Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Troglodactyl

Pages: 1 ... 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 [36] 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 ... 64
526
General Discussion / Re: Angel funds being given away by I3 - no transparency, input, or explanation?
« on: November 06, 2014, 12:16:59 am »
Quote from: alphaBar on November 06, 2014, 12:06:22 am
Quote from: Troglodactyl on November 06, 2014, 12:01:10 am
I donated because I trusted the people to whom I was donating sufficiently to risk my donation.  So far I'm very pleased with what they've accomplished with it, and it seems like they're on track to continue that.  I think they've also been and continue to be very transparent.

It's regrettable if no one else would be able to use the toolkit at all, but it's to be expected that the team that developed it thus far would have a considerable head start in its use.  If the entire team were abducted by aliens, I suspect the toolkit would be used by others, but it might be years before another team gathered comparable network effect and community to what the current team has now.

Why would you insist on giving away the funds when you could very easily implement some oversight and accountability. Do we prefer blind trust over accountability? It would be trivially simple to implement some oversight with multi-sig.

Trusting a few people to act independently is much more efficient than forming a multisig oversight committee, if the independent actors are actually worthy of trust.  This isn't blind trust.  Some of us have been around here for quite a while now and have reason to trust these people.  If I required or even wanted such oversight, why would I have donated before it was there?  Do you really think people just assumed it would be added in later, even though they didn't trust the people who would have to add it?  O.o

527
General Discussion / Re: Angel funds being given away by I3 - no transparency, input, or explanation?
« on: November 06, 2014, 12:01:10 am »
I donated because I trusted the people to whom I was donating sufficiently to risk my donation.  So far I'm very pleased with what they've accomplished with it, and it seems like they're on track to continue that.  I think they've also been and continue to be very transparent.

It's regrettable if no one else would be able to use the toolkit at all, but it's to be expected that the team that developed it thus far would have a considerable head start in its use.  If the entire team were abducted by aliens, I suspect the toolkit would be used by others, but it might be years before another team gathered comparable network effect and community to what the current team has now.

528
General Discussion / Re: Warning: Accounts similar to current delegates
« on: November 04, 2014, 02:53:07 pm »
Quote from: bytemaster on November 04, 2014, 02:20:28 pm
Quote from: Bytemаsteг on November 04, 2014, 11:44:26 am
An example of similar robohash to bytemaster's .
I have another one closer resembling BM's robot (and with lowercase first letter).

Can we update the forum rules to prevent people from taking the same name with a slightly different capitalization?  This is crazy that someone could impersonate me so easily.
If only there were some way to sign messages with some kind of publicly verifiable signature... ;-)

529
General Discussion / Re: Total Supply of BitUSD to date?
« on: November 03, 2014, 02:20:48 am »
Probably a gui bug, sounds like someone forgot to divide by the asset precision.

I can't actually confirm right now, but that's my guess.

530
General Discussion / Re: What is the Profit model of BTSx ?
« on: November 02, 2014, 03:29:31 pm »
Quote from: CoinHoarder on November 02, 2014, 03:00:18 pm
The profit model is apparently that there will be no "profits."

Once dilution is implemented, I venture to say BTS will never be "profitable" on its original goals of creating a profitable company out of a cryptocurrency by not diluting its shareholders and burning fees. No amount of marketing and development will ever be enough, shareholders will always want more no matter the value of the BTS tokens.

Now the model closely resembles how any other cryptocurrency would be "profitable" by its tokens' value rising. Whether this is a good thing or not is yet to be seen, but if I see someone say "they just don't see the big picture" one more time I'm going to flip shit. Apparently there are people that can tell the future, and the debate is not a debate at all as it is an objective matter and not a subjective one.  ::)

I think the issue here is the fear that stakeholders will be dumb and see dilution as free money, rather than as a real expense.  The goal should always be to minimize dilution (expenses) while maximizing share value growth (profits).  While most centralized companies use cash on hand as a buffer to protect shareholders from most expenses and occasionally pay dividends from it, or dilute for large expenses, this model requires a central trusted entity to manage the money.  The BitShares model with dilution allows all assets to be decentralized, with profits and expenses flowing to and from shareholders dynamically.

