BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: bytemaster on December 15, 2013, 01:57:19 am
-
Each and every day over $100,000 is being spent on mining PTS in the form of electricity or cloud computing costs. This adds up to over $3 million per month. In recent posts we have made the following observations:
1) Mining based upon resource consumption results in centralization.
2) Mining based security is more expensive than proof-of-stake based security and thus less profitable for a DAC and therefore the DAC would be less competitive.
3) DACs require money to be developed
4) Money is another kind of Proof-of-Work... right now we just prove that we burned it, what if we could use it to build the DAC?
5) The ideal mining pool would allow anyone to pay for 'servers' and receive a payout equal to their capital investment without any fees.
In light of these facts we would like to introduce a new model where you mine with your money rather than mine by burning your money. Invictus would launch ProtoShares 2.0 that would honor all existing PTS and then mine 100K PTS per week. To mine, you would send Bitcoin to the Angel address. The 100K PTS would then be divided among those who contributed proportional to their investment. The proof-of-work would be switched to the signature of our private key and we would set up a server to produce one block every 2 minutes. As a result mining will still be proportional to work as measured by the money invested. The more people the contribute the more difficulty mining becomes.
This new model will raise money for Invictus which we can then use to build out the half dozen DACs that will honor all PTS holders. Instead of PTS holders getting 10% of new genesis blocks, they would get 100% of the genesis block. We could implement this as a hard fork that would give everyone time to upgrade their wallets and it would be otherwise entirely transparent to holders of PTS.
Existing PTS holders benefit because instead of being diluted by miners burning money, they get diluted by miners funding the development of DACs.
Considering the number of people at Vegas looking to throw money our way, the most successful way to do so would be by capturing money currently being waisted at Amazon, DO, and your electric company.
Thoughts?
It is clear to us that we cannot change ProtoShares even though we believe it would have been a better deal for everyone but the botnets.
Based upon the feedback you all have provided at our request we will leave ProtoShares and its social contract as-is.
In the mean time we are still looking for ways to crowd fund development of new DACs through a concept similar to Angel Shares.
We welcome any constructive suggestions.
-
100k per week for how long? Are you proposing to make Protoshares an inflationary currency? Will current PTS holders represent less than 10% of the eventual PTS supply?
More details needed here.
-
How long will this go on? After 20 weeks there will be 2x the protoshares that were ever intended to be created. What is the maximum amount or do Protoshares continue to dilute forever.
Just so you know, proposing massive dillution like this and changes to the social contract has a fantastic chance of causing the panic sellings of the currency because it looks like you're renegotiating the deal mid-stream.
This will go on as long as we have DACs to build. In the case of PTS, they were suppose to end up with 10% of the BitShare money supply after several years of mining... now PTS will end up with 100% of the BitShare money supply as only a couple hundred Angel Shares will have been mined and Momentum Mining would end once the upgrade to PTS 2.0 began.
Bottom line we are increasing the benefits to PTS holders rather than decreasing them.
-
Aren't you sacrificing the equitable distribution and excitement of the Bitshares rollout? Now it sounds like you're pre-selling the entire thing, which I'm not sure is ideal.
-
Aren't you sacrificing the equitable distribution and excitement of the Bitshares rollout? Now it sounds like you're pre-selling the entire thing, which I'm not sure is ideal.
Actually we are proposing a more equitable distribution... you either pay your electric company, Amazon, or someone else who paid their electric company or Amazon. Now you pay us and everyone gets a fair shot without having to know how to setup a huge mining farm or consuming a lot of their personal time managing servers.
Instead of favoring people that have access to the Chinese Super Computer or Botnets we give the everyone equal opportunity.
-
Aren't you sacrificing the equitable distribution and excitement of the Bitshares rollout? Now it sounds like you're pre-selling the entire thing, which I'm not sure is ideal.
Actually we are proposing a more equitable distribution... you either pay your electric company, Amazon, or someone else who paid their electric company or Amazon. Now you pay us and everyone gets a fair shot without having to know how to setup a huge mining farm or consuming a lot of their personal time managing servers.
Instead of favoring people that have access to the Chinese Super Computer or Botnets we give the everyone equal opportunity.
ALL the money currently spent on mining would go flowing back into ecosystem development rather than up in smoke.
-
I like that you want to recapture the money that's being wasted on mining. I hate to see centralized cloud mining companies getting all the money that goes into developing a "decentralized" currency/DAC
-
I agree it's more efficient for funds to go into developing but just as with the trustees proposal this signing authority sounds like central points of failure. Have you looked at the legal ramifications of having officers of your company imbued with exclusive signing authority and if that changes the assumed unregulated status? Looks a lot more like something you control if the blocks don't get created without officers of Invictus.
-
True, the legal ramifications would be difficult in this scenario. If Invictus did all the paperwork, there wouldn't be any problems from the government. The real problems would be people that are afraid that Invictus is being controlled by the government.
-
I agree it's more efficient for funds to go into developing but just as with the trustees proposal this signing authority sounds like central points of failure. Have you looked at the legal ramifications of having officers of your company imbued with exclusive signing authority and if that changes the assumed unregulated status? Looks a lot more like something you control if the blocks don't get created without officers of Invictus.
Invictus is a central point of failure and the legal aspects are something that may hinder our options here. However any fund raising we do results in potential problems. If we restrict fund raising to just investing in Invictus Stock then US law keeps out the little guy and our investors are torn between buying PTS from someone else or buying our stock. If we did it mastercoin style then it would be a 'one-time' action rather than a continuous case and those investing in us would lack liquidity.
These are challenging questions and thus why we bring them to the forum for discussion, we want to maximize the value of PTS and opportunities for investors and funding for DACs.
-
With respect to signing authorities being a central point of failure.... the account balances are all public and thus the signing authority can be changed and allow the chain to continue if the authority is ever compromised or shutdown. It would be inconvenient, requiring all nodes to switch their authority but the network would continue.
Suppose we were controlled by the government, the only thing we could do as a signing authority is stop transactions.
Lets keep one thing clear, Invictus being the signing authority would only apply to PTS because Invictus is the one receiving the funds that replace mining. No way to decentralize that.
The DACs that we build will be set up to live without Invictus based upon some variation of the Proof of Stake ideas being proposed.
-
With respect to signing authorities being a central point of failure.... the account balances are all public and thus the signing authority can be changed and allow the chain to continue if the authority is ever compromised or shutdown. It would be inconvenient, requiring all nodes to switch their authority but the network would continue.
Suppose we were controlled by the government, the only thing we could do as a signing authority is stop transactions.
Lets keep one thing clear, Invictus being the signing authority would only apply to PTS because Invictus is the one receiving the funds that replace mining. No way to decentralize that.
The DACs that we build will be set up to live without Invictus based upon some variation of the Proof of Stake ideas being proposed.
So, they could stop the creation of new DACs by Invictus, but they can't stop the DACs that are already in existence? I like this, since anyone with the coding skill could carry on the torch of DAC-creation :)
-
Without the ability to (at least approximately) calculate profits, would people still throw that much money into mining pts?
I like the idea, but the switch has to be made very carefully. Maybe even with an eye on the current exchange prices...
-
With respect to signing authorities being a central point of failure.... the account balances are all public and thus the signing authority can be changed and allow the chain to continue if the authority is ever compromised or shutdown. It would be inconvenient, requiring all nodes to switch their authority but the network would continue.
Suppose we were controlled by the government, the only thing we could do as a signing authority is stop transactions.
Lets keep one thing clear, Invictus being the signing authority would only apply to PTS because Invictus is the one receiving the funds that replace mining. No way to decentralize that.
The DACs that we build will be set up to live without Invictus based upon some variation of the Proof of Stake ideas being proposed.
From the very beginning we have stated that the value of PTS is a function of the sum of all developers promising to develop great DACs and the believability of their commitment to honor that promise. Humans must be in the loop during development. Humans must be out of the loop during operation. We don't want to lose sight of that difference between protoDACs and DACs.
Since humans are already involved in development, developers might as well be allowed to defend the integrity of the process they are running to distribute their shares.
Once their DACs are launched and they have honored their Social Contract, then developers must let go.
-
Without the ability to (at least approximately) calculate profits, would people still throw that much money into mining pts?
I like the idea, but the switch has to be made very carefully. Maybe even with an eye on the current exchange prices...
It would be a giant auction with everyone getting the same price. You can estimate profits based upon how much has already been sent to the address. Of course many people will wait until everyone else has sent their payment but even if everyone sends their funds at the last moment that just pushes the average price higher.
Other options include us selling shares for a fixed price with no limit on the number of shares available to purchase. This would kill any kind of price discovery system.
-
In light of these facts we would like to introduce a new model where you mine with your money rather than mine by burning your money. Invictus would launch ProtoShares 2.0 that would honor all existing PTS and then mine 100K PTS per week.
Why 100K PTS and not 100 or 1M? Sounds quite a bit on the high end to me... But otherwise, I like the idea. Waste of electricity/carbon print of mining is the main global issue of cryptos today.
-
Ok, probably there will be enough people throwing in btc if the price would end up being too low - assumed they know.
More work for the marketing team!
// removed further concerns, go invictus!
-
In light of these facts we would like to introduce a new model where you mine with your money rather than mine by burning your money. Invictus would launch ProtoShares 2.0 that would honor all existing PTS and then mine 100K PTS per week.
Why 100K PTS and not 100 or 1M? Sounds quite a bit on the high end to me... But otherwise, I like the idea. Waste of electricity/carbon print of mining is the main global issue of cryptos today.
100K PTS is how many PTS were scheduled to be mined the first week we launched PTS (50 PTS * 12 BlocksPerHour*24*7).
100K PTS equals 5.2 Million per year... thus would be 80% of PTS in 1 year... after 2 years it would be 10% which would be on par with the original PTS social contract of mining 10%. This just replaces BTS mining and provides a nice round number to fund many new DACs. After 2 years I doubt we will need extra funding raised in this form.
-
In light of these facts we would like to introduce a new model where you mine with your money rather than mine by burning your money. Invictus would launch ProtoShares 2.0 that would honor all existing PTS and then mine 100K PTS per week.
Why 100K PTS and not 100 or 1M? Sounds quite a bit on the high end to me... But otherwise, I like the idea. Waste of electricity/carbon print of mining is the main global issue of cryptos today.
100K PTS is how many PTS were scheduled to be mined the first week we launched PTS (50 PTS * 12 BlocksPerHour*24*7).
100K PTS equals 5.2 Million per year... thus would be 80% of PTS in 1 year... after 2 years it would be 10% which would be on par with the original PTS social contract of mining 10%. This just replaces BTS mining and provides a nice round number to fund many new DACs. After 2 years I doubt we will need extra funding raised in this form.
And all our supporters who have been saying "why don't you do this?" and "why don't you do that?" will be running out of things to wish for! ;D
-
In light of these facts we would like to introduce a new model where you mine with your money rather than mine by burning your money. Invictus would launch ProtoShares 2.0 that would honor all existing PTS and then mine 100K PTS per week.
Why 100K PTS and not 100 or 1M? Sounds quite a bit on the high end to me... But otherwise, I like the idea. Waste of electricity/carbon print of mining is the main global issue of cryptos today.
100K PTS is how many PTS were scheduled to be mined the first week we launched PTS (50 PTS * 12 BlocksPerHour*24*7).
100K PTS equals 5.2 Million per year... thus would be 80% of PTS in 1 year... after 2 years it would be 10% which would be on par with the original PTS social contract of mining 10%. This just replaces BTS mining and provides a nice round number to fund many new DACs. After 2 years I doubt we will need extra funding raised in this form.
This proposal could simply be viewed as a more elegant form of crowd sourcing.
-
Each and every day over $100,000 is being spent on mining PTS in the form of electricity or cloud computing costs. This adds up to over $3 million per month. In recent posts we have made the following observations:
1) Mining based upon resource consumption results in centralization.
2) Mining based security is more expensive than proof-of-stake based security and thus less profitable for a DAC and therefore the DAC would be less competitive.
3) DACs require money to be developed
4) Money is another kind of Proof-of-Work... right now we just prove that we burned it, what if we could use it to build the DAC?
5) The ideal mining pool would allow anyone to pay for 'servers' and receive a payout equal to their capital investment without any fees.
In light of these facts we would like to introduce a new model where you mine with your money rather than mine by burning your money. Invictus would launch ProtoShares 2.0 that would honor all existing PTS and then mine 100K PTS per week. To mine, you would send Bitcoin to the Angel address. The 100K PTS would then be divided among those who contributed proportional to their investment. The proof-of-work would be switched to the signature of our private key and we would set up a server to produce one block every 2 minutes. As a result mining will still be proportional to work as measured by the money invested. The more people the contribute the more difficulty mining becomes.
This new model will raise money for Invictus which we can then use to build out the half dozen DACs that will honor all PTS holders. Instead of PTS holders getting 10% of new genesis blocks, they would get 100% of the genesis block. We could implement this as a hard fork that would give everyone time to upgrade their wallets and it would be otherwise entirely transparent to holders of PTS.
Existing PTS holders benefit because instead of being diluted by miners burning money, they get diluted by miners funding the development of DACs.
Considering the number of people at Vegas looking to throw money our way, the most successful way to do so would be by capturing money currently being waisted at Amazon, DO, and your electric company.
Thoughts?
So mining rewards are determined by investment rather than investment quality/returns? Ideas that attract the greatest investments have the least return?
Giving reward to the deepest pockets also results in centralization. You are offering 100% stake in each future genesis block that grows by 100K per WEEK with unlimited market cap in exchange for 10% stake in a market cap limited to 2 million. My understanding was that the 90% was a limit of coin to be mined, not 90% in Inviticus' pocket to sell. Doesn't seem like it would be long before this deal sucks for existing investors that can't reinvest enough to maintain the percentage they started with.
This is done so that "Inviticus can raise money" to decide winners and losers for starting new DACs, and that is a good thing? And we're supposed to run to this for some altruistic notions about saving the planet from global warming? It is as if you see all the money people waste in Vegas and long to change the rules to give yourself a bigger stake by peddling the 90% you didn't have to the deepest pockets.
I like the idea of creating incentives for DACs, but I want a decentralized solution and result based returns (which I think only a free market can determine over time). Inviticus will make plenty of money just by staying involved. I you are in this for the long haul then it should not both so much that Inviticus missed the early mining opportunity they created. I've purchased thousands of PTS expecting that supply would be limited. The proposal you've just made would greatly diminish that value and centralize control. I have enough shares that I could increase my percentage at the expense of people with less, but what may be good for me personally is not necessarily good for the market and those with greater stake would eventually consume mine.
At this point your proposal seems no different than one I'd expect from a politician using greed and envy to offer the bounty of what they can plunder by changing the rules. So now "miners burning money" is to be a rhetorical argument against miners earning money? I'm starting to think the rules are being made up as you go along rather than clearly envisioned. These constant proposals to change the rules raise concern, but this one in particular clearly needs a better explanation to investors. What you are saying has some worthy goals, but my thought at this point is looks like a terrible idea that achieves the opposite of the #1 stated goal.
You believe in free markets. You should realize that increased electricity demands become an incentive for efficiency improvements and alternatives. You call it wasteful, I call it a force of life and change that achieves what nihilistic remedies can only claim to offer. The electric companies only profit from mining costs in the short term; after that computers get generally more efficient and alternative power sources break through monopoly controls. Most people use computers but do not mine; therefore, power consumption generally goes down as efficiencies necessarily improve over time. Currently there is not enough incentive for people learn how generate their own free electricity; too many sheep get what they are given and dare not separate from the herd.
-
Giving reward to the deepest pockets also results in centralization. You are offering 100% stake in each future genesis block that grows by 100K per WEEK with unlimited market cap in exchange for 10% stake in a market cap limited to 2 million. My understanding was that the 90% was a limit of coin to be mined, not 90% in Inviticus' pocket to sell. Doesn't seem like it would be long before this deal sucks for existing investors that can't reinvest enough to maintain the percentage they started with.
This is done so that "Inviticus can raise money" to decide winners and losers for starting new DACs, and that is a good thing? And we're supposed to run to this for some altruistic notions about saving the planet from global warming? It is as if you see all the money people waste in Vegas and long to change the rules to give yourself a bigger stake by peddling the 90% you didn't have to the deepest pockets.
I am offering PTS holders a chance to lock in much more than 10% for every DAC released in the next 12 months that will not be diluted through mining over the years ahead.
If we launch BitShares as expected in Q1 then PTS holders who mined the coin into existence by consuming electricity will have 75% stake forever, those that mine with BTC will have 25%.
Compare this to the original plan, PTS holders would have 100% of BTC at the genesis block, but within 12 months would have been diluted down to less than 50% by new miners who will spend real money to purchase electricity and computing power. I suspect that less than 5% of that hashing power will be from home users paying money to their electric company.
My motivations have nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with economizing to maximize wealth production in the world. Consumption destroys wealth and doesn't generate it. Saving (ie: not consuming) helps to build wealth.
Invictus is not selling it for profit, we will be using the funds to build and support DACs on behalf of those who hold PTS. If we do not use the funds wisely then the value of PTS will fall and people will stop buying it, on the other hand if we are good stewards of the money then we will produce far more value for those who help fund the development of DACs than they could have received by investing anywhere else.
The problem I see is that you think Invictus is taking this money as profit vs as investment capital. 100% of the funds will be used to hire developers, marketers, lawyers, and other skills required to make these DACs possible as quickly as we can. Imagine telling a VC partners that to get a stake in your company he should spend $20 million dollars with his electric company. It is non-sensical.
I will state one last economic truth: to create wealth requires capital to be concentrated / centralized. If you were to immediately decentralize ownership of all of the wealth in the world then all production of goods would stop as no one person would have enough capital to build anything of significance.
What you call making things up as we go along, we call openness and transparency and the realization that we all learn as we go.
Increases in efficiency only mean that more hash-power can be produced for the same power and thus increases in difficulty, not decreases in power consumption.
As far as I am concerned the only question that ultimately matters is this: does this proposal increase or decrease shareholder value for the current owners of PTS. From my analysis this proposal means we will have the opportunity to hire dedicated teams to build a half dozen different DACs, none of which would be possible without something like this. We would actually have money to fund marketing, professional videos, etc.
-
A few questions:
1. PTS2 is BTS, because it will be 100% of the (BTS) genesis block. (why do we need the genesis block then?)
2. Since there's no limit on PTS2, (i.e. 100K/week "as long as it takes" to develop DACs) , the cap on BTS is lifted (10x?) , this worries me.
3. Didn't the previous "social contract" say PTS1 was 10% of the 1st BTS? This won't be the case anymore, right? The issuing model of PTS2, it's called "mining" by name only, right? if nobody else can mine it, isn't it just a slow release of Ripples?
4. If I, as a DAC investor, have met my objective by buying enough PTS shares, the only option for me is to sell PTS, convert it to BTC and send it to the Angel address?
-
Cryptocurrencies made sense to people because ti enabled those with resources in terms of computing power to contribute to something and attain currency -the current model wont benefit those who dont have deep pockets and I feel its not fair to kick out mining from the equation. Everyone with a device should be allowed to mine
-
A few questions:
1. PTS2 is BTS, because it will be 100% of the (BTS) genesis block. (why do we need the genesis block then?)
PTS2 is NOT BTS, when we launch BTS we will take a snapshot of PTS2 and then BTS money supply will be fixed from that point forward. Meanwhile PTS2 will be used to fund DomainShares, LuckyShares, VoteShares, and many other DACs we have designs for. These will all leverage work done on BTS.
2. Since there's no limit on PTS2, (i.e. 100K/week "as long as it takes" to develop DACs) , the cap on BTS is lifted (10x?) , this worries me.
Invictus will not have ability to create new BTS. We have effectively reduced the first BTS chain from 20 Million coins over 10 years to 2 million coins forever. Big win for PTS holders and BTS holders.
3. Didn't the previous "social contract" say PTS1 was 10% of the 1st BTS? This won't be the case anymore, right?
10% = 2 Million coins in Genesis Block... the other 18 Million would be mined out over 8 years (heavily front loaded). PTS holders end up with more BTS and get less diluted over time as there will no longer be mining in BTC... it also means that BTC will be more profitable as a DAC because it isn't paying mining rewards and thus has lower expenses. We have added a ton of value and taken no value away.
4. If I, as a DAC investor, have met my objective by buying enough PTS shares, the only option for me is to sell PTS, convert it to BTC and send it to the Angel address?
No need to sell your PTS... the expected value of PTS purchased by sending BTC to the Angel address should equal the market value of the PTS you already have. All we have done is capture money that would have been going to mining.
Something everyone needs to consider is this: our friends and family have purchased over $50,000 worth of PTS for cash at prices between $10 and $25 and it would have ramifications if we took any action that would devalue their purchase. We want to do things that make everyone who holds PTS more money.
Right now PTS is being backed by our ideas and the $575K initial budget we were given to develop BitShares. Every day $100K is being burned up while diluting existing PTS holders.
The new plan would result in $100K per day being added to the backing of all PTS and thus dramatically increase the value of PTS.
-
Cryptocurrencies made sense to people because ti enabled those with resources in terms of computing power to contribute to something and attain currency -the current model wont benefit those who dont have deep pockets and I feel its not fair to kick out mining from the equation. Everyone with a device should be allowed to mine
Mining is not free, ultimately everyone mining with a computer is paying for their shares via their electric bill. The perception that mining is free money is the illusion that needs to be broken.
Furthermore, this isn't a currency this is a crypto-equity and nothing of value is produced by mining for minings sake.
Lastly, everyone that wanted mining with their CPU already got a HUGE free handout just for being aware.
-
I think we could work together on this. I will PM you regarding something now - do respond accordingly :)
-
I bought all my PTS. I probably bought more than a lowly paid teacher should have :-\. Do whatever you think is best bytemaster. I had noticed that Mastercoin had a better method of funding development over Invictus. To me, it sounds like this new model would ignite a real fire and get things moving quickly.
-
Giving reward to the deepest pockets also results in centralization. You are offering 100% stake in each future genesis block that grows by 100K per WEEK with unlimited market cap in exchange for 10% stake in a market cap limited to 2 million. My understanding was that the 90% was a limit of coin to be mined, not 90% in Inviticus' pocket to sell. Doesn't seem like it would be long before this deal sucks for existing investors that can't reinvest enough to maintain the percentage they started with.
This is done so that "Inviticus can raise money" to decide winners and losers for starting new DACs, and that is a good thing? And we're supposed to run to this for some altruistic notions about saving the planet from global warming? It is as if you see all the money people waste in Vegas and long to change the rules to give yourself a bigger stake by peddling the 90% you didn't have to the deepest pockets.
I am offering PTS holders a chance to lock in much more than 10% for every DAC released in the next 12 months that will not be diluted through mining over the years ahead.
If we launch BitShares as expected in Q1 then PTS holders who mined the coin into existence by consuming electricity will have 75% stake forever, those that mine with BTC will have 25%.
Compare this to the original plan, PTS holders would have 100% of BTC at the genesis block, but within 12 months would have been diluted down to less than 50% by new miners who will spend real money to purchase electricity and computing power. I suspect that less than 5% of that hashing power will be from home users paying money to their electric company.
My motivations have nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with economizing to maximize wealth production in the world. Consumption destroys wealth and doesn't generate it. Saving (ie: not consuming) helps to build wealth.
Invictus is not selling it for profit, we will be using the funds to build and support DACs on behalf of those who hold PTS. If we do not use the funds wisely then the value of PTS will fall and people will stop buying it, on the other hand if we are good stewards of the money then we will produce far more value for those who help fund the development of DACs than they could have received by investing anywhere else.
The problem I see is that you think Invictus is taking this money as profit vs as investment capital. 100% of the funds will be used to hire developers, marketers, lawyers, and other skills required to make these DACs possible as quickly as we can. Imagine telling a VC partners that to get a stake in your company he should spend $20 million dollars with his electric company. It is non-sensical.
I will state one last economic truth: to create wealth requires capital to be concentrated / centralized. If you were to immediately decentralize ownership of all of the wealth in the world then all production of goods would stop as no one person would have enough capital to build anything of significance.
What you call making things up as we go along, we call openness and transparency and the realization that we all learn as we go.
Increases in efficiency only mean that more hash-power can be produced for the same power and thus increases in difficulty, not decreases in power consumption.
As far as I am concerned the only question that ultimately matters is this: does this proposal increase or decrease shareholder value for the current owners of PTS. From my analysis this proposal means we will have the opportunity to hire dedicated teams to build a half dozen different DACs, none of which would be possible without something like this. We would actually have money to fund marketing, professional videos, etc.
Your reply has increased my concerns. To your economic arguments first:
"Consumption destroys wealth and doesn't generate it. Saving (ie: not consuming) helps to build wealth...to create wealth requires capital to be concentrated / centralized."
No, you are calling exchange "consumption". Adam Smith shows that exchange of goods creates wealth by allowing specialization of production. Capital concentration finds balance with plunder, and systems based on sustaining such a balance are destructive to all. Electricity is not a limited resource. It is knowledge of electricity production that is limited.
"Increases in efficiency only mean that more hash-power can be produced for the same power and thus increases in difficulty, not decreases in power consumption."
It was very clear that I was talking about how hardware improvements over time allow the average computer user to use less electricity. Mining is an incentive for those efficiency improvements. Obviously miners will continue to push all boundaries. You seemed to be pushing a social benefit angle that you'd have been on the wrong side of.
"does this proposal increase or decrease shareholder value for the current owners of PTS."
You are scaring the hell out of of this investor. The way I see it is that my shares could tomorrow be worth 1/300th of what I paid for them. My investment no longer purchases the ability to invest in worthy DACs and profit from success. I'd have a rapidly decaying percentage of PTS that I can best retain by supporting the DACs that I'd estimate to have the least perceived value. It changes from an investment that grows exponentially to an investment that requires constant picking of the worst performers to retain.
I don't want Inviticus to develop a kingdom of centralized power. Are you now saying there is no market incentive for DACs to form unless you help them? That nobody would possibly want to profit in that way? Your actions eliminate all independent market forces that would otherwise form to assist with DAC creation. We already had one DAC created. Didn't seem so impossible without your help. I don't want to gamble whether you alone will be a good steward of my investment. I want a marketplace to decide among many participants.
I've had the pleasure to meet some self proclaimed anarchists over the years. What I eventually learned was that they all just wanted to undermine control to replace with their own. Damn, this is looking similar.
Your greed is pushing you to try to combine two things. You want to move to proof-of-stake mining because you learned it is more practical for DACs. The problem is you are now trying to change the social contract for ProtoShares to increase the ownership that you felt you missed out on. In the process, you are undermining all PTS value to investors and encouraging centralization of power. In just one evening I've gone from one of your biggest supporters to thinking I want out entirely. I recall how you gleefully told another investor how their departure means cheaper shares for you, so don't bother. Your primary concern was obvious then, and I should have trusted my instincts. I'll review further before making such a rash decision.
