BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: bytemaster on January 04, 2016, 09:36:02 pm
-
http://bytemaster.github.io/article/2016/01/04/The-Benefits-of-Proof-of-Work/
-
Interesting post. I agree with you on this 100%.
-
It's a well-written article. Thank you.
-
Very exciting post and totally agree with method-X and donkeypong.
-
+5% Interesting blog, I agree with most of the points.
What are you views on requiring locked up stake to vote frequently as well in order to receive maximum reward?
As you say...
"When power is in the hands of users who have a long-term capital commitment to a project they have greater incentive to vote because they cannot sell for months or years."
So when you ask those users who have made a long term commitment as investors to BTS to vote as part of the requirement it's likely those investors will make quality votes especially when there is an incentive to do so. (Perhaps using a proxy should be rewarded slightly less.)
I think it has a good chance of achieving a lot of positive results, though it should probably start with A LOT of advance notice so that the market is prepared for it. (If it was ever applied to BTS) While it should work, if it doesn't work in practice to substantially increase active voting stake but ends up mostly rewarding the small minority that are already long term investors who are actively voting, then it would be paying for work that is currently received for 'free' and hence reduce the value of BTS, in which case it should be stopped. So perhaps there should be some sort of voting stake target to aim for.
-
Interesting...
What are the benefits from "speculator workers"* in your view and do you find the virtually complete lack of them in the real world indicative of anything?
speculator worker"* - person paid in company shares in a start up and being the only entity allowed to sell its shares before IPO.
PS
I mean if this was written by anybody else, it would have been pretty frontal attack on the claim that BTS workers are blockchain's self-'funding' model.
-
Interesting post. I agree with you on this 100%.
-
Agree 80%. First of all, the speculator often gets a bad wrap, but she plays a vital role in bootstrapping these systems. Investors are really just long-term speculators. I believe in fact that successful speculators, the 5% that succeed (95% of traders fail), have the best understanding of money, markets, and finance than any other demographic and are an excellent group to bring to the table.
I like the idea of incentivizing stake-locked voting and I also think it could possibly be taken a step further. Bts is a digital commodity with uses other than just currency or as a share in a company or blockchain. For instance, a user could lock up some bts for 1 year but also create bitassets out of that locked bts to be traded on the dex for that period of 1 year. A margin call would cancel this contract. Perhaps users who do this could be paid more. This would give the network the full benefit of those bts by also providing liquidity to the dex.
-
The effect of dilution in a ill-liquid market is not linear . Dilution at the scale of 15% does not mean only 15% value drop .
Diluting 15% of the shares to sell on the market could cost 100% or more price drop . And the chain reaction begins , where more people will sell after trigger a certain point of stop-loss .
Even only 1 million BTS sell pressure at 0.08 CNY could directly responsible for BTS to drop to 0.03 CNY if we use the theory in the stock market . Anyone decent trader who can read a candle chart could tell you that .
I'm surprised you have not figure this out yet , not even one year after the merger.
-
Incentivising the bitshares holders who stay long and committed is a positive thing and it is necessary to encourage more such committed stake holders and voters. Ultimately we like to encourage more individual stakeholders to vote and this results in a more decentralised ecosystem. But I am not sure about getting this incentive at the expense of the liquidity providers. They are useful in their own right in providing a liquid market. In addition, dilution is something that could cost more than gain to bitshares especially at this early stage of growth. Are there other ways to fund the incentive?
-
Interesting post.
I like how you defined work in the first section. POW for Bitcoin is more about using cost as a proxy for value. Nick Szabo wrote about this in Of wages and money: cost as a proxy measure of value (http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2011/06/of-wages-and-money-cost-as-proxy.html) It works for Bitcoin more as a unit of account and analogous to a time-wage rate for labor. I'll probably try to blog about Szabo's works one of these days.
I'm not sure that the time of holding on to coins is a good proxy for work in a POS system. POS/DPOS is a more pure alternative to POW because it just focuses on value, rather than cost. The proxy for value in a POS system is transaction revenue and is analogous to how people evaluate the value of companies.
-
Your definition of 'work' is wrong. Take the example of prisoners who worked tirelessly to build the rail roads in the US; by your definition, they did no work, since they weren't paid.
'Work' is simply energy expended achieving a task. And by that definition, your proposal cannot be a proof of work, since no work is done by doing nothing.
Further, your idea of having block producers hold stake as collateral does nothing to change the inherent security model of the system; attack cost will still be a constant in the amount of stake, vs true POW where attack cost is super linear in the number of blocks produced.
If you really want to stick with proof of stake, I have suggested before that simply auto electing the top N staking block producers ranked by their stake will resolve the problem of voter apathy, which is the true failure mode of DPOS.
-
fyi social media buttons on the blog, at least Twitter, is not working :)
-
Your definition of 'work' is wrong. Take the example of prisoners who worked tirelessly to build the rail roads in the US; by your definition, they did no work, since they weren't paid.
'Work' is simply energy expended achieving a task. And by that definition, your proposal cannot be a proof of work, since no work is done by doing nothing.
Further, your idea of having block producers hold stake as collateral does nothing to change the inherent security model of the system; attack cost will still be a constant in the amount of stake, vs true POW where attack cost is super linear in the number of blocks produced.
If you really want to stick with proof of stake, I have suggested before that simply auto electing the top N staking block producers ranked by their stake will resolve the problem of voter apathy, which is the true failure mode of DPOS.
Prisoners didn't do that work for free. Someone had to pay to hold the prisoners. The cost of slave labor is food, shelter, and clothing as well as guards.
-
6 months later the Kool Aid finally starts to kick in.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18013.0/all.html
how much longer will this hare continue to sleep while your competitors grow rich implementing your throw away ideas?
The idea you linked to, wanted increased voting power in return for locking up stake which would further centralize power into the hands of the tiny minority that currently controls voting & are already long term investors, thereby reducing the value of BTS further.
This idea, if combined with a voting requirement encourages BTS holders to move their stake off the centralized exchanges and vote which increases the decentralization and security of the DAC thereby increasing the value of the BTS model, while also turning speculators into longer term investors and reducing the amount of BTS on the market thereby increasing value too.
-
fyi social media buttons on the blog, at least Twitter, is not working :)
works for me
-
Prisoners didn't do that work for free. Someone had to pay to hold the prisoners. The cost of slave labor is food, shelter, and clothing as well as guards.
How much did the prisoners get paid, then? They were expending the energy, not their guards. You attempt to bring in exogenous elements to prove a point about an objective measure.
-
Prisoners didn't do that work for free. Someone had to pay to hold the prisoners. The cost of slave labor is food, shelter, and clothing as well as guards.
How much did the prisoners get paid, then? They were expending the energy, not their guards. You attempt to bring in exogenous elements to prove a point about an objective measure.
It isn't what someone is "paid", it is what you would have to pay to get someone else to do something for you. You are looking at it from the perspective of the people doing the work rather than from the perspective of the people who have to get them to do the work.
-
You can argue that the prisoner is paying back to society by being in prison. He is in the negative and paying back the cost he took for becoming a prisoner.
-
The effect of dilution in a ill-liquid market is not linear . Dilution at the scale of 15% does not mean only 15% value drop .
Diluting 15% of the shares to sell on the market could cost 100% or more price drop . And the chain reaction begins , where more people will sell after trigger a certain point of stop-loss .
Even only 1 million BTS sell pressure at 0.08 CNY could directly responsible for BTS to drop to 0.03 CNY if we use the theory in the stock market . Anyone decent trader who can read a candle chart could tell you that .
I'm surprised you have not figure this out yet , not even one year after the merger.
15% may be too high. But it would be delayed I believe as in you may be required to lock up your stake for a year.
So for the next 12 months BTS would be removed from circulation without any additional dilution hitting the market.
Reducing supply would be price positive during that time, it would also increase value by decreasing the huge amount of stake centralized exchanges control and getting more stake to vote, thereby decentralizing the DAC and increasing the amount of stake an attacker would need. If in 2016 BTS continues adding value to the DEX at a reasonable cost, by way of additional features then combined it could be a very good move.
Agree 80%. First of all, the speculator often gets a bad wrap, but she plays a vital role in bootstrapping these systems. Investors are really just long-term speculators. I believe in fact that successful speculators, the 5% that succeed (95% of traders fail), have the best understanding of money, markets, and finance than any other demographic and are an excellent group to bring to the table.
I like the idea of incentivizing stake-locked voting and I also think it could possibly be taken a step further. Bts is a digital commodity with uses other than just currency or as a share in a company or blockchain. For instance, a user could lock up some bts for 1 year but also create bitassets out of that locked bts to be traded on the dex for that period of 1 year. A margin call would cancel this contract. Perhaps users who do this could be paid more. This would give the network the full benefit of those bts by also providing liquidity to the dex.
Using the locked up stake to somehow increase BitAsset CAP, use and liquidity would be great. Perhaps the reward could be paid out in BitAssets too.
-
It was an interesting read for sure.
I pondered this when I read:
In practice, proof-of-work has created a pay-to-play model where those who are willing to spend the most to control the network win.
How does that differ from PoS, Delegated or otherwise? I might argue that funds spent to gain control, either of a PoW ecosystem by buying hashing power, or by buying tokens in a PoS ecosystem both benefit their ecosystems. In PoW by increased hashing power and in PoS by providing funds to get things implemented.
