BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: Empirical1.1 on December 25, 2014, 11:42:36 pm
-
POW as we know is starting to look very lonely in the top 10 & BTC has been on a long general downtrend. LTC has been on a downtrend for ages and broke a big $100 million psychological barrier.
Ripple is centralised, with huge centralisation of stake, it has it's own market but it's not a decentralised alternative imo.
So two fantastic things are happening LTC is bringing itself within reach and POW as a whole is clearly dying.
So passing LTC will make us look very strong indeed.
I've been bullish on BTS, but definitely not a super-bull for a host of reasons that have resulted in BTS being significantly undervalued imo. The board is shaping up in BTS's favour and giving us a shot though imo.
-
Sell your PTS, buy some BTS, and release your video. :P
-
Sell your PTS, buy some BTS, and release your video. :P
+5% We all need to be on the same team for this to be extremely successful.
-
Sell your PTS, buy some BTS, and release your video. :P
+5% We all need to be on the same team for this to be extremely successful.
By analogy, I think it's fine for shareholders to have positions in and support multiple companies and even direct competitors.
But I don't think it's OK to give 33% equity to a competitor in anything without shareholder approval though. Especially, when said shareholders have just paid a fortune to buy out said competitor.
-
Sell your PTS, buy some BTS, and release your video. :P
+5% We all need to be on the same team for this to be extremely successful.
By analogy, I think it's fine for shareholders to have positions in and support multiple companies and even direct competitors.
But I don't think it's OK to give 33% equity to a competitor in anything without shareholder approval though. Especially, when said shareholders have just paid a fortune to buy out said competitor.
Sharedrops are given to the owners/customers of a competitor, not to the competitor.
This is a valid concept that may or may not entice some of them away from the competitor.
(It hasn't really been tried yet except in some ancient discussion about DNS sharedropping on Namecoin users.)
In the case of DevShares, its intended customer base is DPOS developers and ecosystem partners, including those who may prefer the new PTS positioning as a "neutral" share drop target. So naturally its sharedrop should be engineered to attract such customers wherever we can find them. The only other airdroppable source of potential DPOS customers is PLAY and MUSIC. I can see advantages to trying to motivate their developers to use the same test chain as well. Standardization, cross-pollination of ideas, more testing on common code modules and continued code compatibility testing come to mind.
Many advantages, come to think of it. Hmmmm....
-
Sell your PTS, buy some BTS, and release your video. :P
+5% We all need to be on the same team for this to be extremely successful.
By analogy, I think it's fine for shareholders to have positions in and support multiple companies and even direct competitors.
But I don't think it's OK to give 33% equity to a competitor in anything without shareholder approval though. Especially, when said shareholders have just paid a fortune to buy out said competitor.
Sharedrops are given to the owners/customers of a competitor, not to the competitor.
This is a valid concept that may or may not entice some of them away from the competitor.
(It hasn't really been tried yet except in some ancient discussion about DNS sharedropping on Namecoin users.)
In the case of DevShares, its intended customer base is DPOS developers and ecosystem partners, including those who may prefer the new PTS positioning as a "neutral" share drop target. So naturally its sharedrop should be engineered to attract such customers wherever we can find them. The only other airdroppable source of potential DPOS customers is PLAY and MUSIC. I can see advantages to trying to motivate their developers to use the same test chain as well. Standardization, cross-pollination of ideas, more testing on common code modules and continued code compatibility testing come to mind.
Many advantages, come to think of it. Hmmmm....
BTS literally just paid millions of dollars to absorb PTS 39 days prior. I highly doubt they attracted many DPOS customers in 39 days and they have like 3 developers.
As it was something that effects BTS, done without shareholder consent & in favour of a competitor or customers of a competitor they feel they had just absorbed, I'm pretty confident it will be overturned.
-
Sell your PTS, buy some BTS, and release your video. :P
+5% We all need to be on the same team for this to be extremely successful.
By analogy, I think it's fine for shareholders to have positions in and support multiple companies and even direct competitors.
But I don't think it's OK to give 33% equity to a competitor in anything without shareholder approval though. Especially, when said shareholders have just paid a fortune to buy out said competitor.
