BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: alphaBar on October 24, 2014, 02:09:47 am
-
To any developers who are watching the current fiasco unfold, I have a suggestion for creating a DAC that I believe has a decent shot at beating the superDAC with minimal effort and expense. The Bitshares superDAC has the following weaknesses:
* The threshold for inflation is too low. By allowing inflation of up to 8% perpetually in the protocol, you end up with a situation where large stakeholders are able to "write their own paycheck" for lack of a better term. The biggest stakeholders in the superDAC will be I3, and for all intents and purposes they will be setting their own pay. It would take an almost impossible amount of stake (if you consider the avg participation rate) to "disagree" with their payrate and to vote them out. Any currency (even Bitcoin) allows for inflation. The difference is that inflation is not baked into the protocol, and would therefore require a far greater "stake" to implement (by modifying the protocol). Bitshares has ignored one of the main principles of crypto community: that scarcity should be (almost) inviolable.
* The second weakness of the superDAC is distribution. AGS distribution has already alienated a huge number of Bitcoin purists who are adamantly against "IPO coins". I don't necessarily agree with their philosophy, but there is a large segment of crypto users who will only invest in coins that have no IPO, no premine, and ONLY PoW distribution. The chaos that is unfolding with the superDAC has amplified the problem, possibly causing irreparable harm in PR and public distrust. I'm not speaking to intentions here. As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions...
* The last weakness of the superDAC is what I call "abuse of the DAC analogy". Let's face it, the killer app in the crypto-space has always been and will always be one thing: currency. And to be a good store of value, any coin that maintains the sanctity of scarce supply at the protocol layer, will be leaps and bounds ahead of the competition. What Bitshares gains in "marketing funds" they will lose in investor confidence (from the very investors they are "marketing" to). It is true that running a DAC like a business will result in a more agile and adaptive token. But I would argue that we should run our "business" with the aim of positioning ourselves as the best currency and store of value (the killer app). As I mentioned earlier, I believe the crypto-space is searching for a "unit of account" that will inevitably become something of a global reserve upon which everything else is built. The coin that wins this battle will NOT be Bitcoin (primarily due to the pitfalls of PoW) and it will not be the coin with the most advanced features (see Nxt). The coin that becomes the defacto world reserve must be appealing to governments and serious investors and must be perceived as (i) fairly distributed, (ii) scarce (non-inflationary), (iii) efficient (DPOS), and (iv) secure. Any feature built on top of this coin cannot be done at the expense of these 4 things. The superDAC has failed in distribution/allocation and scarcity.
Here is my proposal:
Someone should fork the Bitshares Toolkit and create a new Bitshares PTS that launches on November 5th (the date of snapshot). The new PTS should have nothing but the core Toolkit functionality (DPOS+TITAN). With DPOS technology, no inflation, and pure proof of work distribution, I argue that the new Bitshares PTS has a shot at dethroning the superDAC.
This is an experiment that can be conducted with minimal cost. The new PTS can always benefit from improvements made to the Toolkit, and if PTS wins I am sure Dan and the rest of the devs from I3 will jump on board (since they will have a large stake in PTS as well). If it loses then nothing much is lost.
****Edit: To my surprise, this has generated a lot of interest. Please DM me if you'd like to contribute to making it happen.
****Edit2: Organizing a mailing list for those who are interested: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10540.0
-
Good luck
-
From what I'm reading it almost seems as if you're interested in something completely different than what Bitshares is. It's all there for the competition to make the best they can and compete. For me I am still MUCH more interested in where Bitshares superdac is going.
You may be right, but think of it like as hedge against the superDAC. It costs nothing to implement, the allocation is 100% to members of this community, and if it fails you've lost nothing. There is no reason why DPOS should be tied to the success or failure of the superDAC. DPOS is hands down the best consensus algorithm, and it should be attempted in a pure and agnostic token with strong scarcity and fair distribution.
-
To any developers who are watching the current fiasco unfold, I have a suggestion for creating a DAC that I believe has a decent shot at beating the superDAC with minimal effort and expense. The Bitshares superDAC has the following weaknesses:
* The threshold for inflation is too low. By allowing inflation of up to 8% perpetually in the protocol, you end up with a situation where large stakeholders are able to "write their own paycheck" for lack of a better term. The biggest stakeholders in the superDAC will be I3, and for all intents and purposes they will be setting their own pay. It would take an almost impossible amount of stake (if you consider the avg participation rate) to "disagree" with their payrate and to vote them out. Any currency (even Bitcoin) allows for inflation. The difference is that inflation is not baked into the protocol, and would therefore require a far greater "stake" to implement (by modifying the protocol). Bitshares has ignored one of the main principles of crypto community: that scarcity should be (almost) inviolable.
* The second weakness of the superDAC is distribution. AGS distribution has already alienated a huge number of Bitcoin purists who are adamantly against "IPO coins". I don't necessarily agree with their philosophy, but there is a large segment of crypto users who will only invest in coins that have no IPO, no premine, and ONLY PoW distribution. The chaos that is unfolding with the superDAC has amplified the problem, possibly causing irreparable harm in PR and public distrust. I'm not speaking to intentions here. As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions...
* The last weakness of the superDAC is what I call "abuse of the DAC analogy". Let's face it, the killer app in the crypto-space has always been and will always be one thing: currency. And to be a good store of value, any coin that maintains the sanctity of scarce supply at the protocol layer, will be leaps and bounds ahead of the competition. What Bitshares gains in "marketing funds" they will lose in investor confidence (from the very investors they are "marketing" to). It is true that running a DAC like a business will result in a more agile and adaptive token. But I would argue that we should run our "business" with the aim of positioning ourselves as the best currency and store of value (the killer app). As I mentioned earlier, I believe the crypto-space is searching for a "unit of account" that will inevitably become something of a global reserve upon which everything else is built. The coin that wins this battle will NOT be Bitcoin (primarily due to the pitfalls of PoW) and it will not be the coin with the most advanced features (see Nxt). The coin that becomes the defacto world reserve must be appealing to governments and serious investors and must be perceived as (i) fairly distributed, (ii) scarce (non-inflationary), (iii) efficient (DPOS), and (iv) secure. Any feature built on top of this coin cannot be done at the expense of these 4 things. The superDAC has failed in distribution/allocation and scarcity.
