0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: bitcoinerS on October 21, 2014, 12:08:46 amNeed a bit more clarity on proposal.PTS + AGS + BTSX => BTSDNS => ?VOTE => ?PLAY => ?Any third party dacs as I understand it will stay separate.
Need a bit more clarity on proposal.PTS + AGS + BTSX => BTSDNS => ?VOTE => ?PLAY => ?
However as I've said before my BitShares investment is primarily an investment in Bytemasters grand vision. BitAssets also have a short window of opportunity to take their shot at the world. So the sooner we get things resolved and push forward the better.
It was my understanding that they wouldn't be free-riding at least for the first couple years considering that development has already been paid for through AGS donations.
Then again how do you know for sure that given 2 DACs, the one with no dilution wouldn't be more popular, bring in more revenue thereby causing the dilution DAC to "free-ride" on the other DAC's increased market cap and momentum in development?
That said, IMO if indeed a major restructuring is necessary, then the time is now before the DAC gets too big. I remember discussions a while back about how the first implementation of bitshares may have to be redone. So this is fine with me as long as distributed consensus is maintained and the majority of shareholders are required to approve the decisions.
Quote from: amencon on October 20, 2014, 04:25:01 pmIf you have one DAC and it employs dilution and there is a potential user/investor that doesn't like dilution then you have no products for them to invest in.The DACs with no dilution will be free riding off the public goods funded by the DACs with dilution (see my post here). During these early stages we have so much common infrastructure that we need to fund, develop, and market to the masses. We are better off keeping things unified into a massive DAC with large network effect than splitting things up (at least for now). There can still be small third party DACs, but they will be at a disadvantage because of the weak network effect (by design). That is the cost they need to pay if they don't want to be part of BTS and pay their fair share of the common infrastructure through dilution. We want to make sure that if they opt-out of BTS and paying for the common infrastructure then they will be very unlikely to ever kill off BTS by gaining a larger network effect.Eventually, we will get to a stage where we can afford to spin-off into multiple DACs. All the heavy lifting will have been done and we will have escaped the Earth's gravitational pull and into outer space (to continue Stan's analogy). We can then afford to split into multiple DACs that specialize into different industries and attract shareholders who only care about those industries.
If you have one DAC and it employs dilution and there is a potential user/investor that doesn't like dilution then you have no products for them to invest in.
This is not "one chain to rule them all". (Bytemaster merely mentioned that such claims would be incorrectly made.)Two or three synergistic chains would be merged.
@bytemaster, is it possible to clarify which DACs/funtionalities would be included into BTSX?
Everything we would have ever implemented.
Quote from: bluebit on October 20, 2014, 04:19:47 pmDo it, merge all into BitsharesX. All funding should go into 1 DAC, and that funding can be distributed according to each DAC's need, so if someone doesn't know where to fund, they just fund the main DAC. The devs have my full support to implement the BTS merger, and the sooner the better.The DAC fragmentation/naming etc was a major stumbling block for marketing and investment.Now folks can just buy BTS to invest in BTC 2.0.Simple, clean and easy.
Do it, merge all into BitsharesX. All funding should go into 1 DAC, and that funding can be distributed according to each DAC's need, so if someone doesn't know where to fund, they just fund the main DAC.
