BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: Stan on May 03, 2017, 02:48:16 pm
-
https://steemit.com/eos/@dantheman/join-me-at-consensus-2017-for-the-eos-launch-party
-
Do I smell a bitshares sharedrop? :D
-
EOS UIA registered a month ago by sat0shi
https://bitshares.org/wallet/#/asset/EOS
-
EOS UIA registered a month ago by sat0shi
https://bitshares.org/wallet/#/asset/EOS
Interesting-
ENABLE MARKET FEE
REQUIRE HOLDERS TO BE WHITE-LISTED
ISSUER MAY TRANSFER ASSET BACK TO HIMSELF
ISSUER MUST APPROVE ALL TRANSFERS
-
Do I smell a bitshares sharedrop? :D
u do not .
-
the interesting comments (hope brownies are part of the sharedrop):
[-]dantheman73 · 2 hours ago
EOS is a smart contract platform designed for parallel execution of smart contracts and will have a token, EOS and it will be distributed in the widest and fairest method I have devised yet. Details about how to get EOS will be made available at the unveiling, or maybe sooner.
[-]dantheman73 · 2 hours ago
Imagine the Ethereum as a single-core CPU, EOS is like a DAPP operating system which schedules applications to run in parallel on 100's of cores or even clusters where each core is capable of Steem or BitShares scale performance.
-
And here it is.... The annual "New, Amazing, Awesome!" project from CNX/Dan. So how much investor/lemming cash will be eviscerated in this endeavor?
This is sure to get the Larimer lemmings to jizz in their pants... They love nothing more than to throw money at Dan.
Sharedrop... LOL!
-
https://steemit.com/eos/@dantheman/join-me-at-consensus-2017-for-the-eos-launch-party
Where and when can I buy EOS and with which crypto?
Thank you Stan :)
-
And here it is.... The annual "New, Amazing, Awesome!" project from CNX/Dan. So how much investor/lemming cash will be eviscerated in this endeavor?
This is sure to get the Larimer lemmings to jizz in their pants... They love nothing more than to throw money at Dan.
Sharedrop... LOL!
(http://orig00.deviantart.net/2168/f/2013/250/b/f/take_my_bitcoin_by_1chrono1-d6le3re.jpg)
Just kidding...I don't hold any BTC. :P
But seriously this sounds pretty damn cool. Especially if it ends up benefitting BitShares. *fingers crossed*
-
Perhaps the EOS UIA is the reason Stan has been accumulating BTS the last few months?!
-
Oh, steem well dried up so soon?
-
Perhaps the EOS UIA is the reason Stan has been accumulating BTS the last few months?!
(http://i.gyazo.com/e249d54c49e8ed2cb11189da81d3c4e6.png)
-
And here it is.... The annual "New, Amazing, Awesome!" project from CNX/Dan. So how much investor/lemming cash will be eviscerated in this endeavor?
This is sure to get the Larimer lemmings to jizz in their pants... They love nothing more than to throw money at Dan.
Sharedrop... LOL!
great! good idea, i like this, do it +5% +5% +5%
-
Perhaps the EOS UIA is the reason Stan has been accumulating BTS the last few months?!
You need to think BIGGER, Pinky!
Bitshares 3.0 on EOS chain?
-
Perhaps the EOS UIA is the reason Stan has been accumulating BTS the last few months?!
You need to think BIGGER, Pinky!
Bitshares 3.0 on EOS chain?
I think the future is pretty clear for BTS:
1. work out the kinks with Steem
2. merge best parts of steem + BTS into a next generation DEX
3. sharedrop + dev allocation
It is just a much longer roadmap.
??
-
Perhaps the EOS UIA is the reason Stan has been accumulating BTS the last few months?!
You need to think BIGGER, Pinky!
Bitshares 3.0 on EOS chain?
I think the future is pretty clear for BTS:
1. work out the kinks with Steem
2. merge best parts of steem + BTS into a next generation DEX
3. sharedrop + dev allocation
It is just a much longer roadmap.
??
Bytemaster is always thinking bigger. This year's big is bigger than last year's big.
(and that doesn't even consider that my idea of big is bigger than that.)
-
Perhaps the EOS UIA is the reason Stan has been accumulating BTS the last few months?!
You need to think BIGGER, Pinky!
Bitshares 3.0 on EOS chain?
Egad, Brain, Brilliant!
This is what Xeroc and I concluded waaaay back in March.
Actually, this is all I said (which is actually better than some of the incorrect inferences above.)
(https://i.gyazo.com/9570931d326fa2ebefbb91c2ba1d2af4.png)
...and its not even summer yet!
-
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/c1/c1d30b27dbb076e7de4aee72414f4812bfd8a1adac8664ecbb384fbeb8fd1ae4.jpg)
-
Stan just triple posted. I'm pretty sure that means something big is coming.
-
That was a quadruple post, but who's counting?
-
this just make me recall the summer at 2014,
stan said we'll never saw such cheap BTS at this price(maybe 0.035 USD/BTS)
and toast said yes, it will surprise all of us if we know what happened behind the scene.
This is what Xeroc and I concluded waaaay back in March.
Actually, this is all I said (which is actually better than some of the incorrect inferences above.)
(https://i.gyazo.com/9570931d326fa2ebefbb91c2ba1d2af4.png)
...and its not even summer yet!
-
this just make me recall the summer at 2014,
stan said we'll never saw such cheap BTS at this price(maybe 0.035 USD/BTS)
and toast said yes, it will surprise all of us if we know what happened behind the scene.
This is what Xeroc and I concluded waaaay back in March.
Actually, this is all I said (which is actually better than some of the incorrect inferences above.)
(https://i.gyazo.com/9570931d326fa2ebefbb91c2ba1d2af4.png)
...and its not even summer yet!
Indeed. I'm consistently positive... bound to be right someday.
-
just do it.
BTS is the 32th in coinmarket
we have nothing to be proud yet.
-
unbelevable EOS Announcement: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1883814.0
are you the one who registered EOS UIA?
-
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/content_link/mym7rz5oSMiuHU8iKq1xBQYt0PXGQcjRlAqJbg5e1tT2CbdsDkayLBs0EKyAU22d/file)
That's some serious depth to break through.
-
A little late for a notice - "initial offering has ended" :(
-
A little late for a notice - "initial offering has ended" :(
No way this is the same thing. Bm said he's gonna leak info, but nothing concrete until end of may
-
And here it is.... The annual "New, Amazing, Awesome!" project from CNX/Dan. So how much investor/lemming cash will be eviscerated in this endeavor?
This is sure to get the Larimer lemmings to jizz in their pants... They love nothing more than to throw money at Dan.
Sharedrop... LOL!
This project is inline with current trends and could be a solid boost to the Graphene community. Also Dan is brilliant. Also... probably guilty. Also... I need new pants.
-
Looking forwards to the sharedrop :D
-
unbelevable EOS Announcement: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1883814.0
are you the one who registered EOS UIA?
Quoted message removed? Unable to find that sentence.
-
A little late for a notice - "initial offering has ended" :(
No way this is the same thing. Bm said he's gonna leak info, but nothing concrete until end of may
yea, would b nice to see it posted on steem, or here before throwing it on btc-talk
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
why ban me?
I show you the post on bitcointalk
no I am not sat)shi from the UIA
help us all by staying open
-
The ICO for BithSharesX has been one of the fairest there ever was in crypto. Why not use the same model again? Sharedrops, mergers, mining will not make it fair, just more confusing and more easier to get advantage for insiders.
-
The ICO for BithSharesX has been one of the fairest there ever was in crypto. Why not use the same model again? Sharedrops, mergers, mining will not make it fair, just more confusing and more easier to get advantage for insiders.
I think there will be nothing like that. if EOS ends up bringing sidechaining and other features on top of existing graphene 1.0 features, we can just move to let's call it garphene 2.0 with bitshares and establish bts as the DEX
-
The ICO for BithSharesX has been one of the fairest there ever was in crypto. Why not use the same model again? Sharedrops, mergers, mining will not make it fair, just more confusing and more easier to get advantage for insiders.
I can agree with that. Unfortunately they took two steps back with the Steem model. When BM came to the forums and told everyone they should check out Steem and mine it, I thought it was simply another Graphene fork that would probably never come to fruition. Just like the few forks before that had been advertised on the foeums. I didn't realize Dan himself would be developing it. I would have participated if I had known that.
-
the interesting comments (hope brownies are part of the sharedrop):
Me to. Almost all my brownie points were given to me from BM.
-
Will EOS be an entirely new system?
Are BTS 2.0 shareholders expected to claim their sharedrops in a new chain?
Will their % stake of EOS be the same as their % stake of BTS2?
Will there be an equivalent of 3.7Billion BTS available to claim?
I am currently skeptical of EOS.
BTS 2 has the framework, but nobody is using it yet.
EOS OMG SO MUCH IMPROVE will suddenly attract loads more users?
I am buillish on HERO, that is a use case for the common people. Which attracts users.
BTS is a great company that produces a great product, that nobody uses.
Will super-efficient execution of these features change the fact that everyday-people have no reason to use it?
Does BTS 2 lack trading features that are required by todays fiat traders? That EOS will bring?
Redesigning the whole system, again.
I expect to be convinced but right now... nope
Why couldn't we just have TREZOR support instead :(
One of the main flagpoint issues normies take with cryptocurrency is that responsibility over their money is entirely on them. There are no chargebacks, no banks to call if you make a mistake.
Lacking TREZOR support, this problem is 10x worse.
Even if an experience user DOES know what they're doing, it can all be for nothing if a keylogger nabs your password.
I am eager to be corrected
-
Here is my guess:
We won't get any sharedrop on EOS itself, but BTS will migrate to the EOS platform and will be a 100% sharedrop on an EOS sub-token. While bitshares will be under EOS, it will become essential to the EOS ecosystem, providing exchange features, stable bitassets, and an example codebase which can be forked into new projects (with possible sharedrops).
I am more skeptical that the value of the work put into bitshares so far will be efficiently transferrable into a new system that runs on what is probably a brand new programming language.
-
From steemit:
dantheman73 · 13 hours ago
We will not be doing a share drop on anyone.
-
From steemit:
dantheman73 · 13 hours ago
We will not be doing a share drop on anyone.
i wonder what's left for the most fair distribution method then
-
From steemit:
dantheman73 · 13 hours ago
We will not be doing a share drop on anyone.
i wonder what's left for the most fair distribution method then
So long as 'the most fair distribution method' includes BTS 2 shareholders, or that EOS is not a competitor to BTS 2, leaving BitShares 2.0 to carry on running as normal.
Is EOS the next steem? If so, great
Is EOS a replacement for BTS 2? ??!?!!?
I think this is the 3rd scenario where Dan and Stan's titilating and teasing has degraded shareholder confidence.
Which makes bts a less-appealing value proposition to the as-yet-uninvested
-
I am more skeptical that the value of the work put into bitshares so far will be efficiently transferrable into a new system that runs on what is probably a brand new programming language.
I share this perspective. Dan has mentioned several times his investigations in other programming languages. You simply have to stay abreast of the changes in technology to remain competitive, and there's certainly plenty of competition in crypto land.
That has very significant implications. An innovator like Dan Larimer will use whatever technology advantage he can, and if that's another programming language it will likely sever ties with the graphene code base. If that happens and BitShares is to "merge" / come under the umbrella of EOS it will retard BitShares evolutution while everyone waits (yet again) for the new tech to be ready for production. Until NYC we can only speculate, so might as well wait and see til then.
Before I would commit to hitching my wagon to EOS or recommend BitShares join it, I would need to evaluate it just like any other crypto project. I would really REALLY hate to see a repeat of the transition between BitShares 0.X and Graphene. I hope he and the team he is on consider that
At some point Dan should realize that although he may be progressing in his personal goal of "life liberty & freedom" for individuals, he is also leaving a wake of projects behind him that might have made great progress towards that with less time invested than starting something totally new, and perhaps that's reflection of our consumer / debt based economy. Talk about getting ahead of ourselves!
The Buckminster Fuller principle that its better to invent something new and better than using time & energy trying to transform the old thing comes to mind. Nevertheless, I do wonder if we give old things enough time to reach their potential before we move on to the new.
