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 - alphaBar

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 22
1
General Discussion / Re: Default Vote for Core Devs???
« on: January 25, 2015, 04:28:10 am »
We need to be a little patient with this model.

Many devs prefer technical complexity to social complexity.
Asking them to participate in a continuous job interview is asking a lot.

I expect that those of us who enjoy interacting with people are going to have to pitch in and help them out a bit here.  Bytemaster has told us who he would like to have on his team.  He is very, very, very picky.

If we want BitShares to succeed, we won't ask alpha-geeks to perform unnatural acts.

:)

You do realize this is antithetical to the entire premise of being "hired by the blockchain"? In other words you are implying that it is impossible for stake-voters to accurately quantify the value of prospective hirees (because it is an "unnatural act" for devs to effectively market their services to the stakeholders).

2
BitShares PTS / Re: PTS vs BTS Snappshotting
« on: December 27, 2014, 08:52:30 am »
Have the current DPOS-PTS devs stated that they intend to keep it deflationary?

If so that solves it for me. I would buy it for that property regardless of whether it establishes itself as a sharedrop target or not.

Yes, delegates are paid solely in transaction fees (0-100%). A 0% delegate would burn all transaction fees in blocks it produces, thus reducing the total supply. I would personally oppose any form of dilution in PTS, ever.

3
General Discussion / Re: You guys don't understand devshares.
« on: December 27, 2014, 08:47:40 am »
WOW!!!! - That is humongous nail in the alphaBar's coffin  :)

Ask somebody to lock this thread.
I will delete the other(as I started it)!

Oh brother, I guess we can ignore everything bm has ever said that directly contradicts your entire argument (including point #1 "PTS should live on...") because his opinion on a 10% sharedrop differed from ours. Your sensationalism is amusing, but it doesn't change the fact that you're wrong about PTS being "absorbed", "dead", "bought out" and every other mischaracterization of Stan and Dan's words you've made in this thread.

4
General Discussion / Re: Step by step forum updates happening
« on: December 27, 2014, 01:36:51 am »
Get rid of the PTS subforum while you're at it. It no longer is related to Bitshares.

"I don't like this coin so nobody else should either." Your trolling is getting old.

5
General Discussion / Re: You guys don't understand devshares.
« on: December 27, 2014, 12:28:20 am »
[...] I had suggested trying to create a good sharedrop token using PTS, AGS, some BTS and even other projects like NXt, NEM etc. The idea was to pitch a sharedrop token to potential toolkit users which is widely distributed with an united community. Sadly, alphaBar and co looked at it as decreasing their profits and ignored it.

So let me get this straight. I spent countless hours of my own time and money to upgrade PTS for the benefit of all PTS stakeholders. I insist on no pre-mine, no development fund, no tampering with the allocation, and you have the nerve to accuse me of selfishness?? Working for free is now considered "selfish", what a world we live in...

And if leaving the allocation and the social consensus untouched was enough to ignite such a reaction, do you honestly think we would all be able to agree to some arbitrary hodge-podge allocation of random sharedrops to "Nxt, NEM etc."??? Not happening.

The good news for PTS holders is that we have a strong community of dedicated stakeholders, developers, and delegates along with a variety of features that make PTS ideally suited for sharedrop by 3rd party DACs:

* provably fair 100% PoW distribution, no pre-mine
* reference implementation of the BitShares Toolkit
* deflationary DPoS protocol
* a variety of DAC-friendly features in the works, including our new "wallet_import_by_signedmsg" command

For those who are not invested, or who divested recently, it is not too late to diversify your portfolio by owning a little PTS.

6
I was running out of the house when I posted this, so forgive the lack of detail here. What I meant to say is that the forum should be reorganized in a manner that is more consistent with the current structure of our community. Before the merger we had I3, DACSunlimited, and the blockchain. The forum was a Bitshares Toolkit forum primarily directed towards advancing the interests of the Toolkit, and BTSX was just one of many 3rd party DACs built on the Toolkit.

Today, there is no I3 and there is no DACSunlimited. Only the BTS blockchain remains. As a result, this forum is now primarily directed towards the development of the BitShares DAC. I believe the top-level "Discussion" forum should just be renamed to "BitShares" and the "BitShares" subforum should be removed from "Distributed Autonomous Companies". The "Distributed Autonomous Companies" subforum should then be renamed to "Third-party DACs". This will make it clear that this forum is the BTS forum and that other DACs which share a common ancestry with BTS are third party (PTS, Music, Sparkle, etc).

