-
http://bytemaster.github.io/update/2015/12/28/BitShares-Vision/
-
A new year, calls for a renewed vision and direction for BitShares. For too long BitShares has been evolving without any clearly and consistently stated purpose or direction. Today I would to cast my vision for BitShares in 2016 and the years beyond. The most high level vision is to create a well ordered society that is governed in a manner that fully adheres to the Non Aggression Principle (NAP).
OMG! A business project which is based on false ideological principles is doomed to fail. Being determines consciousness. Economical laws should determine ideology, not vise versa. Well, at least we have an interesting IT experiment.
-
"For too long BitShares has been evolving without any clearly and consistently stated purpose or direction."
The reason why it was hard for me and others to contribute to anything. Everything seems to happen randomly with Bitshares and with a lack of clear priorities.
-
"For too long BitShares has been evolving without any clearly and consistently stated purpose or direction."
The reason why it was hard for me and others to contribute to anything. Everything seems to happen randomly with Bitshares and with a lack of clear priorities.
It's unchanged after the blog post in OP.
-
I am glad there is an attempt at vision. Obviously bts holders have to concur with any vision. Bm is just one person.
-
From the blog post:
While no one likes to have their account frozen in part or in full this action does not constitute a violation of property rights
Would you say that USD freezes and seizures are also not a violation of property rights? That claim seems bogus to me.
EDIT: Reading closer, I see that you're saying a majority can freeze an account. But this isn't a population majority, it's a wealth majority. Are those equivalent to you?
-
The entire "cryptocurrency isn't property" argument is really hard for me to follow.
Any "property" which you can't protect with your body (the theft of which would then require violating NAP) is protected for you by the government via property laws.
Your car deed is also a shared societal perception that the car "belongs" to you. If I come hotwire it while you are asleep, by your own reasoning I have not violated NAP.
A lot of anarchists don't believe in property rights other than what you can carry, and it's not an invalid argument, I just think it's not what you actually believe.
-
Rather than argue about terminology, I propose we create a government that adheres to the NAP.
Once you define your terms you'll see how oxymoronic that statement is. Government IS force. In almost every important fact it violates the NAP (Non Aggression Principle for those unfamiliar).
If you replace "government" with "community whose rules don't violate the NAP" that's easy, it's already done. Nobody is forcing anyone to be here or invest here. Make sure all rules of our ecosystem adhere to the principles you listed and you'll promote the kind of marketplace the majority of people want. You'll never please everyone, so don't even try to!
Thanks for your sentiment. Let's see if everyone will do their part to help pull it off. Here's hoping 2016 with be the year BitShares gets recognized for the world changing tech it is. Here's hoping the right people finally see that and the markets move favorably in BitShares favor. Here's hoping CNX won't do anything that hinders progress. Here's hoping the dev team will stay focused towards goals leading to overall success and an increase in adoption and / or marketcap.
Here's hoping everybody in this amazing community has fire in their belly and passion in their heart to see this project succeed, and may you all have a wonderful holiday season & best wishes in the coming year!!!
-
A new year, calls for a renewed vision and direction for BitShares. For too long BitShares has been evolving without any clearly and consistently stated purpose or direction. Today I would to cast my vision for BitShares in 2016 and the years beyond. The most high level vision is to create a well ordered society that is governed in a manner that fully adheres to the Non Aggression Principle (NAP).
OMG! A business project which is based on false ideological principles is doomed to fail. Being determines consciousness. Economical laws should determine ideology, not vise versa. Well, at least we have an interesting IT experiment.
What false ideological principles? I would be very happy to discuss the ideology and correct anyplace I am wrong.
-
A new year, calls for a renewed vision and direction for BitShares. For too long BitShares has been evolving without any clearly and consistently stated purpose or direction. Today I would to cast my vision for BitShares in 2016 and the years beyond. The most high level vision is to create a well ordered society that is governed in a manner that fully adheres to the Non Aggression Principle (NAP).
OMG! A business project which is based on false ideological principles is doomed to fail. Being determines consciousness. Economical laws should determine ideology, not vise versa. Well, at least we have an interesting IT experiment.
What false ideological principles. I would be very happy to discuss the ideology and correct anyplace I am wrong.
I'll be brief today. Pseudo philosophical bullshit makes my confidence in project success go down to zero. That is why it is false. Just life experience. Little advise: if you want to make a successful company, forget about your ideological believes. Believe me, this will work :lol:
-
I decided to remove the following section from the blog post because it is both controversial and being misunderstood. I would love to discuss this in greater detail in a future post.
For now I would like to clarify some things for those who have already read it:
1. The logical conclusion is that all "property" is actually assigned by consensus and thus by consensus all property can change hands. Even property you have on your person. This starts to sound like a case for legitimising taxation and "government ownership of everything". To be clear, I do not believe that this is a good or proper way to organize society. Personal property and property rights are a concept that must be defended by society or everything else falls apart due to inability to perform economic calculation. My point was only that violence is not necessary to create a government capable of enforcing property rights *IF* all of society can reach a consensus on property rights.
2. @Thom If you want to argue about the definition of terms, then "government is violence" is a stance that I tend to agree with (historically). But this is mostly because of how we as freedom lovers have chosen to define government in our minds. We have associated government with violence, theft, inefficiency, corruption, and slavery. We have stipulated that "by definition government must use force" and "by definition if it doesn't use force then it isn't a government". Those are OUR definitions and those very definitions are working against our cause which is to create a "well ordered society that doesn't violate the NAP".
Others associate the term "government" with security, protection, safety net, order, and peace. They associate the term "anarchy" with "chaos" and every man for himself. If you tell someone that you are going to take away their government they will fight you, even if they hate their government. If you tell them you want to replace their government with a new government that still protects them from crime, from foreign invasion, provides for schools, universal health insurance, and welfare without any taxation, prisons, or armed police then you will have their attention.
You simply cannot reach the masses on a logical level using "our terms" we must reach them using their "terms". The rational thinkers out there can see that there is a significant difference between a non-monopoly government following the NAP and a monopoly government that violates the NAP. It is all of the people who have pre-programmed gut reactions to resist any attempt to "eliminate" government that we need to reach by redefining the term "government" to be something that we are also OK with.
## Cryptocurrency isn’t Property
To understand how a blockchain can be used to create a non-violent society we must first dispel one of the most sacred beliefs regarding cryptocurrency: that a crypto-currency is property. If we believe that all value is perceived value then a crypto-currency is nothing more than value as perceived by others. Since we cannot control the perception of others we do not control the value of our cryptocurrency.
Taken a step further, what makes one fork of a blockchain valuable and another worthless? It is merely the perception of the individuals of society that choose to value one fork and not another. Going a step further, an individual with coins has no right to demand everyone else in society accept their transfer of funds. The rest of society is free to voluntarily decline to process his or her transaction. This would have the impact of rendering that individual’s coins worthless (freezing their account).
While no one likes to have their account frozen in part or in full this action does not constitute a violation of property rights nor the initiation of aggression. It is the moral equivalent to earning a bad reputation. No one likes to have their reputation tarnished whether deserved or not. Unfortunately it is not something you own, but something others think of you. They own their thoughts, not you.
This means that from a NAP point of view a society built on a blockchain may freely change how it wishes to interpret the information contained on a blockchain without violating the rights of the individuals.
This means that inflation on a blockchain isn’t theft. It means that the blockchain can vote to freeze your account or reallocate your balances without actually stealing anything from you. It means the blockchain can charge negative interest rates on your account without it being morally wrong nor aggression. In other words, it means there is a huge degree of flexibility that is possible for a society built on a blockchain without ever violating the non aggression principle (NAP).
Not everything that is morally permissible is beneficial to society. Just because a blockchain may legitimately freeze your account, inflate, or charge negative interest rates does not mean that these attributes will garner support from society. The defining characteristic of a blockchain based government based on the NAP is that members of the society are free to leave for another blockchain. This means that free market competition will drive a blockchain based government to adopt policies that are fair and widely accepted or its currency will lose value and influence.
-
A new year, calls for a renewed vision and direction for BitShares. For too long BitShares has been evolving without any clearly and consistently stated purpose or direction. Today I would to cast my vision for BitShares in 2016 and the years beyond. The most high level vision is to create a well ordered society that is governed in a manner that fully adheres to the Non Aggression Principle (NAP).
OMG! A business project which is based on false ideological principles is doomed to fail. Being determines consciousness. Economical laws should determine ideology, not vise versa. Well, at least we have an interesting IT experiment.
What false ideological principles. I would be very happy to discuss the ideology and correct anyplace I am wrong.
I'll be brief today. Pseudo philosophical bullshit makes my confidence in project success go down to zero. That is why it is false. Just life experience. Little advise: if you want to make a successful company, forget about your ideological believes. Believe me, this will work :lol:
Well, I certainly don't want to be caught up in "pseudo philosophical bullshit" because I try to be very practical. But resorting to derogatory language as a shortcut to actual discussion is not helpful to me nor anyone else.
-
To me, BitShares is a general purpose platform that is equally well suited for hard-nosed businesses and idealistic movements.
I don't expect any single user to have a desire to participate in every business and movement.
But together they all grow the network effect and help raise the warp core above kindling temperature.
There are all kinds of potential MPAs, UIAs, FBAs and MASs that can be added by those so motivated.
I welcome them all.
-
"For too long BitShares has been evolving without any clearly and consistently stated purpose or direction."
The reason why it was hard for me and others to contribute to anything. Everything seems to happen randomly with Bitshares and with a lack of clear priorities.
It is my new years resolution to do a much better job communicating and leading than I have in the past year.
-
A new year, calls for a renewed vision and direction for BitShares. For too long BitShares has been evolving without any clearly and consistently stated purpose or direction. Today I would to cast my vision for BitShares in 2016 and the years beyond. The most high level vision is to create a well ordered society that is governed in a manner that fully adheres to the Non Aggression Principle (NAP).
OMG! A business project which is based on false ideological principles is doomed to fail. Being determines consciousness. Economical laws should determine ideology, not vise versa. Well, at least we have an interesting IT experiment.
What false ideological principles. I would be very happy to discuss the ideology and correct anyplace I am wrong.
I'll be brief today. Pseudo philosophical bullshit makes my confidence in project success go down to zero. That is why it is false. Just life experience. Little advise: if you want to make a successful company, forget about your ideological believes. Believe me, this will work :lol:
Well, I certainly don't want to be caught up in "pseudo philosophical bullshit" because I try to be very practical. But resorting to derogatory language as a shortcut to actual discussion is not helpful to me nor anyone else.
