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 - JoeyD

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ... 31
256
General Discussion / Re: Secure Payments to Users by Name
« on: May 26, 2014, 09:21:53 am »
Quote from: cassiopaia on May 26, 2014, 06:53:08 am
Quote from: jae208 on May 26, 2014, 05:43:54 am
We should also have something called 'Darkshares'  8)
Maybe people are attracted to the Dark...

yes people are attracted maybe .. but i'm not a friend of this kind of shady names

TITAN sounds epic :)
I agree, I also like the implied connotation of attempting to challenge the gods instead of the hiding in the shadows one when using the dark-adjective. Dark and black are mostly used for things people know nothing about or are uncertain of, so to me it sounds more like a label of weakness or incompetence.

257
General Discussion / Re: Siren Music
« on: May 24, 2014, 08:48:18 pm »
I do not agree with the notion that it would have been better to release bitsharesX on old technology and then slowly try to catch up with all the better, faster newer stuff like Ripple, Nxt and others, while simultaneously having to support, bugfix and upgrade the old crud. I do not see how that would have been faster, cheaper or easier let alone better for the bitshares reputation.

Developing a blockchain toolkit that can at the very least compete with the newest technologies out there and then building stuff on top of that, is a sound strategy even if several of the DACs fail. Why should you not at least aim to compete with the best and fastest solutions?

Btw, why would making a pow-blockchain version of the bitsharesX-concept be faster? Listening to the uploaded dev-hangout podcast did not leave me with the impression that a pow-version was easier or faster to develop than a dpos-one. Even simply implementing a bitcoin core full node with new code has not been particularly fast by any metric, so why would it magically be any different for bitshares? Just looking at the alt-coins forked of the bitcoin clones and how they lack any real profound alterations or upgrades, to me suggests that it is not the best base for a DAC-toolkit.

258
General Discussion / Re: Siren Music
« on: May 24, 2014, 08:17:28 pm »
I was always under the impression that AGS was a Kickstarter like fundraiser to get some technology off the ground and developed, I also don't understand why people saw it as a speculation tool, nor that it would give them decision-making rights. If the community would be in charge of decision making on technical subjects I would not have donated anything at all and that is not because I have blind faith or other such bunk, but because I'm a vehement disbeliever in the viability of design by committee.

Unfortunately the spreading of panic and public outcries might help set a trend and scare future projects away from going this route. Unrealistic expectations and inexperience with the risks, failures and delays that are usual in completely new and experimental ideas and technology plus the enormous amount of miscommunication trying to interact with a crowd, makes crowdfunding look like more hassle than it's worth. Especially when compared to going with VCs who have more funds, the experience, extra know-how and contacts and less personalities to interact with. I know a lot of companies that have done their own Kickstarter who are consequently no longer interested in doing another one.

What I expect some other projects (outside of bitshares) will be doing, or are in fact already doing, is getting behind the scenes VC-funding and only doing a public crowdsourcing-look-a-like as part of their marketing when distributing their coins as a ready to market product. I really hope I'm wrong about this, because I'd like to see decentralized fund-raisers get more traction.

259
LottoShares / Re: Honoring AGS
« on: May 24, 2014, 06:30:56 pm »
Sorry everyone, I made a mistake when replying to this thread. Posting rushed messages in my spare minutes does more harm than good. I was under the impression it was discussing AGS shares distribution in general and did not see the subforums this was posted under. So if a mod could delete my posts that would be nice, unless nobody thinks they are disrupting the discussion.

Is there a topic discussing the arguments that would make someone chose a certain distribution and what motives would force the adherence to the social contract? So for example an btc-upgrade DAC to dpos would not need to issue shares to AGS/PTS, because of the massive marketing effect it would have for DPOS and the collective holdings of PTS and AGS in general. Other DACS would issue shares to PTS and AGS according to their requirement of cooperation and support from Invictus and the founding community. Something along those lines.

260
Beyond Bitcoin [closed] / Re: Submit Questions for 24 May 2014 "Dev Voice Hangout" @ 11AM EST At this Link:
« on: May 24, 2014, 10:20:21 am »
Thanks for the heads up clout, I'll try to read those links and redouble my efforts to actually attend one of these mumble-hangouts.

Something always seems to come up, which is a shame, because it is a great opportunity to get some feedback directly from Dan Larimer. Does anybody know how much time there is for though community questions? Judging from the recent forum-hubub there seem to be quite a few questions and concerns that get people all fired up and it might be a good place to address at least some of them.

