Quote from: que23 on December 16, 2013, 05:39:40 am

Quote from: Lighthouse on December 16, 2013, 05:31:54 am

Quote from: que23 on December 16, 2013, 05:28:48 am

Quote from: Pocket Sand on December 16, 2013, 05:22:57 am

Quote from: que23 on December 16, 2013, 05:20:16 am

Quote from: Pocket Sand on December 16, 2013, 05:15:30 am

Quote from: Lighthouse on December 16, 2013, 05:04:02 am

Quote from: que23 on December 16, 2013, 05:02:10 am

I still don't see any need for having miners in the future. If Invictus is moving towards a more Mastercoin like approach, then you have to work for BTC and Angel Shares by doing the bounties, a real service that will benefit the DACs. After PTS, which will always get 10%, there is no more use for mining.

You could just as easily replace mining with educational giveaways and I'd be happy.  The point is a non-monetary way to get invested in the success of the project.

Educational giveaways would be difficult to agree on collectively among the members of the community as to who would deserve more coins and to who.

Also with that, mining provides equal opportunity for everyone. Transactions need to be secured and mining provides a method for doing this. Lucky's idea provides 1.) Fulfillment of the PTS social contract 2.) Funds Invictus 3.) Provides an incentive for new people without their own large pool of money to participate in Bitshares.

In my opinion it's the best option out there, but as of right now I am extremely against 90% of the bitshares being distributed to "Angel Investors" that pay off Invictus.

Mining used to be necessary. There is no longer a need for it anymore. Read: Transactions as Proof-of-Stake & The End of Mining https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1138.0
You're asking to pay for work that doesn't need to be done and giving money to the electric company.

Regardless, it still provides a decentralized method that supports equal opportunity distribution. This should be one of the most important ideas to keep in mind, less we'd like to be the next quark coin.

But Bitshares isn't a currency. It's more a cross between a share and a commodity. There is always a limited amount of commodity to go around. The PTS community will get their 10%. The only reason to add more shares is if it brings value. That value is the real work that can be paid for with funds. The reason to use BitsharesDAC is for its service. Many people think that service is very valuable.

And if that was what they said from the beginning we wouldn't be having the argument, but guess what - they did say that you'd be able to get invested without needing to make a monetary investment directly to Invictus.   Just because they made a bad decision doesn't mean they get to rewrite the rules, or they can rewrite the rules whenever they feel its necessary and the rules are as good as worthless.

Do you really not understand that?

Actually, I've tried to piece together the original commitment, but it is very difficult to understand. I'm going off what bytemaster thinks, which is he's not breaking the social contract. Now, some people have been trying to tell invictus what to do with the other 90%. I think this is really their business. When they thought giving that 90% away to miners for performing the service of maintaining the blockchain, they said only that that was what they were thinking of doing. I think they can do whatever they want with it.

If you agree that the social contract is what makes Protoshares valuable, than anything that suggests that Invictus can change the social contract when the need strikes them means the value is dependent on their continued good will to the way the deal is now but that could change in the future.

Isn't that a problem?

What you want is to make Bitshares more obtainable--the ability to perform some task that will allow anyone to obtain shares. The work miners used to do was important in proof of work but is irrelevant in proof of stake. We are both in agreement that it is a great idea to allow people to work for shares. I think you are worried about people that have no skills being able to get in on the action. In this way, proof of work miners are like blue collar workers. And now they're being replaced by white collar workers. I think although the PoW mining is going away for Bitshares, that there is still lots of other coins that need hard work done. Bitshares needs a different group of workers. I'm not in favor of paying for nothing.

Quote from: que23 on December 16, 2013, 05:28:48 am

Quote from: Pocket Sand on December 16, 2013, 05:22:57 am

Quote from: que23 on December 16, 2013, 05:20:16 am

Quote from: Pocket Sand on December 16, 2013, 05:15:30 am

Quote from: Lighthouse on December 16, 2013, 05:04:02 am

Quote from: que23 on December 16, 2013, 05:02:10 am

I still don't see any need for having miners in the future. If Invictus is moving towards a more Mastercoin like approach, then you have to work for BTC and Angel Shares by doing the bounties, a real service that will benefit the DACs. After PTS, which will always get 10%, there is no more use for mining.

You could just as easily replace mining with educational giveaways and I'd be happy.  The point is a non-monetary way to get invested in the success of the project.

Educational giveaways would be difficult to agree on collectively among the members of the community as to who would deserve more coins and to who.

Also with that, mining provides equal opportunity for everyone. Transactions need to be secured and mining provides a method for doing this. Lucky's idea provides 1.) Fulfillment of the PTS social contract 2.) Funds Invictus 3.) Provides an incentive for new people without their own large pool of money to participate in Bitshares.

In my opinion it's the best option out there, but as of right now I am extremely against 90% of the bitshares being distributed to "Angel Investors" that pay off Invictus.

Mining used to be necessary. There is no longer a need for it anymore. Read: Transactions as Proof-of-Stake & The End of Mining https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1138.0
You're asking to pay for work that doesn't need to be done and giving money to the electric company.

