Quote from: Geneko on October 31, 2014, 11:47:50 pm

What are the real reasons for this “turn around”?

The dilution thing based on voting is another means for efficient voluntary donations. There are no clear obligations attached to it so SEC couldn’t go after you. You are buying time. We need those in order to survive, period.

It's not a turnaround. I am only representing my own personal opinion.
I agree that voting-based dilution makes it voluntary for the community, but it does not make it voluntary for individuals. Some individuals will want to dilute less than average, some will  be quite happy to dilute more and be recognised for this. I'm only suggesting why not give individuals the choice if we have the power and tools to do that. Then we still have all the same flexibility as a community, as well as preserving individual freedoms over what they choose to do with their wealth.
And in the case where we are diluting for work done within the community (as opposed to capital bought into the community), why dilute at all when there is the option of voluntary contributions?

I disagree with your position. In a system with dilution, non dilutionists would unfairly receive the benefits others paid for.

I like a system of defined dilution, because I believe humans on average and almost always when acting as a group are an inferior, short term focused organism that I want to be protected from. I don't want to have to leave when they change the rules, I prefer to settle in a system where the amount of damage they can do to me is limited. I think all systems should exist though, including yours, but I'll choose the one with reasonable limits as I'm confident it is the winner but that's a personal opinion.

I agree with the OP and fully recognize the problem.   Every change I am making right now is toward focusing in on *ONE THING* and doing it right/well with a long term plan.

I want to color in the details on BitAssets and make them easy to use prior to branching out to many different features.

We are focusing and correcting and as a result are now stronger than ever.   We need a solid foundation prior to major growth even if it means taking a few steps back in the short term.

 

Quote from: MeTHoDx on October 31, 2014, 09:26:45 pm

A constitution is meant to be social glue. It's in writing and is "official". Eventually people start to almost worship it like a holy book; so I see merit in having our own. As mentioned previously, the first rule should be that changing the constitution requires a 75% supermajority, otherwise inflation is fixed. You get the best of both worlds this way: investor confidence and the ability to tackle both known unknowns and unknown unknowns.

Agree whole-heartedly.

Cap inflation and require a 75% majority to change it.

Huge boost to investor confidence, including my own.

A written and public constitution with a few simple and hard rules would be a novelty in the crypto space and may garner substantial publicity.

I would highly recommend modelling the language of the constitution on the Declaration of Independence.

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.

Man would that resonate... freedom rising from the ashes of a corrupt and crushing system.

The 75% super-majority is also an excellent mechanism for establishing the ground rules while providing a robust mechanism for altering them.

Quote from: matt608 on October 31, 2014, 09:49:01 pm

The code is the constitution.  Nothing more is needed.

Very true...

Perhaps what is needs is a plain-English summary of the main philosophies the code realizes and the basic framework of rules that will require a super-majority to alter.

I still like the DOI tie-in.

Perhaps a Declaration of Economic Independence?

 

As Bytemaster brought up we have recently changed on a dime. So personally, I would prefer to give ironclad dilution rules, 'Defined dilution, full stop' vs. 'Defined Dilution, caveat'
Though I think a 75% super-majority in a constitution is a big improvement as to what's needed for this market.

Other ideas.. Something about minimum collateral for creating a BitAsset?

In the real world collateral gets reduced to dangerously low levels so customers are really taking enormous risks without realising. So maybe giving BitAsset users, (especially when the financial system collapses) some confidence about the initial BitAsset backing never being below 100%.

I believe for this market, that the community, shareholders and users should feel that BitShares is about more than just business on a blockchain. It's something people should feel good to be a part of imo. Of course it could limit us, but what you gain in trust, confidence & loyalty in this market, particularly given the direction the world is heading, could be worth it imo.

We have a new, united BitShares beginning on Nov 5th.

We have an opportunity to define a new beginning about who we are and where we're going.
Whether that's a constitution, mission statement or just some basic values, I don't know.
(I think MethodX has previously expressed interest in helping draw up a draft for something like this.)

For me a big question is this...

Should BitShares define it's maximum annual dilution for eternity?

Personally, I think yes.

A BTS that is limited & defined like Bitcoin but puts the dilution towards positive, productive uses rather than wasteful centralised mining is something I think will be more successful.

Bytemaster, is open to that angle.

Quote from: trader on October 31, 2014, 07:05:42 pm

Its 2021:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_supply

Great... an enshrined constitution that stipulates an dilution rate strictly less than BTC's inflation rate would "tie our hands" and should be carefully considered, but from a marketing perspective there is a strong case.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10816.msg142543#msg142543

Do you think we should cap our dilution rate in a constitution forever? Other thoughts?

Quote from: BitShares.com on October 31, 2014, 06:49:44 pm

Bytemaster,

As I stated in the title of this thread, this would be open source. In terms of hosting them both on BitShares.com and BitShares.org, I think that would confuse visitors, and would also be terrible for SEO.

I now have a position in BitShares, and have an asset that I can put to work to see my position gain in valuation. This would be clearly mutually beneficial to all shareholders. I will not 'pull the plug' as it is not in my best interest, but as you stated you are safe regardless since it is open source.

This is very good to hear and like I said, I fully support your effort.   By having it open source with two people owning different domains (.org and .com) it gives us solid decentralization!

 

I think your ideas for the general direction are great.

Quote from: Felix on October 31, 2014, 02:41:46 pm

BM，I warn you that your feckless decisions have already impaired a lot of stakeholders greatly and the market vigorously gives the result!  Why does people love BTC? Radically because the amount can not be manipulated by such financial organizations as U.S. Federal Reserve and our fortune cannot be diluted.  So in my view, any idea like hard fork or dilution is extremely stupid!

BTS has less dilution than Bitcoin.
BTS has less dilution than Bitcoin.
BTS has less dilution than Bitcoin.
BTS has less dilution than Bitcoin.
BTS has less dilution than Bitcoin.


How many times does it have to be written before people will understand?

BTS currently has less dilution than Bitcoin. Bitcoin's is fixed ours can be changed.

I think the competition between DAC (BTS) and DAC+Crypto-currency (BTSX) is tougher than people think. With enough shares set aside BTSX could fund a lot of development as a hard cap. So while a pure DAC can perhaps engage in more innovation, development & marketing...

1. Unlike a real company, everything a pure DAC spends a fortune developing is open source, no intellectual property, so a crypto-currency+DAC can cheaply copy it.

2. The crypto market, the libertarian market and the world may gravitate to & trust a DAC+crypto-currency with fixed initial rules like 'gold' more than a pure DAC more like 'Goldman Sachs'  (That will be the detractor/competitors marketing angle.)

Some feel mainstream won't care about BitShares much on the back-end. I'm not so sure. Interesting times.

2. What is the ownership structure of BTSX, i.e. who are the big holders? I guess I3 must be one of them but who else?
Has this ever been published on the forum or is this meant to be secret?

My current understanding which could be wrong

1. BTC38 block could control 10%
2. Key talent block could control 15%+ (I3 has 5%, BM 5-10%, Stan unknown, other...)

Given how little approval it takes to elect a delegate, I would say there's a potential centralisation issue despite both blocks being benevolent.

I think the I3 stake will be distributed somehow TBA which will help.

So we need to encourage more active voting stake. (Incentives, better security, new delegate system may help people be more involved.) We also need to encourage less BTSX being left on the exchanges. (We don't need to encourage less talent stake, because they need to be incentivised and actually deserve more.)

I don't even like bringing it up, but it is something that may need to be addressed/have a road map for, with dilution coming in, otherwise I feel it's going to hamstring our valuation.