Quote from: JoeyD on October 20, 2014, 10:30:18 amQuote from: amencon on October 20, 2014, 09:36:06 amCan you explain why most of your concerns were alleviated? This proposal is a major departure from the original plan. I liked the idea of an ecosystem. One where you could weight your investments based on the core purpose of each DAC and it's other features and merits.With a single chain that's lost. Now if you see value in the vote feature (or whatever) you have to pony up for all the other features of the DAC as well.I'm also not a fan of dilution, I don't believe there will be a way to accurately and conclusively determine the added value it will bring and the decision to dilute will most likely come from emotional campaigns or suggestion from I3.Add that this is essentially a huge statement from I3 that their stated goals mean little and are subject to massive changed at whim, not usually a good signal to woo future potential investors.I listened to the recording and it essentially sounds like BM wants to change his mind on how the ecosystem will be built because of backlash from BTSX holders due to poorly planned communications by BM that had them speculating that the Vote DAC was going to eat their lunch.Can you describe exactly what it was that he said that assuaged your concerns about this radical change? It sounds like you also liked the idea of multiple competing chains, is that now not the case? I only ask because I didn't hear anything that changed my mind about what I like.Oh don't get me wrong I still don't agree with the single blockchain concept and the proposal is not the way I like things to go. But I also understand the practical implications that if adoption fails and a certain threshold of adoptions is not reached this entire project will be dead in the water. So like you said, I'm not in favor of the single blockchain at all. What alleviated my concern was, that I realized that should the bitshares-project gain enough adoption and because of the opensource toolkit. It will allow for forks and spinoffs and help convince others to try and follow the same concepts and pos. The proposal is more for these separate chains to not be the sole responsibility of the bitshares team. Which is a good thing in my book, eventhough investors/speculators/stake holders might feel otherwise. Like I said, I'm an idealist, so I don't really give all that much about my stake as long as the world improves, I'm all for it.I also realized during the session that a colossal structure would probably not be able to compete with specialized and more agile spinoffs. Also the promise by the bitshares team to support people honoring the stake in the social contract, would probably be enough for new DACs to get a better start in the future. So now I see a possibility for more independence from the bitshares team with these separate dacs, which might not be what stake holders want to hear.So I agree looking for the easy way out is bad and communication is not being done well, I'm now seeing other ways of distributed developments more independent from bytemaster and the tiny bitshares team. I would have loved them being able to setup this entire ecosystem with competition and all, but with their current resources, funds and team-members I can see how they are not able to do that currently.Feel free to correct my mistaken logic when you see it, I may very well be confused, I've not been sleeping well and my mind could very well have started playing tricks on me. The hangout happened in the middle of the night for me and I was already exhausted when it started. I finished the uploads and posted the links at 3:30am means my brain is not firing on all cylinders today and caffeine is no longer up to the task.Gotta run, sorry if I'm not making sense, I'm typing this as fast as I can and I'm not a native english speaker.Thanks for the detailed reply, you are making sense. It's a good point about team size and resources. Originally I believe the plan was for each DAC to be "championed" by someone from their team with their own resources, for instance toast was heading up the KeyID development. That way I3 could develop multiple ideas at once and hopefully compare notes and share among themselves so each new DAC could be built stronger. Perhaps they now realize it's too much to grow their team large enough to fragment it to accommodate the development of multiple DACs at once. Plenty of companies stumble when trying to cross the chasm from one man shop to small business, then again going from small business to medium sized.Hopefully the right decisions are being made, hard to know without having all the facts. I do feel that now it is known that this is what I3 wants and will likely happen no matter what, some investors are just painting on a smile and agreeing this is "great news" to help ease the turbulent market effects all these comments and proposals have had. Very reminiscent of the "this is actually great news" meme in Bitcoin. Thank you for backing up your reasoning in all this, makes a bit more sense to me.
Quote from: amencon on October 20, 2014, 09:36:06 amCan you explain why most of your concerns were alleviated? This proposal is a major departure from the original plan. I liked the idea of an ecosystem. One where you could weight your investments based on the core purpose of each DAC and it's other features and merits.With a single chain that's lost. Now if you see value in the vote feature (or whatever) you have to pony up for all the other features of the DAC as well.I'm also not a fan of dilution, I don't believe there will be a way to accurately and conclusively determine the added value it will bring and the decision to dilute will most likely come from emotional campaigns or suggestion from I3.Add that this is essentially a huge statement from I3 that their stated goals mean little and are subject to massive changed at whim, not usually a good signal to woo future potential investors.I listened to the recording and it essentially sounds like BM wants to change his mind on how the ecosystem will be built because of backlash from BTSX holders due to poorly planned communications by BM that had them speculating that the Vote DAC was going to eat their lunch.Can you describe exactly what it was that he said that assuaged your concerns about this radical change? It sounds like you also liked the idea of multiple competing chains, is that now not the case? I only ask because I didn't hear anything that changed my mind about what I like.Oh don't get me wrong I still don't agree with the single blockchain concept and the proposal is not the way I like things to go. But I also understand the practical implications that if adoption fails and a certain threshold of adoptions is not reached this entire project will be dead in the water. So like you said, I'm not in favor of the single blockchain at all. What alleviated my concern was, that I realized that should the bitshares-project gain enough adoption and because of the opensource toolkit. It will allow for forks and spinoffs and help convince others to try and follow the same concepts and pos. The proposal is more for these separate chains to not be the sole responsibility of the bitshares team. Which is a good thing in my book, eventhough investors/speculators/stake holders might feel otherwise. Like I said, I'm an idealist, so I don't really give all that much about my stake as long as the world improves, I'm all for it.I also realized during the session that a colossal structure would probably not be able to compete with specialized and more agile spinoffs. Also the promise by the bitshares team to support people honoring the stake in the social contract, would probably be enough for new DACs to get a better start in the future. So now I see a possibility for more independence from the bitshares team with these separate dacs, which might not be what stake holders want to hear.So I agree looking for the easy way out is bad and communication is not being done well, I'm now seeing other ways of distributed developments more independent from bytemaster and the tiny bitshares team. I would have loved them being able to setup this entire ecosystem with competition and all, but with their current resources, funds and team-members I can see how they are not able to do that currently.Feel free to correct my mistaken logic when you see it, I may very well be confused, I've not been sleeping well and my mind could very well have started playing tricks on me. The hangout happened in the middle of the night for me and I was already exhausted when it started. I finished the uploads and posted the links at 3:30am means my brain is not firing on all cylinders today and caffeine is no longer up to the task.Gotta run, sorry if I'm not making sense, I'm typing this as fast as I can and I'm not a native english speaker.
