do everything Ethereum is intending to do.
Enlighten us why do you think so?
Safecoins do have a strong economic foundation. Safecoins are backed by information.
Their economics are sound it's just they don't do a very good job explaining it.
This chart shows how Safecoins will gain value https://raw.githubusercontent.com/maidsafe/Whitepapers/master/resources/resources_graph.png
Safecoins are backed by information/resources. The most important thing in most people's lives is information, so information can easily be used to back a currency. Safecoins are capped at 4.3 billion but if you follow the trends such as Big Data then you know the world will produce information at what seems like an exponential rate.
All of that information has to be stored, secured, processed, analyzed. I'm convinced that their economic model can work. As the cost of resources go down the value of the Safecoin will go up because it will be able to buy more resources.
Since these resources will only be purchased with these exclusive Safe tokens, the Safecoins will gain in value as their buying power increases.
MaidSafe is going to be an even more disruptive technology than Bitcoin. In a few years we are going to look back at it like we do Bitcoin and wonder why people were willing to sell it for pennies.
For me, dropbox + truecrypt works fine. I am far more interested in seeing them work on a TOR type network. With China and their firewall, it might be a more profitable app.
Dropbox uses a model where X storage is free and you only pay if you use above that and they're worth $5-10 Billon.
If MaidSafe put a CAP on how much space you could use for free on the network regardless of how much space you provide after which point you'd have to pay market price (set by buyers and sellers on an exchange) for any storage above that. Then they'd have a similar model. I think the SafeCoin concept is better than Dropbox so could potentially be a big market there.
Assume it's all free at first, that's still only storage. Computation and bandwidth for sure will not be free.
Since Safecoins are backed by CPU and Bandwidth resources as well, it's a stroke of genius marketing to make storage free. Gmail did the same thing and it worked. Give everyone free storage space for as long as possible and there is no way for Gmail, Dropbox, Megaupload or anything to compete. They will not be able to compete with free.
There might be some tweaks to make here and there but I think the overall strategy is a good one.
-
This whole thing relies on people providing the service to accept exclusively safecoin at a potential loss. Safecoin-the-blockchain has to add value or people will not hold its shares over better stores of value
I think it may be irrelevant whether MaidSafe users hold/sell their shares after the transaction. The value in SafeCoins isn't even derived from profit just from the MaidSafe user base (turnover) expanding.
Kind of like Power of volume shares I described here
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4249.msg53593;boardseen#new
It's pretty exciting that while a service is in it's growth phase (Which can last years) it doesn't even need to be profitable to generate returns for shareholders. Other people don't really seem to get this yet, so I may be missing something...
Edit: Not irrelevant, in that if Maidsafe space sellers hold they will add to upward pressure on SafeCoin price but irrelevant in that the SafeCoin price will at least reflect a multiple of the turnover or daily volume regardless if they sell.
Kind of why the US does everything to keep the petrodollar. Forcing countries to transact in $ for oil, creates a large consistent demand that help give the $ some of its value.
I don't know if people have realised that forcing users of a service/product to conduct in X currency, means X currency will increase in value as volume/turnover expands. So you can become less concerned with profit but more with turnover (popularity) now that we have the power previously held by governments of denominating the transactional currency.
Information is power. Information is what will give the Safecoins value. It will all come together when you see the decentralized apps running on the network.
This whole thing relies on people providing the service to accept exclusively safecoin at a potential loss. Safecoin-the-blockchain has to add value or people will not hold its shares over better stores of value
Safecoins are backed by the resources of the MaidSafe decentralized autonomous network. It's value will grow as the cost of storage, computation, and bandwidth go down. It's not a decentralized Dropbox any more than Bitcoin is a decentralized currency.
MaidSafe is a platform more like Ethereum. You can build decentralized applications on top of it. As resources get cheaper your Safecoins gain more value. So today it's going or less than a dollar because people don't know what it is and don't understand the economics of it yet. I just figured out the economic model hidden in the whitepaper.
It's not a model which comes natural to people. It's a bit abstract which is why people are wondering how the tokens will increase in value. The way it will increase in value is that it's backed by information, so the more people who develop apps and use the network the more valuable these tokens will become. This value can grow exponentially as well, so I cannot even try to calculate how valuable it is.
I can say that each Safecoin should be worth at least $2-3 at the minimum. So it makes sense to hold onto them because if even the smallest amount of people use the MaidSafe network its worth at least that much. I expect it to be worth much more though because the ease of writing killer apps will attract millions of people to it.
It's not like Bitcoin. Bitcoin is something people feel like they had to risk their money to use. MaidSafe is something everyone wants and it actually can be made both easy and more secure. Every industry that makes money from advertisements, from collecting information, processing information, providing bandwidth, all are set to be disrupted.
I encourage everyone to take a closer look at the whitepaper. Once you understand that it's the resources that give value to every currency then Proof of Resource makes sense (it's like barter) and Safecoin makes sense.
The way MaidSafe's economic model appears to work is we had an IPO where we bought Safecoins which are credit tokens. These tokens were a presale of Proof of Resource allocation.
Proof of Resource for storage space would be a situation where the farmer gives a certain amount of storage space to the network and they would be paid in Safecoins from people who don't have any storage space to give. People who don't have Safecoins will have to give to receive and by reciprocity they would have double the storage space (I think this is how it's supposed to work).
If you have Safecoins then you likely have a lifetime supply of storage space. Everyone else will have to provide storage space to the network in order to receive storage space. As a result these Safecoins will become the main way that people buy storage space.
Here is the quote from the whitepaper to back up what I'm saying
https://github.com/maidsafe/Whitepapers/blob/master/Project-Safe.md
5. Economic System With Two Types Of Token
P.O.R is proposed in order to facilitate the exchange of storage space on the SAFE network. However, as it doesn't have a predictable cap number, it may not be considered a genuine virtual currency. To provide a more robust form of exchange, MaidSafe proposes a token system that is totally independent of P.O.R, called safecoin. Safecoin will have a predicatable cap and will be injected into network using the storage space related mining procedure.
A bridge (converting rate) between P.O.R and safecoin can be established by the market solely. With third party upper layer broker applications, it will be possible to use safecoin to buy P.O.R or vice versa (user_A gives safecoin to user_B in exchange for user_B's P.O.R). It is expected that the per unit value of P.O.R will keep decreasing, while the per unit value of safecoin will continue to rise. In this way, it will be possible to buy more and more P.O.R with one safecoin. Safecoin will only be stored in the Maid Account wallet, this can only be updated by the Maid Manager group.
The value one safecoin represents will be recognised by all peers across the network and outside the network. If the economic system works as intended, safecoin will become a ‘virtual currency’ with the SAFE network being used to complete all transactions. Meanwhile, P.O.R will solely be used for exchanging space allowance among users.
I think I understand the above. Is what I describe below similar to how it should work? ...
Very simple example: (I know they issued more coins and they don't use 'terrors' I'm just trying to understand the model.)
MaidSafe issue a 1000 SafeCoins - Storage is priced in another currency but payable in Safecoins.
For every Terabyte of space (or divisions thereof) you commit to MaidSafe you get 1 'Terror' which you can exchange for a terabyte of storage on the MaidSafe network or you can sell it at the market price. The price people (who want to use more space than they provide) are willing to pay for 1 Terabyte of MaidSafe Storage.
In the first month, people are willing to pay $1 per MaidSafe 'Terror', however the community is small and new, so there is only demand for 1000 additional 'Terrors'. (demand from people who want to use more space than they provide) Given only 1000 SafeCoins exist, each SafeCoin should be worth at least $1.
In the 2nd month, people realise how cool MaidSafe is and the community expands five-fold, as the community is bigger there is both more additional space for sale as well as more demand from people who need additional space. So the market price for a terror may still stay fairly stable at $1 per 'Terror'. However with the 5x bigger user base, that demand may equal 5000 additional 'Terrors'. As there are still only 1000 SafeCoins, but at least $5000 of new demand, each SafeCoin should be worth at least $5.
So the more popular MaidSafe becomes &/or the more people hoard SafeCoins, the more valuable each SafeCoin will become even if the price people are willing to pay for additional storage (in $/BTC terms) stays the same or decreases over time. Is that kind of how their business model works?
Yes this is an accurate description. The more people who discover MaidSafe the more valuable Safecoins will become.
I don't think there is a limit to how much people will pay for storage. I would say people will pay whatever is the cheapest.
The way MaidSafe will take over the industry is they'll be able to provide all the resources cheaper than anywhere else. No one will be able to provide as much storage for as cheap as them. Once people figure this out the demand will grow exponentially.
For example think of all the corporations right now which offer dropbox like service or digital ocean like service? Every single one of them will either have to buy Safecoins or be replaced by a decentralized application. Amazon's entire cloud computing business will be immediately obsolete. They will have to buy Safecoins or be replaced by a decentralized application.
So I predict that the demand for Safecoins will come not from people like us but from big businesses with established companies who will not know how to compete. Google may have to buy Safecoins because they will not be able to offer the same kind of service at some point.
Google makes it's money from ads, but the decentralized Google application running on MaidSafe wouldn't need any ads and if it did have ads it could pay the profit from that out as dividends to its shareholders. Google will have to buy Safecoins just to stay in business over the long term.
So it's like the situation with domain names sorta where all the corporations in the world will be caught be surprised. They'll see that decentralized corporations can be run and beat them in the area of resources. What else can they do except buy Safecoins?
They can mine Safecoins. These big corporations will also make up the majority of the farmers. So it will be big corporations doing most of the farming and most of the buying/trading.
-
Dropbox uses a model where X storage is free and you only pay if you use above that and they're worth $5-10 Billon.
If MaidSafe put a CAP on how much space you could use for free on the network regardless of how much space you provide after which point you'd have to pay market price (set by buyers and sellers on an exchange) for any storage above that. Then they'd have a similar model. I think the SafeCoin concept is better than Dropbox so could potentially be a big market there.
The nice thing about dropbox is that in some ways it is less decentralized. If the service goes down, I'll have multiple copies on various computers locally. The only real problem is that data issues propagate to all the devices too.
I assume maidsafe will have a local cache option, because I'd never feel safe putting all my data in a system like that. It is like storing your coins in gox. I'll take my chances with things I understand.
I guess my problem is that it isn't clear if they are privacy advocates or this thing is supposed to sell itself on performance. I don't really "get it" besides it sounds/seems cool.
It's not like storing your coins in Gox. Read the whitepaper please.
https://github.com/maidsafe/Whitepapers/blob/master/Project-Safe.md
Your harddrive is more likely to fail than the entire MaidSafe network. It's safer to keep your data on MaidSafe than to store it locally. Additionally it could solve the blockchain bloat problem as well.
-
It's not like storing your coins in Gox. Read the whitepaper please.
https://github.com/maidsafe/Whitepapers/blob/master/Project-Safe.md
Your harddrive is more likely to fail than the entire MaidSafe network. It's safer to keep your data on MaidSafe than to store it locally. Additionally it could solve the blockchain bloat problem as well.
More opinions stated as fact by luckybit. Are you done hyping blackcoin and have moved on to safecoins?
Storing your coins on gox means using a service that if it goes away/breaks you lose your only out. Same thing with storing everything on this network.
I never suggested I'd store all my data on "a harddrive". That is not how dropbox works.
No one really has any clue how robust SAFE will be, including you. There is a good chance it'll run smoothly and never break. However, we don't know that and I'm not going to be the guinea. If it lets me mirror my data locally across machines, then perhap I will use it.
IMO Maidensafe has been great at hyping.
Their whitepaper... talk of datacenters consuming too much power. So... what is their solution ? People leave their desktop/laptops on to pick up pennies serving files over the network ? ::) Neat stuff, but seems overly hyped to me.
I'm more interested in a TOR like network with a higher capacity than TOR. Give our Chinese friends more solutions to a free internet !
As the cost of resources go down the value of the Safecoin will go up because it will be able to buy more resources.
Since these resources will only be purchased with these exclusive Safe tokens, the Safecoins will gain in value as their buying power increases.
MaidSafe is going to be an even more disruptive technology than Bitcoin. In a few years we are going to look back at it like we do Bitcoin and wonder why people were willing to sell it for pennies.
If costs of resources go down, it doesn't follow that value of safecoin will go up "because you can buy more resources". You'll be able to buy more resources with any currency. So I guess the value of every currency will go up ?
I have no clue how Maidensafe can be more disruptive than Bitcoin. Bitcoin brought capabilities we didn't have. Maidensafe just gives me another way to store files and use the internet anonymously. Sorry man, but that stuff already exists.
edit - Are you constantly high or something ? I read more of your postings. There is absolutely 0 chance that this will make "amazon cloud immediately obsolete". Claiming that google will have to rely on this ?! I won't bother responding anymore. You just mindlessly hype stuff. You did this with blackcoin thread too. Ignore anything you don't want to hear, repeating the same stuff. etc etc.
-
It's not like storing your coins in Gox. Read the whitepaper please.
https://github.com/maidsafe/Whitepapers/blob/master/Project-Safe.md
Your harddrive is more likely to fail than the entire MaidSafe network. It's safer to keep your data on MaidSafe than to store it locally. Additionally it could solve the blockchain bloat problem as well.
More opinions stated as fact by luckybit. Are you done hyping blackcoin and have moved on to safecoins?
Statistics, probability, if you replicate your drive onto several drives then they'd all have to fail for you to lose your information. It reduces the risk of you losing your information to store it offsite. But if you'd rather think I'm making it up, don't listen to me.
Blackcoin when I mentioned the marketing plan was less than 5000 satoshi and now it's 30,000 satoshi weeks later. Now everyone is copying their innovation with multipools. What they were first to do is make Proof of Stake into something which can be mined and that solved the main problem holding back Proof of Stake from replacing Proof of Work coins like Litecoin.
Storing your coins on gox means using a service that if it goes away/breaks you lose your only out. Same thing with storing everything on this network.
Gox is a centralized service. Your computer is centralized because it's all in one location.
So if your computer is compromised or if your hard drive fails then all of your Bitcoins are lost.
There is no way for you to know in advance when your hard drive will fail. It could fail today and your Bitcoins will be lost. You could also get hacked at any time. So there are benefits to storing your wallet in the cloud.
I never suggested I'd store all my data on "a harddrive". That is not how dropbox works.
What if Dropbox the company decides not to let you access your data? Human beings decide access control with Dropbox. MaidSafe is a decentralized autonomous network which does not have human beings determining who can access their files.
Why would anyone prefer to use Dropbox? Why depend on Dropbox to secure your data when you can depend on a decentralized autonomous network?
No one really has any clue how robust SAFE will be, including you.
Saying no one knows how robust it will be is just FUD.
Sure it's possible that no one will farm it, but that is like saying Bitcoin miners could decide they don't want to get paid anymore. It's goes against game theory and while it is possible it's highly unlikely.
If people follow their greed as they usually do, MaidSafe will be robust. If you don't think so then you can earn a lot of Safecoins yourself.
There is a good chance it'll run smoothly and never break. However, we don't know that and I'm not going to be the guinea. If it lets me mirror my data locally across machines, then perhap I will use it.
It can have bugs, it's a risk, you don't have to put your most important private data on there while it's in the test phase. From what I've seen of the code and the design I don't see any possibility of data leakage. So the worst that could happen is somehow your key doesn't work and no one, (not even you) can access the data. It's all self encrypted so it's probably more secure than Dropbox actually.
IMO Maidensafe has been great at hyping.
Just because it's hyped it doesn't mean it's not justified. Bitshares was hyped when people were buying Protoshares and Angelshares. Just because a technology is hyped it doesn't mean it's not real. Now it's time to test it out over the next month and if it does what we hope it does then it's extremely important.
Their whitepaper... talk of datacenters consuming too much power. So... what is their solution ? People leave their desktop/laptops on to pick up pennies serving files over the network ? ::) Neat stuff, but seems overly hyped to me.
I don't think most people will be doing that but you never know.
I'm more interested in a TOR like network with a higher capacity than TOR. Give our Chinese friends more solutions to a free internet !
I don't think you understand how MaidSafe works. There are no IP addresses so what would Tor be needed for? If you have MaidSafe there would be no reason to require Tor. A decentralized application could provide a VPN service which would be better than Tor.
If costs of resources go down, it doesn't follow that value of safecoin will go up "because you can buy more resources". You'll be able to buy more resources with any currency. So I guess the value of every currency will go up ?
Buying power is what matters. If you can get more with less then whatever you have is somehow more valuable. So if 1 Safecoin can get you more resources over time which grows exponentially, then 1 Safecoin is worth more than it was when you couldn't get as much resources for it. The dollar used to be backed by gold, and fiat currencies could be redeemed for silver. 1 Safecoin is backed by computing resources and the amount of computing resources that 1 Safecoin can buy should increase, also it's capped, which means it's deflationary once the 4.3 billion coins are distributed.
I'm not an economist, so if I'm wrong maybe CWEvans can correct any misconceptions I have on it. I do not deliberately present my opinions as facts.
I have no clue how Maidensafe can be more disruptive than Bitcoin. Bitcoin brought capabilities we didn't have. Maidensafe just gives me another way to store files and use the internet anonymously. Sorry man, but that stuff already exists.
I suggest you read the whitepaper again. Study it a bit more.
Because right now you don't even know what MaidSafe is and you're going to be embarrassed about this post once you figure it out.
-
I will make a prediction and you can all wait to see if it comes true.
The first killer app for MaidSafe will be a decentralized autonomous cloud mining app.
They'll probably make us use our Safe tokens to buy shares and then mine whatever we want from the cloud. The mining operation would scale up dramatically faster. It could host our wallets in the cloud, connect to our Bitcoin address for payout. It could mine anything and do it as hosted mining.
This app alone would guarantee the success of Safecoin in my opinion. If enough of these sorts of decentralized apps exist then they'll replace mining pools pretty quickly, as well as the highly centralized mining cartel as we currently know it.
So I'll be the first to predict that MaidSafe will disrupt the whole Proof of Work culture and community. If it's easy enough to build apps maybe some Bitshares related apps would be really cool because MaidSafe seems to do everything Ethereum is intending to do.
Enlighten us why do you think so?
When I asked you to enlighten us, I meant - tell us more about 'The first killer app for MaidSafe will be a decentralized autonomous cloud mining app' and why/how 'They'll probably make us use our Safe tokens to buy shares and then mine whatever we want from the cloud.'
-
The way MaidSafe's economic model appears to work is we had an IPO where we bought Safecoins which are credit tokens. These tokens were a presale of Proof of Resource allocation.
Proof of Resource for storage space would be a situation where the farmer gives a certain amount of storage space to the network and they would be paid in Safecoins from people who don't have any storage space to give. People who don't have Safecoins will have to give to receive and by reciprocity they would have double the storage space (I think this is how it's supposed to work).
If you have Safecoins then you likely have a lifetime supply of storage space. Everyone else will have to provide storage space to the network in order to receive storage space. As a result these Safecoins will become the main way that people buy storage space.
Here is the quote from the whitepaper to back up what I'm saying
https://github.com/maidsafe/Whitepapers/blob/master/Project-Safe.md
5. Economic System With Two Types Of Token
P.O.R is proposed in order to facilitate the exchange of storage space on the SAFE network. However, as it doesn't have a predictable cap number, it may not be considered a genuine virtual currency. To provide a more robust form of exchange, MaidSafe proposes a token system that is totally independent of P.O.R, called safecoin. Safecoin will have a predicatable cap and will be injected into network using the storage space related mining procedure.
A bridge (converting rate) between P.O.R and safecoin can be established by the market solely. With third party upper layer broker applications, it will be possible to use safecoin to buy P.O.R or vice versa (user_A gives safecoin to user_B in exchange for user_B's P.O.R). It is expected that the per unit value of P.O.R will keep decreasing, while the per unit value of safecoin will continue to rise. In this way, it will be possible to buy more and more P.O.R with one safecoin. Safecoin will only be stored in the Maid Account wallet, this can only be updated by the Maid Manager group.
The value one safecoin represents will be recognised by all peers across the network and outside the network. If the economic system works as intended, safecoin will become a ‘virtual currency’ with the SAFE network being used to complete all transactions. Meanwhile, P.O.R will solely be used for exchanging space allowance among users.
I think I understand the above. Is what I describe below similar to how it should work? ...
Very simple example: (I know they issued more coins and they don't use 'terrors' I'm just trying to understand the model.)
MaidSafe issue a 1000 SafeCoins - Storage is priced in another currency but payable in Safecoins.
For every Terabyte of space (or divisions thereof) you commit to MaidSafe you get 1 'Terror' which you can exchange for a terabyte of storage on the MaidSafe network or you can sell it at the market price. The price people (who want to use more space than they provide) are willing to pay for 1 Terabyte of MaidSafe Storage.
In the first month, people are willing to pay $1 per MaidSafe 'Terror', however the community is small and new, so there is only demand for 1000 additional 'Terrors'. (demand from people who want to use more space than they provide) Given only 1000 SafeCoins exist, each SafeCoin should be worth at least $1.
In the 2nd month, people realise how cool MaidSafe is and the community expands five-fold, as the community is bigger there is both more additional space for sale as well as more demand from people who need additional space. So the market price for a terror may still stay fairly stable at $1 per 'Terror'. However with the 5x bigger user base, that demand may equal 5000 additional 'Terrors'. As there are still only 1000 SafeCoins, but at least $5000 of new demand, each SafeCoin should be worth at least $5.
So the more popular MaidSafe becomes &/or the more people hoard SafeCoins, the more valuable each SafeCoin will become even if the price people are willing to pay for additional storage (in $/BTC terms) stays the same or decreases over time. Is that kind of how their business model works?
Yes this is an accurate description. The more people who discover MaidSafe the more valuable Safecoins will become.
I don't think there is a limit to how much people will pay for storage. I would say people will pay whatever is the cheapest.
The way MaidSafe will take over the industry is they'll be able to provide all the resources cheaper than anywhere else. No one will be able to provide as much storage for as cheap as them. Once people figure this out the demand will grow exponentially.
For example think of all the corporations right now which offer dropbox like service or digital ocean like service? Every single one of them will either have to buy Safecoins or be replaced by a decentralized application. Amazon's entire cloud computing business will be immediately obsolete. They will have to buy Safecoins or be replaced by a decentralized application.
So I predict that the demand for Safecoins will come not from people like us but from big businesses with established companies who will not know how to compete. Google may have to buy Safecoins because they will not be able to offer the same kind of service at some point.
Google makes it's money from ads, but the decentralized Google application running on MaidSafe wouldn't need any ads and if it did have ads it could pay the profit from that out as dividends to its shareholders. Google will have to buy Safecoins just to stay in business over the long term.
So it's like the situation with domain names sorta where all the corporations in the world will be caught be surprised. They'll see that decentralized corporations can be run and beat them in the area of resources. What else can they do except buy Safecoins?
They can mine Safecoins. These big corporations will also make up the majority of the farmers. So it will be big corporations doing most of the farming and most of the buying/trading.
Bytemaster doesn't seem to think there will be that much storage demand above what individuals can reciprocate from their own storage, and I don't have much else to go on. If that's the case the market could be a lot smaller than Dropbox and there won't be much SafeCoin transactional volume (Which 'Power of Volume' shares that I see as part of the future, partly derive there value from.)
So I would suggest they create a storage market/exchange. where the space you provide gets automatically sold 'at the market', (A $/BTC price but paid paid in SafeCoins) you can either get back 98% of the sale price or use it to get 98% of the space you provided on the MaidSafe Network. So that way you'd have MASSIVE transactional SafeCoin demand and also generate 1/2% dividends for Safecoin holders for every bit of storage that is used on the network. (It would still be free to users except for the fact that you only get to use 98% of the space you provide on the network. I doubt people would miss 1/2% of that space so it would be a fair trade-off & make SafeCoins very valuable, I think.)
-
Empirical1, you dream will come true only if we all have optical fiber connection to the internet and make sure the hard disk industry is able to handle the IO that is 1000times faster than we are having now.
Bytemaster doesn't seem to think there will be that much storage demand above what individuals can reciprocate from their own storage, and I don't have much else to go on. If that's the case the market could be a lot smaller than Dropbox and there won't be much SafeCoin transactional volume (Which 'Power of Volume' shares that I see as part of the future, partly derive there value from.)
So I would suggest they create a storage market/exchange. where the space you provide gets automatically sold 'at the market', (A $/BTC price but paid paid in SafeCoins) you can either get back 98% of the sale price or use it to get 98% of the space you provided on the MaidSafe Network. So that way you'd have MASSIVE transactional SafeCoin demand and also generate 1/2% dividends for Safecoin holders for every bit of storage that is used on the network. (It would still be free to users except for the fact that you only get to use 98% of the space you provide on the network. I doubt people would miss 1/2% of that space so it would be a fair trade-off & make SafeCoins very valuable, I think.)
