BitShares Forum
Other => Graveyard => BitShares PTS => Topic started by: Lighthouse on December 15, 2013, 09:10:15 pm
-
Ok, so there's been a conversation going on about how to fund the creation of future DACs as there are far more opportunities than funds. I believe the proposal put forward by Bytemaster to have 100% of Bitshares represented by angelshares and protoshares is a non-starter because it means that all coins that will potentially be created will be owned only by people able to contribute in Bitcoin, when the perception of PTS currently (as a "CPU MINABLE COIN" is that you don't need to do that. I believe even if the vast majority of mining being performed by participants on the network is done by botnets or cloud miners, the initial marketing of Protoshares makes it untenable to change the social contract in any way that is not optional on a investor by investor basis.
With that in mind, I think we all recognize the value of having sufficient funds devoted to the creation of DACs and I for one have no problem putting my money where my mouth is.
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".
Instead of the validated mining plan that turns Invictus into a central point of failure, Invictus should set up weekly or monthly "Exodus Addresses" and replicate Mastercoin, people send BTC or PTS to "Angel" addresses and at the end of that round whatever the allocation is, is divided evenly between the people who sent value on a proportional basis. These funds should be clearly labeled with regard to how each % will be spent.
The exodus address would be transparent, so if people see that not many have invested they will want to invest becaues they will get more value for their value. Invictus controls the address, but each distribution basically results in a large block that issues shares to all investors in the last round. If I were you I would accept both Bitcoin and PTS in these angel rounds, and accept PTS at a premium to Bitcoin.
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. The miners still working on PTS get to keep working, and you don't have to do anything.
Most importantly, Invictus hasn't committed to what they'll do with the other 80%, so when they really solve the problem and have the RIGHT idea their won't have tied yourself down.
What do you think?
-
It was pointed out in the other thread that Bitshares is supposed to be out sooner than in 21 months, I think it is still appropriate to target this number of months because things don't always go to plan and as a startup you want to have "a long runway" so that even if it takes a few extra months you can not need to raise funds in a time of weakness where you might be compelled to take a bad deal because you have few options.
I believe Invictus should be able to essentially presell another 10% of Bitshares to fund its creation, but I disagree with them taking more than 25% in this way. If that was the dicision that was to be made, they needed to do it before the first set of promises were made.
-
Keeping PTS "1.0" as they are is necessary and good. Even if mining doesn't pay at current rates / difficulty, but no one knows where PTS will be in 2014.
As for Angelshares/coins I'm not sure how they could be evenly/fair divided. Angelshares without mining would mean already rich people will get even richer by being able to invest more BTC into Angelshares right from the beginning. By mining poorer people would be able to get a good amount of "coins" while difficulty is low. - If Invictus wants to avoid mining they should think about mechanisms to give poorer investors a chance of getting lots of Angel"coins" by being fast/early/whatever. Just being rich shouldn't give anybody such a huge advantage at the start of a new "investment round".
-
I am not so sure about the whole 'exodus address' concept. Sounds to much like 'Mastercoin' to me. Drop a BTC and get 10X returns in two weeks at no other price than a mouse click. The point of mining in this regard is that it serves as a tool to make a somewhat even distribution of wealth possible based on the effort and time people are willing to put into something, as opposed to a system where capital the only motor.
Invictus did a very good job at that. They put Protoshares in the market and it required nothing else than time invested. Mastercoin* in my opionion is a school example of the deranged capitalist paradigm in which only the rich get richer; the exact same paradigm that sparked my interest in crypto in the first place. On a sidenote: Memorycoin 2.0 launched a couple of hours ago and is already struggling with god knows how many hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of rented servers thrown at it.
*where as the name already made me vomit the part where the devs spoke of a 'group of Chinese investors' expressing interest made me want to eat my vomit and regurgitate.
-
I am not so sure about the whole 'exodus address' concept. Sounds to much like 'Mastercoin' to me. Drop a BTC and get 10X returns in two weeks at no other price than a mouse click. The point of mining in this regard is that it serves as a tool to make a somewhat even distribution of wealth possible based on the effort and time people are willing to put into something, as opposed to a system where capital the only motor.
Invictus did a very good job at that. They put Protoshares in the market and it required nothing else than time invested. Mastercoin* in my opionion is a school example of the deranged capitalist paradigm in which only the rich get richer; the exact same paradigm that sparked my interest in crypto in the first place. On a sidenote: Memorycoin 2.0 launched a couple of hours ago and is already struggling with god knows how many hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of rented servers thrown at it.
*where as the name already made me vomit the part where the devs spoke of a 'group of Chinese investors' expressing interest made me want to eat my vomit and regurgitate.
(http://proudtobeafilthyliberalscum.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/limbaugh-atlas-shrugged-thumb1.jpg)
-
I'm not sure if I understand what's being discussed. Did I miss something from bytemaster? Does he want to create a PTS2.0 or something?
-
I'm not sure if I understand what's being discussed. Did I miss something from bytemaster? Does he want to create a PTS2.0 or something?
Yes, although he has walked back from the idea now
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1397.0
-
Also, to the guys at Invictus - If you have investors who have a large amount they want to invest with you, and they want to do it over multiple weekly investment periods you can offer to take all their funds up front and invest them proportionally over any number of weeks for a small fee as a convenience.
-
Keeping PTS "1.0" as they are is necessary and good. Even if mining doesn't pay at current rates / difficulty, but no one knows where PTS will be in 2014.
As for Angelshares/coins I'm not sure how they could be evenly/fair divided. Angelshares without mining would mean already rich people will get even richer by being able to invest more BTC into Angelshares right from the beginning. By mining poorer people would be able to get a good amount of "coins" while difficulty is low. - If Invictus wants to avoid mining they should think about mechanisms to give poorer investors a chance of getting lots of Angel"coins" by being fast/early/whatever. Just being rich shouldn't give anybody such a huge advantage at the start of a new "investment round".
Well yes with Angelshares people that are rich will get even richer, but at least the founds coming from them we'll be used in developing new DAC's and everybody that it is putting money in, they will want that all Invictus project succeed as opposed with protoshared where most of the powerful once(bot nets, supercomputer)they don't give a shit about the long term or the project.
Rich people will get even richer it is happening right now with protoshare rich people could buy a lot more protoshares so they are getting richer without much benefit for the Invictus community.
Not sure there is a way to geting around "rich people will get even richer" and in some way we need reach people to be involved I guess.
-
Keeping PTS "1.0" as they are is necessary and good. Even if mining doesn't pay at current rates / difficulty, but no one knows where PTS will be in 2014.
As for Angelshares/coins I'm not sure how they could be evenly/fair divided. Angelshares without mining would mean already rich people will get even richer by being able to invest more BTC into Angelshares right from the beginning. By mining poorer people would be able to get a good amount of "coins" while difficulty is low. - If Invictus wants to avoid mining they should think about mechanisms to give poorer investors a chance of getting lots of Angel"coins" by being fast/early/whatever. Just being rich shouldn't give anybody such a huge advantage at the start of a new "investment round".
Well yes with Angelshares people that are reach will get even richer, but at list the founds coming from them we'll be used in developing new DAC's and everybody that it is putting money in, they will want that all Invictus project succeed as opposed with protoshared where most of the powerful once(bot nets, supercomputer)they don't give a shit about the long term or the project.
Rich people will get even richer it is happening right now with protoshare rich people could buy a lot more protoshares so they are getting richer without much benefit for the Invictus community.
Not sure there is a way to geting around "rich people will get even richer" and in some way we need reach people to be involved I guess.
Ultimately rich investors will fund these companys one way or another, and frankly that's better than true venture capital. I have no problem with Invictus raising funds through something like Angelshares to allow individuals to give them development funds without having to sell equity in the Invictus company itself, that makes a ton of sense to me.
So don't turn it into an anti-rich thing, it's an anti-stupid thing. We need to be inclusive of everyone, not only the rich to the exclusion of everyone else but not only anyone else to the exclusion of the "rich" either.
-
I really liked Luckybit's suggestion of capping bitshares at 6 million and offering 2 million to Protoshares owners, 2 million to Angel share investors to fund Invictus, and 2 million for hybrid mining. It's a fair way of going about distribution, honors the social contract, and allows for equal opportunity distribution for everyone.
Is there anyone who is specifically against this?
-
I really liked Luckybit's suggestion of capping bitshares at 6 million and offering 2 million to Protoshares owners, 2 million to Angel share investors to fund Invictus, and 2 million for hybrid mining. It's a fair way of going about distribution, honors the social contract, and allows for equal opportunity distribution for everyone.
