BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: johncitizen on January 10, 2014, 04:59:49 pm
-
With things heating up in the crypto-world, do you think an early release is planned?
-
With things heating up in the crypto-world, do you think an early release is planned?
If you post the poll please clarify what do you mean under early release, release at April, release at February or release at May?
-
I will like to see alpha or pre alpha :)
-
You mean edit? I think before may as early??
-
If you would like a better predictor on when the market thinks we will release BitShares then you should look at the AGS price. Suppose we were to release BitShares in February there would only be 500K AGS while almost 1.5 M PTS and thus AGS would be 3x more valuable than BTS.
On the other hand, suppose we were to release BitShares in July, there would be 2M AGS and less than 2 M PTS and thus PTS would be worth more than AGS.
Based upon the current exchange rates it seems the market is predicting a much later release because if we manage to pull off a February release then those investing in AGS today will get a 6x return over those who hold PTS. Something to think about.
-
If you would like a better predictor on when the market thinks we will release BitShares then you should look at the AGS price. Suppose we were to release BitShares in February there would only be 500K AGS while almost 1.5 M PTS and thus AGS would be 3x more valuable than BTS.
On the other hand, suppose we were to release BitShares in July, there would be 2M AGS and less than 2 M PTS and thus PTS would be worth more than AGS.
Based upon the current exchange rates it seems the market is predicting a much later release because if we manage to pull off a February release then those investing in AGS today will get a 6x return over those who hold PTS. Something to think about.
If you would like a better predictor on when the market thinks we will release BitShares then you should look at the AGS price. Suppose we were to release BitShares in February there would only be 500K AGS while almost 1.5 M PTS and thus AGS would be 3x more valuable than BTS.
On the other hand, suppose we were to release BitShares in July, there would be 2M AGS and less than 2 M PTS and thus PTS would be worth more than AGS.
Based upon the current exchange rates it seems the market is predicting a much later release because if we manage to pull off a February release then those investing in AGS today will get a 6x return over those who hold PTS. Something to think about.
Thank you Bytemaster,
It is always a pleasure.
Personally, I think we will see a release earlier than the market is anticipating. Although Invictus have a good idea, it is exciting for small players such as myself to speculate without ulterior motive. The purpose of AGS was to reward investors that sacrificed PTS/BTC liquidity-those in for the long run.We are angels after all :D. Invictus has a habit of rewarding those who support it. PTS/BTC donations directly funds BTS through the angelshare addresses.
My opinion,
AGS will hold a higher BTS ratio than PTS.
The release of BTS launch date may skyrocket PTS/AGS value as investors scramble in the two week bidding war to accumulate PTS/AGS.
I think Proto/angelshares are undervalued- and I'm loving it.
I can only speculate and I must state- "These are only my thoughts. Not intended to be investment advice."
My guess is for march. Locked in!
P.S. I reset the vote so people can choose from
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
Those that voted, please recast.
-
Based on this I would love to see a weekly speculative release date and progress so we can get an idea of the value of AGS / PTS / BTC. Simply if today everything points to March release then I should continue putting PTS each day, but if then is July i would reduce the donation of PTS. Probably a safer bet is to hold PTS (we all know how software projects get delayed) and invest AGS in BTC win / win. What do you think?
-
The release date could be affected by what the minimal viable product (MVP) could be. Obviously creating and implementing a blockchain and centralized validation with command line wallet / trading system would be the MVP that could enable successful trading on the network. Then Ripple style consensus, Qt GUI, Web Wallets, could be added after this MVP.
Some may claim that a "centralized" command line system is not what was promised, on the other hand it could be a valuable stepping stone toward a full system that would maximize shareholder value in the short term and allow speculation on real BTS while we build out the rest of the infrastructure.
So release date is really subject to whether we need a full Qt GUI to launch. What are your thoughts?