-
If DAC idea can't attract independent developers, it will fail eventually. 100% stake of DAC is actually preventing new developers joining as independence, but like hired ones.
Also, breaking a social contract is not good idea now.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
-
I understand you have to do what you have to do but I think this will kill the price of PTS and destroy what "shareholder value" you have earned over the last few months.
+1 for Liberties Comments
-
The important part of mining is people can get something for what they percieve to be nothing but what is in reality a combination of their attention and their hardware's attention. I think nobody would fault Invictus for taking a % of a new type of Protoshares to fund DACs so long as it's understood in advance thats what it does, and it sticks to its mission even if you really really want to change it. That doesn't mean it's ok for you to essentially pre-mine the whole thing and auction it while calling it mining. If you have some, you should be giving some away in a way where people who don't have money to invest can still be invested in your success. Don't forget the little people
-
This is just a proposal to get feedback.... we have not committed to any particular course of action at this time. We are suggesting this for the benefit of everyone involved except botnet owners mining with stolen resources. Obviously, we have to make our case.
We are not getting any increased ownership by these actions, the people getting ownership are the 'miners'
Someone who spends $10 extra on electricity will get just as many (or more) PTS by sending $10 to the Angel Address... we are in favor of supporting the little guy.
We are not decreasing ownership PTS holders will get in new DACs, we are increasing it.
We are increasing the profitability of new DACs after launch by eliminating mining (an expense).
We could honor the social contract for PTS without any modifications at all... release BitShares with Momentum Mining right beside BitShares without Momentum Mining and let the market figure out which one is worth more. Obviously the DAC with lower expenses and higher yields is worth more, but I could be wrong. I don't really want to fragment the market, but obviously it would honor the social contract as originally designed.
I recognize that I cannot violate the social contract in such a way that would decrease value to PTS holders, but do reserve the right to increase their value proposition.
We will not be implementing any of these proposed changes until after Keyhotee launches.
-
I understand you have to do what you have to do but I think this will kill the price of PTS and destroy what "shareholder value" you have earned over the last few months.
+1 for Liberties Comments
We don't have to do anything, we are trying to present the community with an option that would get them more for their time and money.
-
If DAC idea can't attract independent developers, it will fail eventually. 100% stake of DAC is actually preventing new developers joining as independence, but like hired ones.
Also, breaking a social contract is not good idea now.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
We are trying to improve the social contract to the upside by proposing a way to deliver more value to current holders.
There is nothing preventing new developers from joining as independent... the process is identical to how it works today, resources are just redirected from paying for electricity to paying for development. How does a independent developer consuming electricity help motivate them?
-
I don't want Inviticus to develop a kingdom of centralized power. Are you now saying there is no market incentive for DACs to form unless you help them? That nobody would possibly want to profit in that way? Your actions eliminate all independent market forces that would otherwise form to assist with DAC creation. We already had one DAC created. Didn't seem so impossible without your help. I don't want to gamble whether you alone will be a good steward of my investment. I want a marketplace to decide among many participants.
Right now your 'investment' is in Amazon and your power company. What are they doing with your money to improve the value of PTS or build DACs?
New DACs require ways to raise funds to build them. They can of course launch with or without our help and with or without PTS.
-
It is good thought to change clouding mining cost into investment into DACs. But I am against the approach.
Changing the hard limit of ProtoShares will be a disaster. The question of "how many PTS there will be" has been answered thousands of times, I am pretty sure the scarcity is the no.1 factor make protoshares succeed in Chinese community. It is extremely hard to educate this change.
Mining is special. Most BTC miners would rather spend $ in ASIC than purchase BTC directly, even with lower ROI. This may give you some hints of their investment manners.
-
I don't want Inviticus to develop a kingdom of centralized power. Are you now saying there is no market incentive for DACs to form unless you help them? That nobody would possibly want to profit in that way? Your actions eliminate all independent market forces that would otherwise form to assist with DAC creation. We already had one DAC created. Didn't seem so impossible without your help. I don't want to gamble whether you alone will be a good steward of my investment. I want a marketplace to decide among many participants.
Right now your 'investment' is in Amazon and your power company. What are they doing with your money to improve the value of PTS or build DACs?
New DACs require ways to raise funds to build them. They can of course launch with or without our help and with or without PTS.
Let's say I'm part of a team and we want to get in on the action with Invictus and develop a DAC. What would this look like? Before, there was talk of sending PTS to a team with a good idea. I'd assumed that they were selling these shares to fund their development. In exchange, the investors would get shares in the new DAC perhaps even greater than 1 to 1, which is what all other PTS holders would get. What would this new system look like?
-
I agree with Liberty's points on this one although I won go so far as to say its If it's just a proposal to the community bytemaster then why are you getting so defensive? A little more tact in your explanations might win you more support.
Also I feel the hosting companies might be getting money but at least the distribution mechanism for the coins/shares is decentralised because they play no part in determining how many coins you end up with at the end of the day.
-
It is good thought to change clouding mining cost into investment into DACs. But I am against the approach.
Changing the hard limit of ProtoShares will be a disaster. The question of "how many PTS there will be" has been answered thousands of times, I am pretty sure the scarcity is the no.1 factor make protoshares succeed in Chinese community. It is extremely hard to educate this change.
Mining is special. Most BTC miners would rather spend $ in ASIC than purchase BTC directly, even with lower ROI. This may give you some hints of their investment manners.
I agree, and also against this approach just for Invictus as central point, and total money supply. Existing approach and commitment to the community already exist and should not change in a hard-to-understand way. Although the motivation is good, there could be better solutions. The other 90% of BTS and new DAC could be the source of funding, but should not use term "PTS". It take too much risk for only less than 50% PTS unmined.
Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk
-
Right now your 'investment' is in Amazon and your power company. What are they doing with your money to improve the value of PTS or build DACs?
The power companies serve the same value for coins as earth does to the supply of gold. I could ask you what the value of something is that came to you for nothing. DeBeers created a market for diamonds by way of controlling the supply. The value of diamonds is because they are artificially hard to acquire and there is clever marketing. One way to increase the value of PTS is to make them more difficult to mine--which is the opposite of rapidly increasing the supply.
It is useful to have a slowly increasing supply to bring an incentive for exchange. A rapidly increasing supply is no better than what the government does with fiat. A rapid increase in supply causes rapid exchange as people seek better investments to hold. Government gets to maximize exchange tax revenues, but people that exchange their fiat get fleeced and eventually the currency is abandoned.
You want to transform the cost of supply into a more productive one (which is a worthy goal). You did not stop there though. My reading of your proposal sees a rapid increase in supply that undermines the value of existing investment and causes a destructive consolidation of ownership. Your careful selection of short-term benefits to PTS investors ignores the full picture by which you expect value to come to Inviticus. The value to Inviticus comes from somewhere, and that is from the potential profits that investors banked on. By expanding the 2M supply limit and simultaneously increasing the supply rate you'd undermine existing PTS value. The economy you intended to form seemed to contain a financial incentive to invest in the worst DACs to just retain a percentage of PTS ownership.
I see your proposal as highly subjective. I don't see that you'd propose a change like this if you owned more PTS.
New DACs require ways to raise funds to build them. They can of course launch with or without our help and with or without PTS.
My understanding is that you build a list of Angel investors so that they can help out. You have not revealed your plan for that. Investors should be smart enough to realize that helping DACs form would return value. At this point we are probably all wondering how to help though.
MemoryCoin2 didn't seem to need advance assistance but other DACs would. I see MC2 as benefiting by starting with an established body of market participants with a stake in outcome. MC2 begins with cheerleaders and market volume. A perceived risk is that some of the large PTS owners will just dump MC2 as quickly as they can because they have no interest or faith in future appreciation, but that is also a buying opportunity for any with faith in MC2. Given that a large percentage of PTS ownership is from easy acquisition in the first week, it is hard to say how any of this will go. A malicious VC investor can probably ruin a company easier than a good VC investor can nourish it. The plunder will depend on how much value is pre-built into the release as compared with anticipated earnings later. I don't know what MC2 is about yet, but I intend to hold it and nourish it with a premise that it can return long term value.
I had intended to propose the formation of a DAC to my employer this week. In this case money would not need to be raised to fund it, the funding would be from my employer according to perceived value. If I have to turn the reigns completely over to Inviticus because they remain a group with protected implementation knowledge then I'd rather not take such a chance. I need to understand what I'm recommending. The knowledge needs to be well shared. We all need to be potential developers on your team.
You seem to trust your ability to negotiate regulatory obstacles. You are missing that the obstacles are intended to destroy competition slowly to protect vested interests. Obstacles can be easily placed in your path to cause you to fail or to corrupt your solution. The size of the obstacle is proportional to the threat. The regulatory framework is now predatory and destructive to society. You know this, but ego is seemingly a stronger voice. Decentralization is a requirement if you hope to remain true to ideals we bought into. Angel investors have a natural incentive to help Inviticus too.
-
I don't know. I've been thinking about this all day. I think that Bitshares can't compete with Mastercoin or Ripple without greater investment. Mastercoin and Ripple have a lot of money. Invictus needs more to accelerate and money is being wasted towards mining. And Bytemaster is talking about making our PTS more valuable. I think there are questions that need to answered, but we might be crazy to turn this down.
-
My suggestion to the model, PTS2.0 should be another ProtoDAC to honor and map Invictus DACs, e.g. 100%
But the social contract and commitment of PTS1.0 should not change, for easy understand, PTS 2.0 should honor 10% of it, thus, exsiting PTS can gain 1:10 (10%) of Invictus-Dac.
Then, the total supply is important and should be fixed. The mining rewards shoud careful designed, and have a way to make people trust it.
This is only my suggestion to the improvement, absolutely not the best.
Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk
-
Considering the number of people at Vegas looking to throw money our way, the most successful way to do so would be by capturing money currently being waisted at Amazon, DO, and your electric company.
Thoughts?
This is one of your worst ideas ever. This would exclude anyone who is not rich as shit.
I dont have bitcoins, I dont have AWS or DO, all I have is my mining hardware at home.
So I guess people like me are the losers in this round.
-
I am very new here but please state my opinion.
A limited number of shareholders would not protect you from future obstacles. You may gain a few million dollars for your initial development, but those who don't have the shares would turn to your enemies, with hundreds of millions of dollars to attack you in various ways.
Letting them take the portions as much as they want would let them help you in some way. You may feel like you (and initial participants) are losing control and those who have money are taking most of the gains, but please face it. They are already gaining everything and exploiting those with lesser resources.
You are making an environment where your gain is linear to the resources you have, however small you have. This thing being done in a transparent way is good enough for diligent people to grow up and smart people to innovate. This is really hard since without enough resources, you cannot even purchase a bitcoin from the exchange since they don't have credit cards and bank accounts.
And please think about whether people in Proof-of-Stake systems would invest enough resources to actually run the system. You need a really good incentive system to achieve this. Especially those with small stakes would not be able to run servers since they would not profit from doing that.
Regards,
Gloine
-
So, PTS2.0 would be a centralized coin owned by invictus. Terrible idea, I can already imagine people calling PTS2.0 (and ofc PTS) scam.
-
Considering the number of people at Vegas looking to throw money our way, the most successful way to do so would be by capturing money currently being waisted at Amazon, DO, and your electric company.
Thoughts?
This is one of your worst ideas ever. This would exclude anyone who is not rich as shit.
I dont have bitcoins, I dont have AWS or DO, all I have is my mining hardware at home.
So I guess people like me are the losers in this round.
Not that I don't sympathize, but miners are employees of the DAC. You're paid to keep the blockchain going. It's not really clear why it needs this service anymore. A DAC does have other work that needs to be done and with money, it can pay people to do it. If you have the skillset the DAC needs, then you could offer your services to it and then use the money to buy PTS.
-
I don't think it's a good idea though it is out of good purpose.Changing the social contract and making the supply of PTS centralized take a great risk.I think there should be a better way than this.
+1 for Hackfisher's comment.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
-
So, PTS2.0 would be a centralized coin owned by invictus. Terrible idea, I can already imagine people calling PTS2.0 (and ofc PTS) scam.
People already call Altcoins a scam and many of them are useless. Meanwhile, the premade mastercoin is getting heaps of money rained down on them to develop the future of the web. DACs provide a service. Although we may make money now from what Invictus is doing, in the future people will make money from using the services DACs provides.
-
We can create a second class without changing pts at all. Angle shares can be a 1:1 issue in new dac created by invictus.
We thereby offer the best of both.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
-
Great feedbacks from community which is a driving force of our goal.
DAC is the DNA of 3i indeed, and one of our task is to help DACs obtain the initial funding to get start with DAC models in different industries simultaneously.
There are three layers of independent value proposition we could be classified as 1>3i. 2> existing PTS shareholders. 3> DAC founders and operators. We shall make right decision with community together without mixing our roles or interests.
The question is that which one of the founding methods is the best for building longtime and healthier ecosystem.
3i will be succeed ONLY AND ONLY IF DACs are successful, THEN PTS shareholders will have enjoyed higher return on ROI over time.
How could we help DAC startups with initial funding? We are open for any comments and suggestions.
-
We can create a second class without changing pts at all. Angle shares can be a 1:1 issue in new dac created by invictus.
We thereby offer the best of both.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Are you saying that you'd let pts run its course and start Angle shares alongside that? I regret spending all my money on PTS because it didn't benefit any DACs development at all. :'(
-
Each and every day over $100,000 is being spent on mining PTS in the form of electricity or cloud computing costs. This adds up to over $3 million per month. In recent posts we have made the following observations:
1) Mining based upon resource consumption results in centralization.
2) Mining based security is more expensive than proof-of-stake based security and thus less profitable for a DAC and therefore the DAC would be less competitive.
3) DACs require money to be developed
4) Money is another kind of Proof-of-Work... right now we just prove that we burned it, what if we could use it to build the DAC?
5) The ideal mining pool would allow anyone to pay for 'servers' and receive a payout equal to their capital investment without any fees.
In light of these facts we would like to introduce a new model where you mine with your money rather than mine by burning your money. Invictus would launch ProtoShares 2.0 that would honor all existing PTS and then mine 100K PTS per week. To mine, you would send Bitcoin to the Angel address. The 100K PTS would then be divided among those who contributed proportional to their investment. The proof-of-work would be switched to the signature of our private key and we would set up a server to produce one block every 2 minutes. As a result mining will still be proportional to work as measured by the money invested. The more people the contribute the more difficulty mining becomes.
This new model will raise money for Invictus which we can then use to build out the half dozen DACs that will honor all PTS holders. Instead of PTS holders getting 10% of new genesis blocks, they would get 100% of the genesis block. We could implement this as a hard fork that would give everyone time to upgrade their wallets and it would be otherwise entirely transparent to holders of PTS.
Existing PTS holders benefit because instead of being diluted by miners burning money, they get diluted by miners funding the development of DACs.
Considering the number of people at Vegas looking to throw money our way, the most successful way to do so would be by capturing money currently being waisted at Amazon, DO, and your electric company.
Thoughts?
Sounds good. Saving energy, why not? As an investor, I only care about how my holding PTS can go up. When will Protoshares 2.0 be available?
-
Pts has helped in all of the viral growth. It taught us a lot about pow and invictus did manage to raise some money via pts.
If we sold our pts at these low prices to fund development we would end up owning nothing and burn our wad. We would also crash the price.
We want to increase pts value to maximize the gains pts provides without crashing the price. Reallocating waisted resources seemed to be the best way to accomplish both goals.
It is very sad that burning wealth is seen as beneficial because of class envy and a desire to prevent anyone but amazon, power companies, and botnet operators from gaining.
The movement against centralized powers needs all of the funding it can get and our whole community is shooting itself in the foot by burning our capital in non productive activity.
We would use the funds in a transparent manner. Not to pad our personal bank accounts.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
-
Although mining Protoshares with the hardware at home doesn't make a lot of shares any more, some people (like donschoe, or me) still do it because they believe in future profits. The electricity is paid anyways, and (at least in here germany) there's a final bill at the end of the year. I don't believe many of those miners would take 30$ a month and buy btc to get more pts.
There are others who don't pay for electricity because they have a "all-inclusive" contract (at university residential for example).
So it really would leave the small guy behind.
I don't think you'd break the social contract, at least not in the beginning. If I had 1k pts now, I knew I would have 0.005% of every upcoming dac. With the new idea I get more for dacs developed in the next 4 years. After that, I get less.
Maybe the solution really is somewhere in having two assets. PTS decentralized as they were intended. AngelShares as Invictus fundraising but limited to 21 Millions, with a decreasing output every week.
In that way, no one can blame you for not honoring the social contract, because pts holders get at least 10% of every new dac.
Little guy can still mine pts for a while.
Invictus gets funds over a planned period of time, after which it should be able to work without that.
Value of pts isn't inflated.
-
seems like an interesting concept. I am glad that there will be a 1:1 with PTS. Now I'm just wondering how much I am truely going to havta invest to keep up with PTS2.0? because as of now I have 1CPU mining and from start to now has gotten me ~288PTS. For me energy costs wise that was only ~5$ - 6$. So I'm guessing I would not get too many of the new PTS2.0.
However on the otherside I do agree giving back to the community/company moving all this is the best option especially for very quick growth. I just hope my future money and all people's money will grow fast then too.
-
Pts has helped in all of the viral growth. It taught us a lot about pow and invictus did manage to raise some money via pts.
If we sold our pts at these low prices to fund development we would end up owning nothing and burn our wad. We would also crash the price.
We want to increase pts value to maximize the gains pts provides without crashing the price. Reallocating waisted resources seemed to be the best way to accomplish both goals.
It is very sad that burning wealth is seen as beneficial because of class envy and a desire to prevent anyone but amazon, power companies, and botnet operators from gaining.
The movement against centralized powers needs all of the funding it can get and our whole community is shooting itself in the foot by burning our capital in non productive activity.
We would use the funds in a transparent manner. Not to pad our personal bank accounts.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
I'm sold. ;D
-
Great feedbacks from community which is a driving force of our goal.
DAC is the DNA of 3i indeed, and one of our task is to help DACs obtain the initial funding to get start with DAC models in different industries simultaneously.
There are three layers of independent value proposition we could be classified as 1>3i. 2> existing PTS shareholders. 3> DAC founders and operators. We shall make right decision with community together without mixing our roles or interests.
The question is that which one of the founding methods is the best for building longtime and healthier ecosystem.
3i will be succeed ONLY AND ONLY IF DACs are successful, THEN PTS shareholders will have enjoyed higher return on ROI over time.
How could we help DAC startups with initial funding? We are open for any comments and suggestions.
Here goes my two cents...
Premining is one very transparent and valid option to give incentive to founding members as long as the public keys are known to the community and Invictus guarantees that there would be no transactions from those public keys for at least three years. There could be a public key for initial capital, too. It would be great if there would be a way to force this, e.g. the public keys are built into DAC clients so that the transactions from those public keys are allowed exactly three years from the launch of the service.
Also, there should be some way to take control of those keys back from founding members if they leave without satisfying the role. To achieve this, simply locking the transactions for three years would not be sufficient. There should be some hidden keys which are kept by Invictus and not known to the founding members and this mechanism should be baked into the client.
And there would be many other fancy options like adjustable vesting schedule and so on, to attract creative minds.
Regarding PoS, separating shareholders and employees would be important for the long term stability. Please note that shareholders don't live forever and they are not obliged to operate the system. The best way would be designing the system that exploits the maximum out of PoW workers' computing power.
Regards,
Gloine
-
True, the legal ramifications would be difficult in this scenario. If Invictus did all the paperwork, there wouldn't be any problems from the government. The real problems would be people that are afraid that Invictus is being controlled by the government.
Amen...
but not by "the" government...but by ANY government ;)
-
Premining only applies to those who get something for nothing. Why shouldn't we require pts holders who mined from dumping for 3 years. Based upon earlier arguments against vesting it seems that some think miners have a right to dump for a profit but no one else.
Anyone who buys with capital should be allowed to sell at any time. We are not advocating invictus get free shares that we could dump on the market After launch.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
-
If Angel Shares started in Jan. and Bitshares came out in March, then that's like 10 weeks times 100,000 shares, plus the PTS shares that are out now.... Does that mean Bitshares will only have somewhere over 2,000,000 shares period? If so, wouldn't that mean the current price of PTS are undervalued?
-
If Angel Shares started in Jan. and Bitshares came out in March, then that's like 10 weeks times 100,000 shares, plus the PTS shares that are out now.... Does that mean Bitshares will only have somewhere over 2,000,000 shares period? If so, wouldn't that mean the current price of PTS are undervalued?
Exactly
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
-
Waste of electricity/carbon print of mining is the main global issue of cryptos today.
Yes...and also a central theme governments around the world are attempting to use to control their people. "Carbon", and "Global Warming," along with the newly minted "Transpacific Partnership" Trojan Horse mean to destroy each country's sovereignty and instate a new, global, order.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmMsZAVnySI <--- A good video (from a LIBERAL news site, mind you, that talks about this)
-
The global warming scam is off topic.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
-
Premining only applies to those who get something for nothing. Why shouldn't we require pts holders who mined from dumping for 3 years. Based upon earlier arguments against vesting it seems that some think miners have a right to dump for a profit but no one else.
Anyone who buys with capital should be allowed to sell at any time. We are not advocating invictus get free shares that we could dump on the market After launch.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
So you mean it's unfair that miners are allowed to sell and founders are not? Miners come for short term service and profit and founders believe in long term vision.
Founders can always participate in mining to provide the service for operation and pursue short-term profit, too.
-
Founders who provide capital provide greater service and take greater risk. They hold for long term value without any restraints on their selling or they wouldn't invest to begin with.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
-
Founders who provide capital provide greater service and take greater risk. They hold for long term value without any restraints on their selling or they wouldn't invest to begin with.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Even though founders put in a considerable amount of capital, they are not supposed to sell out in a short term. If they really need more initial capital for further growth, I believe they should premine a certain amount to a public key and announce that it would be used for further development. The process should be transparent so that everyone knows how the money is used for the project.
-
If Angel Shares started in Jan. and Bitshares came out in March, then that's like 10 weeks times 100,000 shares, plus the PTS shares that are out now.... Does that mean Bitshares will only have somewhere over 2,000,000 shares period? If so, wouldn't that mean the current price of PTS are undervalued?
Exactly
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
But if I bought more PTS at the undervalued price I would make more but wouldn't be supporting the development of DACs. I'm conflicted.
-
I like the new idea .I do not like mining.
-
Here is what I think will happen. A vocal minority who want something for nothing will cause everyone who believes wealth destruction creates value will sell. Sophisticated investors who see the value of future dacs will buy. Very sophisticated investors will buy angel shares because they get the same product while increasing chance of success and not rewarding those who mine and dump.
Earlier people wanted a human in the loop mining algorithm tied to labor rather than capital. We will work with the community to find a way for the little guy to earn his pts by performing some useful task for the dacs. This can be put toward viral marketing and referrals.
Other ideas are welcome.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
-
The proof-of-work would be switched to the signature of our private key and we would set up a server to produce one block every 2 minutes.
I have a concern on the security issue. With such approach applied, the cornerstone of a digital currency might be compromised. PTS is in essence a P2P payment network, which is backed by the proof-of-work mechanism with enormous decentralized computational power, be it Amazon clusters, bot-networks or anything else. That's how the system works. You shouldn't simply degrade the conventional mining procedures — even if they generate large billings — since your centralized replacement could not offer the key merit. I understand your intention, but this may not be a clever move.
-
Here is what I think will happen. A vocal minority who want something for nothing will cause everyone who believes wealth destruction creates value will sell. Sophisticated investors who see the value of future dacs will buy. Very sophisticated investors will buy angel shares because they get the same product while increasing chance of success and not rewarding those who mine and dump.
Earlier people wanted a human in the loop mining algorithm tied to labor rather than capital. We will work with the community to find a way for the little guy to earn his pts by performing some useful task for the dacs. This can be put toward viral marketing and referrals.
Other ideas are welcome.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
I can see how it made sense to Satoshi to make BTC a mineable commodity. But it doesn't really make sense for the Bitshares' project at all. You need to fund development. And I think a lot of people are still confused about what PTS/BTSs are. A lot of miners see themselves as lottery winners rather than workers. As a viral marketing campaign, mining has lost a lot of its potency. By redirecting resources, you can bring a much smarter group of people to the project which is much more beneficial. I will wait for the Angle Shares to help support the project.
-
I think there should be a place on the 3I website where we can see how many Bitcoins have been invested in angel shares in the last week. This way investors can calculate roughly what they expect to gain from investing in 3I instead of purchasing angel shares on an exchange.
-
We would make it very transparent and any btc block explorer would tell you what you want to know. We would then provide any easy to understand summary page.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
-
I like the idea. But don't increase total quantity of PTS.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
-
I like the idea, but don't increase the total quantity of BTS.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
-
I like the idea, but don't increase the total quantity of BTS.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
We are decreasing the total quantity of BTS by about a factor of 10 from 20 Million to 2 million under this plan.
-
Where does the 2 million number come from, last I heard it was 100k new PTS per month indefinitely?
-
The proof-of-work would be switched to the signature of our private key and we would set up a server to produce one block every 2 minutes.
I have a concern on the security issue. With such approach applied, the cornerstone of a digital currency might be compromised. PTS is in essence a P2P payment network, which is backed by the proof-of-work mechanism with enormous decentralized computational power, be it Amazon clusters, bot-networks or anything else. That's how the system works. You shouldn't simply degrade the conventional mining procedures — even if they generate large billings — since your centralized replacement could not offer the key merit. I understand your intention, but this may not be a clever move.
ProtoShares is different from every other 'coin' in that their value is not based upon anything other than our centralized promise to honor them in future DACs. Of course our DACs will be as decentralized as possible and that is the goal. But so long as the issuance depends upon sending us money it must be centralized.
-
Do you think Invictus will need to move its HQ away from Virginia to make this change without fearing legal repercussions?
-
Where does the 2 million number come from, last I heard it was 100k new PTS per month indefinitely?
PTS will fund new DACS for ever, but BTS will launch long before more than 2 million comes in to existence. As long as we have DACs in development it makes since to fund them with new PTS.
We could of course keep PTS unmodified, give PTS their 10% cut in BTS and give Angel Shares the other 90%.... but we thought this plan would be better for current PTS holders.
-
Do you think Invictus will need to move its HQ away from Virginia to make this change without fearing legal repercussions?
With the money raised we could move it to Hong Kong or other suitable location. Our team is entirely decentralized anyway.
-
i'll repost this, cause no one reacted - i think this solution would rule out most concerns mentioned here (except the ones not wanting invictus to get some funding)
Maybe the solution really is somewhere in having two assets. PTS decentralized as they were intended. AngelShares as Invictus fundraising but limited to 21 Millions, with a decreasing output every week.