Is there anyone who is specifically against this?
While I do not like the precedent of changing the numerical distribution, I don't have a specific problem with this proposal as it fulfills all the needs.
-
I still don't see any need for having miners in the future. If Invictus is moving towards a more Mastercoin like approach, then you have to work for BTC and Angel Shares by doing the bounties, a real service that will benefit the DACs. After PTS, which will always get 10%, there is no more use for mining.
-
I still don't see any need for having miners in the future. If Invictus is moving towards a more Mastercoin like approach, then you have to work for BTC and Angel Shares by doing the bounties, a real service that will benefit the DACs. After PTS, which will always get 10%, there is no more use for mining.
You could just as easily replace mining with educational giveaways and I'd be happy. The point is a non-monetary way to get invested in the success of the project.
-
I still don't see any need for having miners in the future. If Invictus is moving towards a more Mastercoin like approach, then you have to work for BTC and Angel Shares by doing the bounties, a real service that will benefit the DACs. After PTS, which will always get 10%, there is no more use for mining.
You could just as easily replace mining with educational giveaways and I'd be happy. The point is a non-monetary way to get invested in the success of the project.
How about a pool that people could contribute to, to support educational activities. We could throw a coding contest for middle schoolers. But giving shares away without shareholder consent is a little iffy. I don't have all that many skills either. And I'm not loaded. My only hope now is that we can bring in some real money to grow the project which will greatly benefit my investment and the development of DACs.
-
I still don't see any need for having miners in the future. If Invictus is moving towards a more Mastercoin like approach, then you have to work for BTC and Angel Shares by doing the bounties, a real service that will benefit the DACs. After PTS, which will always get 10%, there is no more use for mining.
You could just as easily replace mining with educational giveaways and I'd be happy. The point is a non-monetary way to get invested in the success of the project.
How about a pool that people could contribute to, to support educational activities. We could throw a coding contest for middle schoolers. But giving shares away without shareholder consent is a little iffy. I don't have all that many skills either. And I'm not loaded. My only hope now is that we can bring in some real money to grow the project which will greatly benefit my investment and the development of DACs.
If "giving something away for nothing is iffy" than why was the plan to let 90% of Bitshares be mined using a CPU bias algorithm that favored people who used their normal hardware?
That was the expectation, so to deviate from that is to violate it.
-
I still don't see any need for having miners in the future. If Invictus is moving towards a more Mastercoin like approach, then you have to work for BTC and Angel Shares by doing the bounties, a real service that will benefit the DACs. After PTS, which will always get 10%, there is no more use for mining.
You could just as easily replace mining with educational giveaways and I'd be happy. The point is a non-monetary way to get invested in the success of the project.
Educational giveaways would be difficult to agree on collectively among the members of the community as to who would deserve more coins and to who.
Also with that, mining provides equal opportunity for everyone. Transactions need to be secured and mining provides a method for doing this. Lucky's idea provides 1.) Fulfillment of the PTS social contract 2.) Funds Invictus 3.) Provides an incentive for new people without their own large pool of money to participate in Bitshares.
In my opinion it's the best option out there, but as of right now I am extremely against 90% of the bitshares being distributed to "Angel Investors" that pay off Invictus.
-
I still don't see any need for having miners in the future. If Invictus is moving towards a more Mastercoin like approach, then you have to work for BTC and Angel Shares by doing the bounties, a real service that will benefit the DACs. After PTS, which will always get 10%, there is no more use for mining.
You could just as easily replace mining with educational giveaways and I'd be happy. The point is a non-monetary way to get invested in the success of the project.
Educational giveaways would be difficult to agree on collectively among the members of the community as to who would deserve more coins and to who.
Also with that, mining provides equal opportunity for everyone. Transactions need to be secured and mining provides a method for doing this. Lucky's idea provides 1.) Fulfillment of the PTS social contract 2.) Funds Invictus 3.) Provides an incentive for new people without their own large pool of money to participate in Bitshares.
In my opinion it's the best option out there, but as of right now I am extremely against 90% of the bitshares being distributed to "Angel Investors" that pay off Invictus.
Mining used to be necessary. There is no longer a need for it anymore. Read: Transactions as Proof-of-Stake & The End of Mining https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1138.0
You're asking to pay for work that doesn't need to be done and giving money to the electric company.
-
I still don't see any need for having miners in the future. If Invictus is moving towards a more Mastercoin like approach, then you have to work for BTC and Angel Shares by doing the bounties, a real service that will benefit the DACs. After PTS, which will always get 10%, there is no more use for mining.
You could just as easily replace mining with educational giveaways and I'd be happy. The point is a non-monetary way to get invested in the success of the project.
Educational giveaways would be difficult to agree on collectively among the members of the community as to who would deserve more coins and to who.
Also with that, mining provides equal opportunity for everyone. Transactions need to be secured and mining provides a method for doing this. Lucky's idea provides 1.) Fulfillment of the PTS social contract 2.) Funds Invictus 3.) Provides an incentive for new people without their own large pool of money to participate in Bitshares.
In my opinion it's the best option out there, but as of right now I am extremely against 90% of the bitshares being distributed to "Angel Investors" that pay off Invictus.
Mining used to be necessary. There is no longer a need for it anymore. Read: Transactions as Proof-of-Stake & The End of Mining https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1138.0
You're asking to pay for work that doesn't need to be done and giving money to the electric company.
Regardless, mining still provides a decentralized method that supports equal opportunity distribution. This should be one of the most important ideas to keep in mind, less we'd like to be the next quark coin.
-
I still don't see any need for having miners in the future. If Invictus is moving towards a more Mastercoin like approach, then you have to work for BTC and Angel Shares by doing the bounties, a real service that will benefit the DACs. After PTS, which will always get 10%, there is no more use for mining.
You could just as easily replace mining with educational giveaways and I'd be happy. The point is a non-monetary way to get invested in the success of the project.
Educational giveaways would be difficult to agree on collectively among the members of the community as to who would deserve more coins and to who.
Also with that, mining provides equal opportunity for everyone. Transactions need to be secured and mining provides a method for doing this. Lucky's idea provides 1.) Fulfillment of the PTS social contract 2.) Funds Invictus 3.) Provides an incentive for new people without their own large pool of money to participate in Bitshares.
In my opinion it's the best option out there, but as of right now I am extremely against 90% of the bitshares being distributed to "Angel Investors" that pay off Invictus.
Mining used to be necessary. There is no longer a need for it anymore. Read: Transactions as Proof-of-Stake & The End of Mining https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1138.0
You're asking to pay for work that doesn't need to be done and giving money to the electric company.
Regardless, it still provides a decentralized method that supports equal opportunity distribution. This should be one of the most important ideas to keep in mind, less we'd like to be the next quark coin.
But Bitshares isn't a currency. It's more a cross between a share and a commodity. There is always a limited amount of commodity to go around. The PTS community will get their 10%. The only reason to add more shares is if it brings value. That value is the real work that can be paid for with funds. The reason to use BitsharesDAC is for its service. Many people think that service is very valuable.
-
I still don't see any need for having miners in the future. If Invictus is moving towards a more Mastercoin like approach, then you have to work for BTC and Angel Shares by doing the bounties, a real service that will benefit the DACs. After PTS, which will always get 10%, there is no more use for mining.
You could just as easily replace mining with educational giveaways and I'd be happy. The point is a non-monetary way to get invested in the success of the project.
Educational giveaways would be difficult to agree on collectively among the members of the community as to who would deserve more coins and to who.
Also with that, mining provides equal opportunity for everyone. Transactions need to be secured and mining provides a method for doing this. Lucky's idea provides 1.) Fulfillment of the PTS social contract 2.) Funds Invictus 3.) Provides an incentive for new people without their own large pool of money to participate in Bitshares.
In my opinion it's the best option out there, but as of right now I am extremely against 90% of the bitshares being distributed to "Angel Investors" that pay off Invictus.
Mining used to be necessary. There is no longer a need for it anymore. Read: Transactions as Proof-of-Stake & The End of Mining https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1138.0
You're asking to pay for work that doesn't need to be done and giving money to the electric company.
Regardless, it still provides a decentralized method that supports equal opportunity distribution. This should be one of the most important ideas to keep in mind, less we'd like to be the next quark coin.