-
How to "diluting speculators to compensate investors"? What if the stake holders sell on an external exchange? BTC38 seems to be able to lock up a big amount of stake in their cold wallet for a long time, but people can still sell those "locked" stake, in the meanwhile they'll get dividends paid by who trade on the BitShares exchange?
-
Prisoners didn't do that work for free. Someone had to pay to hold the prisoners. The cost of slave labor is food, shelter, and clothing as well as guards.
How much did the prisoners get paid, then? They were expending the energy, not their guards. You attempt to bring in exogenous elements to prove a point about an objective measure.
It isn't what someone is "paid", it is what you would have to pay to get someone else to do something for you. You are looking at it from the perspective of the people doing the work rather than from the perspective of the people who have to get them to do the work.
I like this way of defining work. You would be interested in this short TED-Ed video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_Eutci7ack) on the nature of power structures. The nature of "power" and "work" seem to be one and the same.
-
fyi social media buttons on the blog, at least Twitter, is not working :)
works for me
hmmm .. comes up for me with no link just text
-
it is bad to hear that bm start to post blog :),:)
-
The effect of dilution in a ill-liquid market is not linear . Dilution at the scale of 15% does not mean only 15% value drop .
Diluting 15% of the shares to sell on the market could cost 100% or more price drop . And the chain reaction begins , where more people will sell after trigger a certain point of stop-loss .
Even only 1 million BTS sell pressure at 0.08 CNY could directly responsible for BTS to drop to 0.03 CNY if we use the theory in the stock market . Anyone decent trader who can read a candle chart could tell you that .
I'm surprised you have not figure this out yet , not even one year after the merger.
15% may be too high. But it would be delayed I believe as in you may be required to lock up your stake for a year.
So for the next 12 months BTS would be removed from circulation without any additional dilution hitting the market.
Reducing supply would be price positive during that time, it would also increase value by decreasing the huge amount of stake centralized exchanges control and getting more stake to vote, thereby decentralizing the DAC and increasing the amount of stake an attacker would need. If in 2016 BTS continues adding value to the DEX at a reasonable cost, by way of additional features then combined it could be a very good move.
Agree 80%. First of all, the speculator often gets a bad wrap, but she plays a vital role in bootstrapping these systems. Investors are really just long-term speculators. I believe in fact that successful speculators, the 5% that succeed (95% of traders fail), have the best understanding of money, markets, and finance than any other demographic and are an excellent group to bring to the table.
I like the idea of incentivizing stake-locked voting and I also think it could possibly be taken a step further. Bts is a digital commodity with uses other than just currency or as a share in a company or blockchain. For instance, a user could lock up some bts for 1 year but also create bitassets out of that locked bts to be traded on the dex for that period of 1 year. A margin call would cancel this contract. Perhaps users who do this could be paid more. This would give the network the full benefit of those bts by also providing liquidity to the dex.
Using the locked up stake to somehow increase BitAsset CAP, use and liquidity would be great. Perhaps the reward could be paid out in BitAssets too.
Knowing what I know about BTS , nothing is "could be ".
Example : When the 2.0 announcement came out , it says "the new dilution workers' stake will be vested in years " It's also the main reason that I waited for 2.0 .
And just only after what , half a year .......
-
it is bad to hear that bm start to post blog :),:)
Those who complain that we are good at technology but bad at marketing should make up their minds. One BM blog article draws more attention to BitShares that almost anything else I can think of.
-
it is bad to hear that bm start to post blog :),:)
Those who complain that we are good at technology but bad at marketing should make up their minds. One BM blog article draws more attention to BitShares that almost anything else I can think of.
that's true . every chat group in China is now discussing BM has another big idea on dilution again . Mission achieved . +5% +5%
-
it's interesting idea, but:
1. I am against to make more dilution to do this, if divide some BTS from the reserve pool/income then should be ok.
2.stake should be the only measure for voting weight, "coindays" or "committed stake" can only be used to measure work quantity, but should not be used to determine voting weight.
and I don't think there are exchange risk, if exchange participate vote, then they play a role similar to the mining pools play in bitcoin ecosystem.
if we invite exchange to vote, then can solve the voter apathy problem.
-
fyi social media buttons on the blog, at least Twitter, is not working :)
works for me
hmmm .. comes up for me with no link just text
you are right :)
-
Congratulations, you managed to implode my brain upon itself yet again.
Sometimes you make way too much sense... I have to think about this one for a while.
Good call on the "Mandatory Disclaimer" LOL! Really tho... blockchain time and BitShares forums are wising you up. ;)
-
What would be the drawbacks of allowing people to only vote with the stale they locked up .. proportionally to the time its locked up (capped by 10x)?
-
it is bad to hear that bm start to post blog :),:)
Those who complain that we are good at technology but bad at marketing should make up their minds. One BM blog article draws more attention to BitShares that almost anything else I can think of.
Good to see Dan blogging. The most effective thing he could do is learn to write well and explain BitShares to the general Bitcoin user/investor. I think there is a temptation for a developer to think that if he adds just one more killer feature, it'll be the one where everyone finally recognizes how good the product is and investors will pile in. I think the opposite. BitShares is too much of a moving target for investors. Stop innovating, tidy up the loose ends, call it finished, and explain what the heck it is.
-
That said, I do like the idea of fixed-deposit interest payments in the blockchain. Are there any altcoins that implement this yet?
If not, I think a simple altcoin with interest payments would be easy for people to understand and exciting to both investors and speculators.
-
What would be the drawbacks of allowing people to only vote with the stale they locked up .. proportionally to the time its locked up (capped by 10x)?
BTS is already perceived as being centralized around BM+CNX. They are the strongest group of committed & active shareholders & would probably be the ones willing to lockup their stake longest for increased voting rights.
This would further centralize the DAC in the eyes of the market & significantly reduce BTS value.
The market will probably see it as a power grab by CNX who are in addition to further securing their voting monopoly also diluting other shareholders by up to 15% to pay themselves.
Whereas a reward for holding longer & actively voting would mainly get stake off the exchanges, off the open market & increase the percentage of shareholders voting, thereby decentralising BTS and increasing value, depending on whether the market felt BTS could afford the dilution
At the same time BTS is still so centralized around CNX you may argue that currently only they can have maximum 1 yr+ confidence in BTS based on whether they plan to focus on supporting BTS at a reasonable price. For example they could say to themselves 'if BTS is below $10 million this time next year we'll move on to something else completely' and then proceed to collect their rewards for lock up and sell onto the market while many other shareholders would be stuck. So regular shareholders are taking a much greater risk locking up shares for an extended period than BM & CNX at this stage imo.
-
it is bad to hear that bm start to post blog :),:)
Those who complain that we are good at technology but bad at marketing should make up their minds. One BM blog article draws more attention to BitShares that almost anything else I can think of.
Good to see Dan blogging. The most effective thing he could do is learn to write well and explain BitShares to the general Bitcoin user/investor. I think there is a temptation for a developer to think that if he adds just one more killer feature, it'll be the one where everyone finally recognizes how good the product is and investors will pile in. I think the opposite. BitShares is too much of a moving target for investors. Stop innovating, tidy up the loose ends, call it finished, and explain what the heck it is.
+5% Well stated.
-
That said, I do like the idea of fixed-deposit interest payments in the blockchain. Are there any altcoins that implement this yet?
If not, I think a simple altcoin with interest payments would be easy for people to understand and exciting to both investors and speculators.
welcome back .. long time no see .. how it's going ?
-
That said, I do like the idea of fixed-deposit interest payments in the blockchain. Are there any altcoins that implement this yet?
If not, I think a simple altcoin with interest payments would be easy for people to understand and exciting to both investors and speculators.
welcome back .. long time no see .. how it's going ?
Pretty good. I had to take some time out to save the world from destruction by a criminal mastermind, but all that is sorted now.
-
it is bad to hear that bm start to post blog :),:)
Those who complain that we are good at technology but bad at marketing should make up their minds. One BM blog article draws more attention to BitShares that almost anything else I can think of.
that's true . every chat group in China is now discussing BM has another big idea on dilution again . Mission achieved . +5% +5%
It seems that "every chat group in China" missed that point....
(http://i.imgur.com/fkRwskK.jpg)
Did you missed that too?
-
it is bad to hear that bm start to post blog :),:)
Those who complain that we are good at technology but bad at marketing should make up their minds. One BM blog article draws more attention to BitShares that almost anything else I can think of.
that's true . every chat group in China is now discussing BM has another big idea on dilution again . Mission achieved . +5% +5%
It seems that "every chat group in China" missed that point....
(http://i.imgur.com/fkRwskK.jpg)
Did you missed that too?
We have seen before that Dan's rumblings can easily turn into reality...
-
it is bad to hear that bm start to post blog :),:)
Those who complain that we are good at technology but bad at marketing should make up their minds. One BM blog article draws more attention to BitShares that almost anything else I can think of.
that's true . every chat group in China is now discussing BM has another big idea on dilution again . Mission achieved . +5% +5%
It seems that "every chat group in China" missed that point....
(http://i.imgur.com/fkRwskK.jpg)
Did you missed that too?
We have seen before that Dan's rumblings can easily turn into reality...
You have still learnd nothing about shareholder approval, have you?
Anyway, since your friends have sold their shares they lost any means of taking part in decision making ..
-
"We" have a great idea,but lack of money --------PTS
Oh wait!