That's ok. You are free to do whatever you want. Just don't forget, being determines consciousness, not vice versa.
-
If we can achieve government via blockchain using consensus, supported by reputation and free markets then perhaps the word "government" may be redeemed.
I agree with the emphasis being shifted to community and the value the BitShares network can offer as an unparalleled tool for society. BM your words inspire me and once again reinforce my conviction that BitShares is the place to be.
I disagree with yvv in his belief that ideology endangers the BitShares network. Pursuit of the right ideology (and we've been grappling with what that is since the dawn of Bitcoin) is the only way BitShares will grow significantly. Yes the technology must be competitive, accessible, with exceptional utility but it is the thorough philosophical analysis and vision that sets BitShares apart. Incentives that enable the network to exist and function are essential but isn't the legacy of greater importance? Without well reasoned ideology, there would be no dedication to ensuring the choices we make wll ensure BitShares is built to endure.
-
If we can achieve government via blockchain using consensus, supported by reputation and free markets then perhaps the word "government" may be redeemed.
I agree with the emphasis being shifted to community and the value the BitShares network can offer as an unparalleled tool for society. BM your words inspire me and once again reinforce my conviction that BitShares is the place to be.
I disagree with yvv in his belief that ideology endangers the BitShares network. Pursuit of the right ideology (and we've been grappling with what that is since the dawn of Bitcoin) is the only way BitShares will grow significantly. Yes the technology must be competitive, accessible, with exceptional utility but it is the thorough philosophical analysis and vision that sets BitShares apart. Incentives that enable the network to exist and function are essential but isn't the legacy of greater importance? Without well reasoned ideology, there would be no dedication to ensuring the choices we make wll ensure BitShares is built to endure.
I am not a believer. I don't have any believes. Being determines consciousness. This is a scientific fact. You deny it, good luck to you.
-
If we can achieve government via blockchain using consensus, supported by reputation and free markets then perhaps the word "government" may be redeemed.
I agree with the emphasis being shifted to community and the value the BitShares network can offer as an unparalleled tool for society. BM your words inspire me and once again reinforce my conviction that BitShares is the place to be.
I disagree with yvv in his belief that ideology endangers the BitShares network. Pursuit of the right ideology (and we've been grappling with what that is since the dawn of Bitcoin) is the only way BitShares will grow significantly. Yes the technology must be competitive, accessible, with exceptional utility but it is the thorough philosophical analysis and vision that sets BitShares apart. Incentives that enable the network to exist and function are essential but isn't the legacy of greater importance? Without well reasoned ideology, there would be no dedication to ensuring the choices we make wll ensure BitShares is built to endure.
+1
-
If we can achieve government via blockchain using consensus, supported by reputation and free markets then perhaps the word "government" may be redeemed.
I agree with the emphasis being shifted to community and the value the BitShares network can offer as an unparalleled tool for society. BM your words inspire me and once again reinforce my conviction that BitShares is the place to be.
I disagree with yvv in his belief that ideology endangers the BitShares network. Pursuit of the right ideology (and we've been grappling with what that is since the dawn of Bitcoin) is the only way BitShares will grow significantly. Yes the technology must be competitive, accessible, with exceptional utility but it is the thorough philosophical analysis and vision that sets BitShares apart. Incentives that enable the network to exist and function are essential but isn't the legacy of greater importance? Without well reasoned ideology, there would be no dedication to ensuring the choices we make wll ensure BitShares is built to endure.
I am not a believer. I don't have any believes. Being determines consciousness. This is a scientific fact. You deny it, good luck to you.
I'm not sure I know what you mean by 'being determines consciousness.' Please would you explain it further?
All I believe is that humans are capable of organising themselves in such a way that it is possible to live in peace with an economic system that is resistant to corruption over time. BitShares is the the closest to accomplishing that objective and I agree that the best way to grow the network (assuming our existing tools are ready) is to form partnerships, help people, help communities and realise the enormous value that we already have.
-
I apologise yvv, it's very late here and i must get to bed. I'm very interested to understand your warning about ideology but I'll have to check out any response tomorrow! Goodnight.
-
Proof of stake means holders value their stake . They would not do stupid decision to hurt their stake . Hence proof of stake is somehow "secured" .
But mixing with political agenda , we have observed so many times in history , that people would sacrifice their own blood for political pursuit , let alone financial interest .
Unless the system is somehow secured by "proof of believes" , I smell danger .
The vote thing that turned into the merger maybe a perfect example . I can't help to wonder "a transparent vote" is so addictive to a guy with so much political pursuit that he has to make it his priority .
-
Here's the problem. Most people, and i'm going to guess over 90%, are here to try to leverage the overall move of the public to blockchain tech. They are trying to profit by beating the banks. They are trying to leverage the technical superiority of bitshares compared to bitcoin to achieve a higher beta return.
What you are talking about is head in the clouds philisophical type of stuff that these 90% are not interested in. You might not think that is the case based on reading the forums, but these people are voting with their feet and leaving bitshares.
Bitshares was in the great position to be a decentralized exchange, with increased security, and 0% chance of being mf globaled. The amount of traders that would have embraced this would have been huge... i personally know very influential traders that fear that the markets will be taken away within the next 10 years. With bts that would have been impossible. All we had to do was grow that business... but we killed our golden goose. Unable to build and grow what could have been the cornerstone of your new free society. It's a lack of focus, which has been bitshares calling card for over a year now.
I hate what has happened to bitshares. It's some ideological play pen for large holders and founders at the expense of the smaller holders. I'm going to continue to hold by bts because maybe I'm missing something bigger... but when I see core dev's selling all their personal holdings I fear I should do the same.
-
Here's the problem. Most people, and i'm going to guess over 90%, are here to try to leverage the overall move of the public to blockchain tech. They are trying to profit by beating the banks. They are trying to leverage the technical superiority of bitshares compared to bitcoin to achieve a higher beta return.
What you are talking about is head in the clouds philisophical type of stuff that these 90% are not interested in. You might not think that is the case based on reading the forums, but these people are voting with their feet and leaving bitshares.
Bitshares was in the great position to be a decentralized exchange, with increased security, and 0% chance of being mf globaled. The amount of traders that would have embraced this would have been huge... i personally know very influential traders that fear that the markets will be taken away within the next 10 years. With bts that would have been impossible. All we had to do was grow that business... but we killed our golden goose. Unable to build and grow what could have been the cornerstone of your new free society. It's a lack of focus, which has been bitshares calling card for over a year now.
I hate what has happened to bitshares. It's some ideological play pen for large holders and founders at the expense of the smaller holders. I'm going to continue to hold by bts because maybe I'm missing something bigger... but when I see core dev's selling all their personal holdings I fear I should do the same.
+5%
Philosophy is great, but what people, including me, are interested is real business. So what's our business plan for 2016? DEX? If so, please focus on exchange features (like BSIP 4) first. Banking based on blockchain? Then PR to bankers and make agreement with real banks.
-
Here's the problem. Most people, and i'm going to guess over 90%, are here to try to leverage the overall move of the public to blockchain tech. They are trying to profit by beating the banks. They are trying to leverage the technical superiority of bitshares compared to bitcoin to achieve a higher beta return.
What you are talking about is head in the clouds philisophical type of stuff that these 90% are not interested in. You might not think that is the case based on reading the forums, but these people are voting with their feet and leaving bitshares.
Bitshares was in the great position to be a decentralized exchange, with increased security, and 0% chance of being mf globaled. The amount of traders that would have embraced this would have been huge... i personally know very influential traders that fear that the markets will be taken away within the next 10 years. With bts that would have been impossible. All we had to do was grow that business... but we killed our golden goose. Unable to build and grow what could have been the cornerstone of your new free society. It's a lack of focus, which has been bitshares calling card for over a year now.
I hate what has happened to bitshares. It's some ideological play pen for large holders and founders at the expense of the smaller holders. I'm going to continue to hold by bts because maybe I'm missing something bigger... but when I see core dev's selling all their personal holdings I fear I should do the same.
+5%
Philosophy is great, but what people, including me, are interested is real business. So what's our business plan for 2016? DEX? If so, please focus on exchange features (like BSIP 4) first. Banking based on blockchain? Then PR to bankers and make agreement with real banks.
I like political people . Part of me still one .
I just wish they have raised money mainly from political people as well , instead of us .
Because I normally don't pitch in financially for a political cause , I would rather pitch in with my thoughts .
-
Bitshares was in the great position to be a decentralized exchange, with increased security, and 0% chance of being mf globaled. The amount of traders that would have embraced this would have been huge... i personally know very influential traders that fear that the markets will be taken away within the next 10 years. With bts that would have been impossible. All we had to do was grow that business... but we killed our golden goose.
I agree with your initial assessment of the 90% and that the ideological goals would be easier to achieve once the financials were secure. However I do not agree that the golden goose is dead or even lame. The platform is powerful and one person's use case for it, even if it is the creator, does not drive everything. It can still be the exchange platform for the masses, the POS that competes with Visa/Mastercard, and a social currency exchange.
IMHO this is akin to trying to decide what the internet should be used for when really we should be just insuring that it stays as open as possible.
-
"For too long BitShares has been evolving without any clearly and consistently stated purpose or direction."
The reason why it was hard for me and others to contribute to anything. Everything seems to happen randomly with Bitshares and with a lack of clear priorities.
It is my new years resolution to do a much better job communicating and leading than I have in the past year.
While i welcome the libertarian discussion i really do think it should be the non-focal point. Politics is so divisive (remember ron paul being boo'ed at republican debates?) and i think we should focus on our competitive advantage / business advantages. 2016 should be about regaining our lost mkt cap (a better UI, more innovation etc).
just my 2 cents.
-
Here's the problem. Most people, and i'm going to guess over 90%, are here to try to leverage the overall move of the public to blockchain tech. They are trying to profit by beating the banks. They are trying to leverage the technical superiority of bitshares compared to bitcoin to achieve a higher beta return.
What you are talking about is head in the clouds philisophical type of stuff that these 90% are not interested in. You might not think that is the case based on reading the forums, but these people are voting with their feet and leaving bitshares.
Bitshares was in the great position to be a decentralized exchange, with increased security, and 0% chance of being mf globaled. The amount of traders that would have embraced this would have been huge... i personally know very influential traders that fear that the markets will be taken away within the next 10 years. With bts that would have been impossible. All we had to do was grow that business... but we killed our golden goose. Unable to build and grow what could have been the cornerstone of your new free society. It's a lack of focus, which has been bitshares calling card for over a year now.