531
General Discussion / Re: What is the Profit model of BTSx ?
« on: November 02, 2014, 01:59:10 pm »
Yes. Trading fees and transfer fees primarily. The network design is very efficient and scales well, so it can still be profitable with low fees.

Right now I think a lot of delegates are unprofitable because they're running higher end nodes than currently necessary in anticipation of growth.

532
General Discussion / Re: Proposal...day
« on: November 01, 2014, 06:14:55 pm »
Quote from: xeroc on November 01, 2014, 05:58:42 pm
Quote from: tonyk2 on November 01, 2014, 05:54:57 pm
Now almost having worked out a constitution, it is time to work on the holidays.
The blockchain ain't give you holidays! :-P

Celebrating whole days is old fashioned anyway, we should just have a 10 second celebration whenever the head block number is prime.

533
General Discussion / Re: Proposal...day
« on: November 01, 2014, 05:45:02 pm »
I wonder how much of this forum is married by now.

534
General Discussion / Re: *Draft* October Newsletter - Halloween Edition
« on: November 01, 2014, 02:48:36 am »
Well done!

535
General Discussion / Re: Is dilution a coercive tax? - and voluntary alternatives
« on: October 31, 2014, 10:26:09 pm »
Quote from: starspirit on October 31, 2014, 10:24:19 pm
Quote from: Troglodactyl on October 31, 2014, 10:06:21 pm
No one is forcing you to hold BTS, or requiring you to have it in order to pay taxes in it.  Holding BTS is voluntarily investing in a collective effort, and accepting the consequences of both its successes and its failures.

If you think that the group is going down the wrong path, either divest completely or convert to bitAssets, depending on the seriousness of your disagreement.
Trog, I'm not looking to opt out on the basis we are "going down the wrong path". I'm very positive on bitshares and thinking about it it a much bigger context. I'm trying to contribute thoughts to future directions we could take it.

Sorry that was unclear, I meant that those options will be available in the future to any who thought the system was making poor choices.

536
General Discussion / Re: Is dilution a coercive tax? - and voluntary alternatives
« on: October 31, 2014, 10:06:21 pm »
No one is forcing you to hold BTS, or requiring you to have it in order to pay taxes in it.  Holding BTS is voluntarily investing in a collective effort, and accepting the consequences of both its successes and its failures.

If you think that the group is going down the wrong path, either divest completely or convert to bitAssets, depending on the seriousness of your disagreement.

537
General Discussion / Re: BTS will dilute at least 10% per year?? IS THIS TRUE?
« on: October 31, 2014, 04:38:40 am »
No.  That's not true.  BTS will sharedrop on the 5th, expanding the supply to 2.5 billion, not 25 billion.  After this point, dilution will occur only as approved by shareholder vote, and that's capped at a maximum rate that can be changed only by hard fork.

Quote from: donkeypong on October 31, 2014, 04:33:08 am
Your title is a little off. Maximum 10%, only if delegates vote for it, and that would be for the purposes of allowing in someone who markedly increases the market cap. So it's a maximum of 10% annual "dilution", but you could just as easily call it "growth". How much do you want this to grow?

Delegates don't vote for it, shareholders vote for delegates taking into consideration the pay rate they request, and the pay is taken from shareholders by dilution if they approve the delegate.

538
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: MineBitShares.com - A virtual mining multi-pool for BitSharesX
« on: October 31, 2014, 04:28:21 am »
What drivers are you using?  Have you installed the OpenCL SDK?

http://developer.amd.com/tools-and-sdks/opencl-zone/amd-accelerated-parallel-processing-app-sdk/

539
General Discussion / Re: Clarity requested on why a single block chain, for non-techies
« on: October 31, 2014, 04:12:55 am »
Yes, that's the plan.  For as long as the delegates can handle the transaction volume easily (meaning until we're quite a bit bigger than BTC), it's more efficient and more convenient to run everything on the same chain.  There has been some discussion of using subchains or some such system eventually, but that's low priority until transaction volume becomes a concern.

540
General Discussion / Re: How to ensure we elect high quality delegates
« on: October 31, 2014, 04:01:42 am »
Here's a good start: http://www.bitsharesblocks.com/delegates

Pages: 1 ... 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 [36] 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 ... 64

Page created in 0.027 seconds with 23 queries.