Regardless, it still provides a decentralized method that supports equal opportunity distribution. This should be one of the most important ideas to keep in mind, less we'd like to be the next quark coin.

But Bitshares isn't a currency. It's more a cross between a share and a commodity. There is always a limited amount of commodity to go around. The PTS community will get their 10%. The only reason to add more shares is if it brings value. That value is the real work that can be paid for with funds. The reason to use BitsharesDAC is for its service. Many people think that service is very valuable.

And if that was what they said from the beginning we wouldn't be having the argument, but guess what - they did say that you'd be able to get invested without needing to make a monetary investment directly to Invictus.   Just because they made a bad decision doesn't mean they get to rewrite the rules, or they can rewrite the rules whenever they feel its necessary and the rules are as good as worthless.

Do you really not understand that?

Actually, I've tried to piece together the original commitment, but it is very difficult to understand. I'm going off what bytemaster thinks, which is he's not breaking the social contract. Now, some people have been trying to tell invictus what to do with the other 90%. I think this is really their business. When they thought giving that 90% away to miners for performing the service of maintaining the blockchain, they said only that that was what they were thinking of doing. I think they can do whatever they want with it.

Quote from: Lighthouse on December 16, 2013, 05:04:02 am

Quote from: que23 on December 16, 2013, 05:02:10 am

I still don't see any need for having miners in the future. If Invictus is moving towards a more Mastercoin like approach, then you have to work for BTC and Angel Shares by doing the bounties, a real service that will benefit the DACs. After PTS, which will always get 10%, there is no more use for mining.

You could just as easily replace mining with educational giveaways and I'd be happy.  The point is a non-monetary way to get invested in the success of the project.

Educational giveaways would be difficult to agree on collectively among the members of the community as to who would deserve more coins and to who.

Also with that, mining provides equal opportunity for everyone. Transactions need to be secured and mining provides a method for doing this. Lucky's idea provides 1.) Fulfillment of the PTS social contract 2.) Funds Invictus 3.) Provides an incentive for new people without their own large pool of money to participate in Bitshares.

In my opinion it's the best option out there, but as of right now I am extremely against 90% of the bitshares being distributed to "Angel Investors" that pay off Invictus.

Mining used to be necessary. There is no longer a need for it anymore. Read: Transactions as Proof-of-Stake & The End of Mining https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1138.0
You're asking to pay for work that doesn't need to be done and giving money to the electric company.

I still don't see any need for having miners in the future. If Invictus is moving towards a more Mastercoin like approach, then you have to work for BTC and Angel Shares by doing the bounties, a real service that will benefit the DACs. After PTS, which will always get 10%, there is no more use for mining.

Quote from: que23 on December 16, 2013, 04:02:46 am

Quote from: luckybit on December 16, 2013, 03:48:08 am

Quote from: que23 on December 16, 2013, 02:58:26 am

Quote from: lzr1900 on December 16, 2013, 02:47:40 am

Crash the price.that's what u want.Good job,bytemaster!You made it!

If we took the original proposal, PTS should go up 10x the current price. Also, Invictus doesn't benefit from protoshares. And it's debatable if it's worked to bring in the talent the project needs to grow. People are willing to work, but they need money.

Expand the economy. Don't take money from miners to pay programmers. That is the only problem I had with the original proposal. I think Super3 and I have outlined that you have to throw a bone to miners. The hybrid proposal allows for that and you can also reduce the amount of Bitshares if there will be a lot less need to mine them due to Proof of Stake.

Honestly no one has made the case why having 21 million Bitshares is necessary if it does not take 10 years of mining. So how many Bitshares is necessary? As much as can be mined between when mining starts and when mining is phased out to be replaced by Proof of Stake. This way you still have some mining and you give miners a chance to transition without removing mining entirely. Also the shares they do mine will be much more scarce so they'd win there as well.

So for that reason cut 21 million to something reasonable like 4-5 million and then go with hybrid Proof of Work Proof of Stake where Proof of Work is slowly phased out. Everyone wins. The main area we'd need consensus on is the cut off point.

Super3 could also give more detail on his plan, does it include a cut off? Is it 21 million Bitshares in the hybrid model and how many would go for Proof of Work or Proof of Stake etc?

I think one of the options we could decide on is to let protoshares run its course and start angel shares in January. That was the only deal miners could count on anyway. Invictus has always been conspiring to cut mining for profit out. In fact, you weren't suppose to be able to mine protoshares for profit either.

I'm not defending the miners who mine for profit and then day trade. I'm defending miners who are mining at a loss and who are holding with the expectation that this DAC idea and Bitshares will be a success. They built rigs or set up businesses around the mining industry and are mining and I suppose you could say for some people it might be profitable but not really. The real profit will only come for them if they talk and hype the value of their Protoshares up which is why I say miners can be used as viral marketers and undercover grassroots marketing.

There are some people who mined from the beginning who only have maybe 100-200 Protoshares. They mined at a loss and now they want the Protoshares to be worth as much as possible. They'll be the biggest advocates because they are the shareholders with the most to lose.