-
Empirical1, you dream will come true only if we all have optical fiber connection to the internet and make sure the hard disk industry is able to handle the IO that is 1000times faster than we are having now.
Bytemaster doesn't seem to think there will be that much storage demand above what individuals can reciprocate from their own storage, and I don't have much else to go on. If that's the case the market could be a lot smaller than Dropbox and there won't be much SafeCoin transactional volume (Which 'Power of Volume' shares that I see as part of the future, partly derive there value from.)
So I would suggest they create a storage market/exchange. where the space you provide gets automatically sold 'at the market', (A $/BTC price but paid paid in SafeCoins) you can either get back 98% of the sale price or use it to get 98% of the space you provided on the MaidSafe Network. So that way you'd have MASSIVE transactional SafeCoin demand and also generate 1/2% dividends for Safecoin holders for every bit of storage that is used on the network. (It would still be free to users except for the fact that you only get to use 98% of the space you provide on the network. I doubt people would miss 1/2% of that space so it would be a fair trade-off & make SafeCoins very valuable, I think.)
+5% :D Thanks. I have a very limited understanding of the technical requirements of my ideas. As a result I'm used to most of them being impractical or not do-able. (They often have much more basic (economic) flaws than that, I just like to put them out there.)
-
I will make a prediction and you can all wait to see if it comes true.
The first killer app for MaidSafe will be a decentralized autonomous cloud mining app.
They'll probably make us use our Safe tokens to buy shares and then mine whatever we want from the cloud. The mining operation would scale up dramatically faster. It could host our wallets in the cloud, connect to our Bitcoin address for payout. It could mine anything and do it as hosted mining.
This app alone would guarantee the success of Safecoin in my opinion. If enough of these sorts of decentralized apps exist then they'll replace mining pools pretty quickly, as well as the highly centralized mining cartel as we currently know it.
So I'll be the first to predict that MaidSafe will disrupt the whole Proof of Work culture and community. If it's easy enough to build apps maybe some Bitshares related apps would be really cool because MaidSafe seems to do everything Ethereum is intending to do.
Enlighten us why do you think so?
When I asked you to enlighten us, I meant - tell us more about 'The first killer app for MaidSafe will be a decentralized autonomous cloud mining app' and why/how 'They'll probably make us use our Safe tokens to buy shares and then mine whatever we want from the cloud.'
That is just something I predict will be made because that's the most obvious killer app. Mining could be decentralized, there would be no need for mining pools, but on the other hand the infrastructure for mining will still be centralized. What mining in the cloud does is it decentralizes the profits which is exactly what we all really mean when we talk about decentralization.
Hosted mining attempts to accomplish this but they have to charge some kind of hosting fee. MaidSafe would allow you to mine anything from cryptocurrency, to protein folding, to SETI at home. The people hosting would get paid in Safecoins while the people who get the payouts could get paid in whatever cryptocoin they want.
So this would mean we could set up a cloud mining decentralized autonomous application, let any of us mine anything(BOINC, SETI, any altcoin, anything scientific) and set the payout to be in Bitshares for example.
We would have no risk of the cloud mining decentralized autonomous application getting hacked because there is no central server. It cannot be DDOSed.
All of this would be possible through virtualization. A virtual machine could simulate any hardware you want to mine with. You could mine with anything provided that you have the underlying computing power and virtual machine to do it.
So in some ways it's got the potential to bring a golden age of mining but in other ways it could result in some sort of centralization. What do you think will happen? I'm not the only one who can speculate on this because you have good ideas as well.
-
Profits from mining poola are already decentralized, physical control over the hardware always gives power unless it is a pos variant.
Also what you are saying about VMs doesn't make sense givem that theoretically every mining algorithm is only profitable on specialized hardware
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
-
Bytemaster doesn't seem to think there will be that much storage demand above what individuals can reciprocate from their own storage, and I don't have much else to go on. If that's the case the market could be a lot smaller than Dropbox and there won't be much SafeCoin transactional volume (Which 'Power of Volume' shares that I see as part of the future, partly derive there value from.)
If that is the case then Bytemaster and I disagree. Let's find out who is right.
I think he has a point about bandwidth and data limits but those limits come from ISPs and not from the demands of users. Those are unnatural limits and artificial scarcity.
If you remove the cap on what people can upload and give them enough speed to do it, they would mirror everything into the cloud. I don't think there is any limit to it because you could do stuff like decentralized television where videos stream in and out in real time. Bandwidth if it were available would be used but it's not used because it's not available.
So I would suggest they create a storage market/exchange. where the space you provide gets automatically sold 'at the market', (A $/BTC price but paid paid in SafeCoins) you can either get back 98% of the sale price or use it to get 98% of the space you provided on the MaidSafe Network.
There will be all sorts of markets like that. The main problem for us all is bandwidth. If we all had 1 Gbit connections we would use it. The problem is uploading and downloading terabytes per day would set off our ISP's to cap or limit us. It has nothing to do with demand because people will use the bandwidth which would use the space.
The bandwidth is an artificial bottleneck and we have to figure out how to get around it.
So that way you'd have MASSIVE transactional SafeCoin demand and also generate 1/2% dividends for Safecoin holders for every bit of storage that is used on the network.
I think computation is where the killer apps will be early on. Storage space is something I'd love to use but upload speeds are kept artificially slow and we are still stuck dealing with ISPs at this time. When ISPs start providing service for Safecoin then we will be able to see some innovation. I would definitely upgrade to that ISP if it exists, accepts Safecoins, and when Safecoin is worth enough then those ISPs will form and provide the bandwidth but I think the killer apps will be on the CPU side.
(It would still be free to users except for the fact that you only get to use 98% of the space you provide on the network. I doubt people would miss 1/2% of that space so it would be a fair trade-off & make SafeCoins very valuable, I think.)
I think too much focus is on space. You can provide bandwidth and solve the bottleneck. Bandwidth is artificially scarce because ISPs cap how much data we can send and they limit our upload speeds. What good is it if you want to upload a mirror of your harddrive to the cloud if you're limited by your ISP?
But I do think the space will be used. Virtual machines can have virtual drives hosted in the cloud. You could use a 100 TB drive hosted entirely in the cloud if you had the bandwidth to do it. You could log into that virtual OS from your tablet, your desktop, your cellphone, your laptop, your television, and access the files on it or add files to it.
So I definitely believe if the bandwidth existed people would be making videos with their cellphone and streaming it to their virtual drives in the cloud. The higher the quality of the streaming the more terabytes it would be. So I could easily see a typical person using 100 TB within a year.
That is an order of magnitude more than most harddrives carry now. And this isn't unprecedented either because in the late 90s you would be lucky to find a 1 gig harddrive.
Now the average drive is 500 gig and ask anyone who had the 1 gig and back then, it's never enough.
-
Profits from mining poola are already decentralized, physical control over the hardware always gives power unless it is a pos variant.
Also what you are saying about VMs doesn't make sense givem that theoretically every mining algorithm is only profitable on specialized hardware
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
See this is a possibility that I'm concerned about. But does physical control really give them power on MaidSafe? I'm not entirely sure.
Say you mine on digital ocean, how do they have any power to even know what you're doing? They have power to pull the plug I suppose but they don't get the profits. Besides being able to pull the plug their power would be in the fact that they charge fees. On MaidSafe you could run as many virtual machine instances as you want, and some large data center in the background would be paid in Safecoin. They would have no idea what you're doing.
I think it's possible in theory to make mining more decentralized but at the same time it could become more centralized in other ways.
The virtual machine argument is that if we assume any kind of hardware can be virtualized then you can actually mine a lot easier this way. You could mine any CPU coin and I don't see why you couldn't use GPGPU's to mine. We will have to wait and see what can be mined but I do see major advantages to using virtual machines. Botnets will not be profitable, it will alter CPU mining in a big way, and mining could even be made socially beneficial.
The end result is I think we might see the end of the mining pool. Why would we need mining pools which can be hacked, broken into, run off with everyones coins, etc? Additionally there would be more full nodes on the Bitcoin network because MaidSafe in theory can solve that.
-
Ok I see what you were saying. I don't think you've solved the problem because it never had to do with buying the hardware to own but rather pooling your hash power and thus delegating your power wrt blockchain security in order to reduce variance.
Why would you run a VM of a cpu mining algo instead of just running it directly on the underlying machine? Its necessarily faster and can already do all algos
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
-
So you split the problem in half and solved half. But things like GHash.io effectively do that once they enable getblocktemplate to source blocks from other pools
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
-
From Business point of view:
Cloud hosting for mining purposes should be beneficial for the user for short periods of time (if at all). After all why rent something for X if you can set it up to mine for you and receive Y>X.
While it is not impossible the sum to be bigger than the parts, you still have not pointed to anything of the MaidSafes design that makes you think so. Saying “It will do this and this. You will see!” is the only argument that you have offered so far.
From Technical point of few:
>>“A virtual machine could simulate any hardware you want to mine with.”
Yes, I have my virtual quantum computer running on my digital (i.e, regular) computer, the code is written in C.
It does not run fast as a quantum computer should… so I will take the following steps (adding more layers of abstraction) until I get the results. First I will move it from my local machine to a virtual server. Then I will move it to MaidSafes’ virtual ‘virtual disk’ and if this does not work, or for a good measure, I will rewrite the code in Java…
That’s my idea? What do you think?
-
From what I've seen of the code and the design I don't see any possibility of data leakage
I am not going to respond to every point of yours and pick it part. It will turn up being a jumble of recursive nonsense. It is obviously you are not of a strong technical background. You don't understand how mining works and why that will not be a app. You also don't understand TOR, Dropbox, or what Amazon EC2 provides.
However, the quote above shows why people may not take you are seriously as you'd like. You are claiming you've studied the code in some significant manner and thats how you know it is good to go. Thats obviously not true.
I realized some time ago, your point behind arguing is not to exchange/improve ideas. It is purely promotional. You just sort of make up stuff as you go and ignore corrections to your blatant mistakes. Rinse and repeat ...
edit -
Because right now you don't even know what MaidSafe is and you're going to be embarrassed about this post once you figure it out.
Uhhh, I'm not the one thinking maidsafe will not use IP addresses. You have no clue, absolutely 0. I may be wrong about the economics, because I don't fully get their argument/graph. I thought it was based on something akin to Moore's law, but I think their graph is based on adoption rates. So I made a mistake there perhaps.
-
Ok I see what you were saying. I don't think you've solved the problem because it never had to do with buying the hardware to own but rather pooling your hash power and thus delegating your power wrt blockchain security in order to reduce variance.
Why would you run a VM of a cpu mining algo instead of just running it directly on the underlying machine? Its necessarily faster and can already do all algos
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
I think for most people it would be about speed and convenience. Configuring different mining rigs and being an admin is still difficult enough to be considered a job for most people. A share in some autonomous application could make it so people can trade the shares on the market when they don't want to own those instances.
If you have 100 different instances mining different coins you would not want to have to manage them all physically. If all you have to do is buy shares, point and click, and you can run it from the cloud, I myself would prefer to mine that way.
Now whether or not this is susceptible to making altcoins more prone to 51% attacks is another matter. I think something like MaidSafe if it scales it could put unlimited or what will seem like unlimited hashing power into the hands of certain people who own a lot of Safecoins. This group of people would be the new cloud mining elite and the centralization would be around them.
All of this is theoretical. I don't know what is going to happen but I know it has the potential to be a lot more disruptive than people realize right now. I think Proof of Stake coins will be safe but any coin which is still Proof of Work might have to worry about this and I wonder what is going to happen to Primecoin, Protoshares, Litecoin.
Maybe Protoshares should end mining once and for all because it's likely even today that most mining for Protoshares is in the cloud. If Protoshares had to launch in the MaidSafe era then someone with a lot of Safecoins could mine them all.
-
I am not going to respond to every point of yours and pick it part. It will turn up being a jumble of recursive nonsense. It is obviously you are not of a strong technical background. You don't understand how mining works and why that will not be a app. You also don't understand how TOR, Dropbox, or what Amazon EC2 provides.
Mining can be virtualized. A virtual machine is an app which simulates some hardware. You do need enough computing power to do it but there is a lot a computing power and it's not hard to create virtual machine instances which simulate certain hardware.
My technical knowledge is strong, I may not always be the best at explaining. Amazon EC2, Tor, Dropbox, all could become decentralized applications. The hardware can be abstracted or separated from the software in such a way that the hardware could be decentralized nodes which do the processing, storage, or whatever. If you'd like to discuss how it could work I can go into that and if you or anyone find technical errors or my explanations are not good then feel free to correct me.
However, the quote above shows why people may not take you are seriously as you'd like. You are claiming you've studied the code in some significant manner and thats how you know it is good to go. Thats obviously not true.
Some of the code I will admit is a bit hard to read because it's written in a way where it's not commented or it's not easy to figure out what it's doing. The overall design looks good, the important parts of the code look good.
Here is the RUDP portion of the code which you can review for yourself. https://github.com/maidsafe/MaidSafe-RUDP/blob/master/src/maidsafe/rudp/transport.cc
It looks mostly good to me (there is one strange Segfault bug but it doesn't look critical). I will admit I have not reviewed every little detail of the code (there is quite a bit of code). What I did is skimmed through it and looked for certain design decisions they went with. Does that mean there could be bugs that I missed? Of course I wouldn't catch everything but if enough people look at the code I'm convinced that one of us will catch something if something is there.
Dropbox, do you have the code so we can review it for backdoors?
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/it-security/researchers-reverse-engineer-the-dropbox-client-what-it-means/
The fact that we can review the MaidSafe code means we can crowd audit it. It's a risk to use the code in the testing phase before it's audited but considering we are risk takers I don't see why it's a big deal if you're willing to risk your money already.
I realized some time ago, your point behind arguing is not to exchange/improve ideas. It is purely promotional. You just sort of make up stuff as you go and ignore corrections to your blatant mistakes. Rinse and repeat ...
If you find a mistake and can prove it I don't mind saying I'm wrong. But you're not saying anything to prove or disprove. You're saying that MaidSafe is not like Tor while I'm saying MaidSafe is better than Tor. MaidSafe is better than Tor and Freenet combined and works at a lower level than both.
Tor operates on the application layer (OSI layer 7). Freenet is also the application layer (OSI layer 7). MaidSafe is on the transport layer (OSI layer 4). It does not run on top of TCP/IP, it has it's own RUDP transport protocol. Tor uses onion routing to keep you anonymous but it's still running on the classic Internet, while Freenet when I last checked uses encryption at the application layer to try to create a Cipherspace or secure channel. It has had limited success but a lot has been learned from it and it seems MaidSafe developers in specific has learned quite a bit from the design.
But I will stand by my opinion that MaidSafe is better than Tor and Freenet combined. If you think I'm wrong show me otherwise.
Uhhh, I'm not the one thinking maidsafe will not use IP addresses. You have no clue, absolutely 0. I may be wrong about the economics, because I don't fully get their argument/graph. I thought it was based on something akin to Moore's law, but I think their graph is based on adoption rates. So I made a mistake there perhaps.
MaidSafe does not need IP addresses. You have no IP address on the MaidSafe platform. The IP address that you get from your ISP is for the regulated Internet. MaidSafe is a decentralized anonymous Internet platform. If no IPs exist on MaidSafe then it's pure Cipherspace. It's like the Tor hidden services only without the IP addresses to track. If you have decentralized meshnet ISPs which will accept Safecoins to provide access then you would have no IP address at all to track and if you use a traditional ISP they'd at best could know you use MaidSafe but still would not able to track you.
I've looked at it and I cannot figure out how anyone could monitor it. How would you monitor something which is encrypted? If there are no IP addresses where do you start? I suppose you could try to monitor at the ISP's which people will connect through but I don't see how the ISPs could know who you are and what you're doing on MaidSafe since its pure Cipherspace.
https://github.com/maidsafe/MaidSafe-RUDP/wiki
https://github.com/maidsafe/MaidSafe-Encrypt/blob/master/src/maidsafe/encrypt/self_encryptor.cc
I may be wrong about the economics, because I don't fully get their argument/graph. I thought it was based on something akin to Moore's law, but I think their graph is based on adoption rates. So I made a mistake there perhaps.
The graph is about adoption rates but also Moore's law. It basically makes the case that Moore's law will result in the costs of computing resources decreasing, there will be an equilibrium point where Safecoin rises in value in correlation with the decrease in costs of computing resources.
I believe this correlation is going to result in an increase in buying power/purchasing power for all who hold Safecoins at the time. So if a Safecoin can buy more computing resources on MaidSafe than any other similar service then you could mine most profitably on MaidSafe which means miners would want to buy Safecoins rather than buy a bunch of Digital Ocean instances.
I also want to say that I'm not making these posts for promotional purposes. While I do hold Safecoins, I had to spend my money to get those coins and I would not have done that if I did not believe in the potential. My opinion when the IPO first happened was that it was shady, it was unfair the way it happened, they botched it. Just because they botched the IPO it does not mean their technology isn't the best out there.
A week ago I was defending Ethereum when others were asking why would the Bitcoin association go with Ethereum. At the same time I told people I probably wont take part in the Ethereum IPO because it's a bad deal for investors due to the insanely high inflation rate.
What I say about MaidSafe, Ethereum, and Blackcoin's multi-pool idea, are all based on my own research and conclusions. If you'd like to believe that my conclusions are wrong that is fine but it's not going to change my opinion and in either case it's not "promotion" to admire technologies other than Bitshares.
From Business point of view:
Cloud hosting for mining purposes should be beneficial for the user for short periods of time (if at all). After all why rent something for X if you can set it up to mine for you and receive Y>X.
If you're running a data center then you would make plenty of Safecoins just rending out resources. If you have a lot of Safecoins but don't want to buy a mining rig and pay for the electricity, maintenance, and other issues associated with that then a virtual machine makes sense.
How do you think people are mining Primecoin right now? It's either botnets or in the cloud else I cannot see how it would be profitable to mine.
While it is not impossible the sum to be bigger than the parts, you still have not pointed to anything of the MaidSafes design that makes you think so. Saying “It will do this and this. You will see!” is the only argument that you have offered so far.
Any technology like this is going to be difficult to explain. The same arguments used to "hype" Ethereum are the arguments which "hype" MaidSafe. I think it's going to be too difficult for me to make a compelling argument right now because without the apps it's hard to reveal the vision. I'm looking at the technology and thinking that theoretically it could do X, but that doesn't mean it will even if it is theoretically possible.
From Technical point of few:
>>“A virtual machine could simulate any hardware you want to mine with.”
Yes, I have my virtual quantum computer running on my digital (i.e, regular) computer, the code is written in C.
In theory, not in practice. In theory if the underlying computer is powerful enough it can simulate or emulate some machine. The question is how much processing power will be in the MaidSafe network? I don't know the answer to that question but I know Bitcoin has a lot of processing power.
If we are talking general purpose CPUs then if you have a lot of them and if they can do parallel processing then you can mine a lot with just that. GPUs are another processor which if there are enough of them working in parallel you can mine with that. I don't imply that you can turn a regular computer into a quantum computer because thats not physically possible.
But if you have many regular computers in huge data centers, you can allocate the processing power using virtual machines. You can design the virtual machine to have as many CPUs as you want or run as many instances as you want. It can be any architecture that you want and there are advantages to this. I wont go further into this, let's find out if my speculation is correct in a few months when the first decentralized applications are running on the MaidSafe network.
It does not run fast as a quantum computer should… so I will take the following steps (adding more layers of abstraction) until I get the results. First I will move it from my local machine to a virtual server. Then I will move it to MaidSafes’ virtual ‘virtual disk’ and if this does not work, or for a good measure, I will rewrite the code in Java…
That’s my idea? What do you think?
You're working backwards. A virtual machine does not take away the need to have physical hardware underneath. So the physical hardware is going to still be sitting in some data center.
The point is that if I want to mine on BOINC, and use 5000 CPUs to do it, then in theory I could do that over the MaidSafe network. In theory it would be cheaper on MaidSafe than anywhere else. Check back on my posts a few months from now and if nothing I said happens then I'll admit I was wrong.
-
this thread...
(http://i.imgur.com/CJDQ2QX.jpg)
-
I am not going to respond to every point of yours and pick it part. It will turn up being a jumble of recursive nonsense. It is obviously you are not of a strong technical background. You don't understand how mining works and why that will not be a app. You also don't understand how TOR, Dropbox, or what Amazon EC2 provides.
Mining can be virtualized. A virtual machine is an app which simulates some hardware. You do need enough computing power to do it but there is a lot a computing power and it's not hard to create virtual machine instances which simulate certain hardware.
Anything can be virtualized. It is impossible to virtualize mining *profitably*.
-
MaidSafe does not need IP addresses. You have no IP address on the MaidSafe platform. The IP address that you get from your ISP is for the regulated Internet. MaidSafe is a decentralized anonymous Internet platform. If no IPs exist on MaidSafe then it's pure Cipherspace.
What... what is the new network-layer protocol?
-
It will turn up being a jumble of recursive nonsense.
Well put. A theory can be consistent and comprehensive and still be wrong... explaining why might involve having to find incorrect assumptions about totally unrelated parts of reality
-
Luckybit,
I am impressed with your attempt at demonstrating your technical expertise. Quoting protocol layers etc. It doesn't mean you understand it.
For example -
I don't think you understand how MaidSafe works. There are no IP addresses so what would Tor be needed for? If you have MaidSafe there would be no reason to require Tor. A decentralized application could provide a VPN service which would be better than Tor.
Even protocols based on top of UDP use IP addresses. You can not operate on the internet without IP addresses. To say maidensafe doesn't use IP addresses shows you really don't understand what is going on, yet you want people to believe you read their code.
You say a lot of little things like this that don't add up.
Responding in particular to the above quote, I have been saying repeatedly that I think maidensafe's bigger application is a better TOR. Yet you conflate that into something else to continue arguing. THat is because your objective here is nothing but promotion, so what others say has little effect on your pages and pages of ...... thoughts.
Dropbox, do you have the code so we can review it for backdoors? The fact that we can review the code means we can crowd audit it. It's a risk to use the code in the testing phase before it's audited but considering we are risk takers I don't see why it's a big deal if you're willing to risk your money already.
Again, you don't listen or read. When I brought up dropbox, I explicitly mentioned truecrypt. Truecrypt has recently had a serious 3rd party independent audit. I use truecrypt to encrypt. Dropbox keeps my files on their cloud service and replicates across any device I own. Mac/Phone/Windows/Linux. All of those. Yes, this has the problem in that an error in dropbox service can propagate across all my devices, but this is the same level of issue you'll have with Maidensafe.
You made another example about how one's computer can be hacked and they can lose their BTC. Maidensafe doesn't stop this. If you are hacked, a keyboard logger will open up the door to maidensafe unless maidensafe uses one of those visual keyboards that relies on mouse clicks.
You make tons of assumptions how others use their computing devices to make your point, when you don't understand what the services that people use actually do.
Maidensafe is a great idea. Neat. I'll play with it. I just lol at the thought of it being more disruptive than bitcoin.
-
Maidsafe has one primary challenge: Latency
Disk storage is cheap and abundant....
Bandwidth can be facilitated with bittorrent style downloads.
It is the initial lookup of the data you require that is the challenge. If you divide a large file up into multiple chunks then the majority of your time will be spent finding the chunk. Lookup times scale with log(n).
Their other problem is load balancing and price fixing.... not all data is in equal demand nor costs an equal amount to host.
Unless you can resolve the price fixing and load-balancing issue as well as the latency challenge the system will not scale well.
If their application is to store your personal data in the cloud rather than hosting data for others to download, then it is a much smaller nitch and far less interesting.
-
It looks mostly good to me (there is one strange Segfault bug but it doesn't look critical).
Luckybit, show me I am wrong and point out specifically what you are referring to here.
If you can, I retract any questions about your expertise and will gladfully apologize.
-
For example -
Even protocols based on top of UDP use IP addresses. You can not operate on the internet without IP addresses. To say maidensafe doesn't use IP addresses shows you really don't understand what is going on, yet you want people to believe you read their code.
MaidSafe does not have IP addresses. So just saying that UDP uses IP addresses doesn't mean that the MaidSafe platform uses IP addresses. If you can find and show me otherwise I'm open to it.
From my review they are not using IP addresses at all (at least not in a way which can be tracked). It's just like I can say that Tor hidden services don't use URLs, or Freenet does not use URLs, they use some encrypted form of addressing.
You say a lot of little things like this that don't add up.
Responding in particular to the above quote, I have been saying repeatedly that I think maidensafe's bigger application is a better TOR.
It does more than TOR. TOR is at the application layer.
