Next step would be generate new address/account and send any remaining funds out of that address. If concerned about potential compromise of that private key?

Edit:clarity

Wts 35,000 btsx. Pm with offers.

Quote from: bytemaster on February 03, 2014, 12:22:37 AM

Quote from: weiry on February 02, 2014, 11:43:33 PM
I just saw this over on /r/bitcoin. Wondering if anyone could explain the differences and similarities this project shares with BTSX?

http://blockscan.com/default.aspx

Did they really burn 1.7 million dollars???

That's what everyone is being led to believe.

I just saw this over on /r/bitcoin. Wondering if anyone could explain the differences and similarities this project shares with BTSX?

http://blockscan.com/default.aspx

I think that the logical response would be to recognize that people ought to be free to participate in whichever market they choose.

I'd guess that it's not condemned and criminalized immediately. The decentralized nature of the platform will take regulators longer to come to terms with. The US government would have shut down bitcoin long ago if they could simply just condemn and criminalize it.

Given that the platform is fraud proof I think they'll initially leave it alone and any eventual regulation we see will be for all crypto-assets in general.

Quote from: delulo on January 27, 2014, 11:11:34 PM

Quote from: sumantso on January 27, 2014, 09:18:18 PM

Quote from: delulo on January 27, 2014, 09:12:06 PM
Would it make sense for I3 to merge AGS and PTS after donation period is over?

As I said in the other thread, in future, I3 MAY list the AGS in cryptostocks or something similar and make them tradeable; awarding shares to the accounts in that 'exchange'.

Delulo - I know you are not too in favour of AGS due to they being unsellable. But look at it this way - do you believe the PTS shares in the future DACs will make it so expensive that you are willing to write off the extra BTSX earned now through AGS? Remember, in future, the DACs will allot upto 80% through other means, so its not as if PTS is the only way to gain them. In fact, it may even turn out that PTS price goes down while BTSX price goes up after BTSX release.

The point is that there is no easy answer - its all wildly speculative. Hence, IMO its best to spread out among both.

True. Its definitely a balance! And above I actually put forward arguments pro AGS...

But there is no reason that PTS should fall except if BTS fall because it is the only way to buy into other I3 DACs if AGS are not tradable...

You're pretty much equally bought into all I3 DACs with PTS and AGS.

The difference is you can't currently "buy out" of I3 DACs with AGS.

My limited understanding is PTS and AGS will have an equal stake in ALL Invictus DACs. AGS are a one time event to help fund the initial development of the platforms that will be the foundation of all I3's offerings in the DACspace. However you can cash out your PTS for reinvestment in anything you can trade BTC for, AGS will at least initially only offer you a stake in I3 and any DACs that are derived from their code.

First time I've seen it.

I like proposed coinbase distribution. It strikes a good balance between developing content and engaging the audience.

I agree that you shouldn't be a central point of failure for disbursal, but am not sure if scripting coin distribution based on a voting system is ideal. It very well may be the best option. But such a system seems prone to gaming to me.

Additionally I'm concerned (this comes from witnessing the digg and reddit communities) that as bitcoin becomes more mainstream a decentralized voting mechanism will result in thoughtful content losing to memes.

Decentralization is an amazing concept that I don't fully understand. I am fully supportive of decentralization when it comes to our ability to choose what to do with our own resources. However, centralization (in the form of cooperation and shared values) seems essential to me on a smaller community based level.

All of that to say, I think some form of moderation for content that gets rewarded isn't entirely distasteful. Perhaps a voting system that goes before a sufficiently distributed council of elders with a multi-sig transaction necessary to disburse funds for content?

We live in interesting times. Thanks for sharing the idea with me. I look forward to seeing what comes of it.

Quote from: delulo on January 27, 2014, 09:12:06 PM

Quote from: weiry on January 27, 2014, 09:01:27 PM

Quote from: delulo on January 27, 2014, 08:40:46 PM

Quote... and tbh I secretly think people in the future (not invictus) would honor PTS but not AGS.

Why?

Well...

People will be able to buy PTS later. Whereas AGS to my understanding can only be acquired during the AGS funding period. Furthermore the AGS funding is controlled by III.

If I were developing a DAC I could acquire PTS and only honor PTS in the launch of my DAC, viewing AGS as dilution of my new DAC holdings.

Is this actually the case? I don't know.