But Bitshares isn't a currency. It's more a cross between a share and a commodity. There is always a limited amount of commodity to go around. The PTS community will get their 10%. The only reason to add more shares is if it brings value. That value is the real work that can be paid for with funds. The reason to use BitsharesDAC is for its service. Many people think that service is very valuable.
And if that was what they said from the beginning we wouldn't be having the argument, but guess what - they did say that you'd be able to get invested without needing to make a monetary investment directly to Invictus. Just because they made a bad decision doesn't mean they get to rewrite the rules, or they can rewrite the rules whenever they feel its necessary and the rules are as good as worthless.
Do you really not understand that?
-
But Bitshares isn't a currency. It's more a cross between a share and a commodity. There is always a limited amount of commodity to go around. The PTS community will get their 10%. The only reason to add more shares is if it brings value. That value is the real work that can be paid for with funds. The reason to use BitsharesDAC is for its service. Many people think that service is very valuable.
How do you suggest distributing the other 80% of coins? That is the real question/problem right now.
-
I still don't see any need for having miners in the future. If Invictus is moving towards a more Mastercoin like approach, then you have to work for BTC and Angel Shares by doing the bounties, a real service that will benefit the DACs. After PTS, which will always get 10%, there is no more use for mining.
You could just as easily replace mining with educational giveaways and I'd be happy. The point is a non-monetary way to get invested in the success of the project.
Educational giveaways would be difficult to agree on collectively among the members of the community as to who would deserve more coins and to who.
Also with that, mining provides equal opportunity for everyone. Transactions need to be secured and mining provides a method for doing this. Lucky's idea provides 1.) Fulfillment of the PTS social contract 2.) Funds Invictus 3.) Provides an incentive for new people without their own large pool of money to participate in Bitshares.
In my opinion it's the best option out there, but as of right now I am extremely against 90% of the bitshares being distributed to "Angel Investors" that pay off Invictus.
Mining used to be necessary. There is no longer a need for it anymore. Read: Transactions as Proof-of-Stake & The End of Mining https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1138.0
You're asking to pay for work that doesn't need to be done and giving money to the electric company.
Regardless, it still provides a decentralized method that supports equal opportunity distribution. This should be one of the most important ideas to keep in mind, less we'd like to be the next quark coin.
But Bitshares isn't a currency. It's more a cross between a share and a commodity. There is always a limited amount of commodity to go around. The PTS community will get their 10%. The only reason to add more shares is if it brings value. That value is the real work that can be paid for with funds. The reason to use BitsharesDAC is for its service. Many people think that service is very valuable.
And if that was what they said from the beginning we wouldn't be having the argument, but guess what - they did say that you'd be able to get invested without needing to make a monetary investment directly to Invictus. Just because they made a bad decision doesn't mean they get to rewrite the rules, or they can rewrite the rules whenever they feel its necessary and the rules are as good as worthless.
Do you really not understand that?
Actually, I've tried to piece together the original commitment, but it is very difficult to understand. I'm going off what bytemaster thinks, which is he's not breaking the social contract. Now, some people have been trying to tell invictus what to do with the other 90%. I think this is really their business. When they thought giving that 90% away to miners for performing the service of maintaining the blockchain, they said only that that was what they were thinking of doing. I think they can do whatever they want with it.
-
Actually, I've tried to piece together the original commitment, but it is very difficult to understand. I'm going off what bytemaster thinks, which is he's not breaking the social contract. Now, some people have been trying to tell invictus what to do with the other 90%. I think this is really their business. When they thought giving that 90% away to miners for performing the service of maintaining the blockchain, they said only that that was what they were thinking of doing. I think they can do whatever they want with it.
Lighthouse is trying to see what the community thinks with his poll, I think that's really important as Protoshares represent an involvement in Invictus itself. Instead of throwing up your hands and saying "this isn't our business" we should be actively trying to contribute and come to the best conclusion collectively. In the end it is Invictus's deciscion, but as we've seen Bytemaster actually values the community's opinion.
-
I still don't see any need for having miners in the future. If Invictus is moving towards a more Mastercoin like approach, then you have to work for BTC and Angel Shares by doing the bounties, a real service that will benefit the DACs. After PTS, which will always get 10%, there is no more use for mining.
You could just as easily replace mining with educational giveaways and I'd be happy. The point is a non-monetary way to get invested in the success of the project.
Educational giveaways would be difficult to agree on collectively among the members of the community as to who would deserve more coins and to who.
Also with that, mining provides equal opportunity for everyone. Transactions need to be secured and mining provides a method for doing this. Lucky's idea provides 1.) Fulfillment of the PTS social contract 2.) Funds Invictus 3.) Provides an incentive for new people without their own large pool of money to participate in Bitshares.
In my opinion it's the best option out there, but as of right now I am extremely against 90% of the bitshares being distributed to "Angel Investors" that pay off Invictus.
Mining used to be necessary. There is no longer a need for it anymore. Read: Transactions as Proof-of-Stake & The End of Mining https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1138.0
You're asking to pay for work that doesn't need to be done and giving money to the electric company.
Regardless, it still provides a decentralized method that supports equal opportunity distribution. This should be one of the most important ideas to keep in mind, less we'd like to be the next quark coin.
But Bitshares isn't a currency. It's more a cross between a share and a commodity. There is always a limited amount of commodity to go around. The PTS community will get their 10%. The only reason to add more shares is if it brings value. That value is the real work that can be paid for with funds. The reason to use BitsharesDAC is for its service. Many people think that service is very valuable.
And if that was what they said from the beginning we wouldn't be having the argument, but guess what - they did say that you'd be able to get invested without needing to make a monetary investment directly to Invictus. Just because they made a bad decision doesn't mean they get to rewrite the rules, or they can rewrite the rules whenever they feel its necessary and the rules are as good as worthless.
Do you really not understand that?
Actually, I've tried to piece together the original commitment, but it is very difficult to understand. I'm going off what bytemaster thinks, which is he's not breaking the social contract. Now, some people have been trying to tell invictus what to do with the other 90%. I think this is really their business. When they thought giving that 90% away to miners for performing the service of maintaining the blockchain, they said only that that was what they were thinking of doing. I think they can do whatever they want with it.
If you agree that the social contract is what makes Protoshares valuable, than anything that suggests that Invictus can change the social contract when the need strikes them means the value is dependent on their continued good will to the way the deal is now but that could change in the future.
Isn't that a problem?
-
I still don't see any need for having miners in the future. If Invictus is moving towards a more Mastercoin like approach, then you have to work for BTC and Angel Shares by doing the bounties, a real service that will benefit the DACs. After PTS, which will always get 10%, there is no more use for mining.
You could just as easily replace mining with educational giveaways and I'd be happy. The point is a non-monetary way to get invested in the success of the project.
Educational giveaways would be difficult to agree on collectively among the members of the community as to who would deserve more coins and to who.
Also with that, mining provides equal opportunity for everyone. Transactions need to be secured and mining provides a method for doing this. Lucky's idea provides 1.) Fulfillment of the PTS social contract 2.) Funds Invictus 3.) Provides an incentive for new people without their own large pool of money to participate in Bitshares.
In my opinion it's the best option out there, but as of right now I am extremely against 90% of the bitshares being distributed to "Angel Investors" that pay off Invictus.
Mining used to be necessary. There is no longer a need for it anymore. Read: Transactions as Proof-of-Stake & The End of Mining https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1138.0
You're asking to pay for work that doesn't need to be done and giving money to the electric company.
Regardless, it still provides a decentralized method that supports equal opportunity distribution. This should be one of the most important ideas to keep in mind, less we'd like to be the next quark coin.
But Bitshares isn't a currency. It's more a cross between a share and a commodity. There is always a limited amount of commodity to go around. The PTS community will get their 10%. The only reason to add more shares is if it brings value. That value is the real work that can be paid for with funds. The reason to use BitsharesDAC is for its service. Many people think that service is very valuable.
And if that was what they said from the beginning we wouldn't be having the argument, but guess what - they did say that you'd be able to get invested without needing to make a monetary investment directly to Invictus. Just because they made a bad decision doesn't mean they get to rewrite the rules, or they can rewrite the rules whenever they feel its necessary and the rules are as good as worthless.
Do you really not understand that?
Actually, I've tried to piece together the original commitment, but it is very difficult to understand. I'm going off what bytemaster thinks, which is he's not breaking the social contract. Now, some people have been trying to tell invictus what to do with the other 90%. I think this is really their business. When they thought giving that 90% away to miners for performing the service of maintaining the blockchain, they said only that that was what they were thinking of doing. I think they can do whatever they want with it.
