Quote from: bytemaster on July 02, 2015, 04:45:52 pm

Newmine, how much would BTS benefit if a competitor stole the "free" code?   

Your attitude of "no one may profit" is pure jealousy and insanity.   You would rather we "burn the whole place down" than let anyone walk away with some theoretical profit.

Bitcoin is doing fine. That seems to have worked quite well and thousands of people tried to copy it and still are.

"Burn the place down", come on. You sound like a CNN/Fox news broadcaster. Scare them into your beliefs. Instead you should point out a project that failed and had some one else profit off an exact replica of a software free and open source licensed.

And yes I am jealous. You guys are creating a new pie based on the ingredients we paid for and not sharing. If you would have said you would airdrop something (can't say stock in Cryptonomex yet)or burn X millions of shares for rights in the future, I might be okay. But you are double dipping and compromising the future of the entire project by making the software proprietary in some way. The path to mass adoption just got bumpier because you are in control of something where control was to be limited and distributed amongst the masses. And a majority of first users are anti control. Decentralized was the key to everything in the beginning and you are going so far away from it now.

The future of Bitshares will rest in your hands and no one, no one can say that in 5 years whether that is truly good or truly bad. I am mainly prodding because a lot of you seem to blindly follow the whimsical cavalier decisions made by I3 errrr Cryptonomex. Plus, I want a piece of that pie. 

You have a few points but it would be helpful if you would get a bit more specific: What would you suggest BM should do now? Make graphene open source? Then there might be no incentive for the devs to continue to work on graphene (because they have no valuable shares in Cryptonomex or because an investor in cryptonomex is not there to pay their loans). It is not BM's decision to decide what the indidivual core devs should do. He can just make them offers.
Also when you complain about the past: At what specific time should BM have done what specific thing differently?
Overall you critique refuses to accept that it was not possible to build Bitshares to be usable with the money from AGS. Each of your sentences rejects this reality.

DPOS is different from DPOS in Bitshares 2.0...

Keeping this in mind here is a wiki links about DPOS (1.0):
http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/DPOS

This describes DPOS 2.0
https://bitshares.org/technology/delegated-proof-of-stake-consensus/

I once started a discussion (tried to be as neutral as possible) on the nxt forum https://nxtforum.org/general-discussion/nxt-pos-vs-bitshares-dpos/?PHPSESSID=c1grk3bhdfn1u49f8qarouhvh3

Giving witnesses at least the opportunity to lock up funds (and allow them to be taken away under certain conditions) doesn't sound like a bad idea. The only negative I could think of is that shareholders have yet another metric to take into consideration but I don't think that is really a big negative. Also some attacker might be able to buy into the network more easily (less time consuming) then through earning reputation - again not really a negative because the overall vote would be a weighted decision based on trust plus collateral.
The neat thing is that this would bring back some of the positives of traditional (NXT) POS in that a block signer always looses significant amount of stake instead of just his job / reputation.

double sign proofs submitted to the blockchain to automatically penalize delegates were part of bytemaster's original proposals for DPOS, but for some reason have been neglected.

Yes it was communicated as such initially if I remember correctly: "automatically voting out bad behaving delegates".
The reason it was not done was that the detection of such bad behavior was not always obvious, especially under the conditions last summer where the a few networks splits happened and some 40% of the delegates where signing blocks on a different chain without being intentionally dishonest. The motivation to keep on signing even if maybe not on the right chain was to not drop in participation rate. But such metrics could be prioritized - not signing two blocks being x times more important then participation rate?

Quote from: bytemaster on June 29, 2015, 08:23:23 pm

I am going to come right out and say that experienced software developers doing cryptography and advanced c++ work in major cities like NY or CA can easily justify a $150 to $200K salary.   Those *ARE* market rates.    That said, web developers do not earn those rates and typically make much less than a c++ developer.  So not all developers are equal in the market.   