I would imagine that having both AGS & PTS holders would strengthen my DAC's ecosystem by increasing the number of shareholders. Simultaneously I imagine that most AGS holders also hold PTS, so perhaps my equity in the DAC would be diluted without really increasing the number of people who have a stake in the DAC.

I agree with your last paragraph.
But if you develope a DAC in 1 year PTS will be quite expensive and you can only get a fraction of all PTS for a reasonable price. That would not be very effective to increase your profits. Would be more effective to reserve 1% of all tokens of your DAC for yourself... and give the rest to PTS/AGS holders. If you leave out AGS you risk dispute.

Would it make sense for I3 to merge AGS and PTS after donation period is over? 

I believe I3 is building their Social Contract license to effectively merge AGS & PTS.

I think in the end pretty much anyone using I3 code is going to honor both. Your 1% (or whatever percentages the Social Contract allows) idea does allow you to mitigate interest dilution while honoring AGS & PTS.

I personally only hold PTS at the moment. I'll be investing in AGS with BTC over the next few weeks though. I was thinking about increasing my PTS holdings but currently AGS seems like the better value. I figure either way I'm investing in Invictus and I'd rather have a greater share in their future.

Quote from: delulo on January 27, 2014, 08:40:46 PM

Quote... and tbh I secretly think people in the future (not invictus) would honor PTS but not AGS.

Why?

Well...

People will be able to buy PTS later. Whereas AGS to my understanding can only be acquired during the AGS funding period. Furthermore the AGS funding is controlled by III.

If I were developing a DAC I could acquire PTS and only honor PTS in the launch of my DAC, viewing AGS as dilution of my new DAC holdings.

Is this actually the case? I don't know.

I would imagine that having both AGS & PTS holders would strengthen my DAC's ecosystem by increasing the number of shareholders. Simultaneously I imagine that most AGS holders also hold PTS, so perhaps my equity in the DAC would be diluted without really increasing the number of people who have a stake in the DAC.

Right on. Count me in for some LTBcoin.

Have you published a white paper or anything I can read to learn more about this platform?

Quote from: weiry on January 24, 2014, 08:51:01 AM

Quote from: AdamBLevine on January 24, 2014, 06:23:42 AM

Quote from: weiry on January 24, 2014, 05:43:41 AM

Quote from: AdamBLevine on January 24, 2014, 05:40:50 AM

Quote from: weiry on January 24, 2014, 05:00:57 AM
I'm interested in answers to the following questions in terms a laymen could understand:



In terms of platform capabilities, what differentiates your platform from your competitors?

Conservatively, when do you anticipate having a fully functional GUI interface available for your product that actually integrates the platforms functionality and is not just a bitcoin-qt clone?

What differentiates your development team from your competitors.

How many man-hours are currently going into your platforms development?

How does your platform empower the other 6 billion?


Adam, any idea when the panel will be available for our listening pleasure?

A week after it is recorded, Saturday the 1st

Awesome. Thanks so much for the work you do.

Your welcome.  As a listener, what do you think of my intention to launch a custom alt-coin with which to power the network?  I haven't really vetted this with any listeners yet.

Interesting. The first thing that comes to mind is concern around how to ensure it doesn't become just another alt coin with little differentiation from the herd.

Ideally I think it would incorporate DAC concepts such as allowing programming to gain funding by easily launching an asset that could be traded against the base currency.

But even if it just took an angelshares/mastercoin like approach to fundraising for the network I'd be interested in participating to support LTB programming.

I'll sleep on it and bring back more thoughts on the morrow.

Adam, I've been thinking about the custom alt-coin idea and posted this on the Alternative DAC discussion board.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=2619.0

This might be a much bigger undertaking than what you were considering. Nevertheless, I'm interested in what you think. 

The other evening Adam Levine floated the idea of having an alt-coin that powered the Let's Talk Bitcoin network. The following idea is my attempt to theorize how you could create a DAC that would allow for anyone to easily create their own alt-coin to fund their endeavours while only having to get one coin on exchanges.

Purpose

To allow artists, writers, coders, and producers of media/things in general to generate funding without necessarily having to sell product.

Functionality

The coin would have one main blockchain with a limited coinbase generated either through mining or an exodus address.
The client would have basic bitcoin-qt features. Additionally it would allow for users to generate their own unique coinbases that can be traded from within the client against the primary coinbase or, potentially, any of the user generated coinbases.

Use Example

John makes sound beds, cues, and music in his spare time. He releases his media without a license and while he would love to do this as his main gig still has to keep his family housed, fed, etc. He's experienced modest success in getting his media featured in various creative commons projects and is quite talented.