"We" haven't get enough fund through the rule we make !
blame to the envil miner!
it 's fine,let 's change the rule to... --------AGS
yeah!we have money now....whatever you can do to contribute the community we can offer you a big sum of money!
brian page,toast,the bitgold gateway guy....
It 's all right,cause we are the "new money" guy!
Oh shit! We are running out of fund!
it 's fine,let 's change the rule to... --------merge+delegate pay
pay by the "blockchain"!(or the poor invetment people who got involved since 2013?) genius?haha!?
Oh,no! the price keeps going down!why?this is such a good product!
we should blame for the market!it has noting to do with the merge and dilution...
but the delegate pay can't fit our STOMACH now!
it 's fine,let 's change the rule to... ------worker propsal
you poor investment people don't vote for me to get a big sum of money
I will leave the product half cooked and we can go to the ideal of communism together and forget our invetment
now again,I have a great new idea.
it has nothing to do with dilution...
-
"We" have a great idea,but lack of money --------PTS
Oh wait!
"We" haven't get enough fund through the rule we make !
blame to the envil miner!
it 's fine,let 's change the rule to... --------AGS
yeah!we have money now....whatever you can do to contribute the community we can offer you a big sum of money!
brian page,toast,the bitgold gateway guy....
It 's all right,cause we are the "new money" guy!
Oh shit! We are running out of fund!
it 's fine,let 's change the rule to... --------merge+delegate pay
pay by the "blockchain"!(or the poor invetment people who got involved since 2013?) genius?haha!?
Oh,no! the price keeps going down!why?this is such a good product!
we should blame for the market!it has noting to do with the merge and dilution...
but the delegate pay can't fit our STOMACH now!
it 's fine,let 's change the rule to... ------worker propsal
you poor investment people don't vote for me to get a big sum of money
I will leave the product half cooked and we can go to the ideal of communism together and forget our invetment
now again,I have a great new idea.
it has nothing to do with dilution...
Sell your shares, grab popcorn and enjoy the show.
-
it is bad to hear that bm start to post blog :),:)
Those who complain that we are good at technology but bad at marketing should make up their minds. One BM blog article draws more attention to BitShares that almost anything else I can think of.
that's true . every chat group in China is now discussing BM has another big idea on dilution again . Mission achieved . +5% +5%
It seems that "every chat group in China" missed that point....
(http://i.imgur.com/fkRwskK.jpg)
Did you missed that too?
We have seen before that Dan's rumblings can easily turn into reality...
You have still learnd nothing about shareholder approval, have you?
Anyway, since your friends have sold their shares they lost any means of taking part in decision making ..
fiesty... plus CNX can push through anything they want. Market realizes it and that's why your seeing people sell. Centralization.
Who exactly our my friends?
-
CNX can not .. they do not have more shares then others combined .. my proxy plus the proxies of bitcrab, jakub and Harvey, we have WAY more voting power combined than Dan alone .. period
-
CNX can not .. they do not have more shares then others combined .. my proxy plus the proxies of bitcrab, jakub and Harvey, we have WAY more voting power combined than Dan alone .. period
Are you a CNX shareholder xeroc?
-
BTW Bytemaster's blog is now participating in openledger's referral program.
Referral link for this post looks like this http://bytemaster.github.io/article/2016/01/04/The-Benefits-of-Proof-of-Work/?r=your-account-name
Please help us spread the word and get rewarded!
-
CNX can not .. they do not have more shares then others combined .. my proxy plus the proxies of bitcrab, jakub and Harvey, we have WAY more voting power combined than Dan alone .. period
Are you a CNX shareholder xeroc?
Yes I am ..
puts me in a conflict of interest, doesnt it?
My point is still valid though even if you remove me from the equation ..
-
CNX can not .. they do not have more shares then others combined .. my proxy plus the proxies of bitcrab, jakub and Harvey, we have WAY more voting power combined than Dan alone .. period
Are you a CNX shareholder xeroc?
Yes I am ..
puts me in a conflict of interest, doesnt it?
My point is still valid though even if you remove me from the equation ..
Yes, while I'm sure you make many of your decisions independently and in the best interest of BTS, someone arguing the point that 'CNX' can strongly influence voting would look at the active BTS voting stake owned/proxied to CNX shareholders not just BM himself.
-
"We" have a great idea,but lack of money --------PTS
Oh wait!
"We" haven't get enough fund through the rule we make !
blame to the envil miner!
it 's fine,let 's change the rule to... --------AGS
yeah!we have money now....whatever you can do to contribute the community we can offer you a big sum of money!
brian page,toast,the bitgold gateway guy....
It 's all right,cause we are the "new money" guy!
Oh shit! We are running out of fund!
it 's fine,let 's change the rule to... --------merge+delegate pay
pay by the "blockchain"!(or the poor invetment people who got involved since 2013?) genius?haha!?
Oh,no! the price keeps going down!why?this is such a good product!
we should blame for the market!it has noting to do with the merge and dilution...
but the delegate pay can't fit our STOMACH now!
it 's fine,let 's change the rule to... ------worker propsal
you poor investment people don't vote for me to get a big sum of money
I will leave the product half cooked and we can go to the ideal of communism together and forget our invetment
now again,I have a great new idea.
it has nothing to do with dilution...
chang chang chang
how to get more new users
-
CNX can not .. they do not have more shares then others combined .. my proxy plus the proxies of bitcrab, jakub and Harvey, we have WAY more voting power combined than Dan alone .. period
Are you a CNX shareholder xeroc?
Yes I am ..
puts me in a conflict of interest, doesnt it?
My point is still valid though even if you remove me from the equation ..
Yes, while I'm sure you make many of your decisions independently and in the best interest of BTS, someone arguing the point that 'CNX' can strongly influence voting would look at the active BTS voting stake owned/proxied to CNX shareholders not just BM himself.
Not sure what I can do to show people that I can vote independently of CNX .. but I can tell you taht neither Dan, nor Stan or any other member of CNX ever even tried to approach me for a particular vote
-
CNX can not .. they do not have more shares then others combined .. my proxy plus the proxies of bitcrab, jakub and Harvey, we have WAY more voting power combined than Dan alone .. period
Are you a CNX shareholder xeroc?
Yes I am ..
puts me in a conflict of interest, doesnt it?
My point is still valid though even if you remove me from the equation ..
Doesn't BM's voting power include 2 accounts "angel" and "bytemaster"? That's 4.86%+4.6%, more than the combination of 3rd to 9th.
And the 10th account "shanghai-dragon-cny" votes for almost all init committee members, very likely owned by someone related to CNX.
See http://cryptofresh.com/ballots
//Edit:
It's also strange that shanghai-dragon-cny votes against committee owned burn workers and refund workers, but votes for the original burn-worker owned by init0.
-
fiesty... plus CNX can push through anything they want. Market realizes it and that's why your seeing people sell. Centralization.
Who exactly our my friends?
No, they can't push through anything they want, and market often realizes $h!t!
I would like to know what market "realized" when btc price fell to $3, I supose those that didn't listen to "market" back then and bought btc with a 30% premium from virwox or ebay were complete idiots. If they want to sell, let them sell.
There is a 90% you can try to get votes from, but often I see people focusing on the less than 10% that "BM and friends" has. Where is your call to arms? If you didn't manage to get any votes/support.....maybe you are in the minority.
-
fiesty... plus CNX can push through anything they want. Market realizes it and that's why your seeing people sell. Centralization.
Who exactly our my friends?
No, they can't push through anything they want, and market often realizes $h!t!
I would like to know what market "realized" when btc price fell to $3, I supose those that didn't listen to "market" back then and bought btc with a 30% premium from virwox or ebay were complete idiots. If they want to sell, let them sell.
There is a 90% you can try to get votes from, but often I see people focusing on the less than 10% that "BM and friends" has. Where is your call to arms? If you didn't manage to get any votes/support.....maybe you are in the minority.
While I agree that's how the market feels, if people actually understood it, they would just vote for what they think it's the right thing to do instead of taking dumb conclusions. Everyone wins.
-
If you really want to loosen the ties to Dan and CNX .. why don't you start a campaign to
a) remove votes from bm/angel
b) have people claim their stake from genesis and vote!
Complaining does help. You need to ACT!
-
fiesty... plus CNX can push through anything they want. Market realizes it and that's why your seeing people sell. Centralization.
Who exactly our my friends?
No, they can't push through anything they want, and market often realizes $h!t!
I would like to know what market "realized" when btc price fell to $3, I supose those that didn't listen to "market" back then and bought btc with a 30% premium from virwox or ebay were complete idiots. If they want to sell, let them sell.
There is a 90% you can try to get votes from, but often I see people focusing on the less than 10% that "BM and friends" has. Where is your call to arms? If you didn't manage to get any votes/support.....maybe you are in the minority.
Ok so bitcoin is a success story where people were wrong about the direction, that happens very rarely. Companies that lose 90% of their value almost never come back. Also, what about all the other alts that have been crushed and stayed crushed??? paycoin anyone?
People are assuming that I think the projects that CNX are doing are bad and will hurt BTS. I never said that. I think CNX having the ability to control all projects and features added to BTS is the roadblock.