Sharedrops are given to the owners/customers of a competitor, not to the competitor.
This is a valid concept that may or may not entice some of them away from the competitor.
(It hasn't really been tried yet except in some ancient discussion about DNS sharedropping on Namecoin users.)
In the case of DevShares, its intended customer base is DPOS developers and ecosystem partners, including those who may prefer the new PTS positioning as a "neutral" share drop target. So naturally its sharedrop should be engineered to attract such customers wherever we can find them. The only other airdroppable source of potential DPOS customers is PLAY and MUSIC. I can see advantages to trying to motivate their developers to use the same test chain as well. Standardization, cross-pollination of ideas, more testing on common code modules and continued code compatibility testing come to mind.
Many advantages, come to think of it. Hmmmm....
If other developers have chosen dpos to use for their project then they have shown that they are interested in developing dpos. Assuming they open source their code then we can can evaluate it and decide if its worth adding to bts. If they don't open source it then they don't have an interest in helping bts anyway.
-
Sell your PTS, buy some BTS, and release your video. :P
+5% We all need to be on the same team for this to be extremely successful.
By analogy, I think it's fine for shareholders to have positions in and support multiple companies and even direct competitors.
But I don't think it's OK to give 33% equity to a competitor in anything without shareholder approval though. Especially, when said shareholders have just paid a fortune to buy out said competitor.
I'm with you both on this. Leave PTS behind and focus on building this (BitShares) ecosystem.
-
Sharedrops are given to the owners/customers of a competitor, not to the competitor.
This is a valid concept that may or may not entice some of them away from the competitor.
(It hasn't really been tried yet except in some ancient discussion about DNS sharedropping on Namecoin users.)
In the case of DevShares, its intended customer base is DPOS developers and ecosystem partners, including those who may prefer the new PTS positioning as a "neutral" share drop target. So naturally its sharedrop should be engineered to attract such customers wherever we can find them. The only other airdroppable source of potential DPOS customers is PLAY and MUSIC. I can see advantages to trying to motivate their developers to use the same test chain as well. Standardization, cross-pollination of ideas, more testing on common code modules and continued code compatibility testing come to mind.
Many advantages, come to think of it. Hmmmm....
Now. That is thinking BIG. +5%
-
Sell your PTS, buy some BTS, and release your video. :P
+5% We all need to be on the same team for this to be extremely successful.
By analogy, I think it's fine for shareholders to have positions in and support multiple companies and even direct competitors.
But I don't think it's OK to give 33% equity to a competitor in anything without shareholder approval though. Especially, when said shareholders have just paid a fortune to buy out said competitor.
I'm with you both on this. Leave PTS behind and focus on building this (BitShares) ecosystem.
Yes please let PTS die like it should have. We paid millions during the merger so PTS should no longer be included in anything. I am confident that the shareholders are going to revolt against anyone supporting PTS through sharedrops.
-
Yes please let PTS die like it should have. We paid millions during the merger so PTS should no longer be included in anything. I am confident that the shareholders are going to revolt against anyone supporting PTS through sharedrops.
What you are implying (that the merger was a "buyout") is simply a distortion of some early draft proposals. Stan and Dan have both consistently stated that PTS and the social consensus will live on. This anti-diversity view is bizarre and hurtful to BTS, which depends on the success of DPoS to gain wide adoption. We, as a community, should be glad to own the most advanced crypto-coin (BTS) PLUS a share in all future DPoS implementations (via AGS/PTS and the social consensus).
-
Yes please let PTS die like it should have. We paid millions during the merger so PTS should no longer be included in anything. I am confident that the shareholders are going to revolt against anyone supporting PTS through sharedrops.
What you are implying (that the merger was a "buyout") is simply a distortion of some early draft proposals. Stan and Dan have both consistently stated that PTS and the social consensus will live on. This anti-diversity view is bizarre and hurtful to BTS, which depends on the success of DPoS to gain wide adoption. We, as a community, should be glad to own the most advanced crypto-coin (BTS) PLUS a share in all future DPoS implementations (via AGS/PTS and the social consensus).
I must agree that what you are saying make sense...
Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 997D
-
Yes please let PTS die like it should have. We paid millions during the merger so PTS should no longer be included in anything. I am confident that the shareholders are going to revolt against anyone supporting PTS through sharedrops.
What you are implying (that the merger was a "buyout") is simply a distortion of some early draft proposals. Stan and Dan have both consistently stated that PTS and the social consensus will live on. This anti-diversity view is bizarre and hurtful to BTS, which depends on the success of DPoS to gain wide adoption. We, as a community, should be glad to own the most advanced crypto-coin (BTS) PLUS a share in all future DPoS implementations (via AGS/PTS and the social consensus).
Whether or not these are just reflective of the ideas expressed in the proposals, the problem is that myself and I assume many others were under the impression that what the second sharedrop to PTS and AGS was for was to ultimately buy out PTS and AGS for their features (including having BTS be the new sharedrop target for third parties as well). I was here all through the merger fiasco and not once did I think things would turn out like this, because it wasn't clearly communicated. I can almost guarantee there are many of us who would have strongly opposed the 14% sharedrop inflation to PTS and AGS if we would've known that PTS was gonna continue competing against us and steal resources/spotlight/community etc.
-
Whether or not these are just reflective of the ideas expressed in the proposals, the problem is that myself and I assume many others were under the impression that what the second sharedrop to PTS and AGS was for was to ultimately buy out PTS and AGS for their features (including having BTS be the new sharedrop target for third parties as well). I was here all through the merger fiasco and not once did I think things would turn out like this, because it wasn't clearly communicated. I can almost guarantee there are many of us who would have strongly opposed the 14% sharedrop inflation to PTS and AGS if we would've known that PTS was gonna continue competing against us and steal resources/spotlight/community etc.
PTS is not a competitor to BTS and certainly nobody is "stealing resources" (that's not how open source software works). They are completely different tokens directed towards different applications. BTS is a feature-rich DAC that is intended to disrupt a variety of industries, while PTS is a DAC-agnostic sharedrop token that could never compete with BTS on features or development. No crypto-coin in history has EVER been displaced by a copycat clone or a token with a subset of its features. Other DACs will exist whether we want them to or not. PTS ensures that we get a stake in all of those tokens, many of which will be doing things that BTS doesn't desire to do (see Music for example). It is true that 3rd party DACs (not PTS) will compete with Bitshares and that some of them may be successful despite our wishes. PTS ensures that we own a stake in those tokens too. It is not a zero-sum game. We are not losing anything by holding both the vanilla DPoS sharedrop token (PTS) and the Ferrari of DACs (BTS). Killing one will not increase the value of the other, but having them both will probably lead to some synergy. This is the same reason why Toyota created Lexus, Honda created Acura, etc, etc, etc. They are directed towards different applications (not competitors), and yet they both promote the same underlying technology (DPoS).
-
PTS is not a competitor to BTS and certainly nobody is "stealing resources" (that's not how open source software works). They are completely different tokens directed towards different applications. BTS is a feature-rich DAC that is intended to disrupt a variety of industries, while PTS is a DAC-agnostic sharedrop token that could never compete with BTS on features or development. No crypto-coin in history has EVER been displaced by a copycat clone or a token with a subset of its features. Other DACs will exist whether we want them to or not. PTS ensures that we get a stake in all of those tokens, many of which will be doing things that BTS doesn't desire to do (see Music for example). It is true that 3rd party DACs (not PTS) will compete with Bitshares and that some of them may be successful despite our wishes. PTS ensures that we own a stake in those tokens too. It is not a zero-sum game. We are not losing anything by holding both the vanilla DPoS sharedrop token (PTS) and the Ferrari of DACs (BTS). Killing one will not increase the value of the other, but having them both will probably lead to some synergy. This is the same reason why Toyota created Lexus, Honda created Acura, etc, etc, etc. They are directed towards different applications (not competitors), and yet they both promote the same underlying technology (DPoS).
well said +5%
-
Whether or not these are just reflective of the ideas expressed in the proposals, the problem is that myself and I assume many others were under the impression that what the second sharedrop to PTS and AGS was for was to ultimately buy out PTS and AGS for their features (including having BTS be the new sharedrop target for third parties as well). I was here all through the merger fiasco and not once did I think things would turn out like this, because it wasn't clearly communicated. I can almost guarantee there are many of us who would have strongly opposed the 14% sharedrop inflation to PTS and AGS if we would've known that PTS was gonna continue competing against us and steal resources/spotlight/community etc.