In that way, no one can blame you for not honoring the social contract, because pts holders get at least 10% of every new dac.
Little guy can still mine pts for a while.
Invictus gets funds over a planned period of time, after which it should be able to work without that.
Value of pts isn't inflated.
-
i'll repost this, cause no one reacted - i think this solution would rule out most concerns mentioned here (except the ones not wanting invictus to get some funding)
Maybe the solution really is somewhere in having two assets. PTS decentralized as they were intended. AngelShares as Invictus fundraising but limited to 21 Millions, with a decreasing output every week.
In that way, no one can blame you for not honoring the social contract, because pts holders get at least 10% of every new dac.
Little guy can still mine pts for a while.
Invictus gets funds over a planned period of time, after which it should be able to work without that.
Value of pts isn't inflated.
This is probably what we will have to do politically.
-
i'll repost this, cause no one reacted - i think this solution would rule out most concerns mentioned here (except the ones not wanting invictus to get some funding)
Maybe the solution really is somewhere in having two assets. PTS decentralized as they were intended. AngelShares as Invictus fundraising but limited to 21 Millions, with a decreasing output every week.
In that way, no one can blame you for not honoring the social contract, because pts holders get at least 10% of every new dac.
Little guy can still mine pts for a while.
Invictus gets funds over a planned period of time, after which it should be able to work without that.
Value of pts isn't inflated.
This is probably what we will have to do politically.
I don't agree that it has to be this way. Are you afraid of the miners? And how are you breaking the social contract? You're moving from 10% to 100% of BTS. If anything, Angle Shares should get more than 100k a week to encourage more DAC funding.
-
I'm in the same boat as rejectkid. I mined my protoshares for a few dollars worth of electricity on my personal computers which are already running 24/7. Your proposed system will reprice your shares based on input cost. You don't want this. $6/288PTS = $0.02/PTS or 0.00002BTC. I'm sure our PTS price will tank even lower. I noticed it's dropped 20% on bter since I went to bed last night already. Please give up on this idea!
-
i'll repost this, cause no one reacted - i think this solution would rule out most concerns mentioned here (except the ones not wanting invictus to get some funding)
Maybe the solution really is somewhere in having two assets. PTS decentralized as they were intended. AngelShares as Invictus fundraising but limited to 21 Millions, with a decreasing output every week.
In that way, no one can blame you for not honoring the social contract, because pts holders get at least 10% of every new dac.
Little guy can still mine pts for a while.
Invictus gets funds over a planned period of time, after which it should be able to work without that.
Value of pts isn't inflated.
This is probably what we will have to do politically.
I don't agree that it has to be this way. Are you afraid of the miners? And how are you breaking the social contract? You're moving from 10% to 100% of BTS. If anything, Angle Shares should get more than 100k a week to encourage more DAC funding.
I like how you think, and my primary commitment is to current holders of PTS to make sure I don't do anything to devalue them from their current price if I can help it. Obviously there are some very major players (Amazon & Lighthouse) that are worried about public perception and I have a lot of respect for their opinion. That said, I think 99% of the complaints can be resolved in a manner beneficial to everyone. That is the point of this discussion.
I limited it to 100K per week because the market can only handle so much at a time. Right now PTS has shown the market can handle about 75K per week and maintain a relatively stable price around $20. Any more and I would risk devaluing PTS by flooding the market.
-
I'm in the same boat as rejectkid. I mined my protoshares for a few dollars worth of electricity on my personal computers which are already running 24/7. Your proposed system will reprice your shares based on input cost. You don't want this. $6/288PTS = $0.02/PTS or 0.00002BTC. I'm sure you PTS price will tank even lower. I noticed it's dropped 20% on bter since I went to bed last night already. Please give up on this idea!
The deal you got was because initial difficulty was too low. Now mining only pays back 2x input costs. You got a windfall that is no longer a possibility.
The question that must be asked is this... aside from your 'good will' what value does your windfall provide to the future of PTS.
What if we had an alternative that would pay you for your good will by having you do something more productive for the cause than burning electricity?
With the current mining pool infrastructure with PTS, it is already effectively centralized with 3 players signing most of the blocks.
-
And how are you breaking the social contract?
Not yet, but if 100k new shares would be issued every week it would permanently inflate pts holdings.
-
And how are you breaking the social contract?
Not yet, but if 100k new shares would be issued every week it would permanently inflate pts holdings.
You don't want us to honor the original social contract because if we did then PTS would only get 10% of BitShares and AngelShares would get the other 90%.
The problem here is that most people don't understand that having a smaller percentage of a larger pie is a good deal because you still end up with more pie. Every time a company goes for a round of funding it dilutes existing shareholders and they do not complain because the dilution is in exchange for an infusion of capital.
-
i'll repost this, cause no one reacted - i think this solution would rule out most concerns mentioned here (except the ones not wanting invictus to get some funding)
Maybe the solution really is somewhere in having two assets. PTS decentralized as they were intended. AngelShares as Invictus fundraising but limited to 21 Millions, with a decreasing output every week.
In that way, no one can blame you for not honoring the social contract, because pts holders get at least 10% of every new dac.
Little guy can still mine pts for a while.
Invictus gets funds over a planned period of time, after which it should be able to work without that.
Value of pts isn't inflated.
This is probably what we will have to do politically.
I don't agree that it has to be this way. Are you afraid of the miners? And how are you breaking the social contract? You're moving from 10% to 100% of BTS. If anything, Angle Shares should get more than 100k a week to encourage more DAC funding.
I like how you think, and my primary commitment is to current holders of PTS to make sure I don't do anything to devalue them from their current price if I can help it. Obviously there are some very major players (Amazon & Lighthouse) that are worried about public perception and I have a lot of respect for their opinion. That said, I think 99% of the complaints can be resolved in a manner beneficial to everyone. That is the point of this discussion.
I limited it to 100K per week because the market can only handle so much at a time. Right now PTS has shown the market can handle about 75K per week and maintain a relatively stable price around $20. Any more and I would risk devaluing PTS by flooding the market.
I understand your thought process. But everyone who is already in is in. And anyone else who would like in can do that through the Angel shares. Anyone who has PTS now should be holding on. If they're not, then they weren't believers. As for the 100k a week, that was when everyone thought there would be 21 million bitshares, not 2 million. Even an increase to 4 million shouldn't drop the price but increase it. Although I'm not an economist and I know I'm not calculating the confidence factor, I find it hard to believe that the price of protoshares isn't based on the potential of all the projects, especially bitshares.
-
No one can accuse you of not fulfilling it, when you give them more.
If my landlord said i could have the flat next to mine, maybe even with a new door in between, i wouldn't consider that a break of contract from his side.
AngelShares can't get 90% of BTS, because you'd have to throw those 9 million shares away for pennies, or keep BTS centralized.
But if AngelShares ultimately end up to be 90% of the "last" dac no one can complain.
I think the number and the rate of distribution has to be calculated very carefully.
If you give out 100k AngelShares every week at current PTS course, that's 2 million dollars a week.
Do you really expect that to come in?
If not, price will fall rapidly.
If yes, what are you going to do with all that money? And do you think it will get more that's coming in to prevent price from dropping?
-
I actually only started mining a week ago but I still see the input cost per share in that range for most people. I mined 2PTS for pennies worth of electricity this week then traded/purchased the rest of my shares. I missed the mining boat but had the idea that investment was still worth while because so many shares would still be minable over time. You are shutting out new investors in an effort to protect your current stake with this scheme.
Bytemaster, you have explained that this move would be an effort to increase value for current shareholders. That value is set by market forces not energy costs. If new investors can't be lured into your ecosystem PTS lose their value. I have been purchasing Protoshares under the assumption that Protoshares were only the beginning and that the vast majority of stake in future projects would still up for grabs. Newcomers like me drive the price of PTS up. Energy costs have nothing to do with it.
-
No one can accuse you of not fulfilling it, when you give them more.
If my landlord said i could have the flat next to mine, maybe even with a new door in between, i wouldn't consider that a break of contract from his side.
AngelShares can't get 90% of BTS, because you'd have to throw those 9 million shares away for pennies, or keep BTS centralized.
But if AngelShares ultimately end up to be 90% of the "last" dac no one can complain.
I think the number and the rate of distribution has to be calculated very carefully.
If you give out 100k AngelShares every week at current PTS course, that's 2 million dollars a week.
Do you really expect that to come in?
If not, price will fall rapidly.
If yes, what are you going to do with all that money? And do you think it will get more that's coming in to prevent price from dropping?
If I keep PTS unmodified and then launch Angel Shares then it would require an extra 2 million per week...
Currently the market is absorbing about $500K per week.
At vegas I had multiple people wanting to throw around millions.
Could we spend $2 million per week.... not initially... but once we had it in the bank I would hire the best managers I could to put together teams dedicated to the following DACs:
0) BitShares
1) DomainShares
2) LuckyShares
3) VoteShares
4) Keyhotee Video / Voice / Chat
5) APShares
6) ... other DACS proposed on this forum.....
7) Mobile Clients...
Obviously this would be too much for me or our small team to develop with existing funding, but by delegating development to many decentralized teams these things could be done in parallel. In effect we would become a startup incubator for DACs.
Having the right management team to do these things will be key.
-
Bytemaster, you have explained that this move would be an effort to increase value for current shareholders. That value is set by market forces not energy costs. If new investors can't be lured into your ecosystem PTS lose their value. I have been purchasing Protoshares under the assumption that Protoshares were only the beginning and that the vast majority of stake in future projects would still up for grabs. Newcomers like me drive the price of PTS up. Energy costs have nothing to do with it.
Precisely. Everyone acknowledges this increases the fundamental value of PTS (reducing supply without changing existing holdings) but that's not really necessarily or even desirable. To succeed the project needs to be inclusive because inclusion is growth is value.
-
I actually only started mining a week ago but I still see the input cost per share in that range for most people. I mined 2PTS for pennies worth of electricity this week then traded/purchased the rest of my shares. I missed the mining boat but had the idea that investment was still worth while because so many shares would still be minable over time. You are shutting out new investors in an effort to protect your current stake with this scheme.
Bytemaster, you have explained that this move would be an effort to increase value for current shareholders. That value is set by market forces not energy costs. If new investors can't be lured into your ecosystem PTS lose their value. I have been purchasing Protoshares under the assumption that Protoshares were only the beginning and that the vast majority of stake in future projects would still up for grabs. Newcomers like me drive the price of PTS up. Energy costs have nothing to do with it.
I know many miners who only mine when it is profitable to do so. The difficulty just adjusted by 2x and you are right that for people that are only paying for electricity it is profitable.
The value of the shares is actually independent of what you do. This would make the shares more scarce. The argument that the shares are 'valuable' because people can get them below cost does not make any kind of economic sense.
-
Bytemaster, you have explained that this move would be an effort to increase value for current shareholders. That value is set by market forces not energy costs. If new investors can't be lured into your ecosystem PTS lose their value. I have been purchasing Protoshares under the assumption that Protoshares were only the beginning and that the vast majority of stake in future projects would still up for grabs. Newcomers like me drive the price of PTS up. Energy costs have nothing to do with it.
Precisely. Everyone acknowledges this increases the fundamental value of PTS (reducing supply without changing existing holdings) but that's not really necessarily or even desirable. To succeed the project needs to be inclusive because inclusion is growth is value.
To the extent that mining grows the network effect, this does add value to the coin. So put yourself in the shoes of the DAC that is PTS and ask yourself how much equity you should give away for free through a process that destroys $100K per day?
-
Bytemaster, you have explained that this move would be an effort to increase value for current shareholders. That value is set by market forces not energy costs. If new investors can't be lured into your ecosystem PTS lose their value. I have been purchasing Protoshares under the assumption that Protoshares were only the beginning and that the vast majority of stake in future projects would still up for grabs. Newcomers like me drive the price of PTS up. Energy costs have nothing to do with it.
Precisely. Everyone acknowledges this increases the fundamental value of PTS (reducing supply without changing existing holdings) but that's not really necessarily or even desirable. To succeed the project needs to be inclusive because inclusion is growth is value.
To the extent that mining grows the network effect, this does add value to the coin. So put yourself in the shoes of the DAC that is PTS and ask yourself how much equity you should give away for free through a process that destroys $100K per day?
Which is why I'm not advocating mining, I'm advocating contests or giveaways. Have a flash game created that walks you through the value proposition of PTS and Bitshares, when they complete the game and provide a PTS address they get a small amount of PTS, use http://www.rafflecopter.com/ to create giveaways that are easy to manage, yield data for Invictus, encourage viral spreading of the message and run them every week or two.
There are lots of ways you can do this without the inefficiencies of mining, I agree it's a waste of money but the purpose it serves is anyone can waste their money equally and most aren't consciously doing it (just running their or multiple computers, which is percieved as a cost you already incur with or without mining)
-
Bytemaster, you have explained that this move would be an effort to increase value for current shareholders. That value is set by market forces not energy costs. If new investors can't be lured into your ecosystem PTS lose their value. I have been purchasing Protoshares under the assumption that Protoshares were only the beginning and that the vast majority of stake in future projects would still up for grabs. Newcomers like me drive the price of PTS up. Energy costs have nothing to do with it.
Precisely. Everyone acknowledges this increases the fundamental value of PTS (reducing supply without changing existing holdings) but that's not really necessarily or even desirable. To succeed the project needs to be inclusive because inclusion is growth is value.
To the extent that mining grows the network effect, this does add value to the coin. So put yourself in the shoes of the DAC that is PTS and ask yourself how much equity you should give away for free through a process that destroys $100K per day?
Which is why I'm not advocating mining, I'm advocating contests or giveaways. Have a flash game created that walks you through the value proposition of PTS and Bitshares, when they complete the game and provide a PTS address they get a small amount of PTS, use http://www.rafflecopter.com/ to create giveaways that are easy to manage, yield data for Invictus, encourage viral spreading of the message and run them every week or two.
There are lots of ways you can do this without the inefficiencies of mining, I agree it's a waste of money but the purpose it serves is anyone can waste their money equally and most aren't consciously doing it (just running their or multiple computers, which is percieved as a cost you already incur with or without mining)
I support contests or giveaways as a means of bringing people in. As long as we are giving away some of it, we should maximize the value to the PTS holders who are debased by it.
-
I support contests or giveaways as a means of bringing people in. As long as we are giving away some of it, we should maximize the value to the PTS holders who are debased by it.
This is exactly your problem, the original deal was you were giving away ALL OF IT and competing to get some of your own on the free market. Now you are proposing to renegotiate the deal so everyone coming in after you has to buy it from you.
Your actions are an attempt to avoid botnets and cloud miners but the perception to the vast majority of users is that where they had opportunity before, now they don't. "As long as we're giving some of it away" is the wrong approach, if you wanted to have that kind of control you shouldn't have tied your reputation to a social contract on a minable equity. That opportunity has passed now.
The only way this will be pallatable is if you ALLOCATE a fixed % to go to inclusive initiatives as discussed previously, otherwise you've built a walled garden where investors you meet at vegas can play but not the little guy. I appreciate anyone can pay, but not everyone can pay the way you're requiring with the new system.
-
Bytemaster, you have explained that this move would be an effort to increase value for current shareholders. That value is set by market forces not energy costs. If new investors can't be lured into your ecosystem PTS lose their value. I have been purchasing Protoshares under the assumption that Protoshares were only the beginning and that the vast majority of stake in future projects would still up for grabs. Newcomers like me drive the price of PTS up. Energy costs have nothing to do with it.
Precisely. Everyone acknowledges this increases the fundamental value of PTS (reducing supply without changing existing holdings) but that's not really necessarily or even desirable. To succeed the project needs to be inclusive because inclusion is growth is value.
To the extent that mining grows the network effect, this does add value to the coin. So put yourself in the shoes of the DAC that is PTS and ask yourself how much equity you should give away for free through a process that destroys $100K per day?
Which is why I'm not advocating mining, I'm advocating contests or giveaways. Have a flash game created that walks you through the value proposition of PTS and Bitshares, when they complete the game and provide a PTS address they get a small amount of PTS, use http://www.rafflecopter.com/ to create giveaways that are easy to manage, yield data for Invictus, encourage viral spreading of the message and run them every week or two.
There are lots of ways you can do this without the inefficiencies of mining, I agree it's a waste of money but the purpose it serves is anyone can waste their money equally and most aren't consciously doing it (just running their or multiple computers, which is percieved as a cost you already incur with or without mining)
I really like what lighthouse is saying here.
-
I support contests or giveaways as a means of bringing people in. As long as we are giving away some of it, we should maximize the value to the PTS holders who are debased by it.
This is exactly your problem, the original deal was you were giving away ALL OF IT and competing to get some of your own on the free market. Now you are proposing to renegotiate the deal so everyone coming in after you has to buy it from you.
Your actions are an attempt to avoid botnets and cloud miners but the perception to the vast majority of users is that where they had opportunity before, now they don't. "As long as we're giving some of it away" is the wrong approach, if you wanted to have that kind of control you shouldn't have tied your reputation to a social contract on a minable equity. That opportunity has passed now.
The only way this will be pallatable is if you ALLOCATE a fixed % to go to inclusive initiatives as discussed previously, otherwise you've built a walled garden where investors you meet at vegas can play but not the little guy. I appreciate anyone can pay, but not everyone can pay the way you're requiring with the new system.
Perhaps I am just too rational in how I view mining (as a miner).... I stopped mining and just purchased PTS and have long recommend others do the same. I have since identified that mining does not result in decentralization (our primary goal) and have developed some proof-of-stake ideas that would make mining unnecessary for its original purpose (security).
So now that we got 90% of the money supply back I want to maximize its value.
To claim that I am selling it (and keeping it as a profit) is to completely pervert the concept of investing. Miners are selling it and keeping it as a profit, I am offering to spend 100% of funds received building and deploying DACs... how many PTS miners are willing to spend 100% of the profits they received re-investing in the ecosystem? Most take their profits and buy new computers, tablets, and other toys for themselves.
The elephant in the room here is that in the name of the 'little guy' who may mine perhaps 1% of future coins, the 'big miners' and "bot nets" will mine the other 99% for a profit and dump it.
So I think we can agree to ALLOCATE a fixed % to go to inclusive initiatives as that will satisfy the 1% of PTS that would go to the little guy. That contests and promotional activities are a better use for that 1% and that PTS holders and miners will have gained more as a result of these proposals than if we changed nothing.
-
Pts has helped in all of the viral growth. It taught us a lot about pow and invictus did manage to raise some money via pts.
If we sold our pts at these low prices to fund development we would end up owning nothing and burn our wad. We would also crash the price.
We want to increase pts value to maximize the gains pts provides without crashing the price. Reallocating waisted resources seemed to be the best way to accomplish both goals.
It is very sad that burning wealth is seen as beneficial because of class envy and a desire to prevent anyone but amazon, power companies, and botnet operators from gaining.
The movement against centralized powers needs all of the funding it can get and our whole community is shooting itself in the foot by burning our capital in non productive activity.
We would use the funds in a transparent manner. Not to pad our personal bank accounts.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Why do I not hear about the leveraging of a resource invictus has literally infinite FREE supply of? Founder ID's (or perhaps newly minted alternative ID's that carry with them a sense of prestige) for getting the talent you need?
If I am a student or professional with great talent who is just starting out...it would be a smart play to increase the value of my future work if I have a provable and prestigious contact ID through Invictus that PROVES I was instrumental in their success. We sometimes need to stop thinking about the "Money" and remember that the value of "money" is a simple psychological perception.
I have spoken with others (who I trust) and they tell me it is not possible, even if the blockchain code is forked, but I want to float it to the community just in case they were incorrect.
-
I have talented developers ready to sign on and give us 80 hours per week... but they need basic living expenses ($3K per month or so) in addition to other motivating factors to leave jobs paying $75K to $150K per year complete with scholarships toward masters degrees. A Keyhotee ID will not put food on the table. With the funds received we could sell the PTS and pay for one developer.
I looked into honoring Keyhotee IDs with shares and concluded that it would undermine the basic premise of Keyhotee IDs that they have no value except to be used by the user. If I give them transferable or redeemable value then people will mine out bogus Keyhotee IDs making it hard for new users to mine their ID.
Bottom line is that even the best talent must be compensated for the risks they take and as a holder of PTS I want as much talent behind it as possible.
Keep in mind, Keyhotee needs to fund its own development and Keyhotee IDs are not enough to do that.
-
Pts has helped in all of the viral growth. It taught us a lot about pow and invictus did manage to raise some money via pts.
If we sold our pts at these low prices to fund development we would end up owning nothing and burn our wad. We would also crash the price.
We want to increase pts value to maximize the gains pts provides without crashing the price. Reallocating waisted resources seemed to be the best way to accomplish both goals.
It is very sad that burning wealth is seen as beneficial because of class envy and a desire to prevent anyone but amazon, power companies, and botnet operators from gaining.
The movement against centralized powers needs all of the funding it can get and our whole community is shooting itself in the foot by burning our capital in non productive activity.
We would use the funds in a transparent manner. Not to pad our personal bank accounts.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Why do I not hear about the leveraging of a resource invictus has literally infinite FREE supply of? Founder ID's (or perhaps newly minted alternative ID's that carry with them a sense of prestige) for getting the talent you need?
If I am a student or professional with great talent who is just starting out...it would be a smart play to increase the value of my future work if I have a provable and prestigious contact ID through Invictus that PROVES I was instrumental in their success. We sometimes need to stop thinking about the "Money" and remember that the value of "money" is a simple psychological perception.
I have spoken with others (who I trust) and they tell me it is not possible, even if the blockchain code is forked, but I want to float it to the community just in case they were incorrect.
The problem with this is that the founder IDs are all in the Keyhotee Genesis Block. After the Genesis Block is launched, there are no more founder IDs available
-
What about giving PTS 1.0 holders more of whatever comes next? Release PTS 2.0, but honor all PTS 1.0 holders in a way every PTS 1.0 holder thinks it would be fair. Those who invested early should get "more" than everybody else who got in late(r). The earlier you get in, the more you invest in an idea. That should be honored. Investing in Apple 1980 got you more than investing in 2010. Investing in PTS november 5th 2013 should give you more than investing in 01/2014 when everybody wants to because the word spread.
-
I support contests or giveaways as a means of bringing people in. As long as we are giving away some of it, we should maximize the value to the PTS holders who are debased by it.
This is exactly your problem, the original deal was you were giving away ALL OF IT and competing to get some of your own on the free market. Now you are proposing to renegotiate the deal so everyone coming in after you has to buy it from you.
Your actions are an attempt to avoid botnets and cloud miners but the perception to the vast majority of users is that where they had opportunity before, now they don't. "As long as we're giving some of it away" is the wrong approach, if you wanted to have that kind of control you shouldn't have tied your reputation to a social contract on a minable equity. That opportunity has passed now.
The only way this will be pallatable is if you ALLOCATE a fixed % to go to inclusive initiatives as discussed previously, otherwise you've built a walled garden where investors you meet at vegas can play but not the little guy. I appreciate anyone can pay, but not everyone can pay the way you're requiring with the new system.
Perhaps I am just too rational in how I view mining (as a miner).... I stopped mining and just purchased PTS and have long recommend others do the same. I have since identified that mining does not result in decentralization (our primary goal) and have developed some proof-of-stake ideas that would make mining unnecessary for its original purpose (security).
So now that we got 90% of the money supply back I want to maximize its value.
To claim that I am selling it (and keeping it as a profit) is to completely pervert the concept of investing. Miners are selling it and keeping it as a profit, I am offering to spend 100% of funds received building and deploying DACs... how many PTS miners are willing to spend 100% of the profits they received re-investing in the ecosystem? Most take their profits and buy new computers, tablets, and other toys for themselves.
The elephant in the room here is that in the name of the 'little guy' who may mine perhaps 1% of future coins, the 'big miners' and "bot nets" will mine the other 99% for a profit and dump it.
So I think we can agree to ALLOCATE a fixed % to go to inclusive initiatives as that will satisfy the 1% of PTS that would go to the little guy. That contests and promotional activities are a better use for that 1% and that PTS holders and miners will have gained more as a result of these proposals than if we changed nothing.
If the only place people can acquire PTS is to pay Bitcoins to your mining fund, which then gets them a split of the PTS created proportional to their contribution that is called a group auction and yes you are selling them. You can dress it up like mining but don't kid yourself, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a fucking duck.
You realists all have the same problem, you only care about reality when you make your judgements. YOU HAVE BEEN TELLING PEOPLE FROM DAY ONE THEY CAN MINE IT WITH THEIR COMPUTERS. Just because you were wrong about that, and it's not true doesn't make it OK for you to change the rules mid-stream and say "Oh well they would have only gotten one percent so we'll devote one percent and keep the other 99kPTS profit per week for things we think deserve funding.
The offer was "Mine with us!" and now it's "Pay us to mine for you!" which is VERY DIFFERENT because one is as a peer and the other is with you as master, suddenly recieving revenue that was not yours to claim.
It doesn't matter what you want to do, it matters what you committed to. Deliver on your promises then try to change the deal. If every time you get a good idea you modify the arrangement NOBODY WILL TRUST THE ARRANGEMENT BECAUSE IT IS ALWAYS CHANGING. The whole advantage of crypto is it takes out the arbitrary
sheesh, you're a brilliant guy but it seems like you're just not getting this.
Seriously, where is marketing? Why are you still the only one posting in this very important and frankly terrifying thread.
-
What about giving PTS 1.0 holders more of whatever comes next? Release PTS 2.0, but honor all PTS 1.0 holders in a way every PTS 1.0 holder thinks it would be fair. Those who invested early should get "more" than everybody else who got in late(r). The earlier you get in, the more you invest in an idea. That should be honored. Investing in Apple 1980 got you more than investing in 2010. Investing in PTS november 5th 2013 should give you more than investing in 01/2014 when everybody wants to because the word spread.
Only issue with that is that people like me invested early...but then bought through exchanges over time after the cost of mining went up. Opening up that can of worms can upset a large number of people and make newcomers feel the game is fixed and out of their favor. Those people will not want to invest and will likely be more than willing to spread that message.
-
It doesn't matter what you want to do, it matters what you committed to. Deliver on your promises then try to change the deal. If every time you get a good idea you modify the arrangement NOBODY WILL TRUST THE ARRANGEMENT BECAUSE IT IS ALWAYS CHANGING. The whole advantage of crypto is it takes out the arbitrary
sheesh, you're a brilliant guy but it seems like you're just not getting this.
Once again lighthouse...SPOT on.
-
Seriously, where is marketing? Why are you still the only one posting in this very important and frankly terrifying thread.
That's what I've been asking myself for weeks now
-
Seriously, where is marketing? Why are you still the only one posting in this very important and frankly terrifying thread.