The problem is, and it's been stated before by many people, is that CNX has the ability at any time to vote in a proposal via their voting power and their minion's proxies. Don't kid yourself and think that somehow thousands of strangers from across the planet will somehow come together and vote in unison. CNX also controls the majority of the committee via direct supporters or inits. BTS has been crushed by the merger, the never there 1.0, and the botched released of bitshare 1.666 (2.0 - some original features). These events were all centrally controlled and coordinated by CNX. If everything they have ever done has caused BTS to lose value, why would you think their next "feature" would come to any other result? It's this fear that is keeping other devs and business's from building on BTS. It's the ever shifting rules. I have lobbied for CNX to step away from the table and let stability creep in, but that will never happen since CNX is the main benificiary of the BTS charity.
Bottom line: Until CNX is not the Dominant player in Intellectual BTS capital AND actual BTS... Bitshares will be viewed as a centralized coin. They can be one of the above, but not both.
-
Good to see Dan blogging. The most effective thing he could do is learn to write well and explain BitShares to the general Bitcoin user/investor. I think there is a temptation for a developer to think that if he adds just one more killer feature, it'll be the one where everyone finally recognizes how good the product is and investors will pile in. I think the opposite. BitShares is too much of a moving target for investors. Stop innovating, tidy up the loose ends, call it finished, and explain what the heck it is.
Well said. Dan's blogging was the thing that got me interested in Bitshares. It's quite effective way of marketing, at least to bring some intelligent people onboard.
We also need to finish the platform so it can start to live fully without dependency on Cryptonomex. For example, the GUI for committee is still missing, which is a big reason for so few committee members. If we look at the whole system, we can see where the problems are:
- Witnesses are working well, no problems so far there.
- Committee needs more members, preferably economists and/or blockchain specialists. The point is to get intelligent people to make wise decisions on blockchain parameters, not just reduce the power of Bytemaster for the sake of decentralization.
- More qualified workers. How to attract them?
- FBA is still just an idea. We need to formalize and document the process so that anybody can learn how to produce a new feature with FBA. Cryptonomex has a "monopoly" on FBAs because nobody else knows how to use them.
-
it is bad to hear that bm start to post blog :),:)
Those who complain that we are good at technology but bad at marketing should make up their minds. One BM blog article draws more attention to BitShares that almost anything else I can think of.
Oh Stan. My Stan. You are smart, you are amazing, you are incredible.
-
it is bad to hear that bm start to post blog :),:)
Those who complain that we are good at technology but bad at marketing should make up their minds. One BM blog article draws more attention to BitShares that almost anything else I can think of.
Oh Stan. My Stan. You are smart, you are amazing, you are incredible.
Finally! A post I totally agree with! :)
-
That said, I do like the idea of fixed-deposit interest payments in the blockchain. Are there any altcoins that implement this yet?
If not, I think a simple altcoin with interest payments would be easy for people to understand and exciting to both investors and speculators.
Little bit of discussion on this -
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1317065.0
-
That said, I do like the idea of fixed-deposit interest payments in the blockchain. Are there any altcoins that implement this yet?
If not, I think a simple altcoin with interest payments would be easy for people to understand and exciting to both investors and speculators.
Little bit of discussion on this -
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1317065.0 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1317065.0)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_Investment_Certificate (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gic.asp)
-
As my observation, the crowd in China never trust bm now ,
I basically oppose this ,
It is thing make me feel distressed,
-
fiesty... plus CNX can push through anything they want. Market realizes it and that's why your seeing people sell. Centralization.
Who exactly our my friends?
No, they can't push through anything they want, and market often realizes $h!t!
I would like to know what market "realized" when btc price fell to $3, I supose those that didn't listen to "market" back then and bought btc with a 30% premium from virwox or ebay were complete idiots. If they want to sell, let them sell.
There is a 90% you can try to get votes from, but often I see people focusing on the less than 10% that "BM and friends" has. Where is your call to arms? If you didn't manage to get any votes/support.....maybe you are in the minority.
Ok so bitcoin is a success story where people were wrong about the direction, that happens very rarely. Companies that lose 90% of their value almost never come back. Also, what about all the other alts that have been crushed and stayed crushed??? paycoin anyone?
People are assuming that I think the projects that CNX are doing are bad and will hurt BTS. I never said that. I think CNX having the ability to control all projects and features added to BTS is the roadblock.
The problem is, and it's been stated before by many people, is that CNX has the ability at any time to vote in a proposal via their voting power and their minion's proxies. Don't kid yourself and think that somehow thousands of strangers from across the planet will somehow come together and vote in unison. CNX also controls the majority of the committee via direct supporters or inits. BTS has been crushed by the merger, the never there 1.0, and the botched released of bitshare 1.666 (2.0 - some original features). These events were all centrally controlled and coordinated by CNX. If everything they have ever done has caused BTS to lose value, why would you think their next "feature" would come to any other result? It's this fear that is keeping other devs and business's from building on BTS. It's the ever shifting rules. I have lobbied for CNX to step away from the table and let stability creep in, but that will never happen since CNX is the main benificiary of the BTS charity.
Bottom line: Until CNX is not the Dominant player in Intellectual BTS capital AND actual BTS... Bitshares will be viewed as a centralized coin. They can be one of the above, but not both.
agree, that's why I insist to push the decentralization process of Bitshares.
now seems there's only one way to go - invite exchanges to vote.
-
fiesty... plus CNX can push through anything they want. Market realizes it and that's why your seeing people sell. Centralization.
Who exactly our my friends?
No, they can't push through anything they want, and market often realizes $h!t!
I would like to know what market "realized" when btc price fell to $3, I supose those that didn't listen to "market" back then and bought btc with a 30% premium from virwox or ebay were complete idiots. If they want to sell, let them sell.
There is a 90% you can try to get votes from, but often I see people focusing on the less than 10% that "BM and friends" has. Where is your call to arms? If you didn't manage to get any votes/support.....maybe you are in the minority.
Ok so bitcoin is a success story where people were wrong about the direction, that happens very rarely. Companies that lose 90% of their value almost never come back. Also, what about all the other alts that have been crushed and stayed crushed??? paycoin anyone?
People are assuming that I think the projects that CNX are doing are bad and will hurt BTS. I never said that. I think CNX having the ability to control all projects and features added to BTS is the roadblock.
The problem is, and it's been stated before by many people, is that CNX has the ability at any time to vote in a proposal via their voting power and their minion's proxies. Don't kid yourself and think that somehow thousands of strangers from across the planet will somehow come together and vote in unison. CNX also controls the majority of the committee via direct supporters or inits. BTS has been crushed by the merger, the never there 1.0, and the botched released of bitshare 1.666 (2.0 - some original features). These events were all centrally controlled and coordinated by CNX. If everything they have ever done has caused BTS to lose value, why would you think their next "feature" would come to any other result? It's this fear that is keeping other devs and business's from building on BTS. It's the ever shifting rules. I have lobbied for CNX to step away from the table and let stability creep in, but that will never happen since CNX is the main benificiary of the BTS charity.
Bottom line: Until CNX is not the Dominant player in Intellectual BTS capital AND actual BTS... Bitshares will be viewed as a centralized coin. They can be one of the above, but not both.
agree, that's why I insist to push the decentralization process of Bitshares.
now seems there's only one way to go - invite exchanges to vote.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20856.msg269530.html#msg269530
here u go .. !
-
fiesty... plus CNX can push through anything they want. Market realizes it and that's why your seeing people sell. Centralization.
Who exactly our my friends?
No, they can't push through anything they want, and market often realizes $h!t!
I would like to know what market "realized" when btc price fell to $3, I supose those that didn't listen to "market" back then and bought btc with a 30% premium from virwox or ebay were complete idiots. If they want to sell, let them sell.
There is a 90% you can try to get votes from, but often I see people focusing on the less than 10% that "BM and friends" has. Where is your call to arms? If you didn't manage to get any votes/support.....maybe you are in the minority.
Ok so bitcoin is a success story where people were wrong about the direction, that happens very rarely. Companies that lose 90% of their value almost never come back. Also, what about all the other alts that have been crushed and stayed crushed??? paycoin anyone?
People are assuming that I think the projects that CNX are doing are bad and will hurt BTS. I never said that. I think CNX having the ability to control all projects and features added to BTS is the roadblock.
The problem is, and it's been stated before by many people, is that CNX has the ability at any time to vote in a proposal via their voting power and their minion's proxies. Don't kid yourself and think that somehow thousands of strangers from across the planet will somehow come together and vote in unison. CNX also controls the majority of the committee via direct supporters or inits. BTS has been crushed by the merger, the never there 1.0, and the botched released of bitshare 1.666 (2.0 - some original features). These events were all centrally controlled and coordinated by CNX. If everything they have ever done has caused BTS to lose value, why would you think their next "feature" would come to any other result? It's this fear that is keeping other devs and business's from building on BTS. It's the ever shifting rules. I have lobbied for CNX to step away from the table and let stability creep in, but that will never happen since CNX is the main benificiary of the BTS charity.
Bottom line: Until CNX is not the Dominant player in Intellectual BTS capital AND actual BTS... Bitshares will be viewed as a centralized coin. They can be one of the above, but not both.
agree, that's why I insist to push the decentralization process of Bitshares.
now seems there's only one way to go - invite exchanges to vote.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20856.msg269530.html#msg269530
here u go .. !
what relationship between these 2 threads?
-
more decentralization ..
-
As my observation, the crowd in China never trust bm now ,
I basically oppose this ,
It is thing make me feel distressed,
The post made it very clear up front that these thoughts have nothing to do with BitShares.
