Quote from: fuzzy on June 10, 2015, 02:45:38 am

Quote from: Method-X on June 10, 2015, 02:17:48 am

I would 100% support bitassets being backed by BTC (assuming sidechains are legit). BitShares is a platform that goes far beyond bitassets and this would be a great way to partner with another crypto and leverage their network effect. We would both win if this were implemented.

Sidechains likely are legit...which means that there really is no reason to worry on that front.  But the real question is...how does this help us?  And can it benefit us in a way that we wouldnt already see if we had patience and persistence?

We are tying ourselves into a market that actually is not free.  Bitcoin has many backers...ironically one of which seems to be the CFR. For those who know about the CFR, this should be a concern...because if they want bitcoin...it means it is precisely the technocrat's dream device for tracking every interaction we ever have.  In fact nearly all the big names in "journalism" out there these days are actually members of the CFR as well.  If we think these people are not connected with the same kingpins in charge today...we are blinding ourselves unnecessarily to facts.

I see no reason to back bitassets directly with bitcoin...or to even open up that Avenue because then we are opening the floodgates for a stealth attack that steals our tech and moves it to bitcoin with little repayment to our community (what happens to the BTS you each hold if the mining and banking cartels inject huge funds into btc-backed bitassets???).

Just like data said...we CAN back them with bitcoi  INTERNALLY and still keep control over what we ALL have fought so hard to make thrive!  Don't forget everyone... bitBTC can back bitassets to now with the bitassets 2.0 proposal.

Actually fuzzy, what I imagined was a BTC-backed token existing on our block-chain, and using that as the collateral, rather than BTC directly. So the control, issuance and settlement features would never leave the domain of bitShares, although it could trade freely externally like any other bitAsset. I introduced this idea here, and expanded it to looking at using such a token for collateral in this thread...https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,15957.0.html
Why you might do this rather than using bitBTC backed by BTS is for the reasons I listed earlier in this thread. But like I said earlier, I would prefer the ability to have a collateral mix rather than just BTC, another advantage being less chance of black swans.

I think ultimately something like this will be done if it can be done. Down the track there is no reason why collateral can't just be plug-and-play - insert whatever token or mix of tokens you want. So maybe we are only left to debate how much support we might wish to give it when it happens. Personally I think its better to have the bitShares technology at the centre of it and controlling it, and earning reward and brand recognition for the community, rather than left out of it. But it will be interesting to see how things evolve and what we all think at that point.

Quote from: nomoreheroes7 on June 10, 2015, 03:05:34 am

Quote from: Method-X on June 10, 2015, 02:17:48 am

I would 100% support bitassets being backed by BTC (assuming sidechains are legit). BitShares is a platform that goes far beyond bitassets and this would be a great way to partner with another crypto and leverage their network effect. We would both win if this were implemented.

Hmm...I'm failing to see how we would both win in this scenario. Literally what value would BTS have if it wasn't backing bitassets? Sounds to me like it would have a quick drop to zero, while bitcoin reaps all the hard work of the BTS devs...

Am I missing something?

The point you raise is that we need to be much clearer on the value model for BTS. If its only value is in backing bitAssets, and bitAssets don't require BTS backing, then we are lost...
(BTW I think we are far from lost, just highlighting the need to explore the bigger picture on what BTS can be).

Quote from: Empirical1.2 on June 09, 2015, 04:16:46 pm

Quote from: Method-X on June 09, 2015, 01:40:57 pm

Quote from: Freebieservers on June 09, 2015, 01:37:00 pm

We were pretty bullish on pushing the referral system ourselves, but now we have no choice to back out from integrating it.
I don't see any reason why a kid using paypal would pay 80 USD and use this instead.

There are lots of things you can't do with PayPal. Their rules are very strict. For example, you can't gamble (among many other use cases).

BitShares can't offer blockchain based gambling either at least not in a way that benefits BTS shareholders because of the risk of losing the Chinese market.