Can you explain why most of your concerns were alleviated? This proposal is a major departure from the original plan. I liked the idea of an ecosystem. One where you could weight your investments based on the core purpose of each DAC and it's other features and merits.With a single chain that's lost. Now if you see value in the vote feature (or whatever) you have to pony up for all the other features of the DAC as well.I'm also not a fan of dilution, I don't believe there will be a way to accurately and conclusively determine the added value it will bring and the decision to dilute will most likely come from emotional campaigns or suggestion from I3.Add that this is essentially a huge statement from I3 that their stated goals mean little and are subject to massive changed at whim, not usually a good signal to woo future potential investors.I listened to the recording and it essentially sounds like BM wants to change his mind on how the ecosystem will be built because of backlash from BTSX holders due to poorly planned communications by BM that had them speculating that the Vote DAC was going to eat their lunch.Can you describe exactly what it was that he said that assuaged your concerns about this radical change? It sounds like you also liked the idea of multiple competing chains, is that now not the case? I only ask because I didn't hear anything that changed my mind about what I like.
Controlled focus is like a laser beam that can cut through anything that seems to be stopping you.
Quote from: Gentso1 on October 20, 2014, 04:00:46 pmQuote from: davidpbrown on October 20, 2014, 03:31:26 pmQuote from: Gentso1 on October 20, 2014, 03:15:15 pmHow can we ever how to reach any kind of a mainstream adoption when many have agreed we are message is far to complex?I don't understand why marketing many DACs becomes different by being all within one BitShares brand. Each DAC will need its own effort and perhaps marketing to different audiences and interests.It would be vastly more expensive having a separate marketing team for each dac. My own opinion is that it would be so much easier to understand at a consumer level to just push one name. I dont think bitshares has nearly enough size to warrant having separate stand alone marketing teams. In the future after adoption is achieved, standalone chains with independent dev teams and marketing teams would be great. Would you agree that it is easier to grow one large business compared to a few small one? If you consider that the small businesses a still a bit away from even turning a profit I think it furthers the argument. Look at the delegate situation for btsx. I am not sure but I am assuming vote would be setup the same way. I would also bet that delegates their may be put in the same position. I think its wise to learn from what we have experienced with the first released product.What advantages would their be to not combine? That's easy. With separate DACs you don't have to convince people to spend more for all the features in a swiss army knife DAC. Let's say someone is only interested in one aspect of the DAC, well now you have to convince them that's it's worth their money spending it on all the functions within the DAC for access to the one feature they are interested in.Further, multiple DACs let you experiment with various DAC features. Dilution is an obvious one. If you have one DAC and it employs dilution and there is a potential user/investor that doesn't like dilution then you have no products for them to invest in. With multiple DACs you have a greater chance of apealing to a greater cross section of users and investors overall.
Quote from: davidpbrown on October 20, 2014, 03:31:26 pmQuote from: Gentso1 on October 20, 2014, 03:15:15 pmHow can we ever how to reach any kind of a mainstream adoption when many have agreed we are message is far to complex?I don't understand why marketing many DACs becomes different by being all within one BitShares brand. Each DAC will need its own effort and perhaps marketing to different audiences and interests.It would be vastly more expensive having a separate marketing team for each dac. My own opinion is that it would be so much easier to understand at a consumer level to just push one name. I dont think bitshares has nearly enough size to warrant having separate stand alone marketing teams. In the future after adoption is achieved, standalone chains with independent dev teams and marketing teams would be great. Would you agree that it is easier to grow one large business compared to a few small one? If you consider that the small businesses a still a bit away from even turning a profit I think it furthers the argument. Look at the delegate situation for btsx. I am not sure but I am assuming vote would be setup the same way. I would also bet that delegates their may be put in the same position. I think its wise to learn from what we have experienced with the first released product.What advantages would their be to not combine?