They are just concepts put out there for discussion and as a new way to talk with POW fans about what's really important in blockchain security algorithms. An attempt to advance the thinking in the industry.
So how can this cause opposition, distrust and distress?
-
+5% +5% +5%, great, good idea, i like it, just do it!
-
As my observation, the crowd in China never trust bm now ,
I basically oppose this ,
It is thing make me feel distressed,
The post made it very clear up front that these thoughts have nothing to do with BitShares.
They are just concepts put out there for discussion and as a new way to talk with POW fans about what's really important in blockchain security algorithms. An attempt to advance the thinking in the industry.
So how can this cause opposition, distrust and distress?
So it explains that some people don't trust that disclaimer, or the writer.
-
Happy to hold do it, it makes sense to separate holders / investors than speculators. So far the only one that has benefit were speculators, I was thinking of switching to Brownies instead of BTS as at least I know the investment will be in the developers :).
-
On that note when are we getting the Brownies for the testnet ? <<hint>> <<hint>>
-
It seems to me that several people in the bitcoin community have mentioned that our technology is great. Bitshares to do things theirs cant. The same for Ethereum. I think everyone agrees that the technology improved dramatically from bitshares 1.0 to 2.0, yet our market cap went down. Also, we seem to be consistently overlooked by the press each and every time. We dont have devs knocking down our doors even though the technology has been out there for a while now.
It makes me wonder if we need to ask some fundamental questions rather than just focusing on the UI or a particular new feature. Why is our platform essentially being overlooked? Why are the devs not getting involved like they do for ethereum? Why is our market cap not recovering? Is it perceived that one group has too much control? Is it our overall vision? Is it our documentation? Is there too much change? Is it not user friendly enough?
I don't know the answer but i would like to hear others opinions.
-
It makes me wonder if we need to ask some fundamental questions rather than just focusing on the UI or a particular new feature. Why is our platform essentially being overlooked? Why are the devs not getting involved like they do for ethereum? Why is our market cap not recovering? Is it perceived that one group has too much control? Is it our overall vision? Is it our documentation? Is there too much change? Is it not user friendly enough?
I don't know the answer but i would like to hear others opinions.
IMO bitshares looks like toy experiment to the big players outside the industry because there are no whitepapers worth anything; so when the big players employ experts to do their analysis, they overlook bitshares because there is no formal analysis on the underlying technology, unlike ethereum/ripple which is replete with whitepapers and documentation.
edit: probably a lot of the downtrend is nothing do with bitshares at all. It's probable that all altcoins go through the exact same cycles. I bet if you overlay the lifetime price graphs of every altcoin in the top 10, they'll overlay exactly.
-
It makes me wonder if we need to ask some fundamental questions rather than just focusing on the UI or a particular new feature. Why is our platform essentially being overlooked? Why are the devs not getting involved like they do for ethereum? Why is our market cap not recovering? Is it perceived that one group has too much control? Is it our overall vision? Is it our documentation? Is there too much change? Is it not user friendly enough?
I don't know the answer but i would like to hear others opinions.
IMO bitshares looks like toy experiment to the big players outside the industry because there are no whitepapers worth anything; so when the big players employ experts to do their analysis, they overlook bitshares because there is no formal analysis on the underlying technology, unlike ethereum/ripple which is replete with whitepapers and documentation.
edit: probably a lot of the downtrend is nothing do with bitshares at all. It's probable that all altcoins go through the exact same cycles. I bet if you overlay the lifetime price graphs of every altcoin in the top 10, they'll overlay exactly.
Other alt coin didn't spend millions of dollars to "build features that adds values" . You can't seriously compare the downtrend with zero development shitcoins . Otherwise , you'll demonstrating that development did bitshares no good than other shitcoins .
-
Other alt coin didn't spend millions of dollars to "build features that adds values" . You can't seriously compare the downtrend with zero development shitcoins . Otherwise , you'll demonstrating that development did bitshares no good than other shitcoins .
Sometimes value is outside the control of things which are logical
-
Other alt coin didn't spend millions of dollars to "build features that adds values" . You can't seriously compare the downtrend with zero development shitcoins . Otherwise , you'll demonstrating that development did bitshares no good than other shitcoins .
Sometimes value is outside the control of things which are logical
Classic quote! :)
Meme coins only have one life - they last as long as you can keep the meme going.
BitShares is a platform with as many lives as there are business models to be built on it.
Whenever I see a down day, I always remember this: Are we better off now than we were when we started in 2013?
If we were willing to start a new business back then with nothing but Bitcoin to build on, how much more willing are we to start a new business today with the BitShares platform and community and team and experience to build on? How much less does it cost to start a business with all that infrastructure in place than it did when we had nothing?
So, from our perspective, we can now do exciting new things with 10% of the resources it took to do the first one. And so can everyone else with a vision. Each can have its own brand and business model at a fraction of the startup costs.
As a general purpose platform, BitShares is obviously much more useful and lower risk today than it was back when it was just a white paper.
Those are the First Principles behind BitShares' ultimate value.
Would we decide to invest again? Yes! Several times a year for the foreseeable future.
-
STAN "So, from our perspective, we can now do exciting new things with 10% of the resources it took to do the first one. And so can everyone else with a vision. Each can have its own brand and business model at a fraction of the startup costs.
As a general purpose platform, BitShares is obviously much more useful and lower risk today than it was back when it was just a white paper. "
Perhaps we need a clear and comprehensive white paper for everyone to reference or perhaps we just need a few good businesses to take us up and use as good examples. I can't help but feel sometimes were struggling to get the word out of exactly what we are, what exactly we can do etc. for example, some sort of sandbox area where we could have an example business, ACME, built on bitshares with well documented steps and references for others to follow. Like a 1, 2, 3 step by step guide using the platform. (Full disclosure .. Before I get ridiculed by the devs, I am not technical at all but as a layman how would I go about creating a business).
-
STAN "So, from our perspective, we can now do exciting new things with 10% of the resources it took to do the first one. And so can everyone else with a vision. Each can have its own brand and business model at a fraction of the startup costs.
As a general purpose platform, BitShares is obviously much more useful and lower risk today than it was back when it was just a white paper. "
Perhaps we need a clear and comprehensive white paper for everyone to reference or perhaps we just need a few good businesses to take us up and use as good examples. I can't help but feel sometimes were struggling to get the word out of exactly what we are, what exactly we can do etc. for example, some sort of sandbox area where we could have an example business, ACME, built on bitshares with well documented steps and references for others to follow. Like a 1, 2, 3 step by step guide using the platform. (Full disclosure .. Before I get ridiculed by the devs, I am not technical at all but as a layman how would I go about creating a business).
Look at the amount of businesses on NXT, XCP & MSC (17 of top 20) and their combined valuations http://coinmarketcap.com/assets/
BitShares still has a long way to go before it catches up/overtakes the existing market leaders in this area.
Worse, even when it does... XCP + NXT + MSC = < $10 million
-
This post honestly sounds like you did a 180 and now agree with what I said about scraping this current system and using a collateral bid system. Mining is mostly just a futures contract, and the time opportunity cost of locking collateral is also a futures contract. Locking collateral (collateral bids) to determine who the delegates are also solves the enormous problem in Bitshares of high barrier of entry in getting involved in the system.
The price has plummeted for 2 main reasons:
1) Extreme barrier of entry in becoming a delegate if you don't utilize any type of collateral bid system. People want the ability to be able to buy their way into the system and not have to campaign.
2) You can't pretend you have a captive audience:
A) 99% of people in crypto can't stand the referral system because it seems like some type of late night infomercial scheme.
B) The fact that it raises transactions fees to be higher than normal and higher than most other coins is equally bad. It doesn't matter that Bitcoin transactions will be expensive someday, you have to compete right now.
-
It seems to me that several people in the bitcoin community have mentioned that our technology is great. Bitshares to do things theirs cant. The same for Ethereum. I think everyone agrees that the technology improved dramatically from bitshares 1.0 to 2.0, yet our market cap went down. Also, we seem to be consistently overlooked by the press each and every time. We dont have devs knocking down our doors even though the technology has been out there for a while now.
It makes me wonder if we need to ask some fundamental questions rather than just focusing on the UI or a particular new feature. Why is our platform essentially being overlooked? Why are the devs not getting involved like they do for ethereum? Why is our market cap not recovering? Is it perceived that one group has too much control? Is it our overall vision? Is it our documentation? Is there too much change? Is it not user friendly enough?
I don't know the answer but i would like to hear others opinions.
IMO these questions are spot on. I find it interesting they are not being addressed very well in this thread, at least not yet? We'll see.
Aside from all the push back I throw @Stan, I very much appreciate your last post. Perhaps it's overly optimistic, but would you expect otherwise? I wouldn't and that is as it should be. What I like about it is the summary, that we're much better off [technologically] than we were in 2013 or even a year ago.
What I don't like about it is that it avoids the fact that technology alone does not a successful company make. Mike's questions need solid answers and affirmative action to send a message to the crypto world that we have a plan (we don't seems to) and are taking steps to reduce the risk in using the BitShares platform as a basis to build business.
-
Actually, I think we've been very clear.
The DEX makes a great foundation but it needs volume to become competitive. Ronny is working on that.
The referral program needs a competitive DEX or other useful services to reach it's potential.
So its about adding those services. That takes time and funding.