PTS is not a competitor to BTS and certainly nobody is "stealing resources" (that's not how open source software works). They are completely different tokens directed towards different applications. BTS is a feature-rich DAC that is intended to disrupt a variety of industries, while PTS is a DAC-agnostic sharedrop token that could never compete with BTS on features or development. No crypto-coin in history has EVER been displaced by a copycat clone or a token with a subset of its features. Other DACs will exist whether we want them to or not. PTS ensures that we get a stake in all of those tokens, many of which will be doing things that BTS doesn't desire to do (see Music for example). It is true that 3rd party DACs (not PTS) will compete with Bitshares and that some of them may be successful despite our wishes. PTS ensures that we own a stake in those tokens too. It is not a zero-sum game. We are not losing anything by holding both the vanilla DPoS sharedrop token (PTS) and the Ferrari of DACs (BTS). Killing one will not increase the value of the other, but having them both will probably lead to some synergy. This is the same reason why Toyota created Lexus, Honda created Acura, etc, etc, etc. They are directed towards different applications (not competitors), and yet they both promote the same underlying technology (DPoS).
Excellent words. The recent animosity towards PTS has given me a very sour taste in my mouth towards the mob mentality in the bitshares community. It feels all-too reminiscent of the tribalism you see over on the Nxt forum whenever you mention BTS.
Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2
-
So two fantastic things are happening LTC is bringing itself within reach and POW as a whole is clearly dying.
So passing LTC will make us look very strong indeed.
This is great news and a good point. Cant wait until we overtake LTC and move into 3rd place.
The whole PTS thing was before i got involved, but from my point of view i would like see BTS gain value and hopefully that would bring PTS along with it.
-
Litecoin seems to be having a bad day might dip below $90 million soon.
PayCoin is also falling hard, was hoping that was just a flash in the pan.
So hopefully we'll be no.4 again soon with a weak POW coming to us.
NXT being strong is actually not bad for our case, (The end of POW) provided we are much stronger.
-
Fantastic! I love the smell of Napalm in the morning.
If you're the 2nd best poker player in the world and you keep playing the best player you'll likely lose. However if you're a really bad player but you play someone even worse you'll be a winner.
Succeeding is not just about how good you are but how good your competition is.
Our competition has never been more weak, so BitShares relatively speaking has never been more strong than it is right now. So I am maxed out on BitShares again.
As usual, we're not in a great position to attack when an opportunity presents itself :( A few internal issues, still waiting for a website and hopefully 1.0 will be here soon, but
Everything is in play right now. Everything is possible.
With our relative rise will come a spotlight, a spotlight that can counteract a year of bad marketing in a month by explaining BitShares to the world. If LTC drops off the map it will leave a weak Bitcoin hanging & POW very lonely in the top 10. There we will be the next decentralised alternative in line for the throne. (Our low inflation & the nature of BitAssets mean we will be far superior to them when we get our shot.)
In crisis is opportunity. As the title of the thread says 'The end of POW approaches...'
-
We could stand pat and see Litecoin fly by us. POW is dead.
-
We could stand pat and see Litecoin fly by us. POW is dead.
Well the most amazing thing is half of Bitcoiners agree with you.
A poll in the main discussion area, titled 'should Bitcoin modify to POW + POS' has 2500 views and 48% of Bitcoiners saying YES.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=914842.0
When half of Bitcoin thinks POW is flawed and in need of a POS based modification...
The end of POW may be closer than even I thought...
-
We could stand pat and see Litecoin fly by us. POW is dead.
Well the most amazing thing is half of Bitcoiners agree with you.
A poll in the main discussion area, titled 'should Bitcoin modify to POW + POS' has 2500 views and 48% of Bitcoiners saying YES.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=914842.0
When half of Bitcoin thinks POW is flawed and in need of a POS based modification...