That's what I've been asking myself for weeks now
It is clear that this is very controversial. Brian is getting up to speed and you will see results soon
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
-
I agree with fuzznuts. I am one of those newcomers driving up the price of PTS by purchasing them on the exchange and I feel like you are rigging the game against me. Bytemaster you may feel that logically you have found a great way to fund your company but if the price of PTS tanks will you still be right?
We are trying to give you feedback on how current and future shareholders will perceive this move but it seems like you made up your mind prior to starting this thread. Up until now I have been getting everyone I know set up to mine/buy protoshares to support your cause. I did this based on your social contract and future DAC development plans. I would never have done this if the Invictus mission statement was to "Maximize Shareholder Value". We can already by stock in thousands of companies ruled by that mantra. You guys used to offer a different solution.
I understand that if the price rises this may be in the best interests of a current shareholders but this is just wishful thinking. You don't get to have you cake and eat it too. If you need more capital sell your shares.
-
Currently the market is absorbing about $500K per week.
Including short-term speculation that's a quarter of what you suggested.
While I think that BTS would profit from your idea (what makes me like it, cause i'm in for the long term investment and liking your concepts), I fear it would have serious influence on the market value of pts. It may already have shown that today...
Could we spend $2 million per week.... not initially... but once we had it in the bank I would hire the best managers I could to put together teams dedicated to the following DACs:
0) BitShares
1) DomainShares
2) LuckyShares
3) VoteShares
4) Keyhotee Video / Voice / Chat
5) APShares
6) ... other DACS proposed on this forum.....
7) Mobile Clients...
You gonna hire like 100 people for each project, paying 10k/month to every one of them?
Those numbers seem ridiculous to me...
-
Right now we need to realize we are all in this together and rather than argue it would be good to discuss realistic options.
We can launch something with the funds we have but pts holders will have to do all of the marketing.
I can work on it over years and produce as much as I can, but if you all want a real marketing budget with nice videos, graphics, and a accelerated schedule then something has got to change.
I purchased most of our pts. If I sell to fund development it would suppress the price and we would end up with nothing having given it all away.
I believe we have presented the best solution for everyone but the miners who now have to find more productive ways to earn a living.
If there is a better option that can achieve what everyone wants then I will be more than happy to consider it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
-
Currently the market is absorbing about $500K per week.
Including short-term speculation that's a quarter of what you suggested.
While I think that BTS would profit from your idea (what makes me like it, cause i'm in for the long term investment and liking your concepts), I fear it would have serious influence on the market value of pts. It may already have shown that today...
Could we spend $2 million per week.... not initially... but once we had it in the bank I would hire the best managers I could to put together teams dedicated to the following DACs:
0) BitShares
1) DomainShares
2) LuckyShares
3) VoteShares
4) Keyhotee Video / Voice / Chat
5) APShares
6) ... other DACS proposed on this forum.....
7) Mobile Clients...
You gonna hire like 100 people for each project, paying 10k/month to every one of them?
Those numbers seem ridiculous to me...
Well we can change the rate of issuance as that is just a variable. Is there a better rate?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
-
Wow, your vision seems to be getting clouded too much by the color green bytemaster. Honestly, I'm thinking of dumping all my PTS right now just because of this. I have a relatively small amount (> 10K) most of it was through mining and some through the exchange. Granted, it cost me hundreds thousands of dollars in mining costs, I did acquire them fairly and in the hopes that the value would go up; however, with this Angel Shares I only see PTS sinking. This move voids trust and is one purely motivated by greed. When the central figure behind something is purely motivated by greed, this tells me I should get the hell out. :)
-
I have been asking about the marketing dudes, exchange and pools since forever and noone took it seriously- am glad someone finally asked this.
bytemaster- please do get your act together and get the marketing dudes on board.
-
I believe we have presented the best solution for everyone but the miners who now have to find more productive ways to earn a living.
::)
I guess the first part of me finding a more productive way to earn a living will be dumping PTS.
-
I believe we have presented the best solution for everyone but the miners who now have to find more productive ways to earn a living.
::)
I guess the first part of me finding a more productive way to earn a living will be dumping PTS.
Same here. ::)
-
Can you explain where you thought pts derived its value and how that value proposition would change based on news that new dacs are getting funded?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
-
Aren't you sacrificing the equitable distribution and excitement of the Bitshares rollout? Now it sounds like you're pre-selling the entire thing, which I'm not sure is ideal.
Actually we are proposing a more equitable distribution... you either pay your electric company, Amazon, or someone else who paid their electric company or Amazon. Now you pay us and everyone gets a fair shot without having to know how to setup a huge mining farm or consuming a lot of their personal time managing servers.
Instead of favoring people that have access to the Chinese Super Computer or Botnets we give the everyone equal opportunity.
ALL the money currently spent on mining would go flowing back into ecosystem development rather than up in smoke.
It looks like you want to replace mining with crowd funding which I'm not entirely against but...
What about people who don't have any money? are you going to give people a way to earn money by working for you?
If you haven't noticed, Bitcoins are really expensive now. Protoshares are really expensive now. You need to provide some jobs so anyone can have a way to work for it otherwise you'll be centralizing the distribution of Protoshares.
-
Yes we will be doing a lot of bounties and providing many ways for people to earn money helping out.
Bug bounties, translations, market hacking, prizes, etc. we want to involve everyone and make everyone money.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
-
I don't favor this idea. It only replaces the kind of risks we had before (cheaters) with new kinds of risk (central point of failure and legal).
Crowd funding can be offered but it has to be done in a specific kind of way or it presents legal issues that most Americans don't want to have to deal with. It's important not to call it a stock, or shares.
You could call it a mining contract but once again where are people supposed to get the money from? Unless there will be a supply of jobs which pay in BTC then where is the BTC supposed to come from to pay for the DACs? If it's just Invictus Innovations trying to get extra money away from Amazon or Digital Ocean then we have to decide if we think it's worth the extra risks associated with this centralization and it is.
We go from a bunch of corporations which are bigger and harder to attack to 1 corporation. When you have to buy mining rigs, pay Amazon or Digital Ocean, at least we can say it's decentralized and enough businesses not associated with Bitcoin will benefit that you can have some sort of political cover. When it's just Invictus Innovations then I believe risk is dramatically increased.
Angel investment is needed but what is the rush? If we wait it out then US crowd funding laws might be favorable and then you could implement this right as an equity crowd funding scheme. I suggest you go that route and offer shares both in Invictus Innovations and in this mining solution and for now mine Protoshares until legal clarity is obtained. I see no point in taking unnecessary legal risk when we are months away from a situation where those legal risks could be dramatically decreased.
I also don't think the economic eco-system is fully built out yet. The community isn't as big as it could be at this time and for people willing to work there does not seem to be enough ways to earn money. If there were more angel investment and it were spread appropriately then you could do this because enough people would be earning money to be able to be investors. At this time I think it's a bit too soon to implement and we need to at least get Keyhotee up and running and also wait for the SEC to describe how equity crowd funding can work. I'm not against the plan I just am not sure this is the right time to implement it.
Mining is preferable because it's not crowd funding so you don't have to deal with the SEC at all.
-
Yes we will be doing a lot of bounties and providing many ways for people to earn money helping out.
Bug bounties, translations, market hacking, prizes, etc. we want to involve everyone and make everyone money.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
If you are not going to take this seriously -(https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1397.msg15028#msg15028)
and only listen to yourself ,your stock (PTS )will go to zero and you can say goodbye to your 20+ market cap...(https://www.cryptsy.com/markets/view/119)
-
Demand for protoshares exploded because in the future we believed they would split into a portion of total bitshares and possibly other coins and shares. We bought into the concept that miners could power future DACs and be paid back for their efforts in shares.
You are taking miners out of the equation which makes your company the same as any other company.
Plenty of companies want our money and our support.
I get the idea you don't want to sell your protoshares to fund development of new DACs. The details on how DAC were funded were never really fleshed out. Why don't you auction off a portion of new DAC shares for bitcoin as proposed, give a portion to protoshare holders and let miners mine the rest?
I can tell you how I think people will react to your plans but at the same time I acknowledge that coming up with viable, economically sound solutions to funding your development teams is going to be difficult.
I really hope you are getting the message that what you are proposing we aren't buying.
-
I bought into the PTS idea because the concepts of merged mining, multiple blockchains, blockchain security, DACs and its attraction to little miners. Now if mining is taken away from the picture, the bulk of it seems to be gone.
Essentially, the proposed change is an admission of two things:
1. Ripple model -- a centralized entity controlling money supply, issuing coins instead of mining them -- is better than Bitcoin model.
2. The MasterCoin model is better than the original PTS model, again, centralized control of funds.
I understand there may be some funding difficulty as the result of this, but to me these are not the right direction we should move to, there got to be better alternatives.
AFAIK, Ripple has some pretty deep pocket investors backing them, probably deeper than the ones you meet in Vegas, but as an investor, I won't touch it even with a 10 foot pole.
I had expected something like this would happen but didn't think it would come this early. The handling of this will not only have impact on the future of I3 and DACs, but also this type of business model, many will be watching how this plays out with great interest.
-
It is clear to us that we cannot change ProtoShares even though we believe it would have been a better deal for everyone but the botnets.
Based upon the feedback you all have provided at our request we will leave ProtoShares and its social contract as-is.
In the mean time we are still looking for ways to crowd fund development of new DACs through a concept similar to Angel Shares.
We welcome any constructive suggestions.
-
Many are waiting, many are selling. Price on bter now below .02BTC down from .025BTC last night. 20% drop in value since I started reading this thread.
-
It is clear to us that we cannot change ProtoShares even though we believe it would have been a better deal for everyone but the botnets.
Based upon the feedback you all have provided at our request we will leave ProtoShares and its social contract as-is.
In the mean time we are still looking for ways to crowd fund development of new DACs through a concept similar to Angel Shares.
We welcome any constructive suggestions.
You can't change protoshares to exclude people not willing to pay you (invictus) money. Try to think about this as an opportunity to engage and collaborate. I told you, the solution is to allocate a fixed % of PTS or BTC revenue to educational initiatives that reward people for learning about your products, giveaways you should probably set up some bounties to spark some grassroots media that focuses entirely on DACs. If you're removing the mining incentive from the picture, replace it with things people can do that they are rewarded for but doesn't feel like work. Telling people to market your product and make sure their "friend" uses their code feels exploitative, like you're selling something. Rewarding people for learning is just smart.
-
I bought into the PTS idea because the concepts of merged mining, multiple blockchains, blockchain security, DACs and its attraction to little miners. Now if mining is taken away from the picture, the bulk of it seems to be gone.
Essentially, the proposed change is an admission of two things:
1. Ripple model -- a centralized entity controlling money supply, issuing coins instead of mining them -- is better than Bitcoin model.
2. The MasterCoin model is better than the original PTS model, again, centralized control of funds.
I understand there may be some funding difficulty as the result of this, but to me these are not the right direction we should move to, there got to be better alternatives.
AFAIK, Ripple has some pretty deep pocket investors backing them, probably deeper than the ones you meet in Vegas, but as an investor, I won't touch it even with a 10 foot pole.
I had expected something like this would happen but didn't think it would come this early. The handling of this will not only have impact on the future of I3 and DACs, but also this type of business model, many will be watching how this plays out with great interest.
This is precisely the result of the OP. Invictus needs to deliver before they do anything else, and talking about changing the deal is arguably worse than actually changing the deal because it introduces uncertainty in the value.
Where oh where is someone with a lick of marketing sense. Stop posting, you are making things worse. Talk to your team and if they can't explain to you why this whole exercise was really stupid you should get a new team.
This is real money for us as it is for you and your family, appreciate that introducing uncertainty even if you have good intentions is a much worse situation than just shutting up until you've figured out a plan that will actually work.
-
- Finally the meat - great discusion. I thank you one and all.
The value of anything comes from thecollective opinion of all parties involved.
The value of III is in providing a fair, decentralized and transparent exchange of ideas, knowledge and a process to advance commerce. Additional intities can grow by providing new products and services. New contracts with transparent rules can be excepted by new investors or not.
There is no need to outlaw anything. Make new contracts transparent, easy to understand and limited to the job at hand. Any changes to existing contracts will not be excepted well. It sounds too much like the status Que.
The value comes from giving respect to all, no premining, no classes of shares or no classes of people or no classes of $s.
$s are capital, something every business needs and after all $s are proof of work, a receipt for work, or at least that was the original story.
Fair, transparent, decentralized and equitable to the individual.
etalon-or
-
It is clear to us that we cannot change ProtoShares even though we believe it would have been a better deal for everyone but the botnets.
Based upon the feedback you all have provided at our request we will leave ProtoShares and its social contract as-is.
In the mean time we are still looking for ways to crowd fund development of new DACs through a concept similar to Angel Shares.
We welcome any constructive suggestions.
Great news bytemaster! No one thinks this is an easy nut to crack. I want to be a part of your future projects despite holding very few PTS compared to most of the monsters on these boards. It's probably useful to focus on one DAC at a time rather than all future DACs.
-
1. Don't code botnet friendly coins and botnets wont swarm to your product
2. There is nothing wrong with being concerned about electric waste in cryptocoins
@bytemaster come join us @ emunie. My udoo draws 7watts while 'mining' at full load. We can save the world together.
-
I would encourage the creation of PTS 2.0 (Angelcoins) that would be another 10% of Bitshares's 21 million, so 20% of total Bitshares would be claimed at the beginning through these two rounds of "venture".
THESE you could use in the way you want, where you let people invest weekly and they get a % of the Angelshares proportional to their Bitcoin or Protoshares contribution (and you should probably accept protoshares at a premium relative to Bitcoins)
2.1 million would be 21 months @ 100k Angelcoins per month - The deal stays the same with Protosharesholders, you get to raise a shitload of money to finance multiple DACs at once and try your new mechanism.
Most importantly, you haven't committed to what you'll do with the other 80%, so when you really solve the problem and have the RIGHT idea you won't have tied yourself down like you're trying to do with this 100% to PTS holders nonsense.
Who besides me would support this?
-
I believe we have presented the best solution for everyone but the miners who now have to find more productive ways to earn a living.
::)
I guess the first part of me finding a more productive way to earn a living will be dumping PTS.
What Bytemaster does not understand is that miners are doing the viral marketing. It could be organized by Invictus Innovations but there is no real need for centralized marketing at this time when everyone with a stake can be encouraged to market Protoshares to increase the value of their shares.
This is why it's important to have a large, wide and diverse community of stakeholders. Millions of dollars flooding in could get Bitshares developed faster but there is no particular rush to do so in my opinion. The price will go up on it's own.
I do think it would be a good idea to figure out how to get investment into the market but it probably should not disrupt things for people already invested. Angel shares is a fine idea as long as it doesn't negatively affect anyone who already mined or invested.
Miners can be encouraged to do work by having bounties. Create jobs and miners with small amounts of Protoshares will be willing to spend some of their free time to increase their holdings. In fact if you were to build a credit system right now you could always get people to work now for free and agree to pay them later when Invictus Innovation does have the money to give something back, but you should not change the social contract or adjust whatever the deal was for the previous wave of miners.
The new wave of miners should be encouraged to work to build value for this project. We need to use a specific currency just to credit this labor and it should not be Protoshares. Maybe distribute angel shares in a decentralized manner with voting similar to what Mastercoin is going to do with it's Dev Mastercoins. Reputation does matter and if people could be credited for their work within Keyhotee then you can get people to do work.
You wont get full time developers right away, but I also don't think it costs as much because if people really believe Protoshares have value and they have a significant amount then they can hire developers themselves outside of Invictus Innovations. You don't need Invictus Innovations to crowdfund a DAC.
You can crowdfund a DAC through Havelock using Bitcoins if you're not an American citizen. You can also crowdfund a fact using Bitcoinstarter or Kickstarter if you are an American. PiperWallet and TrezorWallet were both crowdfunded on Kickstarter.
My advice would be to start up a Kickstarter and crowdfund the development of a DAC for people who have millions of dollars and who want to contribute. Give them some sufficient prizes and tribute in return for their funding out of whatever the DAC produces.
-
It is clear to us that we cannot change ProtoShares even though we believe it would have been a better deal for everyone but the botnets.
Based upon the feedback you all have provided at our request we will leave ProtoShares and its social contract as-is.
In the mean time we are still looking for ways to crowd fund development of new DACs through a concept similar to Angel Shares.
We welcome any constructive suggestions.
I bought into the PTS idea because the concepts of merged mining, multiple blockchains, blockchain security, DACs and its attraction to little miners. Now if mining is taken away from the picture, the bulk of it seems to be gone.
Would the merged mining idea still be valid after this discussion? Is bitshares going to be a PoW based system as originally designed in your paper or changed to a PoS based system?
In my opinion, the implementation being done as expected should be regarded as one of the social contracts here.
-
It is clear to us that we cannot change ProtoShares even though we believe it would have been a better deal for everyone but the botnets.
Based upon the feedback you all have provided at our request we will leave ProtoShares and its social contract as-is.
In the mean time we are still looking for ways to crowd fund development of new DACs through a concept similar to Angel Shares.
We welcome any constructive suggestions.
You can't change protoshares to exclude people not willing to pay you (invictus) money. Try to think about this as an opportunity to engage and collaborate. I told you, the solution is to allocate a fixed % of PTS or BTC revenue to educational initiatives that reward people for learning about your products, giveaways you should probably set up some bounties to spark some grassroots media that focuses entirely on DACs. If you're removing the mining incentive from the picture, replace it with things people can do that they are rewarded for but doesn't feel like work. Telling people to market your product and make sure their "friend" uses their code feels exploitative, like you're selling something. Rewarding people for learning is just smart.
I think you've hit the nail on the head.
The greatest aspect of the whole DAC and Protoshares movement is that it creates a wide web of opportunity where anyone has a chance to make a living. This in my opinion should include miners who instead of being told there is no further use for them in the eco-system should instead be repurposed/retrained into different but equally fundamental roles.
Miners should in my opinion be made into viral marketing teams when and if we move to Proof of Stake. They can blog, they can tweet, they have Facebook, they can explain these concepts and bring in new investment. They should be rewarded for bringing in new investors somehow perhaps by a referral based business model so that instead of mining they get benefits, status or something else through referrals. The point is to keep everyone from the smartest developer to the person who speaks several languages to the person who can just write and read.
Anyone who can communicate can contribute to the potential value of PTS. Any miner can speak, refer, and promote. So it's not just about bringing in developers but also about marketing. There should of course be bounties but I think we need a much more formal and decentralized way of divvying the work load. I don't know how to do it yet but if we are going to treat everyone as employees in these DACs then we need to create the infrastructure to actually track the contributions by Keyhotee ID and reward them.
It is clear to us that we cannot change ProtoShares even though we believe it would have been a better deal for everyone but the botnets.
Based upon the feedback you all have provided at our request we will leave ProtoShares and its social contract as-is.
In the mean time we are still looking for ways to crowd fund development of new DACs through a concept similar to Angel Shares.
We welcome any constructive suggestions.
I bought into the PTS idea because the concepts of merged mining, multiple blockchains, blockchain security, DACs and its attraction to little miners. Now if mining is taken away from the picture, the bulk of it seems to be gone.
Would the merged mining idea still be valid after this discussion? Is bitshares going to be a PoW based system as originally designed in your paper or changed to a PoS based system?
In my opinion, the implementation being done as expected should be regarded as one of the social contracts here.
I think Proof of Work can be changed to Proof of Stake. Proof of Stake is probably better overall but I don't think they can make the change mid stream. Protoshares is currently being mined and people are mining it at a loss because they believe it's going to be worth a lot a year from now or six months from now.
The long term value of Protoshares is very important, but the ideas proposed in this thread seem to promote a short term increase in value at great risk to the long term value proposition. Also it may potentially exclude people who were already involved to invite new rich money into it who want to throw millions.
We need to accommodate the people already involved. Find a way to provide jobs for them first. If you don't have money to pay them then credit them so that their work is registered in a blockchain so that when you do have money to pay them (after you get millions of investment from rich investors) you can pay the small people who were willing to work for the project.
Promoting the value of PTS increasing isn't really paying anyone because not everyone is in it for short term profit. Some people wont want to sell their PTS in 2014 no matter what happens because they are long term supporters. I know I won't be selling any PTS at these prices and even if it went as high as 0.1 I would not sell. Mastercoins already are at 0.1+ and I'm not selling until it's a lot higher.
There has to be a way to pay people and then you have to circulate that money back into investment. So I agree with the goal of creating a sustainable eco-system. I don't agree with the timing and I don't think that method can work if it puts PTS at risk. Create a new DAC.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=998.0
I proposed the idea of a GetWork DAC for precisely this reason and had the exact same concern. I wanted a DAC to allow people to find jobs to do to develop Protoshares and other DACs and get paid for it or credited for it.
-
I bought into the PTS idea because the concepts of merged mining, multiple blockchains, blockchain security, DACs and its attraction to little miners. Now if mining is taken away from the picture, the bulk of it seems to be gone.
Essentially, the proposed change is an admission of two things:
1. Ripple model -- a centralized entity controlling money supply, issuing coins instead of mining them -- is better than Bitcoin model.
2. The MasterCoin model is better than the original PTS model, again, centralized control of funds.
I understand there may be some funding difficulty as the result of this, but to me these are not the right direction we should move to, there got to be better alternatives.
AFAIK, Ripple has some pretty deep pocket investors backing them, probably deeper than the ones you meet in Vegas, but as an investor, I won't touch it even with a 10 foot pole.
I had expected something like this would happen but didn't think it would come this early. The handling of this will not only have impact on the future of I3 and DACs, but also this type of business model, many will be watching how this plays out with great interest.
This is precisely the result of the OP. Invictus needs to deliver before they do anything else, and talking about changing the deal is arguably worse than actually changing the deal because it introduces uncertainty in the value.
Where oh where is someone with a lick of marketing sense. Stop posting, you are making things worse. Talk to your team and if they can't explain to you why this whole exercise was really stupid you should get a new team.
This is real money for us as it is for you and your family, appreciate that introducing uncertainty even if you have good intentions is a much worse situation than just shutting up until you've figured out a plan that will actually work.
This. +1
-
I bought into the PTS idea because the concepts of merged mining, multiple blockchains, blockchain security, DACs and its attraction to little miners. Now if mining is taken away from the picture, the bulk of it seems to be gone.
Essentially, the proposed change is an admission of two things:
1. Ripple model -- a centralized entity controlling money supply, issuing coins instead of mining them -- is better than Bitcoin model.
2. The MasterCoin model is better than the original PTS model, again, centralized control of funds.
I understand there may be some funding difficulty as the result of this, but to me these are not the right direction we should move to, there got to be better alternatives.
AFAIK, Ripple has some pretty deep pocket investors backing them, probably deeper than the ones you meet in Vegas, but as an investor, I won't touch it even with a 10 foot pole.
I had expected something like this would happen but didn't think it would come this early. The handling of this will not only have impact on the future of I3 and DACs, but also this type of business model, many will be watching how this plays out with great interest.
This is precisely the result of the OP. Invictus needs to deliver before they do anything else, and talking about changing the deal is arguably worse than actually changing the deal because it introduces uncertainty in the value.
Where oh where is someone with a lick of marketing sense. Stop posting, you are making things worse. Talk to your team and if they can't explain to you why this whole exercise was really stupid you should get a new team.
This is real money for us as it is for you and your family, appreciate that introducing uncertainty even if you have good intentions is a much worse situation than just shutting up until you've figured out a plan that will actually work.
This. +1
I think the purpose of these forums is to have these debates on how to improve PTS and DAC projects. I support that Bytemaster came to the community for feedback and believe it was the right thing to do.
It also highlights that there is a serious problem. We need investment capital, and we need to work with the metaphor that in a DAC we are all employees or contractors for the DAC. To put it simple, we all should have roles within the DAC infrastructure and the miner if it is no longer a viable role in the infrastructure of future DACs then just like any corporation would do you have to now retrain miners into a new role so that they can continue to contribute without feeling left out.
The way this idea was proposed has made miners feel left out. It was not proposed with contests, giveaways, jobs, bounties, and other opportunities so that people who used to mine could potentially move onto something better. It was presented as if miners should just find something else to do or cough up money to pay for their position in the DAC.
The whole point of a market is so people can work to get value. If the DAC is asking for money and investment as input but isn't giving jobs as output then you will have people who will hesitate. I want to see plenty of jobs going to the little people of the community before I can get behind this idea. Not everybody is a C++ programmer and the problem with the Bitcoin community right now is there does not seem to be much diversity in the kinds of jobs that exist for people who are not technical. In the real world most jobs are not technical and most people in any business are not programmers but in the Bitcoin community it's 90% of the rewards going to programmers and maybe 10% to everyone else.
Mining is the one place where anyone can get started and potentially make a long term profit if the price of PTS does go up x100.
-
I would encourage the creation of PTS 2.0 (Angelcoins) that would be another 10% of Bitshares's 21 million, so 20% of total Bitshares would be claimed at the beginning through these two rounds of "venture".
THESE you could use in the way you want, where you let people invest weekly and they get a % of the Angelshares proportional to their Bitcoin or Protoshares contribution (and you should probably accept protoshares at a premium relative to Bitcoins)
2.1 million would be 21 months @ 100k Angelcoins per month - The deal stays the same with Protosharesholders, you get to raise a shitload of money to finance multiple DACs at once and try your new mechanism.
Most importantly, you haven't committed to what you'll do with the other 80%, so when you really solve the problem and have the RIGHT idea you won't have tied yourself down like you're trying to do with this 100% to PTS holders nonsense.
Who besides me would support this?
I would support this, except it overlooks the fact that bitshares is scheduled to be launched in under 21 months, so we would need to change the creation rate of Protoshares 2.0
-
I would encourage the creation of PTS 2.0 (Angelcoins) that would be another 10% of Bitshares's 21 million, so 20% of total Bitshares would be claimed at the beginning through these two rounds of "venture".
THESE you could use in the way you want, where you let people invest weekly and they get a % of the Angelshares proportional to their Bitcoin or Protoshares contribution (and you should probably accept protoshares at a premium relative to Bitcoins)
2.1 million would be 21 months @ 100k Angelcoins per month - The deal stays the same with Protosharesholders, you get to raise a shitload of money to finance multiple DACs at once and try your new mechanism.
Most importantly, you haven't committed to what you'll do with the other 80%, so when you really solve the problem and have the RIGHT idea you won't have tied yourself down like you're trying to do with this 100% to PTS holders nonsense.
Who besides me would support this?
I support this idea with some minor changes. I think the job board or allocation of funds should eventually be decentralized. Mastercoin is starting out centralized but there is a plan to decentralize the dev Mastercoin scheme along the lines of Proof of Stake voting. As long as the community has a way to vote on new features and vote on the proportions of where the money goes I will support it.