It's not about which services are the most valuable, that's always in the eye of the beholder. It all comes down to what services some investor is willing to pay for.
BitShares has a say in what the community wants to fund.
Other sources of funds get their own say.
We've had a lot of marketing talent over the years try to figure out how to sell BitShares to the average consumer. The lesson learned is that BitShares must be sold to entrepreneurs who use it to implement their visions and then THEY sell what they've built to THEIR end users. We have TEN business developers out looking for partners and investors and I personally average one new contact per week. Some share their plans with the community, some don't. Some come here and get their heads handed to them and leave. Ask yourselves if reading this thread would make such people want to adopt this community.
But a few stick with us, perhaps because of my good looks. As those who do persevere and see it through bring their customers to the ecosystem the DEX will see more usage and therefore gain liquidity and become competitive.
But what each entrepreneur decides to build depends on what her government will allow her to build and what her investors are willing to fund.
So passionate arguments about what should be or should have been done are moot. The platform is there. It is beautiful and getting more beautiful as fast as the community can afford to polish it. Cryptonomex is building on it as fast as our own resources permit.
Meanwhile, each entrepreneur must pursue the vision they most passionately think they can achieve with their own skills and resources.
And that is not a group decision.
:)
-
Actually, I think we've been very clear.
I disagree. If you think your reply addresses the points mike623317 raised then your lessons in political doublespeak are truly paying off. I don't disagree with everything in your reply, but I do see it as avoiding the hard questions mike posed.
-
Why is our platform essentially being overlooked?
That's the easiest question to answer this board has ever seen. It's because Bitshares is designed by engineers for engineers.
1) Bitshares is a lifestyle rather than a currency - The consensus mechanism requires constant user input and attention when the #1 thing people want out of a currency is straightforward simplicity. If you wanted to keep voting for some reason, you would need a fallback mechanism that occurs when people don't vote, like automatically voting for whoever puts up the largest amount of collateral locked for an extended period of time. Larimer's new blog post about PoW even favors scraping voting entirely for a collateral bid system where users are required to lock coins for a duration in order to be selected as miners/delegates.
2) Bitshares is anti-new user with high barrier of entry - To lure in large amounts of new capital, it's required that people be able to buy their way in as delegates instead of having to campaign to become one. The essence of all proof of stake systems relies on large investors not trying to destroy their investments on purpose, so it's completely foolish to try and diverge from that idea. The campaigning part also creates centralization by having information gatekeepers control the election process, which currently consists of one website (this one). You control the flow of information and you control the election process.
3) The "shares" terminology probably never should have even been used in the first place - The native currency of any crypto will always be more important than any of it's derivatives. "Smart coins" are by definition just a bucket shop. The platform should be focused on the value of it's native currency over anything else. Having an exchange or whatever is just a side benefit.
4) Larimer insistence on running a business the opposite of how any normal business is run - Businesses in the real world run at a loss until they can attract clients. Larimer keeps insisting Bitshares run at a profit when there are no actual customers using the platform for the system to generate profit from. If there's only 1 user instead of your expected million users, you don't raise transaction fees on the 1 user to make up for it.
5) Referral system - The vast majority of crypto users see the referral system as some kind of late night infomercial scheme that severely devalues the integrity of the product in general and will cause people to avoid Bitshares entirely
The list goes on....
-
BitShares is a platform with as many lives as there are business models to be built on it.
Whenever I see a down day, I always remember this: Are we better off now than we were when we started in 2013?
A fundraising mechanism to pay BM's rent is not a business model. Business models require profit. Where are the profits?
BitShares is the reason I dont have any Bitcoin right now, so Im not sure Im better off than in late 2013.
-
BitShares is a platform with as many lives as there are business models to be built on it.
Whenever I see a down day, I always remember this: Are we better off now than we were when we started in 2013?
A fundraising mechanism to pay BM's rent is not a business model. Business models require profit. Where are the profits?
BitShares is the reason I dont have any Bitcoin right now, so Im not sure Im better off than in late 2013.
You've been an investor in Bitshares since 2013, yet you just show up a few months ago to state your disdain for the direction the project is headed. Whose fault is that, really? ::)
You've had plenty of chances to shape the direction of the project. Being too lazy to sign up for a forum and voice your opinion is not an excuse.
I am tired of playing nice with you FUDers.
(http://quotespics.com/wp-content/quote-images/say-hello-to-my-little-friend.jpg)
-
You need to learn patience, it is a good skill to have in life. We can't build a billion dollar company without dilution to fund the development of our product. Ending dilution (and therefore development) this early in the game would be a death sentence to Bitshares. If you don't like it please sell your stake and let those that share the vision reap the rewards.
Caring so much is a good indication you have not diversified your cryptocurrency portfolio sufficiently. The only coin I own more than 6% of my portfolio in is Bitcoin.
BitShares is a platform with as many lives as there are business models to be built on it.
Whenever I see a down day, I always remember this: Are we better off now than we were when we started in 2013?
A fundraising mechanism to pay BM's rent is not a business model. Business models require profit. Where are the profits?
BitShares is the reason I dont have any Bitcoin right now, so Im not sure Im better off than in late 2013.
You've been an investor in Bitshares since 2013, yet you just show up a few months ago to state your disdain for the direction the project is headed. Whose fault is that, really? ::)
You've had plenty of chances to shape the direction of the project. Being too lazy to sign up for a forum and voice your opinion is not an excuse.
I am tired of playing nice with you FUDers.
(http://quotespics.com/wp-content/quote-images/say-hello-to-my-little-friend.jpg)
Lol :) Not that I agree with oldmine's sentiments but you chose to leave BTS and stop helping shape the direction of project for 11 months from Nov 2014 to Oct 2015 & also your last post in 2014, expressed the complete opposite view of the one you are saying now.
Now, even though the dilution is more controlled (you can only dilute for developers, marketers, etc), it is still dilution and something I.. as a very small shareholder.. have no control over.
A couple controversial things have happened in recent history that I personally (I know I'm not alone) and others do not agree with. Those things have to do with dilution and altering the social contract. Whether you agree with this or not.. I do not care.. but it has had some affect on the price and public perception.
Trust me, I want good things for Bitshares shareholders.. I just cannot continue to sit back and bite my tongue on some issues. Think for yourselves people, as the saying goes.. more heads are better than one... echoing thoughts and opinions doesn't help anyone... specifically getting Bitshares to where it needs to be. An echo chamber is not what makes successful communities, companies, or currencies. Yes, I have been incredibly hard on Bitshares lately, but that is because I feel like hardly anyone else in this community is, and that is what is required to be successful.
-
BitShares is a platform with as many lives as there are business models to be built on it.
Whenever I see a down day, I always remember this: Are we better off now than we were when we started in 2013?
A fundraising mechanism to pay BM's rent is not a business model. Business models require profit. Where are the profits?
BitShares is the reason I dont have any Bitcoin right now, so Im not sure Im better off than in late 2013.
Have you seen a worker that pays BM a single BTS?
-
Thanks for the detailed and thoughtful inputs.
I've inserted comments in blue below.
Why is our platform essentially being overlooked?
That's the easiest question to answer this board has ever seen. It's because Bitshares is designed by engineers for engineers.
1) Bitshares is a lifestyle rather than a currency - The consensus mechanism requires constant user input and attention when the #1 thing people want out of a currency is straightforward simplicity. If you wanted to keep voting for some reason, you would need a fallback mechanism that occurs when people don't vote, like automatically voting for whoever puts up the largest amount of collateral locked for an extended period of time. Larimer's new blog post about PoW even favors scraping voting entirely for a collateral bid system where users are required to lock coins for a duration in order to be selected as miners/delegates.
On the other hand...
BitShares is a platform full of currencies of all types. You don't need to vote to use any of them. One of the currencies represents ownership in the platform. If you hold that you can vote, but that is not required or desired if you are just making a quick trade with BTS for some reason. Mose users won't even know about BTS unless they dig into it. So this constitutes no deterrent to casual users.
2) Bitshares is anti-new user with high barrier of entry - To lure in large amounts of new capital, it's required that people be able to buy their way in as delegates instead of having to campaign to become one. The essence of all proof of stake systems relies on large investors not trying to destroy their investments on purpose, so it's completely foolish to try and diverge from that idea. The campaigning part also creates centralization by having information gatekeepers control the election process, which currently consists of one website (this one). You control the flow of information and you control the election process.
On the other hand...
Most whales have no interest in being a witness (there are no delegates) and if they do want control they can buy their way in by owning a percent of the voting shares.
Are you saying the flow of info is in any way restricted on this forum? What about reddit and bitcointalk and beyondbitcoin, et. al?
3) The "shares" terminology probably never should have even been used in the first place - The native currency of any crypto will always be more important than any of it's derivatives. "Smart coins" are by definition just a bucket shop. The platform should be focused on the value of it's native currency over anything else. Having an exchange or whatever is just a side benefit.
On the other hand...
"Shares" quickly communicates that they represent ownership in the blockchain implying voting rights and revenue sharing. The value of the native currency is a function of how much demand there is for it. Some of that demand comes from a desire for voting rights. Most of it comes from speculation about growth in demand. In the future demand will come from desire to share in the revenue in various ways. All the other specialty coins give people reasons to use the exchange to generate that revenue.