When it comes to the FED / mainstream finance, I have no doubt it has run its course and is overdue for change. Same with BitShares 0.X, it had major issues that needed a new approach, it was not going to succeed on the path it was on.
Perhaps this may be true for Steam & BitShares as well, but until I am convinced EOS is truly superior to BitShares I will continue to support and help evolve BitShares / Graphene. We are all just waiting to see what EOS is and how HERO will be managed and marketed. I will remain somewhat skeptical on both fronts until I have more information.
-
From steemit:
dantheman73 · 13 hours ago
We will not be doing a share drop on anyone.
i wonder what's left for the most fair distribution method then
So long as 'the most fair distribution method' includes BTS 2 shareholders, or that EOS is not a competitor to BTS 2, leaving BitShares 2.0 to carry on running as normal.
Is EOS the next steem? If so, great
Is EOS a replacement for BTS 2? ??!?!!?
I think this is the 3rd scenario where Dan and Stan's titilating and teasing has degraded shareholder confidence.
Which makes bts a less-appealing value proposition to the as-yet-uninvested
I assure you there are sound business reasons for releasing information as fast as we can and no faster.
I point out that any time we get ahead of ourselves and say something that later changes we hear about that even more.
Then there are the wishes of other partners to consider.
Nothing is done in a vacuum.
-
Then there are the wishes of other partners to consider.
Nothing is done in a vacuum.
I sure hope that's true this time around. It sure didn't seem like it 0.X --> 2.0
-
From steemit:
dantheman73 · 13 hours ago
We will not be doing a share drop on anyone.
i wonder what's left for the most fair distribution method then
So long as 'the most fair distribution method' includes BTS 2 shareholders, or that EOS is not a competitor to BTS 2, leaving BitShares 2.0 to carry on running as normal.
Is EOS the next steem? If so, great
Is EOS a replacement for BTS 2? ??!?!!?
I think this is the 3rd scenario where Dan and Stan's titilating and teasing has degraded shareholder confidence.
Which makes bts a less-appealing value proposition to the as-yet-uninvested
I assure you there are sound business reasons for releasing information as fast as we can and no faster.
I point out that any time we get ahead of ourselves and say something that later changes we hear about that even more.
Then there are the wishes of other partners to consider.
Nothing is done in a vacuum.
Regarding the method of releasing information, fair enough. I understand that
BUT the prospect of a complete overhaul of BTS 2.0, into a new system, with a NEW 'fair distribution model' is quite alarming.
I suppose you could argue that BTS 2 shareholders have got what they paid for from Dan already, and that he owes them nothing. True.
But if EOS is a system that completely undermines the wealth of BTS 2 shareholders, then what's to say that Dan won't find cryptonitesupercode language better suited to blockchains in 2 years time? And replaces EOS again?
If Apple took investment from the public to build a iphone 8, built the iphone 8, and then immediately released a newer-shiner iphone 9 that Apple had worked on behind the scenes with their own capital (i.e released a product that is not beholded to the shareholders of iphone 8).
And then decided to sell the iphone 9 in a 'fair way'. The iphone 8 investors would all be bag holders.
I understand that this analogy has several holes in it but I cant think of a better way to get my concerns across.
I know you can't release certain information; but is 'Don't worry BTS 2 shareholders, we aren't going to fuck you over' that much to ask for?
-
From steemit:
dantheman73 · 13 hours ago
We will not be doing a share drop on anyone.
i wonder what's left for the most fair distribution method then
So long as 'the most fair distribution method' includes BTS 2 shareholders, or that EOS is not a competitor to BTS 2, leaving BitShares 2.0 to carry on running as normal.
Is EOS the next steem? If so, great
Is EOS a replacement for BTS 2? ??!?!!?
I think this is the 3rd scenario where Dan and Stan's titilating and teasing has degraded shareholder confidence.
Which makes bts a less-appealing value proposition to the as-yet-uninvested
I assure you there are sound business reasons for releasing information as fast as we can and no faster.
I point out that any time we get ahead of ourselves and say something that later changes we hear about that even more.
Then there are the wishes of other partners to consider.
Nothing is done in a vacuum.
Regarding the method of releasing information, fair enough. I understand that
BUT the prospect of a complete overhaul of BTS 2.0, into a new system, with a NEW 'fair distribution model' is quite alarming.
I suppose you could argue that BTS 2 shareholders have got what they paid for from Dan already, and that he owes them nothing. True.
But if EOS is a system that completely undermines the wealth of BTS 2 shareholders, then what's to say that Dan won't find cryptonitesupercode language better suited to blockchains in 2 years time? And replaces EOS again?
If Apple took investment from the public to build a iphone 8, built the iphone 8, and then immediately released a newer-shiner iphone 9 that Apple had worked on behind the scenes with their own capital (i.e released a product that is not beholded to the shareholders of iphone 8).
And then decided to sell the iphone 9 in a 'fair way'. The iphone 8 investors would all be bag holders.
I understand that this analogy has several holes in it but I cant think of a better way to get my concerns across.
I know you can't release certain information; but is 'Don't worry BTS 2 shareholders, we aren't going to fuck you over' that much to ask for?
I understand. To be clear, I'm not an EOS insider and don't have enough insights to comment. I'm just saying that as a BTS maximalist, I'm looking for what is the best move for BTS given the advent of EOS. To me it seems like an opportunity to do a 2.0 -> 3.0 upgrade at some point if for no other reason than to prevent someone else from doing it without a 100% sharedrop on BTS 2.0.
This is like Microsoft releasing Office on MacOS so that a competitor can't gain traction there.
And I view EOS as an operating system vs BTS as an application.
Although it may be better to say
"BTS is a platform for coins and EOS is an operating system for platforms", but that's just my outsider's impression.
-
From steemit:
dantheman73 · 13 hours ago
We will not be doing a share drop on anyone.
Nailed it!
-
From steemit:
dantheman73 · 13 hours ago
We will not be doing a share drop on anyone.
i wonder what's left for the most fair distribution method then
So long as 'the most fair distribution method' includes BTS 2 shareholders, or that EOS is not a competitor to BTS 2, leaving BitShares 2.0 to carry on running as normal.
Is EOS the next steem? If so, great
Is EOS a replacement for BTS 2? ??!?!!?
I think this is the 3rd scenario where Dan and Stan's titilating and teasing has degraded shareholder confidence.
Which makes bts a less-appealing value proposition to the as-yet-uninvested
I assure you there are sound business reasons for releasing information as fast as we can and no faster.
I point out that any time we get ahead of ourselves and say something that later changes we hear about that even more.
Then there are the wishes of other partners to consider.
Nothing is done in a vacuum.
Regarding the method of releasing information, fair enough. I understand that
BUT the prospect of a complete overhaul of BTS 2.0, into a new system, with a NEW 'fair distribution model' is quite alarming.
I suppose you could argue that BTS 2 shareholders have got what they paid for from Dan already, and that he owes them nothing. True.
But if EOS is a system that completely undermines the wealth of BTS 2 shareholders, then what's to say that Dan won't find cryptonitesupercode language better suited to blockchains in 2 years time? And replaces EOS again?
If Apple took investment from the public to build a iphone 8, built the iphone 8, and then immediately released a newer-shiner iphone 9 that Apple had worked on behind the scenes with their own capital (i.e released a product that is not beholded to the shareholders of iphone 8).
And then decided to sell the iphone 9 in a 'fair way'. The iphone 8 investors would all be bag holders.
I understand that this analogy has several holes in it but I cant think of a better way to get my concerns across.
I know you can't release certain information; but is 'Don't worry BTS 2 shareholders, we aren't going to fuck you over' that much to ask for?
I understand. To be clear, I'm not an EOS insider and don't have enough insights to comment. I'm just saying that as a BTS maximalist, I'm looking for what is the best move for BTS given the advent of EOS. To me it seems like an opportunity to do a 2.0 -> 3.0 upgrade at some point if for no other reason than to prevent someone else from doing it without a 100% sharedrop on BTS 2.0.
This is like Microsoft releasing Office on MacOS so that a competitor can't gain traction there.
And I view EOS as an operating system vs BTS as an application.
Although it may be better to say
"BTS is a platform for coins and EOS is an operating system for platforms", but that's just my outsider's impression.
It's like moving our store from inside our own house to the shopping mall of someone else to operate under their new rules and not ours.
Today BitShares shareholders do have 100% control over the application, the blockchain itself and its settings. That's power we would probably lose running on EOS.
It's like moving a centralized exchange to BitShares ^^
Not saying it does not come with benefits but also not without risks.
-
It's like moving our store from inside our own house to the shopping mall of someone else to operate under their new rules and not ours.
Today BitShares shareholders do have 100% control over the application, the blockchain itself and its settings. That's power we would probably lose running on EOS.
It's like moving a centralized exchange to BitShares ^^
Not saying it does not come with benefits but also not without risks.
I've known this to be true for years but right now is the first time I truly appreciate 100% shareholder control.
Is BTS 2.0 the first company in history to be able to say that with 100% confidence?
Shareholders of traditional companies enforce their control with laws, correct?
But what if the state/lawmakers turn against the shareholders in favour of a bad-actor?
Is there historical precedent of this kind of thing happening during wartime or some such?
The state 'confiscating' shareholder control of corporations, therefore stealing the wealth and 'sovereign' power of the shareholders?
BitShares 2.0's 100% guaranteed shareholder control is a landmark event in history.
I like BitShares for the decentralized control of the network; a network that produces a highly desirable product, at the rock bottom possible price to the consumer. BitShares can morph to fill the shape in the market as it evolves. To remain the absolute most competitive platform for financial products, bar none. It can also morph to most incentivize cooperation instead of competition.
To reward those who join BitShares and start running services upon it so enormously that it makes it impossible for anyone with 'fiduciary duty' to declare that there is more money in trying to compete with BitShares.
This means razor thin profit margins for the BitShares Corporation, in which shareholders have stake.
BitShares' profit model is to enable and capture the online trades performed by every single person in the world.
High volume, low price, gigantic target audience.
=========
Currently the BTS 2.0 shareholders have 100% control of this system.
I do not think it should be given up lightly.
-
It's like moving our store from inside our own house to the shopping mall of someone else to operate under their new rules and not ours.
Today BitShares shareholders do have 100% control over the application, the blockchain itself and its settings. That's power we would probably lose running on EOS.
It's like moving a centralized exchange to BitShares ^^
Not saying it does not come with benefits but also not without risks.
I've known this to be true for years but right now is the first time I truly appreciate 100% shareholder control.
Are we the first company in history to be able to say that with 100% confidence?
Shareholders of traditional companies enforce their control with laws, correct?
But what if the state/lawmakers turn against the shareholders in favour of a bad-actor?
Is there historical precedent of this kind of thing happening during wartime or some such?
The state 'confiscating' shareholder control of corporations, therefore stealing the wealth and 'sovereign' power of the shareholders?
BitShares 2.0's 100% guaranteed shareholder control is a landmark event in history.
I like BitShares for the decentralized control of the network; a network that produces a highly desirable product, at the rock bottom possible price to the consumer. BitShares can morph to fill the shape in the market as it evolves. To remain the absolute most competitive platform for financial products, bar none. It can also morph to most incentivize cooperation instead of competition.
To reward those who join BitShares and start running services upon it so enormously that it makes it impossible for anyone with 'fiduciary duty' to declare that there is more money in trying to compete with BitShares.
This means razor thin profit margins for the BitShares Corporation, in which shareholders have stake.
BitShares' profit model is to enable and capture the online trades performed by every single person in the world.
High volume, low price, gigantic target audience.
=========
Currently the BTS 2.0 shareholders have 100% control of this system.
I do not think it should be given up lightly.
We'll presumably know more after the plan is made public next week.
However, keep in mind that the path to 3.0 does not necessarily mean giving up control.
It may be that the future of BTS 3.0 is on a parallel EOS chain just like Peerplays is on a parallel Graphene chain.
At any rate, something will probably be built by somebody on or with EOS, so it might as well be Bitsharesholders.
-
It may be that the future of BTS 3.0 is on a parallel EOS chain just like Peerplays is on a parallel Graphene chain.
Peerplays performs functions that the bts token can not.
I hope that EOS tokens cannot possibly be used as collateral in a CFD.
This is a key selling point of BitShares, if EOS tokens can back trades/contracts of this kind then I think Dan will have a lot of explaining to do.