261
LottoShares / Re: Honoring AGS
« on: May 23, 2014, 09:37:33 pm »
Quote from: JakeThePanda on May 23, 2014, 09:09:00 pm
I'm sorry for your situation, but it's certainly not your place to judge anyone for wanting to make profits from their investments, especially when we are investing in DACs.  Last time I checked, the whole idea behind them was to make profits for the coin holder.  I will give you one chance to respond and we should end the derail.  Good luck!
Oh I see what you mean. The thing about my situation wasn't to gain empathy, but actually my attempt to explain that I wasn't trying to force my view on others.  I was trying to illustrate why I might have a different perspective and that that might make me miss points that are important to people with different goals, to prevent miscommunication. .

I completely agree with DACs adding value to the coin holders and was not trying to take away from that concept at all. But we were talking about ways to distribute those coins and which distributions would be available to DAC-developers, in order to give his DAC and the participants therein the most value. So I myself and I suspect TonyK as well, were also considering situations with no shares distributed to PTS and/or AGS and I don't think those options should be left outside of the discussion.

262
LottoShares / Re: Honoring AGS
« on: May 23, 2014, 08:51:05 pm »
Quote from: JakeThePanda on May 23, 2014, 08:33:06 pm
You should donate all the DAC shares your AGS are owed to the development of decentralized stuff.
I had indeed planned to donate all proceeds from any successful project (I have also invested outsided of bitshares) to the cause(s) I deem worthy. This does mean I'm not prepared to abscond my rights to the ags-shares, because I want to direct those donations myself. I am not in it for the money (sofar I'm only losing money), although I will use some of it if I need it to ensure at least my short term survival. This is easy for me to say however, because my particular health situation and statistical analysis of similar cases, both of which have made money practically meaningless to me. (Before you ask, no I'm not willing to give it away)

263
LottoShares / Re: Honoring AGS
« on: May 23, 2014, 08:22:41 pm »
Quote from: tonyk on May 23, 2014, 07:14:33 pm
As of today I have about 3.65x more AGS than PTS as pure # of shares,(which as of right now is  even bigger % of total AGS/PTS respectively, and will be ~3x  at the final numbers (1.65Mil PTS and 2 mil AGS). So my interest is AGS is to be honored… but I am just stating what is the logical step for a DAC developer.

I have to admit it is one of the things I was somewhat curious about as well. Since my motivation for donating seems to differ a bit from others, I haven't really taken my time to think about the social concensus part or share distribution. I don't even know how much shares I'm supposed to get. I just wanted to support the development of as many competing chains and blockchain ideas as possible and I abhor the single-central-blockchain ones and especially the ones trying to pull everyone together in the same sphere of influence.

To be brutally honest I wouldn't mind at all if people did start competing with Invictus at their own game and fork the code and experiment with the technology on their own terms. I'm not a fan of the central point of failure model at all, but for now I don't see many other options. Rationally I'd expect people only to buy "shares" in DAC-chains that they are interested in after those DACs are up and running and only for as long as they have a use for it.

It is probably bad of me, but I might as well be upfront with it, eventhough it will hurt my interests plenty, but seeing people expecting to get rich of other peoples efforts by claiming and monopolizing a stake, instead of wanting to use the new DACs, end up with nothing would actually make me feel a whole lot better about the world. It might even instill in me a little confidence that out of all the crypto-blockchain-experiments something might emerge that could actually work, but for now I am not convinced. So from my point of view I don't even see why DAC developers would owe PTS anything and I'm not convinced that pump and dump speculators are even interested in decentralized companies/applications/collaborations and their uses in the first place.

264
LottoShares / Re: Honoring AGS
« on: May 23, 2014, 06:33:06 pm »
Quote from: tonyk on May 23, 2014, 06:03:50 pm
Quote from: toast on May 23, 2014, 02:26:25 pm
Very cool! Good job. Thoughts:
...
3) Not honoring AGS
 

Quote from: toast on May 23, 2014, 04:02:03 pm
#3 - please consider AGS! It makes the difference between begrudging and enthusiastic support from the bitshares community. I think the community support may be worth taking 1/4th of the planned dev premine.

It is funny how smart people like Nicokai ( **toast**) can easily be lead into wrong thought process and believes.