7
General Discussion / Re: You guys don't understand devshares.
« on: December 26, 2014, 11:55:10 pm »
Alphabar using the Bitshares name and I3 social consensus. This just seems wrong to most of us. What Alphabar seeks to create is a kind of universal sharedrop token for any future DAC and that seems like a completely new venture with it's philosophical roots in Sharedrop Theory and not in the old PTS social consensus. Yet he uses the Bitshares name, yet he uses the PTS name, yet he claims the right to market as the preferred sharedrop target for DAC's using the Bitshares Toolkit.

The fact that Devshares effectively "recognized" his claim has only further irked people that feel Bitshares developers are essentially encouraging Alphabar instead of promoting sharedrops to BTS. To be clear, I'm talking about sharedrops from future DAC's that use the Bitshares toolkit (important point).

It is my opinion that if Alphabar would change the name of his DAC and drop the references to being the preferred sharedrop token for DAC's using the Bitshares Toolkit, then all this would go away.

On the other hand if Bytemaster prefers to gift Alphabar the Bitshares name and preferred sharedrop status then that needs to be said as well. Then we can all move on.

Wow, another completely inaccurate characterization. What about Stan and Dan's repeated support of the PTS upgrade over the past weeks? what about TestZ (the custodian of PTS) supporting the upgrade? What about all of the exchanges and services supporting the upgrade? Did I manipulate all of these stakeholders into bending to my will? Absolutely comical that you would frame this as though it was a lone venture. This was a consensus among PTS shareholders, nothing else. Why alphaBar and not TestZ or Stan or Dan or Bter or Poloniex or Coinmarketcap or etc, etc, etc?? You cannot create a story around your own facts, sorry.

And where is this "completely new venture" you speak of? Literally nothing has changed about PTS except the consensus algorithm (and even that was out of pure necessity due to a dying PoW chain). Name one thing, except the DPoS upgrade, that has changed. Did we alter the allocation? No. Did we modify the social consensus? No. Did we change the name? No. Where is this "new venture" that you speak of? The only new venture I see is the attempt that is being made here to twist Dan and Stans prior statements (in one of many early proposals) to make it appear as though it was their position that PTS should die. And no matter how many times they correct this, in this very thread, people continue to promote it as though it is fact. Let me state this for the record again:

* The merger was not intended to kill or absorb PTS. This was confirmed repeatedly by both Stan and Dan.
* Stan and Dan are no longer the official custodians of PTS. They have expressed support for the project, but are not responsible for its continued development.
* The social consensus was not modified by the merger. Even if a DAC intended to create a new or different social consensus, as Dan stated in the Mumble session this morning, the core feature-independent DPoS protocol was funded and supported almost entirely by PTS and AGS investors so it would make sense to sharedrop to that demographic and not BTS. Ultimately, developers will do as they please, but there is a compelling argument to continue the role of PTS and AGS as sharedrop instruments going forward.


8
BitShares PTS / Re: PTS vs BTS Snappshotting
« on: December 26, 2014, 08:47:10 pm »
You can' t say that and also refuse to sharedrop on AGS.

Goodness, just let it go. You don't sharedrop with every hard fork. Only future DACs are sharedropped. PTS is not a future DAC, it is one of two prongs in the social consensus. We've already performed another hard fork after the 12/14 upgrade - should we then sharedrop to AGS again? We are not tampering with the allocation, period.

9
Reserving this spot for a clarification on my comments (no time to do this just now).

10
General Discussion / Re: You guys don't understand devshares.
« on: December 26, 2014, 08:42:16 pm »
Agreed that our PR needs some work. I would ask that a low friction process be implemented, e.g., a committee can be formed as a starting point for potentially sensitive topics (eg, "I'd like to post the following. Please review and raise any concerns within the next 24 hours..."). I'd be happy to participate if requested. As for the concerns about PTS, I'd like to share a point I made in another thread:

PTS is not a competitor to BTS and certainly nobody is "stealing resources" (that's not how open source software works). They are completely different tokens directed towards different applications. BTS is a feature-rich DAC that is intended to disrupt a variety of industries, while PTS is a DAC-agnostic sharedrop token that could never compete with BTS on features or development. No crypto-coin in history has EVER been displaced by a copycat clone or a token with a subset of its features. Other DACs will exist whether we want them to or not. PTS ensures that we get a stake in all of those tokens, many of which will be doing things that BTS doesn't desire to do (see Music for example). It is true that 3rd party DACs (not PTS) will compete with Bitshares and that some of them may be successful despite our wishes. PTS ensures that we own a stake in those tokens too. It is not a zero-sum game. We are not losing anything by holding both the vanilla DPoS sharedrop token (PTS) and the Ferrari of DACs (BTS). Killing one will not increase the value of the other, but having them both will probably lead to some synergy. This is the same reason why Toyota created Lexus, Honda created Acura, etc, etc, etc. They are directed towards different applications (not competitors), and yet they both promote the same underlying technology (DPoS).

