^ lol

John Lee Hooker - Boom Boom?  (not boom-bust)

TimeSplitters 2 - Return to plant X
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg-i8C9meKM&feature=related

The Waterboys - Strange Boat lol, jk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-NXwRUQcmg&list=PL37DE63AA3F12C565

Fleetwood Mac - Go your own way
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ul-cZyuYq4

Grateful Dead - Ship of Fools, LOL jk.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iZ49s7eH5g&feature=related

Jimmy Cliff - Born to Win
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whZM1CUJ6io&feature=related

Quote from: inarizushi on November 01, 2014, 11:23:54 am

I know nobody wants to hear that, but are we heading towards a black swan event ?

Don't you think that silver selling for well below the cost of production rates as a Black Swan Event?  Did you see what Japan just did?

As a matter of fact, I can hear the pounding hooves of a whole herd of black swans rapidly approaching 

I'm curious about this silver thing and what Japan 'did', could you care to educate me?

Quote from: Rune on November 01, 2014, 09:36:04 pm

One thing I think it would be really great to have implemented ASAP would be a reddit style forum where people upvote and downvote with their stake (that they register by completing a cryptographic challenge at account creation or after). This would allow us to measure support for pretty much anything, even tiny issues, and it would make it easy for people to rapidly make many small variations of the same proposal/concept/idea and have stakeholders be able to conveniently rate all of them.

Great idea. Very doable.

We wouldn't even need usernames.. votes and comments are just signed with a stake.

That does sound useful.

Having usernames makes it easier to judge comments and vote on them, I like to see who is making the comment so I can use my rough estimation of their intelligence + integrity (their general history) as a factor in judging what they are saying.

One problem might be if a large stakeholder downvotes a comment then it could get immediately buried (if it was done like reddit) without the chance to acruu upvotes.  Maybe there should be a brief time period (e.g. 1 hour, or 1 day?) after a comment before the votes take effect in terms of burying stuff no one likes and re-arranging popular stuff to the top.  Keep it in chronological order until that time period passes?  That's just for comments, for polls it could show up immediately.  Just a thought...

I don't know how the VOTE daap will work, but isn't what your asking covered by its functions? 

Anti-constitution rant:
As for a constitution... I urge big changes to wait until voting is implemented.  'Constitution' is a very powerful word.  It's a founding document.  It's the core protocol of a society.  It means starting all over again.   In the spirit of not having more drastic changes, to create calmness and investor confidence, using such dramatic words like calling a temporary description of bitshares the 'constitution' needs to stop.

Once power is truly distributed among the stakeholders people can propose whatever they like and if a constitution is an idea that gains traction it may come into existence.

As of now, stakeholders have self-selected themselves into bitshares just fine, as well as into every other investment in the history of man kind without a constitution.  So I am against having one.  Constitutions are for governments, not corporations whether they a decentralised or not.  The only rule is there are no rules.  What is this 'constitution' if it doesn't have to be obeyed?  It's just a confusing document that will divide the community.  I say voting is for choosing delegates, keep it modular.  Please do not create some monolithic and highly controversial document to alienate the current investors.

People will describe bitshares in different ways.  There's no need for there to be the 'one true description'.  It's already an elegant system, more changes to the foundation are harmful - and creating a constitution is a foundational shift!  Delegates (and currently 3I) need a description to use for marketing, of course, but calling it a constitution implies it has supreme importance when in reality it's just sales copy.

Bitshares has an elegant system, what it needs is for the foundation to stop changing, it isn't adaptation, it's floundering.

I have a proposal, no proposals!!!!

Great, already there's a 3rd party fork^ of my proposal.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10870.0
Are you going to snapshot me, with a share of all of your non existent future proposals?  I hope so, or the Chinese will not be happy.
 

Really? This is just what we need right now. DNS getting a pump, and BTSX losing some more value.

I still support the Bitshares community, but Al these sudden announcements/proposals could be interpreted as some cheeky money scams.

Buy up DNS at all time low, then announce/propose to continue.

Yeah its almost as if new proposals are made deliberately to spread confusion.

I don't think there should be a political litmus test for becoming a delegate. It's like saying in order to get a job you have to pass a political test or belief in these principles. I don't think it will have a positive effect.

Instead if there are principles then put that in the design of the source code. Express your political principles in the code itself but don't make a constitution. If something isn't allowed then simply express your principles as a delegate and that you refuse to code or contribute to anything which goes against your principles.

Every delegate should be able to express their own principles or non at all. The majority of delegates will just be people who can get stuff done or who know people.

 

Why should a delegate who wants to built a lightweight client (or anything) be expected to read this?  The system is already elegant.  Stakeholders vote for delegates.  Adding some other piece of writing that for some reason everyone is supposed to look at is completely superfluous.  Where this belongs is in BM's delegate profile page.