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.

Topics - klosure

Pages: [1]

General Discussion / What should be the default target of unclaimed referrals

« on: June 16, 2015, 05:22:48 am »

bitsharesblog.com raises a very important point in another thread that definitely deserves its own thread.

Quote from: bitsharesblog.com on June 16, 2015, 01:09:17 am

So I listened to the mumble, and I have to say one thing struck me as something that seems rather important but was quickly brought to consensus based on the okays of two or three people in attendance.

Migration comes up around the 40:00 mark of https://soundcloud.com/beyond-bitcoin-hangouts/beyond-bitcoin-06-12-2015-dev-hangout-s3 and someone asks about the default referrer for all current account holders.

BM states that that has been an internal discussion topic with only two options, mark each account as either Null or mark each account as CMX as the referrer, since that would reward the developers for setting up the faucet, for their development efforts, and that they "in practice referred everyone that is here today".

[...]

Regardless, this is a very big decision to give all the referral income to CMX, a company that did not exist until recently. I would think that if the referrals were marked as null, that possibly six or seven digit referral revenue would flow back into BitShares (as a burn or the worker pool) [...] arbitrarily giving 100% of all current account holders referral revenue to CMX is something we should be discussing.

This is a very important point that seems to prefigure at least partially the relationship that would exists between Cryptonomex and BitShares should BitShares migrate to Graphene. If Cryptonomex is an independant for profit company intervening as a paid worker, why does it feel like it should be entitled to be hardcoded in BitShares code as the default recipient of all unattributed referral fees? What does that tell us?

Technical Support / Do's and don'ts when discussing about Bitshares 2.0

« on: June 15, 2015, 08:22:25 pm »

Censorship is raging.
Thread Wake up call: BitShares 2.0 is NOT BitShares has been locked and OP rageously striked through by Bytemaster.
Thread Cryptonomex? WTF is this? has been locked as well.
Thread I guess I am going to have to go to BitcoinTalk moved to "Random Discussion"

Clearly we these threads were not constructive.
Please people try to be constructive.
Here is a list of tips to avoid having your thread censored

Do's:
- Show support for Cryptonomex, Graphene, Bitshares 2.0
- Express your enthusiasm for the future of Bitshares
- Express gratitude to the core dev team for doing everything for the community, without thinking about their own interests.
- Express admiration for how selfless the core dev team is and how it's all for our common good.
- Call anyone expressing doubts and concerns about the move a fudster
- Ignore all arguments that cast the slightest shadow of doubt on the migration

Don't:
- Express concerns about the licensing matters, ownership of intellectual properties
- Ask where the original mission of Bitshares of being an open toolkit to create DACs and get sharedrop has gone
- Ask embarassing questions or challenge anything about Graphene, Cryptonomex and Bitshares 2.0
- Make any remark that may imply that the community is being taken advantage of
- Question the motives of the core dev team
- Ask details about Cryptonomex
- Imply that the core dev team is being greedy

Repeat after me:
- The community is not being forced, we are happy to move to Bitshares2.0, there shall be no debate or questions asked.
- The community is not being forced, we are happy to move to Bitshares2.0, there shall be no debate or questions asked.
- The community is not being forced, we are happy to move to Bitshares2.0, there shall be no debate or questions asked.

I'll personally report to moderators any posts that don't comply with the above.
You've been warned.

General Discussion / Wake up call: BitShares 2.0 is NOT BitShares

« on: June 14, 2015, 06:23:02 pm »

Just catching up on the announcement of BitShares 2.0.

Edit by Bytemaster: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16953.0.html BitShares 2.0 will be licensed for use with BitShares under a BSD-style license, all code up till the announcement has been released under CC0 (Public Domain) license.

This thread has been locked because inaccurate claims.

I am baffled that people are being caught in the thick of thin things about secondary matters like the ownership of Cryptonomex, and fail to see the elephant in the room: BitShares without its free-software community funded core is not BitShares anymore! It cannot be as per the very nature of BitShares. The whole point and philosophy of BitShares is to be an open toolkit allowing anyone to leverage on the technology to create all sorts of innovative DACs, and in return sharedrop some of the new DAC's tokens to BitShares holders under what we call the "social consensus".