The security of BTS 2.0 is sole responsibility of the BTS 2.0 shareholders.
If an EOS token is required to secure the BTS 3.0 chain, then some control would be lost. Maybe so negligible that it most would say it "doesn't matter." But.
The 'slippery slope' phenomenon regarding citizens across the world losing their legal freedoms and legal privacy has been gradually chip chip chipped away.
Ever so slowly over decades so as for it to go unnoticed or ignored.
I don't want to see the 'merger' with EOS to be the first chip, the first slip, down a slippery slope.
My concerns might all be invalidated when the full story is released, but I want to say something now in the hopes that other shareholders will hold similar scepticism when they read/discuss the full details later.
BitShares Maximalism.
What a story it would be if Dan's EOS ended up directly competing against BitShares 2.0, battling it out. Creator VS Created.
I'm sure that will merely be a story for a fanfic novel written in the future ;)
Is it public knowledge whether Dan is still a large BTS 2.0 shareholder or not?
====
Stan may be right, in that the best path will be to get BitShares 2.0 onto EOS via a direct 1:1 sharedrop from BitShares 2.0 shares >>> into EOS-BTS-shares.
To prevent somebody else doing it first.
But this doesn't necessarily mean that BTS 2.0 would die.
BTS 2.0 shareholders could/should buy the 'real estate' on EOS so that nobody else could set up shop there.
Then business as usual could continue on both platforms (although likely detached and unlinked except by community).
Setting up BTS 2.0 to run on EOS, and then sharedrop 1:1 to BTS 2.0 shareholders, is likely to require coding effort. The coder would then (correct me?) have to be trusted to perform the sharedrop properly.
Who can the BTS 2.0 reserve pool hire to perform this job?
Is loyalty to BTS 2.0 required?
How could this process remain trustless?
I am unfamiliar with the process of a new coin sharedropping on an existing chain. Is the sharedrop in the genesis block or something?
Regardless of whether these questions are invalid or have been answered before on these forums; I think it prudent to have answers to them here specifically in this thread.
EOS will become a busy subject of discussion on this forum once more information comes out, and the sooner noob-questions can be answered the sooner everyone is on a good level of understanding and can direct the discussion most efficiently to achieve consensus fastest.
What could an "unmerged" BTS 2.0 offer a customer of EOS?
That will be the question, and the answer may depend on the success of EOS.
Dan doesn't work for the BTS 2.0 shareholders anymore. His announcements and big-reveal may not necessarily address this community.
If EOS is a big new product, he and his partners will be looking to sell it to the wider cryptoworld and the mainstream investor.
Although I suppose BTS 2.0 is a $100MM company to target for investment now...
-
It may be that the future of BTS 3.0 is on a parallel EOS chain just like Peerplays is on a parallel Graphene chain.
Peerplays performs functions that the bts token can not.
I hope that EOS tokens cannot possibly be used as collateral in a CFD.
This is a key selling point of BitShares, if EOS tokens can back trades/contracts of this kind then I think Dan will have a lot of explaining to do.
The security of BTS 2.0 is sole responsibility of the BTS 2.0 shareholders.
If an EOS token is required to secure the BTS 3.0 chain, then some control would be lost. Maybe so negligible that it most would say it "doesn't matter." But.
The 'slippery slope' phenomenon regarding citizens across the world losing their legal freedoms and legal privacy has been gradually chip chip chipped away.
Ever so slowly over decades so as for it to go unnoticed or ignored.
I don't want to see the 'merger' with EOS to be the first chip, the first slip, down a slippery slope.
My concerns might all be invalidated when the full story is released, but I want to say something now in the hopes that other shareholders will hold similar scepticism when they read/discuss the full details later.
BitShares Maximalism.
What a story it would be if Dan's EOS ended up directly competing against BitShares 2.0, battling it out. Creator VS Created.
I'm sure that will merely be a story for a fanfic novel written in the future ;)
Is it public knowledge whether Dan is still a large BTS 2.0 shareholder or not?
====
Stan may be right, in that the best path will be to get BitShares 2.0 onto EOS via a direct 1:1 sharedrop from BitShares 2.0 shares >>> into EOS-BTS-shares.
To prevent somebody else doing it first.
But this doesn't necessarily mean that BTS 2.0 would die.
BTS 2.0 shareholders could/should buy the 'real estate' on EOS so that nobody else could set up shop there.
Then business as usual could continue on both platforms (although likely detached and unlinked except by community).
Setting up BTS 2.0 to run on EOS, and then sharedrop 1:1 to BTS 2.0 shareholders, is likely to require coding effort. The coder would then (correct me?) have to be trusted to perform the sharedrop properly.
Who can the BTS 2.0 reserve pool hire to perform this job?
Is loyalty to BTS 2.0 required?
How could this process remain trustless?
I am unfamiliar with the process of a new coin sharedropping on an existing chain. Is the sharedrop in the genesis block or something?
Regardless of whether these questions are invalid or have been answered before on these forums; I think it prudent to have answers to them here specifically in this thread.
EOS will become a busy subject of discussion on this forum once more information comes out, and the sooner noob-questions can be answered the sooner everyone is on a good level of understanding and can direct the discussion most efficiently to achieve consensus fastest.
What could an "unmerged" BTS 2.0 offer a customer of EOS?
That will be the question, and the answer may depend on the success of EOS.
Dan doesn't work for the BTS 2.0 shareholders anymore. His announcements and big-reveal may not necessarily address this community.
If EOS is a big new product, he and his partners will be looking to sell it to the wider cryptoworld and the mainstream investor.
Although I suppose BTS 2.0 is a $100MM company to target for investment now...
All those are good questions, but we did it before for BTS 0.9.3c to BTS 2.0. It's called a "Pitch Fork"
(https://i.gyazo.com/400495de2d2074d669e61584c6b922be.png)
Of course, that time the delegates voluntarily shut down the old network. Nothing says that would happen this time, so there could be two - Just like Ethereum classic. This doesn't appear to be a bad thing.
-
It may be that the future of BTS 3.0 is on a parallel EOS chain just like Peerplays is on a parallel Graphene chain.
Peerplays performs functions that the bts token can not.
I hope that EOS tokens cannot possibly be used as collateral in a CFD.
This is a key selling point of BitShares, if EOS tokens can back trades/contracts of this kind then I think Dan will have a lot of explaining to do.
The security of BTS 2.0 is sole responsibility of the BTS 2.0 shareholders.
If an EOS token is required to secure the BTS 3.0 chain, then some control would be lost. Maybe so negligible that it most would say it "doesn't matter." But.
The 'slippery slope' phenomenon regarding citizens across the world losing their legal freedoms and legal privacy has been gradually chip chip chipped away.
Ever so slowly over decades so as for it to go unnoticed or ignored.
I don't want to see the 'merger' with EOS to be the first chip, the first slip, down a slippery slope.
My concerns might all be invalidated when the full story is released, but I want to say something now in the hopes that other shareholders will hold similar scepticism when they read/discuss the full details later.
BitShares Maximalism.
What a story it would be if Dan's EOS ended up directly competing against BitShares 2.0, battling it out. Creator VS Created.
I'm sure that will merely be a story for a fanfic novel written in the future ;)
Is it public knowledge whether Dan is still a large BTS 2.0 shareholder or not?
====
Stan may be right, in that the best path will be to get BitShares 2.0 onto EOS via a direct 1:1 sharedrop from BitShares 2.0 shares >>> into EOS-BTS-shares.
To prevent somebody else doing it first.
But this doesn't necessarily mean that BTS 2.0 would die.
BTS 2.0 shareholders could/should buy the 'real estate' on EOS so that nobody else could set up shop there.
Then business as usual could continue on both platforms (although likely detached and unlinked except by community).
Setting up BTS 2.0 to run on EOS, and then sharedrop 1:1 to BTS 2.0 shareholders, is likely to require coding effort. The coder would then (correct me?) have to be trusted to perform the sharedrop properly.
Who can the BTS 2.0 reserve pool hire to perform this job?
Is loyalty to BTS 2.0 required?
How could this process remain trustless?
I am unfamiliar with the process of a new coin sharedropping on an existing chain. Is the sharedrop in the genesis block or something?
Regardless of whether these questions are invalid or have been answered before on these forums; I think it prudent to have answers to them here specifically in this thread.
EOS will become a busy subject of discussion on this forum once more information comes out, and the sooner noob-questions can be answered the sooner everyone is on a good level of understanding and can direct the discussion most efficiently to achieve consensus fastest.
What could an "unmerged" BTS 2.0 offer a customer of EOS?
That will be the question, and the answer may depend on the success of EOS.
Dan doesn't work for the BTS 2.0 shareholders anymore. His announcements and big-reveal may not necessarily address this community.
If EOS is a big new product, he and his partners will be looking to sell it to the wider cryptoworld and the mainstream investor.
Although I suppose BTS 2.0 is a $100MM company to target for investment now...
All those are good questions, but we did it before for BTS 0.9.3c to BTS 2.0. It's called a "Pitch Fork"
(https://i.gyazo.com/400495de2d2074d669e61584c6b922be.png)
Of course, that time the delegates voluntarily shut down the old network. Nothing says that would happen this time, so there could be two - Just like Ethereum classic. This doesn't appear to be a bad thing.
That doesn't really address any of permie's concerns (concerns that I also share), though. I'd like to believe Dan is willing to look out for the best interests of all his creations, but...I have my doubts at this point.
:-\
-
It may be that the future of BTS 3.0 is on a parallel EOS chain just like Peerplays is on a parallel Graphene chain.
I am unfamiliar with the process of a new coin sharedropping on an existing chain. Is the sharedrop in the genesis block or something?
A randomly picked block within a set time period. And no one knows which block was pick until the actual sharedrop. This keep people from gaming the system.
-
That doesn't really address any of permie's concerns (concerns that I also share), though. I'd like to believe Dan is willing to look out for the best interests of all his creations, but...I have my doubts at this point.
:-\
Just like he looked out for the best interest of Bitshares' bitUSD by creating Steem Dollars?
He is so ashamed of himself that he won't even come here. I think that answers your question...
Stan championing the previous Bitshares merger is also quite funny. So when will BTS Vote and BTS DNS be active on the BTS 2.0 chain Stan? ::)
Do you really think the BTS community is going to fall for the bait and switch a second time?
-
That doesn't really address any of permie's concerns (concerns that I also share), though. I'd like to believe Dan is willing to look out for the best interests of all his creations, but...I have my doubts at this point.
:-\
Just like he looked out for the best interest of Bitshares' bitUSD by creating Steem Dollars?
He is so ashamed of himself that he won't even come here. I think that answers your question...
Stan championing the previous Bitshares merger is also quite funny. So when will BTS Vote and BTS DNS be active on the BTS 2.0 chain Stan? ::)
Do you really think the BTS community is going to fall for the bait and switch a second time?
Several excellent points raised here in this thread. Let's continue this questioning until we can get some solid answers. It's a bit early for them yet, but IMO that shouldn't keep us from thinking about this and asking questions now.
I am very grateful to your @Permie for your post of skepticism, and although I don't believe the reason highlighted above is accurate, glad to see your healthy skepticism on this matter as well. I too have serious reservations about EOS in the darkness from a lack of information about EOS. I hope transparency is a high priority with the EOS team. Time will tell and until it does we all should remain skeptical and ask plenty of questions.
-
That doesn't really address any of permie's concerns (concerns that I also share), though. I'd like to believe Dan is willing to look out for the best interests of all his creations, but...I have my doubts at this point.
:-\
Just like he looked out for the best interest of Bitshares' bitUSD by creating Steem Dollars?
He is so ashamed of himself that he won't even come here. I think that answers your question...
Stan championing the previous Bitshares merger is also quite funny. So when will BTS Vote and BTS DNS be active on the BTS 2.0 chain Stan? ::)
Do you really think the BTS community is going to fall for the bait and switch a second time?
Several excellent points raised here in this thread. Let's continue this questioning until we can get some solid answers. It's a bit early for them yet, but IMO that should keep us from thinking about this and asking questions now.
