You do know that you can list a bunch of "problems" for the most advanced aircraft carrier right ?
The competitive edge of Bitcoin is the liquidity , marketcap , network effect , not technology .
You can bash bitcoin's technology all you want , but in the end you would just push away a major community that's open minded enough to invest in something "so lame , so slow , so old" . If they're opened minded for something "so lame" , imagine what they would see in BitShares if you present it well ?
The best way to achieve the success for BitShares is to grow the whole crypto and blockchain industry instead of hoping people would abandon bitcoin and come to jesus .
Like it or not , Bitcoin will grow , the blockchain industry will grow , multiple projects will grow , even the ones lamer than Bitshares , even the ones who refuse to take BitShares's technology , even the ones with 1 hour confirmation . And investors are investing in the whole industry instead of a single project now .
You have to adjust your expectations . You don't need people to sell their bitcoin and buy Bitshares . You need people to buy Bitcoin and Bitshares because they're both awesome .
And there are many ways to show how awesome something is . Making people think they're not wise enough to choose your product is not a good way . At least not a good way for a project that's suppose to gain the most network effect as possible .
Come back to the question in OP . It's not a matter of "good" or "bad" or "problems" , it's about the suitableness in specific applications . You should link the features to a specific application to sell it , such as high volume stock trading .
Imagine a world where people use Bitcoin as currency in a major way , and businessmen use BItShares to issue and trade stocks , and Bitcoin would be still slow , lame as hell . So what ? Who says that's not a win for BitShares if other project still succeed with lame features while BitShares also succeeded ?
You do know that you can list a bunch of "problems" for the most advanced aircraft carrier right ?
The competitive edge of Bitcoin is the liquidity , marketcap , network effect , not technology .
You can bash bitcoin's technology all you want , but in the end you would just push away a major community that's open minded enough to invest in something "so lame , so slow , so old" . If they're opened minded for something "so lame" , imagine what they would see in BitShares if you present it well ?
The best way to achieve the success for BitShares is to grow the whole crypto and blockchain industry instead of hoping people would abandon bitcoin and come to jesus .
Like it or not , Bitcoin will grow , the blockchain industry will grow , multiple projects will grow , even the ones lamer than Bitshares , even the ones who refuse to take BitShares's technology , even the ones with 1 hour confirmation . And investors are investing in the whole industry instead of a single project now .
You have to adjust your expectations . You don't need people to sell their bitcoin and buy Bitshares . You need people to buy Bitcoin and Bitshares because they're both awesome .
And there are many ways to show how awesome something is . Making people think they're not wise enough to choose your product is not a good way . At least not a good way for a project that's suppose to gain the most network effect as possible .
Come back to the question in OP . It's not a matter of "good" or "bad" or "problems" , it's about the suitableness in specific applications . You should link the features to a specific application to sell it , such as high volume stock trading .
Imagine a world where people use Bitcoin as currency in a major way , and businessmen use BItShares to issue and trade stocks , and Bitcoin would be still slow , lame as hell . So what ? Who says that's not a win for BitShares if other project still succeed with lame features while BitShares also succeeded ?
+5% +5% +5% I like this kind of thinking
+5%You do know that you can list a bunch of "problems" for the most advanced aircraft carrier right ?
The competitive edge of Bitcoin is the liquidity , marketcap , network effect , not technology .
You can bash bitcoin's technology all you want , but in the end you would just push away a major community that's open minded enough to invest in something "so lame , so slow , so old" . If they're opened minded for something "so lame" , imagine what they would see in BitShares if you present it well ?
The best way to achieve the success for BitShares is to grow the whole crypto and blockchain industry instead of hoping people would abandon bitcoin and come to jesus .
Like it or not , Bitcoin will grow , the blockchain industry will grow , multiple projects will grow , even the ones lamer than Bitshares , even the ones who refuse to take BitShares's technology , even the ones with 1 hour confirmation . And investors are investing in the whole industry instead of a single project now .