What you are being pitched as BitShares 2.0 is an attempt to strip from the real BitShare immensely valuable assets such as its community, its brand name, its place in the crypto space and slap them on top of a proprietary non-free-software technology to increase it's appeal. Bitshares 2.0 is not an upgrade, it's a corporate dismantelment.

Under the BitShares 2.0 ~~"proposall~~ "announcement", BitShares becomes a trade show exhibit for the exclusive benefit of Cryptonomex Inc. Bitshares 2.0 and the BitShares community will be used as:
- A lab rat to test Graphene before it's used for real clients, and to test future new features before they are added to the professional toolkit.
- A display to show to Cryptonomex's clients that Graphene works as intended
- A live testnet for Graphene prospects and users to test their applications
- An exhibit model for sales and fund raising pitches as well as presentations
- A social sandbox in which Cryptonomexand its clients can test new marketing and product ideas before trying them in the wild
- A free source of consulting, features proposals, feedback, bug reports, bug fixes and contributions
- An army of volunteers to help promoting Graphene
- A complementary source of funds

BitShares loses everything. Under the new model:
- It cannot anymore be forked and loses the benefit of sharedrops by third party DAC developers.
- Its allowed scope of evolution becomes restricted by the use cases allowed by the Graphene licence.
- It loses the control of the BitShares brand
- It loses its reputation on the crypto scene: even Ripple is free software with no strings attached!
- It loses its soul and fundamental raison d'etre

Meanwhile since BitShares is still around and may even do well for a while after the upgrade when it's not yet too apparent that it has lost its purpose and independance, BitShares core developers can continue to sell their BTS.

It's time to wake up: we do not have to accept the upgrade to BitShares 2.0 and the subsequent disparition of the free software BitShares we have funded. Nothing justifies such an extreme solution. From an organizational perspective, if the core developers are going to walk away, it would be very poor decision making to accept an upgrade to new code that only they understand and control. No organization in their right mind would migrate to a system developed by an employee who is leaving, BitShares is no exception. From a technical perspective nothing justifies a migration either: the Graphene based chain will be launched in parallel as a BitShares fork, why not just let it be a BitShares fork? The rules so far have been that anyone forking BitShares was going to do it under her own brand and was expected to respect the social consensus. I don't see any reason to change the rules.

Don't let yourself impressed by people telling you that BitShares is in a dead end, that developments have stalled, and that selling our soul by accepting a faustian pledge is the only solution. BitShares price may be low, but this has happened quite a few times to Bitcoin, Ripple and NXT to name only a few, and they are still doing fine. The whole crypto industry is in a bear market so things are looking gloomy, but like any bear market, this is only temporary. Better days will come when the market reverses, and these days may not be that far away given the fact Bitcoin's price has stabilized. Developments may have stalled as a consequence of the price drop, but will resume when the price rises again, and BitShares isn't going to die because developments have slowed down: if that was the case Bitcoin wouldn't be around anymore.

There is no reason to rush and accept a bad deal. Cryptonomex may have timelines but we don't. Let's take the time to discuss and campain and see what the community really thinks about the upgrade.

edit: replaced "closed source" by "non free software" and "open source" by "free software"

General Discussion / Creation of a BTER DAC and crowd funded recapitalization

« on: February 16, 2015, 07:30:24 am »

Creating a new thread to discuss this opportunity.

BTER is going to fail if not recapitalized ugently. The consequences for BitShares would be dire.
But we can save it by creating a BTER DAC and doing a crowdsale of its stake. The benefits for Bitshares are enormous. See discussion below.

Quote from: klosure on February 16, 2015, 07:11:56 am

Quote from: sumantso on February 16, 2015, 06:34:25 am
Quote from: klosure on February 16, 2015, 06:27:16 am
Their business is potentially worth much more than 7170 BTC and they would have no problem raising that much from a VC. 2M USD is pocket change for a VC. As a long time partner of BTER Bitshares is in a great position to close a deal first but we shouldn't ruin that opportunity by making a low ball offer.

A share dilution to support shorting 7170 bitBTC won't even affect the BTS price since the created BTS will be immediately locked in as collateral so it won't inflate the money supply.

It will need a 10% inflation at the current prices. the main issue though would be about running it. Will we be getting competent delegates to run it? BitShares is a decentralized movement and running an exchange directly doesn't seem to fit well, especially since we believe that if we are successful we won't need actual centralized exchanges.