Here is my proposal:
Someone should fork the Bitshares Toolkit and create a new Bitshares PTS that launches on November 5th (the date of snapshot). The new PTS should have nothing but the core Toolkit functionality (DPOS+TITAN). With DPOS technology, no inflation, and pure proof of work distribution, I argue that the new Bitshares PTS has a shot at dethroning the superDAC.
This is an experiment that can be conducted with minimal cost. The new PTS can always benefit from improvements made to the Toolkit, and if PTS wins I am sure Dan and the rest of the devs from I3 will jump on board (since they will have a large stake in PTS as well). If it loses then nothing much is lost.
Lol lol is this a joke or you really believe it ? I'm mean for real take a deep breath and please don't talk about POW as a solution to anything. I know only one person on this forum that could not get over AGS, and has a large stake of PTS and for some reason he's still in love with the stupidity of POW. For sure you know who is do you....? He has a writing stile similar to yours too. Fantastic !! But please don't stop spreading your wisdom... We still love you.
As for your DAC please do it I would really like you to do it to prove your brilliant point.
-
Shouldn't this post be moved to "Third Party DACS"?
-
I am fan of this part:
With DPOS technology, no inflation, and pure proof of work distribution, I argue that the new Bitshares PTS has a shot at dethroning the superDAC.
Tell us more about this 'pure proof of work distribution'. I see it as pure CPU mining, no trading allowed and to make the things great it will be done on DPOS chain.
Shouldn't this post be moved to "Third Party DACS"?
... or random discussions.
-
This one too is brilliant :
Let's face it, the killer app in the crypto-space has always been and will always be one thing: currency. And to be a good store of value, any coin that maintains the sanctity of scarce supply at the protocol layer, will be leaps and bounds ahead of the competition
Edit : Ohh yeah this DAC will be 6x more powerful then the superDAC why ? Well because ..you know !!!! Ask Op he'll do the math for you.
-
Lol lol is this a joke or you really believe it ? I'm mean for real take a deep breath and please don't talk about POW as a solution to anything. I know only one person on this forum that could not get over AGS, and has a large stake of PTS and for some reason he's still in love with the stupidity of POW. For sure you know who is do you....? He has a writing stile similar to yours too. Fantastic !! But please don't stop spreading your wisdom... We still love you.
As for your DAC please do it I would really like you to do it to prove your brilliant point.
Not sure what you're talking about, I hate proof of work. The only thing that PoW does okay is distribution, nothing else. My proposal was to simply convert PTS to a standalone DPOS chain. Please explain how this is promotion of PoW? If you think there is a better distribution mechanism, please let us know what that is (hint: there isn't one). IPO is used primarily for funding, not distribution.
-
Shouldn't this post be moved to "Third Party DACS"?
No less relevant than all the other discussions about what to do with PTS/AGS/BTSX.
-
This one too is brilliant :
Let's face it, the killer app in the crypto-space has always been and will always be one thing: currency. And to be a good store of value, any coin that maintains the sanctity of scarce supply at the protocol layer, will be leaps and bounds ahead of the competition
Edit : Ohh yeah this DAC will be 6x more powerful then the superDAC why ? Well because ..you know !!!! Ask Op he'll do the math for you.
The best thing would be if it magically improved your ability to comprehend basic English. But alas, "one chain to rule them all" is doomed to failure...
-
I'm interested in building and investing in the best decentralized autonomous company the market can offer. Company mergers are extremely beneficial when entering new markets and introducing new products via R&D as it can:
1) Streamline administrative functions
2) Increase market share
3) Lower operational costs
4) Offer financial leveraging
5) Improve profitability
6) Increase earnings per share.
The merger will be beneficial to all stakeholders and continues to lower the barrier to entry. The merger raises my confidence in BitShares the company and the leadership of I3, the core developers, and the marketing team because it demonstrates they understand the above and how to build value. I wish you luck with your proposal because you're going to need it competing against such a team.
-
* The last weakness of the superDAC is what I call "abuse of the DAC analogy". Let's face it, the killer app in the crypto-space has always been and will always be one thing: currency. And to be a good store of value, any coin that maintains the sanctity of scarce supply at the protocol layer, will be leaps and bounds ahead of the competition. What Bitshares gains in "marketing funds" they will lose in investor confidence (from the very investors they are "marketing" to). It is true that running a DAC like a business will result in a more agile and adaptive token. But I would argue that we should run our "business" with the aim of positioning ourselves as the best currency and store of value (the killer app). As I mentioned earlier, I believe the crypto-space is searching for a "unit of account" that will inevitably become something of a global reserve upon which everything else is built. The coin that wins this battle will NOT be Bitcoin (primarily due to the pitfalls of PoW) and it will not be the coin with the most advanced features (see Nxt). The coin that becomes the defacto world reserve must be appealing to governments and serious investors and must be perceived as (i) fairly distributed, (ii) scarce (non-inflationary), (iii) efficient (DPOS), and (iv) secure. Any feature built on top of this coin cannot be done at the expense of these 4 things. The superDAC has failed in distribution/allocation and scarcity.
It seems your premise is BTS is a coin or something like Bitcoin. I would prescribe more reading to understand the importance of free markets via the block chain and the benefits of the profitable-apps that are being built in to BTS that make it a value creator for its owners and users. Perhaps the wiki and all of BM's posts.