11
General Discussion / Re: You guys don't understand devshares.
« on: December 26, 2014, 08:34:08 pm »
Damage control is never fun and not as effective as avoiding the problems in the first place.  But I think the biggest danger right now is people just feel like they are not being heard; they feel like the devs can't seem to understand where they are coming from or don't care.  Some might feel disrespected.  This is a danger because that is when people give up on arguing and just sell (arguing is a lot of work).

So with that in mind, I think making a change now will be a net positive and shows a willingness to listen.  I think even considering that 100% BTS is a change of course for Devshares distribution, it would still have a lot of support.  I think there are other distributions that would have been fine if it was the original plan but I think at this point I would go for simplicity.

From an admittedly biased perspective:

* BTS source includes a ton of functionality that must be pruned out by 3rd parties
* BTS includes functionality that complicates sharedrops (market orders cannot currently be accounted for in a sharedrop).
* Do we want BTS devs spending time on these things, which have no direct benefit for BTS but are rather beneficial for 3rd parties (some of which will compete with BTS)?
* If you are arguing against hasty decision making and lack of consensus building, should we change the current longstanding consensus in favor of a group of people who have miscontsrued & misunderstood Dan's posts to create the FUD in this thread? Or are we better off not introducing yet another potentially harmful change, respecting the originally conveyed message and those who understood it correctly, and avoiding yet another another fallout?
* PTS is not in competition with BTS and serves an entirely different demographic. If Ethereum adopts DPoS they will most certainly not sharedrop to BTS. PTS would be an easier sell in this case.
* Separate nonoverlapping functions here: modular design principles should be used.

There are a million reasons why the social consensus should not be tampered with. A healthy PTS is a net benefit for DPoS and for BTS. Any claims to the contrary are just not supported by any historical precedent.

12
General Discussion / Re: You guys don't understand devshares.
« on: December 26, 2014, 07:36:47 pm »
[...]

Other third parties who consider PTS2.0 crowd's interest is worth acknowledging can acknowledge PTS2.0. For now, to me and it seems a few others, PTS is not what it was - those involved are smaller in number and perhaps include whales that will argue strongly in their own favour. If that is seen not to be the case later, perhaps BTS future DACs can return to dropping on PTS2.0 because it is clear that crowd is beyond what dropping on BTS can do for BitShares' interest. For now though, to my mind, dropping on BTS 100% is at least equal and likely safer and simpler to dropping on BTS+PTS2.0.


Frankly, I don't care beyond having been disappointed that the BTS drop in DevShares didn't seem to show at all. Hopefully, that will be rebooted at some point, that we can all spend time instead testing it to breaking point.

If you continue to make a good case for PTS2.0, then I might return to that. I don't want to suggest it's not possibly useful but atm all interest is in BTS. Show me 3rd party DACs likely to drop and my interest in PTS will evolve..

We should not conflate the upgrade of PTS with the merger. They are unrelated and should be evaluated independently. PTS was upgraded because the old PoW chain was insecure and vulnerable to 51% attack (it was producing about 1 block per DAY). The protocol change was no different than the 10 or so hard forks that BTSX and now BTS have performed to keep their tokens secure and liquid.

Ultimately developers will sharedrop whatever they wish. My opinion is that we, as a community, should continue to support PTS as a sharedrop token and vanilla implementation of DPoS because it contributes to better design and better concentration of our resources. BTS developers can worry about rapid development and not need to think about whether things like having your tokens tied up in a market order will kill your ability to receive a sharedrop, or whether a change to the protocol will make forking the Toolkit more difficult for 3rd party devs. PTS shareholders and devs can accept the burden of these responsibilities and can provide the platform and resources to 3rd parties without being a distraction to the efforts of BTS. From a pure design perspective the separation of these tokens makes logical sense, not to mention that PTS has inherent qualities that can never be replicated or hacked into BTS.

If I had to boil this down to just one philosophical point it would be this: there can never be one blockchain to rule all blockchains. A blockchain like BTS can do MANY things, but it cannot be expected to do ALL things. Aside from the failure of PoW, this is one of the things that Bitcoiners just can't seem to grasp. The analogy of Bitcoin as HTTP is fundamentally flawed. There is very little barrier to entry for other coins, and in fact the infrastructure being built for Bitcoin actually makes adoption of altcoins easier and more likely. The distribution of cryptocurrencies will end up looking similar to modern day credit cards. One will grab a majority of the market share and thousands of others will exist directed towards increasingly niche applications. I think BTS will probably be that one big coin (though I'm probably wrong), but I want this community to have a share in the thousands of other coins underneath it by means of a strong social consensus.