I am very grateful to your @Permie for your post of skepticism, and although I don't believe the reason highlighted above is accurate, glad to see your healthy skepticism on this matter as well. I too have serious reservations about EOS in the darkness from a lack of information about EOS. I hope transparency is a high priority with the EOS team. Time will tell and until it does we all should remain skeptical and ask plenty of questions.
I might be fooled again, but i believe that BM didn't have evil intentions to just pump and dump, although he might have earned much more if he just had stuck with Bitshares. Mistakes were made, probably, and now BM wants to use all his experience to create a fair project that will benefit world the most.
-
follow this: https://steemit.com/@eosio
-
asked about brownies:
Daniel Larimer:
I haven't forgotten those brownies... I appriciate everyone who has helped make BTS, STEEM, and now EOS great
:)
everything else is no big news for us
bts/steem/whatever can connect to EOS and interact, or you could re-build functionality on EOS chain
-
asked about brownies:
Daniel Larimer:
I haven't forgotten those brownies... I appriciate everyone who has helped make BTS, STEEM, and now EOS great
:)
everything else is no big news for us
bts/steem/whatever can connect to EOS and interact, or you could re-build functionality on EOS chain
And just like that, the BOWNIE.PTS market shoots through the roof, haha...
-
So EOS doesn't have anything with BTS or STEEM?
-
So EOS doesn't have anything with BTS or STEEM?
it connects chains. let that sink for a second
-
I currently see five ways forward for BitShares and Steem ...
a) do nothing (which works fine as well)
b) simple sidechain with asset bridge to EOS ...
c) full sidechain with 2-way message passing between chains ..
d) upgrade of the STEEM/BitShares architecture to run run on their own EOS-based chains (in parallel-side to EOS) ...
e) implement both on EOS and have them be part of EOS
-
I currently see five ways forward for BitShares and Steem ...
a) do nothing (which works fine as well)
b) simple sidechain with asset bridge to EOS ...
c) full sidechain with 2-way message passing between chains ..
d) upgrade of the STEEM/BitShares architecture to run run on their own EOS-based chains (in parallel-side to EOS) ...
e) implement both on EOS and have them be part of EOS
agreed. I think c and e are the most interesting options
-
Btw .. dan mentioned to me that bitshares is not in a hurry .. it will take many months for eos to be as performant and rovust as bitshares (which has 2+ years of solid history)
-
I think we should keep running our own network .. but then again details on this new EOS project are severely lacking right now.
-
Would it be possible to do an atomic trade (?) transfer between BTS 2.0 and EOS-BTS2.0 so that 1bts is always equal to and immediately tradeable for 1bts.eos ?
So the success of BTS.EOS pays exactly into BTS 2.0 shareholders?
Even if BTS 2.0 became redundant, an investor who goes AFK from now and for the next 10+ years can always return and view their portfolio without any potentially complicated re-education about EOS?
What I mean to say is that BTS 2.0 shareholders fund and pay for building a BTS 2.0 clone using EOS software, and also code in a 1:1 peg from bts to bts.eos hard coded into the genesis block along with a sharedrop.
Fund it and claim it for BTS 2.0
Is this a technically viable option?
-
Would it be possible to do an atomic trade (?) transfer between BTS 2.0 and EOS-BTS2.0 so that 1bts is always equal to and immediately tradeable for 1bts.eos ?
So the success of BTS.EOS pays exactly into BTS 2.0 shareholders?
Even if BTS 2.0 became redundant, an investor who goes AFK from now and for the next 10+ years can always return and view their portfolio without any potentially complicated re-education about EOS?
What I mean to say is that BTS 2.0 shareholders fund and pay for building a BTS 2.0 clone using EOS software, and also code in a 1:1 peg from bts to bts.eos hard coded into the genesis block along with a sharedrop.
Fund it and claim it for BTS 2.0
Is this a technically viable option?
should be. you'd feed a smartcontract with all BTS IDs and balances and make it claimable. there's no deadline
-
It's like moving our store from inside our own house to the shopping mall of someone else to operate under their new rules and not ours.
Today BitShares shareholders do have 100% control over the application, the blockchain itself and its settings. That's power we would probably lose running on EOS.
It's like moving a centralized exchange to BitShares ^^
Not saying it does not come with benefits but also not without risks.
I've known this to be true for years but right now is the first time I truly appreciate 100% shareholder control.
Is BTS 2.0 the first company in history to be able to say that with 100% confidence?
But think a little while how well Bitshares has worked so far... From technical standpoint there shouldn't be anything that prevents it being a TOP5 blockchain. But the community hasn't been able to use the technology to grow the ecosystem.
Would it be really a bad thing if a community like that would lose some of the control? What's the point of having control if it's used ineffectively?
-
So what's the deal with EOS token?
-
It's like moving our store from inside our own house to the shopping mall of someone else to operate under their new rules and not ours.
Today BitShares shareholders do have 100% control over the application, the blockchain itself and its settings. That's power we would probably lose running on EOS.
It's like moving a centralized exchange to BitShares ^^
Not saying it does not come with benefits but also not without risks.
I've known this to be true for years but right now is the first time I truly appreciate 100% shareholder control.
Is BTS 2.0 the first company in history to be able to say that with 100% confidence?
But think a little while how well Bitshares has worked so far... From technical standpoint there shouldn't be anything that prevents it being a TOP5 blockchain. But the community hasn't been able to use the technology to grow the ecosystem.
Would it be really a bad thing if a community like that would lose some of the control? What's the point of having control if it's used ineffectively?
The "invisible hand" guides the market, are you suggesting you have forsight greater than an omnipotent all-knowing "entity" that represents the aggregate subjective decisions made by an economic community?
Are you suggesting Redistribution of wealth?
I would hope such an idea is rather unpopular on a forum with history of NAP and austrian school of economic theory.
Where's the proof it's the fault of the current shareholders?
Even if it was their fault, who's to say that a current shareholder would not learn from their mistakes and have knowledge that a newly appointed receiver of stolen goods would not possess?
The bts price would have dumped into the ground long ago and it would not have had the capital to employ or incentivize anyone.
Iif the shareholders of the previous 2 years did not risk their wealth to bring it to fruition, this project would be nothing.
This project IS the shareholders. The community.
The fact that BitShares "Has the potential to be a TOP 5 blockchain" is directly BECAUSE of the investment of the "current" shareholders.
Liquidity, collateral asset value, results of worker proposal voting, testing early product, community discussion participation are all the result of efforts made by the shareholders.
====
The whole essence of this project, the real asset that brings BitShares' monumental growth potential, is in it's founding principles and enablance of freedom.
I should hope that the Freedom from sneaky rug-pulling is included.
-
If some of the leaked statements about EOS are true, then at the very least we have a roadmap target of potential bandwidth increase and/or a possibly easily accessible new community of potential customers if we play this right.
I don't immediately see this as bad news for bitshares. Dare I say the opposite or am I going to far then?
-
If some of the leaked statements about EOS are true, then at the very least we have a roadmap target of potential bandwidth increase and/or a possibly easily accessible new community of potential customers if we play this right.
I don't immediately see this as bad news for bitshares. Dare I say the opposite or am I going to far then?
I think it probably will be good news for BitShares 2.0
I do not think that Dan will have spent another 18months of his valuable time redoing what he achieved with BitShares 2.0.
I'm confident that EOS will benefit BTS 2.0 shareholders.
But what if it doesn't? This isn't Dan's baby anymore and the decision is for the shareholders
-
I'm surprised that the mere mention of a certain individual makes people here discuss the question of dropping BTS for something about which very little is known at this time, basically that it will be called EOS and is some new idea of BM.
But if EOS is a system that completely undermines the wealth of BTS 2 shareholders, then what's to say that Dan won't find cryptonitesupercode language better suited to blockchains in 2 years time? And replaces EOS again?
...
I know you can't release certain information; but is 'Don't worry BTS 2 shareholders, we aren't going to fuck you over' that much to ask for?
IMO it's a safe bet that Dan will sooner or later leave EOS behind. He's got a history of doing that.
And you won't hear a "we aren't going to fuck you over", because I think that BM worries very little about the *people* here.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that EOS is going to be an amazing piece of technology, and I'm sure that BM does not intend to "fuck anyone over". But that doesn't mean you won't feel like having been fucked over, after he's left.
-
I think it probably will be good news for BitShares 2.0
I do not think that Dan will have spent another 18months of his valuable time redoing what he achieved with BitShares 2.0.
I'm confident that EOS will benefit BTS 2.0 shareholders.
But what if it doesn't? This isn't Dan's baby anymore and the decision is for the shareholders
I completely agree with your idea of staying as independent as possible. The chance that eos will be opensource is pretty high, so even in a worst case scenario, we are at least able to glean some technical inspiration from it. Hell from the looks of it, bitshares is in way better shape than projects like ethereum. I wouldn't want to be in their shoes, if even half of what's been leaked is true.
Then again ethereum apparently never had any problems with funding and hype, which of course had nothing to do with these big and nasty hidden powers behind the project, that have absolutely no nefarious agenda at all. Those powers would of course never use any untowards means to insure their monopoly.
-
So EOS doesn't have anything with BTS or STEEM?
it connects chains. let that sink for a second
Could this be what truly decentralizes Bitshares where there is no need for a third party to make BTC into Open_BTC? It sure would be nice to see something like this happen.
-
I'm surprised that the mere mention of a certain individual makes people here discuss the question of dropping BTS for something about which very little is known at this time, basically that it will be called EOS and is some new idea of BM.
But if EOS is a system that completely undermines the wealth of BTS 2 shareholders, then what's to say that Dan won't find cryptonitesupercode language better suited to blockchains in 2 years time? And replaces EOS again?
...
I know you can't release certain information; but is 'Don't worry BTS 2 shareholders, we aren't going to fuck you over' that much to ask for?
IMO it's a safe bet that Dan will sooner or later leave EOS behind. He's got a history of doing that.
And you won't hear a "we aren't going to fuck you over", because I think that BM worries very little about the *people* here.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that EOS is going to be an amazing piece of technology, and I'm sure that BM does not intend to "fuck anyone over". But that doesn't mean you won't feel like having been fucked over, after he's left.
Well said @pc, well said. +5%
-
I think it probably will be good news for BitShares 2.0
I do not think that Dan will have spent another 18months of his valuable time redoing what he achieved with BitShares 2.0.
I'm confident that EOS will benefit BTS 2.0 shareholders.
But what if it doesn't? This isn't Dan's baby anymore and the decision is for the shareholders
I completely agree with your idea of staying as independent as possible. The chance that eos will be opensource is pretty high, so even in a worst case scenario, we are at least able to glean some technical inspiration from it. Hell from the looks of it, bitshares is in way better shape than projects like ethereum. I wouldn't want to be in their shoes, if even half of what's been leaked is true.
Then again ethereum apparently never had any problems with funding and hype, which of course had nothing to do with these big and nasty hidden powers behind the project, that have absolutely no nefarious agenda at all. Those powers would of course never use any untowards means to insure their monopoly.
I don't follow the Ethereum at all (why bother ;) ), what has been leaked?
Could you give me your quick summary?
I remember your attitude on shareholder freedom over the years, I was hoping you'd chime in :)
-
I'm pretty sure he's talking about what's leaked about EOS, not Ethereum.
-
I'm surprised that the mere mention of a certain individual makes people here discuss the question of dropping BTS for something about which very little is known at this time, basically that it will be called EOS and is some new idea of BM.
But if EOS is a system that completely undermines the wealth of BTS 2 shareholders, then what's to say that Dan won't find cryptonitesupercode language better suited to blockchains in 2 years time? And replaces EOS again?
...
I know you can't release certain information; but is 'Don't worry BTS 2 shareholders, we aren't going to fuck you over' that much to ask for?
IMO it's a safe bet that Dan will sooner or later leave EOS behind. He's got a history of doing that.
And you won't hear a "we aren't going to fuck you over", because I think that BM worries very little about the *people* here.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that EOS is going to be an amazing piece of technology, and I'm sure that BM does not intend to "fuck anyone over". But that doesn't mean you won't feel like having been fucked over, after he's left.
