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 - carpet ride

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 37
1
General Discussion / Re: The Benefits of Proof of Work [BLOG POST]
« on: January 06, 2016, 12:37:45 am »
fyi social media buttons on the blog, at least Twitter, is not working :)

works for me

hmmm .. comes up for me with no link just text

2
General Discussion / Re: The Benefits of Proof of Work [BLOG POST]
« on: January 05, 2016, 12:32:11 pm »
fyi social media buttons on the blog, at least Twitter, is not working :)

3
I may be wrong, but the main issue here is that this asset compromises the integrity of the refer program.

This idea feels ike a shot in the dark but maybe it will inspire someone smarter than I to complete the idea.

  • If applications could set their own fees (blockchain + application fee), then the FBAs would be less of a divisive issue.

EG Moonstone charges $1.50 for the blockchain fee and $1.50 for their own profits.  = $3.00 fee.    This way we could still make room for the referrer to get involved and keep the integrity of the program.  The application (e.g. moonstone or openledger) can increase their transaction fee to make margin available for referrers. 

4
General Discussion / Re: New Stealth Transfer Worker ($1000)
« on: December 18, 2015, 10:22:16 pm »
Will I have to pay the new and improved stealth fee for stealth transfers made through the CLI?

I think I should not. I have this feature now, and I will see the 45K as a bribery so this feature is stolen from me (and the rest of BTS holders) and sold to the  highest bidder.

Bad precedent all around.

Great point if this is changing the blockchain code.

I posit that if applications could charge *ABOVE* blockchain fees, then it would be no issue and would give the applications more freedom.

5
General Discussion / Re: BTSwolf.com General Thread
« on: December 17, 2015, 11:50:38 pm »
really appreciate your help.
So what about this one?
...

Requesting permission to use the image for a document am working on.

Regards
feel free to use it

Very nice.  Only one thought that stands out to me could be that marketers attract shareholders and also *users* maybe? not everyone will end up a shareholder necessarily.  Although any user is necessarily invested in the systemic success of the platform, so maybe every user is a shareholder by some token. Let me know your thoughts.

6
General Discussion / Re: New Stealth Transfer Worker ($1000)
« on: December 17, 2015, 09:38:05 am »
I think that CNX would beat him to market by a long shot, and his technology, coming out later, would have to be better and/or less expensive to gain traction, right?

Is there a plan for promoting your FBA?

7
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: GUI development worker - svk
« on: December 16, 2015, 12:30:18 am »
Great initiative. Thank you and  +5%

8
General Discussion / Re: Sneakers
« on: December 15, 2015, 12:04:06 am »
"The Stock Market of Things" could be a killer tagline for Bitshares. Maybe better than "Decentralized Exchange."  Kudos to this guy for coining it.

9
General Discussion / Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
« on: December 13, 2015, 06:12:23 pm »
Thx [member=448]Xeldal[/member] and [member=40079]yvv[/member] for your replies to my confusion. Your replies do help.

4. Are the fees generated from FBAs standalone, or is the 20% that goes to the network eligible for the refer program to also gain from the features? My concern is that larger and larger portions of the eco-system develop and what the refer program claims to offer starts to become less true as what refers can earn becomes marginalized against all the other areas of Bitshares where transactions are occurring.

I'm not sure if this is a bad thing. The purpose of referral program is to get more users. If we get more users more effectively with FBAs we don't have a need for a referral program.

I have nowhere seen the discussion or rationale about 80/20 split.  Is it fair for the network
and shareholders ? Why not 90/10 or 50/50 ? Who sets ten numbers ? Should not this be
discusses or voted first what is fair for the network and for FBA holders ? Because
this percentage splits will be set forever !

Agree with these concerns.  Also concerning is that there is no business plan, especially in the case of the STEALTH asset.  With no business plan results will be disappointing and may cause shareholders to take measures that circumvent that FBA.  I see infighting in our future if profits for bts holders are not generously shared and if marketing is not well incentivized.

This again? C'mon, go back and read the thread. Stan addressed the reason for the 80 / 20 split. In essence, it has become the "traditional" split for most efforts around here, like the referral program. I see this objection as just cloaked envy.

