In effort to become profitable, and supply users with more degrees of freedom than any other community, Bytemaster just let us know that we can "sell hard fork votes" (votes on proposals)(not votes for delegates or parameter changes) by either burning BTS, or locking BTS up for a pre-determined period.   

Such an initiative would only affect "which proposals get funded next" while simultaneously funding development and temporarily reducing BTS supply.  Since these additional purchased votes cannot be used to elect the delegates that set the proposals in motion, or vote on changing any internal parameters (both of which could potentially steer BitShares in a negative direction), there cannot be any negative influence on the system becasue the community obviously supports each and every proposal to some degree otherwise the delegates would be fired.

This is just another way that we can monetize the time and money of our community that does not create any avenue for bad actors to hurt our community.

Here are BM's own words from an initial thread I created without knowing that BM could indeed limit the purchased votes to"

"just allowing them to be applied to the proposal voting process"

(and not actually be used for delegate or parameter voting both of which are critical to the security of the system)

"Proposal voting" is like choosing which flavor of ice cream you want:  one positive and harmless outcome vs another positive and harmless, but different, outcome.

We can set the parameters based on the cost of one or more proposal votes.

Quote from: bytemaster on August 17, 2015, 06:39:34 pm

You can also vote to "defund a worker" at any time.   

The examples in the OP are not realistic unless you are referring to a hard-fork decision.   But even that requires massive consensus prior to, during, and after.   

It really comes down to this:

1. what is the value of a vote?
2. what is the value of locking up funds?

If we knew the value of a "vote", then we could simply sell additional votes in exchange for burned stake.    Someone with 100M BTS may be willing to burn 1M BTS to double their vote it it will cause their remaining 99M BTS to rise in value or prevent it from falling in value.   

Locking up funds means the individual looses liquidity, which has some non-0 value.   If everyone with BTS was forced to lock up their funds for 90 days except delegate pay, then delegate pay would be the only source of liquid BTS which would make it more valuable.   Hence, locking up funds has some non-0 value to those with liquid funds.   It would be like EtherCoin being valued higher than ETH because it was liquid while ETH was not.   

So shareholders have to balance these complex valuations when they set policy.   

If we pay people to lock up funds today it can increase the potential purchasing power of the funds we pay to witnesses/delegates/workers today.   In effect, is paying interest to borrow money from the future.

assuming you refer to the last mumble hangout with BM wasn't the proposal to get more votes for locking up BTS instead of for selling them?

If we are to go into more fancy design, for me these two are good benchmarks:
(1) Blocknet - both elegant and informative.
(2) Qora - has recently put a lot of effort into web design but maybe it's overdone, I'm not sure.
(It's a bit strange because they have this fancy website and at the same time their wallet is quite the opposite, it looks like a proof-of-concept prototype - but I guess they will take care of it soon)

Ethereum.org is the best in class in terms of website and message to me at the moment! Have you seen their site?

My comments on the branding document:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/18xqqkgtv6a9nC_KlZL3TAkN-Rl_xMRFb7uADtnzHbsQ/edit?usp=sharing

(made a separate document to keep the original one readable).

Hi Folks

Re the name:

There was and still is good reason for the name. Whilst I am not shutting down the discussion I am asking that you refer to https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zDPgdB9Ftm6TOOTPhk2ZzFQLMP2chYRXZsDo6nGWPEE/edit#heading=h.mmll6e7809dr
 and comment on the reasoning presented, please don't mistakenly think the name was casual decision, the name, the logo, the color, the long game strategy for related brands, they were all contributors towards an intended business objective.

Re the ID in IDentabit, I agree that the capital D is an issue, the issue arises from the D drowning the adjacent I and hence we are left with Dentabit, sounds like a mouth guard doesn't it :-)

I have a meeting with some marketing folk this week and I will see what they say and I'll let you know, but I'd like to say thank you for the effort made debating the name and confirming a concern.

We all have our ways, it happens I am a strategic guy and consequently I am very thoughtful before making a decision, consequently I don't toss things into the ring because I am undecided. I do so to listen to opinions to ensure we haven't missed something.

I feel strongly that we all feel best when people are direct and consistent...I will do my best to be that way.

Have you thought about a launching strategy like below (in chronological order). Circle, Ethereum and 21 were launched like that and they all got a ton of attention.

1. The coming soon stage: Puts out a name and the corporate identity (graphics) and the names and partners that are behind the project, maybe with a countdown to launch at some point.
[...building the excitement]
2. Putting out the website about as it is atm with the reasoning behind the project.
[...building the excitement]
3. Randomly / Over time putting out screen shots, controversial Media Articles, announcement of new partnerships.
3. Launching the blockchain along with the first use case / customer / bank integrating it (if possible) plus at the same time announcing the Remitabit project again with an emotional message of assisting the poorest. 

Relevant to the naming debate is also how Identabits will be used. Do people  use identabits as a medium of exchange then the name is a little long. Related question in full length: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,17934.msg228864.html#msg228864

Quote from: EstefanTT on August 13, 2015, 05:13:21 pm

Quote from: Method-X on August 13, 2015, 02:06:46 pm

I like this project and think it has potential. The one thing that seems unprofessional to me is the name itself. I would suggest using a naming service like http://www.namebase.com (there are many others). I would also recommend staying away from any and all cliches like "bit" for example. I would opt for a name that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. Example: Ethereum, Ripple, Stellar, Graphene. These are all great names.

I'm not a big fan of the name either. Mainly because you will have a hard time to seem serious with French speakers.

I don't know how to make this comment and don't sound like a retarded teenager but ...

iIdentabit pronounce itself the same way as " i dans ta bite " which you can translate  from french by " i in your dick "

The equivalent thing would be like naming a french company something like "inyordik"

Any other french speakers over here who find the name no very suited for french pronunciation ?

Hahaha

But that's where they install the microchips!

Perhaps a naming schema in Esperanto would land a safe wording worldwide?

I already started on this naming thing in the last thread.. Something to do with badge I think would work great on a lot of levels. It fits in with something people understand.. it has poential for people to really build a personalized something out of it.. and saying 'what is your badgeID' or whatever it ends up being is universally understood.

Again.. my 2 brownie.pts.

I seriously like the Esperanto idea! Check this http://www.esperanto-panorama.net/vortaro/eoen.htm
Mono means money. Suggestions:
MonoID
IDMono
IdentMono
MonoIdent

IDMono even sounds like "the money".

Any problems with that Estaffan? 

Been waiting for that thread

Regarding the identabit.com website:

1. In the sliding pictures at the top:

- "A serious solution to an extraordinary opportunity" -> does that make sense? might be some fancy marketing language but there are no solutions to opportunities.

- "The first identity based, decentralized identity based currency" ->  Should probably say: "The first identity based, decentralized currency"

2. Almost at the bottom in the security section:

- You say: "Vulnerability to theft (high) / (low)". There was a quick reasoning with the other ratings. This seems a little unfounded to me.

Seems like the German forum forces got your back