For example lets say you come up with a completely new public key encrypted addressing scheme at the layers below 4 which does not involve IP addresses at all but you can still find what you want to find? You cannot use new schemes if you're on the application layer because you have to depend on the transport and lower layers. If you can innovate at the transport layers and below then all of the stuff you typically associate with an IP address could be encrypted. You need an identifier and a locator but you do not necessarily need an IP address.
In any case, MaidSafe as I currently understand it doesn't allow you to have an IP address on the platform. Of course if you're connecting to MaidSafe from your ISP then you already have an IP address from your ISP but MaidSafe platform itself doesn't seem to use IP addresses.
I suppose what I should have said is that while you may have an IP address, it's impossible to track people by IP address on MaidSafe. MaidSafe as a platform does not allow IP address tracking. This means your ISP cannot see what you're doing and neither can anyone else.
TOR on the other hand, if you use that you can be tracked.
Yet you conflate that into something else to continue arguing. THat is because your objective here is nothing but promotion, so what others say has little effect on your pages and pages of ...... thoughts.
What am I promoting? The only thing you're trying to say is that I'm somehow wrong about something or have made some technical error. Point it out.
Again, you don't listen or read. When I brought up dropbox, I explicitly mentioned truecrypt. Truecrypt has recently had a serious 3rd party independent audit. I use truecrypt to encrypt. Dropbox keeps my files on their cloud service and replicates across any device I own. Mac/Phone/Windows/Linux. All of those. Yes, this has the problem in that an error in dropbox service can propagate across all my devices, but this is the same level of issue you'll have with Maidensafe.
This is true. MaidSafe could have a bug in it and that is a risk. The same could be said about Bitcoin, Bitshares and many others. The risk is also in hardware as well, because your harddrive could be defective.
The code section I posted up was one of the most relevant parts of code for our discussion, the self encryption part, and the RUDP part. If there is a flaw in the self encryption part of the code then all your data could be compromised. From the looks if it they chose the best algorithms available for the self encryption and it's the fact that we can all review it leads me to have confidence that a bug isn't in that portion of the code.
I'm sure there are better C++ programmers than me but I definitely review these things. The RUDP section of the code may have minor bugs but its something which can be tested out and debugged if true. So the most important part I would think for reducing your risk would be to know that your information remains confidential, that data integrity is secure, and you can always back your data up at Dropbox in addition to MaidSafe while you test MaidSafe which spreads your risk.
You made another example about how one's computer can be hacked and they can lose their BTC. Maidensafe doesn't stop this. If you are hacked, a keyboard logger will open up the door to maidensafe unless maidensafe uses one of those visual keyboards that relies on mouse clicks.
You're not being innovative here. App developers can solve this problem. You don't really need to use the password at all. I actually agree this is the main risk with MaidSafe but since anyone can write apps it will be possible to solve this problem. Simply allow for multi factor authentication which specifically does not use "passwords" but instead use SQRL, biometrics, or some other combination such as a one time code sent to your cellphone combined.
Whether or not it's secure I don't know. It seems to look okay but this is one of the more important parts of the code to review along with this whitepaper
https://github.com/maidsafe/MaidSafe/wiki/unpublished_papers/SelfAuthentication.pdf
We demonstrated a working version of such a system for
the first time in April 2008 in our offices in Troon, Scotland,
and as far as we are aware this was the first time in history
a person created their own identity, stored it and managed all
their actions without any server requirement and without any
3rd party control
https://github.com/maidsafe/MaidSafe-Passport/blob/master/src/maidsafe/passport/detail/passport.cc
In the end I'm not really concerned about this problem because I see many ways to move beyond passwords and keyboard based authentication. I think the code is too complicated for anyone to understand what everything is doing so I'd hope we audit it. The design of it looks fantastic and the code isn't so ugly that it looks shady but you never know.
You make tons of assumptions how others use their computing devices to make your point, when you don't understand what the services that people use actually do.
Maidensafe is a great idea. Neat. I'll play with it. I just lol at the thought of it being more disruptive than bitcoin.
Bitcoin is a lot of things but it's not capable of decentralizing the Internet. Consider the effect MaidSafe will have on net neutrality. Consider the effect it will have on the copyright industry and everything associated it. Consider the effect it could have on Silicon Valley.
I think Bitcoin is disruptive and a great innovation but MaidSafe is way more disruptive. Bitcoin allows you to transmit digital property, solves the Byzantine generals problem, is counterfeit proof. So I cannot take anything away from Bitcoin.
At the same time MaidSafe may potentially do something even greater than Bitcoin. If MaidSafe were to catch on then computing resources could be accessible to the whole world, and all the talk we have about building decentralized autonomous corporations, MaidSafe would do more to facilitate that than any technology so far.
If you're an app developer how would you like to not have to worry about computing resources such as storage space, processing power, bandwidth? All you would have to worry about is writing the code and marketing the app on a platform which would scale up with the popularity of the apps running on it.
MaidSafe is in my opinion more disruptive because so many corporations are set up to try and profit from collecting and selling our data. What are those businesses going to do when they face disintermediation?
-
THere are a few things I agree with.
If this is setup to be a pay 2 play piracy enabler then it could be a big deal. However, we still have torrents and they don't seem to be going anywhere.
It seems to me you really want to CENTRALIZE all these decentralized services.
At least Bitshares/Invictus is laying ground work for integration of future yet to exist apps.
Multifactor auth is an interesting idea. I thought about it. Only way unhackable is either through some keyfob number generating thing or SMS. Basically the message has to be out of band with the computer. That pretty much requires centralization. So there goes your innovation.
If I go dig through maidensafe's code to find where they bind to an ip address to layer their protocol on top, what will you pay me ?
I'd still like to see the bug. Non-critical segfault or whatever you said.
Here is my prediction if bug is shown.
It will have been fixed in the current branch...
edit - One thing that is unfortunate about dropbox is that it could very well be some sort of backdoor. In the end though I'm more worried about hackers/data theft than the NSA. It atcually makes sense to attach a backdoor to dropbox, given the network/bandwidth usage it could be easy to hide traffic in there. Ahh well. If maidensafe replicates like dropbox and has matured for a few years I might very well migrate. I have nothing against maidensafe, but I am just reserved and can't see being a hypeman.
Anyway.. I need to get to work for the day.. Jesus
-
Ideologically I'm all for efforts like maidsafe, but after having been burned so many times (and especially lately by failed projects in the crypto world) I've become quite a bit more reserved in my enthusiasm.
The thing is I'm not that convinced about the masses being driven by ideology. For example I've been warning friends and family almost since the 90's to not use their real names or post personal information on the internet or in e-mails. And now just about all of them are on facebook, spewing out as much personal info as they are able, well so much for privacy and being concerned about principles. Bitcoin works because it runs on greed, same thing with most of the bitshares projects. With maidsafe I'm not immediately seeing the carrot appealing to one of the human-vices in order to lure in the masses. So if it is not faster or easier than the facebooks and googles, then I'm afraid that the masses won't care, they seem to not care about net neutrality, monopolies and privacy.
So while I applaud efforts like maidsafe, I'll see where this one goes first, I'm running out of funds to spend on gambles like these even if I'd want to. This might change if some of the bitshares projects offer a very short term and high reward, but I'm not counting on that.
-
It looks mostly good to me (there is one strange Segfault bug but it doesn't look critical).
Luckybit, show me I am wrong and point out specifically what you are referring to here.
If you can, I retract any questions about your expertise and will gladfully apologize.
It's in the comments of the code itself (which is a good sign because it helps people to debug and audit the code). The software is unstable and likely crashes when the developer attempts to clean it up.
https://github.com/maidsafe/MaidSafe-RUDP/blob/master/src/maidsafe/rudp/transport.cc
/* ned 2014-04-11: I'm not happy with the code below because I don't know why
removing the unnecessary mutex causes segfaults. Clearly
the mutex forces context back onto the strand so it can clean up,
but I've traced the code backwards through the strand and I can see
nowhere which ought to trip just because one is concurrently
swapping out on_connection_added_ and on_connection_lost_.
I don't like mysteries, and this is one of those.
*/
Don't ask me to debug the code though because that would take a much deeper understanding than just skimming through it. But for people who want to debug it having comments like this is essential.
Code which has no comments, which is structured weird, which uses algorithms I've never seen, or pieces of code I've never seen, that is what I mean by shady hard to read code.
https://github.com/maidsafe/MaidSafe-Encrypt/blob/master/src/maidsafe/encrypt/self_encryptor.cc
Like for instance they use AES-256 and SHA-512 which are the best algorithms they could have chosen for the encryption portion of the code. If they would have used some weird proprietary algorithms I've never heard of then I would be skeptical of the code because those are red flags.
Any deeper insight into the code would require that I dive too deep but if you really want to see how it works just compile it and see.
-
It seems to me you really want to CENTRALIZE all these decentralized services.
That's not something I want. It might be the result but that is how nature is. Sometimes centralization emerges on it's own and it's not something we are consciously deciding to want.
What we want and need is a decentralized Internet because of issues like network neutrality and a few organizations trying to control everything. Of course when you decentralize something it can sometimes result in shifting the centralization somewhere else.
At least Bitshares/Invictus is laying ground work for integration of future yet to exist apps.
I don't think it should be seen as Invictus/Bitshares Vs. MaidSafe. I don't understand why people have to be for one technology or the other. To me they can greatly complement one another (Domainshares on top of MaidSafe?).
Multifactor auth is an interesting idea. I thought about it. Only way unhackable is either through some keyfob number generating thing or SMS. Basically the message has to be out of band with the computer. That pretty much requires centralization. So there goes your innovation.
I would never say anything is unhackable. I would say you can raise the cost of conducting the hack so that it's prohibitively expensive to do it drag net style.
Look
If I go dig through maidensafe's code to find where they bind to an ip address to layer their protocol on top, what will you pay me ?
I'm not going to pay you. If you want to review the code that is why it's there but I see no point in either of us being paid. If I had to actually debug the code it's another matter because that would take a lot more knowledge and effort but anyone can review it.
I'd still like to see the bug. Non-critical segfault or whatever you said.
Here is my prediction if bug is shown.
It will have been fixed in the current branch...
I showed the bug, it's unfixed. If you think it is fixed then they need to remove that comment saying it's a mysterious bug.
edit - One thing that is unfortunate about dropbox is that it could very well be some sort of backdoor. In the end though I'm more worried about hackers/data theft than the NSA. It atcually makes sense to attach a backdoor to dropbox, given the network/bandwidth usage it could be easy to hide traffic in there. Ahh well. If maidensafe replicates like dropbox and has matured for a few years I might very well migrate. I have nothing against maidensafe, but I am just reserved and can't see being a hypeman.
Anyway.. I need to get to work for the day.. Jesus
I'm more worried about hackers too, but I don't think MaidSafe is filled with backdoors. The fact that it is open source means if I'm feeling paranoid I can grab a book on C++ and review the code. I can test it out, and look for bugs myself if I have nothing better to do.
Since there are lots of people probably doing that right now I think its easier to trust MaidSafe than Dropbox mainly because more eyes are looking at MaidSafe and will look at it. It's just a matter of how many lines of code, is it commented, is it using established algorithms and techniques, is it buggy?
If it's buggy then just don't use it for anything important for 6 months or so while they work to fix the bugs that are found. If the wrong algorithms are chosen then that would be a sign not to trust the sense of the developers. If it's using the right algorithms in strange ways then you have to be careful.
So for example self encryption and self authentication sounds really good but it's also really novel code. I don't know if I can trust that yet but I'm optimistic. I'm willing to test MaidSafe because if it does work then I have a free Dropbox with limitless storage space and maybe much more.
-
THat is because your objective here is nothing but promotion, so what others say has little effect on your pages and pages of ...... thoughts.
Thats what he does, hidden in huge arguments. He was arguing about the BTS XT initial price and when I argued against it with some points his answer was that I was doing that to decrease the price and collect them on the cheap. Thats when he I realised he was not arguing but just promoting and decided to ignore his posts.
-
Maidsafe has one primary challenge: Latency
Disk storage is cheap and abundant....
Bandwidth can be facilitated with bittorrent style downloads.
It is the initial lookup of the data you require that is the challenge. If you divide a large file up into multiple chunks then the majority of your time will be spent finding the chunk. Lookup times scale with log(n).
Their other problem is load balancing and price fixing.... not all data is in equal demand nor costs an equal amount to host.
Unless you can resolve the price fixing and load-balancing issue as well as the latency challenge the system will not scale well.
If their application is to store your personal data in the cloud rather than hosting data for others to download, then it is a much smaller nitch and far less interesting.
MaidSafe seems to be using an ant colony optimization algorithm (Freenet used something like this originally), which is supposed to try to reduce latency.
Unfortunately I'm not very good at explaining this stuff so I will post Dr. Irvine's quotes
http://bitcoinmagazine.com/12397/maidsafe-is-making-data-safe/
In Irvine’s words, “every node is like a group of ants; while a drop of water could kill one, when all the millions of nodes come together, that is when you see scalability. When one node tries to delete information, other neighbors can report that node to one another and removed the compromised node from the network.”
As a node joins the network, it has to be part of cryptographic keypair and thus joins to the closest nodes to their address; the rest of the nodes then listen to them. The MaidSafe network uses a consensus based mechanism noted above, chaining the consensus together (similar to a blockchain). As a consequence, each group of nodes watches one another, observing their deterministic behavior. In contrast to Tor or FreeNet, each node in MaidSafe is individually different, creating an autonomous network in which each node has an address, fulfilling certain tasks, such as storing, looking, validating and screening data down this immutable chain (called a Transaction Manager).[4]
Who knows if this will work. Freenet attempted to use an ant colony optimization algorithm and it never managed to solve the latency problem. It was fast enough (barely) for web browsing but not much else. MaidSafe seems to be one of those technologies that is too complicated to explain but easy to get excited about.
I have no clue if it will work so lets find out is my attitude.
THat is because your objective here is nothing but promotion, so what others say has little effect on your pages and pages of ...... thoughts.
Thats what he does, hidden in huge arguments. He was arguing about the BTS XT initial price and when I argued against it with some points his answer was that I was doing that to decrease the price and collect them on the cheap. Thats when he I realised he was not arguing but just promoting and decided to ignore his posts.
There is also the possibility that I like the technology and really believe what I'm saying (and it's also possible that you really don't think Bitshares are worth as much as I do).
Why believe everything is about promotion? You never told me what exactly I'm trying to promote other than my own opinions and that is what everyone else here does. If you aren't as much of a fan of MaidSafe, Bitshares or any technology as I am it's not a big deal because we all have opinions.
-
THat is because your objective here is nothing but promotion, so what others say has little effect on your pages and pages of ...... thoughts.
Thats what he does, hidden in huge arguments. He was arguing about the BTS XT initial price and when I argued against it with some points his answer was that I was doing that to decrease the price and collect them on the cheap. Thats when he I realized he was not arguing but just promoting and decided to ignore his posts.
I realized it when he said something about blackcoin being a perfect fit for a bitshares collaboration/airdrop. His arguments could be applied to any coin, but he just continued on and on about blackcoin. It became obvious. I would love to see the incentives behind his actions. He is a determined person.
Luckybit - All you've done is demonstrate you can click around on github and read comments. You worded it like you had found something. I could waste my time showing you the ip code if I cared enough, but it is pointless. I'll take the hint.
So what will you hype next ? :-\
-
THat is because your objective here is nothing but promotion, so what others say has little effect on your pages and pages of ...... thoughts.
Thats what he does, hidden in huge arguments. He was arguing about the BTS XT initial price and when I argued against it with some points his answer was that I was doing that to decrease the price and collect them on the cheap. Thats when he I realized he was not arguing but just promoting and decided to ignore his posts.
I realized it when he said something about blackcoin being a perfect fit for a bitshares collaboration/airdrop. His arguments could be applied to any coin, but he just continued on and on about blackcoin. It became obvious. I would love to see the incentives behind his actions. He is a determined person.
Luckybit - All you've done is demonstrate you can click around on github and read comments. You worded it like you had found something. I could waste my time showing you the ip code if I cared enough, but it is pointless. I'll take the hint.
So what will you hype next ? :-\
Reverse psychology isn't going to work. Save us both the time and ignore me so I can focus on more important topics.
End of discussion.
-
I don't know luckybit personally, but I have found luckybit's postings to be some of the most intelligent and insightful on this forum. In my opinion, luckybit isn't pumping anything, just genuinely sharing one or two good ideas from elsewhere.
-
Lukybit is on this forum from the beginning back in the time when the forum had a few members . His contributions were and are one of the most insightful around here. He's very passionate about 3I and there is no question in my mind he was not trying to to pump anything. You may disagree with his opinions but I will never question his intentions.
-
Luckybit is a Hero member.
His reputation is clearly established in his prolific and thoughtful posts.
-
Lukybit is on this forum from the beginning back in the time when the forum had a few members . His contributions were and are one of the most insightful around here. He's very passionate about 3I and there is no question in my mind he was not trying to to pump anything. You may disagree with his opinions but I will never question his intentions.
+5%
-
It is fascinating to me that his pumping has not become apparent. Regardless, I don't think that pumping/hyping/promoting is a bad thing. I don't think Luckybit is a nefarious actor or any such thing. I just think that if you engage him about ideas, you'll get nowhere because he is not looking for the best ideas. He is just looking to promote. Nothing wrong with that, but... As that other guy said, best just to realize it and read him without engagement (ignore?). I actually have read his posts and engaged him in a meaningful manner, but it seems 100% one direction.
-
Lukybit is on this forum from the beginning back in the time when the forum had a few members . His contributions were and are one of the most insightful around here. He's very passionate about 3I and there is no question in my mind he was not trying to to pump anything. You may disagree with his opinions but I will never question his intentions.
+5%
+5%
Luckybit is a Hero member.
His reputation is clearly established in his prolific and thoughtful posts.
indeed
I actually have read his posts and engaged him in a meaningful manner, but it seems 100% one direction.
True believer :P
-
Luckybit, MadeSafe can be had today for 50% the IPO price … time to load up some more safecoins, or you can follow my advice and get rid of all shares you have before the price approaches 0…
You may say ‘your pages and pages of posts’ were not a pump up attempt but 80% of those reading them see them this way, anyway. The problem off course is that with each post that is untrue (or a rosy possibility backed by no logic or explanation) you actually helped more and more people see the problems with the path chosen by maidsafe. Most of us liked the general idea at the beginning (and I still do) and some did not give enough thought if this great idea has a chance to work the way maidsafe see it working. You accomplished opening the eyes of your share of people for the not so rosy details of the plan.
-
The problem of course is that with each post that is untrue (or a rosy possibility backed by no logic or explanation) you actually helped more and more people see the problems with the path chosen by maidsafe. Most of us liked the general idea at the beginning (and I still do) and some did not give enough thought if this great idea has a chance to work the way maidsafe see it working. You accomplished opening the eyes of your share of people for the not so rosy details of the plan.
+5%
Everyone try this:
Sell your safecoin, wait a week, come back to this thread and read it all, then decide if you want to re-buy. I'll cover your losses if you buy back, and you can give me a little tip from your savings if you decide not to re-buy.
-
Luckybit, MadeSafe can be had today for 50% the IPO price … time to load up some more safecoins, or you can follow my advice and get rid of all shares you have before the price approaches 0…
You may say ‘your pages and pages of posts’ were not a pump up attempt but 80% of those reading them see them this way, anyway. The problem off course is that with each post that is untrue (or a rosy possibility backed by no logic or explanation) you actually helped more and more people see the problems with the path chosen by maidsafe. Most of us liked the general idea at the beginning (and I still do) and some did not give enough thought if this great idea has a chance to work the way maidsafe see it working. You accomplished opening the eyes of your share of people for the not so rosy details of the plan.
It hasn't even been a month and you're talking about this like I'm a short term speculator. Let people dump it because then it's cheaper for people who want to buy it. I am a long term speculator who thinks in months not days.
None of this will matter until after there are apps on MaidSafe which use Safecoins. To me the price of MaidSafeCoins do not matter much right now because nothing is backing it yet. What matters is what the price is 6 months from now when the apps are running. What matters also is what those Safecoins can buy since you need those coins to use certain apps.
If you find yourself wanting to use one of those apps 6 months to a year from now, buy the coins for whatever it costs in 6 months to a year.
My "pages" and "pages" of posts? How many posts? How many words exactly? If you're going to keep count go ahead. If you buy Safecoins thinking you could make a profit in days/weeks then sold them all because someone dumped them then it shows me you don't know what you're doing and should wait a few years before buying any of this stuff. But if you really understand what is at stake, what MaidSafe makes possible, what Bitshares makes possible, there is a massive benefit to getting involved early.
My speculation as to why there might be dumping taking place? Clearly there was market manipulation involved here. I got screwed over just like everyone else.
MaidSafe presale rumored to have been funded by stolen Gox coins https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582731.0
What is clearly suspect is someone posted a blockchain.info url showing that stolen Gox coins were sent to MaidSafe's address. I told Bytemaster that they should send it back but Bytemaster said they shouldn't. We don't know what happened with that but it's very likely they kept the coins and sent the Safecoins which I find regrettable if that is the course of action they decided to take. I cannot prove it and haven't checked, but if it played out like that then it would explain the dumping.
Simple explanation, MaidSafe botched their presale. Just because they botched the presale it doesn't mean all the code they wrote, all the technology they developed, all the ideas they have, the community, the supporters, it does not make all of that useless.
It means they were naive, inexperienced, and messed up. They can make up for this in what they decide to do going into the future. At this moment in time most of their funds are tied up in Mastercoins which can't be sold because of low volume and liquidity. They didn't even consider the fact that Mastercoins have too low of a volume and market cap to raise millions of dollars.
As a result the people who sent Bitcoins are the people who actually did the majority of the funding because the majority of the money they can actually spend came from people sending Bitcoins. The people who sent Mastercoins sent money which cannot even be spent right now and for all we know those people just wanted to abandon the Mastercoin ship.
-
that wasn't gox coins, the coins was sent from a bitstamp address...
Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 997D using Tapatalk
-
that wasn't gox coins, the coins was sent from a bitstamp address...
Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 997D using Tapatalk
Then that settles it. But did one person really send thousands of coins?
The fact that we don't even know for sure what went on with the presale is why people are so skeptical of MaidSafe right now. The only thing I say in my posts is that as a technology it looks very good, and theoretically if they can get the economics right it could be very good.
Just like everyone else, I have to wait and see what is going to happen.
-
Luckybit I think his issue is that you haven't responded to the claims that safecoin does not grow more valuable with the value added by the maidsafe app layer with any good arguments. There is a specific problem with the economics of safecoin which is the thesis of everyone arguing against it. Can you identify it?
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
-
(It's not the presale)
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
-
Luckybit I think his issue is that you haven't responded to the claims that safecoin does not grow more valuable with the value added by the maidsafe app layer with any good arguments. There is a specific problem with the economics of safecoin which is the thesis of everyone arguing against it. Can you identify it?
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
I don't think that it's a problem unless people are expecting short term profits. If you buy stock in a corporation like Google for example it's not going to be profitable sometimes for years. Google was losing money for a while and then Ad Sense, they started monetizing Youtube with ads, and now they are profitable.
MaidSafe will be as profitable as it is useful. The more people who use it's apps and who use the resources the more valuable safecoins could become.
But there are too many unknowns right now for me to tell you without a doubt that POR combined with Safecoin is a sure thing. It's sure enough that I personally believe it's a good investment but it doesn't mean I can convince other people that it's a good investment for them.
In 6 months the situation will be more clear.
-
MaidSafe will be as profitable as it is useful. The more people who use it's apps and who use the resources the more valuable safecoins could become.
The claim that this is not the case unless the mechanics behind safecoin itself are changed. Maidsafe and app layer are wonderful, but they have to re-do safecoin in a completely diferrent way (NOT the presale, the different operations you can do at maidsafe network / safecoin network level and their interactions) before safecoin value increases from maidsafe network operations.
You keep pointing at the wrong things as the things that can make safecoin valuable...
-
‘and theoretically if they can get the economics right it could be very good.’
I thought my last post was as self-explanatory as they get.
Let’s see what you managed to do since then:
-Explained to everyone that 50% off the IPO price is not the cheapest that they can expect to get in...
-And made sure, if anybody was not clear about that (do not ask me how this is possible) that:
Theoretically
if they can get the economics right
it could be very good
-
‘and theoretically if they can get the economics right it could be very good.’
I thought my last post was as self-explanatory as they get.
Let’s see what you managed to do since then:
-Explained to everyone that 50% off the IPO price is not the cheapest that they can expect to get in...
-And made sure, if anybody was not clear about that (do not ask me how this is possible) that:
Theoretically
if they can get the economics right
it could be very good
How it's presented on paper in theory versus how it's implemented in practice are entirely different. On paper it looks like it will be immensely profitable and the economics look right, but will they make the right decisions in the implementation? No one knows what decisions they will make. No one knows how the governments of the world will react to it or large corporations.