In order for me to hire people at $100K I had to look for "inexperienced" yet highly motivated individuals straight out of school and be located in Blacksburg, a relatively low cost of living.    Overall I am very happy with the skill level of this team and am certain they could all earn over $100K at other companies. 

That said, this same amazing team has been earning just $36K plus delegate pay for all of 2015.   

The BTS in the angle fund are gone because we sold them off over the past 6 months at ridiculous prices just to pay the developers $36K/year each.

As far as newmine's claim that "our stake from mining PTS" of over 100M should be enough to motivate us to complete it completely ignores the following facts:

1. Mining PTS was not free, we had to PAY to buy that stake.
2. We would have to sell the stake to pay for development leaving 0 stake at the end.

Our team is highly motivated by principles and goals.  We work for the love of the job and so far have asked for relatively little compensation.

Your problem is that you continually compare Bitshares to that of Oracle, Cisco, Microsoft, Apple, IBM etc. You could very easily and deserve $100K plus per year salaries working for one of those companies. Bitshares is not one of those companies. You ever watch Silicon Valley on HBO? You aren't barely to the level of Pied Piper and you had VC funding in that what you received as AGS in the beginning where PP didn't. Those fictional characters were working a "real' job while creating their code, quit their job when they got funding and got paid shit in the meantime despite VC funding.

Stop using terms like "market rate". If it was a market rate you could get, then go get it and stop complaining about how little you receive and stop spending an enormous amount of time searching for ways to get more money. You chose not to take a market rate and work on Bitshares damn well knowing that it might not pan out and you might end up with beans for pay. you have no right to complain about pay in any way and niether does your Dad (for all the crying he does about pay, I am curious how much his pension is by the way  ). And I have every right to complain since you are once again changing the social contract. You should go back to your original white paper and see how far away you are from those ideas. I think I remember something about a difference in ideology regarding Charles in the beginning because he wanted a for profit model and you did not and ways were parted. Look at you now. You have somehow altered your stance there and makes me wonder where else you conformed and compromised your original beliefs and ideas of what Bitshares is and should be in order to "get paid" now.

It's really a bit sad to see such a wild mix of negativity. You are just attacking the person. Why else (for what other final argument) would you throw in arguments about "altering belief"? It dosn't make any sense to discuss any of that in detail. But you may want to check your own motivations. Why do throw so much negativity around? Probably in order to throw negativity around which satisfies you. If you were just "objectively" negative about the prospects of Bitshares / the team around Bytemaster then you would have just sold and you would be done or you would put forward critique that helps to improve - both is not the case.

Apart from that: You could say what SPECIFIC decisions by which specific person you are upset about (taking ALL the factors into account that mattered at that time). Just mixing things ranging from "financial mismanagement" to "giving up own beliefs" in such a general way is OBVIOUSLY not aiming to constructively criticize.

You basically just said you are no different than any politician, Democrat or Republican, who will only vote for a righteous bill if there is some pork in it that benefits himself in some way.

-> So here you are basically requesting BM to work for free or very little if the work is in line with his ideals. And so? If he decides that is not appropriate that is his decision. If you are not ok with that entitlement (which is everyone's own decision) move on and sell your shares instead of insulting people (based on the entitlement you expect them to have).

Interesting!

My thoughts: Voter apathy is just a function of security. And this doesnt help with security because the market cap of A shares is proportional to the ratio of A shares to B shares and the bogger the market cap the more expensive is ti to control the shares network.

Quote from: jsidhu on June 29, 2015, 02:40:34 am

euro is going to dissappear ...

Wait .. What?

Or we ll have a Euro just with "core" states that are equal enough in terms of GDP and foreign trade balance

Compiled Thanks Xeroc for your hints!

I found out about bitshares while talking w a friend about how services built on top of the Blockchain (colored coins at the time) we're going to change everything.  I think bitshares is going to have a huge impact and am looking forward to being a part of the community .

Sounds like an interesting intro! You are warmly welcome!

we're going to change everything

Do you mean "will go to change everything" or do you (plural) plan to change everything?