-
I am fan of this part:
With DPOS technology, no inflation, and pure proof of work distribution, I argue that the new Bitshares PTS has a shot at dethroning the superDAC.
Tell us more about this 'pure proof of work distribution'. I see it as pure CPU mining, no trading allowed and to make the things great it will be done on DPOS chain.
In case you didn't know, Bitshares PTS used a 100% proof of work distribution. It was simply a statement of fact. Your comments about CPU mining and "no trading allowed" are unintelligible so I'm sorry I can't help you there.
-
This one too is brilliant :
Let's face it, the killer app in the crypto-space has always been and will always be one thing: currency. And to be a good store of value, any coin that maintains the sanctity of scarce supply at the protocol layer, will be leaps and bounds ahead of the competition
Edit : Ohh yeah this DAC will be 6x more powerful then the superDAC why ? Well because ..you know !!!! Ask Op he'll do the math for you.
The best thing would be if it magically improved your ability to comprehend basic English. But alas, "one chain to rule them all" is doomed to failure...
You know you right I don't get your English but I like your math. So you superDAC killer is how many chains ?
-
I'm interested in building and investing in the best decentralized autonomous company the market can offer. Company mergers are extremely beneficial when entering new markets and introducing new products via R&D as it can:
1) Streamline administrative functions
2) Increase market share
3) Lower operational costs
4) Offer financial leveraging
5) Improve profitability
6) Increase earnings per share.
The merger will be beneficial to all stakeholders and continues to lower the barrier to entry. The merger raises my confidence in BitShares the company and the leadership of I3, the core developers, and the marketing team because it demonstrates they understand the above and how to build value. I wish you luck with your proposal because you're going to need it competing against such a team.
This is certainly one view of the world, and it may very well be the right one. I would argue that there is no inherent relationship between the Toolkit and the philosophical leanings of I3. One could just as easily fork the toolkit with a coin that maintains the core principles I've outlined above (different from those of the superDAC, but well suited for PTS), still derive value from the work of I3 developers, and possibly provide value to both the developers and the community at large if it succeeds. At the very least the new PTS would be better suited for sharedropping than the superDAC (for obvious reasons). Not much lost in attempting this, but possibly much to be gained.
-
This is an experiment that can be conducted with minimal cost.
Splitting the network so its participants can compete with itself has an extremely high cost.
-
Is the idea to essentially launch a DPOS PTS DAC and promote it as currency rather than sharedrop instrument?
-
This is an experiment that can be conducted with minimal cost.
Splitting the network so its participants can compete with itself has an extremely high cost.
Possibly. The counterargument is that the community as a whole gains from hedging against the possibility that the superDAC fails for reasons unrelated to the underlying protocol (the Toolkit). If there was heavy development overhead associated with this I'd agree, but other cryptos will fill the void in areas where we are weak. And we're certainly weak in some of the areas I've outlined above (distribution/allocation and scarcity). We may as well try both options and let the market decide. Either way we win.
-
WHat do you mean by weak scarcity ?
-
Is the idea to essentially launch a DPOS PTS DAC and promote it as currency rather than sharedrop instrument?
It could be both. The honest truth is that Nxt was lightyears ahead of every other crypto until Bitshares launched, but they had only marginal success. Ask yourself why. To this day, Nxt has features that Bitshares hasn't implemented (multi-gateway trustless exchange between BTC-NXT/BTC-LTC/BTC-DOGE and digital goods store come to mind). No matter how superior they were in features and functionality, they could not overcome the stigma associated with their flawed IPO. Bitshares is better, but is it good enough? Time will tell. My argument is that a "purist" version of DPOS has a fighting chance for mass adoption, maybe even a better chance than a feature rich coin with a fumbled allocation problem and variable inflation (superDAC).
As for the second part of your question, I would also argue that such a "purist" DPOS coin is also ideally suited for sharedropping by the "feature-rich" coins. If it weren't for Gavin, I personally think Vitalik would have share-dropped to PTS/AGS for Ethereum. I think neither Vitalik nor Gavin nor any other rational developer would sharedrop to the superDAC. The ideal instrument for sharedropping is a fairly launched pure proof of work coin with no premine. This is PTS by definition. The same properties that make PTS well suited for currency also make it an ideal instrument for sharedropping/distribution by feature-based coins.
-
I thought Bitshares is really well distributed both through AGS/PTS and also now via three months on exchanges?
I am unable to mine therefor POW won't be fair to me. I was able to purchase BTC and donate to the AGS fund though.
-
WHat do you mean by weak scarcity ?
Scarcity can be ranked on a spectrum ranging from deflationary coins (BTSX) --> non-inflationary coins (BTC) --> optional/variable inflation coins (superDAC) --> inflationary coins (less common, maybe PPC/ETH/ZTC would qualify)
Of course the superDAC is worse than some pure inflationary coins in the sense that the upper bound of inflation is much higher (8%). Strong scarcity would be non-inflationary at the protocol level.
-
I thought Bitshares is really well distributed both through AGS/PTS and also now via three months on exchanges?
I am unable to mine therefor POW won't be fair to me. I was able to purchase BTC and donate to the AGS fund though.
You are correct about this failure of PoW, but the reason it is generally considered to be far better for distribution is that the distribution is *trustless and provable*. In other words, there is no way for anyone to know whether donations in an IPO period are being made from the developers to themselves. This is the Achilles heel of IPO distribution.
Edit: I should mention that I don't think the dual IPO/PoW model is a bad one. I've invested heavily in I3 assets so I think it's the best that's been tried before. And the IPO aspect of it was necessary to fund development. But that does not preclude possibility of a pure DPOS coin with strong scarcity surpassing the feature-packed superDAC.
-
I'm interested in building and investing in the best decentralized autonomous company the market can offer. Company mergers are extremely beneficial when entering new markets and introducing new products via R&D as it can:
1) Streamline administrative functions
2) Increase market share
3) Lower operational costs
4) Offer financial leveraging
5) Improve profitability
6) Increase earnings per share.