If you agree that the social contract is what makes Protoshares valuable, than anything that suggests that Invictus can change the social contract when the need strikes them means the value is dependent on their continued good will to the way the deal is now but that could change in the future.
Isn't that a problem?
What you want is to make Bitshares more obtainable--the ability to perform some task that will allow anyone to obtain shares. The work miners used to do was important in proof of work but is irrelevant in proof of stake. We are both in agreement that it is a great idea to allow people to work for shares. I think you are worried about people that have no skills being able to get in on the action. In this way, proof of work miners are like blue collar workers. And now they're being replaced by white collar workers. I think although the PoW mining is going away for Bitshares, that there is still lots of other coins that need hard work done. Bitshares needs a different group of workers. I'm not in favor of paying for nothing.
-
I still don't see any need for having miners in the future. If Invictus is moving towards a more Mastercoin like approach, then you have to work for BTC and Angel Shares by doing the bounties, a real service that will benefit the DACs. After PTS, which will always get 10%, there is no more use for mining.
You could just as easily replace mining with educational giveaways and I'd be happy. The point is a non-monetary way to get invested in the success of the project.
Educational giveaways would be difficult to agree on collectively among the members of the community as to who would deserve more coins and to who.
Also with that, mining provides equal opportunity for everyone. Transactions need to be secured and mining provides a method for doing this. Lucky's idea provides 1.) Fulfillment of the PTS social contract 2.) Funds Invictus 3.) Provides an incentive for new people without their own large pool of money to participate in Bitshares.
In my opinion it's the best option out there, but as of right now I am extremely against 90% of the bitshares being distributed to "Angel Investors" that pay off Invictus.
Mining used to be necessary. There is no longer a need for it anymore. Read: Transactions as Proof-of-Stake & The End of Mining https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1138.0
You're asking to pay for work that doesn't need to be done and giving money to the electric company.
Regardless, it still provides a decentralized method that supports equal opportunity distribution. This should be one of the most important ideas to keep in mind, less we'd like to be the next quark coin.
But Bitshares isn't a currency. It's more a cross between a share and a commodity. There is always a limited amount of commodity to go around. The PTS community will get their 10%. The only reason to add more shares is if it brings value. That value is the real work that can be paid for with funds. The reason to use BitsharesDAC is for its service. Many people think that service is very valuable.
And if that was what they said from the beginning we wouldn't be having the argument, but guess what - they did say that you'd be able to get invested without needing to make a monetary investment directly to Invictus. Just because they made a bad decision doesn't mean they get to rewrite the rules, or they can rewrite the rules whenever they feel its necessary and the rules are as good as worthless.
Do you really not understand that?
Actually, I've tried to piece together the original commitment, but it is very difficult to understand. I'm going off what bytemaster thinks, which is he's not breaking the social contract. Now, some people have been trying to tell invictus what to do with the other 90%. I think this is really their business. When they thought giving that 90% away to miners for performing the service of maintaining the blockchain, they said only that that was what they were thinking of doing. I think they can do whatever they want with it.
If you agree that the social contract is what makes Protoshares valuable, than anything that suggests that Invictus can change the social contract when the need strikes them means the value is dependent on their continued good will to the way the deal is now but that could change in the future.
Isn't that a problem?
What you want is to make Bitshares more obtainable--the ability to perform some task that will allow anyone to obtain shares. The work miners used to do was important in proof of work but is irrelevant in proof of stake. We are both in agreement that it is a great idea to allow people to work for shares. I think you are worried about people that have no skills being able to get in on the action. In this way, proof of work miners are like blue collar workers. And now they're being replaced by white collar workers. I think although the PoW mining is going away for Bitshares, that there is still lots of other coins that need hard work done. Bitshares needs a different group of workers. I'm not in favor of paying for nothing.
Que you didn't answer Any part of Lighthouse's last question, the one you quoted. Just thought I'd point that out.
-
I still don't see any need for having miners in the future. If Invictus is moving towards a more Mastercoin like approach, then you have to work for BTC and Angel Shares by doing the bounties, a real service that will benefit the DACs. After PTS, which will always get 10%, there is no more use for mining.
You could just as easily replace mining with educational giveaways and I'd be happy. The point is a non-monetary way to get invested in the success of the project.
Educational giveaways would be difficult to agree on collectively among the members of the community as to who would deserve more coins and to who.
Also with that, mining provides equal opportunity for everyone. Transactions need to be secured and mining provides a method for doing this. Lucky's idea provides 1.) Fulfillment of the PTS social contract 2.) Funds Invictus 3.) Provides an incentive for new people without their own large pool of money to participate in Bitshares.
In my opinion it's the best option out there, but as of right now I am extremely against 90% of the bitshares being distributed to "Angel Investors" that pay off Invictus.
Mining used to be necessary. There is no longer a need for it anymore. Read: Transactions as Proof-of-Stake & The End of Mining https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1138.0
You're asking to pay for work that doesn't need to be done and giving money to the electric company.
Regardless, it still provides a decentralized method that supports equal opportunity distribution. This should be one of the most important ideas to keep in mind, less we'd like to be the next quark coin.
But Bitshares isn't a currency. It's more a cross between a share and a commodity. There is always a limited amount of commodity to go around. The PTS community will get their 10%. The only reason to add more shares is if it brings value. That value is the real work that can be paid for with funds. The reason to use BitsharesDAC is for its service. Many people think that service is very valuable.
And if that was what they said from the beginning we wouldn't be having the argument, but guess what - they did say that you'd be able to get invested without needing to make a monetary investment directly to Invictus. Just because they made a bad decision doesn't mean they get to rewrite the rules, or they can rewrite the rules whenever they feel its necessary and the rules are as good as worthless.
Do you really not understand that?
Actually, I've tried to piece together the original commitment, but it is very difficult to understand. I'm going off what bytemaster thinks, which is he's not breaking the social contract. Now, some people have been trying to tell invictus what to do with the other 90%. I think this is really their business. When they thought giving that 90% away to miners for performing the service of maintaining the blockchain, they said only that that was what they were thinking of doing. I think they can do whatever they want with it.
If you agree that the social contract is what makes Protoshares valuable, than anything that suggests that Invictus can change the social contract when the need strikes them means the value is dependent on their continued good will to the way the deal is now but that could change in the future.
Isn't that a problem?
What you want is to make Bitshares more obtainable--the ability to perform some task that will allow anyone to obtain shares. The work miners used to do was important in proof of work but is irrelevant in proof of stake. We are both in agreement that it is a great idea to allow people to work for shares. I think you are worried about people that have no skills being able to get in on the action. In this way, proof of work miners are like blue collar workers. And now they're being replaced by white collar workers. I think although the PoW mining is going away for Bitshares, that there is still lots of other coins that need hard work done. Bitshares needs a different group of workers. I'm not in favor of paying for nothing.
Que you didn't answer Any part of Lighthouse's last question, the one you quoted. Just thought I'd point that out.
Well, I worked really hard to see things from Lighthouse's point of view. My post was the result of about 45 minutes of thinking and writing.
The problem is that the social contract is difficult to piece together. And I'm sure that we could easily find pieces of it to argue over. Bytemaster doesn't think he's breaking the contract and that's mostly good enough for me.
-
Ok, so there's been a conversation going on about how to fund the creation of future DACs as there are far more opportunities than funds. I believe the proposal put forward by Bytemaster to have 100% of Bitshares represented by angelshares and protoshares is a non-starter because it means that all coins that will potentially be created will be owned only by people able to contribute in Bitcoin, when the perception of PTS currently (as a "CPU MINABLE COIN" is that you don't need to do that. I believe even if the vast majority of mining being performed by participants on the network is done by botnets or cloud miners, the initial marketing of Protoshares makes it untenable to change the social contract in any way that is not optional on a investor by investor basis.
With that in mind, I think we all recognize the value of having sufficient funds devoted to the creation of DACs and I for one have no problem putting my money where my mouth is.
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".
Instead of the validated mining plan that turns Invictus into a central point of failure, Invictus should set up weekly or monthly "Exodus Addresses" and replicate Mastercoin, people send BTC or PTS to "Angel" addresses and at the end of that round whatever the allocation is, is divided evenly between the people who sent value on a proportional basis. These funds should be clearly labeled with regard to how each % will be spent.
The exodus address would be transparent, so if people see that not many have invested they will want to invest becaues they will get more value for their value. Invictus controls the address, but each distribution basically results in a large block that issues shares to all investors in the last round. If I were you I would accept both Bitcoin and PTS in these angel rounds, and accept PTS at a premium to Bitcoin.
