Quote from: delulo on May 30, 2015, 04:16:10 pm

Quote

This would be a great opportunity for Will to form a DAC and utilize UIA's for this funding, yes?

There was a beyond bitcoin episode where a guy who wants to do hardware for bitshares (routers etc) spoke up and BM discussed the question above. Fuzzy might remember which episode that was... ?

Faddat.  From MetaDev.  Used to be called DAWN, until they gained  their own campus and production grounds.  Now they are focusing on doing quite a bit more in an open and emergent way.  Pretty cool actually because they have picked up more than a few people and also extra funding.

We had his hangout friday...but his headphones were cutting out so badly that we had to reschedule (and kindly ask him to get a new set).  The hangout is next week.

Thanks for the heads up. I've been in touch with Adam for a while and would run through the concept with him later today.
I've also been looking at the referral program, but I'll wait until the big announcements are made before I take a shot at it as product changes could affect business cycles within FS.

I've internally been discussing Moonstone for a fund raiser of sorts for a few projects we have in our pipe-line but its too early to spill the beans on those at the moment.

Quote from: liondani on May 12, 2015, 06:24:13 pm

Quote from: toast on May 12, 2015, 06:04:54 pm

We've been pretty clear that peertracks will not be all public in the way bitshares is, and are giving everyone an opportunity to get out (at higher than the crowdsale price no less) if they don't like that

is this FUD ? Any reason for doing this?
I really can't believe what I am reading! 

It's because there's no point answering to huge groups of stakeholders we don't know who only care about short-term returns and generally act like a hivemind. We would rather start at a low price and have real growth than to have a huge speculative market with a potential for big losses for everyone.

Quote from: Carpet Ride on May 20, 2015, 05:01:24 pm

Quote from: Agent86 on May 20, 2015, 04:27:13 pm

I like that PC charges what he is worth, even if it highlights our self created system problems as much as anything.  It's not his fault that the setup makes it really difficult for stakeholders to govern / hire; I would take up the complaint with Dan not PC.

Despite repeated urgings not to, Dan decided to conflate the idea of DPOS/block signers with blockchain hiring.  This made voting confusing and added an extra step for potential workers like PC.  He then unilaterally changed the consensus of the chain to dilute at a rate he randomly picked (50 BTS / block).  And also made it expensive for potential delegates to even register so people like PC have to put up significant money to even see if they get elected.

This is not PCs fault; I doubt if he would have made the same decisions.

Sorry for the tangent but it's a bit frustrating to me because I think blockchain hiring was a great idea. It was a great idea that bytemaster had nothing to do with, but somehow he managed to take this great idea and use it / implement it in such a crazy and poorly thought out way (from both a PR and technical point of view) that it made this project less valuable instead of more valuable.  I'm still left scratching my head about what blockchain hiring ever had or should have had to do with DPOS (nothing).
/rant

Picking up some very weird undertones from this post just fyi...

Can you give us a status update?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yea, I've just been frustrated by the cost of certain mistakes and feel like I have a hard time getting Dan to listen to me on various things, and a discussion with him yesterday left me annoyed.  Perhaps this isn't the right venue for it.  Some of it is just how the propensity to change things without warning has a personal impact on my efforts to try to contribute some value.  More generally, I would like to see bitshares stakeholders more empowered with things like easy to use polling; I don't think this is on the road map and I feel like this is kind of a foundational thing.  I feel like the destiny of bitshares is and should be in the hands of the stakeholders in large part by how they vote so it needs to be facilitated.  There's changes to the worker structure which should get released when all the other big changes get released but I'm not sure they go far enough.  I would like to see workers try to get 50% approval by active stake, which of course takes work, but IMO very worthwhile work. I would still like to see more effort to drive stakeholder involvement and make it easy because I think it may be necessary for things to play out well.