As to "no business plan", that is a valid concern, but nothing new around here. Most everything done around here is fly by night / seat of the pants, without market research, prototypes or the usual planning that goes into most business ventures. It's entrepreneurship, but with more risk and speculation. Lots more intuition and guesswork.

We wouldn't want to feel married to a feature if it doesn't successfully drive revenue.  If the FBA holder does not hold up his end of the bargain, which is driving transaction growth, shareholders and entrepreneurs will be inclined to circumvent, steal or compete with the feature.

I may be off base --- how married are we to this entrepreneur / feature if it's implemented?

10
General Discussion / Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
« on: December 13, 2015, 05:38:31 pm »
4. Are the fees generated from FBAs standalone, or is the 20% that goes to the network eligible for the refer program to also gain from the features? My concern is that larger and larger portions of the eco-system develop and what the refer program claims to offer starts to become less true as what refers can earn becomes marginalized against all the other areas of Bitshares where transactions are occurring.

I'm not sure if this is a bad thing. The purpose of referral program is to get more users. If we get more users more effectively with FBAs we don't have a need for a referral program.

I have nowhere seen the discussion or rationale about 80/20 split.  Is it fair for the network
and shareholders ? Why not 90/10 or 50/50 ? Who sets ten numbers ? Should not this be
discusses or voted first what is fair for the network and for FBA holders ? Because
this percentage splits will be set forever !

Agree with these concerns.  Also concerning is that there is no business plan, especially in the case of the STEALTH asset.  With no business plan results will be disappointing and may cause shareholders to take measures that circumvent that FBA.  I see infighting in our future if profits for bts holders are not generously shared and if marketing is not well incentivized.

11
Muse/SoundDAC / Re: Creative people! BRANDING FUN TIME
« on: December 13, 2015, 03:06:44 am »
Swingset

12
General Discussion / Re: Why Cryptocurrencies Matter
« on: December 12, 2015, 05:22:32 pm »
Great talk, Charles.

I think one of the best things is how you engage bitcoiners.  Somehow you keep everybody in the room happy even though many of the solutions you allude to circumvent the bitcoin holy water.

On a much more general note, and I stage this for everybody, Charles' allusions to negative relationships with bitshares and lack of mentions of its problem solving strategies that seemingly would have blended tremendously with the talk possibly speak generally to Bitshares' PR problem. Charles has a very strong working knowledge of bitshares yet must avoid speaking positively about it.  It's an awful quandary in my opinion.

I am in the camp that PR and marketing may be best served at the application level by entrepreneurs, but none the less, I am certain it would be valuable to have a world-class CS and blockchain guy like Charles speaking positively and guiding devs and entrepreneurial, interested and bright folk to the project.

After finishing the video, my predominant thought was to have the blockchain pay a high-profile and very knowledgeable guy such as Charles to speak and do Q&A at these types of conferences.  Some shareholders fret about about paying for marketing, but with escrow based on proof of performance it could be handled in a measurable way by a trusted team such as Bunker Chain Labs.  It would also be a very nice demonstration of a Smart Contract :) 

Does anyone agree bitshares would benefit from some public face driving entrepreneurs and devs to the platform? Or are there better avenues?

13
Meta / Guests
« on: December 12, 2015, 01:12:54 am »
89 guests on the forum right now. .... how many are real people?

14
I fully support this proposal.

I am disappointed by the one dimensional thinking that seems to surround arguments around the entrepreneur profiting from its development.

Everyone seems to not realize that if you want to have a similar feature to profit from you can certainly spend the money to have it done and profit it from it for yourself.

I think this is where the 'something for nothing' argument comes from. If you really are serious about wanting to profit from a feature like this, you can certainly have a competing feature that does so.

Just to weigh in on this numbers debate. Once again, it assumes only one option will ever exist. It also assumes massive growth from where we are now, and that every transaction will be stealth. So I tend to agree it's weighing on the lala land side of having any semblance of accuracy as far as projections go. I believe there is a higher probability it will take him years to recover just his investment.

+5%  We're in the free market now, boys.

15
Very cool feature.

One question though.  What does CNX need to make this a success? 

Let's say a big BTC market maker became interested and wanted to partner with CNX on this feature .. would that add value?  Or maybe I should rephrase .. will this feature incent CNX to actively pursue market makers

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 37