I hate what has happened to bitshares. It's some ideological play pen for large holders and founders at the expense of the smaller holders. I'm going to continue to hold by bts because maybe I'm missing something bigger... but when I see core dev's selling all their personal holdings I fear I should do the same.
+5%
Philosophy is great, but what people, including me, are interested is real business. So what's our business plan for 2016? DEX? If so, please focus on exchange features (like BSIP 4) first. Banking based on blockchain? Then PR to bankers and make agreement with real banks.
THIS ^^^^
-
Here's the problem. Most people, and i'm going to guess over 90%, are here to try to leverage the overall move of the public to blockchain tech. They are trying to profit by beating the banks. They are trying to leverage the technical superiority of bitshares compared to bitcoin to achieve a higher beta return.
A major problem seems to be that hiring devs to add the features and refinements and upgrades that everyone wants takes funding. How are "they" (those making suggestions/requests) proposing to hire and pay devs to accomplish "their" desires in the order that they propose?
These discussions could be a lot more fruitful if plans for funding of requests accompanied those requests.
If you own BTS now, you own a share of the blockchain technology "as is". You have not paid for future development (the money for that ran out a long time ago).
-
Here's the problem. Most people, and i'm going to guess over 90%, are here to try to leverage the overall move of the public to blockchain tech. They are trying to profit by beating the banks. They are trying to leverage the technical superiority of bitshares compared to bitcoin to achieve a higher beta return.
A major problem seems to be that hiring devs to add the features and refinements and upgrades that everyone wants takes funding. How are "they" (those making suggestions/requests) proposing to hire and pay devs to accomplish "their" desires in the order that they propose?
These discussions could be a lot more fruitful if plans for funding of requests accompanied those requests.
If you own BTS now, you own a share of the blockchain technology "as is". You have not paid for future development (the money for that ran out a long time ago).
That's what worker proposals were suppose to be for... adding features.
-
Here's the problem. Most people, and i'm going to guess over 90%, are here to try to leverage the overall move of the public to blockchain tech. They are trying to profit by beating the banks. They are trying to leverage the technical superiority of bitshares compared to bitcoin to achieve a higher beta return.
A major problem seems to be that hiring devs to add the features and refinements and upgrades that everyone wants takes funding. How are "they" (those making suggestions/requests) proposing to hire and pay devs to accomplish "their" desires in the order that they propose?
These discussions could be a lot more fruitful if plans for funding of requests accompanied those requests.
If you own BTS now, you own a share of the blockchain technology "as is". You have not paid for future development (the money for that ran out a long time ago).
That's what worker proposals were suppose to be for... adding features.
I saw 3 worker proposals for 400 usd the other day, what's the largest worker proposal we have agreed to so far?
-
Here's the problem. Most people, and i'm going to guess over 90%, are here to try to leverage the overall move of the public to blockchain tech. They are trying to profit by beating the banks. They are trying to leverage the technical superiority of bitshares compared to bitcoin to achieve a higher beta return.
A major problem seems to be that hiring devs to add the features and refinements and upgrades that everyone wants takes funding. How are "they" (those making suggestions/requests) proposing to hire and pay devs to accomplish "their" desires in the order that they propose?
These discussions could be a lot more fruitful if plans for funding of requests accompanied those requests.
If you own BTS now, you own a share of the blockchain technology "as is". You have not paid for future development (the money for that ran out a long time ago).
Correct. Bootstrapping a business means choosing from the paths through the entrepreneurial maze that are available to you at each point in time.
Each candidate path has its estimated costs and rate of return. Sometimes the most direct paths exceed our immediate resources. Sometimes we need to take a few detours to acquire the resources needed to pursue the final goal.
To make a DEX successful you need market depth. To get that you need users. There are many potential ways to get users and effort expended in any of them is potentially productive. We look for ways that we can afford and that are likely to pay off sooner than later.
Sometimes you can attract users philosophically while you build features that will attract others economically.
We are not given a map to our maze in advance. The best solution is to explore the maze in parallel as a team of fellow entrepreneurs. We are not limited to just worker proposals or just outside investments or just creating a compelling reason to work together. It is the sum of all those efforts that will get us there.
(http://www.allkidsnetwork.com/mazes/images/hard-maze-general.jpg)
-
Here's the problem. Most people, and i'm going to guess over 90%, are here to try to leverage the overall move of the public to blockchain tech. They are trying to profit by beating the banks. They are trying to leverage the technical superiority of bitshares compared to bitcoin to achieve a higher beta return.
A major problem seems to be that hiring devs to add the features and refinements and upgrades that everyone wants takes funding. How are "they" (those making suggestions/requests) proposing to hire and pay devs to accomplish "their" desires in the order that they propose?
These discussions could be a lot more fruitful if plans for funding of requests accompanied those requests.
If you own BTS now, you own a share of the blockchain technology "as is". You have not paid for future development (the money for that ran out a long time ago).
Correct. Bootstrapping a business means choosing from the paths through the entrepreneurial maze that are available to you at each point in time.
Each candidate path has its estimated costs and rate of return. Sometimes the most direct paths exceed our immediate resources. Sometimes we need to take a few detours to acquire the resources needed to pursue the final goal.
To make a DEX successful you need market depth. To get that you need users. There are many potential ways to get users and effort expended in any of them is potentially productive. We look for ways that we can afford and that are likely to pay off sooner than later.
Sometimes you can attract users philosophically while you build other features that will attract them economically.
We are not given a map to our maze in advance. The best solution is to explore the maze in parallel as a team of fellow entrepreneurs. We are not limited to just worker proposals or just outside investments or just creating a compelling reason to work together. It is the sum of all those efforts that will get us there.
(http://www.allkidsnetwork.com/mazes/images/hard-maze-general.jpg)
(https://i.gyazo.com/9728bec955740c9f0c1f6c830696e8d5.png)
Solved the maze.
No more need to try to solve the maze in parallel :P
-
Did you cheat and look at the map of the maze from above?
Try it again from ground level...
:)
-
Did you cheat and look at the map of the maze from above?
Try it again from ground level...
:)
Nope.
Tried multiple routes.
Went back and redid from alternative route when it didn't work.
One difference though, I began from the end point when working from the initial point got confusing.
Relates a lot to what we are doing here.
We need to make our moves with our end goal in mind and re-iterate strategies when we see some don't working :)
-
A business without philosophy is dead and pointless. Likewise philosophy without business goes nowhere. The maze of life is too complex to make decision only on info. It is values and philosophy the must fill the gaps and keep us focused.
Nothing Bm said takes anything away from the dex. It only adds something new. The dex is nice and all, but there is no reason to use the dex. There is no reason to use bts except for the hope of adoption.
As a user why should I adopt bts TODAY? Bm just gave me a reason to be involved today. Speculation isn't a good reason on its own. It created a huge sunshine soldier that left town after the easy gains were had.
Mas is a great business that provides value today. It gives us something unique. I can sell that. I can't sell a dex with no unique assets to trade to many.
-
A business without philosophy is dead and pointless. Likewise philosophy without business goes nowhere. The maze of life is too complex to make decision only on info. It is values and philosophy the must fill the gaps and keep us focused.
Nothing Bm said takes anything away from the dex. It only adds something new. The dex is nice and all, but there is no reason to use the dex. There is no reason to use bts except for the hope of adoption.
As a user why should I adopt bts TODAY? Bm just gave me a reason to be involved today. Speculation isn't a good reason on its own. It created a huge sunshine soldier that left town after the easy gains were had.
Mas is a great business that provides value today. It gives us something unique. I can sell that. I can't sell a dex with no unique assets to trade to many.
Hope you can be rich since you can sell that , lots of referral fee there .
Or , not ..
-
Knowing Bm he is always looking for profit. Let's give him time to explain the business.
-
Here's the problem. Most people, and i'm going to guess over 90%, are here to try to leverage the overall move of the public to blockchain tech. They are trying to profit by beating the banks. They are trying to leverage the technical superiority of bitshares compared to bitcoin to achieve a higher beta return.
A major problem seems to be that hiring devs to add the features and refinements and upgrades that everyone wants takes funding. How are "they" (those making suggestions/requests) proposing to hire and pay devs to accomplish "their" desires in the order that they propose?
These discussions could be a lot more fruitful if plans for funding of requests accompanied those requests.
If you own BTS now, you own a share of the blockchain technology "as is". You have not paid for future development (the money for that ran out a long time ago).
That's what worker proposals were suppose to be for... adding features.
Why is everything you say in this thread about Bitshares in past tense as though it's something that doesn't exist anymore?
-
Here's the problem. Most people, and i'm going to guess over 90%, are here to try to leverage the overall move of the public to blockchain tech. They are trying to profit by beating the banks. They are trying to leverage the technical superiority of bitshares compared to bitcoin to achieve a higher beta return.
A major problem seems to be that hiring devs to add the features and refinements and upgrades that everyone wants takes funding. How are "they" (those making suggestions/requests) proposing to hire and pay devs to accomplish "their" desires in the order that they propose?
These discussions could be a lot more fruitful if plans for funding of requests accompanied those requests.
If you own BTS now, you own a share of the blockchain technology "as is". You have not paid for future development (the money for that ran out a long time ago).
Correct. Bootstrapping a business means choosing from the paths through the entrepreneurial maze that are available to you at each point in time.
Each candidate path has its estimated costs and rate of return. Sometimes the most direct paths exceed our immediate resources. Sometimes we need to take a few detours to acquire the resources needed to pursue the final goal.
To make a DEX successful you need market depth. To get that you need users. There are many potential ways to get users and effort expended in any of them is potentially productive. We look for ways that we can afford and that are likely to pay off sooner than later.
Sometimes you can attract users philosophically while you build features that will attract others economically.
We are not given a map to our maze in advance. The best solution is to explore the maze in parallel as a team of fellow entrepreneurs. We are not limited to just worker proposals or just outside investments or just creating a compelling reason to work together. It is the sum of all those efforts that will get us there.
(http://www.allkidsnetwork.com/mazes/images/hard-maze-general.jpg)
I solved the map:
(http://i66.tinypic.com/elqoh.jpg)
-
Here's the problem. Most people, and i'm going to guess over 90%, are here to try to leverage the overall move of the public to blockchain tech. They are trying to profit by beating the banks. They are trying to leverage the technical superiority of bitshares compared to bitcoin to achieve a higher beta return.