The merger will be beneficial to all stakeholders and continues to lower the barrier to entry. The merger raises my confidence in BitShares the company and the leadership of I3, the core developers, and the marketing team because it demonstrates they understand the above and how to build value. I wish you luck with your proposal because you're going to need it competing against such a team.
This is certainly one view of the world, and it may very well be the right one. I would argue that there is no inherent relationship between the Toolkit and the philosophical leanings of I3. One could just as easily fork the toolkit with a coin that maintains the core principles I've outlined above (different from those of the superDAC, but well suited for PTS), still derive value from the work of I3 developers, and possibly provide value to both the developers and the community at large if it succeeds. At the very least the new PTS would be better suited for sharedropping than the superDAC (for obvious reasons). Not much lost in attempting this, but possibly much to be gained.
In order for the fork to be successful and compete against BitShares it will have to add value and offer a competitive advantage over BitShares and (in my opinion) your proposal does neither. Unless the fork comes with a Bytemaster, a Toast, an Alt, etc. it's going to have a hard time surviving in this brutal crypro-space long term.
-
I'm interested in building and investing in the best decentralized autonomous company the market can offer. Company mergers are extremely beneficial when entering new markets and introducing new products via R&D as it can:
1) Streamline administrative functions
2) Increase market share
3) Lower operational costs
4) Offer financial leveraging
5) Improve profitability
6) Increase earnings per share.
The merger will be beneficial to all stakeholders and continues to lower the barrier to entry. The merger raises my confidence in BitShares the company and the leadership of I3, the core developers, and the marketing team because it demonstrates they understand the above and how to build value. I wish you luck with your proposal because you're going to need it competing against such a team.
This is certainly one view of the world, and it may very well be the right one. I would argue that there is no inherent relationship between the Toolkit and the philosophical leanings of I3. One could just as easily fork the toolkit with a coin that maintains the core principles I've outlined above (different from those of the superDAC, but well suited for PTS), still derive value from the work of I3 developers, and possibly provide value to both the developers and the community at large if it succeeds. At the very least the new PTS would be better suited for sharedropping than the superDAC (for obvious reasons). Not much lost in attempting this, but possibly much to be gained.
In order for the fork to be successful and compete against BitShares it will have to add value and offer a competitive advantage over BitShares and (in my opinion) your proposal does neither. Unless the fork comes with a Bytemaster, a Toast, an Alt, etc. it's going to have a hard time surviving in this brutal crypro-space long term.
That's just it. Bitshares PTS does come with Bytemaster, Toast, Alt, etc. The toolkit is developed and maintained by I3. The competitive advantages are (i) superior distribution (not the hodgepodge/arbitrary allocations of the superDAC) and (ii) strong scarcity (ZERO inflation, ever). You may be right that this is not enough of a competitive advantage - that the powerful features of the superDAC will be more appealing than strong scarcity and pure PoW distribution. But it is certainly a different approach that some people may prefer.
-
The difference is that one system now has 101 warp engines propelling it. :)
-
I think the OP makes at least one excellent point - there is a burning opportunity to unseat bitcoin as the dominant digital currency, and bitshares themselves do not have the right characteristics to do that.
Bitcoin was designed to be a new money to compete against fiat. Pegged assets like bitUSD are competing as a more efficient method for transferring the value of money. They could be pegged to fiat or crypto. bitShares is designed to earn business profit, which requires risk, and is not suitable as money.
These are different buckets in my view, although I know BM has argued they merely sit on a spectrum. It might be a powerful opportunity for bitShares to create something clearly designed to be money, but with properties superior to bitcoin and fiat, and using the DPoS framework that other crypto currencies cannot yet match.
-
AB, you have my nomination for the position of official PTS archivist. For the last three days, you've shown more interest in this dying institution than it's received in the last three months.
I don't suppose you'd honor the Social Contract by share-dumping 10% on AGS. Or would that be 1.666%? Ha ha ha! ;)
-
You may be right that this is not enough of a competitive advantage - that the powerful features of the superDAC will be more appealing than strong scarcity and pure PoW distribution. But it is certainly a different approach that some people may prefer.
It's true that some people may prefer a different approach which is why third party DACs are encouraged. Bitshares Music is probably going to have its own separate chain afterall.
-
Is the idea to essentially launch a DPOS PTS DAC and promote it as currency rather than sharedrop instrument?
It could be both. The honest truth is that Nxt was lightyears ahead of every other crypto until Bitshares launched, but they had only marginal success. Ask yourself why. To this day, Nxt has features that Bitshares hasn't implemented (multi-gateway trustless exchange between BTC-NXT/BTC-LTC/BTC-DOGE and digital goods store come to mind). No matter how superior they were in features and functionality, they could not overcome the stigma associated with their flawed IPO. Bitshares is better, but is it good enough? Time will tell. My argument is that a "purist" version of DPOS has a fighting chance for mass adoption, maybe even a better chance than a feature rich coin with a fumbled allocation problem and variable inflation (superDAC).
As for the second part of your question, I would also argue that such a "purist" DPOS coin is also ideally suited for sharedropping by the "feature-rich" coins. If it weren't for Gavin, I personally think Vitalik would have share-dropped to PTS/AGS for Ethereum. I think neither Vitalik nor Gavin nor any other rational developer would sharedrop to the superDAC. The ideal instrument for sharedropping is a fairly launched pure proof of work coin with no premine. This is PTS by definition. The same properties that make PTS well suited for currency also make it an ideal instrument for sharedropping/distribution by feature-based coins.
Thoughts:
It's an interesting idea and I don't think anyone would be opposed. The biggest supporter of PTS has parted ways, and it's the perfect opportunity to transfer its momentum by re-launching it. Would be nice to see more discussion regarding the future of PTS.
