Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Agent86

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ... 32
286
General Discussion / Re: Initial price for a XTS
« on: July 03, 2014, 01:26:02 pm »
Quote from: Simeon II on July 03, 2014, 03:20:31 am
What % do you want me to put now?
20% OK?  (I can put 100% if you do not intend to go close to 1% of total shares).

Tell me how big you wanna go and I will offer you decent security deposit too.

The only way it is a fair deal is if you put up something like 500% deposit.  That way if XTS comes out real high and you don't send the XTS the other person still makes the return they should get.  Use someone at I3 like BM as escrow if he'd bother with it.

287
KeyID / Re: .p2p auction parameter discussion
« on: July 02, 2014, 05:31:30 pm »
Quote from: gamey on July 02, 2014, 05:11:36 pm
Agent86 -

p2p is going to appeal people specifically looking for anti-censorship.  Established businesses are not going to want to be on the domain with all the weird riff-raff.  Your idea might help the DAC in the longrun if it wouldn't  kill adoption. 

And it is censorship.  It isn't like a First Amendment level of censorship, but having someone be able to buy up your private domain for $XXX blows.  So now you have to pay extra.  With these concerns in the back of people's minds, who is going to be the early adopters?  I would think just squatters.  There is so many problems with adoption that adding FUD to this by the concerns expressed surely won't help.

With all due respect gamey, I don't think you are fully understanding my proposal.  There is no incentive for squatters.  People are not just "buying up your private domain"  they are buying it from you for your profit.  You also know full well going into things that if you get BestBuy.p2p for your electronics store down on the corner the day will likely come that you can't afford it and will want to sell.   Customers who we want to install plugins and use our DAC for ".p2p" domains will have WAY more respect for the system and will be much more likely to use it and install the plugin if they find that the registered domains have real appropriate content and BestBuy.p2p is owned by BestBuy not by your lame used electronics store.  I, for one, would absolutely be an early adopter.  I most likely wouldn't spend time on your other proposals for the similar reasons I don't have an interest in .bit domains from namecoin.  It is not censorship; anyone can lease a domain whether they are anonymous or not without any censorship.  They are leasing the domain and they know the rules going in.  It is a fools errand for people to be running around trying to buy your worthless domain to censor you, and it won't happen.  It probably just puts more options and/or money in your pocket so you can get your message out louder.

288
KeyID / Re: .p2p auction parameter discussion
« on: July 02, 2014, 05:13:44 pm »
to clarify toast; in my proposal you are never "near the end of your lease"  because you just auto-extend your lease to the max allowed on a monthly basis or however often you like, so you always have a multi-year buffer time there.

289
KeyID / Re: .p2p auction parameter discussion
« on: July 02, 2014, 04:41:29 pm »
Quote from: toast on July 02, 2014, 04:06:21 pm
@Agent86 I still do not see how you can't imagine someone with more money than you wanting to buy your name and doing something malicious with it. I would *never* rent a domain if I expect it to be possible for some rich guy I piss off to snipe it out from under me.
Ok, I'm trying to think of best way to explain how I see it.

Imagine you have a barber shop and you are leasing a space for your business (common practice).  You have been there 5 years and have prepaid your lease out by 5 years @ $12k/yr.  Now, your customers know your location, you have adds in yellowpages etc.  Some rich guy who wants to spite you (maybe the large hairdresser at other end of stripmall?)   He wants to raise your rent to $20k/yr.  So he goes to your landlord and puts in deposit of $20k x 5yrs = $100k.  Your landlord makes you aware of it and says you have 5 years to decide what to do.  If you make a quick decision, he has the spot next door available at your old rate, or maybe less.   So if you like you can take 6 months to tell all your customers contact the yellow pages etc. get the new shop open, move your stuff, forward the mail and then collect a little less than $40k profit for your trouble.  Sure, it could be a bit of a pain, but you get rewarded.  Lets look at the other guy:  He just spent $100k paying way above market rate for a place he has no need for just in some vain attempt to inconvenience you.  He'll then have to eat it at a complete loss or immediately put it back on the market at a big loss.  I guess he could open a hairdresser there, but everyone has been made well aware that this is new ownership and he is not fooling anyone.  It's a lot of effort and money to start a business he never intended to start and the lease price was too high for you so he's obviously overpaying.  He's kicking himself already.  Maybe you don't want to move, maybe you stay there for 4 years while this rich jerk has his $100k tied up doing nothing.  Maybe it was a good time for you to move on anyway at that point.  Then you start the moving process; he'll probably start panicking and trying to cut a deal with you because he wants his money back already and doesn't want the stupid shop for 5 years.

I mean is this a real problem that people contend with?  Is this really a way to harm someone or just a great way to shoot yourself in the foot?