If Invictus Innovation basically treats it as theirs and they hire employees in the dark without giving voting rights then I don't support it. Give voting rights via Proof of Stake and let the community decide how to distribute the funds. If there are multiple candidates for programmer position in a long term employment contract then let the free market decide who gets hired by peer vote.
Of course early on I think Invictus Innovations should decide but the social contract should include voting rights which get phased in after a period of time. This way the DACs can get built quickly but with the knowledge that once they are near completion the control over future development decisions will be recycled back into the community.
That is all really. I think I like your idea. I think the original contract should be upheld as much as possible. The only other refinement I would make is I would probably reduce the amount of Bitshares. There does not need to be 21 million Bitshares. I always thought that was too many. There are only 619k Mastercoins. There were something like 400,000 Asicminer shares. There are 2 million Protoshares. I think there should be 4 million Bitshares.
This would mean that the current PTS holders would get 50% of Bitshares in exchange for signing onto the new Proof of Stake based system no matter what happens with Angelcoins. 50% ownership is better than 10/20%.
-
I don't think the deal should be improved for existing Protoshares holders, that deal should just be the deal. If PTS holders want to sell their PTS to Invictus in exchange for AngelCoins, that's a voluntary endorsement by PTS holders of the new AngelCoins idea and if the price is advantageous you'll find people doing that.
Regarding the number of coins, one of the dangers Mastercoin faces is someone forking it and creating a version that has more opportunity for people to buy into them, I believe all mastercoins are held by less than 1000 individuals which sounds pretty centralized to me.
-
I would encourage the creation of PTS 2.0 (Angelcoins) that would be another 10% of Bitshares's 21 million, so 20% of total Bitshares would be claimed at the beginning through these two rounds of "venture".
THESE you could use in the way you want, where you let people invest weekly and they get a % of the Angelshares proportional to their Bitcoin or Protoshares contribution (and you should probably accept protoshares at a premium relative to Bitcoins)
2.1 million would be 21 months @ 100k Angelcoins per month - The deal stays the same with Protosharesholders, you get to raise a shitload of money to finance multiple DACs at once and try your new mechanism.
Most importantly, you haven't committed to what you'll do with the other 80%, so when you really solve the problem and have the RIGHT idea you won't have tied yourself down like you're trying to do with this 100% to PTS holders nonsense.
Who besides me would support this?
This seems smart. It doesn't change the initial dynamics of Protoshares, but still offers current holders the opportunity to invest. It might be widely publicised in advance that a protoshare will lead to guaranteed 'access' to obtain an angelcoin or angelshare, if someone wants to invest more btc (this would have a positive effect on the value of pts). If there is no shortage of larger investors, this will also offer original shareholders the possibility to enlarge their stake if they so wish, without being swamped by massive investors. Surely DACs require equivalent wallet setups with a 'mining' or computational facility to number crunch the DAC processes - in essence meaning that we are still mining with DACs to ensure that processes are decentralised. Keeping the mining theme alive - but minimising the need for it - might be the wisest choice during these rapid evolutionary phases.
-
I don't think the deal should be improved for existing Protoshares holders, that deal should just be the deal.
If you improve the deal you can get instant support. I'd support it. I think 21 million Bitshares is way too many even if you give 20% to PTS holders because then you have 80% which I presume aren't going to be mined so it's Proof of Stake?
I see some security advantages of a Proof of Stake system so I'd be willing to go with that if it's superior but to do that should mean PTS holders get 50% of Bitshares. That would mean 2 million to PTS holders and 2 million to whomever else. I think you cannot get more fair than 50/50.
If PTS holders want to sell their PTS to Invictus in exchange for AngelCoins, that's a voluntary endorsement by PTS holders of the new AngelCoins idea and if the price is advantageous you'll find people doing that.
No one should want or have to sell their PTS. If you're a long term holder making an investment you aren't selling, you're loaning. It's more like a bond scenario and honestly it should be treated more like a bond which gets paid back and then you might have people loan out their PTS. To tell people to buy something which they are guaranteed to get a proportion of by default does not make sense to me because buying it has risks which you don't have just holding.
I think if you promise 50% to PTS holders by default and then give the other 50% to angel investors that is fair.
Regarding the number of coins, one of the dangers Mastercoin faces is someone forking it and creating a version that has more opportunity for people to buy into them, I believe all mastercoins are held by less than 1000 individuals which sounds pretty centralized to me.
I helped distribute Mastercoins to individuals and it's not true that all Mastercoins are held by less than 1000 individuals. It is true that Mastercoin distribution is too heavily centralized which is why I helped to run the giveaway thread.
I think you can do giveaways to make it so that Bitshares are more decentralized but the way it's looking now the Bitshares community isn't very centralized in the distribution. In my opinion while it does have some problems and could be better it's a lot more decentralized than Bitcoin or Mastercoin.
I don't think producing more coins is a smart way to decentralize distribution of the currency. The way to create the maximum number of stakeholders is to give the coins away in small portions which get smaller over time. This way anyone who ever wants a stake can get a stake for free without having to mine it. The problem is where do you get the coins to do these giveaways?
But I do agree with you that you need the giveaway process to circulate the flow of stakes to as many hands as possible. 21 million coins or 4 million? 4 million coins would be worth more to all who hold them while 21 million coins would dilute the base. Since 4 million coins are highly divisible there is no reason to ever dilute the currency to distribute the coins. This is not like stocks in the real world or like real life coins where you cannot break them up smaller in smaller. Since these coins can be broken up and divided we should just go with 4 million or if you want to have some coins for giveaways 4.5 million and then use the divisibility to allow millions of people to own 0.1 billions with 0.01 and so on. I don't think there will be a problem doing it this way.
-
Luckybit, I don't care if you want the deal to be better for PTS holders or think that 21 million is too many. When you bought or mined PTS, 10% of 21 million PTS was the deal and this plan does not change that at all. You will have instant support for this plan because it does not impact PTS holders at all, if they want to ignore it they can and the deal will be exactly the same as if the change had never been made.
Try to understand, the problem here is Invictus looks like they don't know what they're doing and so are changing the game because they miscalculated early on. Thats bad because the value of PTS and all invictus projects depends entirely on their ability to deliver, so demonstrating incompetence even if it is well intention-ed is inherently bad for the value of PTS.
You are already invested in PTS, Invictus and Bitshares and so you no longer matter with regards to the remaining distribution. You understand the value, so if you want more you'll buy them, so of course you think it's a good idea for your usergroup to get 50% instead of 10%. Now look at it from someone on the outside and suddenly the picture doesn't look so clear and in a competitive market where you can invest in increasing numbers of decentralized corporations that means Invictus is more likely to fail.
So just leave PTS alone and make a new deal where you get it right. Don't change the deal for better or for worse, and then Invictus doesn't have to care what PTS holders think because they're getting exactly what they expected, even if it's not a new better deal you might think you should get.
-
Luckybit, I don't care if you want the deal to be better for PTS holders or think that 21 million is too many. When you bought or mined PTS, 10% of 21 million PTS was the deal and this plan does not change that at all. You will have instant support for this plan because it does not impact PTS holders at all, if they want to ignore it they can and the deal will be exactly the same as if the change had never been made.
Try to understand, the problem here is Invictus looks like they don't know what they're doing and so are changing the game because they miscalculated early on. Thats bad because the value of PTS and all invictus projects depends entirely on their ability to deliver, so demonstrating incompetence even if it is well intention-ed is inherently bad for the value of PTS.
You are already invested in PTS, Invictus and Bitshares and so you no longer matter with regards to the remaining distribution. You understand the value, so if you want more you'll buy them, so of course you think it's a good idea for your usergroup to get 50% instead of 10%. Now look at it from someone on the outside and suddenly the picture doesn't look so clear and in a competitive market where you can invest in increasing numbers of decentralized corporations that means Invictus is more likely to fail.
So just leave PTS alone and make a new deal where you get it right. Don't change the deal for better or for worse, and then Invictus doesn't have to care what PTS holders think because they're getting exactly what they expected, even if it's not a new better deal you might think you should get.
That would be fine but Bytemaster has talked about moving to a Proof of Stake system. That dramatically changes the value proposition for PTS holders. 21 million Bitshares only made sense in the context of having to mine them but if it's a Proof of Stake system then it does not make any sense at all anymore to have 21 million.
Even if PTS holders don't get any more than the agreed upon deal of 2 million, I think it should be 2 million out of 4 million if it's Proof of Stake not because of PTS holders but because I cannot find a reason why you would need 21 million if it's not going to be mined over a very long period of time. If it's Proof of Stake and does not need to be mined at all then the only way to get coins is to invest.
If the contract were to stay exactly the same with Proof of Work then everyone already accepts that deal. That would be the easiest proposition to make, just add an Angelcoin to the current deal. If they want to go with Proof of Stake though then that changes things for me.
-
Luckybit, I don't care if you want the deal to be better for PTS holders or think that 21 million is too many. When you bought or mined PTS, 10% of 21 million PTS was the deal and this plan does not change that at all. You will have instant support for this plan because it does not impact PTS holders at all, if they want to ignore it they can and the deal will be exactly the same as if the change had never been made.
Try to understand, the problem here is Invictus looks like they don't know what they're doing and so are changing the game because they miscalculated early on. Thats bad because the value of PTS and all invictus projects depends entirely on their ability to deliver, so demonstrating incompetence even if it is well intention-ed is inherently bad for the value of PTS.
You are already invested in PTS, Invictus and Bitshares and so you no longer matter with regards to the remaining distribution. You understand the value, so if you want more you'll buy them, so of course you think it's a good idea for your usergroup to get 50% instead of 10%. Now look at it from someone on the outside and suddenly the picture doesn't look so clear and in a competitive market where you can invest in increasing numbers of decentralized corporations that means Invictus is more likely to fail.
So just leave PTS alone and make a new deal where you get it right. Don't change the deal for better or for worse, and then Invictus doesn't have to care what PTS holders think because they're getting exactly what they expected, even if it's not a new better deal you might think you should get.
+1 for leaving PTS deal as is. When you buy into something like PTS, you are buying a promise. Unlike Bitcoin, no merchants accept PTS as a medium of exchange (yet) and it's not intended to be one.
Changing the deal, for better or worse, is dangerous because it compromises confidence. The majority can always vote to get more benefits at the expense of future generations/participants. The is the pitfall for most democratic system and the reason why social security has become a ponzi's scheme. (http://www.financialsensearchive.com/editorials/quinn/2008/1216.html (http://www.financialsensearchive.com/editorials/quinn/2008/1216.html))
Bitcoin solved this problem by hardcoding the money creation logic, PTS/BTS doesn't have one, and that's very dangerous.
-
I'm of the opinion that when a blockchain launches, the social contract is effectively set in stone. Bitcool nailed it, it is BAD for existing stakeholders like ourselves to vote ourselves a better deal because it comes at the obvious expense of those who would join the project after us. I would not join a project that engaged in that type of behavior, and I wouldn't be an investor in a project that did either. I want Invictus to succeed, and in order to do that they need to be beyond reproach and obviously in this for the right reasons.
When you make a deal, keep your word. No other option
-
Luckybit, I don't care if you want the deal to be better for PTS holders or think that 21 million is too many. When you bought or mined PTS, 10% of 21 million PTS was the deal and this plan does not change that at all. You will have instant support for this plan because it does not impact PTS holders at all, if they want to ignore it they can and the deal will be exactly the same as if the change had never been made.
Try to understand, the problem here is Invictus looks like they don't know what they're doing and so are changing the game because they miscalculated early on. Thats bad because the value of PTS and all invictus projects depends entirely on their ability to deliver, so demonstrating incompetence even if it is well intention-ed is inherently bad for the value of PTS.
You are already invested in PTS, Invictus and Bitshares and so you no longer matter with regards to the remaining distribution. You understand the value, so if you want more you'll buy them, so of course you think it's a good idea for your usergroup to get 50% instead of 10%. Now look at it from someone on the outside and suddenly the picture doesn't look so clear and in a competitive market where you can invest in increasing numbers of decentralized corporations that means Invictus is more likely to fail.
So just leave PTS alone and make a new deal where you get it right. Don't change the deal for better or for worse, and then Invictus doesn't have to care what PTS holders think because they're getting exactly what they expected, even if it's not a new better deal you might think you should get.
+1 for leaving PTS deal as is. When you buy into something like PTS, you are buying a promise. Unlike Bitcoin, no merchants accept PTS as a medium of exchange (yet) and it's not intended to be one.
Changing the deal, for better or worse, is dangerous because it compromises confidence. The majority can always vote to get more benefits at the expense of future generations/participants. The is the pitfall for most democratic system and the reason why social security has become a ponzi's scheme. (http://www.financialsensearchive.com/editorials/quinn/2008/1216.html (http://www.financialsensearchive.com/editorials/quinn/2008/1216.html))
Bitcoin solved this problem by hardcoding the money creation logic, PTS/BTS doesn't have one, and that's very dangerous.
Bitcoin isn't perfect and Bitcoin is a currency not a DAC. In my opinion there has to be a way for employees to renegotiate their contract. It should be formal and those formal rules should be enforced through code rather than just a social contract but there has to be a way to do this.
I don't think you can hardcode logic into everything. You need some artificial intelligence for a DAC to function and evolve over time. For example if Proof of Work turns out to be not as good we are stuck with it because that is the terms of the social contract. I'd be willing to go with that approach provided we stick to all of the terms of the original social contract.
If we are going to keep those terms then there must be 21 million Bitshares and those Bitshares should be mined by Proof of Work because that is what people agreed for when it was announced there would be 21 million. I don't think the price of PTS would be this high if people found out there would be 21 million by Proof of Stake.
I'm of the opinion that when a blockchain launches, the social contract is effectively set in stone. Bitcool nailed it, it is BAD for existing stakeholders like ourselves to vote ourselves a better deal because it comes at the obvious expense of those who would join the project after us. I would not join a project that engaged in that type of behavior, and I wouldn't be an investor in a project that did either. I want Invictus to succeed, and in order to do that they need to be beyond reproach and obviously in this for the right reasons.
When you make a deal, keep your word. No other option
I agree with you. Money isn't everything. Trust and reputation are more important.
But in the original contract they did state that they could launch a Protoshares 2.0 and that it would honor the original Protoshares 1.0. If they do that and significantly change the way things work then it puts more risk on the people holding Protoshares 1.0, more uncertainty in the market, and from a game theory perspective the people who had certain strategies to increase their holdings now have to change their strategies.
If nothing changes and the social contract stays exactly as it is for Protoshares and Bitshares I don't think there would be much issue. The issue is that they claim they want to remove mining and move to transaction based Proof of Stake. This is a fine idea but you cannot remove that in my opinion without changing the social contract because while it makes sense to mine 21 million Bitshares over 10 years it does not make sense to do the same thing with Proof of Stake because when people mined Protoshares they were under the impression that when Bitshares came out they would also be able to re-use their mining equipment which they purchased to mine Bitshares.
That is the reason miners are upset. Some miners spent their money purchasing new hardware to mine Protoshares, Bitshares and other Proof of Momentum based blockchains and now there is talk of cancelling all of that. Mining cannot be compared to a lottery either, at this point it is a business and while it is too centralized and there are problems associated with it we may be stuck with it for Bitshares. If Bitshares cannot be mined then a lot of people will be upset if they are not able to renegotiate the deal.
-
Dump has restarted. 2K @ 0.015, 1K @ 0.014 and more to come. :)
-
Your greed is pushing you to try to combine two things. You want to move to proof-of-stake mining because you learned it is more practical for DACs. The problem is you are now trying to change the social contract for ProtoShares to increase the ownership that you felt you missed out on. In the process, you are undermining all PTS value to investors and encouraging centralization of power. In just one evening I've gone from one of your biggest supporters to thinking I want out entirely. I recall how you gleefully told another investor how their departure means cheaper shares for you, so don't bother. Your primary concern was obvious then, and I should have trusted my instincts. I'll review further before making such a rash decision.
This is exactly how I took the original post.
-
Well, it appears that the company is pivoting. I'm holding all my PTS and telling my friends to buy.
Now that I've slept on it. I think Protoshare holders should get what was promised in the social contract, which is 10%. Angel shares can then get the other 90%. The new investment will benefit Protoshare holders greatly because the money for Angel shares will fuel development and growth. We'd also be more competitive with Mastercoin and Ripple.
-
Well, it appears that the company is pivoting. I'm holding all my PTS and telling my friends to buy.
Now that I've slept on it. I think Protoshare holders should get what was promised in the social contract, which is 10%. Angel shares can then get the other 90%. The new investment will benefit Protoshare holders greatly because the money for Angel shares will fuel development and growth. We'd also be more competitive with Mastercoin and Ripple.
Completely agree - We need to raise capital to speed up operations
-
Well, it appears that the company is pivoting. I'm holding all my PTS and telling my friends to buy.
Now that I've slept on it. I think Protoshare holders should get what was promised in the social contract, which is 10%. Angel shares can then get the other 90%. The new investment will benefit Protoshare holders greatly because the money for Angel shares will fuel development and growth. We'd also be more competitive with Mastercoin and Ripple.
Completely agree - We need to raise capital to speed up operations
Might be too late as people started dumping. They are only being saved by the fact that the PTS market doesn't work on cryptsy right now.
-
When you make a deal, keep your word. No other option
Agreed.
It has been hard to keep track of the various permutations of what is being proposed, but I think it reduces to the basics of Inviticus effectively wants a hard fork of PS1 to gain all future PTS mined so that they can use that value to support DACs. I know it hasn't been stated that way, but that is what is seems to boil down to. The AngelShares seem to be some complicated way to keep track of the PTS that Inviticus has appropriated by these means, and was originally envisioned as a way to materially diminish the long term investment value of existing PTS ownership (which of course risks major lawsuits years later). I think bytemaster is now renewing his promise not to devalue PTS by expanding the 2 million limit.
The AngelShares abstraction seems somewhat useless except perhaps as some form of voting for how funds are allocated. AngelShares would be an Inviticus DAC, and therefore owners of PTS start with 10% at genesis. Inviticus' ownership of PTS would grow to over 50% with PTS2 over a one year period. That is a lot of PTS for them to control the market with. One should consider if AngelShare distributions are an event that preceeds every DAC being formed rather than a one time event. The important thing is that PTS not get devalued over time beyond the 2 million lifetime supply, and that ownership of PTS is used to determine your initial proportional ownership in future DACs. Consider a DAC that is formed with PTS ownership that is then traded in a closed market (between only the original PTS owners) until the DAC goes public. A market value can be approached before true market conditions reward accordingly.
The difficult part of a hard fork is getting miners to accept it. ProtoShares mining is not profitable. PS1 mining gives determined individuals an opportunity to pay a premium to acquire a small amount of PTS. It is faster and less expensive to purchase PTS at market prices. Replacing mining with incremental distributions to Inviticus (up to the 2 million PTS limit) is not destructive to our current PTS investment; in fact, the elimination of mining would increase existing PTS value. A PTS2 fork may not be hard to sell in this way.
I don't consider a change in PS2 mining rules to be a material breach of contract like a change in supply rate or quantity would undermine PTS value. It is somewhat concerning that Inviticus would have a significant stake in PTS due to rule changes, but I'd like to believe it is all in our interest to allow this. It would be nice if Inviticus would agree to never own more than x percentage of all PTS. Ownership above that percentage should be sold at market prices so that others may participate. Inviticus would keep the proceeds of that sale or be obligated to use it for DAC funding.
The way I've just described it may actually seem more generous to Inviticus than what bytemaster claimed he was going for. I suspect this grants him control he desires without undermining existing investment value. I'm trying to find a win-win scenario here, and this seemed a better start to finding that.
[edit] Upon reflection, I think it is dangerous for Inviticus to own more than even 20% of PTS because they could then dictate whatever change they wanted and the entire economy might become subject to how a government can pressure Inviticus alone.
-
Your greed is pushing you to try to combine two things. You want to move to proof-of-stake mining because you learned it is more practical for DACs. The problem is you are now trying to change the social contract for ProtoShares to increase the ownership that you felt you missed out on. In the process, you are undermining all PTS value to investors and encouraging centralization of power. In just one evening I've gone from one of your biggest supporters to thinking I want out entirely. I recall how you gleefully told another investor how their departure means cheaper shares for you, so don't bother. Your primary concern was obvious then, and I should have trusted my instincts. I'll review further before making such a rash decision.
This is exactly how I took the original post.
Can someone help me understand this? If Invictus sells these "Angel Shares" and then allocates the shares to the investors providing the capital don't they have an obligation to spend that money to build some of their proposed distributed companies? I don't see how they could profit from this unless they pay themselves salaries and bonuses higher than market rates. Couldn't this be resolved with some transparent accounting and community oversight?
It isn't good for them to change the social contract and it looks like byte has acknowledged that.
If you do not trust them to spend the funds on promoting DACs then why buy PTS at all?
Oh, and these Captcha's suck! Hopefully keyhotee will do something about that.
-
Your greed is pushing you to try to combine two things. You want to move to proof-of-stake mining because you learned it is more practical for DACs. The problem is you are now trying to change the social contract for ProtoShares to increase the ownership that you felt you missed out on. In the process, you are undermining all PTS value to investors and encouraging centralization of power. In just one evening I've gone from one of your biggest supporters to thinking I want out entirely. I recall how you gleefully told another investor how their departure means cheaper shares for you, so don't bother. Your primary concern was obvious then, and I should have trusted my instincts. I'll review further before making such a rash decision.
This is exactly how I took the original post.
Can someone help me understand this? If Invictus sells these "Angel Shares" and then allocates the shares to the investors providing the capital don't they have an obligation to spend that money to build some of their proposed distributed companies? I don't see how they could profit from this unless they pay themselves salaries and bonuses higher than market rates. Couldn't this be resolved with some transparent accounting and community oversight?
It isn't good for them to change the social contract and it looks like byte has acknowledged that.
If you do not trust them to spend the funds on promoting DACs then why buy PTS at all?
Oh, and these Captcha's suck! Hopefully keyhotee will do something about that.
+1 to the Captcha comment
-
Well, it appears that the company is pivoting. I'm holding all my PTS and telling my friends to buy.
Now that I've slept on it. I think Protoshare holders should get what was promised in the social contract, which is 10%. Angel shares can then get the other 90%. The new investment will benefit Protoshare holders greatly because the money for Angel shares will fuel development and growth. We'd also be more competitive with Mastercoin and Ripple.
Completely agree - We need to raise capital to speed up operations
Thanks. I don't think people understand that Invictus has strong competition. They risk being left in the dust. Angel Shares will provide value to Protoshares because it will be the vehicle that accelerates development.
-
Well, it appears that the company is pivoting. I'm holding all my PTS and telling my friends to buy.
Now that I've slept on it. I think Protoshare holders should get what was promised in the social contract, which is 10%. Angel shares can then get the other 90%. The new investment will benefit Protoshare holders greatly because the money for Angel shares will fuel development and growth. We'd also be more competitive with Mastercoin and Ripple.
Completely agree - We need to raise capital to speed up operations
Thanks. I don't think people understand that Invictus has strong competition. They risk being left in the dust. Angel Shares will provide value to Protoshares because it will be the vehicle that accelerates development.
As far as I can see, though, it may be most important to be first to the DAB/P2P DAC -- I wonder if bytemaster has any ideas for getting to market faster, in that regard. Raising capital for the DAC's to follow would be easy if BitShare were released today.
-
When you make a deal, keep your word. No other option
Agreed.
It has been hard to keep track of the various permutations of what is being proposed, but I think it reduces to the basics of Inviticus effectively wants a hard fork of PS1 to gain all future PTS mined so that they can use that value to support DACs. I know it hasn't been stated that way, but that is what is seems to boil down to. The AngelShares seem to be some complicated way to keep track of the PTS that Inviticus has appropriated by these means, and was originally envisioned as a way to materially diminish the long term investment value of existing PTS ownership (which of course risks major lawsuits years later). I think bytemaster is now renewing his promise not to devalue PTS by expanding the 2 million limit.
The AngelShares abstraction seems somewhat useless except perhaps as some form of voting for how funds are allocated. AngelShares would be an Inviticus DAC, and therefore owners of PTS start with 10% at genesis. Inviticus' ownership of PTS would grow to over 50% with PTS2 over a one year period. That is a lot of PTS for them to control the market with. One should consider if AngelShare distributions are an event that preceeds every DAC being formed rather than a one time event. The important thing is that PTS not get devalued over time beyond the 2 million lifetime supply, and that ownership of PTS is used to determine your initial proportional ownership in future DACs. Consider a DAC that is formed with PTS ownership that is then traded in a closed market (between only the original PTS owners) until the DAC goes public. A market value can be approached before true market conditions reward accordingly.
The difficult part of a hard fork is getting miners to accept it. ProtoShares mining is not profitable. PS1 mining gives determined individuals an opportunity to pay a premium to acquire a small amount of PTS. It is faster and less expensive to purchase PTS at market prices. Replacing mining with incremental distributions to Inviticus (up to the 2 million PTS limit) is not destructive to our current PTS investment; in fact, the elimination of mining would increase existing PTS value. A PTS2 fork may not be hard to sell in this way.
I don't consider a change in PS2 mining rules to be a material breach of contract like a change in supply rate or quantity would undermine PTS value. It is somewhat concerning that Inviticus would have a significant stake in PTS due to rule changes, but I'd like to believe it is all in our interest to allow this. It would be nice if Inviticus would agree to never own more than x percentage of all PTS. Ownership above that percentage should be sold at market prices so that others may participate. Inviticus would keep the proceeds of that sale or be obligated to use it for DAC funding.
The way I've just described it may actually seem more generous to Inviticus than what bytemaster claimed he was going for. I suspect this grants him control he desires without undermining existing investment value. I'm trying to find a win-win scenario here, and this seemed a better start to finding that.
[edit] Upon reflection, I think it is dangerous for Inviticus to own more than even 20% of PTS because they could then dictate whatever change they wanted and the entire economy might become subject to how a government can pressure Inviticus alone.
The original angel investor proposal was pretty good. Each DAC would have an angel wallet address and anyone could send PTS to it to reserve coins in the DAC. It could have worked similar to how Mastercoin worked.
It might be best if they just release their angel wallet addresses and do a sort of crowd funding campaign. Let the millionaires give millions that way and leave the social contract exactly as it is. I could live with that.
-
Well, it appears that the company is pivoting. I'm holding all my PTS and telling my friends to buy.
Now that I've slept on it. I think Protoshare holders should get what was promised in the social contract, which is 10%. Angel shares can then get the other 90%. The new investment will benefit Protoshare holders greatly because the money for Angel shares will fuel development and growth. We'd also be more competitive with Mastercoin and Ripple.
Completely agree - We need to raise capital to speed up operations
Thanks. I don't think people understand that Invictus has strong competition. They risk being left in the dust. Angel Shares will provide value to Protoshares because it will be the vehicle that accelerates development.