A major problem seems to be that hiring devs to add the features and refinements and upgrades that everyone wants takes funding. How are "they" (those making suggestions/requests) proposing to hire and pay devs to accomplish "their" desires in the order that they propose?
These discussions could be a lot more fruitful if plans for funding of requests accompanied those requests.
If you own BTS now, you own a share of the blockchain technology "as is". You have not paid for future development (the money for that ran out a long time ago).
Correct. Bootstrapping a business means choosing from the paths through the entrepreneurial maze that are available to you at each point in time.
Each candidate path has its estimated costs and rate of return. Sometimes the most direct paths exceed our immediate resources. Sometimes we need to take a few detours to acquire the resources needed to pursue the final goal.
To make a DEX successful you need market depth. To get that you need users. There are many potential ways to get users and effort expended in any of them is potentially productive. We look for ways that we can afford and that are likely to pay off sooner than later.
Sometimes you can attract users philosophically while you build features that will attract others economically.
We are not given a map to our maze in advance. The best solution is to explore the maze in parallel as a team of fellow entrepreneurs. We are not limited to just worker proposals or just outside investments or just creating a compelling reason to work together. It is the sum of all those efforts that will get us there.
(http://www.allkidsnetwork.com/mazes/images/hard-maze-general.jpg)
I solved the map:
(http://i66.tinypic.com/elqoh.jpg)
Yea sorry, that's not how life works for 99.9999999 percent of the world.
-
Here's the problem. Most people, and i'm going to guess over 90%, are here to try to leverage the overall move of the public to blockchain tech. They are trying to profit by beating the banks. They are trying to leverage the technical superiority of bitshares compared to bitcoin to achieve a higher beta return.
A major problem seems to be that hiring devs to add the features and refinements and upgrades that everyone wants takes funding. How are "they" (those making suggestions/requests) proposing to hire and pay devs to accomplish "their" desires in the order that they propose?
These discussions could be a lot more fruitful if plans for funding of requests accompanied those requests.
If you own BTS now, you own a share of the blockchain technology "as is". You have not paid for future development (the money for that ran out a long time ago).
Correct. Bootstrapping a business means choosing from the paths through the entrepreneurial maze that are available to you at each point in time.
Each candidate path has its estimated costs and rate of return. Sometimes the most direct paths exceed our immediate resources. Sometimes we need to take a few detours to acquire the resources needed to pursue the final goal.
To make a DEX successful you need market depth. To get that you need users. There are many potential ways to get users and effort expended in any of them is potentially productive. We look for ways that we can afford and that are likely to pay off sooner than later.
Sometimes you can attract users philosophically while you build features that will attract others economically.
We are not given a map to our maze in advance. The best solution is to explore the maze in parallel as a team of fellow entrepreneurs. We are not limited to just worker proposals or just outside investments or just creating a compelling reason to work together. It is the sum of all those efforts that will get us there.
(http://www.allkidsnetwork.com/mazes/images/hard-maze-general.jpg)
I solved the map:
(http://i66.tinypic.com/elqoh.jpg)
Yea sorry, that's not how life works for 99.9999999 percent of the world.
That was Alexander the "Great's" way of solving puzzles. But then again, he wasn't big on the Non Aggression Principle (NAP).
-
I think most of the commentators in this thread already violated the first core principle of the NAP. :)
Firstly, this was a very high level introduction to ONE idea for Bitshares. One of many.
Many commentators seem to always want to take BMs posts and ideas and boil down Bitshares to just that one thing. This to me is his own personal shot at building something profitable on Bitshares.
It's something he believes in, and something he thinks will do good for Bitshares and the world.
Before anybody goes tearing it apart, I ask you to consider asking yourself 'Where is my profitable idea to build on Bitshares?'
That's all this is... consider contributing some ideas on ways it can work, because anything else you do/say isn't going to help your Bitshares holdings.
If you want to see other aspects of Bitshares to be developed more and grow because that is your thing, go nuts! Do it! There isn't anything stopping you but you.
I for one look forward to helping any way I can see MAS and other such visions come alive.
Let's make 2016 the year that the blockchain evolutionized our social order worldwide.
-
Yea sorry, that's not how life works for 99.9999999 percent of the world.
You are correct.
Most of the world will see all the obstacles and will attempt to solve problems within the confines of the barriers placed in front of them.
Good thing some here don't think that way... otherwise Bitshares wouldn't exist at all.
-
Yea sorry, that's not how life works for 99.9999999 percent of the world.
You are correct.
Most of the world will see all the obstacles and will attempt to solve problems within the confines of the barriers placed in front of them.
Good thing some here don't think that way... otherwise Bitshares wouldn't exist at all.
Disruption is not the equivalent of logical fallacy :)
-
I'm just pleased to see that FISTBUMP's (https://goo.gl/2cCitd) are in your visions Dan.
And why wouldn't it be, since it's the #1 Social Currency on the BitShares DEX and has the ability to defeat the New World Order built into it. :D
-
The entire "cryptocurrency isn't property" argument is really hard for me to follow.
Any "property" which you can't protect with your body (the theft of which would then require violating NAP) is protected for you by the government via property laws.
Your car deed is also a shared societal perception that the car "belongs" to you. If I come hotwire it while you are asleep, by your own reasoning I have not violated NAP.
A lot of anarchists don't believe in property rights other than what you can carry, and it's not an invalid argument, I just think it's not what you actually believe.
Personal property vs private property. Personal property is the most essential property to defend while private property might just be owned by a corporation or by some sort of a cartel.
-
I got very worried when I read the "vision blog post" by BM.
This Mutual Aid Society concept might make sense but not now.
Yet again BitShares seems to be doing that terrible thing: avoiding stability and changing course.
And those suggestions "if you don't like BM's ideas just build your own stuff on BitShares" are just false.
With the current poor documentation and no real efforts to attract third-party developers, it is just not possible.
Even if you have an idea you are left alone with it.
Look at Moonstone. Look at BitShares-based ATMs by devlux. Look at Nexus by Rune.
Look at our roadmap - plenty of great ideas but no realistic chance to achieve them.
Even the migration process seems to be still unfinished.
CNX is the bottleneck here and instead of focusing on documentation, education and building a strong community of developers who will eliminate this bottleneck, CNX is concerned about "vision".
BM, I wish your New Year's resolution was not a new attempt at leadership.
I wish it was the opposite - stepping down from this role.
I don't think we need a leader at this stage.
What we need is someone who leverages his knowledge about the inner workings of Graphene and spreads this knowledge to the outside world.
Someone who creates tools for developers and opens up Graphene to become the blockchain equivalent of Android.
In short, what we need is stable and friendly environment for developers and businesses. Not a vision.
The idea of MAS might be good. But it is not the right time for this.
-
I got very worried when I read the "vision blog post" by BM.
This Mutual Aid Society concept might make sense but not now.
Yet again BitShares seems to be doing that terrible thing: avoiding stability and changing course.
And those suggestions "if you don't like BM's ideas just build your own stuff on BitShares" are just false.
With the current poor documentation and no real efforts to attract third-party developers, it is just not possible.
Even if you have an idea you are left alone with it.
Look at Moonstone. Look at BitShares-based ATMs by devlux. Look at Nexus by Rune.
Look at our roadmap - plenty of great ideas but no realistic chance to achieve them.
Even the migration process seems to be still unfinished.
CNX is the bottleneck here and instead of focusing on documentation, education and building a strong community of developers who will eliminate this bottleneck, CNX is concerned about "vision".
BM, I wish your New Year's resolution was not a new attempt at leadership.
I wish it was the opposite - stepping down from this role.
I don't think we need a leader at this stage.
What we need is someone who leverages his knowledge about the inner workings of Graphene and spreads this knowledge to the outside world.
Someone who creates tools for developers and opens up Graphene to become the blockchain equivalent of Android.
In short, what we need is stable and friendly environment for developers and businesses. Not a vision.
The idea of MAS might be good. But it is not the right time for this.
This ^^^^^ +5%
-
Just keep improving the decentralised exchange and make the smartcoin spread smaller because this is what investors in bitshares want.
-
I got very worried when I read the "vision blog post" by BM.
This Mutual Aid Society concept might make sense but not now.
BitShares Vision should have been called "My Vision for BitShares" since it
really is only the vision of Dan.
Also, BitShares is independent of Dan and CNX and you can have your OWN vision.
I think every feature that can be implemented in BitShares and makes it a
profitable business makes sense independent of the actual timing.
Yet again BitShares seems to be doing that terrible thing: avoiding stability and changing course.
I don't see BitShares change course. It actually never had a course, it had
several. You could say that Dan changed his course and interpretation as well as
his goals for BitShares, but it is not in his hands alone.
He also does NOT change any existing feature but merely ADDS a new feature
leaving existing features as stable as they are already.
And those suggestions "if you don't like BM's ideas just build your own stuff on BitShares" are just false.
With the current poor documentation and no real efforts to attract third-party developers, it is just not possible.
Even if you have an idea you are left alone with it.
Not sure why people blame "poor documentation". Have you read into the source
code already? It is well documented and very easy to read!
I know that for a fact because I tried to get into it even though I am not a
coder and yet here I am, knowing about the tech and the implementation.
Look at Moonstone. Look at BitShares-based ATMs by devlux. Look at Nexus by Rune.
Look at our roadmap - plenty of great ideas but no realistic chance to achieve them.
BitShares gives them a means to build a business. It does not make them
inherently profitable. The list of projects here have had very different reasons
to change course.
Even the migration process seems to be still unfinished.
How so? What does this have to do with the OP? Would you pay anyone for
improving the migration process? If not you can't expect anyone to do it for
you!
[qquote]
CNX is the bottleneck here and instead of focusing on documentation, education
and building a strong community of developers who will eliminate this
bottleneck, CNX is concerned about "vision".
[/quote]
So you want CNX to do all the work that no-one pays them for! Got it.
It's also not CNX concerning about vision, it is Dan and I very much appreciate
that he still has big plans for BitShares and sticks with it!
But I agree that CNX is a bottleneck. We need a lot more independent developers
joining and I am personally working hard to achieve exactly that.
BM, I wish your New Year's resolution was not a new attempt at leadership.
I wish it was the opposite - stepping down from this role.
Lol. Dan never was the leader, but the inventor. CNX is neither a dictator but
an innovator.
I don't think we need a leader at this stage.
What we need is someone who leverages his knowledge about the inner workings of Graphene and spreads this knowledge to the outside world.
Someone who creates tools for developers and opens up Graphene to become the blockchain equivalent of Android.
Sounds like a plan. Why don't YOU step up and do it?
