Quote from: Helikopterben on October 31, 2014, 03:59:26 pm

So delegates will no longer get paid based on tx fees.  That makes no sense.  A good measure of value added by delegates is an increase in tx fees.  If the number of transactions go to 0, then delegates still get paid by diluting shareholders.  Sounds like government work to me.   

No wonder the price is crashing.  All I have heard over the past few weeks is dulution, dilution, dilution.  Shareholders don't like that.

A solid company eventually operates purely off of revenue and generates profits.  Those profits are distributed to shareholders in exchange for providing capital.  I realize that startups require initial rounds of investment and sometimes that occurs through dilution, which is fine.

That's why tx fees are BURNED (read: dividends to shareholders) ... while the "dilution" is deterministic and determined by shareholders .. if they don't like dilution they will only vote in delegates with 0% pay .. then all tx fees will be destroyed and share supply will decrease over time ..
however, 0% pay delegates are not profitable (by definition) and as such no one will want to this .. so the payrate may be as high as the burned fees .. or less .. or more .. at the end of the day .. the majority of the shareholders decide .. period!

Quote

My question is:  When does bitshares operate completely from revenue, with no more dilution and distribute profits to shareholders through the burn rate, which was the initial plan?

if you are stakeholder, you have the say .. tx fees are burned (read: payed out as dividends) .. dilution is solely to pay the growth of the business!

Ok that makes sense.  Shareholders will likely vote in delegates that make less than the burn rate when bitshares becomes a mature company.  In the early stages shareholders may vote in delegates that make more than the burn rate if those delegates fund future growth.  Thanks for the clarification.

bitshares is something bigger than bitUSD...
don't take me wrong but the term bitUSD sounds too cheap to me.
It's like promoting in some degree the... past...
bitUSD is the digital mirror of USD and USD is 100% controlled from people that want our slavery(same with euro etc.)...
What if USD loose much of it's present "real" value in the near future because they want it to happen ?
That would mean that bitUSD will follow the decline, so our supporters with bitUSDs on their accounts would be  be "trapped" too.... Why should we follow the old system? Are we really thinking out of the box?
I think we must promote bitAssets in general and we should not promote to much on one of them, like we do right now...
We should promote the ability/option they have on our system/platform to own a basket of different global bitASSETS in a very easy way, knowing that:

1. They are 100% safe.
2. They are taking benefits/rewards for keeping them (Yield etc.)
3. They are liquid (max. 1 month delay)
4. Their privacy is 100% respected (TITAN, crypto etc...)
5. They can easy/fast/cheaply exchange from one bitASSET to another (?)
6. They can transfer/pay easy/fast/secure with minimal fees (goodbye paypal,bitcoin)
7. They can have a mixed bitASSET  portofolio without limits in quantity and value!
8. TAX FREE (what means IRS ?)
9.  ....name it...

...sorry if what I am saying doesn't make sense, maybe it is better I am going to sleep too 

I think the real innovation is bitgld.  Just google gold backed digital currency and see what you get.  The world has long sought a safe gold backed digital currency and bitgld is the closest you are going to get to owning and being abe to use the real thing in a trustless, decentralized digital format.  This could be the best way to ease the Peter Schiff's of the world into the idea of digital currency. 

So could someone create a BitUSD sidechain for Bitcoin? Could a DPOS variant plug into Bitcoin?

Yes using m of n oracle sidechains.  http://gavintech.blogspot.com

Quote from: bitsharesrussia on October 01, 2014, 06:34:18 pm

Not so sure, wether mining is wrong or right is one thing, but wether 90% of the crypto community still believe in mining thats another and a fact still to be proven wrong.....

I think it will be quite a popular coin

That 90% is diminishing slowly, until, suddenly all at once. I will not be holding the bag on eXocoin.  What does this coin offer that is not already out there? All I see are screenshtots of a slightly nicer bitcoin qt wallet.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss POW.  Hash rate has been on a strong uptrend for two years now.  The jury is still out whether work and resource expenditure external to the system is required for sound money or not.   POW more resembles the gold system of money vs DPOS  which more resembles a democratically elected central bank with 101 delegates being "board members" of that central bank and actual stakeholders voting on those delegates based on the size of their stake, which is superior to legacy central banks.  For example, the federal Reserve in the US has board members (delegates) who are appointed by representatives who are voted into office by all citizens, regardless of stake.  Furthermore, those citizens are only allowed to vote once every 2 to 4 years.  That is an extremely inneficient system.  We shall see how a system works where voters vote based on the size of their stake and can cast votes at will.  Will large stakeholders vote themselves a bailout should they become over leveraged and on the verge of insolvency or would that bailout compromise their stake in the system?  Sure bitcoin stakeholders could bribe miners to provide a bailout but they would have to expend part of their stake, unlike POS stakeholders who would only have to expend their votes and negligible TX fees.  Some call this a "nothing at stake" attack but users have to aquire that stake to perform said attack.  That is why I prefer the term "less at stake", but probably enough at stake to prevent such an attack.

Personally, after seeing the NXT theft at bter result in stakeholders denying a bailout, I decided to buy into POS.  A small portion in NXT but the majority of my holdings in BTSX because of the collateralization of assets with no third party risk.  Although I do still own bitcoin, just in case.

Quote from: Helikopterben on September 25, 2014, 04:54:09 am

I prefer the collateralized model over the custodian model.  Nubits is too centralized relying on certain individuals, although elected, to make decisions with other people's money.  Central banks are basically elected custodians who make decisions about other people's money... very similar models.

That's what should one HelikopterBen think...

"very similar models"  ... how are they similar?

 ONLY their final goal, 'price stability' is the same....

How are central banks not similar to custodians who are elected to manage other people's money?

I am still not sure about this.  Say the price feed is 100btsx/1$ and the spread is 1btsx.  If my short at 100btsx/$1 takes priority because it is highly collateralized and it gets filled, where is the guarantee that if I place a bid to cover at 99btsx/$1 that it will get filled?  I presume that if my short gets filled then all asks up to 100btsx/1$ have been filled and new asks would have to come in at 99btsx/$1 for me to cover.  What if the market shoots strait up to 105btsx/1$.  I am having trouble seeing where the market maker has very little to no risk.

Yea I could see this becoming a problem.  Perhaps an option to retype the recipients address.

The real enemy is the legacy financial system and establishment.  They are losing.