You have to adjust your expectations . You don't need people to sell their bitcoin and buy Bitshares . You need people to buy Bitcoin and Bitshares because they're both awesome .
And there are many ways to show how awesome something is . Making people think they're not wise enough to choose your product is not a good way . At least not a good way for a project that's suppose to gain the most network effect as possible .
Come back to the question in OP . It's not a matter of "good" or "bad" or "problems" , it's about the suitableness in specific applications . You should link the features to a specific application to sell it , such as high volume stock trading .
Imagine a world where people use Bitcoin as currency in a major way , and businessmen use BItShares to issue and trade stocks , and Bitcoin would be still slow , lame as hell . So what ? Who says that's not a win for BitShares if other project still succeed with lame features while BitShares also succeeded ?
+5% +5% +5% I like this kind of thinking
I really do too. i hope everyone currently involved in the crypto experiment can re-align and benefit together. Competition has fostered some incredible innovation but we need to focus on partnerships and working together wherever possible.
You do know that you can list a bunch of "problems" for the most advanced aircraft carrier right ?
The competitive edge of Bitcoin is the liquidity , marketcap , network effect , not technology .
You can bash bitcoin's technology all you want , but in the end you would just push away a major community that's open minded enough to invest in something "so lame , so slow , so old" . If they're opened minded for something "so lame" , imagine what they would see in BitShares if you present it well ?
The best way to achieve the success for BitShares is to grow the whole crypto and blockchain industry instead of hoping people would abandon bitcoin and come to jesus .
Like it or not , Bitcoin will grow , the blockchain industry will grow , multiple projects will grow , even the ones lamer than Bitshares , even the ones who refuse to take BitShares's technology , even the ones with 1 hour confirmation . And investors are investing in the whole industry instead of a single project now .
You have to adjust your expectations . You don't need people to sell their bitcoin and buy Bitshares . You need people to buy Bitcoin and Bitshares because they're both awesome .
And there are many ways to show how awesome something is . Making people think they're not wise enough to choose your product is not a good way . At least not a good way for a project that's suppose to gain the most network effect as possible .
Come back to the question in OP . It's not a matter of "good" or "bad" or "problems" , it's about the suitableness in specific applications . You should link the features to a specific application to sell it , such as high volume stock trading .
Imagine a world where people use Bitcoin as currency in a major way , and businessmen use BItShares to issue and trade stocks , and Bitcoin would be still slow , lame as hell . So what ? Who says that's not a win for BitShares if other project still succeed with lame features while BitShares also succeeded ?
为什么花了一年时间从0.34跌到0.034都不能让你这个傻逼意识到比特币有什么问题都不关你屁事对比比特币有个鸡巴卵用有个鸟人会对你解决了比特币什么问题感兴趣吗真是傻逼操Stan就是个无药可救的傻屌,big thing,big到连他老母都被套了。
为什么花了一年时间从0.34跌到0.034都不能让你这个傻逼意识到比特币有什么问题都不关你屁事对比比特币有个鸡巴卵用有个鸟人会对你解决了比特币什么问题感兴趣吗真是傻逼操Stan就是个无药可救的傻屌,big thing,big到连他老母都被套了。
比特币有问题,你比特股何尝没有问题,非得需要靠埋汰别人踩着别人上吗?
就这点来说,我觉得cnx这群技术宅仍然太幼稚。
比特股还有很长的路要走啊。
Stan和BM啊,你们两父子别因为最近涨了那么一丢丢就觉得好像全世界都没你们牛掰一样啊。
Strategically aligning BTS with BTC in a win-win is definitely the best strategy moving forward.
You do know that you can list a bunch of "problems" for the most advanced aircraft carrier right ?
The competitive edge of Bitcoin is the liquidity , marketcap , network effect , not technology .