Quote from: Gentso1 on October 20, 2014, 03:15:15 pmHow can we ever how to reach any kind of a mainstream adoption when many have agreed we are message is far to complex?I don't understand why marketing many DACs becomes different by being all within one BitShares brand. Each DAC will need its own effort and perhaps marketing to different audiences and interests.
How can we ever how to reach any kind of a mainstream adoption when many have agreed we are message is far to complex?
Quote from: bitmarket on October 20, 2014, 02:27:30 pm4. By the way. Handled properly this is a great PR stunt and campaign. "The worlds first DAC acquisition." More excuses to teach people about the DAC analogy of bitshares.I like the way you think!
4. By the way. Handled properly this is a great PR stunt and campaign. "The worlds first DAC acquisition." More excuses to teach people about the DAC analogy of bitshares.
Quote from: bytemaster on October 20, 2014, 02:59:58 pmEverything we would have ever implemented.what is with lottery/play, DNS, music? All those functionalities would go into BTSX?
Quote from: NewMine on October 20, 2014, 04:53:37 amQuote from: fuzzy on October 20, 2014, 02:13:15 amthat can be changed. just recognize newmine is here with "mine" in his name. he is obviously showing a pow bias before he even speaks. those who wanted to attend, attended. to act like it was a net negative...is kind of insane. just look at the charts before, during and after the speech.I apologize I wasn't around to attend the mumble session. From now on, I will quit my job just in anticipating of a random mumble session that may or may not happen on any given day. Hell, why don't we just shut the forum down and move all discussions to the mumble since no one wants to give a cliffs notes to anything that was talked about here. Not like its a forum or anything. Usually when someone doesn't want to explain something they either don't understand what it is they are to explain or they are unsure if the explanation is worthy of publicly acknowledging.History lesson on my user name. I only mine PTS now and actually haven't mined any for a couple months as I got rid of most mining equipment as it became antiquated. So, with that said, I created the account in January when I was still mining BTC, PTS and a few other coins. Mining BTC was never profitable for me and I regretted buying the equipment. PTS has been quite profitable in theory since I transferred most to AGS and BTSX. What charts should I look at?What about my post was wrong? I based my assumption on OP's self admitted misleading title.All I want is answers and explanations. I unfortunately don't have time to listen to 2 hour conference skypes or spend 2 hours sifting through the mega thread that emerged due to this.No offense intended to any individual.none taken. I have thick skin It is going to be impossible at this juncture to gain 100% consensus for every user. What happened today was essentially another way to communicate. Like TonyK said...speech is humanity's primary form of communication. The mumble server is largely a community service and the fact that BM showed up imho deserves at least a bone tossed his way. We ALL know (if we've been around long enough) that BM has a way of occasionally posting a topic in hopes of reaching out transparently to the community. We also know that sometimes it backfires. Thankfully, he has always proven he will go out of his way to consider the perspective of his investors...and that is why we had it up and running. We know you work, but unfortunateley we cannot hold a 24/7 conference with such short notice Luckily, we all can record though...and do so you can still listen on the way to work and back, or when you take your shower in the morning...or read the newspaper...etc. It is really up to the investor to either divest or take what is given them to make the best possible decisions. As for me, I work too and also pay for the server so we have access to this. I ask nothing in return and even when i sometimes get tipped by invictus, it is sent out to people who have volunteered to help me. As far as the original post, i apologize for that. We here in the forums have found over time that we run into a great many competitors who make shell accounts and come here specifically to sell FUD. Sorry if we are sometimes a bit defensive.
Quote from: fuzzy on October 20, 2014, 02:13:15 amthat can be changed. just recognize newmine is here with "mine" in his name. he is obviously showing a pow bias before he even speaks. those who wanted to attend, attended. to act like it was a net negative...is kind of insane. just look at the charts before, during and after the speech.I apologize I wasn't around to attend the mumble session. From now on, I will quit my job just in anticipating of a random mumble session that may or may not happen on any given day. Hell, why don't we just shut the forum down and move all discussions to the mumble since no one wants to give a cliffs notes to anything that was talked about here. Not like its a forum or anything. Usually when someone doesn't want to explain something they either don't understand what it is they are to explain or they are unsure if the explanation is worthy of publicly acknowledging.History lesson on my user name. I only mine PTS now and actually haven't mined any for a couple months as I got rid of most mining equipment as it became antiquated. So, with that said, I created the account in January when I was still mining BTC, PTS and a few other coins. Mining BTC was never profitable for me and I regretted buying the equipment. PTS has been quite profitable in theory since I transferred most to AGS and BTSX. What charts should I look at?What about my post was wrong? I based my assumption on OP's self admitted misleading title.All I want is answers and explanations. I unfortunately don't have time to listen to 2 hour conference skypes or spend 2 hours sifting through the mega thread that emerged due to this.No offense intended to any individual.
that can be changed. just recognize newmine is here with "mine" in his name. he is obviously showing a pow bias before he even speaks. those who wanted to attend, attended. to act like it was a net negative...is kind of insane. just look at the charts before, during and after the speech.