But until the current financial system experiences serious problems again, much of the near term profit in crypto will be derived from areas such as gambling.  (Over half the companies advertising on CMC/Coindesk these days seem gambling related. ( www.Vitalbet.com , http://www.dragons.tl/ , www.anonibet.com , https://www.betcoin.tm/circle/ )

BTS 2.0 would be ideal for this, it's very unfortunate that we won't be participating & profiting.   

Hopefully we'll have a prediction market or some other applications from BitShares PLAY at some point.

Many BTC based bookmakers have large problems with BTC volatility and are required to hedge quite a lot, BitUSD would be ideal for them so hopefully we'll have some third party sites soon enough bringing in that market and increasing volume even if we won't profit from it directly.

Speaking of gambling platforms, I reached out to CoinGaming a few days ago to see if they would be interested in using BitShares to build a casino platform to enhance the usability of their product. Hope they bite. 

Quote from: Empirical1.2 on June 06, 2015, 11:12:09 am

Ken, I think you're doing a great job, but I'm surprised one of the core developers doesn't handle the correspondence with Erik.

Why?
Let them code, it's what the shareholders are paying them for.
We as community members do not have the same constraints as the core devs. If some of us have contacts or are able to send an email to start up BitShares relationships with other businesses then that should absolutely be encouraged.

BitShares will grow if it's members make it grow. I think expecting the devs to handle everything gives too large an advantage to another motivated crypto community.
All shareholders share a profit-incentive for spreading the BitShares tendrils into as many markets and relationships as possible.

Dang, I shouldve sold the news.

Quote from: DataSecurityNode on May 28, 2015, 03:18:19 pm

Quote from: kokojie on May 28, 2015, 02:58:48 pm

Why are you running 6 delegates. A lot of voters would be turned off by such large number of delegates run by the same person from the same location.

Low market cap, low transactions, low liquidity, and low user adoption are even bigger turn offs I think.

Our Delegate bid hits on raising all that among other things. You are welcome to explore the why at http://vote.bunkermining.com that is stated at the very beginning.

The need for 6 is was only driven by community support and the ow market cap reality of bitshares for what is required of this operation.

Voting for our delegates means a vote for higher market cap and raising BitShares standing in the crypto space overall.

I also think having delegates elected that don't even have servers operational is far worse, which was what this thread is about.

If the idea that someone operating 6 delegates who is building up bitshares and maintaining responsible delegate infrastructure for the network in contrast to that is somehow a turn-off in contrast to having delegates in the 101 that dont' even exist, then I can't argue that.

Keep in mind we already have someone (btsnow) with 4 delegates for a long time now, and Bitshares has survived.

Moonstone has had designs to get 5 Delegates elected as part of their crowdfund.

Our bid is quite different though.. everything we do flows back to BitShares and creates a buy/sell market pressure that is consistent day to day. We need to expand.. now.

Not sure how having Bitshares eco-system buying PoW waste is beneficial to Bitshares, I thought the whole idea of PoS is to avoid such waste. The entire idea of "minebitshares.com" is ridiculous to me.

Six 100% delegate controlled by one person from one location, if elected, would be an example of failure of DPoS. In this case, yes two non-operational delegates would be preferable to six 100% delegates controlled by the same person. Especially this person is spending the money on buying PoW waste.

Quote from: betax on May 16, 2015, 09:42:16 am

Quote from: jakub on May 16, 2015, 09:22:24 am

I know for sure that it's not so nice to be on the receiving end of tonyk's "skills".
But I can see now that arguing with him was a very valuable experience for me and I learned a great deal about myself in the process - how easy it is for me to become blinded by the feeling of self-righteousness.

Even if they annoy us, people like tonyk and Izr1900 are essential here to keep us focused and to keep our egos under control.
Even if they are on the wrong side of the argument their presence forces us to pause, rethink and revise our arguments, which is always a good thing.

  Ill have to say that most of the times they are right, and allow us to see through the fanboy (girl) goggles we have all the time, or put in public our biggest fears. Most important they are the biggest fans, if not they won't be here. I hope they come back soon, or if not some of us will need to replace them

this