You can bash bitcoin's technology all you want , but in the end you would just push away a major community that's open minded enough to invest in something "so lame , so slow , so old" . If they're opened minded for something "so lame" , imagine what they would see in BitShares if you present it well ?
The best way to achieve the success for BitShares is to grow the whole crypto and blockchain industry instead of hoping people would abandon bitcoin and come to jesus .
Like it or not , Bitcoin will grow , the blockchain industry will grow , multiple projects will grow , even the ones lamer than Bitshares , even the ones who refuse to take BitShares's technology , even the ones with 1 hour confirmation . And investors are investing in the whole industry instead of a single project now .
You have to adjust your expectations . You don't need people to sell their bitcoin and buy Bitshares . You need people to buy Bitcoin and Bitshares because they're both awesome .
And there are many ways to show how awesome something is . Making people think they're not wise enough to choose your product is not a good way . At least not a good way for a project that's suppose to gain the most network effect as possible .
Come back to the question in OP . It's not a matter of "good" or "bad" or "problems" , it's about the suitableness in specific applications . You should link the features to a specific application to sell it , such as high volume stock trading .
Imagine a world where people use Bitcoin as currency in a major way , and businessmen use BItShares to issue and trade stocks , and Bitcoin would be still slow , lame as hell . So what ? Who says that's not a win for BitShares if other project still succeed with lame features while BitShares also succeeded ?
Is this is how people talk on the chinese subforums??为什么花了一年时间从0.34跌到0.034都不能让你这个傻逼意识到比特币有什么问题都不关你屁事对比比特币有个鸡巴卵用有个鸟人会对你解决了比特币什么问题感兴趣吗真是傻逼操Stan就是个无药可救的傻屌,big thing,big到连他老母都被套了。
比特币有问题,你比特股何尝没有问题,非得需要靠埋汰别人踩着别人上吗?
就这点来说,我觉得cnx这群技术宅仍然太幼稚。
比特股还有很长的路要走啊。
Stan和BM啊,你们两父子别因为最近涨了那么一丢丢就觉得好像全世界都没你们牛掰一样啊。
An attempt by a weak mind to express itself forcefully.为什么花了一年时间从0.34跌到0.034都不能让你这个傻逼意识到比特币有什么问题都不关你屁事对比比特币有个鸡巴卵用有个鸟人会对你解决了比特币什么问题感兴趣吗真是傻逼操Stan就是个无药可救的傻屌,big thing,big到连他老母都被套了。
比特币有问题,你比特股何尝没有问题,非得需要靠埋汰别人踩着别人上吗?
就这点来说,我觉得cnx这群技术宅仍然太幼稚。
比特股还有很长的路要走啊。
Stadn和BM啊,你们两父子别因为最近涨了那么一丢丢就觉得好像全世界都没你们牛掰一样啊。
from google translate...
Why did it take a year fell to 0.034 from 0.34 this sucker does not make you realize what the problem is not bitcoin none of your business compare bitcoins have a dick egg with a bird who would you have solved what bitcoins it is really a sucker speak of issues of interest
Stan is a hopeless silly cock, big thing, big to even his mother are quilt.
Bitcoin there is a problem, why do not you share a bit problem, we have to rely on Mai Tai someone stepping on others?
On this point, I think cnx house these technologies are still too naive.
Bit stocks still have a long way to go ah.
Stan and BM ah, you two father and son do not because of the recent rise so a Diudiu did you feel like the world as cattle breaking ah.
You do know that you can list a bunch of "problems" for the most advanced aircraft carrier right ?
The competitive edge of Bitcoin is the liquidity , marketcap , network effect , not technology .
You can bash bitcoin's technology all you want , but in the end you would just push away a major community that's open minded enough to invest in something "so lame , so slow , so old" . If they're opened minded for something "so lame" , imagine what they would see in BitShares if you present it well ?
The best way to achieve the success for BitShares is to grow the whole crypto and blockchain industry instead of hoping people would abandon bitcoin and come to jesus .