-
Based on this I would love to see a weekly speculative release date and progress so we can get an idea of the value of AGS / PTS / BTC. Simply if today everything points to March release then I should continue putting PTS each day, but if then is July i would reduce the donation of PTS. Probably a safer bet is to hold PTS (we all know how software projects get delayed) and invest AGS in BTC win / win. What do you think?
This is a great idea. It would drive interest as users speculate amongst one another. Although Invictus cannot tell us a definitive release, we can all gather an estimate. I will be focused in other areas from appx Jan 12th to 20th. I expect to be offline during this period.
I will be unable to conduct updates/future polls until after 20th, although I expect this poll will suffice and give an accurate market consensus. It would be more difficult to generate a long term trend from weekly updates?
-
It's called BEX and BEXShares now by the way
-
To "maximize shareholder value in the short term" it is extremely important to get *something* out right before or in the middle of the next big Bitcoin or "Bitcoin 2.0" buzz. The importance of this should be stressed by having a marketing strategy that can be implemented at the drop of a hat whenever the next Bitcoin tsunami approaches.
Consider the Digitalcoin developer (Baritus) who had been planning an exchange (CryptoAve) for months before this bubble. If he had got out a good prototype right before or smack in the bubble then Digitalcoin (as well as Argentum and Securecoin) could easily have been 10x what they are now, and his funds for further development would be 10x.
Timing is everything.
-
The release date could be affected by what the minimal viable product (MVP) could be. Obviously creating and implementing a blockchain and centralized validation with command line wallet / trading system would be the MVP that could enable successful trading on the network. Then Ripple style consensus, Qt GUI, Web Wallets, could be added after this MVP.
Some may claim that a "centralized" command line system is not what was promised, on the other hand it could be a valuable stepping stone toward a full system that would maximize shareholder value in the short term and allow speculation on real BTS while we build out the rest of the infrastructure.
So release date is really subject to whether we need a full Qt GUI to launch. What are your thoughts?
Firstly,
We are essentially competing for market share. Some systems work alongside BTS where others may ultimately compete. Is is wise to have source code available on github?
It may be important to maximise short term shareholder value while also generating mass attention to the project. We have a large advantage in our current position. If we play our cards right, we will certainly become what is expected by Invictus believers.
I support this. It may be worth developing the trading system of BTS for release and then continuing the infrastructure? This has been the path of other 'systems' and has been relatively successful. MST for example are @ 0.18 BTC with nothing more than a promise? I do not mean to be rude but that is as it seems. Same for Ripple and NXT.
If we take the approach with BTS trading release, we will create a surge in AGS donations and PTS price. It may be thoughtful to consider how to sustain funding thereafter (see below). There would be appx 500k PTS left to mine and perhaps 1.8 million AGS left after a FEB release of MVP.
BTS would sit on coinmarketcap trading away, generating buzz and new investors, right where the world can see. That would draw a huge amount of attention to Invictus so we would need the websites sexy and information presented clearly. I am certain that this would generate a whole new flood of investors that will bid to capture positions in future DACs through AGS/PTS and also hustle bitshares for a piece of the BTS future dividend/fee.
Currently many are unaware of our plans. Think of this also. If we release BTS to market for speculation, new investors also have the opportunity to bid for AGS (and the remaining PTS) based on the business model of rewarding them %10 of DAC's.
We will be the first to provide the 'general public' with 'founder' status. Something even small time guys take immense pride in.
This seems like the 'royal flush'. (I make no reference to gambling, just the position held 8) )
These discussions are imperative and must reach conclusion ASAP.
-
Vote for a MVP, this gives you the double benefit of real presence, earlier adoption, good feedback of users on other areas on the system including the release priority.
-
These are all great points. When thinking about the other side of the argument I have visions of FUD in the form of
"centralized"
"they changed what they originally sold shares for"
"they can't be trusted"
Just for reference what are we talking about here Dan? Like an MVP in Feb as opposed to a full product at the end of march? Where do you guys think our competitors will be along this timeline?
