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.
The problem is those people treat Satoshi as a god when they should be adjusting his poorly conceived inflation schedule with a hardfork.
Bitcoiners are stupid but they're not that stupid.
Have you thought of using advertisers and sponsors as a way to generate income? You could have dedicated 15-30 second blocks where you read an ad. I'm sure several companies would find value in doing this. You also could add a subscription model where people pay to get add free recordings. You also could allow subscribers to be guaranteed answers to questions by giving them some sort of token or uia that they can spend for airtime with bm or whoever is being interviewed. Just a rough idea of ways to possibly monetize beyond bitcoin.
Either you want input or you don't; not everything should be considered a complaint.
Again, there are different audiences. Some prefer prompt raw full audio and good data; some don't mind a presentation of the facts; some don't mind PR; and some will believe anything they hear.
Maybe Aj should put all the cut out stuff on a seperate track.
So you can play the edited version first and later listen to the clicks and pops.
Problem solved.
I personally have never heard anyone express any concerns about authenticity.
It's one factor among others. Media and PR etc isn't trusted widely anyhow but especially in the blockchain world there are too many people talking up their own interests; even devs and early developers, play to their own interest and become unrealistic in their expectations. Someone stumbling over raw 'data' as it were, might consider that more valuable, than another polished presentation of a hope and a dream.
It all depends how it's done but seeing a certain level of commitment coupled with a consistency over time, give investors confidence. Perpetually changing the sources of information, can be frustrating. I don't want to listen to all the mumbles but on occasion might look to catch up on them by random sampling and I don't find skipping over topics that aren't relevant at all difficult.
Keep it simple; Content is more important than Presentation; and making it useful, is about making it available.
Putting it out unedited, gives an audience more confidence what they have is authentic. Tarting it up, does not add value, except on occasions where there is very high information density. Putting the raw feed out promptly also aids communication.. we can skip over the bits we don't want. It's not as if the host doesn't have a grip - fuzzy does it well enough the raw is good. If you want edited content then that could be fed into BitShares.tv as highlights or some other presented content. An edited mumble is just more work for little added benefit.
The alternate would be to focus mumble sessions on a core topic, edit those carefully and use that as a marketing aid to describe in detail certain aspects to targeted other audiences than just those here.. pass those to MSM and let them feast on it.
fuzzy, are you trying out some economic experiment with Mumble?
This is what it looks like to me. You are running a free public concert out on the street where anyone can join and listen and even has permission to record it with their cameras. And then you try to somehow align incentives so that all the people (and it really could be any stranger) recording the live concert in public are somehow economically motivated to not give out the recording to someone else unless the person requesting the recording happens to possess a special sticker that you sell.
It's an interesting experiment I guess, but I think the end result will be that the economic motivation won't work out and someone (even if it is just one person) who recorded the live event will just stick it up online thereby making the stickers worthless.
Edit: My view is that if this raw recording is a public good (which it is) that we as a community value, then the community should fund that public good the same way we fund other BitShares-related public goods: delegate pay. Obviously any extra funds you can receive from ads in the final edited shows or just from donations would be useful in offsetting the delegate funds necessary. However, if this is truly something we value as a community, it should be possible to fund it entirely from delegate pay without relying on altruism or the effectiveness of advertisements (which can be bypassed).
If we are a company, we should really start acting like one. Paying employees who are working for another company is not a practice done by any Fortune 500 companies.
Look at the situation from the standpoint of new investors. It is probably not such a good thing for them to think we have full time developers being paid by the blockchain but then find out that that is not the case.
This new round of community is going to really turn BTS around.
Toast was the best asset BitShares had and I'd assume he still looks out for it. A couple of 100% delegates will not make any noticeable difference financially, but if those funds were properly directed by Toast then perhaps the funds would have made a noticeable positive difference.
Given that Toast was the best asset of BitShares that is public facing, being all quick to remove all his remaining interest in the project is probably not in the interest of BitShares. lol.
Plus as far as I know this funds are redirected to other severely underpaid core developers...
I can see a ton of other delegates that I will vote out before toast's, but hey if you disagree it is you vote....break your head and this project.
And good luck!
Toast said himself that he was surprised he hasn't been down voted. He even said he would turn off the delegate and miss blocks to expedite the process of being voted out. He hasn't made any mention that his delegate funds were being redirected.
I think it would be cool to use crypto-style ledgers as the guts of a machine learning application.
Multiple instances of an algorithm could share and update a database tracking it's success at a task.
If the task was simple analysis or prediction, the program could automatically mutate and run the code looking for better solutions evolution-style.
The crypto ledger(or matrix) would form a sort of distributed memory database in which each instance and/or mutation would have it's own address to store it's feedback information.
The database could be host to a whole ecosystem of programs built on top of it. Programs that analyze the data, programs that spawn new mutations of itself, programs that interface with human beings, etc.
The program could even hire coders by putting on coding competitions where people submit code, the machine tries it out, and then releases tokens to whoever's code works the best.
The program could then stack itself fractal-style, using smaller and smaller agents to process information on multiple levels.
I think a substantial analytic intelligence could be built in such a way, even though their 'mortality' rate might be high.
Thoughts?