Like it or not , Bitcoin will grow , the blockchain industry will grow , multiple projects will grow , even the ones lamer than Bitshares , even the ones who refuse to take BitShares's technology , even the ones with 1 hour confirmation . And investors are investing in the whole industry instead of a single project now .
You have to adjust your expectations . You don't need people to sell their bitcoin and buy Bitshares . You need people to buy Bitcoin and Bitshares because they're both awesome .
And there are many ways to show how awesome something is . Making people think they're not wise enough to choose your product is not a good way . At least not a good way for a project that's suppose to gain the most network effect as possible .
Come back to the question in OP . It's not a matter of "good" or "bad" or "problems" , it's about the suitableness in specific applications . You should link the features to a specific application to sell it , such as high volume stock trading .
Imagine a world where people use Bitcoin as currency in a major way , and businessmen use BItShares to issue and trade stocks , and Bitcoin would be still slow , lame as hell . So what ? Who says that's not a win for BitShares if other project still succeed with lame features while BitShares also succeeded ?
@Stan .. Here is one:
Problem: Equal powers for elected block producers
Bitcoin: Totall not solving the issue since bigger miners have higher chances to produce more blocks. Problem gets worse with pooled mining.
BitShares: Once elected into the Top101(N), you have equal powers to all other delegates/witnesses. A single maintainer can only fuck with less than 1% (if 101 delegates are maintained by independent individuals)
Problem: Achieving social consensus about where to go with the ecosystem
Bitcoin: Clueless, see blocksize debate
BitShares: Per Stake voting for: blockproducers, parameters, hardforks, budget items
Problem: Reflect/Implement a traditional business in software
Bitcoin: One token, no governance .. at all .. profits? At least not inherently, if at all
BitShares: Shareholder voting, Business controlled by three entities: Controllers to check the numbers (witnesses), Committee (to tweak the business plan), Projects (that take funds and evolve the business), products (that make the business profitable)
You do know that you can list a bunch of "problems" for the most advanced aircraft carrier right ?
The competitive edge of Bitcoin is the liquidity , marketcap , network effect , not technology .
You can bash bitcoin's technology all you want , but in the end you would just push away a major community that's open minded enough to invest in something "so lame , so slow , so old" . If they're opened minded for something "so lame" , imagine what they would see in BitShares if you present it well ?
The best way to achieve the success for BitShares is to grow the whole crypto and blockchain industry instead of hoping people would abandon bitcoin and come to jesus .
Like it or not , Bitcoin will grow , the blockchain industry will grow , multiple projects will grow , even the ones lamer than Bitshares , even the ones who refuse to take BitShares's technology , even the ones with 1 hour confirmation . And investors are investing in the whole industry instead of a single project now .
You have to adjust your expectations . You don't need people to sell their bitcoin and buy Bitshares . You need people to buy Bitcoin and Bitshares because they're both awesome .
And there are many ways to show how awesome something is . Making people think they're not wise enough to choose your product is not a good way . At least not a good way for a project that's suppose to gain the most network effect as possible .
Come back to the question in OP . It's not a matter of "good" or "bad" or "problems" , it's about the suitableness in specific applications . You should link the features to a specific application to sell it , such as high volume stock trading .
Imagine a world where people use Bitcoin as currency in a major way , and businessmen use BItShares to issue and trade stocks , and Bitcoin would be still slow , lame as hell . So what ? Who says that's not a win for BitShares if other project still succeed with lame features while BitShares also succeeded ?
Strategically aligning BTS with BTC in a win-win is definitely the best strategy moving forward.
Thanks Guys.
I agree with the concern expressed. We have no interest in picking fights.
My point is, if you asked a Bitcoin enthusiast what problems they still need to work on, what would be the top ten issues they would list?
I'm interested in being able to describe BitShares progress against that list, not against Bitcoin.