Who are you to tell Dan what to do with his time and money?
In short, what we need is stable and friendly environment for developers and
businesses. Not a vision.
What exactly is unfriedly in our environment? Don't you get help when you need
it? Don't we contact businesses and reach out to them for integration? Are you?
The only thing I am concerned is that Dan/CNX is way too innovative to handle
the load alone. Just because people don't understand the concepts, innovations
and ideas technically does not mean they are bad ideas. what we need is to reach
decision makers attracted by our vision and ideas and only then have them
fascinated by our technology. </imho>
-
@xeroc , you know damn well that I've always been advocating the "BM owes us nothing" stance.
Yes, he is free to do whatever he wants but I am also free to express my view what the most important areas are *in my eyes*, so that BM can get some feedback.
And there are areas where currently CNX is the only entity capable of getting things done, especially when a protocol change is involved.
Theoretically there is a choice, practically there is no choice. As of 2015, if BM does not like something it won't be implemented.
And it's not entirely due to his voting power. It is mainly due to his code development power.
I just wish for 2016 to be the year when this situation finally changes. And BM's vision for 2016 about MAS is not a step in this direction.
We all feel bad about it:
- CNX (because this situation puts pressure on them and prevents them from perusing their vision)
- the community (because we can have our ideas but we still feel dependent on CNX to execute them)
Thus what I am actually suggesting is first eliminate (at least partially) our dependence on CNX and then let them pursue whatever visions they have.
And this will only happen when we can honestly say that Graphene is a friendly & stable environment encouraging third-party development.
-
I'm just lost at what bitshares is and what we're focused on. I cant explain it to anyone much less get them to buy something so complex. I thought we were going to find a niche (like the decentralized exchange) and leverage and exploit that niche.... That is what successful businesses do. They don't go running after every new idea they have without completing their previous one.
-
BitShares Vision should have been called "My Vision for BitShares" since it
really is only the vision of Dan.
Also, BitShares is independent of Dan and CNX and you can have your OWN vision.
I think every feature that can be implemented in BitShares and makes it a
profitable business makes sense independent of the actual timing.
It should have been titled and marketed as "CNX's idea for a killer app built on BitShares".
As it is now, it looks like BM has a grand vision for the whole new direction for BitShares.
I don't see BitShares change course. It actually never had a course, it had
several. You could say that Dan changed his course and interpretation as well as
his goals for BitShares, but it is not in his hands alone.
He also does NOT change any existing feature but merely ADDS a new feature
leaving existing features as stable as they are already.
Theoretically you are right.
But practically, due to limited resources, it means other areas listed in the roadmap will be neglected or abandoned. So it has the same effect as changing course.
Not sure why people blame "poor documentation". Have you read into the source
code already? It is well documented and very easy to read!
I know that for a fact because I tried to get into it even though I am not a
coder and yet here I am, knowing about the tech and the implementation.
No, I have not read into source code. Do you expect an average entrepreneur to do that?
I need to be able get a rough idea how it all works before the people I hire jump into the code.
I need guides and tutorials like Android offers. And I'm willing to pay for their creation.
BitShares gives them a means to build a business. It does not make them
inherently profitable. The list of projects here have had very different reasons
to change course.
All of those projects are seriously delayed.
And still there is not a single company (apart from CNX) able to produce a worker proposal involving a protocol change.
It must be either extremely difficult or there are not enough financial incentives.
As nobody is even bidding, it must be the former reason, not the latter.
How so? What does this have to do with the OP? Would you pay anyone for
improving the migration process? If not you can't expect anyone to do it for
you!
This is a clear example of a task that only CNX can do. An attempt at this by a third-party company would be crazy.
So you want CNX to do all the work that no-one pays them for! Got it.
It's also not CNX concerning about vision, it is Dan and I very much appreciate
that he still has big plans for BitShares and sticks with it!
But I agree that CNX is a bottleneck. We need a lot more independent developers
joining and I am personally working hard to achieve exactly that.
Why are you saying no-one wants to pay for it? I do want to pay for it.
Lol. Dan never was the leader, but the inventor. CNX is neither a dictator but
an innovator.
He clearly said in one of the posts in this thread that in 2016 he would aim to be a better leader.
Sounds like a plan. Why don't YOU step up and do it?
Who are you to tell Dan what to do with his time and money?
There is a very simple reason I don't step in. Because BM's knowledge about Graphene is incomparable to mine.
Even if I tried very hard, documentation for developers written by me would be worthless.
What exactly is unfriendly in our environment? Don't you get help when you need
it? Don't we contact businesses and reach out to them for integration? Are you?
I do get help, and especially your help, xeroc, is very appreciated.
But despite this help I still won't call this environment stable and open for third-party development.
-
I'm just lost at what bitshares is and what we're focused on. I cant explain it to anyone much less get them to buy something so complex. I thought we were going to find a niche (like the decentralized exchange) and leverage and exploit that niche.... That is what successful businesses do. They don't go running after every new idea they have without completing their previous one.
I don't see how that's changed. The core devs for Bitcoin don't need to buy into every business idea out there that uses the protocol. Businesses look at what Bitcoin is and figure out how best to use it.
CNX being a knowledge bottleneck is a legitimate concern but not one for them to solve alone. One could think of this as a marshmallow bus test.
-
https://youtu.be/TK57RiMqTdk
-
CNX being a knowledge bottleneck is a legitimate concern but not one for them to solve alone. One could think of this as a marshmallow bus test.
I agree. We cannot just sit back and wait for CNX to offer us perfect tutorials and teach us everything.
However, for me personally, a clear declaration of CNX's intention to put effort into this educational area in 2016, would be much more uplifting than a new grand vision like MAS.
I have nothing against MAS, actually I quite like the concept, but it would be much more encouraging for me to be able to build something similar to MAS on my own than sit back and wait for CNX to realize their grand vision on my behalf.
CNX, please don't give us one more thing on the horizon and make us hope that this time the magic will happen.
Just give us tools and good tutorials how to utilize what we already have.
-
Lol. Dan never was the leader, but the inventor.
Wrong :)
My job is to lead not code.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,10118.msg131991.html#msg131991
As for the vision, it's pretty niche, I don't think it will attract new users or increase support for a DAC that's been more or less in a solid downtrend for 15 months, during which time BM's views on NAP have been fairly well known.
Looking forward to seeing a 2016 vision from a business perspective regarding how BTS will hope to attract new users, revenue and profit from innovative and compelling blockchain features.
-
this look like a family run business.
-
Lots of good ideas for stuff to do in this thread.
Most of them can be done by someone other than CNX.
There are plenty of things only CNX can do.
So we tend to focus on those.
CNX is NOT the bottleneck. Lack of more talent working in parallel is the bottleneck.
Talent is attracted to other talent, a strong platform for their application, and lots of potential users.
We have opened everything up to enable all that talent to pitch in
And have even provided diverse ways for them to make money doing it.
All that's left is attracting that talent.
We can polish and document the existing features forever and not help that.
True talent is not deterred by lack of spoon-feeding and hand-holding services.
BitShares is a high performance general purpose platform for talent to build on.
It is not something that the average user needs to understand in detail.
Complaining that BitShares is too complicated is like complaining that an aircraft cockpit is too complicated.
You don't need to look in the cockpit to fly to Shanghai.
(http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/6/5/6/2217656.jpg)
Shoppers don't need to understand the infrastructure of a mall.
That's the job of stores that decide to locate in the mall.
Stores just want to know that there will be customers.
And that means there need to be other stores.
Mall developers know they need a critical mass of anchor stores to attract smaller stores.
So we are working to develop and/or attract talent to develop those anchor "stores".
Polishing the windows on empty storefronts is not what it takes to attract businesses and customers.
So we are focused on the chicken and egg problem of attracting more businesses and customers to the platform.
And a compelling vision is one way to help break down the inevitable "you go first" attitude that is always the real roadblock.
So all you armchair quarterbacks - get out there and take some hits with the rest of us. :)
-
I see frustration here. I think we should focus on what others have suggested and compile a list of what needs to be finished and tackle these one by one as quickly as possible. Jakub deserves a lot of credit here with the UI.
I think we need that to try regain some traction and shake off the feeling of never quite being out of development. Then move on with the innovation.
My 2 cents
-
I solved the map:
(http://i66.tinypic.com/elqoh.jpg)
Yea sorry, that's not how life works for 99.9999999 percent of the world.
That was Alexander the "Great's" way of solving puzzles. But then again, he wasn't big on the Non Aggression Principle (NAP).
It takes a little more ooomph when viewed from ground level...
(http://www.functionalhandstrength.com/images3/mouse_maze.jpg)
-
Even the migration process seems to be still unfinished.
I think the migration process is now finished after @jcalfee1 integrated a bloom filter into GUI, which has been released in November.
Is there more issues reported?
-
Even the migration process seems to be still unfinished.
I think the migration process is now finished after @jcalfee1 integrated a bloom filter into GUI, which has been released in November.
Is there more issues reported?
I think the only migration issue is people holding out on actually migrating until Stealth is enabled because of privacy concerns. I think that might be what he was referring to. Otherwise you are right. Anybody from 1.0 can migrate with relative ease to 2.0 now if those choose to.
-
I solved the map:
(http://i66.tinypic.com/elqoh.jpg)
Yea sorry, that's not how life works for 99.9999999 percent of the world.
That was Alexander the "Great's" way of solving puzzles. But then again, he wasn't big on the Non Aggression Principle (NAP).
It takes a little more ooomph when viewed from ground level...
(http://www.functionalhandstrength.com/images3/mouse_maze.jpg)
Alright Stan, just answer this for me...
What is bitshares and in what direction does CNX want to see bitshares go? What does CNX want to focus on?
-Are we an exchange?
-Are we a merchant tool?
-Are we a swiss bank?
-Are we a US style bank?
-Are we a anonymous money transmitter?
-Are we an Insurance company?
-Are we a social welfare group?
-Are we a prediction market / gambling company?
-Are we a token of exchange?
-Are we a company devoted to profit/shareholders?
Because right now it seems like we are trying to be all of those things. What is the problem with just picking 1 or 2 to focus on right now? Picking something to focus on will help "bootstrap" the community for finding partners in that particular area. Right now our energy is dwindling and is being expelled in too many directions.
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTCdYwM6wrTWUzHsbklWz5pxs7QSZDuxDiJWMpDpM9OkDRITlSX-w)
-
CNX being a knowledge bottleneck is a legitimate concern but not one for them to solve alone. One could think of this as a marshmallow bus test.