Here is the simple truth:
Invictus came and said –“The social consensus is AGS should be honored at least 10%”
-First it is not a social consensus it is just private party saying something (i.e. there is no consensus)

-Second it is pretty contradictory/illogical statement – donate X amount to us/me, and expect somebody else to give you shares for this gesture.

-Third, I3 took the AGS money and said they will use it to develop the DAC industry, instead later on they said – “Now that we have the money, we will keep them AS A BACK UP for our salaries for 12 mo.” Even that in those 12 mo. the donor/investors expect(ed) a lot of DACs coming and producing money for those developers salaries…

-Forth, The only logical reason left  to honor AGS holders is for marketing purposes. But this audience is already reached by honoring PTS. There is a very small % of people donating to AGS only through BTC. More than 90% of AGS donors do it through some combination of BTC and PTS (The only notable exception I am aware of is Agent86 who does not have PTS account..., but then again I do not think Agent86 is a real person but rather a second  internet/forum handle  for a real person)

How did you come to that conclusion about the 90% AGS donators having as much if not more PTS? Not that I'm particularly notable, but I invested through AGS with btc because I thought btc would keep it's value more than PTS and did not see how buying PTS would help pay for development in any way. I do have a pts-wallet and some pts though, but not nearly as much as in ags.

While I agree with your assessment that you can't force people to issue shares, just looking at the 15% pts community response, I'd venture to guess that not honoring ags may not be the best marketing move ever and that looks an awful lot like a social discontentment/consensus contract to me. In the short term I don't see much wriggling room for dac-share-issuers.

265
General Discussion / Re: Siren Music
« on: May 23, 2014, 04:21:46 pm »
MoLonLabe not only am I worried about the points you listed, but I could even add a whole lot more, so I personally welcome the discussion of your points. Quite a few of your points have come up several times, but often on unrelated topics and have gotten buried since.

For convenience sake would it be possible to split your points up in separate threads, because you've listed quite a large number of different topics that might make the discussion more confusing rather than enlightening. Maybe one for each number or main point of critique?

First off, I have a bit of a different take on point 3. I do not agree that bitcoin was written by a genius programmer (doesn't mean he wasn't a genius in many other areas) and fixing that apparently takes quite the army of genius coders and a lot of time and effort. This sort of makes the case for the need to at least try to do the coding right from the start. As for big name supervision, I was under the impression that the person who has discovered most of bitcoins fundamental bugs was also asked to vet the bitshares code.

One of the biggest issues in my point of view (second only to the quality of the code produced by the invictus-team) is that the community- and informationmanagement has not been and still isn't at the level it should be, neither on this forum nor on the website. I don't know all the details why that is, but I do know that it isn't being done as well as other open-dev communities are doing it, like for example blender.org, raspberrypi.org etcetera.

Instead of trying to sell a consumer-product, I think the focus should be on the community first and foremost and I do believe a part of that responsibility lies with Invictus. I personally don´t care about any fancy website, but would like to see something like a blog regularly updated with the more elaborate updates and explanations, a central stickied post on the forum with a todolist, listing what has been done and what needs to be done and things that would be nice to be able to do. That thread with the todolist could maybe also list why some choices had to be scrapped or changed and why delays have occured.

Just those two central points of reference would make finding correct information a whole lot easier imho and maybe help foster more discussion like this thread. Having no real central easy to browse point of information and history also leads to confusion and rumors like the one about the "choice for dpos", because now it looks like Invictus just randomly choose to go with dpos over pow which is not what happened.

Btw I myself don't see pow as any less experimental as (D)PoS. To me pow is not a proven concept at all and also not the guaranteed solution to all things as I have seen some people suggest. Hell I doubt even Dr. A. Back is that much of a believer in it. But then again I might be even more critical about the chances of success for the entire blockchain ecosystem than you are MoLoLabe.

I've run out of time and have to run, so I hope you don't take my not responding to all your points as a token of ill will or any of the other original and very creative interpretations and assumptions about all members of the forums. I'm just one individual and I do not represent the entirety of the bitshares-community if such a thing is even possible.

266
General Discussion / Re: Rest in Peace, DA
« on: May 22, 2014, 09:46:34 pm »
Quote from: Simeon II on May 22, 2014, 08:58:51 pm
“What part you do not get?”

I am in no way a god (like Zeus), neither play one (like Stan), so here are some of the things I do not get:

-How 15% dilution after/through 3 years is the same as 15% dilution right now?

-For what reason Invictus should be the owner of said 300K dilution shares.

