BitShares Forum
Other => Graveyard => Marketplace => Topic started by: HackFisher on August 13, 2014, 02:21:26 pm
-
The google document can be commented and give revise suggestions by anybody, the BTSX bounty will shared by all the editors.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KkaAnuM0a_YU2yMaeDSDiyNUv96c9TrYrCjKadC01yA/edit?usp=sharing
2000BTSX extra for outstanding proposals or changes.
Thanks.
-
Ok .. I am finally through .. hope I haven't left too much chaos as I just edited .. (my edits are highlighted)
-
*bump*
it seems I made too many edits for the google doc .. it has gotten lower since my edits :) might have been to many :)
BTW.: it is called BitShares .. with capital 'S' in the middle .. maybe I missed some of those while reading
-
*bump*
it seems I made too many edits for the google doc .. it has gotten lower since my edits :) might have been to many :)
BTW.: it is called BitShares .. with capital 'S' in the middle .. maybe I missed some of those while reading
Thank you so much xeroc, yes you are right 'S' should be capital in the middle.
-
Ah, and .. the last part about your scheme on how to get a natural number out of multiple different gaming rules needs some examples ..
I just didn't really get how it is working .. the math behind it is not too difficult but, I am afraid, very unintuitive :(
-
Made a few comments on sections 1.0 and 2.0.
Got to run for now, but I'll take a look at the rest later.
-
Hm .. just wanted to go over your equations again to try to understand them and now they are gone .. did you remove the whole part in the whitepaper?
-
Hm .. just wanted to go over your equations again to try to understand them and now they are gone .. did you remove the whole part in the whitepaper?
I moved the CNS part to another document, and give a link to it as it is not so important for the idea of this white paper.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rAxpIK_gD-UbA2OKUq5IxAzykIKjphM5BoUnLs9tSls/edit?usp=drive_web
And beside, I do some re-organize , but most of them should still be there.
-
BitShares Play(PLAY) is an experiment which should demonstrate and validate how a decentralized, autonomous,
and game assets platform is worksing. This is a platform is not only built-in with different provable fair chance games, but also has the ability to integrate with all kinds of third party games and have their within asset system in Bitshares Play PLAY's asset system (CHIP). The Shares of Play(PLS), combined with all the assets in built-in games assets and third party games, form a free marketplace and exchange. Systems like this are also known as Decentralized Autonomous Companies (DAC).
The basic idea of a games asset platform is that there is an inner exchange model on the platform. Each game asset in PLAY is part of the "Contract with the system", which means assets are backed by PLS as collateral. Game assets can be issued by providing PLAY shares as collateral, or be destroyed by covering collateral. The ratio price of issue and destroy is determined by the current total supply and current collateral. So the total supply mechanism of game assets is also part of the contract with the system, for built-in chance games, the total supply changing rules is part of the DAC consensus.(I think you need define "the contract" at once, not using "also part of the contract")
Chance games have come to rely almost exclusively on trusted third parties to provide random feeds. While this system works well enough, it still suffers not only from centralized trust based models, but also from the possibility of cheating by players. Even though some crypto based games on the Internet have provably random feeds which can be verified by the public, hidden players still can can still cheat by submitting selective favorable transactions because they know the random secret in advance. Thus players are forced to trust that the game operator is scrupulous. This will forced trust reduces demand and fun, and prevents those who simply do not want to trust the operator from playing the game.
BitShares PlayPLAY's game assets(CHIP) is are not limited to built-in games and third party games, even.Centralized games can also use using PLAY as the economic system of the their game as soon as they can provide a contract which matches the requirement of PLAY's game assets inner exchange. This contract could be a consensus inside or between DACs, or a smart contract between a DAC and non-decentralized games. This could be achieved by smart contracts technologies like smart oracles or Orisi.
2.0 System Tokens
My two cents on the intro. Because of the plurality of things, saying Bitshares Play's just sounds weird. After you introduce Bitshares Play as PLAY, it should always be referred to as PLAY without Bitshares attached. That way you can make it plural without sounding strange. You also introduced (PLS) as the symbol. You have now given it three different names: Bitshares Play, PLAY, and PLS. I know PLS refers to the shares, but it does cloud the interpretation some.