I agree. We cannot just sit back and wait for CNX to offer us perfect tutorials and teach us everything.
However, for me personally, a clear declaration of CNX's intention to put effort into this educational area in 2016, would be much more uplifting than a new grand vision like MAS.
I have nothing against MAS, actually I quite like the concept, but it would be much more encouraging for me to be able to build something similar to MAS on my own than sit back and wait for CNX to realize their grand vision on my behalf.
CNX, please don't give us one more thing on the horizon and make us hope that this time the magic will happen.
Just give us tools and good tutorials how to utilize what we already have.
I think it was mentioned in the writeup that by making something like this, it does the job of educating on the possibilities of what can be done with Bitshares.
I understand your concerns.. we can certainly use more diversity in 2016... Dan is doing it the best way he knows how.
We need to be inspired no longer by what CNX does though.. but by what everybody can do now.
If documentation and education is what you would like to see.. tell us how you envision that being executed besides what Dan hopes to do in 2016? Who do you think could do that work? Would you vote for a worker proposal offering such things? Or do you think the community would side swipe it with setting other things as priorities?
-
I'm very libertarian and for a long time have been looking into alternative ways to create thriving societies and communities. I've seen lots of attempts but usually they all fail. This is really difficult subject to master, especially when the ultimate target is to make traditional government obsolete.
Based on this I suspect that Bytemaster haven't really understood how much work this will require. We are still lacking pretty much all tools to govern a community reliably and safely. We don't have that many communities that could transform themselves into MAS right now. I think this will require years of full time work. It really isn't easy when you have to build a working and useful community from scratch.
That's why I think this is more like a vision for 2018 or 2019 when we hopefully have more matured blockchain technology and more other tools for community governance (protip: if you don't want to use the word "government" in this context, use "community governance" instead).
Another reason why I'm skeptical of this vision is Bytemaster's ability to market new features. One of the biggest challenges for this kind of project is persuading others to join in. Bytemaster is a genius but unfortunately his persuasion skills are far from perfect. This includes all kind of marketing. I'm afraid this will be a flop because not enough people will get the idea and become convinced about it.
If Bytemaster can get some well known libertarian activists like Jeffrey Tucker, Adam Kokesh or Stephan Molyneux to do the promotion of MAS then it might have some possibilities for success.
And from a bigger perspective: while MAS is a cool idea, I don't think that is the most important right now. It doesn't create new wealth, it just redistributes already existing wealth. I would rather see projects that will enable people to work and create business. It's much better to help people to earn their own living than provide charity for them. There is massive unemployment all over the world and helping all those people would be far more worthwhile (although I might be biased here, just lost my job).
Guess what's a really great tool for enabling business? The Bitshares blockchain. I'd like to see focus on developing more tools that people can use profitably. It is much more easier to form communities when at least some of the people are actually making something profitable. Stealth tranfers is obviously nice tool, and market pegged assets too. Mobile wallets, point of sale systems, etc...
To make a DEX successful you need market depth. To get that you need users. There are many potential ways to get users and effort expended in any of them is potentially productive. We look for ways that we can afford and that are likely to pay off sooner than later.
How exactly you are going to do this? So far we have just a vision. I really think this isn't going to be an easy way. It will require lots of time and money.
And those suggestions "if you don't like BM's ideas just build your own stuff on BitShares" are just false.
With the current poor documentation and no real efforts to attract third-party developers, it is just not possible.
Even if you have an idea you are left alone with it.
Not sure why people blame "poor documentation". Have you read into the source
code already? It is well documented and very easy to read!
I know that for a fact because I tried to get into it even though I am not a
coder and yet here I am, knowing about the tech and the implementation.
It's not a very good elevator pitch to say "hey, just go look the source code for a few days and try to come up with good ideas how to use it". We need better explanations on the web page and more blog posts on new features as they come.
There is nothing on the website about fee backed assets even though it is really super important. There is no mention about the first privatized MPA on the blog to inspire others to make their own.
If I pitch Bitshares to someone and they ask "where I can learn more" there is very few good resources that I can point them to. Most of the best information is here on the forum, where the search function doesn't even work very well.
Other people have to have a simple way to learn about Bitshares. Well documented source code is great when they have decided to build something on Bitshares. But before that we have to have also something to attract them to make the decision to build on Bitshares. We have great product here but we are not making any sales.
Besides the technical source code documentation, we need "ELI5" and "full and clear" explanations for all features and lots of examples.
-
If documentation and education is what you would like to see.. tell us how you envision that being executed besides what Dan hopes to do in 2016? Who do you think could do that work? Would you vote for a worker proposal offering such things? Or do you think the community would side swipe it with setting other things as priorities?
If there is a worker proposal aimed at creating robust coding environment around BitShares, I would fully support it and would be very generous with the financial incentive.
I assume here that the ultimate goal would be to create solid ground for 2 or 3 companies like CNX able to implement solutions that involve changes to BitShares protocol.
Current situation:
- lots of good ideas & BitShares funding available for spending
- not a single worker proposal bidding for this money (except one major project "Stealth" and one minor project "Market Order Refund")
Desired situation: lots of worker proposals bidding for BitShares funding.
-
http://bytemaster.github.io/update/2015/12/29/Why-Vision-Matters/
@Samupaha I appreciate your comments and feedback.
I know I can be good at whatever I set my mind to, I just cannot do everything at once. My own success depends upon my ability to grow and adapt.
Over the past couple of months I have been reading several books and have taken many lessons. For starters, my intent is to focus mostly on marketing, community building rather than technology. The technology can take care of itself if you have the right ideas and messages that resonate.
I have made a conscious decision to not invest more of my own money in unproven ideas. This means that I will take steps to prove an idea has traction and figure out how to market the idea before building it out. It means that the MAS will have thousands of members on "day one" because I won't even build it out if I cannot attract thousands of people to a concept.
My approach for 2016 and beyond is very different from my "build it and they will come" approach.
-
I didn't read anything longer than 2 sentences and only want to say: good blog post, gives me good feeling, great ideas, I already pitch the “GDP bigger than California“ idea.
-
Here are two sentences worth reading:
It means that the MAS will have thousands of members on "day one" because I won't even build it out if I cannot attract thousands of people to a concept.
My approach for 2016 and beyond is very different from my "build it and they will come" approach.
-
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTCdYwM6wrTWUzHsbklWz5pxs7QSZDuxDiJWMpDpM9OkDRITlSX-w)
"I fear not the man who has tested 10,000 features once, but I fear the man who has tested one feature 10,000 times." - Crypto Lee
-
I like the OP's vision but I don't think you can have a successful MAS without first having a profitable DAC but this is just my opinion..
I don't like very much the new approach of @bytemaster about philosophizing and not "build it and they will come" but anyone is entitled to do and say as he please..
I wish that we build a community that everyone is jealous about it and want to join. There was a time that we had a community like this before numerous mistakes and failed over promises. We are by far a community that other communities are jealous anymore..
I am a very very optimistic person and most of the times I live "in my own small clouds" so I still believe that bitshares will be something great eventually and much much bigger than what bitcoin is. I really hope that we become a strong community again, but unless we manage to somehow attract new business, new investors, rise our market cap to respectable levels and hold there for sometime, I think people will continue to complain and a mutual aid society will not happen easily. So my conclusion is make people some serious profits, make them happy and then MAS will be more easy. Not vice versa..
-
I`m here to support a new financial freedom and I agree MAS "may" be a part of it.
But seriously why do you want to focus on MAS any time soon when the DEX is still not ready?
Our primary goal was all the time a piece of the 700 Trillion derivatives markets (and not 2% of the market targeted by gofundme.com) and this we can only reach with a world-class DEXchange, striking features and a endless amount of cool "working" financial instruments.
But as long as we can`t compete with the simplest Forex trading platform we are not ready for the next big steps.
I thought together we want to build the unbreakable best Exchange and Bank in the world?!
-
I get the fact Dan wants to share his view and vision. Other people shouldn't pressure you not to think or share your thoughts or how you see the world, etc
I believe everything you ever did for BitShares was, is and will be with the best of intentions, I really believe that, however, from anyone else's point of view, whose money is into BitShares, will not see it the same way.
It's impossible to please anyone and you're just sharing thoughts, however you must know by now that these kind of posts, whatever they might be, being the topic itself controversial or not, will end up in polemic.
Why? Because from other people's point of view, they only want to see results. They want to see CNX being pragmatic and efficient. Most people will see this and think you're not focused, lost in philosophies, etc, I'm not saying you are and that you should ever let others condition how you express yourself, but unfortunately that will be like most people will see it, always.
People only care about results, not caring if you even had to be inhuman to achieve them. They want them, they demand them and that's it. Now obviously you aren't obliged to anything, but that's the kind of reaction you should expect from other people, from most people.
For them:
- BitShares relies completely on you and CNX (even if it can hire 10000 devs, because pratically that's how it is atm)
- Without you, project dies
- They want results
- They don't see results
- They see philosophical stuff which they don't care the slightest
- They don't see their money growing which is what they care the most
- They see multiple ideas everywhere
- They don't see a path, a clear objective on what will happen next
All of this causes people to feel insecure, afraid, mad and all kind of different negative reactions, even if your intentions are the best. Of course most people's reaction if they were in your shoes would be something like "But all I did was a single post, trying to explain my vision, what's wrong with that? I can't say what I think? I can't share my opinion on the project I started?" and that might feel pretty unfair. However, once again, most people won't care about that because all they care about is their own money and well... I can't judge them because of that, that's how the world works, we are too dependent on money, no money, no funny, no food in the tummy.
So basically all I have to say trying not to be biased is to take that into consideration, because you know everything you say and everything you do will be watched and analysed very carefully. On one side because people see you as someone so intelligent and with great ideas, on the other because this entire project, still relies too much on you and CNX.
_____
My opinion on this.
No problem with you sharing your ideas other than that you should know everyone panics, whether you say "yes" or "no", wether you say "right" or "left".
Also I'm of the opinion before we can start any of this stuff we need money. It's better to have it to secure our future and guarantee that stuff can be done then start off with that immediately and jeopardizing the entire project.
Atm I must say - although I've been in BTS since the AGS donation period and haven't sold a single one - I'm afraid stuff like Bond Markets/Margin Trading, Prediction Markets, etc, won't be done.Imo that's imperative. But that's just my opinion. The shareholders choose,
-
Alright Stan, just answer this for me...
What is bitshares and in what direction does CNX want to see bitshares go? What does CNX want to focus on?
-Are we an exchange?