Quote from: davidpbrown on October 20, 2014, 02:41:34 pmWhatever is to happen to PTS needs to be resolved quickly. I wonder spawning a new asset would be safer and simpler for the value of BTSX. That would allow a simple confident statement asap on the value of BTSX not being affected in anything but a positive way by any other changes mooted.Right now I suspect the slide we see in price is simply the more cautious and short term are moving to places of safety and that will only continue while there is uncertainty. Turn this to a positive and perhaps we'll see a prompt reversal, especially in key populations of interest, like the Chinese.I think you are still missing the point... if PTS continues as a separate asset then people have expectation of competing DACs that don't honor BTS.
Whatever is to happen to PTS needs to be resolved quickly. I wonder spawning a new asset would be safer and simpler for the value of BTSX. That would allow a simple confident statement asap on the value of BTSX not being affected in anything but a positive way by any other changes mooted.Right now I suspect the slide we see in price is simply the more cautious and short term are moving to places of safety and that will only continue while there is uncertainty. Turn this to a positive and perhaps we'll see a prompt reversal, especially in key populations of interest, like the Chinese.
Quote from: cryptillionaire on October 20, 2014, 02:14:53 pmQuote from: James212 on October 19, 2014, 11:01:25 pmPTS and AGS will be folded into BTS (AGS and PTS will receive shares in BTS) and DACs will be all "divisions" BTS.I need to catch up on all the developments that have been happening, but why should we dilute the bts/btsx for AGS/PTS holders when they have already been rewarded for holding AGS/PTS with the initial btsx snapshot? I think a bitasset would be far more preferable than to dilute btsx.This is my biggest concern too. Although if I understand correctly there is $2million dollars in assets(dev funds) that btsx "purchases" when they purchase those DAC's(?) Again a clear list of pros and cons for each participant would be great.
Quote from: James212 on October 19, 2014, 11:01:25 pmPTS and AGS will be folded into BTS (AGS and PTS will receive shares in BTS) and DACs will be all "divisions" BTS.I need to catch up on all the developments that have been happening, but why should we dilute the bts/btsx for AGS/PTS holders when they have already been rewarded for holding AGS/PTS with the initial btsx snapshot? I think a bitasset would be far more preferable than to dilute btsx.
PTS and AGS will be folded into BTS (AGS and PTS will receive shares in BTS) and DACs will be all "divisions" BTS.
Quote from: delulo on October 20, 2014, 01:39:51 pmI did not want to imply wrongness on any one's part. I just wanted to point out that there is confusion content wise.Yes.. but it was an interesting prompt to my reflection on how sometimes we forget what others do not understand.. and wonder then at their reactions.
I did not want to imply wrongness on any one's part. I just wanted to point out that there is confusion content wise.
Quote from: delulo on October 20, 2014, 12:55:09 pmDilution is misunderstood vastlyIt is an error to put the onous on other people. Better to consider that other people do not understand because of you own failing than consider it is their mistake. Not everyone will have time to consider closely all point and if the impression is uncertainty and a cluster of what might be proposals.. but note how proposals can move to become reality, then there is an anxiety created. I see some of this as a natural reaction to change of what had been concrete.People like certainty. People like certainty so much that they will tolerate certainty that they do not agree with entirely, before ever the risking what they treasure on something that might be good or might be really bad. It's not necessarily a considered reaction but then crowds prehaps dance to a different tune.
Dilution is misunderstood vastly
I've been listening and find myself agreeing with BM. To summarize:BM has an obligation to create something for post-28th feb donations and PTS holders, leading to the perceived conflict of interestFusioning all DACs into BTSX under the name BTS would focus BM on a single DACA fusion would be done through a second, final snapshot of PTS/AGSThis snapshot would create new BTSX to honor current PTS/AGS holdersThis snapshot will focus all the funds on the same project in order to accelerate developmentAny new features such as VOTE would be created inside BTSFuture scaling problems would be addressed using a spin-off: a snapshot of BTS used to create a new DACTLDR: Buying out PTS/AGS to create a bigger, better DAC with more features, more funding, better marketing potential and complete developer focus.