So it's the human error and deviation from what they have on paper that I worry about.
They can have a business plan which is awesome, but you cannot predict or forecast the behavior of the market far in advance. This is why people tend to want short term profits and pump and dump to achieve that.
If you don't want to wait 6 months to a year to see what happens then don't buy Safecoins.
I think if my understanding is right, the goal of MaidSafe is to make the resources on the MaidSafe platform so cheap that they are practically free. Whether or not they can accomplish this is anyone's guess but I think it's theoretically possible if they can make the economics deflationary enough to cause people to go into a farming panic or hysteria similar to what Bitcoin goes into during it's bubbles.
-
Are you investing in DACs or internet infrastructure? How do you not see "getting the economics" as an extremely difficult problem which is by far the most important one? Our resident guru Dan says even he cannot solve what they didn't and are claiming is not a problem to begin with.
If they were a traditional company making use of their technology I would invest in their stock. But not this DAC. See the difference?
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
-
Luckybit I think his issue is that you haven't responded to the claims that safecoin does not grow more valuable with the value added by the maidsafe app layer with any good arguments. There is a specific problem with the economics of safecoin which is the thesis of everyone arguing against it. Can you identify it?
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
Please do tell. I can't figure out how safecoin makes money.
-
Luckybit I think his issue is that you haven't responded to the claims that safecoin does not grow more valuable with the value added by the maidsafe app layer with any good arguments. There is a specific problem with the economics of safecoin which is the thesis of everyone arguing against it. Can you identify it?
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
Please do tell. I can't figure out how safecoin makes money.
It doesn't "make money" directly. What it does in theory is make resources cheaper than anywhere else based on Moore's law.
It's like for example you're making a chip and if you make billions of chips then the cost goes down pretty fast until those chips become really cheap. Demand for these chips wont go down though, so the end result is everyone can get more for less.
As a user of MaidSafe if it works properly, every user will get more resources for less Safecoins over time. So if that happens, then the Safecoins I got in the presale will always become more useful if and only if MaidSafe is the cheapest, most private, safest place to store data, best place to rent computation, and so on.
Let's say MaidSafe can do BOIC for example, then my Safecoins can buy BOIC processing. If there is a lot of demand for BOIC processing then there will be a lot of demand for Safecoins.
Let's say there are other apps too? If there are more demand for those apps and those apps require Safecoins then there will be more demand for Safecoin. Anyone can make a killer app, charge Safecoins, and then there is more demand for MaidSafe and Safecoin.
MaidSafe is a platform. It's like the Xbox or the Nintendo model. In order to play you have to pay, and you can only pay using their token.
Are you investing in DACs or internet infrastructure? How do you not see "getting the economics" as an extremely difficult problem which is by far the most important one? Our resident guru Dan says even he cannot solve what they didn't and are claiming is not a problem to begin with.
If they were a traditional company making use of their technology I would invest in their stock. But not this DAC. See the difference?
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
I consider either one a win. Okay say Nintendo releases a console where if I buy these Nintendo coins during the presale then I can play any game Nintendo ever makes if the business model works. These Nintendo coins would be like coins you put into a vending machine only in this case you would have to spend them playing games in the cloud.
In theory of course it could work. In theory the games could be in such demand that the Nintendo coins which are in limited supply are in great demand because the only way to ever again play a Nintendo game is to buy a Nintendo coin. If I've got Nintendo coins during the presale then I would be very happy if that were to happen.
Let's say that doesn't happen and Nintendo releases games which suck. In that case my Nintendo coins wouldn't be in much demand. The whole economic model would begin to break down. The resources wouldn't get cheaper at a fast enough rate so the cloud wouldn't be able to process more or scale up because there wouldn't be enough demand for the content to fuel growth.
These two scenarios show that the success or failure of Nintendo coin depends entirely on demand for the content in the Nintendo platform/cloud. If there is no demand for that content then there will be no demand for Nintendo coin. Game over for Nintendo if that is the case and my Nintendo coins wold be worthless.
The most likely scenario though is that there will be a lot of games I did like, so that even if Nintendo coin fails like the Sega Dreamcast we will have got a lot of great content and that content can always be ported to a better platform later.
-
Great analogy, the flaw is that it's not NintendoCoins but RareWareCoins and BlizzardCoins that are needed to operate the machine. Figuring out how to make the Nintendo machine use coins hasn't worked because people always jailbreak the Nintendo for access to the subscription game services they run on it. What is Nintendo to do in this situation?
-
Great analogy, the flaw is that it's not NintendoCoins but RareWareCoins and BlizzardCoins that are needed to operate the machine. Figuring out how to make the Nintendo machine use coins hasn't worked because people always jailbreak the Nintendo for access to the subscription game services they run on it. What is Nintendo to do in this situation?
Nintendo has to make sure that the primary coin used for resources on their cloud is the Nintendo coin. To do this it would be similar to how in Ethereum you have to buy Ethers, and in the Master protocol you have to buy Mastercoin tokens. If there are two tokens then the primary token is still the Nintendo token and all other tokens would have to be measured in Nintendo tokens as the measure of value.
Whether or not it's going to work like the analogy is something no one can know because we don't know what decisions the human beings in charge of the design will make. If they make decisions based around ideology rather than rationality, then they might get the economics wrong. If they focus on success more than on ideology then its more likely they can be profitable.
For example the reason to produce the platform might be ideological. To provide privacy, to provide decentralized cloud storage, to provide incentive to decentralize the Internet. These are all very noble goals. Unfortunately having noble goals doesn't always translate into success because often to reach success ideology has to be set aside for what works in practice, according to science, and sometimes it's very counter intuitive.
For example it might require some centralization for things to scale. Of course it's not ideologically acceptable to have centralization. What decision will be made? To follow ideology or go for the sure profit? Ideologically driven organizations can be successful when they put profit ahead of ideology, but when they put ideology ahead of profit it can cause the entire business to fall under.
I don't know what decisions will be made. I do think it's possible to take a very scientific ideologically agnostic approach (ends justify the means) and make a very profitable DAC out of MaidSafe. I don't know whether it's possible to do that and keep it decentralized.
-edit-
If we think of resources like we think of land, and if you're familiar with geolibertarianism or Georgism, then the Safecoins can be used to tax consumers on the use of resources (land).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism
Geolibertarians consider land to be the common property of all humankind. They say that private property is derived from an individual's right to the fruits of their labor. Since land was not created by anyone's labor, it cannot be rightfully owned. Thus, geolibertarians recognize a right to secure possession of land (land tenure), on the condition that the full rental value be paid to the community. This, they say, has the effect of both giving back the value that belongs to the community and encouraging landholders to only use as much land as they need, leaving unneeded land for others.[4]
Data is like land. It's not owned by anyone and we all consume it as a function of being human. The primary motivation of the SAFE Project is to preserve the public data. Private data on the other hand is like private property or private pieces of land and as a result there is a tax to pay. The tax is paid in Safecoins.
Thomas Paine's assertion in Agrarian Justice that "Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
These are my own interpretations of the motivations and intentions of the SAFE Project. It's probably premature for me to even make claims like that but I also don't think they just are blindly creating their economics. They do seem to have some philosophical understanding, and the design of MaidSafe seems to be intentionally heterarchical in some places (Proof of Resource). I think it's just a very difficult project to get right, and the only approach which will work requires a lot of experimentation, competition, until a business model is perfected.
An junk data attack for example could also be seen as a pollution attack on the land. If you pollute the land with trash then the value of the land goes down for everyone and future generations because land in this case represents the resources of the network.
I hope that metaphor helps to think about what the SAFE Project is trying to do. They are trying to free the land itself from centralized control it's under now. It's likely that if team MaidSafe messes up then another team will be developing the code and can fork it. Expect to see forks just as Bitcoin was forked. Eventually someone will get it right.
-
If they make decisions based around ideology rather than rationality, then they might get the economics wrong. If they focus on success more than on ideology then its more likely they can be profitable.
Agreed. It seems like the evidence points to them not budging at all, so far. Not because of ideological tradeoffs, but because of deliberate, willingful ignorance. Of course I hope they can realize their mistake and then honor safecoin holders who held at a time when it showed support, even though it didn't actually do anything, just so their project can go on and work. I'll buy in when they can prove they can make the incentive model work. That's the hard part.
For example it might require some centralization for things to scale. Of course it's not ideologically acceptable to have centralization. What decision will be made? To follow ideology or go for the sure profit?
Let's be clear, there was never a discussion about centralization and profit is talked about in the context of the DAC metaphor where it always translates to dividends for people who hold the token and value-adding trades for everyone who uses the dac's services.
-
If they make decisions based around ideology rather than rationality, then they might get the economics wrong. If they focus on success more than on ideology then its more likely they can be profitable.
Agreed. It seems like the evidence points to them not budging at all, so far. Not because of ideological tradeoffs, but because of deliberate, willingful ignorance. Of course I hope they can realize their mistake and then honor safecoin holders who held at a time when it showed support, even though it didn't actually do anything, just so their project can go on and work. I'll buy in when they can prove they can make the incentive model work. That's the hard part.
For example it might require some centralization for things to scale. Of course it's not ideologically acceptable to have centralization. What decision will be made? To follow ideology or go for the sure profit?
Let's be clear, there was never a discussion about centralization and profit is talked about in the context of the DAC metaphor where it always translates to dividends for people who hold the token and value-adding trades for everyone who uses the dac's services.
When I mentioned centralization, it's because I would expect the farmers who generate the resources to centralize. In some ways if they do centralize it could result in massive benefits in terms of cost reduction and scale. Like if you're talking about bandwidth then of course larger ISPs do have advantages. The same with data storage but to a much lesser extent.
Like for example if somehow Google decided to provide Internet access at 1 Gbit to the entire USA then I could see it working out. Under the current situation with upload speeds dramatically capped, and Internet speeds also capped, I just don't see how you'd be able to solve the problem even if the incentives were in place because the ISP's would still rate limit the users.
With Bitcoin mining the GPU manufacturers aren't limiting the amount of GPU's you can buy to mine with, but they could because they make the chips. ASIC manufacturers have even more of this power, they could delay their own product and mine with it while it's in testing.
-
Until the last days all bitcoins ivestors was the only loosers...
Right now even the via-mastercoin investors to madesaif coins are on the negative side !
1 maidsafe coin = 0.000027 BTC https://masterxchange.com/market.php?currency=maid (https://masterxchange.com/market.php?currency=maid) , that means that the maidsafe buyers now will get the coins cheaper even from the "lucky" mastercoin investors at IPO time...
I am one of them! (toast please don't laugh)
-
...via-mastercoin investors...
You mean the via-mastercoin investor (as in one person)... ;)
-
Honestly this seems like a normal market reaction to a too-concentrated launch on a product that most people do not understand. People are feeling like they made a bad decision, but it's just those folks who didn't really understand what they were buying in the first place and just wanted to not miss out.
Alternatively, if you were holding MSC since august as many of the big buyers surely were, selling below the .2BTC +40% rate given during the crowdsale is very much not at a loss. Their cost basis on the MSC was .01BTC when BTC was worth under $200, and then they really didnt have a choice but to sit since MSC hasn't even been sendable without major risk much less included on an exchange.
I anticipate the price will come back up to around the crowdsale rate fairly soon once the folks who are scared divest themselves and the price will go up as maidsafe develops their product in public over the next few months leading up to launch. If they don't deliver on the platform, the tokens will be worthless.
-
Adam when do you ‘bithause’ guys intend to list the Bitshares products on the exchange? Do you have a date already?
-
Just a reminder:
http://americasmarkets.usatoday.com/2014/05/09/insiders-get-rich-on-ipos-masses-lose/
-
Honestly this seems like a normal market reaction to a too-concentrated launch on a product that most people do not understand. People are feeling like they made a bad decision, but it's just those folks who didn't really understand what they were buying in the first place and just wanted to not miss out.
Alternatively, if you were holding MSC since august as many of the big buyers surely were, selling below the .2BTC +40% rate given during the crowdsale is very much not at a loss. Their cost basis on the MSC was .01BTC when BTC was worth under $200, and then they really didnt have a choice but to sit since MSC hasn't even been sendable without major risk much less included on an exchange.
I anticipate the price will come back up to around the crowdsale rate fairly soon once the folks who are scared divest themselves and the price will go up as maidsafe develops their product in public over the next few months leading up to launch. If they don't deliver on the platform, the tokens will be worthless.
+5%
I agree. It's probably being dumped by the people who got too many and that's a good time to buy them. Sure we shouldn't have bought in at the IPO but it's not making sense to me why people would sell below IPO price unless a lot of the coin were stolen. I suppose it could also be a legitimate panic sale but I would think that investors smart enough to invest in something like MaidSafe would know to take the long term investor view.
There were rumors floating around that some MtGox coins were used to purchase MaidSafe coins. If that rumor had any truth to it then it would explain the situation, otherwise I cannot explain the market behavior.
At the same time I'm not concerned with it either. It's going to take 6 months to a year before I start paying close attention to the price. What matters to me is what their product looks like at launch and what apps are running on it. If it works as intended then Safecoin will have some value.
-
Adam when do you ‘bithause’ guys intend to list the Bitshares products on the exchange? Do you have a date already?
What bitshares products? Seems like they need to actually release before they can be included on an exchange.
On another note, I'm not a "bithaus guy" I'm not and have never been affiliated with bithaus outside of them asking me for investment and advice. I said no on investment and yes on advice.
-
There were rumors floating around that some MtGox coins were used to purchase MaidSafe coins. If that rumor had any truth to it then it would explain the situation, otherwise I cannot explain the market behavior.
The coins that supposed was GOX coins was sent from a bitstamp address...
-
Adam when do you ‘bithause’ guys intend to list the Bitshares products on the exchange? Do you have a date already?
What bitshares products? Seems like they need to actually release before they can be included on an exchange.
On another note, I'm not a "bithaus guy" I'm not and have never been affiliated with bithaus outside of them asking me for investment and advice. I said no on investment and yes on advice.
Did you advise them for Bitshare products inclusion or against? After such shares become available off course.
-
Did you advise them for Bitshare products inclusion or against? After such shares become available off course.
Loaded question ???
-
Did you advise them for Bitshare products inclusion or against? After such shares become available off course.
Loaded question ???
I told them to not put all their eggs in one basket and to be a solution agnostic platform that would let them be friends and provide exchange services between all the protocols that seem worthwhile.
You seem to think I don't like Bitshares, why would you think that? I just don't like that every self imposed deadline has been blown and now we've put all our eggs in the DPOS basket which might work but might just as easily have a horrible glaring flaw that could not be foreseen because nobody has done it before. I would rather have launched the products as described (Keyhotee and Bitshares) then worked on obsoleting mining in subsequent rounds of innovation.
Bitshares is not being excluded or conspired against by anyone, there just isn't much to talk about and what there IS to talk about has been very poorly articulated by Invictus, mostly buried in these echo-chamber forums. When they have a great product and somehow nobody is including them in their exchange, then you can cry conspiracy. Until then the only people you should be complaining to are invictus for not having a product to even consider for inclusion.
-
Actually my response would have been:
“Secure your existence first. This can be done by lunching as soon as possible, caring existent product/s. i.e. NXT
BTSX seems great, but you better find a way to have some income while waiting. When Bitshares product comes to life, simply be prepared to add it to the exchange. “
‘You seem to think I don't like Bitshares’
No actually I feel the same tough love for them as you do, in many occasions much tougher. Most of the time, I think you speak my mind, just in better English. Your post regarding Maidsafe IPO is a clear exception though. But it is not here nor there.
-
Did you advise them for Bitshare products inclusion or against? After such shares become available off course.
Loaded question ???
I told them to not put all their eggs in one basket and to be a solution agnostic platform that would let them be friends and provide exchange services between all the protocols that seem worthwhile.
You seem to think I don't like Bitshares, why would you think that? I just don't like that every self imposed deadline has been blown and now we've put all our eggs in the DPOS basket which might work but might just as easily have a horrible glaring flaw that could not be foreseen because nobody has done it before. I would rather have launched the products as described (Keyhotee and Bitshares) then worked on obsoleting mining in subsequent rounds of innovation.
Bitshares is not being excluded or conspired against by anyone, there just isn't much to talk about and what there IS to talk about has been very poorly articulated by Invictus, mostly buried in these echo-chamber forums. When they have a great product and somehow nobody is including them in their exchange, then you can cry conspiracy. Until then the only people you should be complaining to are invictus for not having a product to even consider for inclusion.
I've asked this before a few times, so lets hope you do read this comment this time. Would you be prepared to discuss your points somewhere?
Your type of hit and run remarks are not really solving the "echo-chamber" problem you perceive, nor are they helping someone like me, who only joined the forums after the discussion you seem to have had, to understand the points you are trying to make. Also some of your points are not as clear cut to me as you make them out to be, such as the mining would have worked assumption. I also get the impression you always feel personally attacked and the need to defend yourself by attacking others when you post here.
I'm not saying this is what you meant to say, but without the rest of the information your post comes across as: You should have gone with mining, told you so and all the real information is buried on this forum because of all ya fanboys here talking nonsense.
You can't really blame people for not valuing your comments as much as you feel they should if you respond in this manner. You do not participate in the discussion following your comments and in just about every post you make you throw around some odd snide remarks geared toward the entirety of the forum members, or concentrate on persons instead of arguments. I think the way people respond to you and the voiced theories directed at your person are caused by the way you choose to "participate". You might have some very good and valid points, but what you're doing now only provokes irritation and makes you come across like a troll more than anything else, because you don't provide the information needed to understand your points.
Again this is not a conspiracy theory or a personal attack, I just want to understand what you're trying to say, but I don't think you're making that as easy as it could be.
-
now we've put all our eggs in the DPOS basket which might work but might just as easily have a horrible glaring flaw that could not be foreseen because nobody has done it before.
Higher risk = higher potential/odds for big profits...
"because nobody has done it before"
The greatest achievements in history was accomplished for that reason...
PS Of course fails too...
-
Honestly this seems like a normal market reaction to a too-concentrated launch on a product that most people do not understand.
I suppose the reason it dropped so much the last Days was the fact that mastercoin released just this days mastechest v0.4 (The Masterchest Windows Wallet v4.0 has been released supporting trading MSC/BTC on the Decentralized Exchange, and support for Smart Property balances and SP sending.) That means until now the majority of maidsafecoins holders was traped with masterchest v0.3 that had not the option to send the maidsafecoins to an exchange (https://masterxchange.com/market.php?currency=maid (https://masterxchange.com/market.php?currency=maid)) to sell them until this days... 3 weeks after the IPO !!! In the meantime the insiders who had that knowlledge, (that they would delay v0.4) and don't made the donations with masterchest v0.3 on 22 April (IPO launch), had all the time to dump slowly their coins with about 40% gains until this days... Now where the majority of insiders is satisfied, they release masterchest v0.4 so we the litle poor suckers can sell our coins too BUT with a loss or at best (if we pray hard to God) we get our money back .... Conclusion ... Guys invest only on BitShares*, enough with shitcoins and shitprojects** experimentation... at least the devs on bitshares are trustworthy and honest or if you preffer not so greedy like elsewhere... you can not make a big mistake here! Even the PTS are more stable than bitcoin the last months (and that's before the release of BTSX ! ... think about it!)...
*Yes AdamBLevine, the eggs in one fucking good basket
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTr2OvkZIRBBpY_C4OG7dZrPoh8MJuCFahGH9sM1uyW65Nb2_6jRA)
** EDIT I wanted to say shit-IPOs the project seem's realy good that's why I have personally invested too, not knowing of course that they will change the rules 1 hour after the fundraising started
-
Just reloaded with loads of PTS!
-
I don't understand why someone would load lots of PTS instead of donate to loads of AGS...
Since you believe in the future DACS why pay something for $3.5 dollars instead of AGS worth less than $1? The only advantage of PTS is the liquidity and trading by speculating on the price, but if DACs are released and worth something is it not better to have as much as shares as possible?
What am I missing here?
-
.... Conclusion ... Guys invest only on BitShares*, enough with shitcoins and shitprojects experimentation... at least the devs on bitshares are trustworthy and honest or if you preffer not so greedy like elsewhere... you can not make a big mistake here!
Such comments do BitShares no favours. Saying shit doesn't make it true. Brag about it once you have a working product. Talk is cheap etc. Making empty promises is more likely to put people off than attract them.
There is market space for all meta coins to do well, you don't have to put down the competition; doing so only makes you appear weak. Some meta coins are showing real promise and are delivering capability now and several will be real contenders. Perhaps some will then compete with BitShares own features but that challenge only makes you stronger. If BitShares is to be so much better, let it do the talking.
Also, you evidently haven't looked into the background of MaidSafe; it looks like a remarkable project with real potential and many years of support - just consider the academic outputs and patents alone. Google Scholar search suggests 76 results (http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=maidsafe) (BitShares gets 2). As such, of course, the usual pump and dump crowd will miss the point but who needs them coasting on a free ride.
While I'm here, I didn't want to post a simple 'me too' post but impressed with AdamBLevine's reply above, as that's spot on. DPOS is ambitious and I'm keen to see BitShares deliver a first product.
-
I don't understand why someone would load lots of PTS instead of donate to loads of AGS...
Since you believe in the future DACS why pay something for $3.5 dollars instead of AGS worth less than $1? The only advantage of PTS is the liquidity and trading by speculating on the price, but if DACs are released and worth something is it not better to have as much as shares as possible?
What am I missing here?
I can buying AGS via PTS! Plus I can sell some if/when price goes up pre-DNS and pre-ME snapshot!
-
I can buying AGS via PTS! Plus I can sell some if/when price goes up pre-DNS and pre-ME snapshot!
There must be a value for PTS associated with DPOS when this is implemented and I would like some more elaboration on that value since I am not a tech guy and I don't understand these things ::)...
Otherwise I would prefer help the development and have some restrictions in my short term liquidity (AGS) than to try to beat the market for trading PTS. Although I can understand the frustration and some people don't support much AGS as they should...
-
Such comments do BitShares no favours. Saying shit doesn't make it true. Brag about it once you have a working product. Talk is cheap etc. Making empty promises is more likely to put people off than attract them.
If I would be one of the founder's or dev's of the project I would probably agree ... But I am not...
But even if I have the power to attract people or put them off because of my quotes... then I will probably use my talent more often :)
PS xeroc buyed allready more PTS... :P ;)
-
Such comments do BitShares no favours. Saying shit doesn't make it true. Brag about it once you have a working product. Talk is cheap etc. Making empty promises is more likely to put people off than attract them.
If I would be one of the founder's or dev's of the project I would probably agree ... But I am not...
But even if I have the power to attract people or put them off because of my quotes... then I will probably use my talent more often :)
PS xeroc buyed allready more PTS... :P ;)
That was a simple statement of the perception such chatter has, rather than suggesting you carry that responsibility. It also happens to be a direct quote I put to eMunie, since I saw the same nonsense there.
-
Did you advise them for Bitshare products inclusion or against? After such shares become available off course.
Loaded question ???
I told them to not put all their eggs in one basket and to be a solution agnostic platform that would let them be friends and provide exchange services between all the protocols that seem worthwhile.
You seem to think I don't like Bitshares, why would you think that? I just don't like that every self imposed deadline has been blown and now we've put all our eggs in the DPOS basket which might work but might just as easily have a horrible glaring flaw that could not be foreseen because nobody has done it before. I would rather have launched the products as described (Keyhotee and Bitshares) then worked on obsoleting mining in subsequent rounds of innovation.
Bitshares is not being excluded or conspired against by anyone, there just isn't much to talk about and what there IS to talk about has been very poorly articulated by Invictus, mostly buried in these echo-chamber forums. When they have a great product and somehow nobody is including them in their exchange, then you can cry conspiracy. Until then the only people you should be complaining to are invictus for not having a product to even consider for inclusion.
I've asked this before a few times, so lets hope you do read this comment this time. Would you be prepared to discuss your points somewhere?
Your type of hit and run remarks are not really solving the "echo-chamber" problem you perceive, nor are they helping someone like me, who only joined the forums after the discussion you seem to have had, to understand the points you are trying to make. Also some of your points are not as clear cut to me as you make them out to be, such as the mining would have worked assumption. I also get the impression you always feel personally attacked and the need to defend yourself by attacking others when you post here.
I'm not saying this is what you meant to say, but without the rest of the information your post comes across as: You should have gone with mining, told you so and all the real information is buried on this forum because of all ya fanboys here talking nonsense.