As far as I can see, though, it may be most important to be first to the DAB/P2P DAC -- I wonder if bytemaster has any ideas for getting to market faster, in that regard. Raising capital for the DAC's to follow would be easy if BitShare were released today.
If Bitshares were released today the program would crash. Now, Invictus has an amazing lineup of coders. However, these are very difficult programs to make. And what about security. If we want the most secure products out there, we really need more eyes on the problem. And that's what we're talking about. Waiting 5 years for each DAC or getting 2 or 3 out a year. I want the 2 0r 3 a year!
-
Well, it appears that the company is pivoting. I'm holding all my PTS and telling my friends to buy.
Now that I've slept on it. I think Protoshare holders should get what was promised in the social contract, which is 10%. Angel shares can then get the other 90%. The new investment will benefit Protoshare holders greatly because the money for Angel shares will fuel development and growth. We'd also be more competitive with Mastercoin and Ripple.
Completely agree - We need to raise capital to speed up operations
Thanks. I don't think people understand that Invictus has strong competition. They risk being left in the dust. Angel Shares will provide value to Protoshares because it will be the vehicle that accelerates development.
As far as I can see, though, it may be most important to be first to the DAB/P2P DAC -- I wonder if bytemaster has any ideas for getting to market faster, in that regard. Raising capital for the DAC's to follow would be easy if BitShare were released today.
Doing it right is more important than doing it fast. There is strong competition but there really is only Mastercoin and Coloredcoin. The marketcaps are so huge that there is plenty of marketshare for all three so I don't see what the rush is about.
6 months from now there will be another wave and Bitcoins will be going for $10,000-20,000 each. The crowd funding rules will also be more clear and we will know what role regulation will have.
Right now we don't even know what the regulatory environment will be. The DACs should be developed for sure and angel investment should occur. There is plenty of space to reserve in the DACs for angel investors without disrupting the Protoshares 10%. So I don't see the issue.
If you have more, become an angel investor. Why do we need angelshares?
-
I'm with Que on this one. Miners efforts are wasted outside the system. Your paying expenses to your ulility company and amazon. If you really invested money for mining protoshares, I think that was ill-advised because there has numerous discussions here that Invictus was looking for a PoS-- which seeks to limit mining. Mining is wasteful. Its wasteful here. And really would miners promote a currency? I doubt it. That's a myth. Once miners get their coins, they would dump them on the market once they see a good opening. If you really want to get involved in PTS, but with mining its thats so important, then mine another currency, exchange it and get some PTS. Then convert those PTS to PTS 2.
-
Well, it appears that the company is pivoting. I'm holding all my PTS and telling my friends to buy.
Now that I've slept on it. I think Protoshare holders should get what was promised in the social contract, which is 10%. Angel shares can then get the other 90%. The new investment will benefit Protoshare holders greatly because the money for Angel shares will fuel development and growth. We'd also be more competitive with Mastercoin and Ripple.
Completely agree - We need to raise capital to speed up operations
Thanks. I don't think people understand that Invictus has strong competition. They risk being left in the dust. Angel Shares will provide value to Protoshares because it will be the vehicle that accelerates development.
As far as I can see, though, it may be most important to be first to the DAB/P2P DAC -- I wonder if bytemaster has any ideas for getting to market faster, in that regard. Raising capital for the DAC's to follow would be easy if BitShare were released today.
If Bitshares were released today the program would crash. Now, Invictus has an amazing lineup of coders. However, these are very difficult programs to make. And what about security. If we want the most secure products out there, we really need more eyes on the problem. And that's what we're talking about. Waiting 5 years for each DAC or getting 2 or 3 out a year. I want the 2 0r 3 a year!
It does not take 2-3 years to release a DAC. It depends on how ambitious the DAC is of course. Bitshares could really take a few years with the giant feature set it is supposed to have but it doesn't have to take that long.
The case has been made that angel investment is critical to the success of the overall project. The question is how can we do it without upsetting or disrupting Protoshare holders. And if we are going for a buy your way in Proof of Stake strategy then what about the people who aren't investors? As long as the investment money circulates then it would work but right now we don't know what would happen because a detailed plan has not been laid out.
How much money is needed? How many programmers? Will there be giveaways and contests for everyone else so the money isn't given just to the chosen few?
Work out these issues and then a compromise solution can be reached where the social contract remains the same but everyone gets some win.
I'm with Que on this one. Miners efforts are wasted outside the system. Your paying expenses to your ulility company and amazon. If you really invested money for mining protoshares, I think that was ill-advised because there has numerous discussions here that Invictus was looking for a PoS-- which seeks to limit mining. Mining is wasteful. Its wasteful here. And really would miners promote a currency? I doubt it. That's a myth. Once miners get their coins, they would dump them on the market once they see a good opening. If you really want to get involved in PTS, but with mining its thats so important, then mine another currency, exchange it and get some PTS. Then convert those PTS to PTS 2.
And that is why you have to throw a bone to the people who did invest in rigs to mine not just Protoshares but the whole Proof of Momentum class which Invictus laid out as if it was the new paradigm. Now that half of all Protoshares are mined there is talk of lets move completely to Proof of Stake?
I'm all for promoting investment, but I don't think you can have a completely exclusive economy. In order for an ecosystem to work you do need to be a part of the wider economy. That means it isn't a bad thing to be giving money to utility companies, CPU companies or the wider IT community because then they have a stake in it indirectly. I also disagree with you that miners are just in it for the money. Everyone started as a miner and now we are acting like miners don't promote or market? How did you get involved if you didn't mine on day 1?
I think a hybrid approach would probably work best. Protoshares and Bitshares (if it is 21 million units) should be mined. It might even be possible to launch a mined version of a DAC and a PoS version to see which one the community prefers long term. But to switch mid stream from one to the other creates economic losers who did nothing wrong other than to try to support the ecosystem. Miners believed they were supporting the security of the network when they purchased the rigs and they also believed that they'd be able to mine with these rigs for Bitshares or at least some of the future DACs.
If the rigs are useless now it means those rigs have to be sold or paid for somehow which means dumping will occur once they figure out their rigs are now just useful as glorified computing devices. It disrupts the Nash equilibrium and the consequence is uncertainty and price fluctuations.
-
Well, it appears that the company is pivoting. I'm holding all my PTS and telling my friends to buy.
Now that I've slept on it. I think Protoshare holders should get what was promised in the social contract, which is 10%. Angel shares can then get the other 90%. The new investment will benefit Protoshare holders greatly because the money for Angel shares will fuel development and growth. We'd also be more competitive with Mastercoin and Ripple.
Completely agree - We need to raise capital to speed up operations
Thanks. I don't think people understand that Invictus has strong competition. They risk being left in the dust. Angel Shares will provide value to Protoshares because it will be the vehicle that accelerates development.
As far as I can see, though, it may be most important to be first to the DAB/P2P DAC -- I wonder if bytemaster has any ideas for getting to market faster, in that regard. Raising capital for the DAC's to follow would be easy if BitShare were released today.
If Bitshares were released today the program would crash. Now, Invictus has an amazing lineup of coders. However, these are very difficult programs to make. And what about security. If we want the most secure products out there, we really need more eyes on the problem. And that's what we're talking about. Waiting 5 years for each DAC or getting 2 or 3 out a year. I want the 2 0r 3 a year!
It does not take 2-3 years to release a DAC. It depends on how ambitious the DAC is of course. Bitshares could really take a few years with the giant feature set it is supposed to have but it doesn't have to take that long.
The case has been made that angel investment is critical to the success of the overall project. The question is how can we do it without upsetting or disrupting Protoshare holders. And if we are going for a buy your way in Proof of Stake strategy then what about the people who aren't investors? As long as the investment money circulates then it would work but right now we don't know what would happen because a detailed plan has not been laid out.
How much money is needed? How many programmers? Will there be giveaways and contests for everyone else so the money isn't given just to the chosen few?
Work out these issues and then a compromise solution can be reached where the social contract remains the same but everyone gets some win.
Mastercoin is getting million pumped into them. It's just really hard to see how Invictus can compete with that. Also, the social contract isn't being broken. Only the people who thought they'd be able to mine Bitshares are upset and they are hoping to get something for nothing. Things are moving so fast in this space that we can't wait 2 or 3 years. If we knew only two months ago what we know now, things would be crazy different. That's how fast things are moving--only 2 months. There's really no choice but to light a fire and charge ahead.
-
you ruined the PTS.price is going down.sucker
從我的 用 iPhone 發送
It should go down. Everyone should stop throwing their money at the electric company. Wait for Angel Shares to be released.
-
Well, it appears that the company is pivoting. I'm holding all my PTS and telling my friends to buy.
Now that I've slept on it. I think Protoshare holders should get what was promised in the social contract, which is 10%. Angel shares can then get the other 90%. The new investment will benefit Protoshare holders greatly because the money for Angel shares will fuel development and growth. We'd also be more competitive with Mastercoin and Ripple.
Completely agree - We need to raise capital to speed up operations
Thanks. I don't think people understand that Invictus has strong competition. They risk being left in the dust. Angel Shares will provide value to Protoshares because it will be the vehicle that accelerates development.
As far as I can see, though, it may be most important to be first to the DAB/P2P DAC -- I wonder if bytemaster has any ideas for getting to market faster, in that regard. Raising capital for the DAC's to follow would be easy if BitShare were released today.
If Bitshares were released today the program would crash. Now, Invictus has an amazing lineup of coders. However, these are very difficult programs to make. And what about security. If we want the most secure products out there, we really need more eyes on the problem. And that's what we're talking about. Waiting 5 years for each DAC or getting 2 or 3 out a year. I want the 2 0r 3 a year!
It does not take 2-3 years to release a DAC. It depends on how ambitious the DAC is of course. Bitshares could really take a few years with the giant feature set it is supposed to have but it doesn't have to take that long.
The case has been made that angel investment is critical to the success of the overall project. The question is how can we do it without upsetting or disrupting Protoshare holders. And if we are going for a buy your way in Proof of Stake strategy then what about the people who aren't investors? As long as the investment money circulates then it would work but right now we don't know what would happen because a detailed plan has not been laid out.
How much money is needed? How many programmers? Will there be giveaways and contests for everyone else so the money isn't given just to the chosen few?
Work out these issues and then a compromise solution can be reached where the social contract remains the same but everyone gets some win.
Mastercoin is getting million pumped into them. It's just really hard to see how Invictus can compete with that. Also, the social contract isn't being broken. Only the people who thought they'd be able to mine Bitshares are upset and they are hoping to get something for nothing. Things are moving so fast in this space that we can't wait 2 or 3 years. If we knew only two months ago what we know now, things would be crazy different. That's how fast things are moving--only 2 months. There's really no choice but to light a fire and charge ahead.
I'm involved with Mastercoin and Bitshares. The problem you have is you think that they are competitors when in reality they don't really compete with each other as much as they compete with Wall Street, the NASDAQ, Forex, Dow, banks and so on.
Mastercoin and Bitshares are in it together in the long term and this concern about how Mastercoin has raised millions of dollars is stupid. Let's say Mastercoin raises millions and they give a job or two to me and I earn some money which I go and use to buy Protoshares or become an angel investor. Do you see now how it works?
Let's say you work for Intel, or you make mining rigs for a living so in your day job you're selling rigs so people can mine Protoshares telling them that the price will go way up even if they mine at a loss. You used to just make computers, now you make mining rigs and market Protoshares. If mining is removed now you've lost all that potential income which you could have used to buy more Protoshares or invest as an angel investor.
This is not like corporations in the real world which have to compete because the law says they must profit. These are DACs which have the same agenda and where the primary opposition will be from regulatory strangulation and competition from the real world stock exchanges.
Money will come to Bitshares as it comes to Mastercoin and money will come to Mastercoin as it comes to Bitshares. Nothing stops Mastercoin from hosting PTS or PTS and trades for MSC to PTS.
-
I'm with Que on this one. Miners efforts are wasted outside the system. Your paying expenses to your ulility company and amazon. If you really invested money for mining protoshares, I think that was ill-advised because there has numerous discussions here that Invictus was looking for a PoS-- which seeks to limit mining. Mining is wasteful. Its wasteful here. And really would miners promote a currency? I doubt it. That's a myth. Once miners get their coins, they would dump them on the market once they see a good opening. If you really want to get involved in PTS, but with mining its thats so important, then mine another currency, exchange it and get some PTS. Then convert those PTS to PTS 2.
PTS 2 was just one idea. The other is to let ProtoShares run its course with the miners and have Angel shares, which would build on top of protoshares. ProtoShare holders would still get their 1 to 1 with BTS. And! Instead of 10% of Bitshares, you'd get around 50%. A terrific deal. And! Bitshares would only have around 2 million shares! So you would own much, much more than what was promised. Also, angel shares pump money into development which benefits protoshares greatly.
-
Well, it appears that the company is pivoting. I'm holding all my PTS and telling my friends to buy.
Now that I've slept on it. I think Protoshare holders should get what was promised in the social contract, which is 10%. Angel shares can then get the other 90%. The new investment will benefit Protoshare holders greatly because the money for Angel shares will fuel development and growth. We'd also be more competitive with Mastercoin and Ripple.
Completely agree - We need to raise capital to speed up operations
Thanks. I don't think people understand that Invictus has strong competition. They risk being left in the dust. Angel Shares will provide value to Protoshares because it will be the vehicle that accelerates development.
As far as I can see, though, it may be most important to be first to the DAB/P2P DAC -- I wonder if bytemaster has any ideas for getting to market faster, in that regard. Raising capital for the DAC's to follow would be easy if BitShare were released today.
Doing it right is more important than doing it fast. There is strong competition but there really is only Mastercoin and Coloredcoin. The marketcaps are so huge that there is plenty of marketshare for all three so I don't see what the rush is about.
6 months from now there will be another wave and Bitcoins will be going for $10,000-20,000 each. The crowd funding rules will also be more clear and we will know what role regulation will have.
Right now we don't even know what the regulatory environment will be. The DACs should be developed for sure and angel investment should occur. There is plenty of space to reserve in the DACs for angel investors without disrupting the Protoshares 10%. So I don't see the issue.
If you have more, become an angel investor. Why do we need angelshares?
I have several BTC that I was thinking of investing. I could buy PTS but that wouldn't actually help develop any DACs so it would be more like placing a bet on whether or not Invictus can pull it off with their current funds. If they run out of money PTS is worthless. Unless they manage to raise some capital I will have to sell the couple of PTS I have mined. Looks like PTS is screwed because the socialists will dump if they attempt to raise capital and capitalists will dump if they can't.
Is it possible for me to buy shares of Invictus? How do they profit? I understand the value proposition of the DACs, but I don't see how Invictus can profit from this whole effort. Why would I as an angel investor buy Invictus stock? The point is mute because only qualified investors can buy Invictus stock.
The insane thing is I read somewhere that they had to buy the PTS they have because the mining competition was so fierce. So it appears PTS has sucked capital out of Invictus. They had to buy PTS or else how could they possibly profit?
From where I sit, it looks like bytemaster attempted to play by the socially accepted norms and the result is very predictable. Socialists will clamor against capitalists and toss about accusations of envy and greed. Any attempt to accumulate capital to build a free society is poo-pooed. God help us all!
If they don't fix the capta problem I am gonna have to stop posting!
-
you ruined the PTS.price is going down.sucker
從我的 用 iPhone 發送
It should go down. Everyone should stop throwing their money at the electric company. Wait for Angel Shares to be released.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JYgQHzjIubs/TrFSPdfAAjI/AAAAAAAAKGE/_GhXl6S9xbE/s400/yeah-right-on.jpg)
No Captcha!!! Thank God!
-
Well, it appears that the company is pivoting. I'm holding all my PTS and telling my friends to buy.
Now that I've slept on it. I think Protoshare holders should get what was promised in the social contract, which is 10%. Angel shares can then get the other 90%. The new investment will benefit Protoshare holders greatly because the money for Angel shares will fuel development and growth. We'd also be more competitive with Mastercoin and Ripple.
Completely agree - We need to raise capital to speed up operations
Thanks. I don't think people understand that Invictus has strong competition. They risk being left in the dust. Angel Shares will provide value to Protoshares because it will be the vehicle that accelerates development.
As far as I can see, though, it may be most important to be first to the DAB/P2P DAC -- I wonder if bytemaster has any ideas for getting to market faster, in that regard. Raising capital for the DAC's to follow would be easy if BitShare were released today.
If Bitshares were released today the program would crash. Now, Invictus has an amazing lineup of coders. However, these are very difficult programs to make. And what about security. If we want the most secure products out there, we really need more eyes on the problem. And that's what we're talking about. Waiting 5 years for each DAC or getting 2 or 3 out a year. I want the 2 0r 3 a year!
It does not take 2-3 years to release a DAC. It depends on how ambitious the DAC is of course. Bitshares could really take a few years with the giant feature set it is supposed to have but it doesn't have to take that long.
The case has been made that angel investment is critical to the success of the overall project. The question is how can we do it without upsetting or disrupting Protoshare holders. And if we are going for a buy your way in Proof of Stake strategy then what about the people who aren't investors? As long as the investment money circulates then it would work but right now we don't know what would happen because a detailed plan has not been laid out.
How much money is needed? How many programmers? Will there be giveaways and contests for everyone else so the money isn't given just to the chosen few?
Work out these issues and then a compromise solution can be reached where the social contract remains the same but everyone gets some win.
Mastercoin is getting million pumped into them. It's just really hard to see how Invictus can compete with that. Also, the social contract isn't being broken. Only the people who thought they'd be able to mine Bitshares are upset and they are hoping to get something for nothing. Things are moving so fast in this space that we can't wait 2 or 3 years. If we knew only two months ago what we know now, things would be crazy different. That's how fast things are moving--only 2 months. There's really no choice but to light a fire and charge ahead.
I'm involved with Mastercoin and Bitshares. The problem you have is you think that they are competitors when in reality they don't really compete with each other as much as they compete with Wall Street, the NASDAQ, Forex, Dow, banks and so on.
Mastercoin and Bitshares are in it together in the long term and this concern about how Mastercoin has raised millions of dollars is stupid. Let's say Mastercoin raises millions and they give a job or two to me and I earn some money which I go and use to buy Protoshares or become an angel investor. Do you see now how it works?
Let's say you work for Intel, or you make mining rigs for a living so in your day job you're selling rigs so people can mine Protoshares telling them that the price will go way up even if they mine at a loss. You used to just make computers, now you make mining rigs and market Protoshares. If mining is removed now you've lost all that potential income which you could have used to buy more Protoshares or invest as an angel investor.
This is not like corporations in the real world which have to compete because the law says they must profit. These are DACs which have the same agenda and where the primary opposition will be from regulatory strangulation and competition from the real world stock exchanges.
Money will come to Bitshares as it comes to Mastercoin and money will come to Mastercoin as it comes to Bitshares. Nothing stops Mastercoin from hosting PTS or PTS and trades for MSC to PTS.
I see your point, but Mastercoin is open to change in any direction is wants. We don't know how competitive things might get. The way I see it, Invictus has the anonymity feature on it's side, but Mastercoin or someone else might suddenly solve that problem and then PTS is screwed. Don't you think the network effect is important?
-
Well, it appears that the company is pivoting. I'm holding all my PTS and telling my friends to buy.
Now that I've slept on it. I think Protoshare holders should get what was promised in the social contract, which is 10%. Angel shares can then get the other 90%. The new investment will benefit Protoshare holders greatly because the money for Angel shares will fuel development and growth. We'd also be more competitive with Mastercoin and Ripple.
Completely agree - We need to raise capital to speed up operations
Thanks. I don't think people understand that Invictus has strong competition. They risk being left in the dust. Angel Shares will provide value to Protoshares because it will be the vehicle that accelerates development.
As far as I can see, though, it may be most important to be first to the DAB/P2P DAC -- I wonder if bytemaster has any ideas for getting to market faster, in that regard. Raising capital for the DAC's to follow would be easy if BitShare were released today.
Doing it right is more important than doing it fast. There is strong competition but there really is only Mastercoin and Coloredcoin. The marketcaps are so huge that there is plenty of marketshare for all three so I don't see what the rush is about.
6 months from now there will be another wave and Bitcoins will be going for $10,000-20,000 each. The crowd funding rules will also be more clear and we will know what role regulation will have.
Right now we don't even know what the regulatory environment will be. The DACs should be developed for sure and angel investment should occur. There is plenty of space to reserve in the DACs for angel investors without disrupting the Protoshares 10%. So I don't see the issue.
If you have more, become an angel investor. Why do we need angelshares?
I have several BTC that I was thinking of investing. I could buy PTS but that wouldn't actually help develop any DACs so it would be more like placing a bet on whether or not Invictus can pull it off with their current funds. If they run out of money PTS is worthless. Unless they manage to raise some capital I will have to sell the couple of PTS I have mined. Looks like PTS is screwed because the socialists will dump if they attempt to raise capital and capitalists will dump if they can't.
Is it possible for me to buy shares of Invictus? How do they profit? I understand the value proposition of the DACs, but I don't see how Invictus can profit from this whole effort. Why would I as an angel investor buy Invictus stock? The point is mute because only qualified investors can buy Invictus stock.
The insane thing is I read somewhere that they had to buy the PTS they have because the mining competition was so fierce. So it appears PTS has sucked capital out of Invictus. They had to buy PTS or else how could they possibly profit?
From where I sit, it looks like bytemaster attempted to play by the socially accepted norms and the result is very predictable. Socialists will clamor against capitalists and toss about accusations of envy and greed. Any attempt to accumulate capital to build a free society is poo-pooed. God help us all!
If they don't fix the capta problem I am gonna have to stop posting!
I want to be an angel investor too but you have to look at the entire economic ecosystem. Changing the social contract disrupts the delicate Nash equillibrium and it's proven by the dumping and price drop.
The reason this is happening is the people who got involved decided on their profit strategy early on and these changes require them to make changes to their profit strategy.
So for instance if someone was selling Protoshare mining rigs that they build to order then the fact that future DACs will not be mined just put them and every business like theirs out of business. They were promoting Protoshares and even built a business around it and this change would put them out of business. Then you have people who bought the rigs already who would lose money as well because now their ROI isn't guaranteed and finally you have removed mining which removes an entire strategic sector from the economy and haven't replaced it with another sector which makes sense.
Yes being an angel investor is nice and all but where is the money supposed to come from if you lose your job making mining rigs or if you're not paid to work for the CPU maker, the utility or solar panel company, or even Digital Ocean and Amazon? We assume that employees are companies such as these do not know about Protoshares and do not own them? What if they do?
So we should not say mining is a waste. It might not be the most efficient way of doing things but you still have to recognize that if these changes are made there could be losers and those losers aren't going to be happy that their profit strategy was removed.
This is why I said the contests, giveaways and other mechanisms should be in place. You cannot just take away the mining sector and then ask for investment. Where is the investment money supposed to be coming from? Of course if you provide jobs, or if they do bounties for Mastercoin then it might come from there but then you have to stop looking at Mastercoin as a competitor and instead look at it as a contributor to the ecosystem and those millions can circulate into Protoshares with the right marketing.
Finally we have to accept the fact that most people have day jobs. A lot of people here work for the utility company, or make and sell solar panels, or build computers. Not everyone is a programmer and when you remove an entire mining industry you actually end up with the result of people being laid off from their real jobs or perhaps they just lose a great deal of revenue.
Solar panels have to be sold because it's a critical strategic component. Electricity is not a big deal because when it is expensive it encourages people to upgrade to renewable energy like solar. Those upgrades create jobs for people like us who can then invest in stuff like Protoshares, Bitshares or whatever. So unless we are all going to be programmers we have to try to invite the wider economy into the community and to do that we have to be buying stuff from them whether it be computer parts, solar panels, products, services or whatever but at the same time we need investment to develop the DACs which represent the future.
If we look at the situation with ASICs the problem is that the power is too concentrated into the hands of mining pools and it's centralized. So I understand the dangers of PoW and I don't think it is a long term solution. But I don't blame the small miners for that.
-
Your greed is pushing you to try to combine two things. You want to move to proof-of-stake mining because you learned it is more practical for DACs. The problem is you are now trying to change the social contract for ProtoShares to increase the ownership that you felt you missed out on. In the process, you are undermining all PTS value to investors and encouraging centralization of power. In just one evening I've gone from one of your biggest supporters to thinking I want out entirely. I recall how you gleefully told another investor how their departure means cheaper shares for you, so don't bother. Your primary concern was obvious then, and I should have trusted my instincts. I'll review further before making such a rash decision.
First of all I thing this was just a idea that Bytemaster proposed and by no means a final decision, in fact he clearly stated and the name of the topic is : Feedback Request. Ultimately I thing everybody wants the project to succeed. So before accusing Bytmaster of greed or else. There are some obvious things that are not right and bytemaster is trying to solve. The bootents and the chinese super computer. Those guys they don't give a shit about protoshare they are in short term for the money, and if we let them be, they gonna take the big part of every pie that they can get there hands on, be it DAC, Bitshare or else. Don't get me wrong we all hopping to make some money of course but at least we are trying to do something about it like arguing in this forum, or trying already to build a DAC like WETube for example. Botnets , for them, all this is just money out of thin air nothing more.
What Invictus proposed is something that potentially could change the cryptoworld or even the way we do business as we know it. In order to succeed the project needs programmers, needs marketing, needs people to believe and be involved, for all of that the project needs money the more the better.
Now let's not forget that Invictus said, if need be, there will be a Protoshare 2.0, so it is not breach of contract IF Protoshare 2.0 will be forked IF is solving obvious problems and this with the consensus of everybody and in a way that is still very interesting for new investors. I mean I'm not saying that we should change everything but this project it is very young still, so if there are thing to be fixed this is the time to do it of course we need sound reasons and be completely transparent about it.
So should be a good ideea to find a better way to address those needs instead of accusing or even worst threatening to dump protoshares, anyhow those that are dumping right know they are in for short term so they may as well do whatever and get the hell out of this project we don't need them.
-
Well, it appears that the company is pivoting. I'm holding all my PTS and telling my friends to buy.
Now that I've slept on it. I think Protoshare holders should get what was promised in the social contract, which is 10%. Angel shares can then get the other 90%. The new investment will benefit Protoshare holders greatly because the money for Angel shares will fuel development and growth. We'd also be more competitive with Mastercoin and Ripple.
Completely agree - We need to raise capital to speed up operations
Thanks. I don't think people understand that Invictus has strong competition. They risk being left in the dust. Angel Shares will provide value to Protoshares because it will be the vehicle that accelerates development.
As far as I can see, though, it may be most important to be first to the DAB/P2P DAC -- I wonder if bytemaster has any ideas for getting to market faster, in that regard. Raising capital for the DAC's to follow would be easy if BitShare were released today.
