[member=1607]Ashaman[/member] That is a pretty impressive write-up just from memory and I share your theory about when the theft happened. Another theory is that the bitcoins were gone even when he bought mtGox from mr. RippleLabs/Stellar Jed McCaleb. I was hurt pretty bad by MtGox as well, mostly because other projects apparently used them for storage despite vehemently claiming the opposite in the time prior. Also just about all btc-media and prominents were recommending using mtGox at the time. Come to think of it, quite a few of those same characters like Roger Ver and Falkvinge and such are now actively participating in the hostile corporate takeover and amateur hour centralization attempt going on against bitcoin, that also has the possibility to set the entire crypto scene back by decades. Wasn't aware of Luke-jr using and recommending mtgox though, which is a bit shocking for somebody supposedly more technically savy.

Anyways I fear that you are right, poloniex looks to be going in to the same list as all the others like mtGox/Cryptsy/etc. Sad that people don't seem to realize what bitshares was meant to replace those centralized points of failure.

No normal business out there is valued to more than a billion dollars even before having a working product. Don't get me wrong, Dan has proven he can deliver, but right now there's some seriously dumb money in the crypto world.

So much can happen between now and the release of an MVP... No way this project is worth that much at this point in time, considering the risks associated with developing innovative and disruptive technology.

I may be wrong, but adopting a wait and see approach might be the best way to get in cheap, cause hype will die down...

Let's say that I believe Bitshares still have more to give in terms of growth long term. I'll get some EOS, but at the right price.

Although I might be a little biased since I have bts myself, but I still find it hard to disagree with you. A billion dollar evaluation of something that is not much more than an idea at this stage is on a Monthy Python level of silly.

While I hope hero does well and I hope the blockpay thing gets worked out, what I really would want to see is our own version of localbitcoins. Lets launch the tools that people can have a peer2peer marketplace.

So what would we need besides devs for it.

- An escrow service
- A nice website for it.
- Works on mobile phones.

What else?

Hello guys,

Recently I was asked to make some laptops more secure by installing coreboot on them and removing most of Intel-ME crap. It took me a while to figure out and cost me a whole lot more than the 30 to 60 minutes I had planned, but to prevent you from running into the same issues I've published a tutorial about it  steemit: https://steemit.com/tutorial/[member=11045]JoeyD[/member]/run-don-t-walk-from-the-blob

Once I finally figured out the missing bits,  it was just a matter of following the steps as I've written down in that tutorial. The things that take the most time during the whole process are installing the software and the compile phase of the coreboot toolchain. But having a little more peace of mind is worth it in my opinion.

I was away from the internet for a while and I missed the announcement about EOS doing an Ethereum ICO. I also have not received an e-mail about it, eventhough I did register myself on the mailinglist.

First impression I have of that are not good. If they are only doing an ICO on ethereum and not any other blockchain than it is a strange move and I think it is a slap in the face of bitshares. At the very least as a show of thanks for the people who helped make bitshares grow to what it is today, and that is one of the key value propositions of EOS, as in multithreaded bitshares-tech, and in remembrance of the social contract, 10% of the ICO could be done in a bitshares ICO. Now it feels like instead of sticking by bitshares despite all the bashing, and I've seen ethereum core-members and devs doing it, I've should have done the opposite. I understand wanting to attract people over from ethereum, but why not reward people who actually supported Dan Larimer creating the tech for EOS?

I wouldn't mind them diversifying to prevent the same loss in funds as happened with the btc-fundraiser with ags. But this does not sound like diversifying at all.

Also if they have to hold the tokens till the end of the ICO (which I've seen mentioned is planned to last 360 days or something like that), holding ethereum is not any less risky than bitcoin. Despite their massively active hype army, ethereum has just about all the same problems bitcoin has, although somehow that dirty laundry is not being flaunted about in the same public manner as with bitcoin. Worse yet I've seen people apparently in blind denial bashing bitcoin publicly, about all the things ethereum hasn't solved either. Just of the top of my head eth has massive scaling issues, right now, their blockchain is now larger than bitcoin and growing more rapidly (and no reward for people running full-nodes either), they have no decentralized governance to speak of, no voting mechanism at all apparently and need at the very least one or more hardfork(s) in the coming year. Also do not forget that any slow downs or problems with ethereum will have waay more catastrophic effects on the smartcontracts than with bitcoin.

[member=120]xeroc[/member]: I don't agree with your argument. There are ways to hold ICOs and value on bitshares without the need to  crash the marketprice especially over a  time period of a year. At the very least they should not hold the ICO solely on ethereum, because as mentioned that does show a lack of confidence. Hell, they could do an announcement saying that they'll immediately sell 10% of the gathered eth for bitshares and send those bitshares to a burn address or bts-dev-fund or whatever.

Also I was hoping this would not turn into a money grab up front. I understand the need for money to fund development, but EOS should be able to pay for itself instead of upfront. This whole hyped up ICO craze going on does have a scammy feel to it and I'd rather not help support it.

So much for my first impressions, I probably need to think more on this. Public discussion does help me shaping my opinion, how else would I ever change my mind on something.

I admit that I wasn't able to spend the time looking into this. The only thing I picked up was talking about marketers wanting to gamify marketing and interested in using bitshares for it. And I was like, well if people can find uses for bitshares sure, why not. And so far I figured it was just some kind of marketers convention or something, where people listen to talks.

But only today when I got that link to the company talking about making an multiplayer online world and having an entire economy inside promising millions is when I went, yeah that is probably bullshit. The gaming industry is not that big, and you could count the companies that could pull something like that off on the fingers of a single badly mangled hand.

Making a living off of being a game-dev let alone massive profits is just about guaranteed impossible. The tiny number of success stories proving my point.  So when someone comes around saying he will make millions with games, you should be more than a little skeptical. Especially if said person/company has never made a game in their life.

Similarly the first thing all aspiring gamedevs say they want to make when they join the forums or modding communities is how they will make this awesome RPG or MMORPG and most of the veterans are like, suuuuuure, try making something like pong or tetris first and then look at the next step.

almost predicted this outcome.

this is what happens when you throw a common high ticket marketer to the crypto crowd - they ate him alive.

use him where he is valuable, outside of crypto, and find some crypto marketers would be my approach

The first requirement of marketers in crypto should be to be able to weather allegations of being a scammer. Can you name a single project that has not has it's flood of scam allegations? It also doesn't help that most of those allegations turn out to be true. Then again, I also doubt that targeting the current crypto-crowd would be very beneficial, they probably are long since aware of bitshares, but chose differently.

Then again, I'm most likely completely wrong about the crypto-crowd. Just now I've been reading in shocked horror that the benevolent dicator of Ethereum Vitalik has had a private one-on-one with mister KGB/FSB-himself and that is somehow seen as good news? What the hell is going on? Has everybody gone completely off the deep end? Yep, majority stakeholders in a POS-system now with personal ties to the FSB and banks, what could possibly go wrong?

Sorry for the segway, I just wanted to illustrate my complete lack of ability to judge the crowds and by relation my complete lack of ability to judge marketing.

That's awesome! So let's investigate a bit:

Quote

To learn about my new gaming company go here:
http://consumerreality.services

And according to the webpage their office is located here:

North American Office:
8605 Santa Monica Blvd. #13160
West Hollywood, CA 90069
USA

Google it! And and let me know what you see...

Yeah, not the best first impression. Also the website doesn't instill a lot of confidence so far. No names or people with track records in the gaming industry either, doesn't leave much to go on there.