As for fair coins, it's not possible right now. People regard BitShares as fair, but really it's only fair among people that have figured out what the hell "bitcoin" is and how to get some. It's not even fair among general internet users. When a currency or DAC manages to reach mass adoption (through showing enough value and making it easy enough to join), it will spark waves of fairer currencies. Crypto is still an elite club IMO. When the rest of the world can join, we'd have a shot at it.
This new PTS would have 4 options:
- stay in a niche
- carve out a new one
- battle bitcoin as internet money
- battle bitcoin as "Gold 2.0"
It couldn't/wouldn't compete with BTS
-
The honest truth is that Nxt was lightyears ahead of every other crypto until Bitshares launched, but they had only marginal success. Ask yourself why. To this day, Nxt has features that Bitshares hasn't implemented (multi-gateway trustless exchange between BTC-NXT/BTC-LTC/BTC-DOGE and digital goods store come to mind). No matter how superior they were in features and functionality, they could not overcome the stigma associated with their flawed IPO.
NXT's IPO did not help them but neither does an anonymous development team, poor marketing, poor branding, and less focused platform... which just goes to show that BitShares treats it like a business because it's a true company.
-
AB, you have my nomination for the position of official PTS archivist. For the last three days, you've shown more interest in this dying institution than it's received in the last three months.
lol, it's a matter of perspective I guess +5%
-
I think the OP makes at least one excellent point - there is a burning opportunity to unseat bitcoin as the dominant digital currency, and bitshares themselves do not have the right characteristics to do that.
Bitcoin was designed to be a new money to compete against fiat. Pegged assets like bitUSD are competing as a more efficient method for transferring the value of money. They could be pegged to fiat or crypto. bitShares is designed to earn business profit, which requires risk, and is not suitable as money.
These are different buckets in my view, although I know BM has argued they merely sit on a spectrum. It might be a powerful opportunity for bitShares to create something clearly designed to be money, but with properties superior to bitcoin and fiat, and using the DPoS framework that other crypto currencies cannot yet match.
+5% To elaborate on this point, each model has different properties that make it suitable for different purposes. I think some/many people were more in agreement with the model of BTSX than the superDAC because it had properties that made it better suited for currency (specifically the deflationary protocol and the slightly less arbitrary allocation). Personally, I think the rapid change and adaptation that may enable corporations to adapt to their competitive landscape can be hurtful to a currency-DAC. To build on the analogy, shares in a corporation are poorly suited as a medium of exchange for an entire society (think mpesa). The coin that wins adoption as the backbone currency will have properties that are hugely different from those of a "digital corporation". Currency is the most risk-averse investment/application that can be built using this technology, and it also has the greatest potential for growth & adoption. I say we go after both the "digital corporation" application AND the "digital currency" application. The caveat here is that the banking and exchange DAC may require the properties of currency to be viable. Time will tell.
-
The honest truth is that Nxt was lightyears ahead of every other crypto until Bitshares launched, but they had only marginal success. Ask yourself why. To this day, Nxt has features that Bitshares hasn't implemented (multi-gateway trustless exchange between BTC-NXT/BTC-LTC/BTC-DOGE and digital goods store come to mind). No matter how superior they were in features and functionality, they could not overcome the stigma associated with their flawed IPO.
NXT's IPO did not help them but neither does an anonymous development team, poor marketing, poor branding, and less focused platform... which just goes to show that BitShares treats it like a business because it's a true company.
I should also mention that Nxt was positioned from the start to have the properties of a currency-DAC. One of the things that BCNext (Nxt founder) felt strongly about was that forging would depend less and less on transaction fees as adoption grew. The idea was that people and companies would build infrastructure and invest resources in the platform which would give the tokens greater value over time. In the interest of protecting those investments the large stakeholders would then be motivated to contribute towards a fast reliable forging (block production) infrastructure. This is philosophically a direct opposite to the model that Bytemaster has chosen for the superDAC. I think BM is right to assume that lack of funding can indeed kill a crypto in the early stages (when the tokens have little value). But I would argue that the costs of continuing development and block production do not grow linearly with adoption. In fact, if a currency was to achieve global reserve status these costs would become effectively negligible in proportion to both market cap and investment capital. Transaction fees and delegate pay would ultimately become zero if that were to occur. But the mere option of allowing a majority of participating stakeholders, at the protocol level, to inflate the currency at 8% to delegates of their choice may be a non-starter for something as ambitious as a global reserve currency, or maybe even a banking/exchange DAC. Is that a risk worth taking? I say no.
-
I think the OP makes at least one excellent point - there is a burning opportunity to unseat bitcoin as the dominant digital currency, and bitshares themselves do not have the right characteristics to do that.
Bitcoin was designed to be a new money to compete against fiat. Pegged assets like bitUSD are competing as a more efficient method for transferring the value of money. They could be pegged to fiat or crypto. bitShares is designed to earn business profit, which requires risk, and is not suitable as money.
These are different buckets in my view, although I know BM has argued they merely sit on a spectrum. It might be a powerful opportunity for bitShares to create something clearly designed to be money, but with properties superior to bitcoin and fiat, and using the DPoS framework that other crypto currencies cannot yet match.
+5% To elaborate on this point, each model has different properties that make it suitable for different purposes. I think some/many people were more in agreement with the model of BTSX than the superDAC because it had properties that made it better suited for currency (specifically the deflationary protocol and the slightly less arbitrary allocation). Personally, I think the rapid change and adaptation that may enable corporations to adapt to their competitive landscape can be hurtful to a currency-DAC. To build on the analogy, shares in a corporation are poorly suited as a medium of exchange for an entire society (think mpesa). The coin that wins adoption as the backbone currency will have properties that are hugely different from those of a "digital corporation". Currency is the most risk-averse investment/application that can be built using this technology, and it also has the greatest potential for growth & adoption. I say we go after both the "digital corporation" application AND the "digital currency" application. The caveat here is that the banking and exchange DAC may require the properties of currency to be viable. Time will tell.
aB, I think as per a previous comment this is really an idea for a new DAC.