So, what would be on a Bitcoiner's wish list?
Wow.. I just saw this thread get totally derailed because one person in the thread turned the OP into something else and the rest didn't even seem to bother reading the OP at that point. Or think for themselves... either way not good.
The points of the bitcoin problem vs. the bitshares solution is so people have a clear and concise list of understanding what major innovations bitshares is bringing that solves bitcoin problems because.. thats all most people out there.. even beyond crypo.. have to compare it to as a point of reference.
A list like this is invaluable when presenting to companies seeking to use blockchain in their operations and showing to investors.
All you complain about the market cap and network effect and whatever about bitshares.... if you put as much effort into supporting bitshares in public as you do publicly high +5% over your petty criticisms of them while they are attempting to move it forward, maybe we would be in a very different place today.
Stan.. when you have this list done.. I would really like to have a copy if you don't mind.
I'll just +5% myself right now.. because I know what I just said isn't going to be popular with the circle jerk going on here.
Wow.. I just saw this thread get totally derailed because one person in the thread turned the OP into something else and the rest didn't even seem to bother reading the OP at that point. Or think for themselves... either way not good.
The points of the bitcoin problem vs. the bitshares solution is so people have a clear and concise list of understanding what major innovations bitshares is bringing that solves bitcoin problems because.. thats all most people out there.. even beyond crypo.. have to compare it to as a point of reference.
A list like this is invaluable when presenting to companies seeking to use blockchain in their operations and showing to investors.
All you complain about the market cap and network effect and whatever about bitshares.... if you put as much effort into supporting bitshares in public as you do publicly high +5% over your petty criticisms of them while they are attempting to move it forward, maybe we would be in a very different place today.
Stan.. when you have this list done.. I would really like to have a copy if you don't mind.
I'll just +5% myself right now.. because I know what I just said isn't going to be popular with the circle jerk going on here.
Hey data, I agree that identifying comparative strengths and weaknesses between Bitcoin and bitshares is a useful exercise and potentially very helpful. However, the excellently described sentiment by btswildpig concerning the manner in which those strengths and weaknesses are presented to different communities, especially Bitcoin, is clearly of great concern to many. I think this was a fair enough place to raise the point, although we still need to give Stan's OP more support! I certainly did not believe Stan would use such a list inappropriately. He has my eternal respect and support as being one of the most open, positive and inclusive individuals you are likely to meet. I'm here because of his and bm's vision.
So to the OP.....
Bitcoin - uses a lot of electricity.
Bitshares - would use a great deal less at the same scale.
Wow.. I just saw this thread get totally derailed because one person in the thread turned the OP into something else and the rest didn't even seem to bother reading the OP at that point. Or think for themselves... either way not good.
The points of the bitcoin problem vs. the bitshares solution is so people have a clear and concise list of understanding what major innovations bitshares is bringing that solves bitcoin problems because.. thats all most people out there.. even beyond crypo.. have to compare it to as a point of reference.
A list like this is invaluable when presenting to companies seeking to use blockchain in their operations and showing to investors.
All you complain about the market cap and network effect and whatever about bitshares.... if you put as much effort into supporting bitshares in public as you do publicly high +5% over your petty criticisms of them while they are attempting to move it forward, maybe we would be in a very different place today.
Stan.. when you have this list done.. I would really like to have a copy if you don't mind.
I'll just +5% myself right now.. because I know what I just said isn't going to be popular with the circle jerk going on here.
Hey data, I agree that identifying comparative strengths and weaknesses between Bitcoin and bitshares is a useful exercise and potentially very helpful. However, the excellently described sentiment by btswildpig concerning the manner in which those strengths and weaknesses are presented to different communities, especially Bitcoin, is clearly of great concern to many. I think this was a fair enough place to raise the point, although we still need to give Stan's OP more support! I certainly did not believe Stan would use such a list inappropriately. He has my eternal respect and support as being one of the most open, positive and inclusive individuals you are likely to meet. I'm here because of his and bm's vision.