Maybe he's been more sneaky and has been slowly making higher offers over time but it's always up to you if you like to extend your lease at a bit higher rate, or if you tie up the attackers money and make him start sweating.  Or if you take the money and run at a time that is most convenient for you.

290
General Discussion / Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
« on: July 02, 2014, 03:19:25 pm »
Quote from: emski on July 02, 2014, 03:11:38 pm
Quote from: Agent86 on July 02, 2014, 03:01:06 pm
Quote from: emski on July 02, 2014, 02:56:29 pm
It will not be that easy to tell if these 51% act in complete agreement.
Yes it will; the voting record is public.

Quote from: emski on July 02, 2014, 02:56:29 pm
Quote from: Agent86 on July 02, 2014, 02:47:24 pm
You say "no group should control all 101 delegates unless that group owns ~100% stake".  Just a few posts ago you were saying it should require closer to a 10-30% coordinated minority to guarantee representation.
Do you see contradiction here?
Yes, these 2 statements you have made are completely contradictory.

Voting records are public but the agreements are not.

Could you explain how exactly these statements contradict each other ?
The agreements are also public.  You know specifically which stake is voting for which delegates (this is additional info above knowing the total votes for each delegate.)  If 2 delegates both have 50% support you can tell whether it's the same shareholders voting for both these delegates or if it is different shareholders voting for each delegate.

The statements contradict each other because if it takes a coordinated 30% to guarantee representation then by simple logic a 71% majority can control 100% of delegates.

291
General Discussion / Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
« on: July 02, 2014, 03:01:06 pm »
Quote from: emski on July 02, 2014, 02:56:29 pm
It will not be that easy to tell if these 51% act in complete agreement.
Yes it will; the voting record is public.

Quote from: emski on July 02, 2014, 02:56:29 pm
Quote from: Agent86 on July 02, 2014, 02:47:24 pm
You say "no group should control all 101 delegates unless that group owns ~100% stake".  Just a few posts ago you were saying it should require closer to a 10-30% coordinated minority to guarantee representation.
Do you see contradiction here?
Yes, these 2 statements you have made are completely contradictory.

292
General Discussion / Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
« on: July 02, 2014, 02:47:24 pm »
The only way for 51% to monopolize the delegates is if they all vote for the exact same slate of 101 delegates without deviation.  Would you invest in a network where 51% of stake miraculously was in complete agreement on all 101 of the delegates they liked and everyone else opposed these same delegates?  Would that be a red flag to you to take your money to a different chain?

You say "no group should control all 101 delegates unless that group owns ~100% stake".  Just a few posts ago you were saying it should require closer to a 10-30% coordinated minority to guarantee representation.

293
KeyID / Re: .p2p auction parameter discussion
« on: July 02, 2014, 01:18:53 pm »
If you guys aren't going to implement a system that lets people pay market rate for a domain, you may as well just treat them like user names at that point.  They are first come first serve and everyone pays just on the data cost of storing the names, so more names means higher cost per name.  The whole one-time auction process to reach "market rate" is silly, confusing, and does not accomplish the stated goals.

".p2p" will never be taken seriously by businesses, and will never be able to compete in a meaningful way with the ICANN system.  At least ICANN has some checks and balances against squatting.

First thing I do when this releases (if I don't just sell my shares) is buy every halfway reasonable sounding domain I can and promise never to sell them in hopes you guys start to "get it"

My proposal does not result in people having their domains "seized" against their will in any way.  Under my idea, there is no reasonable reason for anyone to ever bid above a generic market value or the value that the domain personally holds to them for very long term use.  Long term domain users who have committed to their domain are rewarded with a long term commitment from the DAC.  Under my system BestBuy can be reasonably assured of getting bestbuy.p2p at a fair market rate even if they are late to the ".p2p" game.  Under other proposals they will never get it because I'm going to squat it to prove a point.  Under my proposal, even current TLDs like ".com" could eventually move to this type of system and away from ICANN. 

294
KeyID / Re: .p2p auction parameter discussion
« on: July 02, 2014, 02:00:33 am »
Quote from: gamey on July 01, 2014, 10:27:58 pm
Frankly, it just adds a big unknown into the equation that would keep me from using p2p if I was looking at the p2p features.  People are coming to p2p so they don't have to worry about their domain being removed by some process out of their control. AFAIK thats the main reason.

It allows you to buy a lease that no government or anyone can take from you for the time that you have paid for it.  It allows you to establish long term ownership of a domain over time that becomes very hard to ever take from you.

Quote
The whole point of p2p to me is to be uncensored.  You've just removed the largest selling point for me.  Anyway.. I agree about disagreeing.  I do think with the current system there will be a lot of squatting.  Although squatting has lost a lot of value with the proliferation of top level domains.. so.. lots of things to consider.