The end of POW may be closer than even I thought...
How many of those "yes" votes are coming from people who are actually POS or DPOS enthusiasts and only went to bitcointalk to vote because it was linked to from their own forum? I am one.
-
I seem to recall that at one recent conference, most attendees said the same thing. PoS is proven now. POW is wasteful and unneeded, plus it constantly dilutes the value.
-
I am probably missing something but do we want bitcoin to become POS or DPOS instead of POW? If that happens then undoubtedly nothing could compete with bitcoin and our investment in BTS wouldn't lose it's value? I personally would like bitcoin to remain POW and steadily all bitcoin whales move away from bitcoin by injecting their cash to BTS rather than Bitcoin to switch to DPOS and we lose our competitive advantage..
-
I am probably missing something but do we want bitcoin to become POS or DPOS instead of POW? If that happens then undoubtedly nothing could compete with bitcoin and our investment in BTS wouldn't lose it's value? I personally would like bitcoin to remain POW and steadily all bitcoin whales move away from bitcoin by injecting their cash to BTS rather than Bitcoin to switch to DPOS and we lose our competitive advantage..
Bitcoin will never switch faster than market whales move. Especially considering how vastly different it would be and they wouldn't have all of our features.
-
Bitcoin will never switch faster than market whales move. Especially considering how vastly different it would be and they wouldn't have all of our features.
Ok cool. fair enough..
-
I am probably missing something but do we want bitcoin to become POS or DPOS instead of POW? If that happens then undoubtedly nothing could compete with bitcoin and our investment in BTS wouldn't lose it's value? I personally would like bitcoin to remain POW and steadily all bitcoin whales move away from bitcoin by injecting their cash to BTS rather than Bitcoin to switch to DPOS and we lose our competitive advantage..
Bitcoin will never switch faster than market whales move. Especially considering how vastly different it would be and they wouldn't have all of our features.
This - POW is an uncanny fit for TPTB.
At scale only large corps, hedgies, banks and govs will be able to mine and will therefore eventually control the entire network.
POW is merely a replacement for regulation in the next evolution of the finance sector; I would be very surprised if POW ever dies.
This is why I think BTC is in for a few huge pumps as corps -> hedge funds -> sov wealth -> banks -> govs jump on the train.
As soon as black/white addresses/coins are mandated it will become obvious that BTC/POW is a sort of viral trojan horse being unleashed on the world.
This is also why BTS is so critical - BTS can actually accomplish what BTC only pays lip service to.
BTC and BTS are going to be an epic David and Goliath story...
-
We could stand pat and see Litecoin fly by us. POW is dead.
Well the most amazing thing is half of Bitcoiners agree with you.
A poll in the main discussion area, titled 'should Bitcoin modify to POW + POS' has 2500 views and 48% of Bitcoiners saying YES.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=914842.0
When half of Bitcoin thinks POW is flawed and in need of a POS based modification...
The end of POW may be closer than even I thought...
How many of those "yes" votes are coming from people who are actually POS or DPOS enthusiasts and only went to bitcointalk to vote because it was linked to from their own forum? I am one.
Some perhaps, but the vote is fairly consistent with the trend I'm seeing in other threads and Bitcoin posts. There's some consensus that POW is seriously flawed from a centralisation and cost POV. This wasn't the case 9 months+ ago. There's a real psychological shift starting to happen imo.
-
I am probably missing something but do we want bitcoin to become POS or DPOS instead of POW? If that happens then undoubtedly nothing could compete with bitcoin and our investment in BTS wouldn't lose it's value? I personally would like bitcoin to remain POW and steadily all bitcoin whales move away from bitcoin by injecting their cash to BTS rather than Bitcoin to switch to DPOS and we lose our competitive advantage..
Bitcoin will never switch faster than market whales move. Especially considering how vastly different it would be and they wouldn't have all of our features.