John generates a custom coinbase using the PatronCoin client. He decides that his coin should have 10,000,000 coins generated over a course of 50 years. These coins will be automatically added to his John.PatronCoin address using a supply release model similar to that of bitcoin.

John continues to make music, puts out a press release regarding his PatronCoin, and occasionally releases special edition media available for purchase only with John.PatronCoins. He occasionally trades his John.PatronCoins for PatronCoins which he converts to Bitcoin to upgrade gear, produce physical media, take his wife on dates, etc.

If John continues to release quality media and can grow a following the value of John's coinbase should increase, allowing him to put more effort into his passion. Those people who appreciate and believe in John's value can trade their PatronCoins for John.PatronCoin's allowing John the ability to trade for Bitcoin/USD/Gold/Gear thereby supporting his artistic endeavors. As John's popularity and catalog grow the value of his PatronCoins grow as well rewarding those patron's who have supported John by trading for his coin.

Development Funding

I think using some kind of exodus address funding model to generate the initial coinbase would be ideal. If the initial funding period ran for 2-4 months by the time the funding round is complete you'd have considerable codebase to be inspired from in Bitshares, Mastercoin, Ethereum, Nextcoin, Open Transactions, etc.

If the Let's Talk Bitcoin crew were to take on management of getting the project to release I for one would be more than happy to see 10%-20% of these funds go to support the LTB network as well.

Being a protoshares holder if the initial coinbase honored the III social contract I would certainly be pleased and even more incentivized to promote the coin. ;-)

Potential Problems

User generated blockchain spam?

Is this idea just a different version of devcoin?

I'm sure there are plenty.

Quote from: AdamBLevine on January 24, 2014, 06:23:42 AM

Quote from: weiry on January 24, 2014, 05:43:41 AM

Quote from: AdamBLevine on January 24, 2014, 05:40:50 AM

Quote from: weiry on January 24, 2014, 05:00:57 AM
I'm interested in answers to the following questions in terms a laymen could understand:



In terms of platform capabilities, what differentiates your platform from your competitors?

Conservatively, when do you anticipate having a fully functional GUI interface available for your product that actually integrates the platforms functionality and is not just a bitcoin-qt clone?

What differentiates your development team from your competitors.

How many man-hours are currently going into your platforms development?

How does your platform empower the other 6 billion?


Adam, any idea when the panel will be available for our listening pleasure?

A week after it is recorded, Saturday the 1st

Awesome. Thanks so much for the work you do.

Your welcome.  As a listener, what do you think of my intention to launch a custom alt-coin with which to power the network?  I haven't really vetted this with any listeners yet.

Interesting. The first thing that comes to mind is concern around how to ensure it doesn't become just another alt coin with little differentiation from the herd.

Ideally I think it would incorporate DAC concepts such as allowing programming to gain funding by easily launching an asset that could be traded against the base currency.

But even if it just took an angelshares/mastercoin like approach to fundraising for the network I'd be interested in participating to support LTB programming.

I'll sleep on it and bring back more thoughts on the morrow.

Quote from: AdamBLevine on January 24, 2014, 05:40:50 AM

Quote from: weiry on January 24, 2014, 05:00:57 AM
I'm interested in answers to the following questions in terms a laymen could understand:



In terms of platform capabilities, what differentiates your platform from your competitors?

Conservatively, when do you anticipate having a fully functional GUI interface available for your product that actually integrates the platforms functionality and is not just a bitcoin-qt clone?

What differentiates your development team from your competitors.

How many man-hours are currently going into your platforms development?

How does your platform empower the other 6 billion?


Adam, any idea when the panel will be available for our listening pleasure?

A week after it is recorded, Saturday the 1st

Awesome. Thanks so much for the work you do.

I'm in the middle of listening to it currently. Definitely do not understand enough of it to TL:DR.

I'd be interested in reading/hearing more about encrypted transactions that can help to subvert the dangers inherent to centralization of hashing power. Particularly I'm interested in knowing if it's possible to implement this in a wallet, and if anyone is currently working on it? I would happily donate to anyone who's trying to make this easy to practice.

Another thing about the interview that interests me is the view that alt-coin's have no intrinsic value. Adam went so far as to call it unhealthy to have successful alt-coins that potentially damage the value of bitcoin. While I don't agree with this perspective I do think the proposed development model for developing BTC2.0 is a good one. It seems to mirror the protoshares to bitshares model.

What stood out to you?