Also, you need to introduce CHIP as the symbol of the assets the first time. Not after you have mention the BitShares Play Game Assets multiple times. That is why I crossed it out. ****on second thought, leave CHIP out all together. It feels unnecessary. Let me know if you are interested in my edits and I will proof more.
-
BitShares Play(PLAY) is an experiment which should demonstrate and validate how a decentralized, autonomous, and game assets platform is worksing. This is a platform is not only built-in with different provable fair chance games, but also has the ability to integrate with all kinds of third party games and have their within asset system in Bitshares Play PLAY's asset system (CHIP). The Shares of Play(PLS), combined with all the assets in built-in games assets and third party games, form a free marketplace and exchange. Systems like this are also known as Decentralized Autonomous Companies (DAC).
The basic idea of a games asset platform is that there is an inner exchange model on the platform. Each game asset in PLAY is part of the "Contract with the system", which means assets are backed by PLS as collateral. Game assets can be issued by providing PLAY shares as collateral, or be destroyed by covering collateral. The ratio price of issue and destroy is determined by the current total supply and current collateral. So the total supply mechanism of game assets is also part of the contract with the system, for built-in chance games, the total supply changing rules is part of the DAC consensus.(I think you need define "the contract" at once, not using "also part of the contract")
Chance games have come to rely almost exclusively on trusted third parties to provide random feeds. While this system works well enough, it still suffers not only from centralized trust based models, but also from the possibility of cheating by players. Even though some crypto based games on the Internet have provably random feeds which can be verified by the public, hidden players still can can still cheat by submitting selective favorable transactions because they know the random secret in advance. Thus players are forced to trust that the game operator is scrupulous. This will forced trust reduces demand and fun, and prevents those who simply do not want to trust the operator from playing the game.
BitShares PlayPLAY's game assets(CHIP) is are not limited to built-in games and third party games, even.Centralized games can also use using PLAY as the economic system of the their game as soon as they can provide a contract which matches the requirement of PLAY's game assets inner exchange. This contract could be a consensus inside or between DACs, or a smart contract between a DAC and non-decentralized games. This could be achieved by smart contracts technologies like smart oracles or Orisi.
2.0 System Tokens
My two cents on the intro. Because of the plurality of things, saying Bitshares Play's just sounds weird. After you introduce Bitshares Play as PLAY, it should always be referred to as PLAY without Bitshares attached. That way you can make it plural without sounding strange. You also introduced (PLS) as the symbol. You have now given it three different names: Bitshares Play, PLAY, and PLS. I know PLS refers to the shares, but it does cloud the interpretation some.
Also, you need to introduce CHIP as the symbol of the assets the first time. Not after you have mention the BitShares Play Game Assets multiple times. That is why I crossed it out. ****on second thought, leave CHIP out all together. It feels unnecessary. Let me know if you are interested in my edits and I will proof more.
Hi, thanks, you suggestions are very good, agree with you.
Please comment directly on the original google document, it's more efficient.
-
I've made some suggestions also, I'll try to do more later.
-
I made a number of suggestions to section 1.0 as Anonymous between about 1:30-2:30 pm today. I have never edited a Google doc so let me know if this was done correctly and is what you were looking for and I will forge on.
-
Just italicised variables in the text, as this is standard practice in academic papers.
-
Everyone who contribute to the document please pm me or note it in the document comment, and tell me your btsx account. Better to know who you are.
Thanks all.
2000 BTSX is still valid and there for further reviews.
-
tried to correct some minor surface stuff, but there are some space flaws with how my document appears.. for parenthesized abbreviations there should always be space between the words and the enclosed parenthesis, i.e. not "proof of work(POW)" but "proof of work (POW)"
Really interesting paper. i like it a lot. good work HackFisher!
-
Just added some more suggestions.
-
The left bounty was given to the Chinese version volunteer translators, metalallen, michaelcat and heyd.