The system I propose is not "censored".  It is governed by very clear rules that are predictable and not up to anyone's discretion.  I don't think it treats people unfairly.

Squatting kills the value proposition out the door.   It could be worse than in our current system because no one looks at trademarks etc.  I think no one takes it serious when all the major domains are being squatted.

I would want this to be a system that could be used by everyone including large companies, not just a system for early adopter crypto nerds.

I think we could look at details but I think preventing squatting is more important for adoption of the DAC than protecting a person's "right" to forever monopolize domains that they got for cheap.

295
General Discussion / Re: Beyond Bitcoin LV, where's the buzz?
« on: July 02, 2014, 12:43:43 am »
This was cancelled.

296
KeyID / Re: .p2p auction parameter discussion
« on: July 01, 2014, 09:54:57 pm »
Quote from: gamey on July 01, 2014, 09:02:55 pm
I am not a big fan of the alternative but I think I prefer it over the ability of allowing well capitalized opponents to force you to pay any amount they're willing to lose.  It could become a game of chicken.  It will also be huge source of FUD going forward.  I wouldn't work on building a brand under such a system. 

You've removed the possibility of government censorship and replaced it with privatized censorship via capital.

What happens if your domain isn't even making money?  Or it wasn't intended to make money?  Lots of people buy domains for reasons that do not fit under a classic business model.  IMO I think your analysis assumes a few things and one being that anyone trying to outbid your domain will be working on a rational economic basis.

The 3rd party should be able to bid, but the owner should have the ability to reject any bid.  I just don't see the leasing model working.. I doubt I could come up with an improvement on Toast's model to make everyone happy.  Somewhere I've asked how it prevents squatting and I agree with your criticism in that regard.  Perhaps squatting could be mitigated by a voting system that removed the squatter's domains ?
Perhaps we need to agree to disagree.  My feeling is your interpretation of how it plays out is way off base.  I suspect if you experienced this model you'd quickly see it different.  Why are all these "well capitalized opponents" in such a rush to give you all this money and waste their own?  Everyone who has shares is invested in the system and profits from its success.  I don't think there will be all these people running around trying to harass people and renting domains they have no use for and which are of no value to them.  I think the "well capitalized" people will run out of money quickly with that strategy.
If someone offers you more for your domain than it's worth to you, you can take the profit and invest it in your business or use it for your non-profit objectives.  They can follow you around buying from you any domain you use, and you'll collect the profit and they'll end up with a giant pile of domains they paid tons of money for that are worthless.  You'll probably be able to go back and scoop up your original domain for cheap once they're bankrupt and you're newly wealthy.  More likely, wealthy people will be smart enough not to do this to themselves in the first place.

297
KeyID / Re: .p2p auction parameter discussion
« on: July 01, 2014, 08:30:26 pm »
Quote from: gamey on July 01, 2014, 07:02:30 pm
Being able to outbid an owner of a domain seems bad to me.  There is a lot of value the owner of a domain may put into the domain itself.  Then you're asking them to pay for this value again to defend against a well funded opponent.  It seems like you're going to be fighting for adoption to begin with.  Giving this ability to your opponents isn't going to help...
I think this thinking is a relic of being used to the current system.  In my proposal there is an incentive to put your roots down early and hold on to a domain you care about long term.  The longer you've held a domain (more established you are), the longer it takes to uproot you, it's more expensive and risky for them to do it, and the more you get paid if you decide to accept an offer to move.   The value of most domains in not transferrable; the real value is in the company and people running the site behind the domain.  It unlikely your domain will be worth more to someone else than it is to you; if someone bids on it they would need a legitimate long term interest that goes beyond putting up a spoof site to be worth it.  You will also have plenty of time to tell your customers that you're moving away from "furniture.com" and moving to "joesfurniture.com" because "furniture.com" got some bids from a national chain while you just have a small local shop.  Customers would understand this and it wouldn't ruin your business.  You don't get to monopolize a generic name like furniture.com in perpetuity just because you happened to win an auction before anyone else had heard of ".p2p".  It's better for everyone if domains can find themselves in the hands of the people that maximize their value in the long run. 

It's also sooo much better than the alternative.  You won't find that every domain you're interested is taken and parked with some place holding site and you have to get ahold of some DB trying to figure out how much it's worth to you and play games.  You'll be able to easily get sites you like for a fair market value.

If someone wins a site with the intent to flip it, they will be out there making sales calls to get it sold because once their lease is up they just lost that money.  People trying to make money from investing in .p2p domains could become our most aggressive sales force trying to promote .p2p so they can sell the domains quick; holding them loses money.