So to the OP.....
Bitcoin - uses a lot of electricity.
Bitshares - would use a great deal less at the same scale.
It depends on if people want to build a currency that's truely immune to manipulation (not even community consensus-----that's no different than governmental influence)of its total supply .
If that's the case , no matter how huge the cost is , heavy POW is the right way to that .
Heavy cost , nearly zero development , stable protocol , that's the necessary evil to achieve this commitment . If the development continues too often , it will need hard forks . When people are used to hard-forks just because the developers say so , then in the end it will open the door to change the total supply .
Fixed supply currency maybe a total mistake . But as long as Bitcoin wants to be a true fixed supply currency no matter how many justification for it to increase , for now high cost PoW seems the only technology to guarantee that .
It really depends on the application . If it's in a private chain or stock trading , then energy saving is more important . In these applications , BitShares are certainly more cost-effective than Bitcoin .
bitshares still so weak ,please don't bother bitcoin ok?+5%
bitcoin religion is still powerful
focus on bts‘s GUI performance ,user experience !!!!!!!!
do the best!!!!
slogan such as “beyond bitcoin ” is too early!!!!!!!!!!!!!
marketcap ,trade volume , exchange……
Wow.. I just saw this thread get totally derailed because one person in the thread turned the OP into something else and the rest didn't even seem to bother reading the OP at that point. Or think for themselves... either way not good.
The points of the bitcoin problem vs. the bitshares solution is so people have a clear and concise list of understanding what major innovations bitshares is bringing that solves bitcoin problems because.. thats all most people out there.. even beyond crypo.. have to compare it to as a point of reference.
A list like this is invaluable when presenting to companies seeking to use blockchain in their operations and showing to investors.
All you complain about the market cap and network effect and whatever about bitshares.... if you put as much effort into supporting bitshares in public as you do publicly high +5% over your petty criticisms of them while they are attempting to move it forward, maybe we would be in a very different place today.
Stan.. when you have this list done.. I would really like to have a copy if you don't mind.
I'll just +5% myself right now.. because I know what I just said isn't going to be popular with the circle jerk going on here.
Hey data, I agree that identifying comparative strengths and weaknesses between Bitcoin and bitshares is a useful exercise and potentially very helpful. However, the excellently described sentiment by btswildpig concerning the manner in which those strengths and weaknesses are presented to different communities, especially Bitcoin, is clearly of great concern to many. I think this was a fair enough place to raise the point, although we still need to give Stan's OP more support! I certainly did not believe Stan would use such a list inappropriately. He has my eternal respect and support as being one of the most open, positive and inclusive individuals you are likely to meet. I'm here because of his and bm's vision.
So to the OP.....
Bitcoin - uses a lot of electricity.
Bitshares - would use a great deal less at the same scale.
It depends on if people want to build a currency that's truely immune to manipulation (not even community consensus-----that's no different than governmental influence)of its total supply .
If that's the case , no matter how huge the cost is , heavy POW is the right way to that .
Heavy cost , nearly zero development , stable protocol , that's the necessary evil to achieve this commitment . If the development continues too often , it will need hard forks . When people are used to hard-forks just because the developers say so , then in the end it will open the door to change the total supply .
Fixed supply currency maybe a total mistake . But as long as Bitcoin wants to be a true fixed supply currency no matter how many justification for it to increase , for now high cost PoW seems the only technology to guarantee that .
It really depends on the application . If it's in a private chain or stock trading , then energy saving is more important . In these applications , BitShares are certainly more cost-effective than Bitcoin .
Blockchains must evolve like language or risk becoming redundant. That evolution must be governed in such a way that, from the perspective of the majority of network participants (assuming they are of sound mind,) the changes continue to be overwhelmingly beneficial. In this manner, any aspect of configuration can work for the majority within the same blockchain network in perpetuity.