-How do you ‘good I3 dogs’ think that somebody who has spent, 23K $ for this website: [http://bitshares.org/] will do a great job with the 1 mil of advertising money.



Other concerns here: [link]
Good I3 dogs, eh, if someone is not convinced of your opinion you start calling them names?

Are you even interested in having a conversation and hearing other points of view or not? Nothing is set in stone, no decision has been made yet and nobody was saying Invictus should receive the pts-stake, at least I wasn't.

I've collected my responses in a single post here and I even proposed a good place to spend those 15% coins.

Short version: dpos is now close to operational for the simpler DACS like bitsharesME/DNS/Lotto and PTS. For those new DACs we need a working PTS-chain. PTS needs to be upgraded via hard fork. But if bitshares does not chose to upgrade to dpos now with pts, what kind of message would that send out to the world? They need to upgrade to dpos or lose credibility, so why not now? Switching to proof of stake means that the total amount of coins has to be there from the start, distributing via mining is no longer an option. So now Invictus was asking for suggestions on what to do with those remaining 15% coins, they did not suggest to keep it for themselves.

As for your 15% dilution of PTS, I say you got a free ride on the toolkits and DACS whose development was paid for by AGS-donators and not pts-speculators. You have received way more in value than the percentage amount you are focusing on is telling you. Also because of the AGS donations also by pts-owners, current PTS-holders can no longer fairly claim the right to the remaining 15%.

I agree with you that marketing and websites and even communication and pr have not been handled the best it could have. And like you I also want transparency in expenditures and make sure nobody is running of with the money or not doing the job they are paid for.

However the main goal imo was the development of a toolkit that could enable anyone to go toe to toe with NXT, Ripple, Ethereum you name it even compete with other bitshares chains. You can today run the working test-network with this new and improved dpos system that should be able to compete with all the current tech and that is worth a lot more than 25k and I even venture a lot more than PTS and AGS combined.

Do people realize the idea was not to create a sit on your ass and get rich scheme? DACs will take actual work from the people involved and we have only just started paying for some of the tools. But building the roads and driving the cars will be up to the participants and that will require a lot more funding than the pocket change AGS-funds and PTS-marketcap.

267
General Discussion / Re: Against PTS2 (naming) and Using the fund in marketing
« on: May 22, 2014, 08:40:17 pm »
Quote from: mess on May 22, 2014, 01:04:25 am
2. It is not DESIGN FLAW of Bitcoin! It's only a matter of implementation. If you guys implement PTS as dynamic difficulty adjustment (like some other altcoins did), PTS wouldn't be like this today. But you are blaming Bitcoin! WTF! DPOS hasn't been proven to work yet! Stan, you're acting like Mark Karpeles here (blaming Bitcoin for transaction malleability).

I'm not trying to make light of your concerns or your other points, but in your quote you actually prove Stans point as the truth. If it is a matter of implementation it really is a design flaw and this flaw actually needs a hard fork as well, contrary to the malleability Karpeles fiasco (transaction malleabillity btw is still not really fixed and how long has that been on the todolist, so even that bug supports Invictus claims of bugs and development taking time). Hard forks are not easy and would require time and effort from the bitshares team at the cost of using that time and effort for the products you actually want. I don't believe you are interested in a better PoW-PTS all that much.

There also seems to be this rumor going around that PoW would have worked for bitsharesX and that the reason bitsharesX is late is because Daniel stubbornly wanted to go with PoS. The one who told you that rumor was lying to you. PoW was not a viable option for a prediction market and could not be fixed. PoW is not as "proven" as a one size fits all solution as many seem to think and does not magically make all things possible or easier to develop. I'm not saying that dpos is not experimental, but that doesn't make PoW better or faster in any way.

The simple basic version of bitsharesXT(est) that they expected to be able to release at the announced time had previously undiscovered flaws and was nowhere near as fully featured as the current version in development. Even if things had gone the way you expected and the basic network would have theoretically gone live at that time, then that would still mean invictus would have had to maintain and deliver support for that crappy version, while simultaneously still needing to develop the exact same thing they are doing now, plus design a hard-fork upgrade path to that new version. Even in that ideal theoretical world it would have resulted in a lot more problems with a far inferior product for a far longer period in time.