-Are we a merchant tool?
-Are we a swiss bank?
-Are we a US style bank?
-Are we a anonymous money transmitter?
-Are we an Insurance company?
-Are we a social welfare group?
-Are we a prediction market / gambling company?
-Are we a token of exchange?
-Are we a company devoted to profit/shareholders?
Because right now it seems like we are trying to be all of those things. What is the problem with just picking 1 or 2 to focus on right now? Picking something to focus on will help "bootstrap" the community for finding partners in that particular area. Right now our energy is dwindling and is being expelled in too many directions.
We want to see BitShares gain users. Like a rolling stone.
Users are what makes everything else possible.
I view BitShares as a versatile real-time platform on which to build blockchain based businesses.
Having a built-in exchange is a great piece of infrastructure on which to build everything else.
Having on-and-off ramps such as provided by OpenLedger is another key piece of infrastructure.
But one of the biggest challenges to getting any exchange going is liquidity and market depth.
It's why the big exchanges keep getting bigger. Nothing succeeds like success.
A quality interface is a necessary but not sufficient reason for people to use an exchange.
And BitShares has funded guys working on that.
But the need for liquidity and market depth are even more important.
We need to give people more reasons to come use the platform.
One way is to offer assets and services you can't get anywhere else.
Stable currencies are one thing, but they need their own liquidity to function.
Fee backed assets are a great innovation, but they need businesses to generate the fees that back them.
Communities that share a common philosophy are potential customers we can serve. We have suggested two or three.
To do any of this needs funding, and that means pursuing what the providers of that funding believe in.
So our way forward depends on what Champions step up to lead and what business opportunities make sense to them.
At this point, what entrepreneurs build on the BitShares platform is a function of what they think they can promote successfully. That will differ with the talents and passions of each individual entrepreneur.
-
My approach for 2016 and beyond is very different from my "build it and they will come" approach.
+5%
-
We need to give people more reasons to come use the platform.
Exactly, it's better if you're the best at something that's needed than being average at multiple things not as needed.
-
I get the fact Dan wants to share his view and vision. Other people shouldn't pressure you not to think or share your thoughts or how you see the world, etc
I believe everything you ever did for BitShares was, is and will be with the best of intentions, I really believe that, however, from anyone else's point of view, whose money is into BitShares, will not see it the same way.
It's impossible to please anyone and you're just sharing thoughts, however you must know by now that these kind of posts, whatever they might be, being the topic itself controversial or not, will end up in polemic.
Why? Because from other people's point of view, they only want to see results. They want to see CNX being pragmatic and efficient. Most people will see this and think you're not focused, lost in philosophies, etc, I'm not saying you are and that you should ever let others condition how you express yourself, but unfortunately that will be like most people will see it, always.
People only care about results, not caring if you even had to be inhuman to achieve them. They want them, they demand them and that's it. Now obviously you aren't obliged to anything, but that's the kind of reaction you should expect from other people, from most people.
For them:
- BitShares relies completely on you and CNX (even if it can hire 10000 devs, because pratically that's how it is atm)
- Without you, project dies
- They want results
- They don't see results
- They see philosophical stuff which they don't care the slightest
- They don't see their money growing which is what they care the most
- They see multiple ideas everywhere
- They don't see a path, a clear objective on what will happen next
All of this causes people to be insecure, afraid, mad and all kind of different negative reactions, even if your intentions are the best. Of course most people's reaction if they were in your shoes would be something like "But all I did was a single post, trying to explain my vision, what's wrong with that? I can't say what I think? I can't share my opinion on the project I started?" and that might feel pretty unfair. However, once again, most people won't care about that because all they care about is their own money and well... I can't judge them because of that, that's how the world works, we are too dependent on money, no money, no funny, no food in the tummy.
So basically all I have to say trying not to be biased is to take that into consideration, because you know everything you say and everything you do will be watched and analysed very carefully. On one side because people see you as someone so intelligent and with great ideas, on the other because this entire project, still relies too much on you and CNX.
_____
My opinion on this.
No problem with you sharing your ideas other than that you should know everyone panics, whether you say "yes" or "no", wether you say "right" or "left".
Also I'm of the opinion before we can start any of this stuff we need money. It's better to have it to secure our future and guarantee that stuff can be done then start off with that immediately and jeopardizing the entire project.
Atm I must say - although I've been in BTS since the AGS donation period and haven't sold a single one - I'm stuff like Bond Markets/Margin Trading, Prediction Markets, etc, won't be done.Imo that's imperative. But that's just my opinion. The shareholders choose,
Great post Akado +5%
-
We need to give people more reasons to come use the platform.
You shuould not give people more reasons, what you should give them is something they can see, feel, touch, smell, taste, experience.
Nobody bothers with reasons. And you are very tallented with viral presentations, explanations, asociations, examples, use that
instead of reasoning.
-
For starters, my intent is to focus mostly on marketing, community building rather than technology. The technology can take care of itself if you have the right ideas and messages that resonate.
This is best thing that could happen!! If nobody I will follow this resolution.
I have made a conscious decision to not invest more of my own money in unproven ideas. This means that I will take steps to prove an idea has traction and figure out how to market the idea before building it out. It means that the MAS will have thousands of members on "day one" because I won't even build it out if I cannot attract thousands of people to a concept.
MAS is successful because it is simple idea easy to grasp and has strong underlying emotion. We are at best, elephant riders, where elephant is our emotional being.
But don't forget that debit and credit cards actually made that simple and convenient.
-
I like the vision and focus on growing the community. The DEX and Smartcoins can still be core features and businesses can focus on marketing it to certain demographics, but leading with the Bitshares community as the foundation for a new society with voluntary governance may bring a lot of people together. Our community is a major strength. We can continue to market Bitshares as a financial platform for businesses, but if there is a community with a larger purpose attached to the financial platform it can be an added benefit for businesses. Most people building businesses on Bitshares probably agree with the NAP anyways. A small number of businesses may not want to associate with the community, but the technology is behind the scenes so anyone can use it. Also traditional banks and financial institutions really just want private permissioned blockchains..
DPOS is a natural fit for voluntary governance....we can use it for local communities, non-profits, businesses... the more organizations that use the blockchain to organize, have transparency and have accountability the better... .. (BTW BitCash as a company will use the blockchain for transparency and acountability.)....anyways we'll see what the rest of the community thinks..
Lastly we should really reach out to the Bitcoin community more... our technology really complements Bitcoin and many of those in the Bitcoin community promote the same ideas about voluntaryism and governance...
-
If one's mind is in a state of fear, I think we'd all agree that clear and critical thought becomes compromised. Bytemaster must be encouraged to share his thoughts and ideas, to chew them over with our community, other communities and other visionaries within the blockchain arena. Whatever he needs to continue to grow and inspire.
If everyone currently involved in BItShares disappeared....the code will remain and at some point, if it's as powerful as we think it is and still competitive, someone else will pick it up, rebrand and build a community around it. It is only our community's perception of value that gives BItShares any value at all. If we want this/our iteration of BitShares to succeed, we all need to work out how to educate and reach people. Through the hard work, talent and dedication of many in this community, the technology is almost ready within the scope of existing features.
So we....
Continue to polish what we have.
Enhance our community based material.
Embrace innovative ways to fund further development (although remaining mindful of fairness, mitigating undue complexity and limiting regulatory risk.)
Develop a clear and powerful mission statement that will grab and hold the attention of people and communities within and beyond crypto.
BitShares. Helping people everywhere to secure a brighter future.
All the value is in our community at the moment, it's only through recognising this and expanding it that we'll reach our potential.
-
Government IS force.
Bingo.
-
Communities that share a common philosophy are potential customers we can serve. We have suggested two or three.
But how fast you can serve them? That's my biggest problem with MAS. I'm really skeptical that you could get thousands of paying members in 2016. You still have only a vision and (as far as I know) nothing concrete has been done.
-
Government IS force.
Bingo.
Depends upon how you define terms. Remove force from government but retain the ability to have an ordered, peaceful society that appears to be "governed" from the outside and what do you have?
So we can either attempt to scare people with new terms by "taking away the government they believe deep down they need" *OR* we can say "keep your government, I just want to take away its right to use violence".
The problem with government isn't that it uses violence, but that the people believe it has the right to. Take away the belief of the people and it is little more than organized crime. If we tell people we can achieve everything "good" the government does without using violence then they are receptive.
-
Government IS force.
Bingo.
Depends upon how you define terms. Remove force from government but retain the ability to have an ordered, peaceful society that appears to be "governed" from the outside and what do you have?
So we can either attempt to scare people with new terms by "taking away the government they believe deep down they need" *OR* we can say "keep your government, I just want to take away its right to use violence".
The problem with government isn't that it uses violence, but that the people believe it has the right to. Take away the belief of the people and it is little more than organized crime. If we tell people we can achieve everything "good" the government does without using violence then they are receptive.
Very fascinating interpretation. Thx
-
Communities that share a common philosophy are potential customers we can serve. We have suggested two or three.
But how fast you can serve them? That's my biggest problem with MAS. I'm really skeptical that you could get thousands of paying members in 2016. You still have only a vision and (as far as I know) nothing concrete has been done.
The PR from a MAS could be huge... we'really talking mainstream media. I can read the headlines now...
"Non violent drug users can now buy insurance in case they get arrested..."
"Prostitutes can now buy insurance...."
"Your next speeding ticket is covered..."
Etc etc.
Everyone's complaining about finishing the DEX, butironically an MAS feature will bootstrap the DEX more so than "finishing" the finished DEX.
-
Depends upon how you define terms. Remove force from government but retain the ability to have an ordered, peaceful society that appears to be "governed" from the outside and what do you have?
So we can either attempt to scare people with new terms by "taking away the government they believe deep down they need" *OR* we can say "keep your government, I just want to take away its right to use violence".
The problem with government isn't that it uses violence, but that the people believe it has the right to. Take away the belief of the people and it is little more than organized crime. If we tell people we can achieve everything "good" the government does without using violence then they are receptive.
Those are very wise words.
However, there are many ways to dismantle this false belief in government having the right to use force.
One of them might be MAS. Another might be DEX.
So let the shareholders decide how to allocate our limited resources between MAS and DEX.
And for the shareholders to be able to choose we must have:
- a couple of worker proposals for building DEX
- a couple of worker proposals for building MAS
Instead of an abrupt announcement by BM that we need to pivot and from now on MAS is the way to go.
-
Depends upon how you define terms. Remove force from government but retain the ability to have an ordered, peaceful society that appears to be "governed" from the outside and what do you have?