corruption resistant systems
So now that I've gotten some sleep and a cup of coffee I'll post my reaction.First to address some worries about this socalled shareholder meeting. The mumble meeting happened completely unexpectedly and spontaneously, probably mostly because of people wanting to vent their anger. The only person I could find on mumble earlier that day was Gamey, who was busy drowning his worries away because of the proposal and resulting commotion. He then went off to drown his worries some more and nobody has heard off or seen him since. Goodbye Gamey, you will be missed, hopefully by someone with better memory than mine.I then checked Mumble again later that day, just before going to bed to see if anybody was there so I could do a little venting and forgot to turn it off. Purely by accident I heard gentso1 calling out while I was in another room and out of the blue the channel started filling up with people. Eventually even Bytemaster and Stan showed up, but that much should be clear from the chatlog and unedited recording I uploaded.Now here is my perspective on what Bytemaster said, but first and formost no final decisions have been made nothing is set in stone, in the mumble session Bytemaster just explained the context of his proposal that was a reaction to people voicing their worries about the voting dac.If you saw my post in the proposal discussion, you may have noticed I was not happy with the proposal at all and probably made one of the harshest posts in that giant thread. I have been passionate about corruption resistant systems for most of my life and I donated to AGS for the bitsharestoolkit and in hope that it would help bring the developments I've been striving for for more than 20 years to finally become reality. To me the concept of a single blockchain to rule them all is one of the biggest concerns I have.After listening to Bytemasters point of view, he did manage to alleviate most of my concerns and restore a lot of faith in the future. I'll try to list the important points for me (sorry if it's not the speculator point of view), development of the opensource bitshares toolkit will continue and decentralization still is the main objective. However he feels that, at this embryonic stage, the bitshares team might do better to focus all their efforts on this single proto-dac with all the features of the previously announced separate DACS. This would make things clear for new people, and would help the marketing of bitshares enormously, because now they only have to sell this one project and focus all energy and developments to give the project critical mass / escape velocity.Bytemaster argues, that in the case bitshares reaches adoption rates similar or beyond that of bitcoin, then decentralization will happen naturally by people making clones of bitshares or successful experimental DACs in this proto-dac spinning off on their own chain when they start to run into limitations and the free market will take care of it on it's own. For the short to medium term however the Bitshares team would not be creating competition with itself and for now concentrate on assuring the biggest chance of survival for the current projects and maximum focused and efficient use of their current resources, be it manpower, capital or whatever. Should the proposal gain general acceptance then the social contract will remain intact and Bitshares-team would still offer support to anyone using the toolkit and honoring the percentage stake in this separate chain/DAC if even it is a competing one.
Should the proposal gain general acceptance then the social contract will remain intact and Bitshares-team would still offer support to anyone using the toolkit and honoring the percentage stake in this separate chain/DAC if even it is a competing one.
Quote from: fuzzy on October 20, 2014, 05:46:35 amQuote from: NewMine on October 20, 2014, 04:53:37 amQuote from: fuzzy on October 20, 2014, 02:13:15 amthat can be changed. just recognize newmine is here with "mine" in his name. he is obviously showing a pow bias before he even speaks. those who wanted to attend, attended. to act like it was a net negative...is kind of insane. just look at the charts before, during and after the speech.I apologize I wasn't around to attend the mumble session. From now on, I will quit my job just in anticipating of a random mumble session that may or may not happen on any given day. Hell, why don't we just shut the forum down and move all discussions to the mumble since no one wants to give a cliffs notes to anything that was talked about here. Not like its a forum or anything. Usually when someone doesn't want to explain something they either don't understand what it is they are to explain or they are unsure if the explanation is worthy of publicly acknowledging.History lesson on my user name. I only mine PTS now and actually haven't mined any for a couple months as I got rid of most mining equipment as it became antiquated. So, with that said, I created the account in January when I was still mining BTC, PTS and a few other coins. Mining BTC was never profitable for me and I regretted buying the equipment. PTS has been quite profitable in theory since I transferred most to AGS and BTSX. What charts should I look at?What about my post was wrong? I based my assumption on OP's self admitted misleading title.All I want is answers and explanations. I unfortunately don't have time to listen to 2 hour conference skypes or spend 2 hours sifting through the mega thread that emerged due to this.No offense intended to any individual.none taken. I have thick skin It is going to be impossible at this juncture to gain 100% consensus for every user. What happened today was essentially another way to communicate. Like TonyK said...speech is humanity's primary form of communication. The mumble server is largely a community service and the fact that BM showed up imho deserves at least a bone tossed his way. We ALL know (if we've been around long enough) that BM has a way of occasionally posting a topic in hopes of reaching out transparently to the community. We also know that sometimes it backfires. Thankfully, he has always proven he will go out of his way to consider the perspective of his investors...and that is why we had it up and running. We know you work, but unfortunateley we cannot hold a 24/7 conference with such short notice Luckily, we all can record though...and do so you can still listen on the way to work and back, or when you take your shower in the morning...or read the newspaper...etc. It is really up to the investor to either divest or take what is given them to make the best possible decisions. As for me, I work too and also pay for the server so we have access to this. I ask nothing in return and even when i sometimes get tipped by invictus, it is sent out to people who have volunteered to help me. As far as the original post, i apologize for that. We here in the forums have found over time that we run into a great many competitors who make shell accounts and come here specifically to sell FUD. Sorry if we are sometimes a bit defensive. It's not about reasoning or understanding or whatever.If a Chinese guy use mandarin to say "there",it pronounces "nay ger",and if he says that in front of a black crew in America,he would find himself in great trouble,especially when he can't use English to explain.No one cares what you think or what your intention are,if you confuse them first.You'll have to make great effort to mend that fence.That's what i'm talking about.How would you expect every new user and future investor to "understand" BM the way I or you did ?