The decision to upgrade belongs to bitcoin miners not bitcoin holders. Miners have erected a barrier to entry they won’t give up – the need for huge warehouses full of global warming hardware. BTC miners’ competitive edge is their Darwinian ability to win a global warming device arms race. If miners adopt DPOS, they lose that competitive edge to others better suited to compete in the new arena. Under DPOS, people skilled at attracting voters would have the advantage. It’s like asking soccer players to deliberately change the rules for who wins the World Cup to be a chess match instead of an athletic tournament. A different skill set is required and athletes are unlikely to win a chess competition. So they will keep the rules set to require physical skills so they can continue to win as long as possible.
-
I am probably missing something but do we want bitcoin to become POS or DPOS instead of POW? If that happens then undoubtedly nothing could compete with bitcoin and our investment in BTS wouldn't lose it's value? I personally would like bitcoin to remain POW and steadily all bitcoin whales move away from bitcoin by injecting their cash to BTS rather than Bitcoin to switch to DPOS and we lose our competitive advantage..
Bitcoin will never switch faster than market whales move. Especially considering how vastly different it would be and they wouldn't have all of our features.
The decision to upgrade belongs to bitcoin miners not bitcoin holders. Miners have erected a barrier to entry they won’t give up – the need for huge warehouses full of global warming hardware. BTC miners’ competitive edge is their Darwinian ability to win a global warming device arms race. If miners adopt DPOS, they lose that competitive edge to others better suited to compete in the new arena. Under DPOS, people skilled at attracting voters would have the advantage. It’s like asking soccer players to deliberately change the rules for who wins the World Cup to be a chess match instead of an athletic tournament. A different skill set is required and athletes are unlikely to win a chess competition. So they will keep the rules set to require physical skills so they can continue to win as long as possible.
Actually miners don't have a say in what the community / market adopts. The problem is there is no means to reach a consensus on the upgrade thus everyone is stuck.
-
There was a thread on Reddit /r/Bitcoin the other day referencing Roger Ver's tweet or posting that he'd been denied a U.S. visa to travel to the Miami conference. (Personally, as much as I respect what Roger Ver did, he basically said he didn't need the U.S. anymore and now he's whining that they won't let him back in when he does need it. Anyway, my opinion is irrelevant.) I mention this here because the comments on that thread really surprised me. Bruce Fenton weighed in regularly on RV's behalf, which was predictable. But while a year or two ago, 100% of the comments would have been blindly in favor of Roger Ver, Bruce Fenton, and Bitcoin, nearly half of the comments there were negative or questioning.
My point: Plenty of people are supportive of Bitcoin and its icons. But there may be fewer 'blind' supporters than we think. A one year bear market + all these scandals is taking a toll. People are willing to question some things now. And that's healthy.
-
Actually miners don't have a say in what the community / market adopts. The problem is there is no means to reach a consensus on the upgrade thus everyone is stuck.
Couldn't the Bitcoin devs create a hard fork that allowed BTC holders to vote with their stake on any arbitrary proposal submitted to the blockchain? This is a fairly benign update that the miners may not object to upgrading to. Actually, there is no need for a hard fork. That can all be done off-chain with a recent snapshot. With that in place BTC holders have a mechanism to reach consensus on any future hard forks...
That said I think I agree with your statement here:
Bitcoin will never switch faster than market whales move. Especially considering how vastly different it would be and they wouldn't have all of our features.
Or at the very least I fool myself into believing that statement since I want it to be true.
-
LiteCoin is $61 million atm...
Definitely looks to be on the way out in a hurry.
-
LiteCoin is $61 million atm...
Definitely looks to be on the way out in a hurry.
In a downtrend since march. It seems litecoin is pretty much done for.
-
LiteCoin is $61 million atm...
Definitely looks to be on the way out in a hurry.
In a downtrend since march. It seems litecoin is pretty much done for.
I respect Litecoin for what they did to introduce a new set of enthusiasts to enjoy mining without specialized hardware. I would think most were starting to see the writing on the wall with all the 2.0 related projects entering the market.
-
LiteCoin is $61 million atm...
Definitely looks to be on the way out in a hurry.
In a downtrend since march. It seems litecoin is pretty much done for.
It's only reason for being in the top ten was that it was number 2.
-
I'm more excited when Bitshares starts gaining in market cap, litecoin crashing isn't that exciting. Our market cap is going down just like all the other cryptos today. Not fun to watch.