So we can either attempt to scare people with new terms by "taking away the government they believe deep down they need" *OR* we can say "keep your government, I just want to take away its right to use violence".
The problem with government isn't that it uses violence, but that the people believe it has the right to. Take away the belief of the people and it is little more than organized crime. If we tell people we can achieve everything "good" the government does without using violence then they are receptive.
Those are very wise words.
However, there are many ways to dismantle this false belief in government having the right to use force.
One of them might be MAS. Another might be DEX.
So let the shareholders decide how to allocate our limited resources between MAS and DEX.
And for the shareholders to be able to choose we must have:
- a couple of worker proposals for building DEX
- a couple of worker proposals for building MAS
Instead of an abrupt announcement by BM that we need to pivot and from now on MAS is the way to go.
Shareholders always have a choice. That's unavoidable. The choice to do nothing is always available.
CNX can decide for themselves what worker proposals they want to offer. If you want to see a variety of other choices it may have to come from other developers.
It's a persistent theme, that CNX / BM should be ruled/governed by the shareholders. That is not how it works.
-
Communities that share a common philosophy are potential customers we can serve. We have suggested two or three.
But how fast you can serve them? That's my biggest problem with MAS. I'm really skeptical that you could get thousands of paying members in 2016. You still have only a vision and (as far as I know) nothing concrete has been done.
The PR from a MAS could be huge... we'really talking mainstream media. I can read the headlines now...
"Non violent drug users can now buy insurance in case they get arrested..."
"Prostitutes can now buy insurance...."
"Your next speeding ticket is covered..."
Etc etc.
Everyone's complaining about finishing the DEX, butironically an MAS feature will bootstrap the DEX more so than "finishing" the finished DEX.
You might be right. Maybe MAS is the next big thing.
But the problem is we (the shareholders) are not given a choice.
We are forced to follow our developers' vision. Shouldn't it be the other way round?
It's quite ironic that MAS is all about non-violence but this situation feels like violence to me.
I can either follow the vision or say good-bye.
-
Kind of related, Dash issued their 2016 Strategy post today...
https://dashtalk.org/threads/dash-strategy.7406/#post-77324
-
Government IS force.
Bingo.
Depends upon how you define terms. Remove force from government but retain the ability to have an ordered, peaceful society that appears to be "governed" from the outside and what do you have?
So we can either attempt to scare people with new terms by "taking away the government they believe deep down they need" *OR* we can say "keep your government, I just want to take away its right to use violence".
The problem with government isn't that it uses violence, but that the people believe it has the right to. Take away the belief of the people and it is little more than organized crime. If we tell people we can achieve everything "good" the government does without using violence then they are receptive.
I've certainly fought the word government, but I think what your saying makes sense as a strategy. A government without the right to violence is simply a company of people offering a service, who can be replaced with a better competing company of people offering the same or better service. I don't think this company is technically a government but perhaps the larger dynamic structure that allows an individual to voluntarily arrange for himself how he (and only he) should be governed fits the bill. There can of course be any number of different companies involved for any number of different services.
So really the government this creates is a personal government of one, because any attempt to govern outside of yourself requires violence/coercion.
Can a MAS be applied to services or only things like insurance, charity/welfare? I can't quite make the link of how exactly a MAS can replace other government services like water/roads/security etc.
You might be right. Maybe MAS is the next big thing.
But the problem is we (the shareholders) are not given a choice.
We are forced to follow our developers' vision. Shouldn't it be the other way round?
It's quite ironic that MAS is all about non-violence but this situation feels like violence to me.
I can either follow the vision or say good-bye.
The difference is you're not being forced or compelled to act against your will. You can freely make the determination that development is not going the way you want and freely choose to leave if necessary, or better, convince another developer to work towards your aim. But it ultimately comes to shareholders determining direction. At the moment voting shareholders are primarily supporting BM.
It would be violence to coerce CNX to act according to shareholder will.
It would be violence to coerce BM to provide alternatives that he does not willingly support.
Shareholders govern bitshares, not CNX or BM and the option to do nothing is always available to them.
-
Government is the BEST business to be in!
That's what we are talking about here!
DO IT! +5%
-
You might be right. Maybe MAS is the next big thing.
But the problem is we (the shareholders) are not given a choice.
We are forced to follow our developers' vision. Shouldn't it be the other way round?
It's quite ironic that MAS is all about non-violence but this situation feels like violence to me.
I can either follow the vision or say good-bye.
The difference is you're not being forced or compelled to act against your will. You can freely make the determination that development is not going the way you want and freely choose to leave if necessary, or better, convince another developer to work towards your aim. But it ultimately comes to shareholders determining direction. At the moment voting shareholders are primarily supporting BM.
It would be violence to coerce CNX to act according to shareholder will.
It would be violence to coerce BM to provide alternatives that he does not willingly support.
Shareholders govern bitshares, not CNX or BM and the option to do nothing is always available to them.
You're right. It's not violence but still I feel trapped in a limited choice.
The concept of worker proposals only makes sense when there is competition among developers.
Unfortunately CNX has no incentive to actively encourage this competition.
-
http://bytemaster.github.io/blog/2015/12/30/Why-I-like-Ethereum/
-
You might be right. Maybe MAS is the next big thing.
But the problem is we (the shareholders) are not given a choice.
We are forced to follow our developers' vision. Shouldn't it be the other way round?
It's quite ironic that MAS is all about non-violence but this situation feels like violence to me.
I can either follow the vision or say good-bye.
The difference is you're not being forced or compelled to act against your will. You can freely make the determination that development is not going the way you want and freely choose to leave if necessary, or better, convince another developer to work towards your aim. But it ultimately comes to shareholders determining direction. At the moment voting shareholders are primarily supporting BM.
It would be violence to coerce CNX to act according to shareholder will.
It would be violence to coerce BM to provide alternatives that he does not willingly support.
Shareholders govern bitshares, not CNX or BM and the option to do nothing is always available to them.
You're right. It's not violence but still I feel trapped in a limited choice.
The concept of worker proposals only makes sense when there is competition among developers.
Unfortunately CNX has no incentive to actively encourage this competition.
Read my last 1000 posts.
We have done nothing but encourage and incentivize this competition.
Ask the Maker guys what I told them in Shanghai.
Ask BunkerChain Labs how we work with them.
Ask BitSapphire how we work with them.
The only thing hindering competition is the economic opportunities they can see.
And we are fully focused on that.
-
http://bytemaster.github.io/blog/2015/12/30/Why-I-like-Ethereum/
Nice post, well done! +5%
-
http://bytemaster.github.io/blog/2015/12/30/Why-I-like-Ethereum/
This blog post is a step in the right direction.
There are quite a few things (mostly intentions and promises) in this post that I did not know before (despite following the forum closely and listening to ALL mumble hang-outs).
Unless you write more posts like that - how can the outside world know about all this?
Are we supposed to guess this stuff?
This is the cycle we repeat over and over again:
1. There is a controversial issue
2. Heavy accusations are thrown against BM & CNX
3. BM steps up and explains quite a few things which sheds some new light on (1)
-
You might be right. Maybe MAS is the next big thing.
But the problem is we (the shareholders) are not given a choice.
We are forced to follow our developers' vision. Shouldn't it be the other way round?
It's quite ironic that MAS is all about non-violence but this situation feels like violence to me.
I can either follow the vision or say good-bye.
The difference is you're not being forced or compelled to act against your will. You can freely make the determination that development is not going the way you want and freely choose to leave if necessary, or better, convince another developer to work towards your aim. But it ultimately comes to shareholders determining direction. At the moment voting shareholders are primarily supporting BM.
It would be violence to coerce CNX to act according to shareholder will.
It would be violence to coerce BM to provide alternatives that he does not willingly support.
Shareholders govern bitshares, not CNX or BM and the option to do nothing is always available to them.
You're right. It's not violence but still I feel trapped in a limited choice.
The concept of worker proposals only makes sense when there is competition among developers.
Unfortunately CNX has no incentive to actively encourage this competition.
Read my last 1000 posts.
We have done nothing but encourage and incentivize this competition.
Ask the Maker guys what I told them in Shanghai.
Ask BunkerChain Labs how we work with them.
Ask BitSapphire how we work with them.
The only thing hindering competition is the economic opportunities they can see.
And we are fully focused on that.
I have...and not surprisingly the answer was:
BitSapphire: "They pull a 'twitter' on us"
-
I enjoyed the blog post! Vision isn't everything, but it's important to have.. and this is a good one. The MAS is a smart strategy all around, and to have it on our chain could bring a lot of the right people and attention to the project.
It's important to realize that BitShares is already ready for people to build beta apps on (and they are). Yes, it has a lot of "technical depth" so the current learning curve is a bit steep. Testing, experimentation, documentation, & support by non-core developers and users is all it takes to lower the curve.. it just takes time.
Because the DEX is not an FBA, there is little incentive to allocate FULL resources towards making it into the next Poloniex.. maybe that's the price we pay for socialist features ;) The good news is that since it's part of core infrastructure, businesses will be incentivized to improve it going forward.
-
(http://www.toonpool.com/user/20546/files/no_comment_2601145.jpg)
-
I enjoyed the blog post! Vision isn't everything, but it's important to have.. and this is a good one. The MAS is a smart strategy all around, and to have it on our chain could bring a lot of the right people and attention to the project.
It's important to realize that BitShares is already ready for people to build beta apps on (and they are). Yes, it has a lot of "technical depth" so the current learning curve is a bit steep. Testing, experimentation, documentation, & support by non-core developers and users is all it takes to lower the curve.. it just takes time.
Because the DEX is not an FBA, there is little incentive to allocate FULL resources towards making it into the next Poloniex.. maybe that's the price we pay for socialist features ;) The good news is that since it's part of core infrastructure, businesses will be incentivized to improve it going forward.
+1
-
Read my last 1000 posts.
We have done nothing but encourage and incentivize this competition.
Ask the Maker guys what I told them in Shanghai.
Ask BunkerChain Labs how we work with them.
Ask BitSapphire how we work with them.
The only thing hindering competition is the economic opportunities they can see.
And we are fully focused on that.
There is an opportunity cost for CNX to be the only subject matter expert. Having the knowledge and needing to do the legwork isn't ideal at all. The better situation for CNX would be to get work with a revenue stream while continuing to be a knowledge resource to others.
Anyway, what I really came to say is that Stan was very excited about the prospect of other developers working on projects independently. The only time he suggested using CNX was in the capacity I mention above - as subject matter experts.