You can't really blame people for not valuing your comments as much as you feel they should if you respond in this manner. You do not participate in the discussion following your comments and in just about every post you make you throw around some odd snide remarks geared toward the entirety of the forum members, or concentrate on persons instead of arguments. I think the way people respond to you and the voiced theories directed at your person are caused by the way you choose to "participate". You might have some very good and valid points, but what you're doing now only provokes irritation and makes you come across like a troll more than anything else, because you don't provide the information needed to understand your points.
Again this is not a conspiracy theory or a personal attack, I just want to understand what you're trying to say, but I don't think you're making that as easy as it could be.
I don't really care if you value my comments or not, I'm putting my complaints and suggestions on the record. You can read my entire posting history and see all the context of my current irritation with Invictus. If you have specific questions I'm happy to educate.
-
I saw the same nonsense there.
(http://www.weirdexistence.com/img/fun/this-is-sparta/this-is-sparta05.jpg)
-
Such comments do BitShares no favours. Saying shit doesn't make it true. Brag about it once you have a working product. Talk is cheap etc. Making empty promises is more likely to put people off than attract them.
If I would be one of the founder's or dev's of the project I would probably agree ... But I am not...
But even if I have the power to attract people or put them off because of my quotes... then I will probably use my talent more often :)
PS xeroc buyed allready more PTS... :P ;)
At what point do the dev's look at each other in the room and say, geez guys we have missed all of our deadlines and other competing companies are releasing products and gaining market traction. You can have the most revolutionary piece of tech but if you show up to the party after everyone leaves well you are just standing in a room by yourself saying, "hey everyone look at my great product".
-
I don't really care if you value my comments or not, I'm putting my complaints and suggestions on the record. You can read my entire posting history and see all the context of my current irritation with Invictus. If you have specific questions I'm happy to educate.
Nice.
For the record I did try asking nicely with sugar on top and this is your response. Sorry if I'm not part of your little club, but why in hell should I be bothered wasting my time researching each and every posts from someone who can't be bothered to explain his current comments or respond in a normal way. So if you don't care if your points come across, you consequently can't blame people for ignoring what you write.
Why would I want to be "educated" by you anyway, are you some computer science super genius or Nobel-price winner for economics? The whole reason I wanted to discus things with you is because I think you made some factual errors and that there are some actual real technical reasons why things can't work the way you want them to. I'm not particularly interested in a lesson in arrogance, I had my fair share of that in university.
-
At what point do the dev's look at each other in the room and say, geez guys we have missed all of our deadlines and other competing companies are releasing products and gaining market traction. You can have the most revolutionary piece of tech but if you show up to the party after everyone leaves well you are just standing in a room by yourself saying, "hey everyone look at my great product".
OK, they're late, I get it. But the other 2.0's you mention have all been flawed. If Bitshares gets this right, it will trounce the "competition". I'd rather they get it right than hurry something that has to keep rebooting/retooling/remarketing itself each time it upgrades. The real party has not yet begun.
-
I don't really care if you value my comments or not, I'm putting my complaints and suggestions on the record. You can read my entire posting history and see all the context of my current irritation with Invictus. If you have specific questions I'm happy to educate.
Nice.
For the record I did try asking nicely with sugar on top and this is your response. Sorry if I'm not part of your little club, but why in hell should I be bothered wasting my time researching each and every posts from someone who can't be bothered to explain his current comments or respond in a normal way. So if you don't care if your points come across, you consequently can't blame people for ignoring what you write.
Why would I want to be "educated" by you anyway, are you some computer science super genius or Nobel-price winner for economics? The whole reason I wanted to discus things with you is because I think you made some factual errors and that there are some actual real technical reasons why things can't work the way you want them to. I'm not particularly interested in a lesson in arrogance, I had my fair share of that in university.
It seems like you're taking things really personally, what exactly did I say that offended you? I assumed you didn't want to take the time to get the full picture, which is why I offered to answer any specific questions you might have had. Answering your question about stuff that I've taken the time to learn about and you haven't sure seems like education to me and yet you bristle at the term.
Did you actually have any question, or do you just like complaining about me?
-
I don't really care if you value my comments or not, I'm putting my complaints and suggestions on the record. You can read my entire posting history and see all the context of my current irritation with Invictus. If you have specific questions I'm happy to educate.
Nice.
For the record I did try asking nicely with sugar on top and this is your response. Sorry if I'm not part of your little club, but why in hell should I be bothered wasting my time researching each and every posts from someone who can't be bothered to explain his current comments or respond in a normal way. So if you don't care if your points come across, you consequently can't blame people for ignoring what you write.
Why would I want to be "educated" by you anyway, are you some computer science super genius or Nobel-price winner for economics? The whole reason I wanted to discus things with you is because I think you made some factual errors and that there are some actual real technical reasons why things can't work the way you want them to. I'm not particularly interested in a lesson in arrogance, I had my fair share of that in university.
It seems like you're taking things really personally, what exactly did I say that offended you? I assumed you didn't want to take the time to get the full picture, which is why I offered to answer any specific questions you might have had. Answering your question about stuff that I've taken the time to learn about and you haven't sure seems like education to me and yet you bristle at the term.
Did you actually have any question, or do you just like complaining about me?
Adam is his own echo chamber
-
I don't really care if you value my comments or not, I'm putting my complaints and suggestions on the record. You can read my entire posting history and see all the context of my current irritation with Invictus. If you have specific questions I'm happy to educate.
Nice.
For the record I did try asking nicely with sugar on top and this is your response. Sorry if I'm not part of your little club, but why in hell should I be bothered wasting my time researching each and every posts from someone who can't be bothered to explain his current comments or respond in a normal way. So if you don't care if your points come across, you consequently can't blame people for ignoring what you write.
Why would I want to be "educated" by you anyway, are you some computer science super genius or Nobel-price winner for economics? The whole reason I wanted to discus things with you is because I think you made some factual errors and that there are some actual real technical reasons why things can't work the way you want them to. I'm not particularly interested in a lesson in arrogance, I had my fair share of that in university.
It seems like you're taking things really personally, what exactly did I say that offended you? I assumed you didn't want to take the time to get the full picture, which is why I offered to answer any specific questions you might have had. Answering your question about stuff that I've taken the time to learn about and you haven't sure seems like education to me and yet you bristle at the term.
Did you actually have any question, or do you just like complaining about me?
Adam is his own echo chamber
It sometimes feels that way.
-
I don't really care if you value my comments or not, I'm putting my complaints and suggestions on the record. You can read my entire posting history and see all the context of my current irritation with Invictus. If you have specific questions I'm happy to educate.
Nice.
For the record I did try asking nicely with sugar on top and this is your response. Sorry if I'm not part of your little club, but why in hell should I be bothered wasting my time researching each and every posts from someone who can't be bothered to explain his current comments or respond in a normal way. So if you don't care if your points come across, you consequently can't blame people for ignoring what you write.
Why would I want to be "educated" by you anyway, are you some computer science super genius or Nobel-price winner for economics? The whole reason I wanted to discus things with you is because I think you made some factual errors and that there are some actual real technical reasons why things can't work the way you want them to. I'm not particularly interested in a lesson in arrogance, I had my fair share of that in university.
It seems like you're taking things really personally, what exactly did I say that offended you? I assumed you didn't want to take the time to get the full picture, which is why I offered to answer any specific questions you might have had. Answering your question about stuff that I've taken the time to learn about and you haven't sure seems like education to me and yet you bristle at the term.
Did you actually have any question, or do you just like complaining about me?
Adam is his own echo chamber
It sometimes feels that way.
I think this is like the old stock market where people curse at each other across the floor along with placing bids and sell orders
This is what I think...things are going fine, but most people are not that patient when used to seeing pump and dump coins coming up a dime a dozen and holding solid market caps despite little attempt at true innovation in the space.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3812.msg58018#msg58018 is an update on progress. DPOS is where I would like BTS to exist, at least if it works as planned. If not, I'm sure they will try something else to attempt to achieve a similar effect. Should be an interesting run of things though...
-
I think this is like the old stock market where people curse at each other across the floor along with placing bids and sell orders
Perhaps, though it's possible not everyone has capability - there might be a third group that feels excluded. It's more likely that group will include the young frustrated, that we might hope would become more engaged in future. Tolerate the memes then ;D
-
DPOS is where I would like BTS to exist, at least if it works as planned. If not, I'm sure they will try something else to attempt to achieve a similar effect. Should be an interesting run of things though...
+5% +5% +5%
-
At what point do the dev's look at each other in the room and say, geez guys we have missed all of our deadlines and other competing companies are releasing products and gaining market traction. You can have the most revolutionary piece of tech but if you show up to the party after everyone leaves well you are just standing in a room by yourself saying, "hey everyone look at my great product".
OK, they're late, I get it. But the other 2.0's you mention have all been flawed. If Bitshares gets this right, it will trounce the "competition". I'd rather they get it right than hurry something that has to keep rebooting/retooling/remarketing itself each time it upgrades. The real party has not yet begun.
Do you think it is maybe a good idea to release a slightly flawed product and work out the bugs on the fly? The point I am trying to make is that if you wait too long and there are other products out there that do basically the same thing. That consumer's get used to using they will just stick with what they have been using even though there may be a better alternative.
I am a long term PTS holder and I believe in the company but I think not releasing a product when others in the same market are is a slippery slope. Look at gaming consoles, They are always released roughly around the same time of each other. If one company beats another to the market then that gives company a. traction with consumers. Now it does not always mean company a. will be better then company b. it just means they have a advantage that increases ever day.
-
IMO, a product with flaws must be corrected before launch. It will define the utmost stability and integrity of a product or service. Bytemaster is doing a great job so as the rest of the team. Focusing on one product though is a top priority to launch and it is a must. Building the confidence of investors would in effect be a momentum boost for PTS and AGS.
-
I don't really care if you value my comments or not, I'm putting my complaints and suggestions on the record. You can read my entire posting history and see all the context of my current irritation with Invictus. If you have specific questions I'm happy to educate.
Nice.
For the record I did try asking nicely with sugar on top and this is your response. Sorry if I'm not part of your little club, but why in hell should I be bothered wasting my time researching each and every posts from someone who can't be bothered to explain his current comments or respond in a normal way. So if you don't care if your points come across, you consequently can't blame people for ignoring what you write.
Why would I want to be "educated" by you anyway, are you some computer science super genius or Nobel-price winner for economics? The whole reason I wanted to discus things with you is because I think you made some factual errors and that there are some actual real technical reasons why things can't work the way you want them to. I'm not particularly interested in a lesson in arrogance, I had my fair share of that in university.
It seems like you're taking things really personally, what exactly did I say that offended you? I assumed you didn't want to take the time to get the full picture, which is why I offered to answer any specific questions you might have had. Answering your question about stuff that I've taken the time to learn about and you haven't sure seems like education to me and yet you bristle at the term.
Did you actually have any question, or do you just like complaining about me?
I'm not a native English speaker and was neither offended nor addressing you personally, which I think is impossible to do via forums anyway. It seems I completely failed in trying to communicate what I was trying to say, so I'll try again and add some specific examples, even-though I still think it would have been better to do so in a separate thread, instead of in response to a completely unrelated topic.
In your comments you assume too much and that is the very definition of arrogance (google translate assumption -> latin) and it gets in the way of some of the valid points you make and in the discussion afterwards.
I agree with most of your points about Invictus dropping the ball in regards to marketing, stimulating community involvement, attracting investment etcetera. However at the same time you completely destroy those points by stating as facts some of your personal assumptions that are dubious to say the least.
For example the statement that everything would have worked out fine if Invictus would have stuck to the plan. This is however not corroborated by any facts. Plans fail the moment you execute them and you are supposed to adapt after that. What you most definitely should not do, is stick to the plan after it failed. While you might have missed the statements Dan Larimer made regarding this and I agree that Invictus could and should have done a better job at communicating the reasons for the change of plans, your alternate, oversimplified and personal version of the situation does more harm then good at clearing things up.
Your proposed solution of going with some multi-staged, patch-work, unmaintainable, easily attacked and guaranteed to fail pow-blockchain and then migrating to a new POS-system, sounds completely ludicrous. If Invictus had gone that Dr. Frankenstein route I would have had no faith in their abilities and walked away laughing. Talk about waste of time, effort and resources and suicidal pr move.
Also I don't get what your beef with the AGS fundraiser is, especially seeing how PTS is still there. I have yet to see a better solution for a public fundraiser anywhere else. I have not seen any evidence as of yet of Invictus being particularly frugal or irresponsible with those funds, but I'd be more than happy to be enlightened if you have some information we mere forum-dwellers do not.
Again I'd rather have the discussion about the past, present and future failings of Invictus in a dedicated thread with all information easily accessible, instead of having to tell people to read someones entire post history, expect them to wade to an unholy amount of incoherent and irrelevant rubbish and then suggest to enlighten them should they prove to be too stupid to know what I mean. Your posts should stand on their own and not need to be unlocked by your own personal "expertise", because as you say your person should be completely irrelevant to the discussion.
-
Do you think it is maybe a good idea to release a slightly flawed product and work out the bugs on the fly? The point I am trying to make is that if you wait too long and there are other products out there that do basically the same thing. That consumer's get used to using they will just stick with what they have been using even though there may be a better alternative.
I am a long term PTS holder and I believe in the company but I think not releasing a product when others in the same market are is a slippery slope. Look at gaming consoles, They are always released roughly around the same time of each other. If one company beats another to the market then that gives company a. traction with consumers. Now it does not always mean company a. will be better then company b. it just means they have a advantage that increases ever day.
But when one company comes up with a truly better mousetrap, or video game, it can trounce the competition and reform the industry. I think it is a good idea to let people do their jobs without a lot of interference. Because they know their jobs better than I do.
-
JoeyD:
I'm not a native English speaker and was neither offended nor addressing you personally, which I think is impossible to do via forums anyway. It seems I completely failed in trying to communicate what I was trying to say, so I'll try again and add some specific examples, even-though I still think it would have been better to do so in a separate thread, instead of in response to a completely unrelated topic.
Adam:
Ok
In your comments you assume too much and that is the very definition of arrogance (google translate assumption -> latin) and it gets in the way of some of the valid points you make and in the discussion afterwards.
Ok, you think I'm arrogant.
I agree with most of your points about Invictus dropping the ball in regards to marketing, stimulating community involvement, attracting investment etcetera. However at the same time you completely destroy those points by stating as facts some of your personal assumptions that are dubious to say the least.
Okay, so you agree with all of my arguements except the ones you don't and the ones you don't agree with invalidate all the things you think I'm right about.
For example the statement that everything would have worked out fine if Invictus would have stuck to the plan. This is however not corroborated by any facts. Plans fail the moment you execute them and you are supposed to adapt after that. What you most definitely should not do, is stick to the plan after it failed. While you might have missed the statements Dan Larimer made regarding this and I agree that Invictus could and should have done a better job at communicating the reasons for the change of plans, your alternate, oversimplified and personal version of the situation does more harm then good at clearing things up.
I am not claiming everything will work out to the letter, I am saying it is much less risky and speculative to attack the problems Bitshares intended (hedging, asset issuance, DNS registration, etc.) Here's a talk given by Daniel and Charles revealing the project, see how many times they talk about the need to replace mining as the transactional processing layer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKfzA4Y36kk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKfzA4Y36kk). It's not there, because that wasn't the point of the project until it became the entire focus, making it a dramatically different project.
Your proposed solution of going with some multi-staged, patch-work, unmaintainable, easily attacked and guaranteed to fail pow-blockchain and then migrating to a new POS-system, sounds completely ludicrous. If Invictus had gone that Dr. Frankenstein route I would have had no faith in their abilities and walked away laughing. Talk about waste of time, effort and resources and suicidal pr move.
My proposal was to solve the problems the Bitshares project and Invictus said they were trying to solve while doing this research into new experimental types of transaction processing. I'm not saying it's bad no matter what happens, just over and over again that it's an unneccesary risk to take when there are options that can suffice through the alpha period. This is EXACTLY what Ethereum has done, they have not decided on their proof of work because that's a hard question to answer so they are using I think SHA while developing several alternative solutions. They're on their fourth public, networked alpha because of this decision. If they had waited until the ultimate mining solution they're going to use was released, they would be months behind in terms of external development... Sorta like Bitshares...
What criteria you use to judge invictus is of course your own decision, but I would have rather seen steady, incremental releases built on proven tech while having alternate teams (you know, what we're supposed to have given them funds for Angelshares to make happen) work on the revolutionary game changing tech. It is *not* difficult to migrate from one blockchain to another, a blockchain is a giant ledger. Proof of burn (or "token swap") makes this process easy, and frankly Invictus has already said they'll be doing something exactly like this when they move Protoshares onto the new technology so we're arguing about the volume, not the tune.
Also I don't get what your beef with the AGS fundraiser is, especially seeing how PTS is still there. I have yet to see a better solution for a public fundraiser anywhere else. I have not seen any evidence as of yet of Invictus being particularly frugal or irresponsible with those funds, but I'd be more than happy to be enlightened if you have some information we mere forum-dwellers do not.
When I invested in PTS, the deal was PTS got 20% and people with normal computers would mine the other 80%. Heavily featured in the original marketing was the fact that Protoshares was an investment you could acquire through non-monetary means, which is to say you could run it on your computer and earn your shares instead of needing to buy them.
That 80% was important to me, because I thought that Mastercoin had run into a fundamental problem in pre-selling ALL of the tokens which meant lots of people didn't like the project because they wern't invested in it and hadn't bothered to understand it.
Invictus's solution allowed them to raise funds and pre-price the Bitshares ecosystem investment through Protoshares which would then make it easier for them to raise money since their not-even-released product had a good market valuation. Daniel, feel free to correct me on anything I'm wrong about here.
So when Angelshares came into play, that ratio went from mostly vesting stakeholders for "work" to vesting stakeholders for paying Invictus. Because that "for your work" segment is no longer available, having been sold by Invictus, it means anybody coming into Bitshares now will have to buy them for real money up front instead of being able to just participate and be compensated at a minimal level as was promised.
Do you understand why Angelshares was bad for marketing when looking at it through my perspective?
Angelshares has been bad for the community for reason I've already described in detail - You said you agree with my stance about community involvement above but here you've said you don't know what my beef with Angelshares is. Do you now understand?
Again I'd rather have the discussion about the past, present and future failings of Invictus in a dedicated thread with all information easily accessible, instead of having to tell people to read someones entire post history, expect them to wade to an unholy amount of incoherent and irrelevant rubbish and then suggest to enlighten them should they prove to be too stupid to know what I mean. Your posts should stand on their own and not need to be unlocked by your own personal "expertise", because as you say your person should be completely irrelevant to the discussion.
The reason I know so much about Bitshares and frankly all the other projects interesting to me is because I spend much of my time absorbing all the information, discussions, ideas and activity around all of them. You are free to ignore me, I have not spoken to you once when you have not initiated.
I don't want this to be about me, so I don't want to start a post. I have articulated all of my concerns to Daniel, Stan and Invictus broadly since november when I told Daniel it was not necessary for Protoshares to be 100% open mining for it to be "fair" since the thing giving it value in the first place was his company. I've tried it before being both helpful and critical and it never helps. So now I post to educate people because they clearly do not understand the long term context of this project. If you got excited about Bitshares because of DPOS, this is your project now for better or worse.
The worst part about all of this is, there's no more margin for error. DPOS MUST work because so much time has been invested in this pivot after the previous pivot, TAPOS, ran into unforeseen, intractable problems. Right or wrong, Invictus took this risk for all of us.
-
Come on Adam, give them a break, their flagship product is proving that people would bet their money in attempt to appreciate, a piece of paper stating it is $1 virtual dollar, at $1. It will be a great success if they succeed no matter how much time/designing iterations /money/bullshit-ing in the forums it takes.
-
+plus .. releasing a blockchain is worth investigatin alot. I do not want a blockchain i.e. protocol to change after launch!!!!
-
So when Angelshares came into play, that ratio went from mostly vesting stakeholders for "work" to vesting stakeholders for paying Invictus. Because that "for your work" segment is no longer available, having been sold by Invictus, it means anybody coming into Bitshares now will have to buy them for real money up front instead of being able to just participate and be compensated at a minimal level as was promised.
Adam it appears you are blind to the mining farms that control things these days. Doing worthless work and paying for it destroys value and produces nothing. Apparently you feel people should pay electric companies rather than giving the money to us. Either way it is charity. Everyone already had to buy them for real with money up front... also, PTS mining is still available for people that think like you.
Lastly we only ever said 10% and never the 20% number you mentioned.
Bottom line: mining difficulty would increase with the value of our idea and thus consume 100% of the millions of dollars contributed to this idea allowing those who operate large mining farms (like you did early on) to profit. You told me you made more money from PTS in 2 weeks than you did with LTB in any month. You were working with large mining operations acquiring and reselling to major players in the market a very large percentage of the PTS being mined every day. In fact, I would venture to say that you may have made more from PTS than I did.
So from where I sit, it seems you very much liked the idea of profiting from being the middle man between the mass-production miners and the average guy on the street who has to buy from you because mining is way to slow or difficult to purchase more than a token amount (equal to perhaps 3x your power bill).
So we cut out the middle man (you) and those doing worthless work (mass miners) and 'sold' direct to consumers which then gives us money that is is being spent to increase the value of what they received where as the money they gave you and the mass miners did nothing to help their investment succeed.
-
So when Angelshares came into play, that ratio went from mostly vesting stakeholders for "work" to vesting stakeholders for paying Invictus. Because that "for your work" segment is no longer available, having been sold by Invictus, it means anybody coming into Bitshares now will have to buy them for real money up front instead of being able to just participate and be compensated at a minimal level as was promised.
Adam it appears you are blind to the mining farms that control things these days. Doing worthless work and paying for it destroys value and produces nothing. Apparently you feel people should pay electric companies rather than giving the money to us. Either way it is charity. Everyone already had to buy them for real with money up front... also, PTS mining is still available for people that think like you.
Lastly we only ever said 10% and never the 20% number you mentioned.
Bottom line: mining difficulty would increase with the value of our idea and thus consume 100% of the millions of dollars contributed to this idea allowing those who operate large mining farms (like you did early on) to profit. You told me you made more money from PTS in 2 weeks than you did with LTB in any month. You were working with large mining operations acquiring and reselling to major players in the market a very large percentage of the PTS being mined every day. In fact, I would venture to say that you may have made more from PTS than I did.
So from where I sit, it seems you very much liked the idea of profiting from being the middle man between the mass-production miners and the average guy on the street who has to buy from you because mining is way to slow or difficult to purchase more than a token amount (equal to perhaps 3x your power bill).
So we cut out the middle man (you) and those doing worthless work (mass miners) and 'sold' direct to consumers which then gives us money that is is being spent to increase the value of what they received where as the money they gave you and the mass miners did nothing to help their investment succeed.
make sense +5%
-
So when Angelshares came into play, that ratio went from mostly vesting stakeholders for "work" to vesting stakeholders for paying Invictus. Because that "for your work" segment is no longer available, having been sold by Invictus, it means anybody coming into Bitshares now will have to buy them for real money up front instead of being able to just participate and be compensated at a minimal level as was promised.
Adam it appears you are blind to the mining farms that control things these days. Doing worthless work and paying for it destroys value and produces nothing. Apparently you feel people should pay electric companies rather than giving the money to us. Either way it is charity. Everyone already had to buy them for real with money up front... also, PTS mining is still available for people that think like you.
Lastly we only ever said 10% and never the 20% number you mentioned.
Bottom line: mining difficulty would increase with the value of our idea and thus consume 100% of the millions of dollars contributed to this idea allowing those who operate large mining farms (like you did early on) to profit. You told me you made more money from PTS in 2 weeks than you did with LTB in any month. You were working with large mining operations acquiring and reselling to major players in the market a very large percentage of the PTS being mined every day. In fact, I would venture to say that you may have made more from PTS than I did.
So from where I sit, it seems you very much liked the idea of profiting from being the middle man between the mass-production miners and the average guy on the street who has to buy from you because mining is way to slow or difficult to purchase more than a token amount (equal to perhaps 3x your power bill).
So we cut out the middle man (you) and those doing worthless work (mass miners) and 'sold' direct to consumers which then gives us money that is is being spent to increase the value of what they received where as the money they gave you and the mass miners did nothing to help their investment succeed.
You're correct on the 10% vs. 20%, that was a mis-rememberence on my part.
Regarding the rest of it, wow Daniel, you really think I'm a greedy asshole, I had no idea.
In case anybody is wondering, I went by Lighthouse (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=13;area=showposts;start=360) on the forums and was the first member providing escrow and large volume transaction at a time when Protoshares was not listed on any exchanges and had many scammers stealing bitcoin or PTS from new users.