-
There was a thread on Reddit /r/Bitcoin the other day referencing Roger Ver's tweet or posting that he'd been denied a U.S. visa to travel to the Miami conference. (Personally, as much as I respect what Roger Ver did, he basically said he didn't need the U.S. anymore and now he's whining that they won't let him back in when he does need it. Anyway, my opinion is irrelevant.) I mention this here because the comments on that thread really surprised me. Bruce Fenton weighed in regularly on RV's behalf, which was predictable. But while a year or two ago, 100% of the comments would have been blindly in favor of Roger Ver, Bruce Fenton, and Bitcoin, nearly half of the comments there were negative or questioning.
My point: Plenty of people are supportive of Bitcoin and its icons. But there may be fewer 'blind' supporters than we think. A one year bear market + all these scandals is taking a toll. People are willing to question some things now. And that's healthy.
What Roger was saying was that he chooses to no longer be a citizen and pay taxes to the state that imprisoned him for criticizing the abuses of ATF, using his ebay sales of farmers bird scarers as "fireworks" as a convenient excuse (while none of the other 8 sellers on ebay were prosecuted).
Roger's bitterness toward the US government is completely justified - claiming he is "whining" about being denied entry to visit family and conduct business is bullshit.
The politics being played regarding that are nothing but petty revenge by the US government - it is quite obvious that he is being individually targeted, just as he was 15 years ago.
Here's Roger's story if you haven't read it:
http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/11/12/bitcoin-venture-capitalist-roger-vers-journey-to-anarchism/
The fact that 100% of the bitcoin community isn't completely supportive of Roger just goes to show how much it has been invaded by morally bankrupt boot-lickers who would gladly sell away your liberty to see their shiny new bitcoin investment increase another 10%.
/rant
-
There was a thread on Reddit /r/Bitcoin the other day referencing Roger Ver's tweet or posting that he'd been denied a U.S. visa to travel to the Miami conference. (Personally, as much as I respect what Roger Ver did, he basically said he didn't need the U.S. anymore and now he's whining that they won't let him back in when he does need it. Anyway, my opinion is irrelevant.) I mention this here because the comments on that thread really surprised me. Bruce Fenton weighed in regularly on RV's behalf, which was predictable. But while a year or two ago, 100% of the comments would have been blindly in favor of Roger Ver, Bruce Fenton, and Bitcoin, nearly half of the comments there were negative or questioning.
My point: Plenty of people are supportive of Bitcoin and its icons. But there may be fewer 'blind' supporters than we think. A one year bear market + all these scandals is taking a toll. People are willing to question some things now. And that's healthy.
What Roger was saying was that he chooses to no longer be a citizen and pay taxes to the state that imprisoned him for criticizing the abuses of ATF, using his ebay sales of farmers bird scarers as "fireworks" as a convenient excuse (while none of the other 8 sellers on ebay were prosecuted).
Roger's bitterness toward the US government is completely justified - claiming he is "whining" about being denied entry to visit family and conduct business is bullshit.
The politics being played regarding that are nothing but petty revenge by the US government - it is quite obvious that he is being individually targeted, just as he was 15 years ago.
Here's Roger's story if you haven't read it:
http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/11/12/bitcoin-venture-capitalist-roger-vers-journey-to-anarchism/
The fact that 100% of the bitcoin community isn't completely supportive of Roger just goes to show how much it has been invaded by morally bankrupt boot-lickers who would gladly sell away your liberty to see their shiny new bitcoin investment increase another 10%.
/rant
The dude got railroaded, no question. Whoever went after him was way too overzealous. But that's the way cops and prosecutors often work, and it wasn't entirely unforeseeable that they might connect those two dots he left out there for them. Free speech has never been limitless. I can point you to plenty of court cases holding that the wrong words + the wrong actions can get you into a heap of trouble. When you're making anarchist statements that someone might interpret as threats against the government, it's best not to keep a closet full of M-80 gopher blasters. You just have to be smarter than that and can't give them that kind of fodder. Roger won't be trying that one in Japan, I guarantee you.