What makes me more optimistic about EOS is that Dan has clearly stated that EOS is "not his". At first glance this seems like bad news (no BTS / STEEM / BROWNIE.PTS sharedrops) but what it really means is that all the weight isn't on his shoulders. This is good firstly because Dan has historically been terrible at everything else besides consensus theory and implementing said theory, and he has tried assuming other important roles (PR / marketing initiatives for example) despite this. The other thing that directly speaks to what you said is that if he "leaves" EOS, then EOS should have enough backbone without him to continue and grow. That being said, since by the very virtue of EOS not being all on Dan's shoulder's I wouldn't be surprised if Dan sticks around longer than he has for BTS / STEEM.
-
I don't follow the Ethereum at all (why bother ;) ), what has been leaked?
Could you give me your quick summary?
I remember your attitude on shareholder freedom over the years, I was hoping you'd chime in :)
Oops, seems I did not word that as well as I could. I meant to say what has been leaked about EOS so far does not bode well for ethereum. I was referring to the snippets of information released on the telegram chat and elsewhere. Also reading all the comments from devs about their troubles developing for ethereum and the architectural differences with eos, then provided that eos works as intended then ethereum might just become obsolete before they are able to conquer the world. Since bts (and steem) are technically (apparently) a lot easier to adapt or integrate in eos, I figured bitshares future a bit more promising, as in, opportunities for the taking.
I have always feared the arrival of the big powers and to me Ethereum with their small group of "founders" and behind the scenes dealings and sponsors combined with their actions, is a very close match to how I'd envision an attack on crypto would take place. Conversely I'm keeping my eyes peeled with eos as well.
The "one chain to rule them all " concept is one of my worst nightmares. That's why I half jokingly proposed that eos stood for eye of sauron. Not that I've seen anything yet that would point to something like that, but it is something I'm very worried about. I most definitely would prefer if bitshares remains an independent entity, but I do realize that we need to grasp every opportunity we can to grow.
-
It's like moving our store from inside our own house to the shopping mall of someone else to operate under their new rules and not ours.
Today BitShares shareholders do have 100% control over the application, the blockchain itself and its settings. That's power we would probably lose running on EOS.
It's like moving a centralized exchange to BitShares ^^
Not saying it does not come with benefits but also not without risks.
I've known this to be true for years but right now is the first time I truly appreciate 100% shareholder control.
Is BTS 2.0 the first company in history to be able to say that with 100% confidence?
Just remember that Dan can not do anything to the Bitshares DAC without our shareholder vote.
But think a little while how well Bitshares has worked so far... From technical standpoint there shouldn't be anything that prevents it being a TOP5 blockchain. But the community hasn't been able to use the technology to grow the ecosystem.
Would it be really a bad thing if a community like that would lose some of the control? What's the point of having control if it's used ineffectively?
Just remember that Bitshares is a DAC. Dan can not do anything to it without the shareholder vote.
-
It's like moving our store from inside our own house to the shopping mall of someone else to operate under their new rules and not ours.
Today BitShares shareholders do have 100% control over the application, the blockchain itself and its settings. That's power we would probably lose running on EOS.
It's like moving a centralized exchange to BitShares ^^
Not saying it does not come with benefits but also not without risks.
I've known this to be true for years but right now is the first time I truly appreciate 100% shareholder control.
Is BTS 2.0 the first company in history to be able to say that with 100% confidence?
But think a little while how well Bitshares has worked so far... From technical standpoint there shouldn't be anything that prevents it being a TOP5 blockchain. But the community hasn't been able to use the technology to grow the ecosystem.
Would it be really a bad thing if a community like that would lose some of the control? What's the point of having control if it's used ineffectively?
The "invisible hand" guides the market, are you suggesting you have forsight greater than an omnipotent all-knowing "entity" that represents the aggregate subjective decisions made by an economic community?
What I'm trying to say is that markets clearly don't appreciate Bitshares. That's not because the technology sucks, so it must be because the community sucks.
Where's the proof it's the fault of the current shareholders?
Even if it was their fault, who's to say that a current shareholder would not learn from their mistakes and have knowledge that a newly appointed receiver of stolen goods would not possess?
Are the shareholders learning from their mistakes? So far I haven't seen much evidence.
The whole essence of this project, the real asset that brings BitShares' monumental growth potential, is in it's founding principles and enablance of freedom.
I should hope that the Freedom from sneaky rug-pulling is included.
I'm interested in freedom, too, and that's why I'm willing to let Bitshares to die if it can't help with the financial revolution that the world really needs. If Bitshares doesn't want to integrate to EOS and the community will keep progressing very slowly, eventually somebody else will start to build financial platform in EOS ecosystem. That might be so much better that it will take the market share from Bitshares.
If that ever happens, the question is: Are you going to be loyal to the blockchain or are you going to be loyal to the principles? Will you keep supporting Bitshares even if it's not a good tool for freedom, or will you abandon it and jump to the better ecosystem that can actually create a real change in the world?
Just remember that Bitshares is a DAC. Dan can not do anything to it without the shareholder vote.
I know that very well. That's why I want to encourage everybody to think deeply how to vote in the near future. Do you want to keep on going the unsuccessful road or choose another one that might be better?
-
I know that very well. That's why I want to encourage everybody to think deeply how to vote in the near future. Do you want to keep on going the unsuccessful road or choose another one that might be better?
Has anyone actually thought about how BTS in EOS would work?
An EOS native token to BTS would be like Ethereum Gas to Maker DAO, but it probably uses Steem style rate limiting (as Dan seems to have suggested some fee-less trading), meaning the more EOS you hold, the more you can trade for free, up to your proportional bandwidth limits.
Adding this up, if BTS were built into the EOS Virtual Machine (Wren), then it means for BTS to work as a part of EOS that BTS traders need to hold EOS.
Dan concluded in 2013, the best business model for a native asset is to be the primary currency like BTS and Ethereum are trying to be now. It seems he came to the same conclusion for EOS, which will be native asset, and most likely to gain windfall investment.
From a techincal standpoint, it would be a better strategy for Dan (and for the future of Decentralized Exchange) to build a system of EOS with an absolute native DEX running primarily on EOS with Customizeable and Progammable UIAs, Smartcoins, and two way side chain assets with Witnesses acting as side chain signers. This would create the optimal DEX because it would include the potential for creativity and Unique Selling Propositions (USPs) and therefore succesful ICOs - and with this functionality at the core there is no need for a decentralized exchange to demand secondary assets in order to trade.
Further on BTS, if it were to be re-written as a EOS Wren app, then a ton of work would need to be done, and that could take forever. BTS holders, if they commit to something, may be disappointed by the transition leading to vaporware or worse.
Frankly, Dan must know this. Because of that, this whole 'BTS inside EOS' must be a marketing and tribe creating strategy more than anything (and hell, some (seemingly empty) promises need to exist to replace the lack of sharedrop, which would be the viable alternative to migrate over the BTS tribe).
And in practical conclusion, BTS is not likely to become anything more than a sidechain asset, which of course will have its own economic security limits, like all sidechains. Further, if the EOS does have its own native DEX, like it should, then the BTS sidechain assets are destined to play second fiddle.
Sorry for the chicken scratch. It's late here.
-
I don't follow the Ethereum at all (why bother ;) ), what has been leaked?
Could you give me your quick summary?
I remember your attitude on shareholder freedom over the years, I was hoping you'd chime in :)
Oops, seems I did not word that as well as I could. I meant to say what has been leaked about EOS so far does not bode well for ethereum. I was referring to the snippets of information released on the telegram chat and elsewhere. Also reading all the comments from devs about their troubles developing for ethereum and the architectural differences with eos, then provided that eos works as intended then ethereum might just become obsolete before they are able to conquer the world. Since bts (and steem) are technically (apparently) a lot easier to adapt or integrate in eos, I figured bitshares future a bit more promising, as in, opportunities for the taking.
I have always feared the arrival of the big powers and to me Ethereum with their small group of "founders" and behind the scenes dealings and sponsors combined with their actions, is a very close match to how I'd envision an attack on crypto would take place. Conversely I'm keeping my eyes peeled with eos as well.
The "one chain to rule them all " concept is one of my worst nightmares. That's why I half jokingly proposed that eos stood for eye of sauron. Not that I've seen anything yet that would point to something like that, but it is something I'm very worried about. I most definitely would prefer if bitshares remains an independent entity, but I do realize that we need to grasp every opportunity we can to grow.
BitShares 2.0 will always remain. It must. (And no one can stop it, not even a resignation of 90% of the witnesses. New witnesses will just pop up. It is here forever.)
No reason we all can't own BitShares 3.0 as well. :)
-
I know that very well. That's why I want to encourage everybody to think deeply how to vote in the near future. Do you want to keep on going the unsuccessful road or choose another one that might be better?
Has anyone actually thought about how BTS in EOS would work?
An EOS native token to BTS would be like Ethereum Gas to Maker DAO, but it probably uses Steem style rate limiting (as Dan seems to have suggested some fee-less trading), meaning the more EOS you hold, the more you can trade for free, up to your proportional bandwidth limits.
Adding this up, if BTS were built into the EOS Virtual Machine (Wren), then it means for BTS to work as a part of EOS that BTS traders need to hold EOS.
Dan concluded in 2013, the best business model for a native asset is to be the primary currency like BTS and Ethereum are trying to be now. It seems he came to the same conclusion for EOS, which will be native asset, and most likely to gain windfall investment.
From a techincal standpoint, t would be a better strategy for Dan (and for the future of Decentralized Exchange) to build a system of EOS with an absolute native DEX running primarily on EOS with Customizeable and Progammable UIAs, Smartcoins, and two way side chain assets with Witnesses acting as side chain signers. This would create the optimal DEX because it would include the potential for creativity and Unique Selling Propositions (USPs) and therefore succesful ICOs - and with this functionality at the core there is no need for a decentralized exchange to demand secondary assets in order to trade.
Further on BTS, if it were to be re-written as a EOS Wren app, then a ton of work would need to be done, and that could take forever. BTS holders, if they commit to something, may be disappointed by the transition leading to vaporware or worse.
Frankly, Dan must know this. Because of that, this whole 'BTS inside EOS' must be a marketing and tribe creating strategy more than anything (and hell, some promises need to exist to replace the lack of sharedrop, which would be the viable alternative to migrate over the BTS tribe).
And in practical conclusion, BTS is not likely to become anything more than a sidechain asset, which of course will have its own economic limits, like all sidechains. Further, if the EOS does have its own native DEX, like it should, then the BTS sidechain assets are destined to play second fiddle.
Sorry for the chicken scratch..it's late here..
You can have my BTS 2.0 tokens when you pry them from my cold, dead hands...
-
No reason we all can't own BitShares 3.0 as well. :)
There's no reason we can't, but is there a reason we should? It seems like a low-opportunity and possibly detrimental marketing choice, respectfully.
I concluded above that a sidechain asset into a native EOS DEX would make the most sense. Competition is good for everyone, at least those like us with good tech.
-
I'm surprised that the mere mention of a certain individual makes people here discuss the question of dropping BTS for something about which very little is known at this time, basically that it will be called EOS and is some new idea of BM.
But if EOS is a system that completely undermines the wealth of BTS 2 shareholders, then what's to say that Dan won't find cryptonitesupercode language better suited to blockchains in 2 years time? And replaces EOS again?
...
I know you can't release certain information; but is 'Don't worry BTS 2 shareholders, we aren't going to fuck you over' that much to ask for?
IMO it's a safe bet that Dan will sooner or later leave EOS behind. He's got a history of doing that.
And you won't hear a "we aren't going to fuck you over", because I think that BM worries very little about the *people* here.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that EOS is going to be an amazing piece of technology, and I'm sure that BM does not intend to "fuck anyone over". But that doesn't mean you won't feel like having been fucked over, after he's left.
Well said @pc, well said. +5%
Dan is a "disruptive influence".
Nothing can stop him from inventing the next big thing.
Knowing that, make your investments.
-
No reason we all can't own BitShares 3.0 as well. :)
There's no reason we can't, but is there a reason we should? It seems like a low-opportunity and possibly detrimental marketing choice, respectfully.
I concluded above that a sidechain asset into a native EOS DEX would make the most sense. Competition is good for everyone, at least those like us with good tech.
Look at the world.
The most connected places have the best economies.
EOS is the next level of connectivity - a new ecosystem.
We can own a piece of it IN ADDITION TO our current ecosystem.
If we don't do it someone else will and we won't own any of it.
-
Nothing can stop him from inventing the next big thing.
Knowing that, make your investments.