Taking this role, even under a completely reputation-less name led me to becoming a broker for a single large miner who contacted me on the forums (I openly bought from all miners and subsequently met a lot of them). All of my trades happened before November 18th, so less than two weeks after launch and well before the move away from POW was discussed.
I performed this service until it stopped being required, and then I stopped performing it because I was only doing it to provide the trust to enable the market. Actually you Daniel were my last volume customer, and were my most frequent customer so really it seems like you would only have paid me if I was providing you a service.
Why would you have bought from me if I was exploitative, did I have a monopoly? Was I even mining myself? No. Nobody even knew I have a show, which is why I didn't use my real name. Later I switched to my real name because I wanted my concerns to be on the record because it was obvious Invictus was missing deadlines and not responding to gentle prodding.
So thanks for giving just enough information that I need to out myself in order to provide proper context to defend my reputation.
So from where I sit, it seems you very much liked the idea of profiting from being the middle man between the mass-production miners and the average guy on the street who has to buy from you because mining is way to slow or difficult to purchase more than a token amount (equal to perhaps 3x your power bill).
Having read my perspective, I hope that you correct this assessment. I very much liked the idea of the Bitshares project as it was described which involved a minority of shares being designated for the PTS holders and most of them available to people through non-monetary means. The goal was to make it so everyone could mine, remember? I don't really get how mis-calibrating the first attempt means you throw out the entire notion and come up with something new.
Hell, I'm not even against coming up with something new - I just don't understand why it took precedence over developing the core Bitshares technology which is based around assets, betting etc. Nothing to do with transactional lower level stuff.
I think I've made my case really clearly Daniel, you quoted one small section of my very long and detailed reply and then dismissed my entire perspective by dropping incomplete disclosure of previously non-public information . Do you have any responses to the actual meat of it, or are we just throwing mud at this point?
Also, are all off-the-record conversations now on-the-record?
-
Adam,
I don't think you are a greedy asshole and obviously your service was very much appreciated under that model. My only point was that even in the middle of things where you had first hand knowledge of how mining was really distributing the PTS you still favor it as a distribution model. To think that you could solve this by technical means is a testament to it not being your area of expertise.
You had no need to out yourself to defend yourself. When I mentioned you above, I was merely pointing out that you have performed that function and that if you don't perform it then someone else will (Cryptsy, Bter, etc).
I and others on this forum have a very hard time understanding you and your motivations because you say you support BTS and want us to be successful and then show up as the most controversial member on the forum. I know it isn't me because everyone else is confused about your stance.
I am a firm believer in not making assumptions about peoples motives and to the extent that I do that I apologize. In these forums most of what we see is projection from ourself onto what others are saying. Learning to recognize that it applies to yourself and others could help keep things civil and productive in conversations.
-
So from where I sit, it seems you very much liked the idea of profiting from being the middle man between the mass-production miners and the average guy on the street who has to buy from you because mining is way to slow or difficult to purchase more than a token amount (equal to perhaps 3x your power bill).
Yeah, that was a cheap shot... and actually doesn't reflect what I really think because I know you better. But if I were an independent onlooker it is the conclusion I would draw if I wanted to make assumptions about your motivations. Nothing else makes sense and that is why I am so confused by you.
I know you intend well and have good motives and are an honorable man but for the life of me the things you say on this forum confuse me.
-
Adam,
I don't think you are a greedy asshole and obviously your service was very much appreciated under that model. My only point was that even in the middle of things where you had first hand knowledge of how mining was really distributing the PTS you still favor it as a distribution model. To think that you could solve this by technical means is a testament to it not being your area of expertise.
You had no need to out yourself to defend yourself. When I mentioned you above, I was merely pointing out that you have performed that function and that if you don't perform it then someone else will (Cryptsy, Bter, etc).
I and others on this forum have a very hard time understanding you and your motivations because you say you support BTS and want us to be successful and then show up as the most controversial member on the forum. I know it isn't me because everyone else is confused about your stance.
I am a firm believer in not making assumptions about peoples motives and to the extent that I do that I apologize. In these forums most of what we see is projection from ourself onto what others are saying. Learning to recognize that it applies to yourself and others could help keep things civil and productive in conversations.
A big part of the Bitshares project was to make mining so that a person with a normal computer could do it. I thought PTS was the first experiment in this, not the only one. When it failed, I expected you to figure out another way to give people stake in Bitshares without asking them for cash money because it seemed like that was an important part of the strategy that was being wholly discarded because you improperly anticipated demand. Do I remember that wrong?
I am the most controversial member of this forum (if you say so) because this forum is very hostile to users who do not think you know absolutely what you're doing. Look through old posts, you'll find them and note that they all left. Most people pick a project, maybe two and stick with it. I pick all the projects, invest in them all and try to help them all when they are doing the wrong thing. Look at NXT or Counterparty's forums and you'll see the same thing. I don't currently comment on Ethereum because they're doing just fine.
I'm sorry I don't think you're doing a great job with Invictus, I really really don't. This project is by far in last place when compared against the serious players in the space and impugning my motives just further pushes away one of your biggest supporters.
So from where I sit, it seems you very much liked the idea of profiting from being the middle man between the mass-production miners and the average guy on the street who has to buy from you because mining is way to slow or difficult to purchase more than a token amount (equal to perhaps 3x your power bill).
Yeah, that was a cheap shot... and actually doesn't reflect what I really think because I know you better. But if I were an independent onlooker it is the conclusion I would draw if I wanted to make assumptions about your motivations. Nothing else makes sense and that is why I am so confused by you.
I know you intend well and have good motives and are an honorable man but for the life of me the things you say on this forum confuse me.
My motives are simple, I disagree with the direction and think people have lost sight of the original vision because all the critical observers like myself have left since they have other options of projects to spend their time on.
I appreciate the clarification, I was pretty shocked that you would think that about me.
-
(https://cdn.tutsplus.com/active/uploads/legacy/articles/098_utopiaMiningCritique/utopia-mining-07.png)
-
So when Angelshares came into play, that ratio went from mostly vesting stakeholders for "work" to vesting stakeholders for paying Invictus. Because that "for your work" segment is no longer available, having been sold by Invictus, it means anybody coming into Bitshares now will have to buy them for real money up front instead of being able to just participate and be compensated at a minimal level as was promised.
Adam it appears you are blind to the mining farms that control things these days. Doing worthless work and paying for it destroys value and produces nothing. Apparently you feel people should pay electric companies rather than giving the money to us. Either way it is charity. Everyone already had to buy them for real with money up front... also, PTS mining is still available for people that think like you.
Lastly we only ever said 10% and never the 20% number you mentioned.
Bottom line: mining difficulty would increase with the value of our idea and thus consume 100% of the millions of dollars contributed to this idea allowing those who operate large mining farms (like you did early on) to profit. You told me you made more money from PTS in 2 weeks than you did with LTB in any month. You were working with large mining operations acquiring and reselling to major players in the market a very large percentage of the PTS being mined every day. In fact, I would venture to say that you may have made more from PTS than I did.
So from where I sit, it seems you very much liked the idea of profiting from being the middle man between the mass-production miners and the average guy on the street who has to buy from you because mining is way to slow or difficult to purchase more than a token amount (equal to perhaps 3x your power bill).
So we cut out the middle man (you) and those doing worthless work (mass miners) and 'sold' direct to consumers which then gives us money that is is being spent to increase the value of what they received where as the money they gave you and the mass miners did nothing to help their investment succeed.
You're correct on the 10% vs. 20%, that was a mis-rememberence on my part.
Regarding the rest of it, wow Daniel, you really think I'm a greedy asshole, I had no idea.
In case anybody is wondering, I went by Lighthouse (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=13;area=showposts;start=360) on the forums and was the first member providing escrow and large volume transaction at a time when Protoshares was not listed on any exchanges and had many scammers stealing bitcoin or PTS from new users.
Taking this role, even under a completely reputation-less name led me to becoming a broker for a single large miner who contacted me on the forums (I openly bought from all miners and subsequently met a lot of them). All of my trades happened before November 18th, so less than two weeks after launch and well before the move away from POW was discussed.
I performed this service until it stopped being required, and then I stopped performing it because I was only doing it to provide the trust to enable the market. Actually you Daniel were my last volume customer, and were my most frequent customer so really it seems like you would only have paid me if I was providing you a service.
Why would you have bought from me if I was exploitative, did I have a monopoly? Was I even mining myself? No. Nobody even knew I have a show, which is why I didn't use my real name. Later I switched to my real name because I wanted my concerns to be on the record because it was obvious Invictus was missing deadlines and not responding to gentle prodding.
So thanks for giving just enough information that I need to out myself in order to provide proper context to defend my reputation.
So from where I sit, it seems you very much liked the idea of profiting from being the middle man between the mass-production miners and the average guy on the street who has to buy from you because mining is way to slow or difficult to purchase more than a token amount (equal to perhaps 3x your power bill).
Having read my perspective, I hope that you correct this assessment. I very much liked the idea of the Bitshares project as it was described which involved a minority of shares being designated for the PTS holders and most of them available to people through non-monetary means. The goal was to make it so everyone could mine, remember? I don't really get how mis-calibrating the first attempt means you throw out the entire notion and come up with something new.
Hell, I'm not even against coming up with something new - I just don't understand why it took precedence over developing the core Bitshares technology which is based around assets, betting etc. Nothing to do with transactional lower level stuff.
I think I've made my case really clearly Daniel, you quoted one small section of my very long and detailed reply and then dismissed my entire perspective by dropping incomplete disclosure of previously non-public information . Do you have any responses to the actual meat of it, or are we just throwing mud at this point?
Also, are all off-the-record conversations now on-the-record?
you have done a lot for BTS and your approach to media with your LTB model is great but this
available to people through non-monetary means. The goal was to make it so everyone could mine, remember?
doesn't make any sense. And you keep on insisting on that...
Mining has NOTHING to do with non-monetary means and even less with equality. Mining just raises the barrier of entry (because profitable mining equipment is expensive these days) and it adds a cost to the overall (distribution and transaction) system.
The goal of PTS was CPU mining. As far as I know you need a good GPU now. I don't have one and I guess most would have to buy one as well. That doesnt even matter though. Even if it was profitable with a CPU, money-means are just sent through another arbitrary loop this way. You can just buy thousands of CPUs put them in a data center if you have a lot of money and get shares in return for your money. The only difference is that the money that is paid to burn fossil fuels, the margin of the electricity companies and a little margin for the miner because of the barrier for entry to mining could be used for developing the ecosystem and to profit the shareholders.
You also say that "asking for cash" is bad. I don't see why. This is capitalism at it's core. You invest in order to grow a vision effectively. If anyone has reason not to trust the entity that is asking for money to develope a product just don't invest.
See my reply to one of your earlier posts here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4292.msg54258#msg54258
But is mining getting rid of the need to have money to buy in? If mining would give it al the the average guy I would be all for mining. But in the end mining gives the coins just to those that can afford mining equipement that is efficient enough to be run economically. In the end miners are professionals that invest in equipment that bring coins into existence and then sell those coins for a price above electricity costs. If you can not afford this mining equipment you have to buy the coins from the professional miners for the market value of there was no mining + the electricity costs of the miner + a small margin. In the end you can not avoid to distribute the coins based on peoples buying power (money) but making an IPO in addition gives you capital so you can speed up the development process (I am sure dev. would be far back if it would be just Dan coding) and promote the idea to get a wider supporter base....
What is the empirical basis for that?
I'm sorry I don't think you're doing a great job with Invictus, I really really don't. This project is by far in last place when compared against the serious players in the space and impugning my motives just further pushes away one of your biggest supporters.
Could you summarize your critique points?
-
(https://cdn.tutsplus.com/active/uploads/legacy/articles/098_utopiaMiningCritique/utopia-mining-07.png)
LOL... exactly how I feel.
lost sight of the original vision
Mining and POW was just a means to my end (decentralization) which is different than your end (some kind of non-monetary way to get involved). One day you will realize that money is an illusion and that everything is barter, charity, destruction, or theft. POW is a terrible combination of barter for destruction in exchange for giveaways. At the time all I understood was POW for security and POS was some unproven thing that I didn't fully understand. Peercoin was hybrid so I thought it didn't really solve the mining problem.
-
A big part of the vision was the democratization of mining, so by "non-monetary" I mean you don't have to get out your credit card, you just have to run your personal computer just like early Bitcoin mining except the goal was to design a system that would not have the scaling arms race we've seen with everything else.
The whole REASON for protoshares was to make as many people stakeholders in what Invictus was doing as possible, because that represented a huge distribution base they could then use to extract the terms in the Social Contract from others who wanted to use their audience. it was going to be the system that was most fairly and broadly distributed and so have instant network effect for new coins who work with it.
You don't remember this because it was abandoned with little fanfare and now there is no concept of an individual doing anything besides buying on an exchange to get vested. Despite you not knowing about it, at one point not too long ago it was a major part of Invictus's entire market outlook, and one I think was not incorrect. Someone is more interested in a crypto-token if they can get some for "free" and then learn about it after they have it than learn about it first then spend money to buy it.
Anyhow, If you have specific questions I'll answer them but I really think I've explained my train of thought many times. Do you still not see why this was a reactionary deviation from the plan?
-
A big part of the vision was the democratization of mining, so by "non-monetary" I mean you don't have to get out your credit card, you just have to run your personal computer just like early Bitcoin mining except the goal was to design a system that would not have the scaling arms race we've seen with everything else.
The whole REASON for protoshares was to make as many people stakeholders in what Invictus was doing as possible, because that represented a huge distribution base they could then use to extract the terms in the Social Contract from others who wanted to use their audience. it was going to be the system that was most fairly and broadly distributed and so have instant network effect for new coins who work with it.
You don't remember this because it was abandoned with little fanfare and now there is no concept of an individual doing anything besides buying on an exchange to get vested. Despite you not knowing about it, at one point not too long ago it was a major part of Invictus's entire market outlook, and one I think was not incorrect. Someone is more interested in a crypto-token if they can get some for "free" and then learn about it after they have it than learn about it first then spend money to buy it.
Anyhow, If you have specific questions I'll answer them but I really think I've explained my train of thought many times. Do you still not see why this was a reactionary deviation from the plan?
A big part of the vision was the democratization of mining, so by "non-monetary" I mean you don't have to get out your credit card, you just have to run your personal computer just like early Bitcoin mining except the goal was to design a system that would not have the scaling arms race we've seen with everything else.
I believe this is not possible at all. What we know is that many tried it over time (Litecoin, Protoshares, who else?) and failed miserably. Economies of scale and ever ongoing techn. developement plays against us there.
The whole REASON for protoshares was to make as many people stakeholders in what Invictus was doing as possible, because that represented a huge distribution base they could then use to extract the terms in the Social Contract from others who wanted to use their audience. it was going to be the system that was most fairly and broadly distributed and so have instant network effect for new coins who work with it.
I agree 100% with the goal of a fair distribution. But mining can not help to realize this! The only thing that helps is that many people know it! In reference to your statement about the early mining of Bitcoin: Super little people know about it --> Super uneven distribution of Bitcoin today. That has nothing to do with technology. Many people know about it like today -> Increase in demand for Bitcoin -> arms race -> economies of scale (like you said) and super high barriers for entry which is horrible for gives big money an advantage.
You don't remember this because it was abandoned with little fanfare and now there is no concept of an individual doing anything besides buying on an exchange to get vested. Despite you not knowing about it, at one point not too long ago it was a major part of Invictus's entire market outlook, and one I think was not incorrect. Someone is more interested in a crypto-token if they can get some for "free" and then learn about it after they have it than learn about it first then spend money to buy it.
You mean it was Invictus' market outlook to get a fair distribution?
A agree with the last sentence in the quote above in so far there is some (irrational) gamification involved in mining. But you still call it getting something "for free". Mined tokens are not free! Please feel free to contend the above on a rational basis. The costs of mined tokens are: Initial investment for mining equipement + electricity costs. There are professionals that do this today - and home users can not compete while not making a loss - who sell the mined tokens with a little margin. They seem free under one circumstance though: When very little people know about it compared to their value / potential value increase. But that has nothing to do with mining / POW vs. POS. When no one knew about NXT (POS) is was also cheap as hell as Bitcoin (POW) was...
Anyhow, If you have specific questions I'll answer them but I really think I've explained my train of thought many times. Do you still not see why this was a reactionary deviation from the plan?
I did recognize your arguments. I replied to the two I could identify (mining helps for fair distribution or can help to achieve that goal; taking money is a bad thing). Are there more (tbh I am interested my self because I like to be critical towards everything too)? I don't think it is a deviation from the original plan if you can abstract from the very specific announcements that were made and see it more in abstract terms like: Decentralization and control of ownership, building DACS, a working decentralized Bank and Exchange. With any complex project there is a need to adapt over time as problems are solved over time. It's the NATURE of it. I agree with you that a fair/even distribution can not only be seen as a means but an end. But like I said above, mining is surely not a solution there.
-
And that's the difference, I believe that "mining" as a metaphor (you'll notice my LTBCOIN project features Proof of Tipping and Proof of Commenting and Proof of Publishing, all non-monetary actions that vest participants who add value to the system. Whatever the system. I don't care about computational mining, and I never talk about it in those terms. I am talking about non-monetary distribution, and the metaphor we use for that to this point is Mining with your computer!
Of course there is cost, but it is not additional and explicit cost as when you have to actually buy something. There is cost in making a comment on a blog too, but people don't think about it like that because it is not a meaningful cost relative to the percieved value you gain. You had to read the content then sit there and think about it until you have something to say, then you have to say it. You had to do that to the exclusion of doing something else with your time, that is valuable. Your contribution (whatever it is) is ranked not against some absolute standard but against all other participants doing the same type of incentivized action within the system.
So with that understood, does "We have abandoned non-monetary means of getting involved in the Bitshares project" make more sense? This is why I mention bounties, because that's a way that lets people work towards community or invictus set goals with the idea that if they achieve it best and first they've got a clear reward that will vest them in the ecosystem they have just contributed to.
Daniel just overcompensated, went from 100% selfless (you can't buy it from us, just the market or mine it by contributing to the network) to 100% capture. I think there was a middle ground but the whole concept of mining, computational or not was in the crosshairs and it seems we only deal in black or white.
Invictus thought the Bitcoin distribution was also unfair, which is why they didn't want to sell tokens because it allowed that unfairness to continue in the new system. It seems like you want to abandon the idea of equitable, non-monetary distribution because Protoshares failed to achieve that goal and others have failed before. I think that was one of the primary draws for Bitshares, that it would have everybody vested in it. It might be naive to assume that, but I was explicitly told this by Invictus at the time they were appealing to my audience for participation and just because Daniel abandoned the idea doesn't mean it was the right choice.
It's not shocking you agree with Daniel's position, I'd be more surprised if you didn't.
-
It would be nice if we could separate things we've disagreed about in the past from things that can affect the future in a positive way. We are interested in hearing everyone's thoughts about next steps. But repeated weekly ad-hominem bashings about past decisions we've made that we can't change (and wouldn't change if we could) is not going to bring about any positive result. We respectfully listened to all this before we made the decisions that were ours to make. And then we have patiently explained those decisions over and over and over again. Those who approved of those decisions stayed and supported them. Those who didn't went off to find opportunities more to their liking.
Since it is clear that all this is water under the bridge, such recurring bitter postings can have only one result: to damage the BitShares brand, scare off newbies, and sow fear, uncertainty and doubt. We are big boys, we can take it. But it is grossly unfair to the rest of BitShares investors who have real assets being damaged every time this weekly hairball gets coughed back onto the carpet.
There are many other venues where the classic mining-centric point of view still reigns supreme. This is one of the very few places where people who think differently are working to blaze a new trail.
Can we simply agree to respect that?
-
Daniel just overcompensated, went from 100% selfless (you can't buy it from us, just the market or mine it by contributing to the network) to 100% capture. I think there was a middle ground but the whole concept of mining, computational or not was in the crosshairs and it seems we only deal in black or white.
We went to
50% support of the mining paradigm (PTS)
and
50% support of the donation paradigm (AGS).
A consensus forged by long discussions from every point of view.
For every future BitShares DAC.
Fifty-Fifty. Perfect balance.
Something for everybody!
:)
-
(https://31.media.tumblr.com/bd4f0f5e1789c4297b85465037605e9b/tumblr_n5pa1kT9Cy1rtef2wo1_500.jpg)
(https://24.media.tumblr.com/c8374507d1e1655e28ab0dc1e1b29e2a/tumblr_n5pa1kT9Cy1rtef2wo2_500.jpg)
(https://31.media.tumblr.com/80f974355d3781423a172e65b6978119/tumblr_inline_n5p94qnNQS1rnax30.gif)
-
(https://31.media.tumblr.com/bd4f0f5e1789c4297b85465037605e9b/tumblr_n5pa1kT9Cy1rtef2wo1_500.jpg)
You forgot to mention/post a potential virtual :) graph with the btsX value, most PTS holder's have also that value in their pockets !!!, because of the first snapshot on PTS wallets at 28 februar...
Example: I have 1000 PTS, since I bought them I "lost" say 30% BUT I have more than 1000 BTSX added for "free" because of the snapshot... Ok I don't know yet the BTSX value but I am confident that PTS+BTSX= much more ROI then if I had NXT shares (Just my opinion). But even if the value will not be the expected one, it has nothing to do with what you wanted to "promote" with your posted graph's. Hope "you" understand the real picture now...
-
I expected you to figure out another way to give people stake in Bitshares without asking them for cash money because it seemed like that was an important part of the strategy that was being wholly discarded because you improperly anticipated demand.
For those of you who hung out on one of the recent Mumble / Beyond Bitcoin calls I discussed a give away strategy that I believe would make everyone from all camps happy. I am also keeping that strategy a secret to be revealed when we launch so that other coins cannot copy it.
It is sure to generate a ton of buzz.
-
But even if the value will not be the expected one, it has nothing to do with what you wanted to "promote" with your posted graph's. Hope "you" understand the real picture now...
I hope you understand that I'm quite happy with the direction of both. Actually, I don't think I could be any happier about the situation here right now.
Adam's valid points + the echo's of "vaporware" heard all around are serving me quite well when it comes to Bitshares. ;)
I'm not promoting anything (in the way you appear to be describing it), but I am noticing the trend in both due to (what appears to be) the constant infighting here versus the exact opposite over there.
I love 'em both (hell I love all Cryptocurrencies)!
I'm loaded up on NXT, pre-snapshot PTS and loading up on more post-snapshot Bitshares (thanks to Darkcoin) ... and to keep this post on topic, I have plenty of IPO Safecoin as well.
-
And that's the difference
[...see below...]
It's not shocking you agree with Daniel's position, I'd be more surprised if you didn't.
And that's the difference, I believe that "mining" as a metaphor (you'll notice my LTBCOIN project features Proof of Tipping and Proof of Commenting and Proof of Publishing, all non-monetary actions that vest participants who add value to the system. Whatever the system. I don't care about computational mining, and I never talk about it in those terms. I am talking about non-monetary distribution, and the metaphor we use for that to this point is Mining with your computer!
Of course there is cost, but it is not additional and explicit cost as when you have to actually buy something. There is cost in making a comment on a blog too, but people don't think about it like that because it is not a meaningful cost relative to the percieved value you gain. You had to read the content then sit there and think about it until you have something to say, then you have to say it. You had to do that to the exclusion of doing something else with your time, that is valuable. Your contribution (whatever it is) is ranked not against some absolute standard but against all other participants doing the same type of incentivized action within the system.
I mostly agree. That are interesting ideas! Can you show how that would practically work? Someone that publishes something about Bitshares (marketing) is getting shares for that? Makes sense, we should do that. For every quality (how do you assure the quality?) post on BTT 5 PTS, for every post on coindesk 50 PTS etc. But distributing ALL Bit"shares" like this? This model has been used with many NXT clones like this one https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=440185.0 Problems where: Quality of contribution; over time you just have enough marketing. But overall I like the model. Proof of tipping would work how in our case to distribute shares? Publicity leads to an even distribution, therefore conferences are important, which have to be paid. So I am not unhappy with the fundraising because it increases the value of the outcoming products, at least better than throwing your money at electricity companies. But we agree that more community involvement would be important. But I would say that it would not be good to distribute all shares via community contribution. We can still do the community involvement with PTS bounties.
So with that understood, does "We have abandoned non-monetary means of getting involved in the Bitshares project" make more sense? This is why I mention bounties, because that's a way that lets people work towards community or invictus set goals with the idea that if they achieve it best and first they've got a clear reward that will vest them in the ecosystem they have just contributed to.
I mostly agree. I am open to bounties and would also like to see more community involvement. What we would need is that Brian Page gets more involved in the community and leads the community and its involvement in terms of marketing!