268
General Discussion / Re: Delegated Proof of Stake (DPOS) White Paper
« on: May 22, 2014, 08:00:59 pm »
Quote from: MolonLabe on May 22, 2014, 07:54:41 pm
Quote from: bytemaster on May 22, 2014, 07:11:00 pm
Quote
2] You go back in time, and build a large fake chain which ONLY contains a new series of transactions, all of them from address A to other addresses for which you have the private key.
3] You use these transactions to elect an entirely new set of 100 delegates (as you control the only votes). This may not be possible quickly, but when you cant, you simply claim that the other delegates (who aren't here) failed to sign your block (and disqualified them). For a while, there might be only 3 delegates actually signing on this chain, but you quickly establish 100.

This is not possible, someone with a minority of shares cannot elect 100 delegates.  All shares are voting for someone at some time.  You can change your vote, but not create new votes.   End result is that if you control 10% of the shares, you can only effect 10% of the delegate selection and thus your secret chain would only ever be able to produce 1/10 of the blocks of the public chain.

I don't have a minority, I have all the votes, don't I?
You only got the votes in your separate private chain though, the rest of the network probably would not accept you alternate reality, provided it doesn't go back all the way to the genesisblock.

Or are you talking about isolating unsupecting people in your alternate reality, that would require quite a bit of control over network connections as well, but would not affect the main network I suspect.

269
General Discussion / Re: BitShares PTS2 - Community Input Thread
« on: May 22, 2014, 07:49:35 pm »
Quote from: jae208 on May 22, 2014, 07:44:16 pm
Quote from: betax on May 22, 2014, 04:48:13 pm
FundShares distribution of PTS + AGS should be equal, ie: 8 million of FundShares = 4 million PTS + 4 million AGS.

It would be better if we actually had some sort of product released instead of trying to rename and redistribute things..
Did you not realize it is the exact same thing? For the release of the products we need a proper functioning PTS, because that is part of the deal. The renaming and redistribution is for the product to be released. Hard-forking or replacing PTS with DPoS is faster than the release of bitsharesXT or DNS or Lotto. Only bitsharesME can probably be released earlier and even that needs a proper working and clearly chosen PTS-chain.

270
General Discussion / Re: BitShares PTS2 - Community Input Thread
« on: May 22, 2014, 07:41:51 pm »
Quote from: jae208 on May 22, 2014, 06:57:22 pm
Quote from: Stan on May 22, 2014, 04:22:54 am
Wow, I wonder why PTS is up 31.6% on coinmarketcap.com?

Back in the Top Ten!

Any theories?

Maybe because Bitcoin and just about everything else on coinmarketcap has gone up?
Maybe, some people having to pay some ridiculous tax on expected interest on savings(that they already have had to pay a heavy tax on in the first place), many times higher than what banks actually pay in interest, which is already way below inflation, meaning they are effectively not being taxed a percentage of the interest but a multiple factor of the actual interest on top of losing money to inflation?  Or is that not a big enough target audience to explain the rise in crypto? If not, then it's probably due to the weather.

Quote from: gamey on May 22, 2014, 07:34:03 pm

Just abandon PTS in its mining form.  Talk to the pools, have them shutdown.  Officially drop all support for the POW PTS.  It will no longer be a Bitshares product.  By adding yet ANOTHER currency all you've done is made even more for people to keep up with and comprehend.  That is already part of I3s problem. BitsharesME, BTS X, AGS, PTS, etc.  Now we get FounderShares !?  Why not just keep protoshares ?  By renaming it to Foundershares you've just added confusion and kept the window open for someone to go around hustling the old PTS chain to rubes.  You will have that problem regardless, but you can mitigate as strongly as possible if you get 1 I3 employee with a high visibility go to every exchange that has PTS and every mining pool and explain to them the hard fork going on. 

People in the cryptoworld have been burned by hard forks before.  This is nothing new.  If I want to use an old client I can generate orphaned blocks all day on numerous currencies. 

PTS1 and PTS2 is the same as renaming it Foundershares.  Just a bad idea.  Keep it simple.  By renaming it you leave ambiguity towards the original PTS.  THis is nothing more than a hard fork and has been done countless times elsewhere.  Don't reinvent the wheel on this process.  Please.

Also, give some of the money to the guys who have been mining PTS at a loss while keeping the network slowly moving along.  They if anyone clearly deserve some portion of this 300k odd PTS.
Thanks for the support gamey and I am indeed losing money in electricity to keep up 1.2 - 2.4% of the network (hashpower estimate swings around wildy).

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ... 31

Page created in 0.024 seconds with 23 queries.