I have to agree with this. The EOS will pump like God giving CPR.
I'm going to take some good profits on the first pump, and hold some to see if it can replicate Ethereum like insanity.
That said, let's not run the BTS community into the ranting and pursuing tech changes that should not take place. Cut out unreasonable and impractical options - and take the low hanging fruit, which being sidechains secured with DPoS like committees.
-
If we don't do it someone else will and we won't own any of it.
If Dan DOES NOT build in a NATIVE EOS DEX, then I will say it's a massive missed opportunity.
If Dan DOES build a NATIVE EOS DEX, then BTS is outcompeted from the start. So sidechain to EOS - or fork EOS, copy in the BTS assets and upgrade so that it's already on Poloniex.
-
Nothing can stop him from inventing the next big thing.
Knowing that, make your investments.
I have to agree with this. The EOS will pump like God giving CPR.
I'm going to take some good profits on the first pump, and hold some to see if it can replicate Ethereum like insanity.
That said, let's not run the BTS community into the ranting and pursuing tech changes that should not take place. Cut out unreasonable and impractical options - and take the low hanging fruit, which being sidechains secured with DPoS like committees.
With what is happening This Summer, you won't even be thinking about EOS till Christmas.
-
With what is happening This Summer, you won't even be thinking about EOS till Christmas.
Please stop pumping me. :P
-
I think it probably will be good news for BitShares 2.0
I do not think that Dan will have spent another 18months of his valuable time redoing what he achieved with BitShares 2.0.
I'm confident that EOS will benefit BTS 2.0 shareholders.
But what if it doesn't? This isn't Dan's baby anymore and the decision is for the shareholders
I completely agree with your idea of staying as independent as possible. The chance that eos will be opensource is pretty high, so even in a worst case scenario, we are at least able to glean some technical inspiration from it. Hell from the looks of it, bitshares is in way better shape than projects like ethereum. I wouldn't want to be in their shoes, if even half of what's been leaked is true.
Then again ethereum apparently never had any problems with funding and hype, which of course had nothing to do with these big and nasty hidden powers behind the project, that have absolutely no nefarious agenda at all. Those powers would of course never use any untowards means to insure their monopoly.
I don't follow the Ethereum at all (why bother ;) ), what has been leaked?
Could you give me your quick summary?
I remember your attitude on shareholder freedom over the years, I was hoping you'd chime in :)
Heh. Those at the top of coinmarketcap are in deep kimche.
So shall it be for all who cannot evolve rapidly.
Resistance is futile.
We are the community that evolves.
We are mammals in a world of dinosaurs.
Embrace change.
-
With what is happening This Summer, you won't even be thinking about EOS till Christmas.
Please stop pumping me. :P
"He who has ears to hear, let him hear" -- Jesus Christ
-
It's like moving our store from inside our own house to the shopping mall of someone else to operate under their new rules and not ours.
Today BitShares shareholders do have 100% control over the application, the blockchain itself and its settings. That's power we would probably lose running on EOS.
It's like moving a centralized exchange to BitShares ^^
Not saying it does not come with benefits but also not without risks.
I've known this to be true for years but right now is the first time I truly appreciate 100% shareholder control.
Is BTS 2.0 the first company in history to be able to say that with 100% confidence?
But think a little while how well Bitshares has worked so far... From technical standpoint there shouldn't be anything that prevents it being a TOP5 blockchain. But the community hasn't been able to use the technology to grow the ecosystem.
Would it be really a bad thing if a community like that would lose some of the control? What's the point of having control if it's used ineffectively?
The "invisible hand" guides the market, are you suggesting you have forsight greater than an omnipotent all-knowing "entity" that represents the aggregate subjective decisions made by an economic community?
What I'm trying to say is that markets clearly don't appreciate Bitshares. That's not because the technology sucks, so it must be because the community sucks.
Where's the proof it's the fault of the current shareholders?
Even if it was their fault, who's to say that a current shareholder would not learn from their mistakes and have knowledge that a newly appointed receiver of stolen goods would not possess?
Are the shareholders learning from their mistakes? So far I haven't seen much evidence.
The whole essence of this project, the real asset that brings BitShares' monumental growth potential, is in it's founding principles and enablance of freedom.
I should hope that the Freedom from sneaky rug-pulling is included.
I'm interested in freedom, too, and that's why I'm willing to let Bitshares to die if it can't help with the financial revolution that the world really needs. If Bitshares doesn't want to integrate to EOS and the community will keep progressing very slowly, eventually somebody else will start to build financial platform in EOS ecosystem. That might be so much better that it will take the market share from Bitshares.
If that ever happens, the question is: Are you going to be loyal to the blockchain or are you going to be loyal to the principles? Will you keep supporting Bitshares even if it's not a good tool for freedom, or will you abandon it and jump to the better ecosystem that can actually create a real change in the world?
Just remember that Bitshares is a DAC. Dan can not do anything to it without the shareholder vote.
I know that very well. That's why I want to encourage everybody to think deeply how to vote in the near future. Do you want to keep on going the unsuccessful road or choose another one that might be better?
BitShares is an idea.
It is independent of the technology that implements it.
That's why we invented the Pitch Fork.
We evolve.
Bitcoin sinks in the Tar Pits.
-
I think it probably will be good news for BitShares 2.0
I do not think that Dan will have spent another 18months of his valuable time redoing what he achieved with BitShares 2.0.
I'm confident that EOS will benefit BTS 2.0 shareholders.
But what if it doesn't? This isn't Dan's baby anymore and the decision is for the shareholders
I completely agree with your idea of staying as independent as possible. The chance that eos will be opensource is pretty high, so even in a worst case scenario, we are at least able to glean some technical inspiration from it. Hell from the looks of it, bitshares is in way better shape than projects like ethereum. I wouldn't want to be in their shoes, if even half of what's been leaked is true.
Then again ethereum apparently never had any problems with funding and hype, which of course had nothing to do with these big and nasty hidden powers behind the project, that have absolutely no nefarious agenda at all. Those powers would of course never use any untowards means to insure their monopoly.
They didn't count on EOS.
You can't imagine the power of the Bright Side.
You can't win Darth...
-
It's like moving our store from inside our own house to the shopping mall of someone else to operate under their new rules and not ours.
Today BitShares shareholders do have 100% control over the application, the blockchain itself and its settings. That's power we would probably lose running on EOS.
It's like moving a centralized exchange to BitShares ^^
Not saying it does not come with benefits but also not without risks.
I've known this to be true for years but right now is the first time I truly appreciate 100% shareholder control.
Is BTS 2.0 the first company in history to be able to say that with 100% confidence?
But think a little while how well Bitshares has worked so far... From technical standpoint there shouldn't be anything that prevents it being a TOP5 blockchain. But the community hasn't been able to use the technology to grow the ecosystem.
Would it be really a bad thing if a community like that would lose some of the control? What's the point of having control if it's used ineffectively?
The "invisible hand" guides the market, are you suggesting you have forsight greater than an omnipotent all-knowing "entity" that represents the aggregate subjective decisions made by an economic community?
Are you suggesting Redistribution of wealth?
I would hope such an idea is rather unpopular on a forum with history of NAP and austrian school of economic theory.
Where's the proof it's the fault of the current shareholders?
Even if it was their fault, who's to say that a current shareholder would not learn from their mistakes and have knowledge that a newly appointed receiver of stolen goods would not possess?
The bts price would have dumped into the ground long ago and it would not have had the capital to employ or incentivize anyone.
Iif the shareholders of the previous 2 years did not risk their wealth to bring it to fruition, this project would be nothing.
This project IS the shareholders. The community.
The fact that BitShares "Has the potential to be a TOP 5 blockchain" is directly BECAUSE of the investment of the "current" shareholders.
Liquidity, collateral asset value, results of worker proposal voting, testing early product, community discussion participation are all the result of efforts made by the shareholders.
====
The whole essence of this project, the real asset that brings BitShares' monumental growth potential, is in it's founding principles and enablance of freedom.
I should hope that the Freedom from sneaky rug-pulling is included.
We are living in an realm of abundance.
No need to fight over scraps.
-
No reason we all can't own BitShares 3.0 as well. :)
There's no reason we can't, but is there a reason we should? It seems like a low-opportunity and possibly detrimental marketing choice, respectfully.
I concluded above that a sidechain asset into a native EOS DEX would make the most sense. Competition is good for everyone, at least those like us with good tech.
Look at the world.
The most connected places have the best economies.
EOS is the next level of connectivity - a new ecosystem.
We can own a piece of it IN ADDITION TO our current ecosystem.
If we don't do it someone else will and we won't own any of it.
I am almost 100% sure I would be in favour of a worker proposal to pay for the implentation of BTS onto EOS.
The question, does an EOS DEX render BTS 2.0 obselete?
My main concern is that EOS can perform every single function of BTS 2.0, and more.
So what new investor or customer is going to use/buy bts if EOS is better?
I want to see that BTS 2.0 has a bone fide reason to exist after a full-scale, working implementation of EOS.
.... if it comes down to it and BTS 2.0 shareholders are forced to conclude that the best way to stay in the game is to jump ship and hold EOS instead... then so be it.
In this crypto wild west of ruthless competition this may well be what should be expected.
......But currently the BTS 2.0 community could be viewed as a "team", all on the same side. A tough choice between "stay with BTS 2 or jump to EOS" could it not conceivable result in a race to the bottom?
Will there be a unique BTS 2.0 feature set that ensures a "floor price" of bts in the event that many investors dump and switch to EOS?
With what is happening This Summer, you won't even be thinking about EOS till Christmas.
IF HERO works, I am confident it will. I'm sure there's other stuff too.
How useful is HERO if BTS 2.0 expires by the end of 2017? (because of EOS)
EOS links chains, think about that for a second
If this is the main purpose, use case, selling point, the main reason to hold EOS then that is fantastic.
But when "EOS should have it's own native DEX" is mentioned, this makes me wonder what percentage of EOS' profitability will come from linking chains, facilitating other crypto-systems.
If EOS can do things like make it's own DEX, why should EOS bother enabling chain-linking coins like DOGEcoin to Monero?
... Why not just build Monero and DOGEcoin on EOS itself and steal all their customers?
Why should EOS bother to 'link' BTS 2.0 chain to anybody else's chain?
"Here customer, EOS' let's you connect to BTS2.0!!! ... but don't bother, we can do everything for you for cheaper using our EOS DEX. I'll link you straight there instead and save you the hassle of obsolete BTS2"
-
EOS UIA registered a month ago by sat0shi
https://bitshares.org/wallet/#/asset/EOS
Heyy I recognize you from Twitter :) I'm @SommerzWorld - are you on Steemit too?? What's the best way to get to know the community, will anyone be at Ethereal Summit or Consensus?
-
a) I am almost 100% sure I would be in favour of a worker proposal to pay for the implentation of BTS onto EOS. (I agree with this)
b) The question, does an EOS DEX render BTS 2.0 obselete?
^ This.
-
Do u think implementing Dogecoin on BTS as an asset will ever compete with Dogecoin?
Try it .
Make a Dogecoin in BTS and send it around . If the DogecoinAsset somehow managed to beat Dogecoin's market cap, then u can start considering the so-called migration of BTS to EOS.
Don't forget the bloody lesson learned from the threat "Vote will kill u all if u don't merge".
-
Do u think implementing Dogecoin on BTS as an asset will ever compete with Dogecoin?
Try it .
Make a Dogecoin in BTS and send it around . If the DogecoinAsset somehow managed to beat Dogecoin's market cap, then u can start considering the so-called migration of BTS to EOS.
Don't forget the bloody lesson learned from the threat "Vote will kill u all if u don't merge".
You miss the option of "take all the good stuff from EOS and upgrade the BitShares architecture" ..
-
Do u think implementing Dogecoin on BTS as an asset will ever compete with Dogecoin?
Try it .
Make a Dogecoin in BTS and send it around . If the DogecoinAsset somehow managed to beat Dogecoin's market cap, then u can start considering the so-called migration of BTS to EOS.
Don't forget the bloody lesson learned from the threat "Vote will kill u all if u don't merge".