Daniel just overcompensated, went from 100% selfless (you can't buy it from us, just the market or mine it by contributing to the network) to 100% capture. I think there was a middle ground but the whole concept of mining, computational or not was in the crosshairs and it seems we only deal in black or white.
I mostly disagree. You meant "Daniel is just overcompensated"? Invictus clearly stated that all the BTC and PTS that are donated via AGS are used to grow the ecosystem and nothing of it is Invictus' profit. The I3 team only gets paid (probably underpaid compared to the industry standard) monthly loans. If Daniel/I3 took 25% of the donations for themselves (as profit) like Ethereum does (correct me if I am wrong on that; can be sold after a year), one could speak of overcompensation. "Could" because if you don't like the Ethereum founders' monetization model just don't invest into it and don't blme anyone. But are you measuring with the same criteria here?
Invictus thought the Bitcoin distribution was also unfair, which is why they didn't want to sell tokens because it allowed that unfairness to continue in the new system. It seems like you want to abandon the idea of equitable, non-monetary distribution because Protoshares failed to achieve that goal and others have failed before. I think that was one of the primary draws for Bitshares, that it would have everybody vested in it. It might be naive to assume that, but I was explicitly told this by Invictus at the time they were appealing to my audience for participation and just because Daniel abandoned the idea doesn't mean it was the right choice.
I partly agree. Like I said before I agree 100% with the goal. but it is difficult to realize. Let's not give up though. Bounties are great for some things like marketing. It can still be done by giving out PTS. For other things, like creating a website, coding bounties, bounties partly turned out to be inappropriate. Employing someone gives him the security of getting paid and decreases the effort to supervise the bounty. It all has ad- and disadvantages.
It's not shocking you agree with Daniel's position, I'd be more surprised if you didn't.
I mostly disagree. I disagree with Daniel on many things here and express that explicitly https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=2943.msg57257#msg57257 https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4059.msg50857#msg50857 And I agree with you that more community involvement would be necessary and also there should be more Bitcointalk marketing to get more supporters involved. It is not all black to me and not all white. It is more white to me me than black. It seems like it is just black to you.
There is a great effort by Clains https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?board=57.0 Let's all step back a bit from what we hold to be true and be constructive about the sucess of Bitshares.
PS: the underlining was not meant to emphasize the importance of my opinion :) but to show that painting it all black seems not justified to me.
-
I expected you to figure out another way to give people stake in Bitshares without asking them for cash money because it seemed like that was an important part of the strategy that was being wholly discarded because you improperly anticipated demand.
For those of you who hung out on one of the recent Mumble / Beyond Bitcoin calls I discussed a give away strategy that I believe would make everyone from all camps happy. I am also keeping that strategy a secret to be revealed when we launch so that other coins cannot copy it.
It is sure to generate a ton of buzz.
Not to mention that 50% of BitShares XT did get BSC-allocated to PTS owners via the old zero%-efficient burn-your-seed-corn-or-buy-from-the-bot-barons mining model. The other 50% got BSC-allocated via 100%-efficient AGS "virtual mining" which works exactly the same way when viewed as a "black box"*.
;)
*black box = same inputs yield same outputs regardless of what's inside the box.
**BSC = BitShares Social Consensus
-
Quote from: AdamBLevine on Today at 12:50:57 AM
Of course there is cost, but it is not additional and explicit cost as when you have to actually buy something. There is cost in making a comment on a blog too, but people don't think about it like that because it is not a meaningful cost relative to the percieved value you gain. You had to read the content then sit there and think about it until you have something to say, then you have to say it. You had to do that to the exclusion of doing something else with your time, that is valuable. Your contribution (whatever it is) is ranked not against some absolute standard but against all other participants doing the same type of incentivized action within the system.
This is a great point! Everyone's time has value. Usually, their daily occupation is the most valuable use of their time (or they would be doing something else for a living!) So the most efficient way to acquire a crypto currency is to do whatever earns you the most money for your time and then spend some of that money to buy the crypto currency. Isn't that exactly what blackcoin and others are doing when they use their resources to "mine the most profitable altcoin" and then use the proceeds (money) to buy their own coin?
At last! A Fundamental Economic Truth! Time is Money!
Why advocate inefficient make-work when everybody already has their own optimum way to do something useful that contributes the world's wealth while converting their time to money?
(And if you do advocate inefficient make-work, are you seriously asking that we deliberately spend our supporters' hard-earned and painfully-sacrificed resources inefficiently to accomplish some auxiliary social agenda?)
-
This whole debate is getting a bit confusing with long replies from Adam, Stan and Dan. Here's my cliff notes version of it (based on Adam's points):
1. Protoshares acting as token (10% ) for Bitshares being changed to 50-50 Angleshares aka proof of burn like Mastercoin: As Stan put it; this has been done and decided. Maybe only by I3 decided on it by themselves or there was a forum consensus but given AGS is already in play; there is no way to give PTS/BTC back. So Adam can we just lay this to rest?
2. Delivery of the bitshares product and the Proof system: The initial structure was to allow people to mine it via CPU (aka PTS) which failed. The TaPoS implementation of it failed. Now we have gone to DPos.
The issue Adam seeming to be pointing out is that I3 should have focused more on releasing Bitshares (as alpha). It would allow people to play around on Testnet and with I3 working on a proof system at the background. His understanding of cryptocurrency protocol is that transaction system are more detach/attach kind and can be changed later. I am not technically inclined so if true, I have to agree with Adam.
If we had a working testnet for BTS, we could have played around with it and seen how things actually work out - mining, TaPos, DPOS etc at once. Now with the actual final product surely having DPoS, we are betting huge on it. With all due respect to Dan this is just a gamble.
-
TaPos did not really "fail" afair ..
-
Bitshares XT is not the final product .. you can see it as a testnet for testing dpos and snapahots for the first final bitsharesX chain
-
This whole debate is getting a bit confusing with long replies from Adam, Stan and Dan. Here's my cliff notes version of it (based on Adam's points):
1. Protoshares acting as token (10% ) for Bitshares being changed to 50-50 Angleshares aka proof of burn like Mastercoin: As Stan put it; this has been done and decided. Maybe only by I3 decided on it by themselves or there was a forum consensus but given AGS is already in play; there is no way to give PTS/BTC back. So Adam can we just lay this to rest?
2. Delivery of the bitshares product and the Proof system: The initial structure was to allow people to mine it via CPU (aka PTS) which failed. The TaPoS implementation of it failed. Now we have gone to DPos.
The issue Adam seeming to be pointing out is that I3 should have focused more on releasing Bitshares (as alpha). It would allow people to play around on Testnet and with I3 working on a proof system at the background. His understanding of cryptocurrency protocol is that transaction system are more detach/attach kind and can be changed later. I am not technically inclined so if true, I have to agree with Adam.
If we had a working testnet for BTS, we could have played around with it and seen how things actually work out - mining, TaPos, DPOS etc at once. Now with the actual final product surely having DPoS, we are betting huge on it. With all due respect to Dan this is just a gamble.
Yes, and the least-risky gamble, given what we have learned along the way. :)
Part of the issue is that real money has to be at stake to get a valid test of how market behaviors drive the fundamental theory of operation. Since real money is at stake, we must be vewy, vewy, careful.
The other options have known unacceptable flaws.
We can't responsibly release real money applications with known unacceptable flaws.
-
Yes, and the least-risky gamble, given what we have learned along the way. :)
Part of the issue is that real money has to be at stake to get a valid test of how market behaviors drive the fundamental theory of operation. Since real money is at stake, we must be vewy, vewy, careful.
The other options have known unacceptable flaws.
We can't responsibly release real money applications with known unacceptable flaws.
+5%
I think invictus has a good grasp of what is at stake (and it is a lot). I'm much happier with DPOS than with mining.
If you can't figure out that mining to get shares will cost you money just like donating, I don't know what to say, it's not hard to understand.
We all want it done yesterday, and there is plenty of competition and plenty of tough decisions but I feel bitshares has a very compelling vision.
-
If PTS failed and became part of the antiquated mining method you so truly despise, why did you decide to up their stake in BTS from 10% to 50%? Was this not counterproductive to your stated goals? Essentially you said, "damn, PTS didn't stay true to the CPU only and the GPU farms have started taking over mining. Why don't we just give these GPU miners 50% instead of a measly 10% of the BTS-X shares and then sell the other 50%?" I can only imagine this conflict of ideas was overlooked so Invictus could put money in their pocket.
Your altruistic attempt to save the user from the "large farms" that have taken over other coins and the systematic waste of energy is misguided and doesn't fall in line with your past behavior. You have merely switched the "large farm" for "big money" and taken away the "little guys" ability to determine their own opportunity cost. You also continue to let PTS chug along forcing your Investors to waste $8 million since I first posted on PTS difficulty problems March 3rd. This $8 million is based on this; https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1397.msg14794#msg14794 .
-
If PTS failed and became part of the antiquated mining method you so truly despise, why did you decide to up their stake in BTS from 10% to 50%? Was this not counterproductive to your stated goals? Essentially you said, "damn, PTS didn't stay true to the CPU only and the GPU farms have started taking over mining. Why don't we just give these GPU miners 50% instead of a measly 10% of the BTS-X shares and then sell the other 50%?" I can only imagine this conflict of ideas was overlooked so Invictus could put money in their pocket.
Your altruistic attempt to save the user from the "large farms" that have taken over other coins and the systematic waste of energy is misguided and doesn't fall in line with your past behavior. You have merely switched the "large farm" for "big money" and taken away the "little guys" ability to determine their own opportunity cost. You also continue to let PTS chug along forcing your Investors to waste $8 million since I first posted on PTS difficulty problems March 3rd. This $8 million is based on this; https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1397.msg14794#msg14794 .
PTS has long been planned for an upgrade to 2.0. The time for that is early summer. Meanwhile all the DACs in the pipeline make PTS the screaming deal of the century.
-
What criteria you use to judge invictus is of course your own decision, but I would have rather seen steady, incremental releases built on proven tech while having alternate teams (you know, what we're supposed to have given them funds for Angelshares to make happen) work on the revolutionary game changing tech. It is *not* difficult to migrate from one blockchain to another, a blockchain is a giant ledger. Proof of burn (or "token swap") makes this process easy, and frankly Invictus has already said they'll be doing something exactly like this when they move Protoshares onto the new technology so we're arguing about the volume, not the tune.
Getting stuff out the door ASAP is beneficial to everyone obviously. However, I disagree with your using Protoshares changing from POW as an example of how easily it is done. The devil is in the details with this stuff. When people write DACs on a different underlying technology, they're not going to be too happy having to possibly rearchitect parts later on. Migrating a coin in isolation is not the same as changing the blockchain technology for already existing DACs. It might turn out to be roughly equivalent, but it really depends on the nature of the DAC.
The rest of your post was pretty interesting though. I'm glad to see the perspective of someone who has been around since the beginning.
-
I agree 100% with the goal of a fair distribution. But mining can not help to realize this! The only thing that helps is that many people know it! In reference to your statement about the early mining of Bitcoin: Super little people know about it --> Super uneven distribution of Bitcoin today. That has nothing to do with technology. Many people know about it like today -> Increase in demand for Bitcoin -> arms race -> economies of scale (like you said) and super high barriers for entry which is horrible for gives big money an advantage.
+5% +5% +5% to the above
PTS has long been planned for an upgrade to 2.0. The time for that is early summer. Meanwhile all the DACs in the pipeline make PTS the screaming deal of the century.
Why PTS which is produced by mining is the screaming deal of the century and not AGS which is helping for the development of these DACs is not the screaming deal of the century? If that is the case, a more clear direction would be nice because I am starting to feel like an idiot having donated all my pre 28th snapshot expensive PTS for AGS recently.
I must be the guy with the worst decisions here.
Kept PTS instead of AGS pre snapshot ==> Less BTS X
Donated PTS after snapshot ==> PTS the screaming deal of the century..
-
I must be the guy with the worst decisions here.
Kept PTS instead of AGS pre snapshot ==> Less BTS X
Donated PTS after snapshot ==> PTS the screaming deal of the century..
I think he is referring to PTS and AGS as a whole. You did fine to donate for AGS. They don't like to tell people to do one or the other as far as PTS/AGS but you can look at agsexplorer and decide for yourself.
-
I must be the guy with the worst decisions here.
Kept PTS instead of AGS pre snapshot ==> Less BTS X
Donated PTS after snapshot ==> PTS the screaming deal of the century..
I think he is referring to PTS and AGS as a whole. You did fine to donate for AGS. They don't like to tell people to do one or the other as far as PTS/AGS but you can look at agsexplorer and decide for yourself.
Indeed, personally I think AGS and PTS are both good opportunities right now. I learned about this mid November, so I missed the beginning, but I've been around for most of it.
-
I agree 100% with the goal of a fair distribution. But mining can not help to realize this! The only thing that helps is that many people know it! In reference to your statement about the early mining of Bitcoin: Super little people know about it --> Super uneven distribution of Bitcoin today. That has nothing to do with technology. Many people know about it like today -> Increase in demand for Bitcoin -> arms race -> economies of scale (like you said) and super high barriers for entry which is horrible for gives big money an advantage.
+5% +5% +5% to the above
PTS has long been planned for an upgrade to 2.0. The time for that is early summer. Meanwhile all the DACs in the pipeline make PTS the screaming deal of the century.
Why PTS which is produced by mining is the screaming deal of the century and not AGS which is helping for the development of these DACs is not the screaming deal of the century? If that is the case, a more clear direction would be nice because I am starting to feel like an idiot having donated all my pre 28th snapshot expensive PTS for AGS recently.
I must be the guy with the worst decisions here.
Kept PTS instead of AGS pre snapshot ==> Less BTS X
Donated PTS after snapshot ==> PTS the screaming deal of the century..
I treat them equally, since they are designed for different purposes they will have different value for different people depending upon how they value liquidity. Both are a great deal knowing just what you can see developing in parallel already. And you know we won't stop there! No further guidance is necessary or possible since the deterministic scale factors between the two are public and the market response is unknowable.
:)
-
Both are a great deal knowing just what you can see developing in parallel already. And you know we won't stop there!
Good to hear read that!
-
Yes, and the least-risky gamble, given what we have learned along the way. :)
Part of the issue is that real money has to be at stake to get a valid test of how market behaviors drive the fundamental theory of operation. Since real money is at stake, we must be vewy, vewy, careful.
The other options have known unacceptable flaws.
We can't responsibly release real money applications with known unacceptable flaws.
Stan, I think Adam agrees with you on not releasing a product with unacceptable flaws and real money applications. His point is why not focus on first creating the upper layer like the BTS exchange first and then worry about transactional system. example like having a wallet with all the "wallet" type features and then worrying about how will it be parsing the blockchain.
In that case, we could have Lotto, BTS, DNS out as pre-alpha to show I3 can really deliver on its promise. The current situation is that Keyhotee and Bitshares have been delayed.
-
The interconnectedness between the wallet and the blockchain cannot be ignored. These things cannot be built in isolation.
-
I don't really care if you value my comments or not, I'm putting my complaints and suggestions on the record. You can read my entire posting history and see all the context of my current irritation with Invictus. If you have specific questions I'm happy to educate.
Nice.
For the record I did try asking nicely with sugar on top and this is your response. Sorry if I'm not part of your little club, but why in hell should I be bothered wasting my time researching each and every posts from someone who can't be bothered to explain his current comments or respond in a normal way. So if you don't care if your points come across, you consequently can't blame people for ignoring what you write.
Why would I want to be "educated" by you anyway, are you some computer science super genius or Nobel-price winner for economics? The whole reason I wanted to discus things with you is because I think you made some factual errors and that there are some actual real technical reasons why things can't work the way you want them to. I'm not particularly interested in a lesson in arrogance, I had my fair share of that in university.
It seems like you're taking things really personally, what exactly did I say that offended you? I assumed you didn't want to take the time to get the full picture, which is why I offered to answer any specific questions you might have had. Answering your question about stuff that I've taken the time to learn about and you haven't sure seems like education to me and yet you bristle at the term.
Did you actually have any question, or do you just like complaining about me?
I'm not a native English speaker and was neither offended nor addressing you personally, which I think is impossible to do via forums anyway. It seems I completely failed in trying to communicate what I was trying to say, so I'll try again and add some specific examples, even-though I still think it would have been better to do so in a separate thread, instead of in response to a completely unrelated topic.
In your comments you assume too much and that is the very definition of arrogance (google translate assumption -> latin) and it gets in the way of some of the valid points you make and in the discussion afterwards.
I agree with most of your points about Invictus dropping the ball in regards to marketing, stimulating community involvement, attracting investment etcetera. However at the same time you completely destroy those points by stating as facts some of your personal assumptions that are dubious to say the least.
For example the statement that everything would have worked out fine if Invictus would have stuck to the plan. This is however not corroborated by any facts. Plans fail the moment you execute them and you are supposed to adapt after that. What you most definitely should not do, is stick to the plan after it failed. While you might have missed the statements Dan Larimer made regarding this and I agree that Invictus could and should have done a better job at communicating the reasons for the change of plans, your alternate, oversimplified and personal version of the situation does more harm then good at clearing things up.
Your proposed solution of going with some multi-staged, patch-work, unmaintainable, easily attacked and guaranteed to fail pow-blockchain and then migrating to a new POS-system, sounds completely ludicrous. If Invictus had gone that Dr. Frankenstein route I would have had no faith in their abilities and walked away laughing. Talk about waste of time, effort and resources and suicidal pr move.
Also I don't get what your beef with the AGS fundraiser is, especially seeing how PTS is still there. I have yet to see a better solution for a public fundraiser anywhere else. I have not seen any evidence as of yet of Invictus being particularly frugal or irresponsible with those funds, but I'd be more than happy to be enlightened if you have some information we mere forum-dwellers do not.
Again I'd rather have the discussion about the past, present and future failings of Invictus in a dedicated thread with all information easily accessible, instead of having to tell people to read someones entire post history, expect them to wade to an unholy amount of incoherent and irrelevant rubbish and then suggest to enlighten them should they prove to be too stupid to know what I mean. Your posts should stand on their own and not need to be unlocked by your own personal "expertise", because as you say your person should be completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Arrogance is considered a very harsh word in America. But if you change that word, I do agree on a great deal of what you are saying.
I honesty think I and many others have contributed to this "divide". Though it is not always necessary to have 100% agreement, it is good to consider the criticisms--though many are repetitive and are largely based on opinion. My concerns are not based on an ill intent for any specific technology--in fact I'm for multiple solutions competing fairly in the market based on the protocols' power. I do like the philosophy of BTS, though, and the stated protocols seem to reflect the tenets of crypto very well and this is why I am primarily here and helping build. It seems that they get much more negative press than positive from the actual cryptocommunity and I suspect it is because they do not go with the grain on what the rest of the crypto-community seems to be seeing as the appropriate path. Am I right or wrong? Who knows...and I suspect most will not state their biases openly (and everyone has a bias--despite what they say).
Personally interested in having some specific answers to some of the specific questions asked Adam. There are some very viable points covered in this thread, and they are important in that progress is measured in different ways. There seems to be some crabby patty tossing competitions on this forum (and sometimes I wind up as well!), but Delulo Joey, agent, trog and zeus are making valid points imo that are far too often ignored.
If PTS failed and became part of the antiquated mining method you so truly despise, why did you decide to up their stake in BTS from 10% to 50%? Was this not counterproductive to your stated goals? Essentially you said, "damn, PTS didn't stay true to the CPU only and the GPU farms have started taking over mining. Why don't we just give these GPU miners 50% instead of a measly 10% of the BTS-X shares and then sell the other 50%?" I can only imagine this conflict of ideas was overlooked so Invictus could put money in their pocket.
Your altruistic attempt to save the user from the "large farms" that have taken over other coins and the systematic waste of energy is misguided and doesn't fall in line with your past behavior. You have merely switched the "large farm" for "big money" and taken away the "little guys" ability to determine their own opportunity cost. You also continue to let PTS chug along forcing your Investors to waste $8 million since I first posted on PTS difficulty problems March 3rd. This $8 million is based on this; https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1397.msg14794#msg14794 .
To Newmine, I can specifically remember the day that bytemaster made the decision to switch from 10% honoring to 50%. It was because he believed a change to the social consensus should not hurt those who originally invested, but would be much more acceptable to those who the consensus was established to protect if he improved the deal somehow in the change. I actually remember stating something about this concept of changing the social consensus but always improving the deal for those who believed in the project from the start if it was necessary. bytemaster responded that he would keep that concept in his mind moving forward--apparently he did. Just wanted to help clarify this for you man ;)
-
Ok Fuznuts, I shall not use the A-word again on this forum. Is there a word I could have used to describe the contents of the post in that particular case, without it immediately being linked to the person making the post? Or should I make a disclaimer signature, with the declaration that my posts are only reactions on the words not reaction on the persona placing them?
The interconnectedness between the wallet and the blockchain cannot be ignored. These things cannot be built in isolation.
I think this point should be elaborated upon and is one of the crucial misconceptions AdamBLevine seems to have been perpetuating as well.
You cannot change (hard-fork) something as complex as a distributed concensus system like the blockchain as if it's nothing, if only for the bolded parts. You also can't just switch from one blockchain technology to the other, just like that. Actually if you could, it would mean bitcoin and the invention of the blockchain is a joke and the rubbish most sceptics have been spewing on the mainstream is actually true, that you could just change things on a whim.
Also designing, coding, bugfixing/maintaining all those different systems at the same time is not nearly as easy, trivial or cheap as has been suggested in this thread, nor does it solve the problem of the PoW-model not being able to work for bitsharesX in the first place. Who in their right mind would waste everyones time, energy, money and his reputation on releasing a product which he is certain will fail just to prove that it will fail?
I think I'd better stop here, I'm having a hard time grasping why anyone even superficially familiar with software development in general, let alone projects like bitcoin would make claims like this. I suggest a thread be created where all these kinds of misunderstandings and myths or seeds of FUD are gathered and answered once and for all.
Maybe in a FAQ format, sort of like:
Why not (just) use (hashcash)PoW for a prediction-market blockchain?
A1 - Market manipulation: Because even with the simplest of attacks of just turning some miners on or off you can already influence the market by affecting the reaction-time of the participants on the prediction market. If you time it right with a good FUD campaign you can really make a killing.
A2 - Cost: Because developing and maintaining a "new" PoW-system tailor made to address all the issues, is at best just as hard, but more likely than not much harder as developing a more effective PoS system and a lot more costly in several ways.
A3 - Centralization: Has up till now not been solved with PoW-solutions, but is more disastrous in case of xchanges and prediction markets.
Might actually be a good community project to create such a FUD-buster list, although unfortunately core devs seem to be best suited to fill out the technical details, or would at least need to review it, which would cost more time and effort that they can't spare at the moment.
-
Something as simple as ability to digitally sign over AGS/BTSX to another address if only for security purposes could have easily been done without slowing down Bytemaster. Currently those are held hostage by Invictus anyways pending release of the solid software. Why couldn't they just allow digital signatures that are stored in some side chain until software is done? Seriously this would take just a weekend to do. May be I'm oversimplifying it but the "snapshot" doesn't have to be "set in stone". Once close to a release Invictus can announce freezing of transfers since their software has passed the tests. But until then we are all held hostages. Again I'm not advocating Bytemaster stop doing what he's doing. I'm advocating that the snapshot could be traded prior to the official release. Of course every step of the way I've been told to be patient but now I want to move my AGS to a different private key for security reasons.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Ok Fuznuts, I shall not use the A-word again on this forum. Is there a word I could have used to describe the contents of the post in that particular case, without it immediately being linked to the person making the post? Or should I make a disclaimer signature, with the declaration that my posts are only reactions on the words not reaction on the persona placing them?
The interconnectedness between the wallet and the blockchain cannot be ignored. These things cannot be built in isolation.
I think this point should be elaborated upon and is one of the crucial misconceptions AdamBLevine seems to have been perpetuating as well.
You cannot change (hard-fork) something as complex as a distributed concensus system like the blockchain as if it's nothing, if only for the bolded parts. You also can't just switch from one blockchain technology to the other, just like that. Actually if you could, it would mean bitcoin and the invention of the blockchain is a joke and the rubbish most sceptics have been spewing on the mainstream is actually true, that you could just change things on a whim.
Also designing, coding, bugfixing/maintaining all those different systems at the same time is not nearly as easy, trivial or cheap as has been suggested in this thread, nor does it solve the problem of the PoW-model not being able to work for bitsharesX in the first place. Who in their right mind would waste everyones time, energy, money and his reputation on releasing a product which he is certain will fail just to prove that it will fail?
I think I'd better stop here, I'm having a hard time grasping why anyone even superficially familiar with software development in general, let alone projects like bitcoin would make claims like this. I suggest a thread be created where all these kinds of misunderstandings and myths or seeds of FUD are gathered and answered once and for all.