How much of licensing they have anyway? CNY is possible through tradebts, and I doubt Bter has any USD licenses.
We can create a new DAC with 1:1 mapping of stake to real shares of the BTER company, which means that one unit of BTER stake entitles to the dividends of one unit of real BTER company shares and to one vote at the board. Thanks to that mapping, you can keep running BTER as a normal company and progressively DACify the management process as the ecosystem and management tools gets more mature. Meanwhile the shareholders can elect delegates to represent the DAC at BTER board.

Recapitalization of BTER can then be done without a share dilution. We can just organize a crowd sale of BTER shares so interested parties can invest in BTER. That way Bitshares isn't directly affected by the acquisition but still gets the benefits of having a large on/off-ramp tighly integrated in the eco-system. Holders of balances at BTER can elect to participate to the crowdsale at preferential rate and redeem BTER stake in lieue of their currency balance. This would help reducing further the pressure of the loss.

That would be a very exciting opportunity and it would feel very reassuring for BTER users to know that the exchange is now operated under tight control from a Bitshares DAC and cold wallets are controlled by delegates using multisig. For Bitshares the benefit is enormous as we can make bitAssets a central element of the trading books and ensure that bitAsset markets are getting always more liquidity until the point where the peg is so tight that we can start accepting 1:1 deposit / withdrawal between BTER balances and corresponding BitAssets.

General Discussion / DAC management tools

« on: February 08, 2015, 05:37:07 am »

I'll take the opportunity of teenagecheese's post Overall Plan and Schedule to broaden and deepen the topic one notch further: BitShares has the ambition of providing a turn-key solution to build fully functioning decentralized autonomous corporations, but the BitShares DAC itself is pretty far from the level of quality and structure an actual corporation should have. Every corporation has got some elementary tools to manage calandar, progress, objectives, organizational tree, meetings and storage of key information such as meeting minutes etc.

Given it's ambitions, shouldn't BitShares start building such intra-net like features in the client? There was once a project named Keyhotee that could have been the right place to start that intra-net like management layer. What happened to that project? Someone suggested using RetroShare as a base to revive this project. Where are the excited conversations about that?

Are you, BitShares shareholders, happy to know that people are getting actively paid by share dilution, but there is currently no structure in place to provide transparency and accountability?

I fully concur to teenagecheese's feeling in the other thread. A few weeks ago I decided to disvest some of my investments and take a stake in BitShares. After following the DAC closely for a few weeks, my overal feeling is that although the technology has a huge potential, there is no mechanism in place to ensure that things are being managed properly. It really feels like I invested in a startup run by some bunch of bright young grads with a great idea but no management skills and no experience of how to manage a corporation. I'll give it some time, but if I still feel in a few quarters that I have no idea what my money is being used for and there is no visible resources put in improving transarency an management, I will probably just move my money somewhere else and wait for BitShares to put their act together and live up to its ambition of being an actual corporation.

DAC PLAY / Sport Bets

« on: January 20, 2015, 04:18:43 am »

Will the "quiz game" facility allow to implement sport bets? To avoid a massive overhead on delegates, you should rely on oracle scripts stored on the block chain that would check the results of sport events on multiple bookmaker sites, reconciliate the results to detect inconsistencies, and input the resulst in the blockchain as signed messages. The role of delegates would then be to audit the oracles code, make sure they are reliable, and run them. Codius could be a good plateform for that.

General Discussion / BTER and the PTS/BTS merger

« on: December 28, 2014, 08:27:32 am »

Hi, I am a PTS holder but haven't been following discussions here for a few months and am pretty unsettled and confused by the changes that occured in the Bitshares universe while I wasn't paying attention.

In particular, I am really puzzled about that PTS/BTS merger / airdrop story. I have deposited my PTS on BTER before the MUSIC snapshot and kept my balance there since then as BTER is claiming to honor airdrops. My balance was snapshotted for MUSIC, as well as the snapshots of 5 Nov, 14 Dec and DPOS. However I haven't received any BTS following the recent PTS/BTS merger and have therefore missed out completly on the BTS snapshot for PLAY. I thouht BTER was supposed to honor airdrops on PTS. Did I miss something? Some explanations would be greatly welcome. Thanks.