BitShares Forum
Other => Graveyard => KeyID => Topic started by: Agent86 on September 22, 2014, 05:53:26 pm
-
OK I un-caved to agent (for the first TLD at least)... I'm too indecisive to be an effective project lead.
Edit:https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9126.msg119069#msg119069
+5%
Ok, I was too late to reply before the prior thread was locked, so here are my thoughts…
There is a place for friendly competition and this can benefit investors in the long run.
How about the DNS DAC that toast is managing (with the snapshot date and distribution chosen by toast) launches with incentives that are more in line with what was originally discussed and expected by "investors/donors".
I would also feel way more comfortable taking a bigger role in managing the roll-out of any DNS DAC that followed the model outlined in the whitepaper I wrote. I don't think anyone else believes in my idea as much as I do and I don't like having no say in the business development decisions that go along with it.
I feel like Toast only half believes in the idea, and I don't believe he is able to lead and launch the DAC in a way that maximizes its value. So if I am able to get in a position to take a lead on this, I will do so and then investors are free to choose the strategy they feel most comfortable with and confident about.
-
I'm not sure what you're saying - are you launching a competing DNS DAC, or just pinging for interest, or what?
-
I'm not sure what you're saying - are you launching a competing DNS DAC, or just pinging for interest, or what?
My view is that it would be in the best interest of people involved in BitShares if a separate and competing DAC was launched. Whether or not I have the ability to get this to happen, I really have no idea; it would depend on my ability to get support and partnership for it.
The reason I think that it would be best to launch it as a separate additional DAC is because you have already committed to a specific distribution and methods/limits on any dilution. My opinion is that this may well leave your DAC DOA. I have a ton of respect for your work and it is nothing against you in any way shape or form and I would love your support for this strategy. I think there are advantages to launching something that is above and beyond anything people have expected and something that isn't subject to any baggage or commitments; a DAC that has taken no money from people and made no promises, one that has more flexibility to make any hard decisions needed.
-
Interesting... But now I am afraid of having a fragmented KeyID namespace. I bet Agent86 would like to implement his devotion/trust/lifetime reputation system on the accounts in a DNS DAC fork. Having different domain models under their own namespace is one thing, but fragmenting KeyID and reputation would really suck IMO. I think we should try to stay as unified as possible on at least that feature to obtain the necessary network effect.
I'm starting to think it would be better if we could reach a consensus on reputation management and implement KeyID, sign-in, KeyMail, and reputation/trust features on the BitShares X blockchain instead. Leaving the other DNS DACs free to compete (under their own TLDs) with whatever domain sale model they think is best. However, I would still prefer if KeyID and domains (with both guaranteed-ownership and carrying-cost models) were on the same blockchain.
-
Interesting... But now I am afraid of having a fragmented KeyID namespace. I bet Agent86 would like to implement his devotion/trust/lifetime reputation system on the accounts in a DNS DAC fork. Having different domain models under their own namespace is one thing, but fragmenting KeyID and reputation would really suck IMO. I think we should try to stay as unified as possible on at least that feature to obtain the necessary network effect.
I'm starting to think it would be better if we could reach a consensus on reputation management and implement KeyID, sign-in, KeyMail, and reputation/trust features on the BitShares X blockchain instead. Leaving the other DNS DACs free to compete (under their own TLDs) with whatever domain sale model they think is best. However, I would still prefer if KeyID and domains (with both guaranteed-ownership and carrying-cost models) were on the same blockchain.
+5%
Competition sounds nice, but not without the risk of further confusion and division.
-
I'm starting to think it would be better if we could reach a consensus on reputation management and implement KeyID, sign-in, KeyMail, and reputation/trust features on the BitShares X blockchain instead.
On the totally opposite side here. And strongly so!
Split the DNS in as many small pieces as you like!. Definitely give one toy chain to A86 to play with and test all his theories on it!
Just keep the Devotion/Trust experiments off of the main flagship product. At the end of the day, even Google has ONE product that really matter ...
-
Just keep the Devotion/Trust experiments off of the main flagship product.
I think I agree, at least with respect to the devotion/lifetime stuff on BitShares X. But the plan was for KeyID to be on the DNS DAC even before Agent86 introduced his reputation proposals. The idea behind KeyID is (I think) to have one namespace for account names that people can use to log in to websites, send secure messages to each other on an off-chain system, and maybe do some reputation stuff (like the web-of-trust stuff bytemaster talked about). What is wrong with keeping this on the neutral BTSX chain rather than sticking it on a chain with contested domain sale models?
-
Just keep the Devotion/Trust experiments off of the main flagship product.
I think I agree, at least with respect to the devotion/lifetime stuff on BitShares X. But the plan was for KeyID to be on the DNS DAC even before Agent86 introduced his reputation proposals. The idea behind KeyID is (I think) to have one namespace for account names that people can use to log in to websites, send secure messages to each other on an off-chain system, and maybe do some reputation stuff (like the web-of-trust stuff bytemaster talked about). What is wrong with keeping this on the neutral BTSX chain rather than sticking it on a chain with contested domain sale models?
Decide it with a coin toss, as to who gets THE MAIN KeyIDs, if need be! Just keep it of BTSX...
-
I'm not super worried about consistency with usernames. At least with the rep system I proposed, it is really up to the shareholders of a specific DAC to determine the ownership of their KeyID/usernames. I think consistency would tend to happen naturally but is not required. In the long run some DACs may have very different ownership then others and "tony" on one chain doesn't have to be the same person as "tony" on another chain.
As best I can tell most people oppose the domain name system and rep system I proposed. So we may be better off releasing the DAC that people are asking for rather than annoying people, and then later options can be worked on for people who are interested in something different.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/Ylm0jeu.png)
'Protegez moi de mes amis je m'occupe de mes ennemis' - Voltaire
-
I for one was never against launching a separate namespace DNS DAC. Give it uncapped dilution and whatever else Agent86 wants. I just never was told or sold on how it is supposed to drive any demand etc, so the last thing I want is it to be a flagship product.
I thought previously we were to have both systems. One has to come first and unless someone wants to keep the price down, I think the better approach is ownership of DNS entries. Otherwise entire interested crypto-space will scream bloody murder.