4) Larimer insistence on running a business the opposite of how any normal business is run - Businesses in the real world run at a loss until they can attract clients. Larimer keeps insisting Bitshares run at a profit when there are no actual customers using the platform for the system to generate profit from. If there's only 1 user instead of your expected million users, you don't raise transaction fees on the 1 user to make up for it.
On the other hand...
It's a balancing act. There needs to be enough revenue to offset some of the expenses of customer acquisition and development. One man's "run at a loss" is another man's "dilution" and so we set the fees to keep everyone equally unhappy.
5) Referral system - The vast majority of crypto users see the referral system as some kind of late night infomercial scheme that severely devalues the integrity of the product in general and will cause people to avoid Bitshares entirely
On the other hand...
The referral system can come in many flavors since the sales pitch is determined by whoever is doing the referring. Those with a distasteful style will go out of business. Those who stay in business must not be that distasteful. So in the long run, the referral program will evolve to what works best via natural selection.
The list goes on....
-
You need to learn patience, it is a good skill to have in life. We can't build a billion dollar company without dilution to fund the development of our product. Ending dilution (and therefore development) this early in the game would be a death sentence to Bitshares. If you don't like it please sell your stake and let those that share the vision reap the rewards.
Caring so much is a good indication you have not diversified your cryptocurrency portfolio sufficiently. The only coin I own more than 6% of my portfolio in is Bitcoin.
BitShares is a platform with as many lives as there are business models to be built on it.
Whenever I see a down day, I always remember this: Are we better off now than we were when we started in 2013?
A fundraising mechanism to pay BM's rent is not a business model. Business models require profit. Where are the profits?
BitShares is the reason I dont have any Bitcoin right now, so Im not sure Im better off than in late 2013.
You've been an investor in Bitshares since 2013, yet you just show up a few months ago to state your disdain for the direction the project is headed. Whose fault is that, really? ::)
You've had plenty of chances to shape the direction of the project. Being too lazy to sign up for a forum and voice your opinion is not an excuse.
I am tired of playing nice with you FUDers.
(http://quotespics.com/wp-content/quote-images/say-hello-to-my-little-friend.jpg)
Lol :) Not that I agree with oldmine's sentiments but you chose to leave BTS and stop helping shape the direction of project for 11 months from Nov 2014 to Oct 2015 & also your last post in 2014, expressed the complete opposite view of the one you are saying now.
Now, even though the dilution is more controlled (you can only dilute for developers, marketers, etc), it is still dilution and something I.. as a very small shareholder.. have no control over.
A couple controversial things have happened in recent history that I personally (I know I'm not alone) and others do not agree with. Those things have to do with dilution and altering the social contract. Whether you agree with this or not.. I do not care.. but it has had some affect on the price and public perception.
Trust me, I want good things for Bitshares shareholders.. I just cannot continue to sit back and bite my tongue on some issues. Think for yourselves people, as the saying goes.. more heads are better than one... echoing thoughts and opinions doesn't help anyone... specifically getting Bitshares to where it needs to be. An echo chamber is not what makes successful communities, companies, or currencies. Yes, I have been incredibly hard on Bitshares lately, but that is because I feel like hardly anyone else in this community is, and that is what is required to be successful.
Do you see me complaining about the direction of the projec? Am I not allowed to change my opinion after thinking it over for a year. I took a break from the cryptocurrency community for about a year because it is such a hostile and toxic environment. I was going through a rough time in my life and didn't need the negativety. So that negates my opinions now?
I fought hard against dilution and lost. I didn't get my way, but I learned to accept it and eventually was able to.see the pros instead of just the cons. I see here and now people that feel like they are not getting their way and they are giving up, FUDing, or selling their stake and it frustrates me. Enough with all the negativity already. At the time I was objecting to diilution.. that was the big debate at the time... everyone was picking one side or the other.
Now, everyone's complaining about everything. You guys are fooling yourselves if think this public discourse does not negatively effect the price. We are under attack on Bitcointalk which is negatively effecting public perception (go take a look for yourself), and we are under attack on our forums. Enough already.
Ps.. at work and typing on phone.. sorry no time to formulate my sentences and thoughts properly and grammar and such.. this post annoyede so much I felt the need to.respond now.
-
You need to learn patience, it is a good skill to have in life. We can't build a billion dollar company without dilution to fund the development of our product. Ending dilution (and therefore development) this early in the game would be a death sentence to Bitshares. If you don't like it please sell your stake and let those that share the vision reap the rewards.
Caring so much is a good indication you have not diversified your cryptocurrency portfolio sufficiently. The only coin I own more than 6% of my portfolio in is Bitcoin.
BitShares is a platform with as many lives as there are business models to be built on it.
Whenever I see a down day, I always remember this: Are we better off now than we were when we started in 2013?
A fundraising mechanism to pay BM's rent is not a business model. Business models require profit. Where are the profits?
BitShares is the reason I dont have any Bitcoin right now, so Im not sure Im better off than in late 2013.
You've been an investor in Bitshares since 2013, yet you just show up a few months ago to state your disdain for the direction the project is headed. Whose fault is that, really? ::)
You've had plenty of chances to shape the direction of the project. Being too lazy to sign up for a forum and voice your opinion is not an excuse.
I am tired of playing nice with you FUDers.
(http://quotespics.com/wp-content/quote-images/say-hello-to-my-little-friend.jpg)
Lol :) Not that I agree with oldmine's sentiments but you chose to leave BTS and stop helping shape the direction of project for 11 months from Nov 2014 to Oct 2015 & also your last post in 2014, expressed the complete opposite view of the one you are saying now.
Now, even though the dilution is more controlled (you can only dilute for developers, marketers, etc), it is still dilution and something I.. as a very small shareholder.. have no control over.
A couple controversial things have happened in recent history that I personally (I know I'm not alone) and others do not agree with. Those things have to do with dilution and altering the social contract. Whether you agree with this or not.. I do not care.. but it has had some affect on the price and public perception.
Trust me, I want good things for Bitshares shareholders.. I just cannot continue to sit back and bite my tongue on some issues. Think for yourselves people, as the saying goes.. more heads are better than one... echoing thoughts and opinions doesn't help anyone... specifically getting Bitshares to where it needs to be. An echo chamber is not what makes successful communities, companies, or currencies. Yes, I have been incredibly hard on Bitshares lately, but that is because I feel like hardly anyone else in this community is, and that is what is required to be successful.
Do you see me complaining about the direction of the projec? Am I not allowed to change my opinion after thinking it over for a year. I took a break from the cryptocurrency community for about a year because it is such a hostile and toxic environment. I was going through a rough time in my life and didn't need the negativety. So that negates my opinions now?
I fought hard against dilution and lost. I didn't get my way, but I learned to accept it and eventually was able to.see the pros instead of just the cons. I see here and now people that feel like they are not getting their way and they are giving up, FUDing, or selling their stake and it frustrates me. Enough with all the negativity already. At the time I was objecting to diilution.. that was the big debate at the time... everyone was picking one side or the other.
Now, everyone's complaining about everything. You guys are fooling yourselves if think this public discourse does not negatively effect the price. We are under attack on Bitcointalk which is negatively effecting public perception (go take a look for yourself), and we are under attack on our forums. Enough already.
Ps.. at work and typing on phone.. sorry no time to formulate my sentences and thoughts properly and grammar and such.. this post annoyede so much I felt the need to.respond now.
Yeah, no worries I reply quickly sometimes too.
Personally I see it as what I see a lot here, when you/other agree with the direction and the pros they chastize others and tell them to either be positive and support it or sell as you are saying now... 'If you don't like it please sell your stake and let those that share the vision reap the rewards.'
Meanwhile if you happen to be in the position of not supporting the current direction then you/other take the position as you did in 2014 'An echo chamber is not what makes successful communities, companies, or currencies.Yes, I have been incredibly hard on Bitshares lately, but that is because I feel like hardly anyone else in this community is, and that is what is required to be successful'
At the time people were telling you (& me) to sell if you didn't like it and understand the vision...You've obviously explained your position in your response and why you think the situation is different, which is fair enough, but my position is that I still find that approach a bit hypocritical but I see others doing it a lot more actually.
-
@Empirical1.2 You are right, I feel like now it is different due to the dynamics.
A. The price has been falling for a very long time now. Over a year ago it had only been falling for a short amount of time. Now we need to be more weary than ever of public perception.
B. There was only one dividing issue in the community at that time regarding dilution. Today, it seems to be a Neverending list, which gives the perception that Bitshares has nothing to offer and people should dump their BTS holdings. At least.. that is what I would gather as a casual observer or newcomer after reading these forums and the threads about bitshares.on Bitcointalk.
Ps: I did sell all my stake back then. I just recently started acquiring BTS again wI thin the past few months. So, I have not experienced being a stakeholder in the long downturn.. maybe I should be easier on folks around here.
-
I am tired of playing nice with you FUDers.
Picture of guy with gun
As funny as pictures can be, we must remember that this is a non-violent community. We solve problems through dialogue and consensus, not through use of arms. Non-violence is the most powerful weapon.
-
Other alt coin didn't spend millions of dollars to "build features that adds values" . You can't seriously compare the downtrend with zero development shitcoins . Otherwise , you'll demonstrating that development did bitshares no good than other shitcoins .
Sometimes value is outside the control of things which are logical
Classic quote! :)
Meme coins only have one life - they last as long as you can keep the meme going.
BitShares is a platform with as many lives as there are business models to be built on it.