If Bitshares were released today the program would crash. Now, Invictus has an amazing lineup of coders. However, these are very difficult programs to make. And what about security. If we want the most secure products out there, we really need more eyes on the problem. And that's what we're talking about. Waiting 5 years for each DAC or getting 2 or 3 out a year. I want the 2 0r 3 a year!
It does not take 2-3 years to release a DAC. It depends on how ambitious the DAC is of course. Bitshares could really take a few years with the giant feature set it is supposed to have but it doesn't have to take that long.
The case has been made that angel investment is critical to the success of the overall project. The question is how can we do it without upsetting or disrupting Protoshare holders. And if we are going for a buy your way in Proof of Stake strategy then what about the people who aren't investors? As long as the investment money circulates then it would work but right now we don't know what would happen because a detailed plan has not been laid out.
How much money is needed? How many programmers? Will there be giveaways and contests for everyone else so the money isn't given just to the chosen few?
Work out these issues and then a compromise solution can be reached where the social contract remains the same but everyone gets some win.
Mastercoin is getting million pumped into them. It's just really hard to see how Invictus can compete with that. Also, the social contract isn't being broken. Only the people who thought they'd be able to mine Bitshares are upset and they are hoping to get something for nothing. Things are moving so fast in this space that we can't wait 2 or 3 years. If we knew only two months ago what we know now, things would be crazy different. That's how fast things are moving--only 2 months. There's really no choice but to light a fire and charge ahead.
I'm involved with Mastercoin and Bitshares. The problem you have is you think that they are competitors when in reality they don't really compete with each other as much as they compete with Wall Street, the NASDAQ, Forex, Dow, banks and so on.
Mastercoin and Bitshares are in it together in the long term and this concern about how Mastercoin has raised millions of dollars is stupid. Let's say Mastercoin raises millions and they give a job or two to me and I earn some money which I go and use to buy Protoshares or become an angel investor. Do you see now how it works?
Let's say you work for Intel, or you make mining rigs for a living so in your day job you're selling rigs so people can mine Protoshares telling them that the price will go way up even if they mine at a loss. You used to just make computers, now you make mining rigs and market Protoshares. If mining is removed now you've lost all that potential income which you could have used to buy more Protoshares or invest as an angel investor.
This is not like corporations in the real world which have to compete because the law says they must profit. These are DACs which have the same agenda and where the primary opposition will be from regulatory strangulation and competition from the real world stock exchanges.
Money will come to Bitshares as it comes to Mastercoin and money will come to Mastercoin as it comes to Bitshares. Nothing stops Mastercoin from hosting PTS or PTS and trades for MSC to PTS.
I see your point, but Mastercoin is open to change in any direction is wants. We don't know how competitive things might get. The way I see it, Invictus has the anonymity feature on it's side, but Mastercoin or someone else might suddenly solve that problem and then PTS is screwed. Don't you think the network effect is important?
I think there is room for more than 3 choices for a decentralized stock market, currency exchange, derivatives market, etc. The idea that only one can dominate when the market cap of Forex is in the trillions? I don't think it will make a difference if all 3 were successful and in fact I think its better if there are more choices.
That is why I'm involved with Mastercoin and Bitshares. Together they will grow the economy much faster than if one dominates. This is like Mozilla, Internet Explorer, Opera and Chrome. Right now we are worried that it's still in the Netscape and Internet Explorer phase?
-
Your greed is pushing you to try to combine two things. You want to move to proof-of-stake mining because you learned it is more practical for DACs. The problem is you are now trying to change the social contract for ProtoShares to increase the ownership that you felt you missed out on. In the process, you are undermining all PTS value to investors and encouraging centralization of power. In just one evening I've gone from one of your biggest supporters to thinking I want out entirely. I recall how you gleefully told another investor how their departure means cheaper shares for you, so don't bother. Your primary concern was obvious then, and I should have trusted my instincts. I'll review further before making such a rash decision.
First of all I thing this was just a idea that Bytemaster proposed and by no means a final decision, in fact he clearly stated and the name of the topic is : Feedback Request. Ultimately I thing everybody wants the project to succeed. So before accusing Bytmaster of greed or else. There are some obvious things that are not right and bytemaster is trying to solve. The bootents and the chinese super computer. Those guys they don't give a shit about protoshare they are in short term for the money, and if we let them be, they gonna take the big part of every pie that they can get there hands on, be it DAC, Bitshare or else. Don't get me wrong we all hopping to make some money of course but at least we are trying to do something about it like arguing in this forum, or trying already to build a DAC like WETube for example. Botnets , for them, all this is just money out of thin air nothing more.
What Invictus proposed is something that potentially could change the cryptoworld or even the way we do business as we know it. In order to succeed the project needs programmers, needs marketing, needs people to believe and be involved, for all of that the project needs money the more the better.
Now let's not forget that Invictus said, if need be, there will be a Protoshare 2.0, so it is not breach of contract IF Protoshare 2.0 will be forked IF is solving obvious problems and this with the consensus of everybody and in a way that is still very interesting for new investors. I mean I'm not saying that we should change everything but this project it is very young still, so if there are thing to be fixed this is the time to do it of course we need sound reasons and be completely transparent about it.
So should be a good ideea to find a better way to address those needs instead of accusing or even worst threatening to dump protoshares, anyhow those that are dumping right know they are in for short term so they may as well do whatever and get the hell out of this project we don't need them.
This is excellent. Earlier bytemaster said there was someone willing to leave their 150k job to work on the Bitshares project. I want that guy on my team. I'm not heartless, I care about the guy who was making a PTS miner, but that was only ever good for 2 million PTS. It's not a very sustainable business. Getting high class programers is very good idea.
-
Your greed is pushing you to try to combine two things. You want to move to proof-of-stake mining because you learned it is more practical for DACs. The problem is you are now trying to change the social contract for ProtoShares to increase the ownership that you felt you missed out on. In the process, you are undermining all PTS value to investors and encouraging centralization of power. In just one evening I've gone from one of your biggest supporters to thinking I want out entirely. I recall how you gleefully told another investor how their departure means cheaper shares for you, so don't bother. Your primary concern was obvious then, and I should have trusted my instincts. I'll review further before making such a rash decision.
First of all I thing this was just a idea that Bytemaster proposed and by no means a final decision, in fact he clearly stated and the name of the topic is : Feedback Request. Ultimately I thing everybody wants the project to succeed. So before accusing Bytmaster of greed or else. There are some obvious things that are not right and bytemaster is trying to solve. The bootents and the chinese super computer. Those guys they don't give a shit about protoshare they are in short term for the money, and if we let them be, they gonna take the big part of every pie that they can get there hands on, be it DAC, Bitshare or else. Don't get me wrong we all hopping to make some money of course but at least we are trying to do something about it like arguing in this forum, or trying already to build a DAC like WETube for example. Botnets , for them, all this is just money out of thin air nothing more.
What Invictus proposed is something that potentially could change the cryptoworld or even the way we do business as we know it. In order to succeed the project needs programmers, needs marketing, needs people to believe and be involved, for all of that the project needs money the more the better.
Now let's not forget that Invictus said, if need be, there will be a Protoshare 2.0, so it is not breach of contract IF Protoshare 2.0 will be forked IF is solving obvious problems and this with the consensus of everybody and in a way that is still very interesting for new investors. I mean I'm not saying that we should change everything but this project it is very young still, so if there are thing to be fixed this is the time to do it of course we need sound reasons and be completely transparent about it.
So should be a good ideea to find a better way to address those needs instead of accusing or even worst threatening to dump protoshares, anyhow those that are dumping right know they are in for short term so they may as well do whatever and get the hell out of this project we don't need them.
This is excellent. Earlier bytemaster said there was someone willing to leave their 150k job to work on the Bitshares project. I want that guy on my team. I'm not heartless, I care about the guy who was making a PTS miner, but that was only ever good for 2 million PTS. It's not a very sustainable business. Getting high class programers is very good idea.
Important to get the numbers right. Bytemaster proposed 100k new shares sold per week, which at current prices would be about 2 million USD per week in revenue. That's a LOT of developers.
-
The money I've made just over the past year from people dumping... I'll buy a bunch of PTS when the exchanges come back on.
Your here in the first place because Bytemaster had controversial ideas. Note that this idea comes more from the fatal centralization and algorithmic issues in Proof-of-Work than raising money. This is pretty hard to convince anyone unless they have read and understand the Bitcoin whitepaper, or had a coin they had significant value in die because of a network attack.
Here is my suggestion:
15% stake in Protoshares V2 which is a hybrid Proof-of-Work/Proof-of-Stake. This honors the original social contact to the community and the miners, plus a bonus. Also shorten the re-target time, and perhaps use the new version of momentum. Protoshares can laugh as botnets start to have a bad day, miners will be happy as they don't get squeezed. Current investors can now earn "dividends" even before the BitShares release. Also makes us resistant to 51% attacks.
Bytemaster can up with a next gen Proof-of-Stake system, so I'm talking with the creator of Proof-of-Stake to see what he says. I think the 5+ crypto-currencies will proof-of-stake will implement it. Its that good. It's kind of funny that everything we come up with here has major implications on the entire cryptocurrency world.
15% sake in AngelShares. Why do we need AngelShares? Simple if want a talented C++ developer making an average of $89,280(2011), we need to at least match that to get he/she to drop what they are doing. Byte estimated that around $1 million is currently being spend on mining right now. Unless you have a rig(I do), I'd much rather those funds to go development than Amazon EC2. So if we were to make similar numbers on AngelShares we could pretty much double the company overnight.
tldr; Hybrid Proof-of-Stake/Proof-of-Work is probably good for everyone. AngleShares good because it speeds things up.
tldr2; Will offer 1 PTS if someone can find a fatal flaw in my argument.
Note that hybrid will take much more time. I say we keep Protoshares as it is, then release the upgraded Protoshares after we get Keyotee out.
-
Think about the investor who had a limited amount of money and resources to invest in Protoshares because he believed in the social contract and the vision for the future. Now that investor has tapped out his resources both mining and buying PTS. He's made a financial calculation contributing a certain amount of limited resources for a certain percentage of shares. Now what you're saying is that the percentage of equity that he has acquired will be much smaller than in the original social contract.
For those who are still in the process of acquiring PTS or who have vast resources to buy more PTS or to buy/mine more Angel Shares I can see where they might see the advantage. For those who believed in the vision from the beginning, did the math, devised their investment strategy, and tapped out their remaining resources to fulfill it, your proposal leaves us with A. a devalued share as more shares are being created that in the contract B. no more resources to buy this new share. I expect now to see PTS value plummet as the community's trust in Invictus to keep its word(which is what PTS value represents) is perhaps irreparably tarnished. Perhaps well intentioned, but huge mistake.
-
The money I've made just over the past year from people dumping... I'll buy a bunch of PTS when the exchanges come back on.
Your here in the first place because Bytemaster had controversial ideas. Note that this idea comes more from the fatal centralization and algorithmic issues in Proof-of-Work than raising money. This is pretty hard to convince anyone unless they have read and understand the Bitcoin whitepaper, or had a coin they had significant value in die because of a network attack.
Here is my suggestion:
15% stake in Protoshares V2 which is a hybrid Proof-of-Work/Proof-of-Stake. This honors the original social contact to the community and the miners, plus a bonus. Also shorten the re-target time, and perhaps use the new version of momentum. Protoshares can laugh as botnets start to have a bad day, miners will be happy as they don't get squeezed. Current investors can now earn "dividends" even before the BitShares release. Also makes us resistant to 51% attacks.
Bytemaster can up with a next gen Proof-of-Stake system, so I'm talking with the creator of Proof-of-Stake to see what he says. I think the 5+ crypto-currencies will proof-of-stake will implement it. Its that good. It's kind of funny that everything we come up with here has major implications on the entire cryptocurrency world.
15% sake in AngelShares. Why do we need AngelShares? Simple if want a talented C++ developer making an average of $89,280(2011), we need to at least match that to get he/she to drop what they are doing. Byte estimated that around $1 million is currently being spend on mining right now. Unless you have a rig(I do), I'd much rather those funds to go development than Amazon EC2. So if we were to make similar numbers on AngelShares we could pretty much double the company overnight.
tldr; Hybrid Proof-of-Stake/Proof-of-Work is probably good for everyone. AngleShares good because it speeds things up.
tldr2; Will offer 1 PTS if someone can find a fatal flaw in my argument.
Note that hybrid will take much more time. I say we keep Protoshares as it is, then release the upgraded Protoshares after we get Keyotee out.
Wow, that the proof of stake idea was that good, I had no idea.
-
The money I've made just over the past year from people dumping... I'll buy a bunch of PTS when the exchanges come back on.
Your here in the first place because Bytemaster had controversial ideas. Note that this idea comes more from the fatal centralization and algorithmic issues in Proof-of-Work than raising money. This is pretty hard to convince anyone unless they have read and understand the Bitcoin whitepaper, or had a coin they had significant value in die because of a network attack.
Here is my suggestion:
15% stake in Protoshares V2 which is a hybrid Proof-of-Work/Proof-of-Stake. This honors the original social contact to the community and the miners, plus a bonus. Also shorten the re-target time, and perhaps use the new version of momentum. Protoshares can laugh as botnets start to have a bad day, miners will be happy as they don't get squeezed. Current investors can now earn "dividends" even before the BitShares release. Also makes us resistant to 51% attacks.
I appreciate the suggestion and I support this because it does seem to allow everyone to get a win.
Bytemaster can up with a next gen Proof-of-Stake system, so I'm talking with the creator of Proof-of-Stake to see what he says. I think the 5+ crypto-currencies will proof-of-stake will implement it. Its that good. It's kind of funny that everything we come up with here has major implications on the entire cryptocurrency world.
I agree with the new Proof of Stake system its just a matter of when to implement it.
15% sake in AngelShares. Why do we need AngelShares? Simple if want a talented C++ developer making an average of $89,280(2011), we need to at least match that to get he/she to drop what they are doing. Byte estimated that around $1 million is currently being spend on mining right now. Unless you have a rig(I do), I'd much rather those funds to go development than Amazon EC2. So if we were to make similar numbers on AngelShares we could pretty much double the company overnight.
But who controls the allocation of the funds? It's a good idea but implementing it will not be easy.
How much does a programmer cost? I think programmers can take a pay cut from $89,280 a year. They should be paid $5000 a month in my opinion. Funds definitely need to be made available and not just for programmers. They should also be able to get paid in PTS/BTS in my opinion to compensate for lower than market salary, it seems to have worked for Mastercoin developers.
tldr; Hybrid Proof-of-Stake/Proof-of-Work is probably good for everyone. AngleShares good because it speeds things up.
tldr2; Will offer 1 PTS if someone can find a fatal flaw in my argument.
Note that hybrid will take much more time. I say we keep Protoshares as it is, then release the upgraded Protoshares after we get Keyotee out.
I actually agree with the hybrid approach.
-
I'm with Que on this one. Miners efforts are wasted outside the system. Your paying expenses to your ulility company and amazon. If you really invested money for mining protoshares, I think that was ill-advised because there has numerous discussions here that Invictus was looking for a PoS-- which seeks to limit mining. Mining is wasteful. Its wasteful here. And really would miners promote a currency? I doubt it. That's a myth. Once miners get their coins, they would dump them on the market once they see a good opening. If you really want to get involved in PTS, but with mining its thats so important, then mine another currency, exchange it and get some PTS. Then convert those PTS to PTS 2.
Miner's effort is not wasted, it's a necessary evil to secure the network; this subject has been debated on the bitcoin forums many times, repeating the debate here won't yield any meaningful result. I consider myself environmental-conscious and recycle whenever I can, but the energy spent on cryptocurrency mining is really miniscule when you comparing it with a lot of other human activities, the benefit is far outweigh the cost.
Also, I don't see Amazon, DO, electricity companies are taking advantage of PTS, like it or not, they are an integrated part of the PTS ecosystem.
If PoS is so superior, you'd think PPC has by now overtaken LTC or even BTC, but that's not the case.
-
@luckybit, I'm sure there will be a very rich bounty program available. There is a lot of work to be done. Wikis and FAQs and how to guides. More graphics and videos....
-
It is obvious that PTS must be mined as planned and must represent at least 10% of the total money supply in BitShares. Bytemaster has conceded this point.
Bytemaster said his friends and family purchased PTS... do you think he would intentionally do anything that would devalue those PTS? He also said his plan was to maximize PTS value which would make since considering Invictus is heavily invested in PTS. So I don't see him devaluing PTS intentionally.
The problem is that most people lack knowledge of how shares of company stock work.
Post-money valuation is the value of a company after an investment has been made. This value is equal to the sum of the pre-money valuation and the amount of new equity.[1]
External investors, such as venture capitalists and angel investors, will use a pre-money valuation to determine how much equity to demand in return for their cash injection to an entrepreneur and his/her startup company. The implied post-money valuation is calculated as the dollar amount of investment divided by the equity stake gained in an investment.
New equity is issued by diluting existing equity but the post-money valuation of the original holders usually increases as a result of the capital infusion even though their percentage ownership has decreased.
So right now there is $500K backing 1.2 million PTS. If Invictus were to raise $20M over 10 weeks by substituting a new form of mining then there would be $20.5M backing 2.2 million PTS2. It seems to me that this would dramatically increase the value of existing PTS.
So you all need to stop looking at the PTS supply side of the equation and look at the fact that this is a capital infusion that greatly favors PTS holders at the expense of those greedy angels who are only asking for 50% in exchange for 20M.
-
@luckybit, I'm sure there will be a very rich bounty program available. There is a lot of work to be done. Wikis and FAQs and how to guides. More graphics and videos....
For marketing purposes Bytemaster would have an easier time promoting these ideas if he offered it up as "We will have lots of bounties, contests, and jobs for everyone if we get additional investment". Unfortunately it wasn't presented like that so the community didn't get behind it but perhaps there is a chance to present both the investment opportunities to the community as well as the opportunity to work for DACs and get credited for it through Keyhotee.
That is how Dacoinminster was so successful. He got us all involved in contests and the contests originally paid Bitcoin but eventually Mastercoins too.
So perhaps also pay workers in their choice of DAC currency and it can work. Like if you want to be paid in Bitshares or in Protoshares or whatever instead of $ or some combination of both. That would be great and I'd support it.
It is obvious that PTS must be mined as planned and must represent at least 10% of the total money supply in BitShares. Bytemaster has conceded this point.
Bytemaster said his friends and family purchased PTS... do you think he would intentionally do anything that would devalue those PTS? He also said his plan was to maximize PTS value which would make since considering Invictus is heavily invested in PTS. So I don't see him devaluing PTS intentionally.
The problem is that most people lack knowledge of how shares of company stock work.
Post-money valuation is the value of a company after an investment has been made. This value is equal to the sum of the pre-money valuation and the amount of new equity.[1]
External investors, such as venture capitalists and angel investors, will use a pre-money valuation to determine how much equity to demand in return for their cash injection to an entrepreneur and his/her startup company. The implied post-money valuation is calculated as the dollar amount of investment divided by the equity stake gained in an investment.
New equity is issued by diluting existing equity but the post-money valuation of the original holders usually increases as a result of the capital infusion even though their percentage ownership has decreased.
So right now there is $500K backing 1.2 million PTS. If Invictus were to raise $20M over 10 weeks by substituting a new form of mining then there would be $20.5M backing 2.2 million PTS2. It seems to me that this would dramatically increase the value of existing PTS.
So you all need to stop looking at the PTS supply side of the equation and look at the fact that this is a capital infusion that greatly favors PTS holders at the expense of those greedy angels who are only asking for 50% in exchange for 20M.
But the benefit of mining it and not treating it like shares in company stock is precisely because of the regulatory burdens which go along with it. If Invictus Innovations offered stock I'm sure people would buy stock in them but that would involve law enforcement and the SEC.
Also it's not about the short term value of PTS. It's about "A deal is a deal" and "honor the social contract as it was agreed upon" and of course trying to compromise so that everyone gets some win.
I think there are some ideas now on how to compromise so every side can win. Let's not try to attribute or treat PTS like a "stock" or apply any of the existing paradigm to the new paradigm. PTS is a new paradigm and there is nothing to compare it to in the stock market so lets not try comparing it to that and stick to comparing it to Bitcoin, Mastercoin and the other similar asset classes.
-
The money I've made just over the past year from people dumping... I'll buy a bunch of PTS when the exchanges come back on.
Your here in the first place because Bytemaster had controversial ideas. Note that this idea comes more from the fatal centralization and algorithmic issues in Proof-of-Work than raising money. This is pretty hard to convince anyone unless they have read and understand the Bitcoin whitepaper, or had a coin they had significant value in die because of a network attack.
Here is my suggestion:
15% stake in Protoshares V2 which is a hybrid Proof-of-Work/Proof-of-Stake. This honors the original social contact to the community and the miners, plus a bonus. Also shorten the re-target time, and perhaps use the new version of momentum. Protoshares can laugh as botnets start to have a bad day, miners will be happy as they don't get squeezed. Current investors can now earn "dividends" even before the BitShares release. Also makes us resistant to 51% attacks.
Bytemaster can up with a next gen Proof-of-Stake system, so I'm talking with the creator of Proof-of-Stake to see what he says. I think the 5+ crypto-currencies will proof-of-stake will implement it. Its that good. It's kind of funny that everything we come up with here has major implications on the entire cryptocurrency world.
15% sake in AngelShares. Why do we need AngelShares? Simple if want a talented C++ developer making an average of $89,280(2011), we need to at least match that to get he/she to drop what they are doing. Byte estimated that around $1 million is currently being spend on mining right now. Unless you have a rig(I do), I'd much rather those funds to go development than Amazon EC2. So if we were to make similar numbers on AngelShares we could pretty much double the company overnight.
tldr; Hybrid Proof-of-Stake/Proof-of-Work is probably good for everyone. AngleShares good because it speeds things up.
tldr2; Will offer 1 PTS if someone can find a fatal flaw in my argument.
Note that hybrid will take much more time. I say we keep Protoshares as it is, then release the upgraded Protoshares after we get Keyotee out.
+1 this really good !!! but like luckybit said who controls the allocation of the funds?
-
Why would we think an upgraded version of momentum wouldn't be minable by cloud or botnets? Has any actual innovation been made, I must have missed it
-
Why would we think an upgraded version of momentum wouldn't be minable by cloud or botnets? Has any actual innovation been made, I must have missed it
It's all explained on another thread.
-
Link?
-
Link?
Sorry, didn't you read the white paper the put out a couple of weeks ago. http://the-iland.net/static/downloads/TransactionsAsProofOfStake.pdf
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1138.0
-
off-topic...but this thread is heated. sometimes its good to remember why we are all here...
And we all know why...but sometimes we need a reminder. Hope this finds you all well. I'm holding and buying, because I believe in this community. F not believing...the only time to not believe is when people stop caring. Obviously, that is not the case.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uf8Fwiy0Bkc
Peace and Love to all you guys. You have become a family to me.
-
Well this escalated quickly....i'll read the 7 new pages when I get home but I can only assume this idea is dead in the water now
-
off-topic...but this thread is heated. sometimes its good to remember why we are all here...
And we all know why...but sometimes we need a reminder. Hope this finds you all well. I'm holding and buying, because I believe in this community. F not believing...the only time to not believe is when people stop caring. Obviously, that is not the case.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uf8Fwiy0Bkc
Peace and Love to all you guys. You have become a family to me.
Thanks fuznuts. Text always make the things we say look harsh. The PTS community has a lot of really smart people involved so I don't see this turning into a name calling thing anytime soon. It's good to challenge each others positions. Happy Holidays!
-
Well this escalated quickly....i'll read the 7 new pages when I get home but I can only assume this idea is dead in the water now
I don't know what deal you're talking about. There are several ideas on the table. And things aren't that heated. I'm having fun.
-
off-topic...but this thread is heated. sometimes its good to remember why we are all here...
And we all know why...but sometimes we need a reminder. Hope this finds you all well. I'm holding and buying, because I believe in this community. F not believing...the only time to not believe is when people stop caring. Obviously, that is not the case.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uf8Fwiy0Bkc
Peace and Love to all you guys. You have become a family to me.
Thanks fuznuts, I agree that things have become heated, but everyone seems to be staying relatively sane. Merry Christmas to you all, and a happy new year!
-
Well this escalated quickly....i'll read the 7 new pages when I get home but I can only assume this idea is dead in the water now
I don't know what deal you're talking about. There are several ideas on the table. And things aren't that heated. I'm having fun.
Bytemasters initial proposal
Where did I say things were heated?
-
Why would we think an upgraded version of momentum wouldn't be minable by cloud or botnets? Has any actual innovation been made, I must have missed it
Lets see what Invictus has proposed:
Decentralized Mining - The Future of BitShares Mining
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=905.msg9065#msg9065
Attempted to decentralize pools with lottery mining that makes mining for profit a non-starter and attempts to encourage solo mining.
Momentum 2.0
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=962.msg9752#msg9752
Attempts to fix Momentum 1.0 which had problems with GPU miners gaining a 3x advantage. MemoryCoin borrowed some of these ideas.
Decentralized Autonomous Countries
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1396.msg14762#msg14762
Points out all of the flaws of mining and the implicit centralization. Even PTS is centralized in 3 pools right now, 1 of which may even have over 51%. Anyone committed to decentralization would have to drop mining based upon this alone. Anyone clamoring for mining must be selfish and not looking at the big picture that a little profit today will end up controlled at the end of the day. Those that don't want the rich to buy it up seem to ignore that mining does not prevent the rich, but helps them cement control.
Transactions as Proof-of-Stake & the End of Mining
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1138.msg11955#msg11955
Introduces a new system of proof-of-stake that bytemaster claims is more secure than mining.
From where I sit this looks like a ton of innovative ideas and real attempts to encourage decentralization and favor the little guy; a true commitment to decentralization above all else.
This guy is like Ron Paul, good ideas, uncompromising, but terrible at delivery. If you want him to be able to hire people to make up for his flaws then he will need money.
I think Lighthouse may have something workable.
10% for PTS
10% for Angels
80% Undefined???
What happens to the 80% when they launch BitShares?
-
Link?
Sorry, didn't you read the white paper the put out a couple of weeks ago. http://the-iland.net/static/downloads/TransactionsAsProofOfStake.pdf
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1138.0
I've read lots and lots of whitepapers including this one.
I don't have the technical background to know if it's an awesome idea. Super3 says people are excited about it and others are looking into implementing it. But I think the heart of the issue is that miners are employees of the DAC. But, it's now not known if the DAC should be wasting resources on them, who are in turn handing their money to the electric company. Invictus wants to redirect those resources to speed up development, create more sites explaining and promoting bitshares and get higher quality videos and presentations and everything else we need to grow.
