BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: bitcool on November 23, 2013, 12:47:42 am
-
Looks like both MSC and NGCCC are making rapid progress:
Mastercoin:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=265488.0 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=265488.0)
Colored coins:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=106373.280 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=106373.280)
Any particular reason should I believe BTS is superior?
-
Looks like both MSC and NGCCC are making rapid progress:
Mastercoin:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=265488.0 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=265488.0)
Colored coins:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=106373.280 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=106373.280)
Any particular reason should I believe BTS is superior?
Because BitShares pay dividends and don't depend upon trusted parties.
-
Paying dividends is nice, but that in itself doesn't create value.
Depending on trusted parties -- I suppose whenever securities is involved, shareholders will always need to trust the issuer.
-
All the three are unique in their own right, although they do overlap in several spheres. That being said, I'd really like BTS to be the first to the market.
-
All the three are unique in their own right, although they do overlap in several spheres. That being said, I'd really like BTS to be the first to the market.
You and me both! I think I have a deal that will grow double our development team and add some very skilled c++ developers to the mix. Full speed ahead!
-
All the three are unique in their own right, although they do overlap in several spheres. That being said, I'd really like BTS to be the first to the market.
You and me both! I think I have a deal that will grow double our development team and add some very skilled c++ developers to the mix. Full speed ahead!
NICE!
-
You and me both! I think I have a deal that will grow double our development team and add some very skilled c++ developers to the mix. Full speed ahead!
Glad to hear that! Do keep us updated with any new developments and team members!
-
All the three are unique in their own right, although they do overlap in several spheres. That being said, I'd really like BTS to be the first to the market.
You and me both! I think I have a deal that will grow double our development team and add some very skilled c++ developers to the mix. Full speed ahead!
Wooh - nice to hear :) GOGOGO
-
All the three are unique in their own right, although they do overlap in several spheres. That being said, I'd really like BTS to be the first to the market.
You and me both! I think I have a deal that will grow double our development team and add some very skilled c++ developers to the mix. Full speed ahead!
That's great to hear. After the Keyhotee is up and running, I suppose this is your priority#1?
-
All the three are unique in their own right, although they do overlap in several spheres. That being said, I'd really like BTS to be the first to the market.
You and me both! I think I have a deal that will grow double our development team and add some very skilled c++ developers to the mix. Full speed ahead!
That's great to hear. After the Keyhotee is up and running, I suppose this is your priority#1?
We have a developer working on BitShares in parallel now.
-
We have a developer working on BitShares in parallel now.
hmmm..one?..i heard msc and cc have multiple member-teams working on each project :|
-
Actually we have many components and just added several more on bitshares.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
-
Are you hiring?
-
Are you hiring?
http://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=15.0
-
Each of these initiative is a big undertaking, I'm afraid you are over extended.
-
Each of these initiative is a big undertaking, I'm afraid you are over extended.
This is a real concern. We have laid out a grand vision and will not be able to get there in a single day. We are working one item at a time and hope others will join us.
-
Kudos to your ambitious plan, hope the execution is as good.
Technical advancement aside, Invictus represents a different development model in contrast to Bitcoin and other altcoins. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out.
-
I would love to hear your perspective on what makes our development model different. What do you like or dislike about it?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
-
I would love to hear your perspective on what makes our development model different. What do you like or dislike about it?
The major difference is there's a company behind these ideas, while Bitcoin and other altcoin projects are purely volunteer based.
This seems to be a hybrid approach between BTC and Ripple; The way I see it, no mining, thus unfair control of total money supple, was the key reason for the lack of interest in Ripple.
For many OS projects, it's difficult to ask dev team to contribute a lot of hours without proper incentive (i.e. donation), causing slow progress and stagnation of code base.
I like the company model better because it should be relatively easy to get things done; however cryptocurrency open source projects are special (because money is directly involved), it's tricky to strike the right balance between contributing to the community and benefiting from it, especially when you have the dominant power and control.
-
Each of these initiative is a big undertaking, I'm afraid you are over extended.
This is a real concern. We have laid out a grand vision and will not be able to get there in a single day. We are working one item at a time and hope others will join us.
others will not even know this exists without good media buzz...and the twitter feed is looking weak. I mean seriously... only three tweets? Not complaining...just trying to provide some information worth considering when moving forward.
-
I would love to hear your perspective on what makes our development model different. What do you like or dislike about it?
The major difference is there's a company behind these ideas, while Bitcoin and other altcoin projects are purely volunteer based.
This seems to be a hybrid approach between BTC and Ripple; The way I see it, no mining, thus unfair control of total money supple, was the key reason for the lack of interest in Ripple.
For many OS projects, it's difficult to ask dev team to contribute a lot of hours without proper incentive (i.e. donation), causing slow progress and stagnation of code base.
I like the company model better because it should be relatively easy to get things done; however cryptocurrency open source projects are special (because money is directly involved), it's tricky to strike the right balance between contributing to the community and benefiting from it, especially when you have the dominant power and control.
fair assessment all around bitcool.
-
What I would like to see is bounties that give special Keyhotee ID's to developers who successfully complete bounties for projects that the ProtoShares community choose...there could even be competitions (like zuckerberg did when searching for talented fb coders).