Whenever I see a down day, I always remember this: Are we better off now than we were when we started in 2013?
If we were willing to start a new business back then with nothing but Bitcoin to build on, how much more willing are we to start a new business today with the BitShares platform and community and team and experience to build on? How much less does it cost to start a business with all that infrastructure in place than it did when we had nothing?
So, from our perspective, we can now do exciting new things with 10% of the resources it took to do the first one. And so can everyone else with a vision. Each can have its own brand and business model at a fraction of the startup costs.
As a general purpose platform, BitShares is obviously much more useful and lower risk today than it was back when it was just a white paper.
Those are the First Principles behind BitShares' ultimate value.
Would we decide to invest again? Yes! Several times a year for the foreseeable future.
+5%
Some very good points!
Its almost too easy to come up with a crazy, industry shattering business ideas that builds ontop of Bitshares. Its a case of more entrepreneurs needing to discover the tools. And the regulatory stuff gets people scared. And its confusing, I've pitched some ideas to investors and a VC. They lost interest because they said it sounds risky and they dont really know what I'm talking about haha.
-
I've been out of touch with this forum for some months, so I may have certain things incorrect or out of context. However, I feel I must express my concerns over this blog post concept, despite the disclaimers that this is just conceptual and not an idea for implementation (yet), so that hopefully others can offer me an alternative perspective.
I am concerned that any implementation of this blog post idea would detract significant value from BTS. I do not feel it would reward behaviour of any material value, that it would unfairly penalise smaller BTS experimenters.
There is a presumption that long term investors add value to liquidity demanders, but I feel this conflates the separate economic concepts of market liquidity and interest. I would offer a different view around each of these as follows:
In economics, the cost of demanding liquidity is the market spread. The provider of that liquidity is the market maker, who receives the spread. The hoarder has no part in this equation, and is not present in the market at all. As a result, BTS users need to source liquidity from other parties, and it is those parties that earn the spread return.
Regarding interest, interest is demanded by capital providers to accommodate time preference - that is, the preference, all else equal, to consume today rather than in the future. While its reasonable for parties willing to lend an asset to demand interest, interest is to be paid by the party borrowing that capital or good for current use. Interest is not paid by all holders of the asset to long term investors/lenders, because the service provided (use or consumption of the asset) is not a common good from which all parties have benefited. (I should add that simple hoarding of an asset does not add any utility or income on that asset to other owners, even if there is a marginal support for the price at the point of initial purchase by such investors, offset by the marginal pressure on price at the point such investors exit in order to realise their investment).
As a result, it's not clear to me why any owner of BTS would be willing to bear up to 15% dilution, paid to holders that are not clearly contributing any value back to them (ie. it's not clear what real work, for the common benefit, has been performed). This forces all owners to either lock away funds to avoid dilution, or to exit and not participate in the system at all. This would seem to repel potential users who may want to use BTS for everyday transactions (e.g. wages, services, purchase etc), smaller stakeholders wishing to experiment with BTS, as well as value-adders such as service providers, and market-makers.
Rather than reward those locking away funds, for whom there is no beneficiary, I'd focus on rewarding contributions to the network. While prima-facie it seems that running an army of computers around the world to solve exotic mathematical problems might be an unnecessary cost to secure a network, certainly a meaningful cost is required to secure the network whether that is PoW or PoS. I'd always thought that for PoS that is the strength of the governance structure that supports the selection and monitoring of the block producers. Greater investment in that governance structure creates higher barriers to attack. If there were a way to reward all the contributors to that governance structure, apart from just the block-producers themselves, that to me would seem to strengthen the overall network, and be a cost owners would be willing to bear.
Also, from the DAC perspective, there is value in work done to support the development and future utility of the network and BTS. That seemed to be the purpose of the introduction of initial dilution on BTS.
However, the blog post suggests rewarding for behaviour directed at neither of these outcomes, and may merely centralise ownership/control even further over time and away from many other stakeholders that have supported this project through using and experimenting with BTS. If the market perceives this the same way, I feel the negative impact on BTS would outweigh any perceived advantage seen from locking away a portion of the supply.
-
I've been out of touch with this forum for some months, so I may have certain things incorrect or out of context. However, I feel I must express my concerns over this blog post concept, despite the disclaimers that this is just conceptual and not an idea for implementation (yet), so that hopefully others can offer me an alternative perspective.
I am concerned that any implementation of this blog post idea would detract significant value from BTS. I do not feel it would reward behaviour of any material value, that it would unfairly penalise smaller BTS experimenters.
There is a presumption that long term investors add value to liquidity demanders, but I feel this conflates the separate economic concepts of market liquidity and interest. I would offer a different view around each of these as follows:
In economics, the cost of demanding liquidity is the market spread. The provider of that liquidity is the market maker, who receives the spread. The hoarder has no part in this equation, and is not present in the market at all. As a result, BTS users need to source liquidity from other parties, and it is those parties that earn the spread return.
Regarding interest, interest is demanded by capital providers to accommodate time preference - that is, the preference, all else equal, to consume today rather than in the future. While its reasonable for parties willing to lend an asset to demand interest, interest is to be paid by the party borrowing that capital or good for current use. Interest is not paid by all holders of the asset to long term investors/lenders, because the service provided (use or consumption of the asset) is not a common good from which all parties have benefited. (I should add that simple hoarding of an asset does not add any utility or income on that asset to other owners, even if there is a marginal support for the price at the point of initial purchase by such investors, offset by the marginal pressure on price at the point such investors exit in order to realise their investment).
As a result, it's not clear to me why any owner of BTS would be willing to bear up to 15% dilution, paid to holders that are not clearly contributing any value back to them (ie. it's not clear what real work, for the common benefit, has been performed). This forces all owners to either lock away funds to avoid dilution, or to exit and not participate in the system at all. This would seem to repel potential users who may want to use BTS for everyday transactions (e.g. wages, services, purchase etc), smaller stakeholders wishing to experiment with BTS, as well as value-adders such as service providers, and market-makers.
Rather than reward those locking away funds, for whom there is no beneficiary, I'd focus on rewarding contributions to the network. While prima-facie it seems that running an army of computers around the world to solve exotic mathematical problems might be an unnecessary cost to secure a network, certainly a meaningful cost is required to secure the network whether that is PoW or PoS. I'd always thought that for PoS that is the strength of the governance structure that supports the selection and monitoring of the block producers. Greater investment in that governance structure creates higher barriers to attack. If there were a way to reward all the contributors to that governance structure, apart from just the block-producers themselves, that to me would seem to strengthen the overall network, and be a cost owners would be willing to bear.
Also, from the DAC perspective, there is value in work done to support the development and future utility of the network and BTS. That seemed to be the purpose of the introduction of initial dilution on BTS.
However, the blog post suggests rewarding for behaviour directed at neither of these outcomes, and may merely centralise ownership/control even further over time and away from many other stakeholders that have supported this project through using and experimenting with BTS. If the market perceives this the same way, I feel the negative impact on BTS would outweigh any perceived advantage seen from locking away a portion of the supply.
We've made it clear every way we know how that this is NOT something being remotely considered for BitShares. Bytemaster reemphasized this at Friday's mumble.
It was merely to get well reasoned inputs like you just provided, for possible future projects, nothing else.
-
Sort of a double edged sword I guess. Blogging as Dan means that people will think everything written will find its way into Bitshares. Posting with a pen name that no one knows pretty much assures no one will read the blog.
-
"We" have a great idea,but lack of money --------PTS
Oh wait!
"We" haven't get enough fund through the rule we make !
blame to the envil miner!
it 's fine,let 's change the rule to... --------AGS
yeah!we have money now....whatever you can do to contribute the community we can offer you a big sum of money!
brian page,toast,the bitgold gateway guy....
It 's all right,cause we are the "new money" guy!
Oh shit! We are running out of fund!
it 's fine,let 's change the rule to... --------merge+delegate pay
pay by the "blockchain"!(or the poor invetment people who got involved since 2013?) genius?haha!?
Oh,no! the price keeps going down!why?this is such a good product!
we should blame for the market!it has noting to do with the merge and dilution...
but the delegate pay can't fit our STOMACH now!
it 's fine,let 's change the rule to... ------worker propsal
you poor investment people don't vote for me to get a big sum of money
I will leave the product half cooked and we can go to the ideal of communism together and forget our invetment
now again,I have a great new idea.
it has nothing to do with dilution...
666
-
For anyone who might have missed it, HOdlcoin has been running since the start of the month and it's main features are term deposits, similar to the ideas set out by Dan in his blog post. It also includes interest on every balance, and big bonus interest rates for early adopters. It's quite a simple, elegant fork of the Bitcoin 0.11.2 codebase and it's a 'no moving goalposts' project. Fixes where needed, of course, but no changes to distribution or rewards. No ICO or pre-mine or any of that nonsense.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1317918.0
-
For instance, a user could lock up some bts for 1 year but also create bitassets out of that locked bts to be traded on the dex for that period of 1 year. A margin call would cancel this contract. Perhaps users who do this could be paid more. This would give the network the full benefit of those bts by also providing liquidity to the dex.
+5% +5% +5%
I agree that the locked funds could give much more value if they are used to work for the blockchain and not just sitting there... the bitAsset creation is a wonderful example for a blockchain that gives priority to a DEX (like BTS)... For another chain it could be something very different but related to its chain existence...