Quote from: NewMine on October 20, 2014, 12:45:30 amWow. I am sure glad all 23 of you came to a consensus for the rest of the community.How about a detailed plot of what is to happen regarding share stake percentages in already snapshot DAC's, how the new DAC's will fit into the ecosystem, what do AGS get, what do PTS get, how will dilution be voted on(since I3 controls a majority stake) and what circumstance will allow dilution, are the other Devs (Toast, Vikram etc.) on board.......Numbers matter more than hopeful thoughts.We didn't "decide" anything.. were merely agreed that the direction was worth pursuing further...
Wow. I am sure glad all 23 of you came to a consensus for the rest of the community.How about a detailed plot of what is to happen regarding share stake percentages in already snapshot DAC's, how the new DAC's will fit into the ecosystem, what do AGS get, what do PTS get, how will dilution be voted on(since I3 controls a majority stake) and what circumstance will allow dilution, are the other Devs (Toast, Vikram etc.) on board.......Numbers matter more than hopeful thoughts.
fuck.people keep dumping shit load of btsx.kill me.
Thank you for the recorded mumble session. The board meeting open to us to hear what is going on only shows how sophisticated and progressive the team and I3 is. Bitshares is one of the best investments I've made in crypto and I am happy to say keeping the faith in this project has proved rewarding and shall continue to forward on from here. I have stake in BTSX as well as BTC.Regards,
Going to hear when I get off work. Quick question - what was the answer to the problems of one chain that BM had mentioned earlier (when Ethereum was the all the talk)?
Quote from: fuzzy on October 20, 2014, 02:13:15 amQuote from: Rune on October 20, 2014, 01:02:16 amQuote from: NewMine on October 20, 2014, 12:45:30 amWow. I am sure glad all 23 of you came to a consensus for the rest of the community.How about a detailed plot of what is to happen regarding share stake percentages in already snapshot DAC's, how the new DAC's will fit into the ecosystem, what do AGS get, what do PTS get, how will dilution be voted on(since I3 controls a majority stake) and what circumstance will allow dilution, are the other Devs (Toast, Vikram etc.) on board.......Numbers matter more than hopeful thoughts.Sorry, in hindsight the title of this post isn't that great. The point is that we all went into it with bad feelings about the whole thing, many people were completely against the proposal and completely against any share dilution. We were as scared/confused/panicky as this entire forum was for the entire day. And then BM basically explained everything clearly and consicely and we ended up all changing our minds. 23 negative skeptics went in to the mumble server, when we were done not a SINGLE person felt negative about it at all, and many of us were talking afterwards about how exciting it is.If you're a scared or confused investor who don't know what to make of all this, I HIGHLY recommend listening to the mumble recording. I think all your concerns will be met, and you will be satisfied.that can be changed. just recognize newmine is here with "mine" in his name. he is obviously showing a pow bias before he even speaks. those who wanted to attend, attended. to act like it was a net negative...is kind of insane. just look at the charts before, during and after the speech.He's obviously interested enough in DPOS to make an account and post on this forum. Yeah, I guess there's a chance he's an evil PoW shill coming to spread FUD, but even with that possibility the best strategy is always to be polite to anyone here, especially newcomers. There is really no point to scare anyone off - if someone is a troll or a spammer it should be handled through the standard channels of forum moderation. Sorry for the rant I'm just tired of the tribal attitude that is growing on this forum, I think it hurts adoption.