The botnets suck and I agree with you that they leech off the economy. The mining pool centralization sucks and is a threat to the security of the network. We need to solve those two problems without hurting the miners who actually have small amounts and who could not afford to get Protoshares by buying it. Now they have Protoshares and should be treated with respect for the time investment they made setting up rigs, building rigs, selling rigs and paying electricity.

The best transition is to go with the hybrid model and slowly phase out mining. Bitshares could be a hybrid, you throw a bone to the miners of 1 million Bitshares to Proof of Work and then the other 1 million to Proof of Stake. This will allow miners to get the last chance to mine and get as many Bitshares from it as possible while the infrastructure is set up to begin the marketing contests funded by angel investors.

Without Keyhotee you don't even have a way to credit people who are successful working for a DAC marketing the idea. So put Keyhotee out first and develop a crediting and reputation system before phasing out mining entirely.

I think we are really close to being on the same page. But proof of work is dead. There will be no hybrid model. Bitshares will work off proof of stake with no need for mining more shares. But not to worry. What we could do is let people continue to mine protoshares. Angel shares would add on top of that but only about another 1 million by the Bitshare release date. Then when Bitshares is released in Q1, PTS holders will have about 50% of the shares in Bitshares making protoshares hugely profitable. You can continue to mine protoshares and get an even bigger stake in the next DAC release. Now, by that time there will be more angel shares, but not 21 million. And if you can, you can grab a piece of the angel share action too.

Yes, at the expense of people who haven't yet gotten into Bitshares.  We go from having 90% being distributed via mining which is perceived to be free and available to anyone (because we keep talking about how CPU minable Momentum is) to Invictus selling 50% into the market. 

Of course thats a better deal for existing holders of Protoshares, but the deal is already plenty good for them.  This will make it seem like the people who are already in are voting themselves a better deal, or being bribed.  Either one is a bad outcome, the deal is plenty good already - The focus should be on raising the funds required and maximizing the equitable distribution of Bitshares through non-monetary means.

Thats a fancy way of saying take the part we like about mining (that anybody can do it, in theory, and be rewarded) and do it with something other than mining.  I've already proposed educational games that reward with it, contests, sponsoring DAC specific media with it, lots of ways you can spread it around the ecosystem without just selling it.  Be a little creative, because going from 90% will be mined to 50% will be sold looks very bad and that's unfortunate because it doesn't have to be.

Yes, you do make a lot of sense. Thank you for explaining your position.

So, Bitcoin has this same problem where people are outraged that people who got in early made money. This is a little silly if Bitcoin is viewed as a corporation. Who would be outraged if a company made money. Generally people are use to companies making money. Altcoins have a currecy-like, commodity-like and share-like property to them. So people are confused about how they should think about them. But I think we should see Bitshares as a service and as a business. When people buy bitshares to use the bitshares service they will be doing so to use the service, not in hopes that bitshares will triple in price. Letting them mine Bitshares for nothing is a type of bribery too.

Quote from: que23 on December 16, 2013, 03:11:05 am

I just want to make sure everyone is on the same page. There will be no windfall mining of Bitshares. They have been actively working to prevent any unfair mining for all future DACs. There has been a lot of talk about this on other threads. If you think you know a way to defeat their new system, then you should tell them, so they can fix it.

Nobody cares about mining, we care about the social contract being changed in any way whether good or bad.   Change is the enemy, the social contract must not be violated or it sets a precedent that Invictus can change the rules of the handshake deal whenever they want.  Do you want that?

Once a blockchain is released, the social contract that surrounds it needs to be treated like an immutable object.  Static, out of reach even of the best intentioned.   For examples of why this is better than letting a benevolent caretaker organization address events as the arise, see: Federal Reserve, et al.

So how does Angel Shares hurt the contract? It improves it. The original angel proposal would give PTS holders 50% stake in Bitshares! And we would still get 10% if not more with future DACs.

Quote from: Lighthouse on December 15, 2013, 08:35:38 pm

I would encourage the creation of PTS 2.0 (Angelcoins) that would be another 10% of Bitshares's 21 million, so 20% of total Bitshares would be claimed at the beginning through these two rounds of "venture".

THESE you could use in the way you want, where you let people invest weekly and they get a % of the Angelshares proportional to their Bitcoin or Protoshares contribution (and you should probably accept protoshares at a premium relative to Bitcoins)

2.1 million would be  21 months @ 100k Angelcoins per month - The deal stays the same with Protosharesholders, you get to raise a shitload of money to finance multiple DACs at once and try your new mechanism.

Most importantly, you haven't committed to what you'll do with the other 80%, so when you really solve the problem and have the RIGHT idea you won't have tied yourself down like you're trying to do with this 100% to PTS holders nonsense.

Who besides me would support this?

I'm right with you, Lighthouse.
Bytemaster, I can donate 5% of all my PTS to you if you really need it.

I just want to make sure I understand your position. What you really want is to be able to mine Bitshares. That's the other 80%?