You miss the option of "take all the good stuff from EOS and upgrade the BitShares architecture" ..
how about just fork a EOS and snapshot all the token to existing BTS holders?
then we'll have two tokens like NXT and Adore without killing or risking the token we already have.
risk includes tech risk and centralized risk -- imagine only who has the knowledge to handle the new version of BTS if the old and mature framework is no longer available ?
-
From what has been talked about in the EOS Telegram chat, it seems like EOS will be capable of communicating with other chains. I think what will happen is that a standard method will emerge for chain-to-EOS communication which initially will be much simpler to utilize than re-implementing all of BitShares on EOS. I'd imagine it would require some code change on BTS, but the ability to send bit assets to/from EOS would give EOS dapps stable currencies to use early on, while market-pegged assets on-chain are still many months away. If we can manage to do that, this will inevitably put Bitshares in a much better position to decide to make a transition to the EOS chain if it makes sense, or continue the symbiotic relationship as a separate chain.
-
From what has been talked about in the EOS Telegram chat, it seems like EOS will be capable of communicating with other chains. I think what will happen is that a standard method will emerge for chain-to-EOS communication which initially will be much simpler to utilize than re-implementing all of BitShares on EOS. I'd imagine it would require some code change on BTS, but the ability to send bit assets to/from EOS would give EOS dapps stable currencies to use early on, while market-pegged assets on-chain are still many months away. If we can manage to do that, this will inevitably put Bitshares in a much better position to decide to make a transition to the EOS chain if it makes sense, or continue the symbiotic relationship as a separate chain.
sidechaining to EOS will require a hardfork, but I don't think it'll be too dramatic. sidechain should be the first thing we do in my opinion
-
In fact... from what I understand, the front-end of EOS dapps are basically web-apps, just like the front-end in BTS. It may be possible to write a BTS light-client as a dapp on EOS, which will use EOS producers to send signed transactions to the BTS chain. The light client could be modified to include EOS-specific functions, like sending to EOS accounts instead of BTS accounts (abstracting away the details of the connector dapp).
-
Call me slow, but I've read this whole thread and still don't see why we should ditch the network and the dex and rebase bitshares as an EOSic minion.
-
Call me slow, but I've read this whole thread and still don't see why we should ditch the network and the dex and rebase bitshares as an EOSic minion.
Well .. we shouldn't per se.
But we should stay open to the best technology available.
No one is saying EOS will be - but we should be open for the innovations that it brings with it.
-
Do u think implementing Dogecoin on BTS as an asset will ever compete with Dogecoin?
Try it .
Make a Dogecoin in BTS and send it around . If the DogecoinAsset somehow managed to beat Dogecoin's market cap, then u can start considering the so-called migration of BTS to EOS.
Don't forget the bloody lesson learned from the threat "Vote will kill u all if u don't merge".
You miss the option of "take all the good stuff from EOS and upgrade the BitShares architecture" ..
+5% I would like this approach
But, if this could be done. Then that would imply that Dan didn't want to just lobby BTS 2 shareholders to implement his new changes, and decided to build a whole new system just because
Surely there is a reason it was rebuilt from scratch.
Obviously the bits that can be "borrowed" from EOS and implemented to BTS 2 should be, but will they really be 'the best bits'?
Do u think implementing Dogecoin on BTS as an asset will ever compete with Dogecoin?
Try it .
Make a Dogecoin in BTS and send it around . If the DogecoinAsset somehow managed to beat Dogecoin's market cap, then u can start considering the so-called migration of BTS to EOS.
Don't forget the bloody lesson learned from the threat "Vote will kill u all if u don't merge".
+5% point taken.
Dogecoin is backed by it's community.
The BitShares community needs to back BTS 2
BTS 2.0 may well fair just fine, carrying on as if EOS doesn't exist :)
-
One other thing I deduced from all the chatter in telegram is that EOS will almost definitely use a different economic model than bitshares for its tokens and bandwidth in line with his blog post about fee-less blockchains and similar to steem (with your stake controlling bandwidth).
In that sense I don't know how easy it would be to just move bts over or clone the eos tech. Then again it does open up the possibility to try different economic models for bts and see which one works best. Hard to say anything meaningful or make plans with the limited knowledge we have about eos at the moment.
But I do agree that bitshares should be right on top of this and probably start out with at least a sidechained foot in the door of eos.
-
One other thing I deduced from all the chatter in telegram is that EOS will almost definitely use a different economic model than bitshares for its tokens and bandwidth in line with his blog post about fee-less blockchains and similar to steem (with your stake controlling bandwidth).
In that sense I don't know how easy it would be to just move bts over or clone the eos tech. Then again it does open up the possibility to try different economic models for bts and see which one works best. Hard to say anything meaningful or make plans with the limited knowledge we have about eos at the moment.
But I do agree that bitshares should be right on top of this and probably start out with at least a sidechained foot in the door of eos.
+5
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
(https://steemitimages.com/0x0/https://s20.postimg.org/3juc4eaxp/cornholio_ico.png)
Cryptoholio
-
Thanks to roelandp setting up a periscope stream on his phone I could pick up snippets of the presentation today. Unfortunately I only got snippets and I think I missed most of it, but here is what I could pick up.
No info yet on token distribution, updates will happen through the mailinglist at eos.io.
As has been leaked on the telegram group, eos will be a next step in graphene technology adding parallel threads or processing as it were. Where applications have to be written around messages and every block can do multiple actions instead of the just one currently. Applications can communicate rapidly with others in the same blockchain, but also with other chains through sidechains which will have higher latency (40 seconds for confirmation finality)
The vision seems to be for multiple eos-chains (even private ones) to be able to coexist and communicate with each other, further enhancing the throughput and bandwidth.
There will be a slight overhead because of the vm, making it initially a little slower compared to single threaded applications like steem and bitshares, but because of the options to run multiple parallel threads and because of the multiple operations for messages per block that can be mitigated quite a bit.
I also think I heard Dan mention that nodes can pick and choose which messages to focus on, like an exchange not having to process socialmedia transactions, although all apps can still interact with each other.
EOS economic model is similar to steem, where initially revenue will be generated through 5% inflation of tokens, which can be changed and distributed in a still to decide manner by the token holders. (Although the 5% inflation can only be lowered not raised)
Eventhough quite a few big names are involved in the project already, everybody will have to buy in to the tokens in the same way. (Which I guess means no pre-allocation like with ethereum and ripple). Big names already involved in the project besides the ones already known, seem to be Bo Shen, Yunbi, bitfinex and some others I can't remember.
For now that's about all I can remember or was able to glean from my mostly broken connection to the periscope stream.
Hope this helps, have nice day.
PS
Oh almost forgot. Dan did mention that he thinks bitshares should do some changes to match more with the concepts in eos. For example he thinks that users should be taxed less for interactions, like not having to pay fees to register changes on the blockchain and only asking a fee for executed orders not for just placing and cancelling them.
Still I think this is not immediately bad news for bitshares, but I do think the community should take action to claim their piece of the eos pie. Pretty damn sure that the exchange thing will be a big target for quite a few people.
I got the impression that if this eos-thing works it is going to make big waves and I do feel that ethereum is screwed. Or to speak in Tron terms: Ethereum program is about to be derezzed, end of line.
-
snip
Thanks for the writeup. Just watched the stream and that sums it up pretty well.
-
but I do think the community should take action to claim their piece of the eos pie.
Please clarify?
-
https://steemit.com/eos/@ash/notes-i-took-during-eos-conference
-
Dan mentioned a couple times about releasing info to those on a mailing list. How does one get on the mailing list?
-
Dan mentioned a couple times about releasing info to those on a mailing list. How does one get on the mailing list?
http://eos.io/
-
Dan did mention that he thinks bitshares should do some changes to match more with the concepts in eos. For example he thinks that users should be taxed less for interactions, like not having to pay fees to register changes on the blockchain and only asking a fee for executed orders not for just placing and cancelling them.
Still I think this is not immediately bad news for bitshares, but I do think the community should take action to claim their piece of the eos pie. Pretty damn sure that the exchange thing will be a big target for quite a few people.
I got the impression that if this eos-thing works it is going to make big waves and I do feel that ethereum is screwed. Or to speak in Tron terms: Ethereum program is about to be derezzed, end of line.
This ^^. I think this is true, we need to incorporate EOS features.
@fuzzy - it would be good if we could have dan attend onbe of the mumbles to discuss imo.
-
That doesn't really address any of permie's concerns (concerns that I also share), though. I'd like to believe Dan is willing to look out for the best interests of all his creations, but...I have my doubts at this point.
:-\
Just like he looked out for the best interest of Bitshares' bitUSD by creating Steem Dollars?
He is so ashamed of himself that he won't even come here. I think that answers your question...
Stan championing the previous Bitshares merger is also quite funny. So when will BTS Vote and BTS DNS be active on the BTS 2.0 chain Stan? ::)
Do you really think the BTS community is going to fall for the bait and switch a second time?
I really wanted BTS Vote... and DNS. And Dan's 'undivided attention'.
-
That doesn't really address any of permie's concerns (concerns that I also share), though. I'd like to believe Dan is willing to look out for the best interests of all his creations, but...I have my doubts at this point.
:-\
Just like he looked out for the best interest of Bitshares' bitUSD by creating Steem Dollars?
He is so ashamed of himself that he won't even come here. I think that answers your question...
Stan championing the previous Bitshares merger is also quite funny. So when will BTS Vote and BTS DNS be active on the BTS 2.0 chain Stan? ::)
Do you really think the BTS community is going to fall for the bait and switch a second time?
I really wanted BTS Vote... and DNS. And Dan's 'undivided attention'.
haha forget it.
He always has a reason to leave that is for "not getting his way".
He claimed that he leaved BTS for needing to make ends meet.
But when STEEM made him super rich, he still left to build something new and create another token again.
And i am pretty sure he will build another token again after EOS.
He is not always focusing on new technologies.
He want to create new technologies while creating another token to sell it again. :P :P
It's normal for human do do so .
It's just naive for those who believed he will keep adding undivided attention to the tokens he created and sold ( or dropped significantly in price).
New tokens is always with much potential to earn more money.
-
but I do think the community should take action to claim their piece of the eos pie.
Please clarify?
I'm not quite sure what was unclear about that part, but if you want examples of the pieces of pie.
For new developers on the eos blockchain and the potential competing options to do account creation, editing and placing and canceling orders without fees on to top of the increased speed and bandwidth. Could you come up with an easier sure win dapp than the tried and tested easy to copy and enhance opensource bitshares one? So I was suggesting that at the very least we should have that piece of the pie for bitshares.
-
EOS seems to be similar to Aeternity, wondering which one will be better?.
-
EOS seems to be similar to Aeternity, wondering which one will be better?.
Judging just by things both projects have publicized then aeternity purely as a blockchain itself is not very impressive. 30 second blocktimes and 3 tx/s. Whereas the current blockchain of bitshares has apparently on average 1second blockconfirmations and thousands of tx/s.
EOS aims to increase and optimize the bitshares blockchain even further with hundreds of cores each at the very least close to bitshares current throughput per node/witness. He also talked about multiple eos-networks (like how we now have bitshares, steemit and peerplays), that would be able to interact with each other either through gateways or sidechains (provided that nut gets cracked). The off-chain thing is a completely different debate, I don't know enough about that to have anything intelligent to say, other that I fear centralization and points of failure with that approach.
-
EOS seems to be similar to Aeternity, wondering which one will be better?.
Is there any doubt?
-
EOS seems to be similar to Aeternity, wondering which one will be better?.
Is there any doubt?
I chose Bitshares instead of Ethereum when BTS was about to pass ETH in market cap because there was no doubt too. :P
-
EOS seems to be similar to Aeternity, wondering which one will be better?.
Is there any doubt?
I chose Bitshares instead of Ethereum when BTS was about to pass ETH in market cap because there was no doubt too. :P
Same. Hah.
-
That doesn't really address any of permie's concerns (concerns that I also share), though. I'd like to believe Dan is willing to look out for the best interests of all his creations, but...I have my doubts at this point.
:-\
Just like he looked out for the best interest of Bitshares' bitUSD by creating Steem Dollars?
He is so ashamed of himself that he won't even come here. I think that answers your question...
Stan championing the previous Bitshares merger is also quite funny. So when will BTS Vote and BTS DNS be active on the BTS 2.0 chain Stan? ::)
Do you really think the BTS community is going to fall for the bait and switch a second time?