This model would be free for Invictus yet provides a real incentive as otherwise these people would have to pay 10 PTS to get the ID. Yet the value their input gives to the projects would increase the value in Invictus' as a whole (not to mention bounty collectors' PTS rewards/holdings), thus providing a net benefit for both parties at little-to-no "cost" for Invictus.
This would also incentivise individuals working on projects to advertise their work through their own personal networks...which serves as free advertising...
This exact same model could be used for numerous bounties...especially those that serve to increase the Crypto-Communities' respect for Invictus and Invictus' Name recognition through "buzz" campaigns. Imagine if Protoshares had the buzz that Quark has...
It would be #3 on coinmarketcap easily.
-
What I would like to see is bounties that give special Keyhotee ID's to developers who successfully complete bounties for projects that the ProtoShares community choose...there could even be competitions (like zuckerberg did when searching for talented fb coders).
This model would be free for Invictus yet provides a real incentive as otherwise these people would have to pay 10 PTS to get the ID. Yet the value their input gives to the projects would increase the value in Invictus' as a whole (not to mention bounty collectors' PTS rewards/holdings), thus providing a net benefit for both parties at little-to-no "cost" for Invictus.
This would also incentivise individuals working on projects to advertise their work through their own personal networks...which serves as free advertising...
This exact same model could be used for numerous bounties...especially those that serve to increase the Crypto-Communities' respect for Invictus and Invictus' Name recognition through "buzz" campaigns. Imagine if Protoshares had the buzz that Quark has...
It would be #3 on coinmarketcap easily.
We have some big things coming to improve our marketing and buzz factor as well as addressing concerns about us being stretched too thin.
-
Good call ByteMaster...I'm assuming you have more bullets in your gun with Keyhotee launched?
-
Considering what PTS are and that there are only 2 mio PTS ever (whenever), 1.1 already mined... a value of currently just ~$20 each MUST be the result of bad marketing and/or lack of explanation. 1 PTS could be worth 10 BTC right now.
Of course, there are just "promises" backing PTS at the moment... but "believe" is what keeps Bitcoin alive and rising. So I really believe that if the message of PTS is spread and there will be good(!) software following that, PTS will go "to the moon" (speaking in btc-e trollbox terms).
-
Considering what PTS are and that there are only 2 mio PTS ever (whenever), 1.1 already mined... a value of currently just ~$20 each MUST be the result of bad marketing and/or lack of explanation. 1 PTS could be worth 10 BTC right now.
Of course, there are just "promises" backing PTS at the moment... but "believe" is what keeps Bitcoin alive and rising. So I really believe that if the message of PTS is spread and there will be good(!) software following that, PTS will go "to the moon" (speaking in btc-e trollbox terms).
Yes, it is due to bad marketing and that is going to be changed very quickly. We have received commitments and investment as well has bringing Super3 on full time. Hold on to your horses.. err PTS...
-
Considering what PTS are and that there are only 2 mio PTS ever (whenever), 1.1 already mined... a value of currently just ~$20 each MUST be the result of bad marketing and/or lack of explanation. 1 PTS could be worth 10 BTC right now.
Of course, there are just "promises" backing PTS at the moment... but "believe" is what keeps Bitcoin alive and rising. So I really believe that if the message of PTS is spread and there will be good(!) software following that, PTS will go "to the moon" (speaking in btc-e trollbox terms).
Yes, it is due to bad marketing and that is going to be changed very quickly. We have received commitments and investment as well has bringing Super3 on full time. Hold on to your horses.. err PTS...
hopefully
-
Considering what PTS are and that there are only 2 mio PTS ever (whenever), 1.1 already mined... a value of currently just ~$20 each MUST be the result of bad marketing and/or lack of explanation. 1 PTS could be worth 10 BTC right now.
Of course, there are just "promises" backing PTS at the moment... but "believe" is what keeps Bitcoin alive and rising. So I really believe that if the message of PTS is spread and there will be good(!) software following that, PTS will go "to the moon" (speaking in btc-e trollbox terms).
Yes, it is due to bad marketing and that is going to be changed very quickly. We have received commitments and investment as well has bringing Super3 on full time. Hold on to your horses.. err PTS...
Amen...
-
To be honest, I don't like the idea of centralized mining. This is against the true merit of P2P virtual currency. I knew 3I will probably release a ProtoShares 2.0 but didn't expect that to happen this early. If distributed mining is a critical problem, then why couldn't 3I foresee it months ago? If the original idea is centralized mining, many people probably would have lost their interest in the very beginning.
-
To be honest, I don't like the idea of centralized mining. This is against the true merit of P2P virtual currency. I knew 3I will probably release a ProtoShares 2.0 but didn't expect that to happen this early. If distributed mining is a critical problem, then why couldn't 3I foresee it months ago? If the original idea is centralized mining, many people probably would have lost their interest in the very beginning.
We launched PTS by the book following industry best practices and watched the experiences everyone was having. We promised to work on a better, more fair way for everybody and have been seeking feedback for weeks as we worked on it. Now we are trying to keep that promise.
Note once again the difference between protoDACs and DACs. DACs must be decentralized and autonomous. ProtoDACs are inherently already dependent upon the developer to honor the social contract and let go. Our point tonight has been that by recognizing that difference we can make the share distribution process more fair for everyone while refocusing resources to grow their value for everyone.
Nothing must be allowed to centralize the DACs themselves and our suggested approach tonight will be much more decentralized than Bitcoin is today. :)