13
General Discussion / Re: You guys don't understand devshares.
« on: December 26, 2014, 06:35:35 pm »

As it happens, it is perhaps good this cloud hangs over DevShares.. and apt, given its purpose. DevShares are of little consequence and it does not matter, so long as everyone with real interest has an option to participate and that requires BTS is acknowledged.


The problem is simply reviving PTS and AGS where the perception had been those were finished with in return for vested shares in BTS.

My thought is that AGS/PTS are acknowledged within BTS but vested; acknowledging those vested shares is not a problem, indeed that would seem appropriate.


So, I would expect widely the reply will be - yes, 100% BTS preferred.. unless you now consider [nullstreet leaders]/[Chinese community leaders]/[core developers] do not have enough support from BTS delegate payments and that only sharedrop to them is useful, in which case I cannot see anyone challenging that. Trying to drop to a few ?insiders who held PTS in the face of what was a clear market drop because of the ~merge to BTS, is odd and appears preferential to those who have PTS still. If there is a clear need to prefer a drop to certain resources like the Chinese or like certain devs, then that's fine - but do it in the open because such moves draw support and acknowledge those in the gesture as well as in its value.

* The fact remains that the social consensus was never eliminated or modified by the merger. What you are proposing is to modify the social consensus based on your personal opinion of the merits of BTS vs PTS as a sharedrop target. Violating the social consensus will not sit well with many people here - especially those who read and understood the intent of the merger as it was written.
* There is heavy overlap in the demographics of BTS and PTS, so honoring one will result in the other being mostly honored as well (indirectly).
* Forking PTS is much easier in its current form.
* Competitors of BTS would never sharedrop to it (think Ethereum), while PTS is a DAC-agnostic token that would be viewed favorably by all future DACs.

These are among the many reasons why the social consensus should not be altered, and especially not because of a distortion or misunderstanding of Stan and Dan's prior statements. The community benefits from continued support of both PTS and BTS as complementary tokens under the umbrella of DPoS.

14
General Discussion / Re: The end of POW approaches...
« on: December 26, 2014, 05:33:57 pm »

Whether or not these are just reflective of the ideas expressed in the proposals, the problem is that myself and I assume many others were under the impression that what the  second sharedrop to PTS and AGS was for was to ultimately buy out PTS and AGS for their features (including having BTS be the new sharedrop target for third parties as well). I was here all through the merger fiasco and not once did I think things would turn out like this, because it wasn't clearly communicated. I can almost guarantee there are many of us who would have strongly opposed the 14% sharedrop inflation to PTS and AGS if we would've known that PTS was gonna continue competing against us and steal resources/spotlight/community etc.

PTS is not a competitor to BTS and certainly nobody is "stealing resources" (that's not how open source software works). They are completely different tokens directed towards different applications. BTS is a feature-rich DAC that is intended to disrupt a variety of industries, while PTS is a DAC-agnostic sharedrop token that could never compete with BTS on features or development. No crypto-coin in history has EVER been displaced by a copycat clone or a token with a subset of its features. Other DACs will exist whether we want them to or not. PTS ensures that we get a stake in all of those tokens, many of which will be doing things that BTS doesn't desire to do (see Music for example). It is true that 3rd party DACs (not PTS) will compete with Bitshares and that some of them may be successful despite our wishes. PTS ensures that we own a stake in those tokens too. It is not a zero-sum game. We are not losing anything by holding both the vanilla DPoS sharedrop token (PTS) and the Ferrari of DACs (BTS). Killing one will not increase the value of the other, but having them both will probably lead to some synergy. This is the same reason why Toyota created Lexus, Honda created Acura, etc, etc, etc. They are directed towards different applications (not competitors), and yet they both promote the same underlying technology (DPoS).

15
I don't like these terms to begin with, but I'd like to share my personal opinion on this because I think the meanings have changed somewhat since the dissolution of I3. In the past, some community members (probably wrongfully) considered I3 to be the only "official" entity. Anything outside of I3, even if it was supported by community consensus would be considered "unofficial" or "3rd party" (to some people).

Things have changed since the merger/dissolution. If you insist upon using the terms "official" and "unofficial", I'd like to propose that going forward you use the term "official" to refer to anything supported by a shareholder consensus of BTS. Anything other than BTS should be tagged as "3rd party" (PTS, Sparkle, Music, etc.) and anything BTS-related that has not gained consensus is "unofficial". I prefer to avoid these terms entirely, but if someone insisted on labeling something as "official" I would point them to the blockchain. Just my 2 bits.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 22