I really wanted BTS Vote... and DNS. And Dan's 'undivided attention'.
haha forget it.
He always has a reason to leave that is for "not getting his way".
He claimed that he leaved BTS for needing to make ends meet.
But when STEEM made him super rich, he still left to build something new and create another token again.
And i am pretty sure he will build another token again after EOS.
He is not always focusing on new technologies.
He want to create new technologies while creating another token to sell it again. :P :P
It's normal for human do do so .
It's just naive for those who believed he will keep adding undivided attention to the tokens he created and sold ( or dropped significantly in price).
New tokens is always with much potential to earn more money.
cool
do it +5% +5% +5%
-
EOS Token sale smart contract being tested on the Ethereum blockchain?
Why not just ICO on BitShares?
Am I missing something here?
-
EOS Token sale smart contract being tested on the Ethereum blockchain?
Why not just ICO on BitShares?
Am I missing something here?
I felt betrayed for a brief second until I thought more about the implications.
Launching an ICO on Ethereum means acceptance and visibility from ETH holders whereas launching on Bitshares would mostly attract Steem and Bitshares users. Secondly, once the ICO ends the token is no longer needed and the value is transferred to the new chain.
EOS basically drinks ETH's milkshake. Very clever.
(http://nymag.com/images/2/daily/entertainment/08/01/08_ddl_lgl.jpg)
-
EOS Token sale smart contract being tested on the Ethereum blockchain?
Why not just ICO on BitShares?
Am I missing something here?
I felt betrayed for a brief second until I thought more about the implications.
Launching an ICO on Ethereum means acceptance and visibility from ETH holders whereas launching on Bitshares would mostly attract Steem and Bitshares users. Secondly, once the ICO ends the token is no longer needed and the value is transferred to the new chain.
EOS basically drinks ETH's milkshake. Very clever.
(http://nymag.com/images/2/daily/entertainment/08/01/08_ddl_lgl.jpg)
This!
The audience they need to reach first and formost are smart contract developers .. and there are way more of them on ethereum
Also, once they raise millions, they can dump ETH into oblivion .. glad they wont do that to BTS (read: crowdfunding in a blockchains native token is stupid like sh***)
-
EOS Token sale smart contract being tested on the Ethereum blockchain?
Why not just ICO on BitShares?
Am I missing something here?
They just acknowledge that their DEX is not the best option anymore.
-
EOS Token sale smart contract being tested on the Ethereum blockchain?
Why not just ICO on BitShares?
Am I missing something here?
They just acknowledge that their DEX is not the best option anymore.
BitShares is the best, but ether is where the money is right now. I'd be tempted to raise funds in ether too for such a hyped up project. I think it would ultimately harm BTS if they ICO'd on the dex, by bringing in bunch of hype purchasers who won't stick around. After EOS they'll all jump the next hype wagon too. Solid organic growth and real adoption are good for the dex.
-
Since the EOS token sale is over a full year, does that mean it won't be released for at LEAST a year? Sounds like a big project. And a lot can happen in a year in the crypto world.
-
Since the EOS token sale is over a full year, does that mean it won't be released for at LEAST a year? Sounds like a big project. And a lot can happen in a year in the crypto world.
This is a good guess. There would be a LOT of drama if they cut the 360 day window short and launched sooner.
A testnet with BitShares and Steem running side by side would be quite cool and probably gather some serious attention!
-
I was away from the internet for a while and I missed the announcement about EOS doing an Ethereum ICO. I also have not received an e-mail about it, eventhough I did register myself on the mailinglist.
First impression I have of that are not good. If they are only doing an ICO on ethereum and not any other blockchain than it is a strange move and I think it is a slap in the face of bitshares. At the very least as a show of thanks for the people who helped make bitshares grow to what it is today, and that is one of the key value propositions of EOS, as in multithreaded bitshares-tech, and in remembrance of the social contract, 10% of the ICO could be done in a bitshares ICO. Now it feels like instead of sticking by bitshares despite all the bashing, and I've seen ethereum core-members and devs doing it, I've should have done the opposite. I understand wanting to attract people over from ethereum, but why not reward people who actually supported Dan Larimer creating the tech for EOS?
I wouldn't mind them diversifying to prevent the same loss in funds as happened with the btc-fundraiser with ags. But this does not sound like diversifying at all.
Also if they have to hold the tokens till the end of the ICO (which I've seen mentioned is planned to last 360 days or something like that), holding ethereum is not any less risky than bitcoin. Despite their massively active hype army, ethereum has just about all the same problems bitcoin has, although somehow that dirty laundry is not being flaunted about in the same public manner as with bitcoin. Worse yet I've seen people apparently in blind denial bashing bitcoin publicly, about all the things ethereum hasn't solved either. Just of the top of my head eth has massive scaling issues, right now, their blockchain is now larger than bitcoin and growing more rapidly (and no reward for people running full-nodes either), they have no decentralized governance to speak of, no voting mechanism at all apparently and need at the very least one or more hardfork(s) in the coming year. Also do not forget that any slow downs or problems with ethereum will have waay more catastrophic effects on the smartcontracts than with bitcoin.
@xeroc: I don't agree with your argument. There are ways to hold ICOs and value on bitshares without the need to crash the marketprice especially over a time period of a year. At the very least they should not hold the ICO solely on ethereum, because as mentioned that does show a lack of confidence. Hell, they could do an announcement saying that they'll immediately sell 10% of the gathered eth for bitshares and send those bitshares to a burn address or bts-dev-fund or whatever.
Also I was hoping this would not turn into a money grab up front. I understand the need for money to fund development, but EOS should be able to pay for itself instead of upfront. This whole hyped up ICO craze going on does have a scammy feel to it and I'd rather not help support it.
So much for my first impressions, I probably need to think more on this. Public discussion does help me shaping my opinion, how else would I ever change my mind on something.
-
@bytemaster I guess people just don't learn from past mistakes
The AGS style is good for an ICO.
365 days is waaayyy too looongggg in the crypto world
They should have done 60% in ETH if they so wish to but at least 40% should be in bitusd and bitcny so they have at least some security that the funds raised will at least have a stable value and not subject to price swings..That would also attract a lot of bts whales who may not want to sell their BTS to buy ETH to buy EOS but would not mind spend their bitusd, bitcny from their collateralized positions or from their savings accounts to buy EOS. That would also give a whole new meaning to market pegged assets that @bytemaster you have created and would drive bts price to unimaginable levels..
But the reality is that people just don't learn from past mistakes and this is just sad..
-
I also have not received an e-mail about it, eventhough I did register myself on the mailinglist.
It's probably laying in your promotions tab on Google account.
365 days is waaayyy too looongggg in the crypto world
Where did you find out that information? From their last mail they only inform about conducting a 2week public trail of the sail on Ethereum test network. They invite everyone interested in learning how sale works to participate in the trail. They will send instructions in following mail which didnt arrive until time of this writing..
-
@bytemaster I guess people just don't learn from past mistakes
The AGS style is good for an ICO.
365 days is waaayyy too looongggg in the crypto world
They should have done 60% in ETH if they so wish to but at least 40% should be in bitusd and bitcny so they have at least some security that the funds raised will at least have a stable value and not subject to price swings..That would also attract a lot of bts whales who may not want to sell their BTS to buy ETH to buy EOS but would not mind spend their bitusd, bitcny from their collateralized positions or from their savings accounts to buy EOS. That would also give a whole new meaning to market pegged assets that @bytemaster you have created and would drive bts price to unimaginable levels..
But the reality is that people just don't learn from past mistakes and this is just sad..
+5%
-
I seen other ICOs start with only Bitcoin, then latter on add in BTS, Steem, etc. If there is a demand for it they might.
-
@bytemaster I guess people just don't learn from past mistakes
The AGS style is good for an ICO.
365 days is waaayyy too looongggg in the crypto world
They should have done 60% in ETH if they so wish to but at least 40% should be in bitusd and bitcny so they have at least some security that the funds raised will at least have a stable value and not subject to price swings..That would also attract a lot of bts whales who may not want to sell their BTS to buy ETH to buy EOS but would not mind spend their bitusd, bitcny from their collateralized positions or from their savings accounts to buy EOS. That would also give a whole new meaning to market pegged assets that @bytemaster you have created and would drive bts price to unimaginable levels..
But the reality is that people just don't learn from past mistakes and this is just sad..
Yeah, the argument that eth is the only liquid smart contract chain at the moment is weak in my opinion. You only need a timestamp and amount to determine the distribution, where is the need for a smartcontract in that? All blockchains support that much at the very least.
And yeah, they should support other graphene chains. Gambling on eth being A-OK in a year is most definately not a prudent move.
-
@bytemaster I guess people just don't learn from past mistakes
The AGS style is good for an ICO.
365 days is waaayyy too looongggg in the crypto world
They should have done 60% in ETH if they so wish to but at least 40% should be in bitusd and bitcny so they have at least some security that the funds raised will at least have a stable value and not subject to price swings..That would also attract a lot of bts whales who may not want to sell their BTS to buy ETH to buy EOS but would not mind spend their bitusd, bitcny from their collateralized positions or from their savings accounts to buy EOS. That would also give a whole new meaning to market pegged assets that @bytemaster you have created and would drive bts price to unimaginable levels..
But the reality is that people just don't learn from past mistakes and this is just sad..
Brilliant. I would short bitUSD to buy EOS in a heartbeat. This way I would not have to exit a BTS position.
@bytemaster @Stan This is exactly your HERO idea with a EOS spin...
-
Me too.. I would short the shit out of bitusd to buy EOS. But I don't think I want to sell my bts to buy ETH to buy EOS.. I really hope they consider a percentage of the ICO in bitassets.
-
Why you guys think that EOS will be for sell only on ETH chain?
-
Why you guys think that EOS will be for sell only on ETH chain?
https://github.com/EOSIO/eos-token-sale
-
I'm getting an invalid Contract Address?
Am I doing something wrong?
-
360 days of crowdfund is too long. I can understand trying to make it fair but I'm hesitant to lock up my funds for a year when everything is going up up up.
How long before we have a working product? How long before we can trade the tokens? 329 days according to the first draft.. too long.
-
How long before we have a working product? How long before we can trade the tokens? 329 days according to the first draft.. too long.
EOS is running on a test network now but projected to be finished by the end of the crowd sale. I thought I'd read that tokens could be traded the moment they're bought.
-
The token distribution schedule is available now at eos.io
There is a large section in the instructions about mapping a public key to a Buyer's account:
7.12. Failure to Map a Public Key to Buyer’s Account. Failure of Buyer to map a public key to Buyer’s account may result in third parties being unable to recognize Buyer’s EOS Token balance on the Ethereum blockchain when and if they configure the initial balances of a new blockchain based upon the EOS.IO Software of which Company makes no representation or guarantee.
Then later the same problem (I think) is addressed as registering a public key for your Ethereum account:
Failing register a public key for your Ethereum account
If you hold EOS Tokens in an Ethereum account and fail to register a public key or lose the private key that maps to your registered public key, then your EOS Tokens will not be part of the snapshot when the EOS Tokens become fixed and non-transferable on the Ethereum blockchain. If and when someone launches a blockchain adopting the EOS.IO Software there may be less than 1 billion EOS Tokens outstanding after taking into account those who fail to register a public key.
I've never used the ethereum blockchain. Can anyone explain how this registration/mapping works in ethereum and what steps need to be taken other than simply donating to the smart contract address from an address where you hold the private key?
-
EOS Documentation localization project
https://steemit.com/bookchain/@bookchain/eos-documentation-localization-project
-
If I purchase EOS tokens on an exchange (instead of the ICO), how do I transfer them to an ethereum wallet? Do I just use the ethereum wallet address or are there other steps?
-
If I purchase EOS tokens on an exchange (instead of the ICO), how do I transfer them to an ethereum wallet? Do I just use the ethereum wallet address or are there other steps?
Good question. Anyone know?
-
If I purchase EOS tokens on an exchange (instead of the ICO), how do I transfer them to an ethereum wallet? Do I just use the ethereum wallet address or are there other steps?
Good question. Anyone know?
you have to send them to an ether address, you also have to interact with the EOS smartcontract to get your private key that is needed to migrate to EOS chain once its up.
tutorials are on eos.io