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. The miners still working on PTS get to keep working, and you don't have to do anything.
Most importantly, Invictus hasn't committed to what they'll do with the other 80%, so when they really solve the problem and have the RIGHT idea their won't have tied yourself down.
What do you think?
I agree that accept both PTS and BTC and accept PTS at a premium to Bitcoin.
-
It was pointed out in the other thread that Bitshares is supposed to be out sooner than in 21 months, I think it is still appropriate to target this number of months because things don't always go to plan and as a startup you want to have "a long runway" so that even if it takes a few extra months you can not need to raise funds in a time of weakness where you might be compelled to take a bad deal because you have few options.
I believe Invictus should be able to essentially presell another 10% of Bitshares to fund its creation, but I disagree with them taking more than 25% in this way. If that was the dicision that was to be made, they needed to do it before the first set of promises were made.
I see no reason why Bitshares should need 21 million coins or why Bitshares has to be mined at all. I also don't understand why you need to have 80% of wasted unallocated coin space.
That space should either go to miners, or remove it entirely because it dilutes everyone elses holding to inflate Bitshares for no reason other than to hang onto 21 million as an arbitrary number. The limit or cap should be like how Mastercoin did it which is to say that you generate it until Bitshares is released.
I suggested 6 million coins in the other thread.
2 million for PTS holders. 2 million for a hybrid Proof of Work Proof of Stake where the goal is to completely transition out of Proof of Work entirely. If we cannot do the hybrid then remove Proof of Work entirely and get rid of the 2 million turning it into 4 million total and do it 50/50. 50% to PTS holders and 50% to Angels.
Forget about percentages because that was based on the idea that the coins had to be mined via Proof of Work over 10 years. It makes no sense to mine Bitshares over 10 years so it makes no sense to hang onto 21 million. If there is no Proof of Work then there is no legitimate reason to have any more coins other than PTS+Angelshares for a total of approximately 4 million Bitshares.
-
I believe it should be well funded to create DACs. But any consideration should not decrease the value of PTS, because high price on PTS draw more attentions. I'm new to PTS. I notice PTS just because the price at bter and btc38 is higher than all other altcoins except LTC. Then I try to find out the value behind the high price, and I found PTS is a totally different thing rather than an altcoin.
The proposal in this thread is a reasonable choice to fund 3I to keep working on DAC development. I suggest another way to fund DAC developing that is to do some business and let 3I takes the profit. I post some ideas in another thread https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1359.0
It seems that keyhotee will come soon which is the foundation stone of our DAC community. After the launch of keyhotee, an ad system should be developed on this. Everyone with a keyhotee ID is funding the DAC development by clicking ad. The system can be designed like QQ pop windows or something others. If all the people with a keyhotee ID belong to a virtual decentralized company, clicking ad is their everyday appointed wok.
Just some thought, not sure if this is possible technically. If such ad system works, we get money flow into DAC ecosystem. This will increase the price of PTS. More and more people like will involve in.
-
Keeping PTS "1.0" as they are is necessary and good. Even if mining doesn't pay at current rates / difficulty, but no one knows where PTS will be in 2014.
As for Angelshares/coins I'm not sure how they could be evenly/fair divided. Angelshares without mining would mean already rich people will get even richer by being able to invest more BTC into Angelshares right from the beginning. By mining poorer people would be able to get a good amount of "coins" while difficulty is low. - If Invictus wants to avoid mining they should think about mechanisms to give poorer investors a chance of getting lots of Angel"coins" by being fast/early/whatever. Just being rich shouldn't give anybody such a huge advantage at the start of a new "investment round".
Here is my thread on how to solve the distribution problem.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1413.msg15246#msg15246
The best numbers I came up with is 2,2,2 or 2,2,1.
Either 2 million PTS, 2 million Angelshares and 2 million mined Bitshares.
Or 2 million PTS and 2 million Angelshares and 1 million reserved for Proof of Commitment.
Proof of Work is probably dead. Proof of Stake can be useful if the transaction scheme can be used. Proof of Commitment can replace mining as a distribution scheme.
Basically it would work where we'd all have Keyhotee IDs and we'd all earn credits working and then in the future we redeem those credits for Bitshares which are "mined" by our labor. I think this would work well.
For example instead of mining to get your Bitshares you put a signature advertising Bitshares up and at the end of 1 month straight of having that signature up for 24/hr * 7 * 30 you receive your marketing credit which will give you the same amount of Bitshares as if you mined for that month. Now you've turned the miner into a marketer and you reward him with credits which can be redeemed for Bitshares.
If everyone were to use the signature method then "difficulty" would go up and the payout would shrink. This would encourage everyone to select different tasks.
We would vote on tasks which would come in the form of a To-Do list. As we vote then the tasks which rise to the top of the To-Do list would be the most profitable tasks to complete or "mine" but if it's something everyone wants to do then difficulty will rise and it will not be as profitable.
So basically the jobs that no one wants to do or cannot easily do but which receive the highest priority by vote will be the most profitable tasks on the To-Do list and will receive the greatest payout. Every task no matter how small will receive some payout though so that anyone could earn some Bitshares doing some BitcoinGet like tasks such as watching videos or something similar.
The signature tasks could also have tiers which reward people who keep the signature for longer with greater payouts each month, or which reward based on how many posts, or which reward based on the ratings of posts on the forum so that highly rated posts get pushed to the top and are more likely to receive credit.
Until we build this there shouldn't be talk about removing mining from Bitshares because you're right the way it seems is like they want to make it a toy for the rich who can afford to buy Bitshares. Also what if people don't even have Bitcoins and aren't deep into the Bitcoin community but just happen to be into or stumble upon Bitshares? Now they cannot just mine Bitshares but have to figure out how to buy Bitcoins? What if they can't buy them so easily?
For this reason we need to let people work for them.
I believe it should be well funded to create DACs. But any consideration should not decrease the value of PTS, because high price on PTS draw more attentions. I'm new to PTS. I notice PTS just because the price at bter and btc38 is higher than all other altcoins except LTC. Then I try to find out the value behind the high price, and I found PTS is a totally different thing rather than an altcoin.
The proposal in this thread is a reasonable choice to fund 3I to keep working on DAC development. I suggest another way to fund DAC developing that is to do some business and let 3I takes the profit. I post some ideas in another thread https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1359.0
It seems that keyhotee will come soon which is the foundation stone of our DAC community. After the launch of keyhotee, an ad system should be developed on this. Everyone with a keyhotee ID is funding the DAC development by clicking ad. The system can be designed like QQ pop windows or something others. If all the people with a keyhotee ID belong to a virtual decentralized company, clicking ad is their everyday appointed wok.
Just some thought, not sure if this is possible technically. If such ad system works, we get money flow into DAC ecosystem. This will increase the price of PTS. More and more people like will involve in.
Your idea ties into my idea except the difference is that the Proof of Commitment scheme idea I present is decentralized. It wont matter what 3I is doing. The Bitshares would be distributed directly in automated fashion to whomever does the task similar to BitcoinGet. You'd still view ads and money would still be generated, but the payout should be first in credits and these credits should have no use other than to be redeemed by DACs which accept the social contract to reserve 1 million shares of their DAC for redeeming these credits 1:1.
So 1 commitment credit in Proof of Commitment would be redeemable for all DACs which accept the social contract to reserve at least 1 million shares. This means 1 million shares could be worked for starting when Keyhotee launched and the necessary scripts are written. In my opinion this is the best and most fair way to do it without concentrating power (concentrating risk) into 3I. It also doesn't give a dramatic advantage to rich people because once again anyone can do this kind of work.
Anyone here could set up a signature and begin earning credits toward Bitshares and it would be just as easy as mining. If you post more and your posts are good then you get bonus credits. Now miners can be more active on the forum and not lose anything if Proof of Work is removed.
-
Keeping PTS "1.0" as they are is necessary and good. Even if mining doesn't pay at current rates / difficulty, but no one knows where PTS will be in 2014.
As for Angelshares/coins I'm not sure how they could be evenly/fair divided. Angelshares without mining would mean already rich people will get even richer by being able to invest more BTC into Angelshares right from the beginning. By mining poorer people would be able to get a good amount of "coins" while difficulty is low. - If Invictus wants to avoid mining they should think about mechanisms to give poorer investors a chance of getting lots of Angel"coins" by being fast/early/whatever. Just being rich shouldn't give anybody such a huge advantage at the start of a new "investment round".