Live and learn. Everyone makes mistakes, especially when they're young. I respect Roger Ver and I'm sorry that happened to him when he probably didn't intend any harm to anyone. But he's not sitting in an American jail; he chose to give up his passport.
Anyway, let's say I agree with everything you wrote. My point wasn't that agreeing with Roger Ver makes you a 'tin foil hat' type. It was actually kind of the reverse: that I was shocked at how many people were not necessarily supporting every aspect of the whole Bitcoin narrative anymore. Combine that with other evidence, such as the fall of Litecoin and the ongoing weakness of PoW in general, and I think there are some cracks. If you see this as money people coming in, then so be it; I see it as weariness with Bitcoin's ongoing weakness.
Upshot: evangelizing BitShares to that crowd may not be as futile as some of us (including me) have believed.
-
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5fbe6Pcbg1qcb58yo1_500.gif)
Unfortunately we're not well positioned to take advantage of it yet so it's likely we'll continue to fall in unison for the time being.
-
Unfortunately we're not well positioned to take advantage of it yet so it's likely we'll continue to fall in unison for the time being.
Unless of course bitcoin goes back up...
It can happen.....right? RIGHT??
-
Unfortunately we're not well positioned to take advantage of it yet so it's likely we'll continue to fall in unison for the time being.
Unless of course bitcoin goes back up...
It can happen.....right? RIGHT??
Keep buying nomoreheroes. :D Nothing has changed, Bitshares is still the crypto project with the most potential.
-
Unfortunately we're not well positioned to take advantage of it yet so it's likely we'll continue to fall in unison for the time being.
Unless of course bitcoin goes back up...
It can happen.....right? RIGHT??
Keep buying nomoreheroes. :D Nothing has changed, Bitshares is still the crypto project with the most potential.
Well we can start pulling away and looking like the next decentralized contender in line for the throne.
However if a casual observer looked at BitSharesX 3 months ago and looked at BitShares today, the only difference they'd see is this version has given up 20% Equity and introduced inflation. They actually have to see what's being worked on actualised as well as BitAsset growth to start to give us a higher valuation and some forward momentum.
-
Unfortunately we're not well positioned to take advantage of it yet so it's likely we'll continue to fall in unison for the time being.
Unless of course bitcoin goes back up...
It can happen.....right? RIGHT??
Keep buying nomoreheroes. :D Nothing has changed, Bitshares is still the crypto project with the most potential.
Well we can start pulling away and looking like the next decentralized contender in line for the throne.
However if a casual observer looked at BitSharesX 3 months ago and looked at BitShares today, the only difference they'd see is this version has given up 20% Equity and introduced inflation. They actually have to see what's being worked on actualised as well as BitAsset growth to start to give us a higher valuation and some forward momentum.
There have been some really opportune times for BitShares to be 'ready'. This certainly ranks as one. Instead, we have to hope that we'll create our own favorable winds when the time comes!
-
I'm a bit concerned with how quickly Bitcoin has lost all the gains it made from the Coinbase announcement.
This could get messy for BTC if it goes below $200 again and there's no new 'big news' on the horizon.
-
Lower btc gives more incentive use our virtual mining upool. Just gotta market it.
-
Unfortunately we're not well positioned to take advantage of it yet so it's likely we'll continue to fall in unison for the time being.
Unless of course bitcoin goes back up...
It can happen.....right? RIGHT??
Keep buying nomoreheroes. :D Nothing has changed, Bitshares is still the crypto project with the most potential.
Well we can start pulling away and looking like the next decentralized contender in line for the throne.
However if a casual observer looked at BitSharesX 3 months ago and looked at BitShares today, the only difference they'd see is this version has given up 20% Equity and introduced inflation. They actually have to see what's being worked on actualised as well as BitAsset growth to start to give us a higher valuation and some forward momentum.
There have been some really opportune times for BitShares to be 'ready'. This certainly ranks as one. Instead, we have to hope that we'll create our own favorable winds when the time comes!
BTS has been showing surprising strength relative to BTC.
Would be fantastic to see BTS take a run following release of 1.0, light wallet and some marketing. Be easy to bump up the leader board...