-
These are all great points. When thinking about the other side of the argument I have visions of FUD in the form of
"centralized"
"they changed what they originally sold shares for"
"they can't be trusted"
Just for reference what are we talking about here Dan? Like an MVP in Feb as opposed to a full product at the end of march? Where do you guys think our competitors will be along this timeline?
Our competitors haven't even realized the problems they have to overcome. Anything based upon mining will be destroyed in the market because mining is an expense that eats the profitability of the DACs and ultimately centralizes control. This means that everyone will end up having to change their designs to replace mining to stay competitive. Mining also slows block production and is not viable for blockchains with markets built in because the 'miner' has the power to control what transactions get in the block.
Our competitors are all based upon 'one blockchain to rule them all' mentality which is a side effect of the mining mentality. These systems will not scale in the end. They may spring up quickly, but will die once reality hits that a 'market' is different than a 'currency' in terms of transaction volume.
Mastercoin has so many inefficiencies, and baggage from being layered on top of Bitcoin and the original designer isn't even working on the project any more. I wish them well, but they too will end up having to move to their own blockchain and this will set them back in development.
In other words, I am not aware of any competitor that actually understands the nuances of DACs, blockchains, and the like at the level I do today and their lack of understanding is going to set them back dramatically in the long run.
I am sure I have things I do not yet fully appreciate or grasp, but what I do get shows me that the competition is far behind.
The FUD and legal risk arguments are the primary argument against MVP. However, FUD is just a profit opportunity for those who can see through it because in the end FUD has no substance.
I believe that a MVP that is command line / JSON-RPC based where the 'consensus' algorithm as a Unique Node List of 1 will be viable especially once I lay the mental framework that demolishes the false decentralization offered by Bitcoin, Ripple, and other mining based systems. Bitcoin is effectively centralized in GigaHash + 1, Ripple is centralized in the inner circle cartel that makes up the Unique Node List. The only thing that is required to eliminate the need to 'trust' is to eliminate the potential of cheating and getting away with it. The only thing required to be decentralized is market competition and elimination of barriers of entry.
I think our marketing will begin to shape the narrative in a way that our competitors will have a hard time escaping from.
In conclusion I think a MVP may be the best way to go as a stepping stone to realizing the final goal. When can such a MVP be available, I cannot say for certain but probably sooner than may think and later than I would estimate.
-
These are all great points. When thinking about the other side of the argument I have visions of FUD in the form of
"centralized"
"they changed what they originally sold shares for"
"they can't be trusted"
Just for reference what are we talking about here Dan? Like an MVP in Feb as opposed to a full product at the end of march? Where do you guys think our competitors will be along this timeline?
Our competitors haven't even realized the problems they have to overcome. Anything based upon mining will be destroyed in the market because mining is an expense that eats the profitability of the DACs and ultimately centralizes control. This means that everyone will end up having to change their designs to replace mining to stay competitive. Mining also slows block production and is not viable for blockchains with markets built in because the 'miner' has the power to control what transactions get in the block.
Our competitors are all based upon 'one blockchain to rule them all' mentality which is a side effect of the mining mentality. These systems will not scale in the end. They may spring up quickly, but will die once reality hits that a 'market' is different than a 'currency' in terms of transaction volume.
Mastercoin has so many inefficiencies, and baggage from being layered on top of Bitcoin and the original designer isn't even working on the project any more. I wish them well, but they too will end up having to move to their own blockchain and this will set them back in development.
In other words, I am not aware of any competitor that actually understands the nuances of DACs, blockchains, and the like at the level I do today and their lack of understanding is going to set them back dramatically in the long run.
I am sure I have things I do not yet fully appreciate or grasp, but what I do get shows me that the competition is far behind.
The FUD and legal risk arguments are the primary argument against MVP. However, FUD is just a profit opportunity for those who can see through it because in the end FUD has no substance.