Here is my thread on how to solve the distribution problem.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1413.msg15246#msg15246
The best numbers I came up with is 2,2,2 or 2,2,1.
Either 2 million PTS, 2 million Angelshares and 2 million mined Bitshares.
Or 2 million PTS and 2 million Angelshares and 1 million reserved for Proof of Commitment.
Proof of Work is probably dead. Proof of Stake can be useful if the transaction scheme can be used. Proof of Commitment can replace mining as a distribution scheme.
Basically it would work where we'd all have Keyhotee IDs and we'd all earn credits working and then in the future we redeem those credits for Bitshares which are "mined" by our labor. I think this would work well.
For example instead of mining to get your Bitshares you put a signature advertising Bitshares up and at the end of 1 month straight of having that signature up for 24/hr * 7 * 30 you receive your marketing credit which will give you the same amount of Bitshares as if you mined for that month. Now you've turned the miner into a marketer and you reward him with credits which can be redeemed for Bitshares.
If everyone were to use the signature method then "difficulty" would go up and the payout would shrink. This would encourage everyone to select different tasks.
We would vote on tasks which would come in the form of a To-Do list. As we vote then the tasks which rise to the top of the To-Do list would be the most profitable tasks to complete or "mine" but if it's something everyone wants to do then difficulty will rise and it will not be as profitable.
So basically the jobs that no one wants to do or cannot easily do but which receive the highest priority by vote will be the most profitable tasks on the To-Do list and will receive the greatest payout. Every task no matter how small will receive some payout though so that anyone could earn some Bitshares doing some BitcoinGet like tasks such as watching videos or something similar.
The signature tasks could also have tiers which reward people who keep the signature for longer with greater payouts each month, or which reward based on how many posts, or which reward based on the ratings of posts on the forum so that highly rated posts get pushed to the top and are more likely to receive credit.
Until we build this there shouldn't be talk about removing mining from Bitshares because you're right the way it seems is like they want to make it a toy for the rich who can afford to buy Bitshares. Also what if people don't even have Bitcoins and aren't deep into the Bitcoin community but just happen to be into or stumble upon Bitshares? Now they cannot just mine Bitshares but have to figure out how to buy Bitcoins? What if they can't buy them so easily?
For this reason we need to let people work for them.
This is not a bad idea. You're basically saying that they should set some shares aside to set bounties and payout faucets and stuff like that. Wouldn't it be better and more efficient though to pay bounties in Bitcoin from the Angel Shares fund. After all, we don't want to just give money to people who believe in the project, we want to attract new talent to the project as well.
-
I still don't see any need for having miners in the future. If Invictus is moving towards a more Mastercoin like approach, then you have to work for BTC and Angel Shares by doing the bounties, a real service that will benefit the DACs. After PTS, which will always get 10%, there is no more use for mining.
Everyone keeps saying there will be bounties. Until Bytemaster says that we can mine by using Bitshares in our signature here and/or on Bitcoin talk then it's just hot air.
I gave some ideas on how to automate and decentralize the process. It is how Mastercoin was able to market itself. It is not an accident that Mastercoin is so well marketed.
So you cannot mine anymore? Put Bitshares in your signature and the amount of coins you would have got from mining will be received from advertising. Difficulty will adjust just as it does with mining according to a fixed algorithm so that if too many people are on the spreadsheet then the amount you get of the credit supply shrinks. The same should apply to all bounties equally according to the same algorithm. There are only 1 million credits in the system I proposed which means the algorithm will have to prioritize by voting. Human beings will have to be paid to check forums and maintain spreadsheets.
All work should be considered a level of Commitment to the DAC. The DAC itself should have an internal algorithm which works partially by human vote to prioritize the To-Do list and partially set in stone such as difficulty and rate of distributing the credits. That means if too many human do the same kind of work then the work of that type will generate less credits for them all. This would be "difficulty" and it would encourage human beings to diversify the kind of work they do.
So you can have a signature in your name on forums for a while but eventually everyone will do that and you'll have to do something else besides that to bring up your credit income stream. Now you'll have to write documentation or click ads as well and if everyone does that too then there will be some other task which gets pushed to the top which no one will want to do and you'll have to do that to get more credits.
Keeping PTS "1.0" as they are is necessary and good. Even if mining doesn't pay at current rates / difficulty, but no one knows where PTS will be in 2014.
As for Angelshares/coins I'm not sure how they could be evenly/fair divided. Angelshares without mining would mean already rich people will get even richer by being able to invest more BTC into Angelshares right from the beginning. By mining poorer people would be able to get a good amount of "coins" while difficulty is low. - If Invictus wants to avoid mining they should think about mechanisms to give poorer investors a chance of getting lots of Angel"coins" by being fast/early/whatever. Just being rich shouldn't give anybody such a huge advantage at the start of a new "investment round".
Here is my thread on how to solve the distribution problem.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1413.msg15246#msg15246
The best numbers I came up with is 2,2,2 or 2,2,1.
Either 2 million PTS, 2 million Angelshares and 2 million mined Bitshares.
Or 2 million PTS and 2 million Angelshares and 1 million reserved for Proof of Commitment.
Proof of Work is probably dead. Proof of Stake can be useful if the transaction scheme can be used. Proof of Commitment can replace mining as a distribution scheme.
Basically it would work where we'd all have Keyhotee IDs and we'd all earn credits working and then in the future we redeem those credits for Bitshares which are "mined" by our labor. I think this would work well.
For example instead of mining to get your Bitshares you put a signature advertising Bitshares up and at the end of 1 month straight of having that signature up for 24/hr * 7 * 30 you receive your marketing credit which will give you the same amount of Bitshares as if you mined for that month. Now you've turned the miner into a marketer and you reward him with credits which can be redeemed for Bitshares.
If everyone were to use the signature method then "difficulty" would go up and the payout would shrink. This would encourage everyone to select different tasks.
We would vote on tasks which would come in the form of a To-Do list. As we vote then the tasks which rise to the top of the To-Do list would be the most profitable tasks to complete or "mine" but if it's something everyone wants to do then difficulty will rise and it will not be as profitable.
So basically the jobs that no one wants to do or cannot easily do but which receive the highest priority by vote will be the most profitable tasks on the To-Do list and will receive the greatest payout. Every task no matter how small will receive some payout though so that anyone could earn some Bitshares doing some BitcoinGet like tasks such as watching videos or something similar.
The signature tasks could also have tiers which reward people who keep the signature for longer with greater payouts each month, or which reward based on how many posts, or which reward based on the ratings of posts on the forum so that highly rated posts get pushed to the top and are more likely to receive credit.
Until we build this there shouldn't be talk about removing mining from Bitshares because you're right the way it seems is like they want to make it a toy for the rich who can afford to buy Bitshares. Also what if people don't even have Bitcoins and aren't deep into the Bitcoin community but just happen to be into or stumble upon Bitshares? Now they cannot just mine Bitshares but have to figure out how to buy Bitcoins? What if they can't buy them so easily?
For this reason we need to let people work for them.
This is not a bad idea. You're basically saying that they should set some shares aside to set bounties and payout faucets and stuff like that. Wouldn't it be better and more efficient though to pay bounties in Bitcoin from the Angel Shares fund. After all, we don't want to just give money to people who believe in the project, we want to attract new talent to the project as well.
A bit deeper than just 'bounties' and 'payout faucets'. A faucet does not require them to actually prove their level of Commitment. A signature in their forum profile does require they prove their Commitment and is an active task.
So I do not want faucets which give free Bitshares or whatever because those people wont value it because they got it completely for free. Instead they should prove their Commitment to the DAC by doing some voted upon task from a To-Do list which is accessible from within Keyhotee somehow.
We need Keyhotee because we don't want sock puppets voting but real committed Keyhotee IDs with reputations voting. The Keyhotee ID who completes the task earns the credit. It would be very easy to allow it to be pseudo-anonymous as well so that the Keyhotee ID could create some kind of hash signature under their advertisement signature and this would allow the script to automatically know which Keyhotee ID they are without them revealing their wallet address. The script would then send them a private message over Keyhotee to connect and verify their wallet address to send the payout.
The point is to automate this as much as possible and to make it as much like "mining" as possible with a predictable and set algorithm. It should provide no advantage to any particular kind of labor but it should reward what the community votes up to the top as being high priority and reward for the unwanted jobs. If job is high priority and no one wants to do it then the algorithm should determine that should pay out the most credits.