And although PTS is a step above bitcoin in terms of efficiency, I'm skeptical that a digital currency establishing itself without any capital backing (an anchor for valuation) can achieve the initial stability required for it to progress toward mainstream acceptance. Once reaching mainstream acceptance, stability is a by-product of very wide distribution and acceptance, much as with unbacked fiat today. Getting there is the problem (fiat had the benefit of a gold-backed legacy). Having said that, I would love to find a solution here.
Its wise at this stage for bitshares to promote a pegged currency rather than a new money, for immediate utility by all DACs. But a new digital money, with stability, and removing any link to fiat, would be a really stimulating and potentially massively rewarding DAC project.
-
I disagree. BTS was never intended to be a store of value or global currency, its an investment. The bitassets are the product, they are scarce because they track the price of real-world commodities. Bitassets meets your requirements "(i) fairly distributed, (ii) scarce (non-inflationary), (iii) efficient (DPOS), and (iv) secure." (you could argue they are inflationary but they're not really because users have to buy them so equivalent value flows into the system).
-
I disagree. BTS was never intended to be a store of value or global currency, its an investment. The bitassets are the product, they are scarce because they track the price of real-world commodities. Bitassets meets your requirements "(i) fairly distributed, (ii) scarce (non-inflationary), (iii) efficient (DPOS), and (iv) secure." (you could argue they are inflationary but they're not really because users have to buy them so equivalent value flows into the system).
The BitAsset concept is interesting as a stop-gap measure to solve the volatility problem that is inherent in shallow/illiquid crypto markets. If a coin were to reach global scale, or even a fraction thereof, BitAssets would be redundant, inefficient, and unnecessary (edit: as money). All that being said, I think BitAssets are revolutionary and have the potential to bootstrap a crypto-currency into mainstream adoption IF it has the properties of money.
Edit: I should add that BitAssets will always exist as an investment vehicle for tracking the value various commodities or assets, even after crypto-coins reach global adoption. However, the underlying token of the platform (due to collateral requirements) will always exceed the value of BitAssets issued on top of it. There are compelling reasons why the underlying token itself must possess the characteristics of currency.
-
* The last weakness of the superDAC is what I call "abuse of the DAC analogy". Let's face it, the killer app in the crypto-space has always been and will always be one thing: currency. And to be a good store of value, any coin that maintains the sanctity of scarce supply at the protocol layer, will be leaps and bounds ahead of the competition. What Bitshares gains in "marketing funds" they will lose in investor confidence (from the very investors they are "marketing" to). It is true that running a DAC like a business will result in a more agile and adaptive token. But I would argue that we should run our "business" with the aim of positioning ourselves as the best currency and store of value (the killer app). As I mentioned earlier, I believe the crypto-space is searching for a "unit of account" that will inevitably become something of a global reserve upon which everything else is built. The coin that wins this battle will NOT be Bitcoin (primarily due to the pitfalls of PoW) and it will not be the coin with the most advanced features (see Nxt). The coin that becomes the defacto world reserve must be appealing to governments and serious investors and must be perceived as (i) fairly distributed, (ii) scarce (non-inflationary), (iii) efficient (DPOS), and (iv) secure. Any feature built on top of this coin cannot be done at the expense of these 4 things. The superDAC has failed in distribution/allocation and scarcity.
It seems your premise is BTS is a coin or something like Bitcoin. I would prescribe more reading to understand the importance of free markets via the block chain and the benefits of the profitable-apps that are being built in to BTS that make it a value creator for its owners and users. Perhaps the wiki and all of BM's posts.
+5%
-
I think you're reading too much into FUD. NXT climbed highest at the highest levels of community FUD. The reason nobody is using NXT is because right now it is close to useless (somewhat like BitShares), the difference being that BitShares can fund further development and marketing, while NXT is stuck in tragedy of the commons. Ripple had far higher levels of FUD than NXT in the cryptocommunity, but they still reached a much higher market cap than say, Stellar, who open sourced it and practically gave away shares with a viral program.
-
To any developers who are watching the current fiasco unfold, I have a suggestion for creating a DAC that I believe has a decent shot at beating the superDAC with minimal effort and expense. The Bitshares superDAC has the following weaknesses:
* The threshold for inflation is too low. By allowing inflation of up to 8% perpetually in the protocol, you end up with a situation where large stakeholders are able to "write their own paycheck" for lack of a better term. The biggest stakeholders in the superDAC will be I3, and for all intents and purposes they will be setting their own pay. It would take an almost impossible amount of stake (if you consider the avg participation rate) to "disagree" with their payrate and to vote them out. Any currency (even Bitcoin) allows for inflation. The difference is that inflation is not baked into the protocol, and would therefore require a far greater "stake" to implement (by modifying the protocol). Bitshares has ignored one of the main principles of crypto community: that scarcity should be (almost) inviolable.
* The second weakness of the superDAC is distribution. AGS distribution has already alienated a huge number of Bitcoin purists who are adamantly against "IPO coins". I don't necessarily agree with their philosophy, but there is a large segment of crypto users who will only invest in coins that have no IPO, no premine, and ONLY PoW distribution. The chaos that is unfolding with the superDAC has amplified the problem, possibly causing irreparable harm in PR and public distrust. I'm not speaking to intentions here. As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions...