I believe that a MVP that is command line / JSON-RPC based where the 'consensus' algorithm as a Unique Node List of 1 will be viable especially once I lay the mental framework that demolishes the false decentralization offered by Bitcoin, Ripple, and other mining based systems. Bitcoin is effectively centralized in GigaHash + 1, Ripple is centralized in the inner circle cartel that makes up the Unique Node List. The only thing that is required to eliminate the need to 'trust' is to eliminate the potential of cheating and getting away with it. The only thing required to be decentralized is market competition and elimination of barriers of entry.
I think our marketing will begin to shape the narrative in a way that our competitors will have a hard time escaping from.
In conclusion I think a MVP may be the best way to go as a stepping stone to realizing the final goal. When can such a MVP be available, I cannot say for certain but probably sooner than may think and later than I would estimate.
i think an MVP is a great idea too but as long as the time gap between MVP and the final / other major infrastructure development/launches is not large imo.
-
I am for the MVP, as it would allow the prediction market theory to be vetted early on.
-
I think that MVP is a good idea, but I think it is important that we make it explicitly clear that this is a stepping stone, and a partial piece of code with infrastructure still being actively built out. Just very honest and up front is the best way to go.
-
It's called BEX and BEXShares now by the way
source?
-
It's called BEX and BEXShares now by the way
source?
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=2166.0
-
The release date could be affected by what the minimal viable product (MVP) could be. Obviously creating and implementing a blockchain and centralized validation with command line wallet / trading system would be the MVP that could enable successful trading on the network. Then Ripple style consensus, Qt GUI, Web Wallets, could be added after this MVP.
Some may claim that a "centralized" command line system is not what was promised, on the other hand it could be a valuable stepping stone toward a full system that would maximize shareholder value in the short term and allow speculation on real BTS while we build out the rest of the infrastructure.
So release date is really subject to whether we need a full Qt GUI to launch. What are your thoughts?
+10 for a MVP.
I also liked reading your other post on where you see the competitors at the moment.
If you can effectively eliminate traditional mining that would be great. Nothing pisses me off more than looking at the Bitcoin hashrate distribution and seeing Ghash.io has up to 45% sometimes.
-
So release date is really subject to whether we need a full Qt GUI to launch. What are your thoughts?
In my opinion, getting something out there that people can look at and verify that progress is being made is vital. If it's a minimal viable product (MVP), then so be it. At least the gearheads and early adopters will have something tangible to play around with while the other features are being implemented. I don't know if it's a good idea to allow real speculation in BTS considering the platform would still be far off from what was promised but let it operate in a test enviroment.
-
I am for the MVP, as it would allow the prediction market theory to be vetted early on.
So release date is really subject to whether we need a full Qt GUI to launch. What are your thoughts?
In my opinion, getting something out there that people can look at and verify that progress is being made is vital. If it's a minimal viable product (MVP), then so be it. At least the gearheads and early adopters will have something tangible to play around with while the other features are being implemented. I don't know if it's a good idea to allow real speculation in BTS considering the platform would still be far off from what was promised but let it operate in a test enviroment.
I agree. An MVP that allows testing of the prediction markets on a test network would be optimal.
-
So release date is really subject to whether we need a full Qt GUI to launch. What are your thoughts?
In my opinion, getting something out there that people can look at and verify that progress is being made is vital. If it's a minimal viable product (MVP), then so be it. At least the gearheads and early adopters will have something tangible to play around with while the other features are being implemented. I don't know if it's a good idea to allow real speculation in BTS considering the platform would still be far off from what was promised but let it operate in a test enviroment.
I like what this could do for decentralization. Motivated by the suddenly urgent need for better interfaces, the whole community might then start working on competitive add-ons to an MVP causing the product to mature much faster -- with multiple competing options for everything. I wonder if there are enough people in this community interested in doing that to make it actually work out that way...
-
Launch iterations of TestShares backed by protoshares, put down 10 then 100 then 1000 pts redistributed by testshare ownership at the end of test period
-
Like when there is only an rpc client and people wanting to test the viability of this prediction market are willing to out in the work I think a few thousand pts is a good incentive to start building the infrastructure you need to have a good market