As far as attracting new talent I think if you build this automated system then you'll get everyone in the community on this forum active promoting the project. First you'd see everyone putting something about Bitshares in their signature here and on Bitcointalk which would attract a greater amount of mind share. Since for them it would be equal to mining we could expect almost everyone on this forum to do it which would result in the difficulty going up significantly and the payout decreasing significantly but it would be something and a place to start.
From there if people want higher payouts they have to prove their Commitment. Talent wouldn't have much to do with it as Commitment would be rewarded primarily above talent. If someone does have talent they could still get a lot of credits by doing really difficult tasks on the To-Do list which no one wants to do or perhaps solve problems no one can figure out how to solve. This would earn them a lot of credits.
Angelshares would be used to hire full time programmers and that would be 2 millon. Protoshares would be 2 million. This would be either 1 million (if we remove Proof of Work entirely) or 2 million if we have a hybrid system and phase this in to replace it where 1 million would go to traditional Proof of Work and 1 million to Proof of Commitment.
Whatever choice is made it is essential that anyone can earn Bitshares by showing Commitment to the DAC. Not by being richer, not by something subjective like talent, but just a willingness to Commit.
-
I think there's an elephant in the room. Yesterday, bytemaster dropped a red hot fiery 'development engine' right in our laps. Some memes are just too powerful to stand against. At this moment, everyone is just sitting around, staring at this amazingly potent, jewel of an idea. But how long will it keep until someone picks it up and rides it into the future.
-
I think there's an elephant in the room. Yesterday, bytemaster dropped a red hot fiery 'development engine' right in our laps. Some memes are just too powerful to stand against. At this moment, everyone is just sitting around, staring at this amazingly potent, jewel of an idea. But how long will it keep until someone picks it up and rides it into the future.
Sorry I missed the "jewel" of an idea that Bytemaster gave us. Mind explaining?
-
Bytemaster's PTS 2.0 pitch came as a surprise, dropping the price of PTS.. transiently... One positive thing it did allow was room for reevaluation, prompting fast-paced discussion with big input from a great number of active community members.
The passionate, contrasting viewpoints from newbies and respected community members alike highlighted Protoshare's strong community input.
Furthermore despite Bytemaster's lesson in humility his clear willingness to concede to the opinion of the community showed Invictus' clear commitment to decentralisation and to the better interests of the PTS community at large.
Today's short term dip in the curve has in my opinion done more for the progress of Protoshares than months of discussion could. It brings to the floor the main issue: the clear need for capital investment to fund future DAC development and product marketing.
Watch this space over the next couple of days for solutions which will launch PTS into the stratesphere.. BTC looks ready for a christmas slump.. its time to invest in cryptequity.
Anyway...crowdfunding is quicker with cryptocurrency..isnt it..
-
Why are people voting for Invictus to sell protoshares or bitshares. Invictus doesn't sell Protoshares, and Bitshares aren't even out yet, nor will they be sold by invictus. I think there's a real lack of understanding in the community about what this project is.
-
Why are people voting for Invictus to sell protoshares or bitshares. Invictus doesn't sell Protoshares, and Bitshares aren't even out yet, nor will they be sold by invictus. I think there's a real lack of understanding in the community about what this project is.
Because there is no difference between being the exclusive mining power renter and selling the resulting coins created. The only difference is you buy based on a fixed price with a variable return, that's still buying and selling.
This was unclear because they used the mechanism of mining, but monopolized the output.
-
I'm not sure you're being fair here. You're talking about the mining of Angel Shares, not ProtoShares or BitShares. Also, I don't know the mechanics of the mining. Also, I'm not sure if people coming to this thread know this is what it means.
-
No, i'm talking about how Bitshares are eventually allocated. We signed on with Protoshares being 10% and mining being 90% with a total supply of 21 million.
-
No, i'm talking about how Bitshares are eventually allocated. We signed on with Protoshares being 10% and mining being 90% with a total supply of 21 million.
1) All chains Invictus launches will be derived from ProtoShares with a 1:1 mapping and 10% of the ultimate money supply of that chain.
2) ProtoDomains may Split from ProtoShares prior to the Launch of DomainShares so that it can be traded and valued separately.
3) Keyhotee ID is not a currency, there is no way to map ProtoShares into Keyhotee ID (the name chain)
4) There will be many BitShares based chains, not one, and all of them will be 1:1 with ProtoShares
5) We reserve the right to release ProtoShares v2 that honors 100% of ProtoShares v1 with 100% of the money supply allocated.
6) Associated Press, DAC would honor ProtoShares
Exceptions to the ProtoShares honoring would be if we decided to release a true competitor to be used as a money-only coin and not a trading platform. In this case we may choose to honor the initial positions in ALL existing *-coin chains proportional to their market cap.
I want to make it very clear that at no time will we 'reset the clock' for a new chain and owning ProtoShares today does get you ownership in everything we do in the future either directly or indirectly.
This post above was posted by you and written by bytemaster. I found it odd that you haven't posted it here, since you think the contract has been broken. There isn't one mention of 90% anywhere. In fact, it says they have the right to release v2.
Invictus doesn't sell bitshares or protoshares or angel shares. This is really odd that people would vote for them to do that. Really odd.
-
So basically you are floating another 10% of bitshares by issuing Angelshares? this is in addition to the 10% allocated to PTS
-
It seems to me that these angelshares, would also be a DAC, so as a holder of protoshares i am also entitled to angelshares, which will also get me bitshares???
-
It seems to me that these angelshares, would also be a DAC, so as a holder of protoshares i am also entitled to angelshares, which will also get me bitshares???
I don't see any reason why AngelShares needs to be traded on a blockchain. Angel Investors should not be day-trading and their funds should be committed until the DACs launche. With this setup Invictus could simply publish an AngelAddress on the BTC or PTS blockchains and have daily auctions documented right on the blockchain. This would be public, easily trackable, and a simple script could scrape the bitcoin blockchain to calculate the genesis block for future chains.
Suppose they issued 10,000 AngelShares per day by auction. This would establish a price and also make it more difficult for large investors to dump in all at once. Early investors get better prices than later investors assuming Invictus does a good job with the money. The difficulty of wining shares in the auction every day would increase proportional to demand the success of Invictus. If they screw up their funds get cut off.
I think it would be a fun and exciting way to issue new shares in future DACs with almost 0 overhead.
The daily auctions would create excitement and opportunity for the little guy to take advantage of price dips when the big guys are not buying. It would be a whole new kind of mining with all the excitement of an auction and the attempts to game the bidding by doing ebay style sniping at the last second.
Make it fun for the little guy, give him the advantage of being able to follow the day-to-day variance while the big-money is too busy to follow auctions that closely or attempt sniping to get a deal.
-
It seems to me that these angelshares, would also be a DAC, so as a holder of protoshares i am also entitled to angelshares, which will also get me bitshares???
I don't see any reason why AngelShares needs to be traded on a blockchain. Angel Investors should not be day-trading and their funds should be committed until the DACs launche. With this setup Invictus could simply publish an AngelAddress on the BTC or PTS blockchains and have daily auctions documented right on the blockchain. This would be public, easily trackable, and a simple script could scrape the bitcoin blockchain to calculate the genesis block for future chains.
Suppose they issued 10,000 AngelShares per day by auction. This would establish a price and also make it more difficult for large investors to dump in all at once. Early investors get better prices than later investors assuming Invictus does a good job with the money. The difficulty of wining shares in the auction every day would increase proportional to demand the success of Invictus. If they screw up their funds get cut off.
I think it would be a fun and exciting way to issue new shares in future DACs with almost 0 overhead.
The daily auctions would create excitement and opportunity for the little guy to take advantage of price dips when the big guys are not buying. It would be a whole new kind of mining with all the excitement of an auction and the attempts to game the bidding by doing ebay style sniping at the last second.
Make it fun for the little guy, give him the advantage of being able to follow the day-to-day variance while the big-money is too busy to follow auctions that closely or attempt sniping to get a deal.
This should also solve all of the regulatory risks that Invictus would face if they launched a new currency that was only signed by them. Instead they just accept BTC payments and then create software that honors the keys those payments were sent from. No more risk than they face with BTC, transparent, and enforceable by anyone.
-
It seems to me that these angelshares, would also be a DAC, so as a holder of protoshares i am also entitled to angelshares, which will also get me bitshares???