-
Why would we think an upgraded version of momentum wouldn't be minable by cloud or botnets? Has any actual innovation been made, I must have missed it
Lets see what Invictus has proposed:
Decentralized Mining - The Future of BitShares Mining
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=905.msg9065#msg9065
Attempted to decentralize pools with lottery mining that makes mining for profit a non-starter and attempts to encourage solo mining.
Momentum 2.0
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=962.msg9752#msg9752
Attempts to fix Momentum 1.0 which had problems with GPU miners gaining a 3x advantage. MemoryCoin borrowed some of these ideas.
Decentralized Autonomous Countries
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1396.msg14762#msg14762
Points out all of the flaws of mining and the implicit centralization. Even PTS is centralized in 3 pools right now, 1 of which may even have over 51%. Anyone committed to decentralization would have to drop mining based upon this alone. Anyone clamoring for mining must be selfish and not looking at the big picture that a little profit today will end up controlled at the end of the day. Those that don't want the rich to buy it up seem to ignore that mining does not prevent the rich, but helps them cement control.
Transactions as Proof-of-Stake & the End of Mining
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1138.msg11955#msg11955
Introduces a new system of proof-of-stake that bytemaster claims is more secure than mining.
From where I sit this looks like a ton of innovative ideas and real attempts to encourage decentralization and favor the little guy; a true commitment to decentralization above all else.
This guy is like Ron Paul, good ideas, uncompromising, but terrible at delivery. If you want him to be able to hire people to make up for his flaws then he will need money.
I think Lighthouse may have something workable.
10% for PTS
10% for Angels
80% Undefined???
What happens to the 80% when they launch BitShares?
tldr; Momentum 2.0 was released today in MemoryCoin v2. So basically its ready to go now.
By the way if you have Protoshares you can import you wallet for MemoryCoin right now.
-
I'm watching this thread... keep up the great discussion and I hope we can find something that works for everyone.
-
tldr; Momentum 2.0 was released today in MemoryCoin v2. So basically its ready to go now.
By the way if you have Protoshares you can import you wallet for MemoryCoin right now.
Actually, it isn't fair to call it Momentum 2.0 because it doesn't use the algorithm I specified. It borrows ideas from Momentum 2.0 (such as AES) but does not use population count or collisions how I specified.
-
Why would we think an upgraded version of momentum wouldn't be minable by cloud or botnets? Has any actual innovation been made, I must have missed it
Lets see what Invictus has proposed:
Decentralized Mining - The Future of BitShares Mining
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=905.msg9065#msg9065
Attempted to decentralize pools with lottery mining that makes mining for profit a non-starter and attempts to encourage solo mining.
Momentum 2.0
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=962.msg9752#msg9752
Attempts to fix Momentum 1.0 which had problems with GPU miners gaining a 3x advantage. MemoryCoin borrowed some of these ideas.
Decentralized Autonomous Countries
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1396.msg14762#msg14762
Points out all of the flaws of mining and the implicit centralization. Even PTS is centralized in 3 pools right now, 1 of which may even have over 51%. Anyone committed to decentralization would have to drop mining based upon this alone. Anyone clamoring for mining must be selfish and not looking at the big picture that a little profit today will end up controlled at the end of the day. Those that don't want the rich to buy it up seem to ignore that mining does not prevent the rich, but helps them cement control.
Transactions as Proof-of-Stake & the End of Mining
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1138.msg11955#msg11955
Introduces a new system of proof-of-stake that bytemaster claims is more secure than mining.
From where I sit this looks like a ton of innovative ideas and real attempts to encourage decentralization and favor the little guy; a true commitment to decentralization above all else.
This guy is like Ron Paul, good ideas, uncompromising, but terrible at delivery. If you want him to be able to hire people to make up for his flaws then he will need money.
I think Lighthouse may have something workable.
10% for PTS
10% for Angels
80% Undefined???
What happens to the 80% when they launch BitShares?
tldr; Momentum 2.0 was released today in MemoryCoin v2. So basically its ready to go now.
By the way if you have Protoshares you can import you wallet for MemoryCoin right now.
Wow, this is game changing news! I wish you were here like 13 pages ago.
-
Great job on the self sabotage bytemaster, now back to < 0.01 we go.
-
Why would we think an upgraded version of momentum wouldn't be minable by cloud or botnets? Has any actual innovation been made, I must have missed it
I think Lighthouse may have something workable.
10% for PTS
10% for Angels
80% Undefined???
What happens to the 80% when they launch BitShares?
The social contract is for 10% of all future DACs. If they suddenly said it was 5%. Then there would be a mutiny. However, they actually offered us a lot more. A lot, lot more. I think it's strange to say we want you to dilute our shares by giving away 80% more shares. How would that help the project?
-
Crash the price.that's what u want.Good job,bytemaster!You made it!
-
Great job on the self sabotage bytemaster, now back to < 0.01 we go.
Yep... but you know what, these short term price movements do not reflect long term value for those who understand what this is about.
-
Crash the price.that's what u want.Good job,bytemaster!You made it!
If we took the original proposal, PTS should go up 10x the current price. Also, Invictus doesn't benefit from protoshares. And it's debatable if it's worked to bring in the talent the project needs to grow. People are willing to work, but they need money.
-
I would encourage the creation of PTS 2.0 (Angelcoins) that would be another 10% of Bitshares's 21 million, so 20% of total Bitshares would be claimed at the beginning through these two rounds of "venture".
THESE you could use in the way you want, where you let people invest weekly and they get a % of the Angelshares proportional to their Bitcoin or Protoshares contribution (and you should probably accept protoshares at a premium relative to Bitcoins)
2.1 million would be 21 months @ 100k Angelcoins per month - The deal stays the same with Protosharesholders, you get to raise a shitload of money to finance multiple DACs at once and try your new mechanism.
Most importantly, you haven't committed to what you'll do with the other 80%, so when you really solve the problem and have the RIGHT idea you won't have tied yourself down like you're trying to do with this 100% to PTS holders nonsense.
Who besides me would support this?
I'm right with you, Lighthouse.
Bytemaster, I can donate 5% of all my PTS to you if you really need it.
-
Crash the price.that's what u want.Good job,bytemaster!You made it!
If we took the original proposal, PTS should go up 10x the current price. Also, Invictus doesn't benefit from protoshares. And it's debatable if it's worked to bring in the talent the project needs to grow. People are willing to work, but they need money.
If they can raise capital and increase PTS stake of BitShares hell yeah it should go up. I am torn between buying these cheap prices or just waiting for AngelShares and getting them even cheaper while everyone else figures this out.
-
I would encourage the creation of PTS 2.0 (Angelcoins) that would be another 10% of Bitshares's 21 million, so 20% of total Bitshares would be claimed at the beginning through these two rounds of "venture".
THESE you could use in the way you want, where you let people invest weekly and they get a % of the Angelshares proportional to their Bitcoin or Protoshares contribution (and you should probably accept protoshares at a premium relative to Bitcoins)
2.1 million would be 21 months @ 100k Angelcoins per month - The deal stays the same with Protosharesholders, you get to raise a shitload of money to finance multiple DACs at once and try your new mechanism.
Most importantly, you haven't committed to what you'll do with the other 80%, so when you really solve the problem and have the RIGHT idea you won't have tied yourself down like you're trying to do with this 100% to PTS holders nonsense.
Who besides me would support this?
I'm right with you, Lighthouse.
Bytemaster, I can donate 5% of all my PTS to you if you really need it.
I just want to make sure I understand your position. What you really want is to be able to mine Bitshares. That's the other 80%?
-
I just want to make sure everyone is on the same page. There will be no windfall mining of Bitshares. They have been actively working to prevent any unfair mining for all future DACs. There has been a lot of talk about this on other threads. If you think you know a way to defeat their new system, then you should tell them, so they can fix it.
-
I just want to make sure everyone is on the same page. There will be no windfall mining of Bitshares. They have been actively working to prevent any unfair mining for all future DACs. There has been a lot of talk about this on other threads. If you think you know a way to defeat their new system, then you should tell them, so they can fix it.
Nobody cares about mining, we care about the social contract being changed in any way whether good or bad. Change is the enemy, the social contract must not be violated or it sets a precedent that Invictus can change the rules of the handshake deal whenever they want. Do you want that?
Once a blockchain is released, the social contract that surrounds it needs to be treated like an immutable object. Static, out of reach even of the best intentioned. For examples of why this is better than letting a benevolent caretaker organization address events as the arise, see: Federal Reserve, et al.
-
I would encourage the creation of PTS 2.0 (Angelcoins) that would be another 10% of Bitshares's 21 million, so 20% of total Bitshares would be claimed at the beginning through these two rounds of "venture".
THESE you could use in the way you want, where you let people invest weekly and they get a % of the Angelshares proportional to their Bitcoin or Protoshares contribution (and you should probably accept protoshares at a premium relative to Bitcoins)
2.1 million would be 21 months @ 100k Angelcoins per month - The deal stays the same with Protosharesholders, you get to raise a shitload of money to finance multiple DACs at once and try your new mechanism.
Most importantly, you haven't committed to what you'll do with the other 80%, so when you really solve the problem and have the RIGHT idea you won't have tied yourself down like you're trying to do with this 100% to PTS holders nonsense.
Who besides me would support this?
I'm right with you, Lighthouse.
Bytemaster, I can donate 5% of all my PTS to you if you really need it.
Thanks wngdng77, I would gladly accept such a donation and would apply it to your Keyhotee ID. However, this is not a charity case.... and wngdng77 should receive compensation for his support of the project in the form of increased equity. Please hold your donation until we see if Lighthouse's plan will work for everyone.
-
I just want to make sure everyone is on the same page. There will be no windfall mining of Bitshares. They have been actively working to prevent any unfair mining for all future DACs. There has been a lot of talk about this on other threads. If you think you know a way to defeat their new system, then you should tell them, so they can fix it.
Nobody cares about mining, we care about the social contract being changed in any way whether good or bad. Change is the enemy, the social contract must not be violated or it sets a precedent that Invictus can change the rules of the handshake deal whenever they want. Do you want that?
Once a blockchain is released, the social contract that surrounds it needs to be treated like an immutable object. Static, out of reach even of the best intentioned. For examples of why this is better than letting a benevolent caretaker organization address events as the arise, see: Federal Reserve, et al.
So how does Angel Shares hurt the contract? It improves it. The original angel proposal would give PTS holders 50% stake in Bitshares! And we would still get 10% if not more with future DACs.
-
Link?
Sorry, didn't you read the white paper the put out a couple of weeks ago. http://the-iland.net/static/downloads/TransactionsAsProofOfStake.pdf
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1138.0
I've read lots and lots of whitepapers including this one.
I don't have the technical background to know if it's an awesome idea. Super3 says people are excited about it and others are looking into implementing it. But I think the heart of the issue is that miners are employees of the DAC. But, it's now not known if the DAC should be wasting resources on them, who are in turn handing their money to the electric company. Invictus wants to redirect those resources to speed up development, create more sites explaining and promoting bitshares and get higher quality videos and presentations and everything else we need to grow.
If you were a part time miner who worked for the electric company you would think differently. Miners were part of the original social contract. A hybrid approach is the only acceptable compromise. If you go with the hybrid approach miners are not left out of the equation but their impact will be gradually diminished over time which gives the economic ecosystem time to adjust.
I think Super3's plan is the plan I endorse as it's the most fair. We should transition to the transaction based Proof of Stake but it should be tested in a hybrid model and Bitshares provides the opportunity to test it. In addition I think the 10% 10% 80% leaving 80% unaccounted for is senseless. Why keep the 80% if its just going to dilute the 20%? If the mining is supposed to be something we transition away from what is the 80% for if not for miners?
Super3 said 15% for PTS, 10% for angel shares and then that is still only 35%. You still have 75% to use for hybrid mining but if there will be no mining.
Everyone is happy and everyone gets a win.
-
If Angel Shares started in Jan. and Bitshares came out in March, then that's like 10 weeks times 100,000 shares, plus the PTS shares that are out now.... Does that mean Bitshares will only have somewhere over 2,000,000 shares period? If so, wouldn't that mean the current price of PTS are undervalued?
Exactly
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
I wanted to repost this. If you believe in the service that Bitshares will provide is extremely valuable. You should be jumping up and down right now.
-
Yes, at the expense of people who haven't yet gotten into Bitshares. We go from having 90% being distributed via mining which is perceived to be free and available to anyone (because we keep talking about how CPU minable Momentum is) to Invictus selling 50% into the market.
Of course thats a better deal for existing holders of Protoshares, but the deal is already plenty good for them. This will make it seem like the people who are already in are voting themselves a better deal, or being bribed. Either one is a bad outcome, the deal is plenty good already - The focus should be on raising the funds required and maximizing the equitable distribution of Bitshares through non-monetary means.
Thats a fancy way of saying take the part we like about mining (that anybody can do it, in theory, and be rewarded) and do it with something other than mining. I've already proposed educational games that reward with it, contests, sponsoring DAC specific media with it, lots of ways you can spread it around the ecosystem without just selling it. Be a little creative, because going from 90% will be mined to 50% will be sold looks very bad and that's unfortunate because it doesn't have to be.
-
Crash the price.that's what u want.Good job,bytemaster!You made it!
If we took the original proposal, PTS should go up 10x the current price. Also, Invictus doesn't benefit from protoshares. And it's debatable if it's worked to bring in the talent the project needs to grow. People are willing to work, but they need money.
Expand the economy. Don't take money from miners to pay programmers. That is the only problem I had with the original proposal. I think Super3 and I have outlined that you have to throw a bone to miners. The hybrid proposal allows for that and you can also reduce the amount of Bitshares if there will be a lot less need to mine them due to Proof of Stake.
Honestly no one has made the case why having 21 million Bitshares is necessary if it does not take 10 years of mining. So how many Bitshares is necessary? As much as can be mined between when mining starts and when mining is phased out to be replaced by Proof of Stake. This way you still have some mining and you give miners a chance to transition without removing mining entirely. Also the shares they do mine will be much more scarce so they'd win there as well.
So for that reason cut 21 million to something reasonable like 4-5 million and then go with hybrid Proof of Work Proof of Stake where Proof of Work is slowly phased out. Everyone wins. The main area we'd need consensus on is the cut off point.
Super3 could also give more detail on his plan, does it include a cut off? Is it 21 million Bitshares in the hybrid model and how many would go for Proof of Work or Proof of Stake etc?
-
Yes, at the expense of people who haven't yet gotten into Bitshares. We go from having 90% being distributed via mining which is perceived to be free and available to anyone (because we keep talking about how CPU minable Momentum is) to Invictus selling 50% into the market.
Of course thats a better deal for existing holders of Protoshares, but the deal is already plenty good for them. This will make it seem like the people who are already in are voting themselves a better deal, or being bribed. Either one is a bad outcome, the deal is plenty good already - The focus should be on raising the funds required and maximizing the equitable distribution of Bitshares through non-monetary means.
Thats a fancy way of saying take the part we like about mining (that anybody can do it, in theory, and be rewarded) and do it with something other than mining. I've already proposed educational games that reward with it, contests, sponsoring DAC specific media with it, lots of ways you can spread it around the ecosystem without just selling it. Be a little creative, because going from 90% will be mined to 50% will be sold looks very bad and that's unfortunate because it doesn't have to be.
Yes, you do make a lot of sense. Thank you for explaining your position.
So, Bitcoin has this same problem where people are outraged that people who got in early made money. This is a little silly if Bitcoin is viewed as a corporation. Who would be outraged if a company made money. Generally people are use to companies making money. Altcoins have a currecy-like, commodity-like and share-like property to them. So people are confused about how they should think about them. But I think we should see Bitshares as a service and as a business. When people buy bitshares to use the bitshares service they will be doing so to use the service, not in hopes that bitshares will triple in price. Letting them mine Bitshares for nothing is a type of bribery too.
-
Yes, at the expense of people who haven't yet gotten into Bitshares. We go from having 90% being distributed via mining which is perceived to be free and available to anyone (because we keep talking about how CPU minable Momentum is) to Invictus selling 50% into the market.
It's not going to be 90% if you want the angel investing built in. So even you admit it has to be 80% or less if you have to give 10% to angel investors.
If you go with a hybrid model you can still set aside some shares to be mined so that miners don't lose but they don't need 80% because miners aren't necessary to secure the network. Since transactions would secure the network you have 10%-15% for PTS, 10% for angels, that is only 35%. You still have 75% for miners and for Proof of Stake.
Lets look at the numbers.
2 million is the original amount for PTS. Let's say it's made into 2.5 million. Let's say 1.5 million for Angels. You still have 2 million for Proof of Work & Proof of Stake.
Or you could say 2 million for PTS as in the idea you proposed and 2 million for angels. Now you add 1 million for Proof of Work and 1 million for Proof of Stake for a total of 6 million Bitshares. Everyone wins.
Of course thats a better deal for existing holders of Protoshares, but the deal is already plenty good for them. This will make it seem like the people who are already in are voting themselves a better deal, or being bribed.
Not at all. Everyone must feel like they are winning or you cannot make a deal.
But even if PTS holders are given nothing at all (which I don't recommend from a deal making perspective), it's still 2 million, 2 million, 2 million for a total of 6 million. 21 million just isn't necessary.
Either one is a bad outcome, the deal is plenty good already - The focus should be on raising the funds required and maximizing the equitable distribution of Bitshares through non-monetary means.
Okay, so what is wrong with 2, 2, 2. That is even for everyone involved.
PTS get no additional benefits but since there are less Bitshares in total now the value of their shares are worth more. Miners are less necessary but those who do mine will be mining something more scarce so their Bitshares will be worth more now even if they mine less of them. Angel investors will now be able to invest and build it all up.
As far as I can see everyone wins.
Thats a fancy way of saying take the part we like about mining (that anybody can do it, in theory, and be rewarded) and do it with something other than mining. I've already proposed educational games that reward with it, contests, sponsoring DAC specific media with it, lots of ways you can spread it around the ecosystem without just selling it. Be a little creative, because going from 90% will be mined to 50% will be sold looks very bad and that's unfortunate because it doesn't have to be.
I don't agree with them selling it either. I never agreed with 50% will be sold. My favorite plan is 2.5 for PTS, 1.5 for Angel investors, and 2 for the hybrid Proof of Work Proof of Stake mining.
Honestly though if it were 2 PTS, 2.5 Angels, and 1.5 for the hybrid Proof of Work and Proof of Stake mining that would be just as favorable in my opinion.
But the idea of 2, 2, and then 17 is ridiculous. PTS holders should get at least 2 million Bitshares no matter what. Angels can get between 1.5 and 2.5 million Bitshares. Hybrid Proof of Work Proof of Stake should get between 1.5 and 2 million Bitshares.
That is fair.
-
Crash the price.that's what u want.Good job,bytemaster!You made it!
If we took the original proposal, PTS should go up 10x the current price. Also, Invictus doesn't benefit from protoshares. And it's debatable if it's worked to bring in the talent the project needs to grow. People are willing to work, but they need money.
Expand the economy. Don't take money from miners to pay programmers. That is the only problem I had with the original proposal. I think Super3 and I have outlined that you have to throw a bone to miners. The hybrid proposal allows for that and you can also reduce the amount of Bitshares if there will be a lot less need to mine them due to Proof of Stake.
Honestly no one has made the case why having 21 million Bitshares is necessary if it does not take 10 years of mining. So how many Bitshares is necessary? As much as can be mined between when mining starts and when mining is phased out to be replaced by Proof of Stake. This way you still have some mining and you give miners a chance to transition without removing mining entirely. Also the shares they do mine will be much more scarce so they'd win there as well.
So for that reason cut 21 million to something reasonable like 4-5 million and then go with hybrid Proof of Work Proof of Stake where Proof of Work is slowly phased out. Everyone wins. The main area we'd need consensus on is the cut off point.
Super3 could also give more detail on his plan, does it include a cut off? Is it 21 million Bitshares in the hybrid model and how many would go for Proof of Work or Proof of Stake etc?
I think one of the options we could decide on is to let protoshares run its course and start angel shares in January. That was the only deal miners could count on anyway. Invictus has always been conspiring to cut mining for profit out. In fact, you weren't suppose to be able to mine protoshares for profit either.
-
Crash the price.that's what u want.Good job,bytemaster!You made it!
If we took the original proposal, PTS should go up 10x the current price. Also, Invictus doesn't benefit from protoshares. And it's debatable if it's worked to bring in the talent the project needs to grow. People are willing to work, but they need money.
Expand the economy. Don't take money from miners to pay programmers. That is the only problem I had with the original proposal. I think Super3 and I have outlined that you have to throw a bone to miners. The hybrid proposal allows for that and you can also reduce the amount of Bitshares if there will be a lot less need to mine them due to Proof of Stake.
Honestly no one has made the case why having 21 million Bitshares is necessary if it does not take 10 years of mining. So how many Bitshares is necessary? As much as can be mined between when mining starts and when mining is phased out to be replaced by Proof of Stake. This way you still have some mining and you give miners a chance to transition without removing mining entirely. Also the shares they do mine will be much more scarce so they'd win there as well.
So for that reason cut 21 million to something reasonable like 4-5 million and then go with hybrid Proof of Work Proof of Stake where Proof of Work is slowly phased out. Everyone wins. The main area we'd need consensus on is the cut off point.
Super3 could also give more detail on his plan, does it include a cut off? Is it 21 million Bitshares in the hybrid model and how many would go for Proof of Work or Proof of Stake etc?
I think one of the options we could decide on is to let protoshares run its course and start angel shares in January. That was the only deal miners could count on anyway. Invictus has always been conspiring to cut mining for profit out. In fact, you weren't suppose to be able to mine protoshares for profit either.
I'm not defending the miners who mine for profit and then day trade. I'm defending miners who are mining at a loss and who are holding with the expectation that this DAC idea and Bitshares will be a success. They built rigs or set up businesses around the mining industry and are mining and I suppose you could say for some people it might be profitable but not really. The real profit will only come for them if they talk and hype the value of their Protoshares up which is why I say miners can be used as viral marketers and undercover grassroots marketing.
There are some people who mined from the beginning who only have maybe 100-200 Protoshares. They mined at a loss and now they want the Protoshares to be worth as much as possible. They'll be the biggest advocates because they are the shareholders with the most to lose.
The botnets suck and I agree with you that they leech off the economy. The mining pool centralization sucks and is a threat to the security of the network. We need to solve those two problems without hurting the miners who actually have small amounts and who could not afford to get Protoshares by buying it. Now they have Protoshares and should be treated with respect for the time investment they made setting up rigs, building rigs, selling rigs and paying electricity.
The best transition is to go with the hybrid model and slowly phase out mining. Bitshares could be a hybrid, you throw a bone to the miners of 1 million Bitshares to Proof of Work and then the other 1 million to Proof of Stake. This will allow miners to get the last chance to mine and get as many Bitshares from it as possible while the infrastructure is set up to begin the marketing contests funded by angel investors.
Without Keyhotee you don't even have a way to credit people who are successful working for a DAC marketing the idea. So put Keyhotee out first and develop a crediting and reputation system before phasing out mining entirely. Otherwise all this talk about promises of contests, bounties and jobs for everyone is just empty when you don't have funding of infrastructure in place.
-
Crash the price.that's what u want.Good job,bytemaster!You made it!
If we took the original proposal, PTS should go up 10x the current price. Also, Invictus doesn't benefit from protoshares. And it's debatable if it's worked to bring in the talent the project needs to grow. People are willing to work, but they need money.
Expand the economy. Don't take money from miners to pay programmers. That is the only problem I had with the original proposal. I think Super3 and I have outlined that you have to throw a bone to miners. The hybrid proposal allows for that and you can also reduce the amount of Bitshares if there will be a lot less need to mine them due to Proof of Stake.
Honestly no one has made the case why having 21 million Bitshares is necessary if it does not take 10 years of mining. So how many Bitshares is necessary? As much as can be mined between when mining starts and when mining is phased out to be replaced by Proof of Stake. This way you still have some mining and you give miners a chance to transition without removing mining entirely. Also the shares they do mine will be much more scarce so they'd win there as well.
So for that reason cut 21 million to something reasonable like 4-5 million and then go with hybrid Proof of Work Proof of Stake where Proof of Work is slowly phased out. Everyone wins. The main area we'd need consensus on is the cut off point.
Super3 could also give more detail on his plan, does it include a cut off? Is it 21 million Bitshares in the hybrid model and how many would go for Proof of Work or Proof of Stake etc?
I think one of the options we could decide on is to let protoshares run its course and start angel shares in January. That was the only deal miners could count on anyway. Invictus has always been conspiring to cut mining for profit out. In fact, you weren't suppose to be able to mine protoshares for profit either.
I'm not defending the miners who mine for profit and then day trade. I'm defending miners who are mining at a loss and who are holding with the expectation that this DAC idea and Bitshares will be a success. They built rigs or set up businesses around the mining industry and are mining and I suppose you could say for some people it might be profitable but not really. The real profit will only come for them if they talk and hype the value of their Protoshares up which is why I say miners can be used as viral marketers and undercover grassroots marketing.
There are some people who mined from the beginning who only have maybe 100-200 Protoshares. They mined at a loss and now they want the Protoshares to be worth as much as possible. They'll be the biggest advocates because they are the shareholders with the most to lose.
The botnets suck and I agree with you that they leech off the economy. The mining pool centralization sucks and is a threat to the security of the network. We need to solve those two problems without hurting the miners who actually have small amounts and who could not afford to get Protoshares by buying it. Now they have Protoshares and should be treated with respect for the time investment they made setting up rigs, building rigs, selling rigs and paying electricity.
The best transition is to go with the hybrid model and slowly phase out mining. Bitshares could be a hybrid, you throw a bone to the miners of 1 million Bitshares to Proof of Work and then the other 1 million to Proof of Stake. This will allow miners to get the last chance to mine and get as many Bitshares from it as possible while the infrastructure is set up to begin the marketing contests funded by angel investors.
Without Keyhotee you don't even have a way to credit people who are successful working for a DAC marketing the idea. So put Keyhotee out first and develop a crediting and reputation system before phasing out mining entirely.
I think we are really close to being on the same page. But proof of work is dead. There will be no hybrid model. Bitshares will work off proof of stake with no need for mining more shares. But not to worry. What we could do is let people continue to mine protoshares. Angel shares would add on top of that but only about another 1 million by the Bitshare release date. Then when Bitshares is released in Q1, PTS holders will have about 50% of the shares in Bitshares making protoshares hugely profitable. You can continue to mine protoshares and get an even bigger stake in the next DAC release. Now, by that time there will be more angel shares, but not 21 million. And if you can, you can grab a piece of the angel share action too.
-
Ok guys... this thread has gotten a bit out of hand and most people have not been able to read the whole thing. I am going to lock it and create a new thread to discuss potential options. Great discussion everyone, these are not easy topics.
To summarize: PTS will not be changed in any way and will be honored as is for 10% in all Invictus chains.