Quote from: bytemaster on October 28, 2014, 02:04:08 pm

I take that back, I did vote for them because they had upgraded their clients while others had not.

Yea I figured that was why. A lot of those new delegates aren't publishing feeds though, will you do another voting pass for the upcoming hard fork to promote delegates that will publish feeds? I'll be ready for that one I promise!

Haha, me too.  I'll be double sure in the future to publish my version at the same time I upgrade as well.

Quote from: luckybit on October 25, 2014, 06:39:28 pm

Quote from: gamey on October 25, 2014, 05:37:49 pm

Quote from: Thom on October 25, 2014, 04:59:21 pm

The forum itself doesn't belong on the blockchain, but the intriguing idea is the bundling of the BitShares client with access to this forum.

If our public keys were tied to our forum ID and access to the forum was only through the BTS client, the benefits described by the OP could be realized.

Forums really don't have that much data.  You could also compress to a high degree with known dictionaries if you wanted to be super dev.  You don't need any pictures stored on blockchain.

Other bright technical people are of the mind that we need some complicated storage system first, which means it would be likely well over a year before this would be coded.

If you are going to maintain superDAC then you can just as well have multiple chains by anything I can reason.  One DAC, multiple blockchains.  Some optional etc with slower blocktimes and lower fees.  Reimagine everything, right ?  At least then you can always split them back into their own DACs.

You're right and you never take any consideration to the actual work involved.  You just type up idea after idea after idea... 

We aren't a year away. We are months away. I would say sometime this winter you could do it and likely by Jan.

Storj is already in progress. There are altcoins which are all working on components of it. It really depends on how much priority developers give it.

What do you mean "in progress" ?  I hope all those products that are storage products are "in progress".

What altcoins are doing what ?

Yes, it depends on how much time developers give it and I'm talking about reality and not unrealistically.

How would the superDAC even pay for that storage ?  Cross-chain trading from 2 different families of coins ?

If you believe the Storj guys, the "DriveShare" portion that allows users to rent their diskspace should be in a sort of open beta by early 2015.  The initial Beta for pre-sale participants is beginning imminently.  If you want I can report back how well it appears to work, hopefully if things run smooth they'll be able to have something generally usable by mid 2015.

Though I guess mid 2015 isn't too far off from the year mark.

lol .. thanks @ arhag for pointing it out .. I meant to write lose ..

joke not intended

Ah sorry, it became a sort of meme on the speculation board on bitcointalk due to someone constantly spamming doom and gloom threads always spelling it that way.  Similar to the "hodl" meme.

Personally, I'm for merge if there exists a great benefit. However, my concern is how to abate complains and resists from pre-salers and ptsers. The former group bought Notes at the lowest price so far, but is expecting short-term profit, therefore they will complain about long-term investment in BTS. It is obvious that the latter group will complain about loss if the merger price (or proportion of share) is lower than the price they obtain Notes (which can be roughly calculated with price difference between before and after snapshot).

Agreed.

I'm certain that if that great benefit exists, cob will do what he thinks is best for the DAC.  However a merger will certainly leave some people feeling frustrated.  I'm sure some would be happy to dilute their music investment for the chance to also be invested with all the other features in the multi DAC, however for those that wanted maximum exposure to the business the music side brings, introducing dilution to that for features they are less interested in would feel like a raw deal.

In theory, if a merger happened and theMusic Dapp greatly outperformed all other Bitshares features, Note purchasers would be giving much investment value up to the other BTS holders.  However of course the opposite could happen and those same investors could be saved from losses or lower gains.

I think it's smart for cob and his team to carefully study the pros and cons of a merger before rocking the boat for their current investors.

Quote from: Mars.Walker on October 23, 2014, 09:42:43 am

Quote from: xeroc on October 23, 2014, 09:28:00 am

Just because some methods worked well the last 20 years does not imply they will work well today ..

If you see how many people lost their saving these few days for something that should be handled better,you wouldn't dare to say your way of thinking "works well". It's not even started yet,once word got out "every dirt of Bitshares can easily find it on the forum",major investor would be scared away.

keep in mind,share price\market depth,is the key to hold the BitUSD peg.
Without that, BitUSD would have no liquidity.

And those ordinary folks who trusted the "risk less than bitcoin" to buy into BitUSD,would've lost their money
because of low liquidity in a black swan event that cause the share price to drop rapidly just because of you "like the way" and disregard for image.

You may not have to care about the BTSX price,but you sure should care about how that would affect the BitUSD peg and the future of Bitshares .

To suit your need for "open and active communication on the forum" for 200 or less people,you're essentially putting hundreds of  thousands of people's right at risk, not to mention the future of this business.

You need to think bigger,pinky.....

I agree with that ..
it seems we talked past each other

My issue is,
a) I like BM openly discussing his thoughts in open PROPOSALS
b) I dislike people trading on yet to be finalized proposals and afterwards complaining about their loss - that is in NO WAY the devs fault!
c) I do like open discussions about how to make the future brighter .. call me naive

IMHO this is tough territory .. that's what early investors have to face ..
and that's why they might profit the most from it ..

IMHO we should take these huge steps to improve the system RIGHT NOW .. (read: "as early as possible") ...

Disclaimer: for me .. all of this is a hobby and I am mostly fascinated about the tech .. again .. call me naive .. I know I am ..
further more .. I haven't but serious money in this .. mainly because my wife is not as "brave" (read "stupid" or "naive") .. as I am ..
.. people fearing for their existence due to the recent price drop shouldn't have invested that much in the first place ..

maybe I am talking BS above .. because I am a tech guy, not an investor .. nor an economist ..

I'd hope nobody has invested more than they can afford to lose at this point, though I know that's probably not the case for some.  Ideally most discussions and arguments would academic in nature, but this is a business so I know that's very naive to wish for.

Quote from: amencon on October 25, 2014, 02:08:31 am

Someone did the math in another thread (forget which now) but I believe it was around 100BTS per PTS and 80something per AGS.  I think the higher PTS number was due to not having all 2b mined yet.

The math in real time: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1M65Gt1mFstAgTkECJfUX18f187tGzqJeXT7877qLv-M/edit#gid=0

Nice work, thanks.

One of the main goals of these restructuring is to simplify our company image/message.  The elimination of PTS and AGS is a big part of this objective.  PTS/AGS should be retired or spun-off.  If spun off, there should be no assoication with "Bitshares" after the restricting is complete.  Bitshares' commitments to AGS/PTS has been fulfilled with the 7% (really 10%) allocation in the new BTS DAC.

Disclosure: I currently hold significant interests in PTS.

Even as someone who liked the old paradigm, we are essentially starting over with a new plan.  If a big driver in that decision was to simplify then I think that should be pursued fully rather than some hybrid system that will leave nobody satisfied.

I agree that Bitshares should reference a single DAC and should be dropped from future DACs developed.

@amencoin & Bitshatking

please stop this ridiculous quarell... One has the great passion and almost religious belief in BTS, tries to rally the troops behind the leaders.
this is very different to what another one who is critical thinker hopes for. Please just agree to disagree based on completely different backgrounds, cultures, characters, and approaches. Just agree to do your best for the advancement of the project, and listen to feedback from the community and developers with regards to the usefullness of your actions.

@Bitshatking - I don't think amencoin is a traitor, there is no reason to blame that. Even though you are very energetic in your backing of Bitshares leaders, also 3I is learning from community input and constructive criticisms. perhaps it would be wiser for you to soften your communication somewhat.

Bitshares United!

You got it kisa, I'm done, thanks.