I don't see any reason why AngelShares needs to be traded on a blockchain. Angel Investors should not be day-trading and their funds should be committed until the DACs launche. With this setup Invictus could simply publish an AngelAddress on the BTC or PTS blockchains and have daily auctions documented right on the blockchain. This would be public, easily trackable, and a simple script could scrape the bitcoin blockchain to calculate the genesis block for future chains.
Suppose they issued 10,000 AngelShares per day by auction. This would establish a price and also make it more difficult for large investors to dump in all at once. Early investors get better prices than later investors assuming Invictus does a good job with the money. The difficulty of wining shares in the auction every day would increase proportional to demand the success of Invictus. If they screw up their funds get cut off.
I think it would be a fun and exciting way to issue new shares in future DACs with almost 0 overhead.
The daily auctions would create excitement and opportunity for the little guy to take advantage of price dips when the big guys are not buying. It would be a whole new kind of mining with all the excitement of an auction and the attempts to game the bidding by doing ebay style sniping at the last second.
Make it fun for the little guy, give him the advantage of being able to follow the day-to-day variance while the big-money is too busy to follow auctions that closely or attempt sniping to get a deal.
That's a really cool idea 3.14. Here's my take on Angel Shares: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1429.0
-
It seems to me that these angelshares, would also be a DAC, so as a holder of protoshares i am also entitled to angelshares, which will also get me bitshares???
I don't see any reason why AngelShares needs to be traded on a blockchain. Angel Investors should not be day-trading and their funds should be committed until the DACs launche. With this setup Invictus could simply publish an AngelAddress on the BTC or PTS blockchains and have daily auctions documented right on the blockchain. This would be public, easily trackable, and a simple script could scrape the bitcoin blockchain to calculate the genesis block for future chains.
Suppose they issued 10,000 AngelShares per day by auction. This would establish a price and also make it more difficult for large investors to dump in all at once. Early investors get better prices than later investors assuming Invictus does a good job with the money. The difficulty of wining shares in the auction every day would increase proportional to demand the success of Invictus. If they screw up their funds get cut off.
I think it would be a fun and exciting way to issue new shares in future DACs with almost 0 overhead.
The daily auctions would create excitement and opportunity for the little guy to take advantage of price dips when the big guys are not buying. It would be a whole new kind of mining with all the excitement of an auction and the attempts to game the bidding by doing ebay style sniping at the last second.
Make it fun for the little guy, give him the advantage of being able to follow the day-to-day variance while the big-money is too busy to follow auctions that closely or attempt sniping to get a deal.
I agree. We should have a little people centered design with a focus on making it fun and providing opportunity for advancement. If we do that then we'll attract a wide range of people to the DACs because they'll feel like they have a chance just as anyone else. If there is also the ability to provide services in an organized fashion that can make up for the lack of mining while developing the community up then you introduce a new positive profit strategy for use cases in which people cannot afford to buy Bitcoins or cannot legally obtain them. We must never shut the door on the little guy no matter how big we get because most of us will have been the little guy.
Please remember that we have some people who are not in developed nations and consider a wide array of use cases and profit strategies. We have some people who are homeless in developed nations, some people in all sorts of different financial situations who will want to be a part of this because they believe in it. Inclusion should be a strongly held value for this community.
-
We now need centralised Angelshares? Have you decided on a later date for 'Godshares' yet... :)
Mastercoin really got a terrible reputation after their centralised issuance. Now you're going to do it too & worse, you're doing it after you already went the route of PTS funding first! Now I've seen it all! :)
To be constructive though, despite the hiccup at the start, people probably feel that Protoshares have been issued in a fairly decentralised way. You would probably be able to decrease the stated Bitshare issuance thereby increasing the value of Protoshares as long as you only made such a huge market moving move ONCE.
(Obviously you could just purchase PTS before the announcement and get more than enough funding that way and as sickening as this move might be in terms of insider trading. It will probably be infinitely better for your reputation than trying to issue Angelshares after having initiated Protoshares. (Whether or not PTS is unaffected or benefits.)
In terms of trying to launch. Another group could just steal your Bitshares platform and start it in a fairer, more transparent and decentralised way and potentially receive massive support from the crypto community that may shun you for going about funding in the way you are suggesting right now.
(Also part of the point of mining is that the shares are issued in a fair, decentralized way, based on maths not human/centralized estimation of value - ie. as in the form of development bounties. Also the miners then bring those shares to the market in a fair decentralised way so that investors feel they are more likely to be paying fair market value not an inflated Quark price because of hoarding/other price manipulation schemes.)
-
We now need centralised Angelshares? Have you decided on a later date for 'Godshares' yet... :)
Mastercoin really got a terrible reputation after their centralised issuance. Now you're going to do it too & worse, you're doing it after you already went the route of PTS funding first! Now I've seen it all! :)
To be constructive though, despite the hiccup at the start, people probably feel that Protoshares have been issued in a fairly decentralised way. You would probably be able to decrease the stated Bitshare issuance thereby increasing the value of Protoshares as long as you only made such a huge market moving move ONCE.
(Obviously you could just purchase PTS before the announcement and get more than enough funding that way and as sickening as this move might be in terms of insider trading. It will probably be infinitely better for your reputation than trying to issue Angelshares after having initiated Protoshares. (Whether or not PTS is unaffected or benefits.)
In terms of trying to launch. Another group could just steal your Bitshares platform and start it in a fairer, more transparent and decentralised way and potentially receive massive support from the crypto community that may shun you for going about funding in the way you are suggesting right now.
(Also part of the point of mining is that the shares are issued in a fair, decentralized way, based on maths not human/centralized estimation of value - ie. as in the form of development bounties. Also the miners then bring those shares to the market in a fair decentralised way so that investors feel they are more likely to be paying fair market value not an inflated Quark price because of hoarding/other price manipulation schemes.)
+1
-
We now need centralised Angelshares? Have you decided on a later date for 'Godshares' yet... :)
Mastercoin really got a terrible reputation after their centralised issuance. Now you're going to do it too & worse, you're doing it after you already went the route of PTS funding first! Now I've seen it all! :)
To be constructive though, despite the hiccup at the start, people probably feel that Protoshares have been issued in a fairly decentralised way. You would probably be able to decrease the stated Bitshare issuance thereby increasing the value of Protoshares as long as you only made such a huge market moving move ONCE.
(Obviously you could just purchase PTS before the announcement and get more than enough funding that way and as sickening as this move might be in terms of insider trading. It will probably be infinitely better for your reputation than trying to issue Angelshares after having initiated Protoshares. (Whether or not PTS is unaffected or benefits.)
In terms of trying to launch. Another group could just steal your Bitshares platform and start it in a fairer, more transparent and decentralised way and potentially receive massive support from the crypto community that may shun you for going about funding in the way you are suggesting right now.
(Also part of the point of mining is that the shares are issued in a fair, decentralized way, based on maths not human/centralized estimation of value - ie. as in the form of development bounties. Also the miners then bring those shares to the market in a fair decentralised way so that investors feel they are more likely to be paying fair market value not an inflated Quark price because of hoarding/other price manipulation schemes.)
+1
+1 seems 3I didn't care, and honor the Protoshares holders!!I'm angry!
-
It seems to me that these angelshares, would also be a DAC, so as a holder of protoshares i am also entitled to angelshares, which will also get me bitshares???
I don't see any reason why AngelShares needs to be traded on a blockchain. Angel Investors should not be day-trading and their funds should be committed until the DACs launche. With this setup Invictus could simply publish an AngelAddress on the BTC or PTS blockchains and have daily auctions documented right on the blockchain. This would be public, easily trackable, and a simple script could scrape the bitcoin blockchain to calculate the genesis block for future chains.
Suppose they issued 10,000 AngelShares per day by auction. This would establish a price and also make it more difficult for large investors to dump in all at once. Early investors get better prices than later investors assuming Invictus does a good job with the money. The difficulty of wining shares in the auction every day would increase proportional to demand the success of Invictus. If they screw up their funds get cut off.
I think it would be a fun and exciting way to issue new shares in future DACs with almost 0 overhead.
The daily auctions would create excitement and opportunity for the little guy to take advantage of price dips when the big guys are not buying. It would be a whole new kind of mining with all the excitement of an auction and the attempts to game the bidding by doing ebay style sniping at the last second.
Make it fun for the little guy, give him the advantage of being able to follow the day-to-day variance while the big-money is too busy to follow auctions that closely or attempt sniping to get a deal.
They have to be day traded. Without mining the only way to distribute them is by trade. Your options make no sense. I'm in favor of day trading in this situation because then miners or anyone with anything of value can trade for it.