298
KeyID / Re: .p2p auction parameter discussion
« on: July 01, 2014, 05:50:51 pm »
Looking at my prior proposal with respect to your goals:
Quote from: bytemaster on July 01, 2014, 04:30:15 pm
High level goals:
1) Make it more profitable to hold shares than names
Done
Quote from: bytemaster on July 01, 2014, 04:30:15 pm
2) Make it profitable to participate in price discovery
No need to pay people to "participate in price discovery"  with my proposal price discovery happens on its own from people getting domains that they have a real interest in using.
Quote from: bytemaster on July 01, 2014, 04:30:15 pm
3) Make it profitable to bid high early
If no one else wants the domain or has expressed interest, I should be able to get it very cheap regardless of how much I personally like it,  I shouldn't have to bid unnecessarily high.

Quote
the shares will be deflationary and thus someone who attempts to buy a bunch of names early will face higher and higher holding costs until they put the name up for auction again and reset the lease rate.
...Lease rate remains fixed until name is re-auctioned
Are you saying that once someone leases a domain they can continue to lease it at that rate for as long as they like?

Quote
Names remain available from the squatters who always have the names for sale. 
What makes you sure that the squatters will "always have the names for sale"?  I think my proposal ensures this much better and basically makes squatting a complete waste of time in the first place.

Quote
Lastly, allow someone to exit their lease early and recover the balance of their term.  Otherwise squatters have no incentive to give up a name prior to the end of their lease.   
If people can just "exit their lease early and recover balance" then they can bid on whatever auction they want and if they "accidentally win" they can just "exit early" with no loss.  Am I missing something?
I feel like you are redefining lease if there is no commitment.

My proposal already offers a big incentive to give up the name prior to the end of lease:  Giving it up quickly is the only way to profit from the sublease.  If they wait till their lease is up, they get no profit.

Quote
As far as bidding rules go you want to achieve the following:

1) recognize that bidders are taking a major risk that someone started an auction at a low price and didn't have any intent of bidding higher.  This particular attack causes a lot of people to lose money and costs the attacker nothing (they make money when they get outbid)

2) because there is no way to tell the difference between this "fake initial bid" and a legitimate bid the best we can do to prevent this kind of attack is to make all bids costly.   If you get outbid then you only get 95% of your bid back.  This will encourage individuals to bid the winning bid first, rather than risk being outbid.
I think my proposal does away with the need for this complexity

299
KeyID / Re: .p2p auction parameter discussion
« on: July 01, 2014, 01:38:16 pm »
Quote from: amatoB on July 01, 2014, 04:10:10 am
Quote from: toast on June 29, 2014, 11:09:47 pm

There's another discussion to be had about whether to limit the number of concurrent auctions near the start when it is not clear that the .p2p namespace is worth anything at all, and whether to keep it limited to some larger number once it is just to make it so that humans can go through and evaluate all the domains for sale at a given time.

Yes, it's probably a good idea to regulate the flow of auctions to some extent, especially early on. This would help prevent the problem whereby quality names fall through the cracks, are scooped up for dirt cheap, and then squatted on. After all, people are boundedly rational, and they have limited attention and search capabilities.
Or you could just do it the way I've suggested and all these problems are eliminated.  AmatoB what are your thoughts on my proposal?  Are there downsides that you have in mind?

300
KeyID / Re: .p2p auction parameter discussion
« on: June 30, 2014, 12:12:48 am »
Quote from: toast on June 29, 2014, 11:50:44 pm
Quote from: Agent86 on June 29, 2014, 11:41:08 pm
You can still profit from a domain you added value to by subleasing it.
But you can only do this until your lease expires and you are forced to compete on the market again afterwards, right?
Sure, but if you just got the site, you should be content with the quick profit... It's not much different than losing the auction, someone else values it more so those are the breaks.  If you've had it a long time, you can sublease it for a long time and make good money.  Also, someone needs to be real serious before they put in a bid because they need to come up with the money for all those years and if you call their bluff they better have a plan for what they will do with that site and how they'll get ROI if you move on.  If they didn't have a plan they'll be panicking to sell it because it's costing money they can't just sit on it forever.
Quote
Quote
I also think your current plan has big squatter problems.
Can you explain? You think it will be worse than .com / .bit, or just "not much better"
I can't say I've thought it through extensively but as first glance I would say "not much better" plus more confusing.  I'm not sure many people are going to be playing the game of trying to profit by bidding on sites and then hoping someone outbids them and hoping they don't get stuck with a site they had no use for; it seems like a lot of work to me.  As you already pointed out, early on people will be able to scoop up domains cheap because no one is sure if it will catch on.  Then they can keep the domains as long as they want and extort people who have a use for them, I think it would make the system less likely to catch on.

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ... 32

Page created in 0.028 seconds with 22 queries.