* The last weakness of the superDAC is what I call "abuse of the DAC analogy". Let's face it, the killer app in the crypto-space has always been and will always be one thing: currency. And to be a good store of value, any coin that maintains the sanctity of scarce supply at the protocol layer, will be leaps and bounds ahead of the competition. What Bitshares gains in "marketing funds" they will lose in investor confidence (from the very investors they are "marketing" to). It is true that running a DAC like a business will result in a more agile and adaptive token. But I would argue that we should run our "business" with the aim of positioning ourselves as the best currency and store of value (the killer app). As I mentioned earlier, I believe the crypto-space is searching for a "unit of account" that will inevitably become something of a global reserve upon which everything else is built. The coin that wins this battle will NOT be Bitcoin (primarily due to the pitfalls of PoW) and it will not be the coin with the most advanced features (see Nxt). The coin that becomes the defacto world reserve must be appealing to governments and serious investors and must be perceived as (i) fairly distributed, (ii) scarce (non-inflationary), (iii) efficient (DPOS), and (iv) secure. Any feature built on top of this coin cannot be done at the expense of these 4 things. The superDAC has failed in distribution/allocation and scarcity.
Here is my proposal:
Someone should fork the Bitshares Toolkit and create a new Bitshares PTS that launches on November 5th (the date of snapshot). The new PTS should have nothing but the core Toolkit functionality (DPOS+TITAN). With DPOS technology, no inflation, and pure proof of work distribution, I argue that the new Bitshares PTS has a shot at dethroning the superDAC.
This is an experiment that can be conducted with minimal cost. The new PTS can always benefit from improvements made to the Toolkit, and if PTS wins I am sure Dan and the rest of the devs from I3 will jump on board (since they will have a large stake in PTS as well). If it loses then nothing much is lost.
Brilliant
-
Is the idea to essentially launch a DPOS PTS DAC and promote it as currency rather than sharedrop instrument?
It could be both. The honest truth is that Nxt was lightyears ahead of every other crypto until Bitshares launched, but they had only marginal success. Ask yourself why. To this day, Nxt has features that Bitshares hasn't implemented (multi-gateway trustless exchange between BTC-NXT/BTC-LTC/BTC-DOGE and digital goods store come to mind). No matter how superior they were in features and functionality, they could not overcome the stigma associated with their flawed IPO. Bitshares is better, but is it good enough? Time will tell. My argument is that a "purist" version of DPOS has a fighting chance for mass adoption, maybe even a better chance than a feature rich coin with a fumbled allocation problem and variable inflation (superDAC).
As for the second part of your question, I would also argue that such a "purist" DPOS coin is also ideally suited for sharedropping by the "feature-rich" coins. If it weren't for Gavin, I personally think Vitalik would have share-dropped to PTS/AGS for Ethereum. I think neither Vitalik nor Gavin nor any other rational developer would sharedrop to the superDAC. The ideal instrument for sharedropping is a fairly launched pure proof of work coin with no premine. This is PTS by definition. The same properties that make PTS well suited for currency also make it an ideal instrument for sharedropping/distribution by feature-based coins.
Thoughts:
It's an interesting idea and I don't think anyone would be opposed. The biggest supporter of PTS has parted ways, and it's the perfect opportunity to transfer its momentum by re-launching it. Would be nice to see more discussion regarding the future of PTS.
+1
-
I think the OP makes at least one excellent point - there is a burning opportunity to unseat bitcoin as the dominant digital currency, and bitshares themselves do not have the right characteristics to do that.
Bitcoin was designed to be a new money to compete against fiat. Pegged assets like bitUSD are competing as a more efficient method for transferring the value of money. They could be pegged to fiat or crypto. bitShares is designed to earn business profit, which requires risk, and is not suitable as money.
These are different buckets in my view, although I know BM has argued they merely sit on a spectrum. It might be a powerful opportunity for bitShares to create something clearly designed to be money, but with properties superior to bitcoin and fiat, and using the DPoS framework that other crypto currencies cannot yet match.
+5% To elaborate on this point, each model has different properties that make it suitable for different purposes. I think some/many people were more in agreement with the model of BTSX than the superDAC because it had properties that made it better suited for currency (specifically the deflationary protocol and the slightly less arbitrary allocation). Personally, I think the rapid change and adaptation that may enable corporations to adapt to their competitive landscape can be hurtful to a currency-DAC. To build on the analogy, shares in a corporation are poorly suited as a medium of exchange for an entire society (think mpesa). The coin that wins adoption as the backbone currency will have properties that are hugely different from those of a "digital corporation". Currency is the most risk-averse investment/application that can be built using this technology, and it also has the greatest potential for growth & adoption. I say we go after both the "digital corporation" application AND the "digital currency" application. The caveat here is that the banking and exchange DAC may require the properties of currency to be viable. Time will tell.
BTS still has what I consider its primary suitable currencies; bitAssets. bitGold is not subject to whatever inflation BTS may have. In addition everyone knows what gold is and there exists a long tradition for use as money. BTS is the platform to bring these bitAssets to the world in a functional package. The BTS platform can accomplish this without dilution, but the problem is someone else will realize it can be done much better and faster treating the platform as a company and giving it the bootstrap-rocketfuel-infusions it needs to get established and recognized. Ultimately I do not see BTS/BTSX/BTC or anything like it being used as the worlds primary currency. In the new world all of those will be options, use whatever you like. For most, i believe gold will satisfy the desires for stable/unprintable with the added advantage that it already exists in physical form.
Key point is, BTS is the horse your betting on to bring this tech to the world. Give it the support it needs to get there first. Forget about it requiring ideal currency characteristics. We've already got that covered.
-
Interesting concept. If it got support and commitment from some developers then I'd definitely support the initiative.
I'd like to see lots of variations on the toolkit, hopefully so that as DACs come and go just like normal companies do, the combined knowledge and experience of the businesses before can continue to evolve the toolkit so that each new generation of DACs grow stronger, regardless of which market vertical the DAC is catering to.
-
I say we go after both the "digital corporation" application AND the "digital currency" application. The caveat here is that the banking and exchange DAC may require the properties of currency to be viable. Time will tell.