Maybe in a FAQ format, sort of like:
Why not (just) use (hashcash)PoW for a prediction-market blockchain?
A1 - Market manipulation: Because even with the simplest of attacks of just turning some miners on or off you can already influence the market by affecting the reaction-time of the participants on the prediction market. If you time it right with a good FUD campaign you can really make a killing.
A2 - Cost: Because developing and maintaining a "new" PoW-system tailor made to address all the issues, is at best just as hard, but more likely than not much harder as developing a more effective PoS system and a lot more costly in several ways.
A3 - Centralization: Has up till now not been solved with PoW-solutions, but is more disastrous in case of xchanges and prediction markets.
Might actually be a good community project to create such a FUD-buster list, although unfortunately core devs seem to be best suited to fill out the technical details, or would at least need to review it, which would cost more time and effort that they can't spare at the moment.
Good idea! In fact, I believe we have already respectfully and painstakingly cleaned up most of these recurring FUDballs somewhere on the forum, multiple times - usually in response to the same chronic FUDslingers.
It didn't seem to keep the slung FUD from being FUD-raked and re-slung, but collecting them in one place might still be useful to newbies who would otherwise retreat in disgust and disillusionment -- missing out on any chance to learn the Truth and become sources of much needed market demand.
I do hate to see the harm that recycling used FUD does to demand for the products that everyone here is counting on for an early retirement. Perhaps putting a thread of FAQs (FUD Attack Quenchers) in one place for easy reference would make it easier for everyone to intercept and mitigate that damage without dragging the poor core developers down into the FUD over and over again.
Sounds like a worthy cause for some Super-Hero Champions for Truth, Justice and Civility!
:)
-
Something as simple as ability to digitally sign over AGS/BTSX to another address if only for security purposes could have easily been done without slowing down Bytemaster. Currently those are held hostage by Invictus anyways pending release of the solid software. Why couldn't they just allow digital signatures that are stored in some side chain until software is done? Seriously this would take just a weekend to do. May be I'm oversimplifying it but the "snapshot" doesn't have to be "set in stone". Once close to a release Invictus can announce freezing of transfers since their software has passed the tests. But until then we are all held hostages. Again I'm not advocating Bytemaster stop doing what he's doing. I'm advocating that the snapshot could be traded prior to the official release. Of course every step of the way I've been told to be patient but now I want to move my AGS to a different private key for security reasons.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Alas, we live in a very constrained regulatory environment.
(http://media.panjury.com/uploads/trial/one-does-not-simply-walk-into-mordor_1394963912.jpg)
-
Something as simple as ability to digitally sign over AGS/BTSX to another address if only for security purposes could have easily been done without slowing down Bytemaster. Currently those are held hostage by Invictus anyways pending release of the solid software. Why couldn't they just allow digital signatures that are stored in some side chain until software is done? Seriously this would take just a weekend to do. May be I'm oversimplifying it but the "snapshot" doesn't have to be "set in stone". Once close to a release Invictus can announce freezing of transfers since their software has passed the tests. But until then we are all held hostages. Again I'm not advocating Bytemaster stop doing what he's doing. I'm advocating that the snapshot could be traded prior to the official release. Of course every step of the way I've been told to be patient but now I want to move my AGS to a different private key for security reasons.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Alas, we live in a very constrained regulatory environment.
(http://media.panjury.com/uploads/trial/one-does-not-simply-walk-into-mordor_1394963912.jpg)
Have you thought to "change" the environment?
Or are you confident that your "address" is proof-security enough?
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRig4hr-EKExFucRgkLpLR1Cml6RU5syIcw0WKtehGK4uoocV9v)
-
As Elton John once sang,
"Mars ain't the kind of place to raise your kids."
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_xfxmmOzXySs/SbwHQ3uQTuI/AAAAAAAAAZw/Wj0e813qGOg/s1600/mars+aint.jpg)
-
Perhaps I am not explaining this well. Here is all that is needed: collection of digitally signed transactions to be collected somewhere and included in the new genesis address. How is the regulatory environment preventing that from happening?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Perhaps I am not explaining this well. Here is all that is needed: collection of digitally signed transactions to be collected somewhere and included in the new genesis address. How is the regulatory environment preventing that from happening?
That's not what you are asking though, you're asking for a tradeable/transferable coin/token to be honored in the genesis blocks of all DACs, and that is PTS. Setting up AGS like that is most definitely not as easy or trivial as has been suggested by some, as the original topic of this thread illustrates and there was no real practical and more secure way of doing it at the start of the fundraiser anyway. Changing it now also doesn't take only a minute, because it requires a completely new ledger/blockchain system to accomplish. Also manually messing with private/public keys and manual intervention in the way the genesisblock will be initiated is dangerous territory and a lot of work.
I also would like to know who started this "our funds have been taken hostage" rubbish (disclaimer: yes I also have donated to AGS and no I'm not as big of a stake-holder in this as the one I suspect for starting that campaign nor am I "echoing" anyone when I disagree with something, I am a solitary actor not part of any clique or club or anything like that and have not had a direct conversation with anyone of the Invictus-team). Why did people donate to the AGS-fund if they wanted tradeable tokens? Sure puts into perspective why a lot of projects are starting to think crowdfunding is more trouble than it's worth and probably one of the reasons why Ethereum went the VC-route instead and I suspect will only sell the tokens as part of their marketing.
-
They couldn't put up a web page where people could digitally sign a transaction and it is visible publicly by everyone? Just as an interim solution until the actual BTS x is up and running. They could easily make this a bounty. Now I know that this seems like a bandaid but it is better to be liquid. Anyways, I see all these solutions and they are all possible and easy to implement. As far as being held hostage it is not rubbish. Most people here expected to be able to trade BTS X shortly after the Feb snapshot. In fact I expected end of March, end of April was my somewhat conservative estimate. Yes, some of us who would like to divest now that our confidence is lower are being held hostage. Furthermore I'm offering a solution that would not slow down Bytemaster and should be very easy to implement. Heck I might even implement it myself if there is enough interest and a good bounty.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
You could make a website, but that doesn't change the issue with having to create a secure way of generating genesis blocks to handle that list, without any errors and needing to be part of the new toolkit being developed, which is not an afternoon of work. Also those signed transactions without something like a blockchain-timestamp-verification method will not be any more secure than the very first key and would in all practicality not solve anything. Alternatively if the Invictus team, starts to centrally screw around with the donating addresses that will open a Pandoras box of shitstorms that will make the current spring breeze of hissy-fits look insignificant in comparison.
Imo, your points about wanting to divest does not change much about the hostage-story being bs. Because all that time PTS was and is still there as a completely viable choice and I still think it strange why people chose AGS if they did not really want to and then start blaming others. AGS was never meant to be liquid and I never got the impression it was supposed to be and I always saw it as a kickstarter style fundraiser to help development of an industry and not a presale of a finished product. PTS was for the speculators and the angelshares were meant for funding the cause. Also even with the over-enthusiastic estimate, it was never anything more than that and as far as I understood it only for the first public test-chain, not the final bet your pension plus inheritance one. Even before the announced estimate there were warnings that a bug would require a new test chain to be developed, which lucky for the speculators was discovered before trading actually went live.
Thinking about it I don't understand why any PTS-holder would be whining at all, because they get the added bonus of AGS investments and things those funds are paying for, without PTS-holders needing to lift a finger. Do PTS-speculators actually think they are buying directly from the Invictus team instead of their money going to other speculators and miners?
-
They couldn't put up a web page where people could digitally sign a transaction and it is visible publicly by everyone? Just as an interim solution until the actual BTS x is up and running. They could easily make this a bounty. Now I know that this seems like a bandaid but it is better to be liquid. Anyways, I see all these solutions and they are all possible and easy to implement. As far as being held hostage it is not rubbish. Most people here expected to be able to trade BTS X shortly after the Feb snapshot. In fact I expected end of March, end of April was my somewhat conservative estimate. Yes, some of us who would like to divest now that our confidence is lower are being held hostage. Furthermore I'm offering a solution that would not slow down Bytemaster and should be very easy to implement. Heck I might even implement it myself if there is enough interest and a good bounty.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Can you give me the link where bytemaster and/or anyone else on the Invictus team stated that BTS would be up and running shortly after the Feb Snapshot? I recall them playing it safe and working hard not to convey this notion. "Most people" here also needs backing...because most of the people I know on this forum who have been around long enough to actually read through the content on the forums were well aware bm and the team were only guaranteeing they would release BTS when they felt it was sufficiently tested and running.
You could make a website, but that doesn't change the issue with having to create a secure way of generating genesis blocks to handle that list, without any errors and needing to be part of the new toolkit being developed, which is not an afternoon of work. Also those signed transactions without something like a blockchain-timestamp-verification method will not be any more secure than the very first key and would in all practicality not solve anything. Alternatively if the Invictus team, starts to centrally screw around with the donating addresses that will open a Pandoras box of shitstorms that will make the current spring breeze of hissy-fits look insignificant in comparison.
Imo, your points about wanting to divest does not change much about the hostage-story being bs. Because all that time PTS was and is still there as a completely viable choice and I still think it strange why people chose AGS if they did not really want to and then start blaming others. AGS was never meant to be liquid and I never got the impression it was supposed to be and I always saw it as a kickstarter style fundraiser to help development of an industry and not a presale of a finished product. PTS was for the speculators and the angelshares were meant for funding the cause. Also even with the over-enthusiastic estimate, it was never anything more than that and as far as I understood it only for the first public test-chain, not the final bet your pension plus inheritance one. Even before the announced estimate there were warnings that a bug would require a new test chain to be developed, which lucky for the speculators was discovered before trading actually went live.
Thinking about it I don't understand why any PTS-holder would be whining at all, because they get the added bonus of AGS investments and things those funds are paying for, without PTS-holders needing to lift a finger. Do PTS-speculators actually think they are buying directly from the Invictus team instead of their money going to other speculators and miners?
Oh Joey, you have a way with words man. I agree 100%...if you didn't want to invest into AngelShares (AGS), which were openly explained as "non-liquid", then why the heck did you buy them and why are you upset? You could have easily held PTS (or sold all of your stake in this project) if you wanted something different from the AGS form of participation.
-
Ok. I'll start a separate discussion and a poll, plus this thread seems to cover everything but MaidSafe IPO now.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Ok. I'll start a separate discussion and a poll, plus this thread seems to cover everything but MaidSafe IPO now.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
lol... so true. +5%
-
Ok. I'll start a separate discussion and a poll, plus this thread seems to cover everything but MaidSafe IPO now.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
lol... so true. +5%
In the mean time the evaporation is ...keep walking going...
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-rjZpXIovsU0/U3tJakZ4HYI/AAAAAAAACyw/7wOvUl2tbxE/s1600/maidsafecoin.png)
source: https://masterxchange.com/market.php?currency=maid (https://masterxchange.com/market.php?currency=maid)
-
They couldn't put up a web page where people could digitally sign a transaction and it is visible publicly by everyone? Just as an interim solution until the actual BTS x is up and running. They could easily make this a bounty. Now I know that this seems like a bandaid but it is better to be liquid. Anyways, I see all these solutions and they are all possible and easy to implement. As far as being held hostage it is not rubbish. Most people here expected to be able to trade BTS X shortly after the Feb snapshot. In fact I expected end of March, end of April was my somewhat conservative estimate. Yes, some of us who would like to divest now that our confidence is lower are being held hostage. Furthermore I'm offering a solution that would not slow down Bytemaster and should be very easy to implement. Heck I might even implement it myself if there is enough interest and a good bounty.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Can you give me the link where bytemaster and/or anyone else on the Invictus team stated that BTS would be up and running shortly after the Feb Snapshot? I recall them playing it safe and working hard not to convey this notion. "Most people" here also needs backing...because most of the people I know on this forum who have been around long enough to actually read through the content on the forums were well aware bm and the team were only guaranteeing they would release BTS when they felt it was sufficiently tested and running.
You could make a website, but that doesn't change the issue with having to create a secure way of generating genesis blocks to handle that list, without any errors and needing to be part of the new toolkit being developed, which is not an afternoon of work. Also those signed transactions without something like a blockchain-timestamp-verification method will not be any more secure than the very first key and would in all practicality not solve anything. Alternatively if the Invictus team, starts to centrally screw around with the donating addresses that will open a Pandoras box of shitstorms that will make the current spring breeze of hissy-fits look insignificant in comparison.
Imo, your points about wanting to divest does not change much about the hostage-story being bs. Because all that time PTS was and is still there as a completely viable choice and I still think it strange why people chose AGS if they did not really want to and then start blaming others. AGS was never meant to be liquid and I never got the impression it was supposed to be and I always saw it as a kickstarter style fundraiser to help development of an industry and not a presale of a finished product. PTS was for the speculators and the angelshares were meant for funding the cause. Also even with the over-enthusiastic estimate, it was never anything more than that and as far as I understood it only for the first public test-chain, not the final bet your pension plus inheritance one. Even before the announced estimate there were warnings that a bug would require a new test chain to be developed, which lucky for the speculators was discovered before trading actually went live.
Thinking about it I don't understand why any PTS-holder would be whining at all, because they get the added bonus of AGS investments and things those funds are paying for, without PTS-holders needing to lift a finger. Do PTS-speculators actually think they are buying directly from the Invictus team instead of their money going to other speculators and miners?
Oh Joey, you have a way with words man. I agree 100%...if you didn't want to invest into AngelShares (AGS), which were openly explained as "non-liquid", then why the heck did you buy them and why are you upset? You could have easily held PTS (or sold all of your stake in this project) if you wanted something different from the AGS form of participation.
From the February 5th newsletter:
"Once we have taken the snap shot, we will take what ever time is necessary to prepare the chain for launch which we expect to be before the Ides of March. As always, time tables are subject to change due unforeseen development challenges. If we are unable to launch a chain in March due to unexpected delays then a new snapshot date will be announced."
http://static.squarespace.com/static/51fb043ee4b0608e46483caf/t/52f318d2e4b0bdba1c163a6d/1391663314443/News%20Letter%2005%20-%20February%202014.pdf
Before you are quick to point out the disclaimers, also notice they said another snapshot will be taken if delayed, which is not the case.
I think most are concerned about the reason for the delay. Although I am concerned more about the delay in general. Unfortunately this new industry/sector is riddled with scams and delays are a tell tail sign of a lot of those scams. Promises are made, money is collected, delays are announced, more delays with excuses, and then the money disappears.
-
I think most are concerned about the reason for the delay. Although I am concerned more about the delay in general. Unfortunately this new industry/sector is riddled with scams and delays are a tell tail sign of a lot of those scams. Promises are made, money is collected, delays are announced, more delays with excuses, and then the money disappears.
This is a very unfortunate reality that does make it hard to tell the difference for non-technical who cannot follow github.
Fortunately, we have an entirely transparent development process with 18 people in the development Skype group and many more all working to make this a reality.
-
From the February 5th newsletter:
"Once we have taken the snap shot, we will take what ever time is necessary to prepare the chain for launch which we expect to be before the Ides of March.
Et tu, newmine? ;D
-
No more comments from my part ...
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2vp8GzPEtuE/U3zkhcltEYI/AAAAAAAACzA/t5cHVWJ8G6M/s1600/mais_thunder.png)
-
Fun times. And now you can't even login on Masterxchange...
-
The question was always "will there be a MAIDSAFE network in 3 months, 6 months or never?"
The market right now is pricing for never, so if you agree with that assessment it's a good time to sell and if you disagree it's a good time to buy
In 3-6 months we'll know the answer.
-
The question was always "will there be a MAIDSAFE network in 3 months, 6 months or never?"
The market right now is pricing for never, so if you agree with that assessment it's a good time to sell and if you disagree it's a good time to buy
In 3-6 months we'll know the answer.
Consider the network neutrality issue at stake here and a lot of political forces probably don't want something like MaidSafe to succeed. I think we have to take a wait and see approach but do everything we can to encourage success if we believe in the principles behind MaidSafe.
-
The question was always "will there be a MAIDSAFE network in 3 months, 6 months or never?"
The market right now is pricing for never, so if you agree with that assessment it's a good time to sell and if you disagree it's a good time to buy
In 3-6 months we'll know the answer.
Consider the network neutrality issue at stake here and a lot of political forces probably don't want something like MaidSafe to succeed. I think we have to take a wait and see approach but do everything we can to encourage success if we believe in the principles behind MaidSafe.
+5% Investors and ideologues (like myself) will hold and/or buy into the dip, traders will be traders, it takes all kinds and their sell orders are always welcome by someone.
When the net neutrality storm hits, it'd be good to know we have a safe port (no pun intended). :)
-
The question was always "will there be a MAIDSAFE network in 3 months, 6 months or never?"
The market right now is pricing for never, so if you agree with that assessment it's a good time to sell and if you disagree it's a good time to buy
In 3-6 months we'll know the answer.
If you know the answer tell me please.
Which ever is the answer, we have loosed allready money with this redicoulous IPO that has taking place with the "help" of mastercoin (lol) ...
Even if you think it is a good time to buy we have lost the half of "our" potential profits because if we wouldn't participate in the IPO we could get a least the double maidsafecoins than we have right now...now. And that is the best scenario or am I missing something !
-
The question was always "will there be a MAIDSAFE network in 3 months, 6 months or never?"
The market right now is pricing for never, so if you agree with that assessment it's a good time to sell and if you disagree it's a good time to buy
In 3-6 months we'll know the answer.
If you know the answer tell me please.
Which ever is the answer, we have loosed allready money with this redicoulous IPO that has taking place with the "help" of mastercoin (lol) ...
Even if you think it is a good time to buy we have lost the half of "our" potential profits because if we wouldn't participate in the IPO we could get a least the double maidsafecoins than we have right now...now. And that is the best scenario or am I missing something !
Did you buy Maidsafe coins during the fundraiser and sell them already? Based on your behavior here I assumed you as a buy-and-hold, although I guess you might have been scared out by the confusion. You should expect to see this pattern with crowdsales of products people don't understand. Hopefully, eventually, they'll stop buying ones they don't understand. But probably not.
-
The question was always "will there be a MAIDSAFE network in 3 months, 6 months or never?"
The market right now is pricing for never, so if you agree with that assessment it's a good time to sell and if you disagree it's a good time to buy
In 3-6 months we'll know the answer.
If you know the answer tell me please.
Which ever is the answer, we have loosed allready money with this redicoulous IPO that has taking place with the "help" of mastercoin (lol) ...
Even if you think it is a good time to buy we have lost the half of "our" potential profits because if we wouldn't participate in the IPO we could get a least the double maidsafecoins than we have right now...now. And that is the best scenario or am I missing something !
Did you buy Maidsafe coins during the fundraiser and sell them already? Based on your behavior here I assumed you as a buy-and-hold, although I guess you might have been scared out by the confusion. You should expect to see this pattern with crowdsales of products people don't understand. Hopefully, eventually, they'll stop buying ones they don't understand. But probably not.
No you should expect this phenomena with the crowdsale of products that havent come out yet. People don't understand the products because they don't exist yet. This is what happened with I3. They hyped up their product before they had it implemented and delays have substantially reduced the price of pts and ags. In this case I believe that both pts and ags are undervalued, but with maidsafe I think the market has realized that safecoins have been overhyped and serve no value outside of the maidsafe system and serve very little value within it. David Irvine knows very little about the cryptocurrency space and even less about sound economics. Price fixing of any sort leads to inefficient markets. The price people payed for maidsafecoin was not due to market demand but pure speculation. If you own maidsafecoin sell them, although I would imagine that the market isn't even liquid enough to sell them. If you believe that maidsafe has potential buy safecoin once it launches. People don't realize that safecoins are going to be increasingly cheaper as farmers dump their safecoin.
-
"500 Developers Join MaidSafe Project"
http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/news/500-developers-join-maidsafe-project/2014/05/24 (http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/news/500-developers-join-maidsafe-project/2014/05/24)
-
"500 Developers Join MaidSafe Project"
http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/news/500-developers-join-maidsafe-project/2014/05/24 (http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/news/500-developers-join-maidsafe-project/2014/05/24)
wow
-
Actually .. those 500 only commited the selfs to build services on top of maidsafe .. not neccesarily support the core development ... just saying
-
Actually .. those 500 only commited the selfs to build services on top of maidsafe .. not neccesarily support the core development ... just saying
"only"!?... that's everything BitShares should want too. Having people make useful the network gives it all it's value. Having a perfect product that noone uses is not a good outcome. I wonder that those successes will follow from a balanced approach to getting devs and community engaged.
-
They only COMMITED to do thing ...
Imho thats work close to nothing unless things get real
-
Actually .. those 500 only commited the selfs to build services on top of maidsafe .. not neccesarily support the core development ... just saying
"only"!?... that's everything BitShares should want too. Having people make useful the network gives it all it's value. Having a perfect product that noone uses is not a good outcome. I wonder that those successes will follow from a balanced approach to getting devs and community engaged.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Z_gdh1bNE34/TjxNPMIPMgI/AAAAAAAAAXk/JKqw7psPeVs/s1600/remains+seated.JPG)
(http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/1/9/8/6/9/4/7/move-along-64683177197.jpeg)
Ma'am, if you'll just move along....
-
They only COMMITED to do thing ...
Imho thats work close to nothing unless things get real
Reminder: If not mistaken, MaidSafe set aside 15% of the funding they received to pay those developers.
-
They only COMMITED to do thing ...
Imho thats work close to nothing unless things get real
Reminder: If not mistaken, MaidSafe set aside 15% of the funding they received to pay those developers.
-
They only COMMITED to do thing ...
Imho thats work close to nothing unless things get real
Reminder: If not mistaken, MaidSafe set aside 15% of the funding they received to pay those developers.
+5%
Now for all the people who don't believe in MaidSafe how do you think the politics of network neutrality will influence the price of Safecoins?
The demand for the product exists and will grow.
-
The demand for the product exists and will grow.
http://www.siacoin.com/
-
The demand for the product exists and will grow.
http://www.siacoin.com/
I know about Siacoin, when I first heard about it I didn't think it could scale and I still I don't think by design it can scale. Also they don't seem to have much code for me to review at this time so I cannot tell you if it's going to work in practice.
But I can say they made a prudent decision going with sodium. This leads me to believe the developers are competent enough on the cryptography end but I don't know if this sort of project is something which can be done as just a coin. I also see it as being a bit too blockchain centric and I've never really seen that sort of design before for cloud storage (which is why I'm skeptical).
Siacoin isn't going to decentralize the Internet. From what I'm reading it's just storage. MaidSafe is storage, computation and bandwidth. I will keep an eye on it though because designs can change, code can be written, and it could become something special.
-
Here is why I think it will not scale.
From the whitepaper "Files on Sia are distributed
to a large number of randomly selected hosts."
Intuitively this does not make sense to me.
This should not be random distribution if you care about access times. It should be according to an optimization algorithm. Usually it's something like ant colony or something where the chunks (not complete files) are dispersed in such a way so that accessing them becomes faster the more they are requested. Popularity should have some influence on duplication in the algorithm. So the chunks would have to be deterministically distributed to a specific number of hosts, but I will not nick pick too much on that.
Honestly their algorithm is quite exotic. It will probably work but because it's so exotic there will be few people who will relate to it in a way as to write apps for it for instance. The developers of Siacoin will have to post here or on Bitcointalk so we can explore the algorithm further but I do see how it could have problems scaling.
MaidSafe is an orthodox design in a lot of ways. The areas where it tries new things will either be a major success or will fail in the testing phase which is going on now. So we are finding out right now whether or not their design has merit. The rest is just about finding an economic model but I think once you built MaidSafe there will be enough natural inertia from the 500 developers they claim to have working on it to have an economic model emerge naturally if they let it.
Developers will charge Safecoins for their apps and Safecoins will gain value quickly if the apps are there. If the apps are not there then Safecoins may end up being not worth very much. I'm taking the gamble that the apps will be there and bought Safecoins in the presale as a way of getting a lifetime supply of them for the time when there is an app I have to use.
None of us can forecast.
-
“We thought we’d have $7 million but we just have $3 million. That’s tough, but we’re coping,” he said by Skype. “This whole way of funding is new. It was like test driving a car, and we crashed into a few walls.”
David Irvine
read more here:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/06/03/mastercoin-maidsafe-crowdsale/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/06/03/mastercoin-maidsafe-crowdsale/)
-
please create a new topic with the name "maidsafe" at:
BitShares Forum » Project Development » Other Projects
and move this thread there...
PS open there the topic NXT also and move all nxt related threads also...
-
great jump last days on price for maidsafe!
https://masterxchange.com/market.php?currency=maid
(https://masterxchange.com/market.php?currency=maid)
Please move the thread here:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?board=64.0 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?board=64.0)