Quote from: Rune on October 20, 2014, 01:02:16 amQuote from: NewMine on October 20, 2014, 12:45:30 amWow. I am sure glad all 23 of you came to a consensus for the rest of the community.How about a detailed plot of what is to happen regarding share stake percentages in already snapshot DAC's, how the new DAC's will fit into the ecosystem, what do AGS get, what do PTS get, how will dilution be voted on(since I3 controls a majority stake) and what circumstance will allow dilution, are the other Devs (Toast, Vikram etc.) on board.......Numbers matter more than hopeful thoughts.Sorry, in hindsight the title of this post isn't that great. The point is that we all went into it with bad feelings about the whole thing, many people were completely against the proposal and completely against any share dilution. We were as scared/confused/panicky as this entire forum was for the entire day. And then BM basically explained everything clearly and consicely and we ended up all changing our minds. 23 negative skeptics went in to the mumble server, when we were done not a SINGLE person felt negative about it at all, and many of us were talking afterwards about how exciting it is.If you're a scared or confused investor who don't know what to make of all this, I HIGHLY recommend listening to the mumble recording. I think all your concerns will be met, and you will be satisfied.that can be changed. just recognize newmine is here with "mine" in his name. he is obviously showing a pow bias before he even speaks. those who wanted to attend, attended. to act like it was a net negative...is kind of insane. just look at the charts before, during and after the speech.
Quote from: NewMine on October 20, 2014, 12:45:30 amWow. I am sure glad all 23 of you came to a consensus for the rest of the community.How about a detailed plot of what is to happen regarding share stake percentages in already snapshot DAC's, how the new DAC's will fit into the ecosystem, what do AGS get, what do PTS get, how will dilution be voted on(since I3 controls a majority stake) and what circumstance will allow dilution, are the other Devs (Toast, Vikram etc.) on board.......Numbers matter more than hopeful thoughts.Sorry, in hindsight the title of this post isn't that great. The point is that we all went into it with bad feelings about the whole thing, many people were completely against the proposal and completely against any share dilution. We were as scared/confused/panicky as this entire forum was for the entire day. And then BM basically explained everything clearly and consicely and we ended up all changing our minds. 23 negative skeptics went in to the mumble server, when we were done not a SINGLE person felt negative about it at all, and many of us were talking afterwards about how exciting it is.If you're a scared or confused investor who don't know what to make of all this, I HIGHLY recommend listening to the mumble recording. I think all your concerns will be met, and you will be satisfied.
Quote from: NewMine on October 20, 2014, 12:45:30 amWow. I am sure glad all 23 of you came to a consensus for the rest of the community.How about a detailed plot of what is to happen regarding share stake percentages in already snapshot DAC's, how the new DAC's will fit into the ecosystem, what do AGS get, what do PTS get, how will dilution be voted on(since I3 controls a majority stake) and what circumstance will allow dilution, are the other Devs (Toast, Vikram etc.) on board.......Numbers matter more than hopeful thoughts.Just listen to it... nobody came to any decision/consensus. We just thought that another way of communicating (the usual way for humans to communicate, btw - by talking to each other), helped stuff get cleared to a lot of us.
Quote from: NewMine on October 20, 2014, 12:45:30 amWow. I am sure glad all 23 of you came to a consensus for the rest of the community.How about a detailed plot of what is to happen regarding share stake percentages in already snapshot DAC's, how the new DAC's will fit into the ecosystem, what do AGS get, what do PTS get, how will dilution be voted on(since I3 controls a majority stake) and what circumstance will allow dilution, are the other Devs (Toast, Vikram etc.) on board.......Numbers matter more than hopeful thoughts.Just listen to it... nobody came to any decision/consensus. We just thought that another way of communicating (the usual way for humans to communicate, btw - by talking to each other), helped stuffed get cleared to a lot of us.
Quote from: Rune on October 19, 2014, 11:13:54 pmOne of the main reasons a unified DAC is so great is that there are many synergies amongst the different DAC functionalities. e.g. the DNS dac can support the bazaar dac, which support the exchange dac. Implementing all three things in the same client will greatly increase user experience and reduce transaction costs and spread.The Bazaar DAC?
One of the main reasons a unified DAC is so great is that there are many synergies amongst the different DAC functionalities. e.g. the DNS dac can support the bazaar dac, which support the exchange dac. Implementing all three things in the same client will greatly increase user experience and reduce transaction costs and spread.
There is something wrong with that link from my end..
Did this session have anybody besides Dan from the core team?