Imo, BTS is not going for the digital currency appliction.
BTS is going for the digital corporation + digital equity application. (+Vote +DNS +etc).
bitUSD is going for the digital currency application! An asset created by and backed by BTS.
-
Some of us have been trying for months to get some changes to PTS to make it functional, whether it remained internal or external to BTSX. This merger was the change. BitUSD is the currency of the future. Get used to it.
The big question is, which of the following pictures most closely describes PTS today? You may vote for more than one.
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/empty.gif)
(http://i.walmartimages.com/i/p/00/04/75/57/21/0004755721006_500X500.jpg)
(http://pixhst.com/avaxhome/07/17/00231707_medium.jpeg)
"I used to be a plastic bottle."
-
Donkey and Ander - saying that "BitUSD is the currency of the future" is not very ambitious. Here's why you're wrong:
1) You're assuming that in the long run people will continue to prefer Fed-controlled fiat currency over the guaranteed scarcity of crypto.
2) As I said before, collateral requirements will make it such that the value of BTS must be far greater than the value of the combined BitAssets issued on top of it. Many aspects of the superDAC, especially the fact that it will support a "currency" token and not just "company shares", requires that the superDAC itself maintains the currency-like properties I have outlined above - (i) fair distribution, (ii) scarcity (non-inflationary), (iii) efficiency (DPOS), and (iv) security.
3) The reason serious investors (governments, institutions, high net-worth individuals, etc.) look for these properties is that they expect currency to be the lowest risk and most stable unit of account. Building currency on top of a protocol layer that does not meet these requirements (or has weaknesses) does nothing to alleviate such concerns.
Personally I believe a couple/handful of cryptocurrencies will rise to global status and that they will gradually replace fiat currencies. BitAssets will play a huge part as (i) a stop-gap measure to onboard new users while crypto is still young and misunderstood and (ii) as an investment vehicle for traders who wish to hedge into non-crypto positions. The superDAC will have incredible features that may be appealing to a lot of people (including myself), but the new Bitshares PTS would have better distribution, strong scarcity, and would be a far better currency and sharedrop instrument. Different models for different applications.
-
You're attempting to do what every other coin developer has failed at: combining the appreciation of crypto with the stability of fiat. Even Bitcoin has not managed this with a market cap of billions of dollars; apparently it would require much more to create true stability.
BitShares accomplishes this by using one app with two currencies, both of them freely interchangeable. BitUSD is as stable as fiat, yet backed by the appreciating BTSX, and it even provides a return for holding fiat. At any point, with a couple of clicks, you can move any amount into BTSX and back and forth.
This is the best of both worlds. If you think you can do better, go for it. In the experience of every other coin developer, some of whom are among the smartest people working in the fields of technology and economics, you get both the positives and negatives of appreciation + volatility when you try to combine them in the same package. I don't see how your idea works any better.
-
Yes there will be a competitor that cannibalises a lot of the Super DAC but has the advantage of working within the framework of a money. I will hedge a little there when I see it, but in the short term it will not compete with BitShares. BitShares will dominate for the next two years at least imo.
Your concept is not dissimilar to my Athena coin concept. For BitShares it needs to move ahead as soon as possible, there is a $100 Billion+ Super DAC up for grabs here plus we have the best developers so we can pioneer not sit back and wait in the wings like a less flexible competitor, working within the framework of a money will have to do.
-
alphaBar, I think you mistakenly framed this thread as a challenge to the SuperDAC, and that has resulted in defensive positions against your idea. If we just accept that BTS is a different beast (being like a company) and can be successful in its own right, then the idea of a money competitor as a separate DAC is no longer a threat, but potentially something all BTS holders may ultimately benefit from.
You're attempting to do what every other coin developer has failed at: combining the appreciation of crypto with the stability of fiat. Even Bitcoin has not managed this with a market cap of billions of dollars; apparently it would require much more to create true stability.
BitShares accomplishes this by using one app with two currencies, both of them freely interchangeable. BitUSD is as stable as fiat, yet backed by the appreciating BTSX, and it even provides a return for holding fiat. At any point, with a couple of clicks, you can move any amount into BTSX and back and forth.
This is the best of both worlds. If you think you can do better, go for it. In the experience of every other coin developer, some of whom are among the smartest people working in the fields of technology and economics, you get both the positives and negatives of appreciation + volatility when you try to combine them in the same package. I don't see how your idea works any better.
dp, it may not have been successfully done yet, but it is a challenge that is getting closer to being cracked IMO. But this may be a long experiment for distant success. In the meantime I agree it is more critical for Bitshares and related DACs to have a unit of account that works immediately like BitUSD, but we should recognise that BitUSD is not divorced from the travails of the fiat money world, and nor is it divorced from the collateral risk of BTS.
-
alphaBar, I think you mistakenly framed this thread as a challenge to the SuperDAC, and that has resulted in defensive positions against your idea. If we just accept that BTS is a different beast (being like a company) and can be successful in its own right, then the idea of a money competitor as a separate DAC is no longer a threat, but potentially something all BTS holders may ultimately benefit from.
+5% Totally agree. It was a trade-off between provoking a strong debate and provoking strong opposition. ;)
-
alphaBar, I think you mistakenly framed this thread as a challenge to the SuperDAC, and that has resulted in defensive positions against your idea. If we just accept that BTS is a different beast (being like a company) and can be successful in its own right, then the idea of a money competitor as a separate DAC is no longer a threat, but potentially something all BTS holders may ultimately benefit from.
+5% Totally agree. It was a trade-off between provoking a strong debate and provoking strong opposition. ;)
I appreciate your aggressiveness. I myself fail miserably at that point .. My wife always tells me I am too naive .. think she's right :)
-
For those who are interested, we're organizing a mailing list: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10540.0