We need to decentralize knowledge.brings me to ask about a wikipedia blockchain!

Besides that, wonderful ideas

more to come today

in excitement :-)

There is no need to do a new snapshot .. the blockchain is fixed and will never contain 'errors' .. its the protocol ..

if sth went wrong, we might need a new genesis block for bts ..

=> There will probably never be a second snapshot for BTS

.. hope you can grap some bounty for your work

Great set of discussions guys!   

Let me add some more thoughts for you to chew on...

• AGS funding ends in July and those funds must support ecosystem infrastructure for the multi-year life cycles of all sponsored DACS.
• For example, the big advertisement blitz for a DAC must happen after it has passed all testing and is considered robust enough for the general public.  Burning those funds now would be wasteful, even counterproductive
• Those who understand the published and oft-repeated game plan ought to be delighted that PTS is on sale now.
• The function of PTS is to build and track interest in future DACs.  We have seen how that works precisely as planned and as publicly predicted.
• PTS will rise and fall again...and again...and again.  Each peak is an exit point for unbelievers.  Each valley is an entry point for new believers and the old faithful.
• The valleys are very bad places to be arguing for us to burn PTS - its when their buying power is the lowest.  The next natural (announced) peak is the Beyond Bitcoin conference in July.  We build to a creshendo there and deploy reinvigorated PTS to get twice as much done.
  
• Invictus has been operating informally in a neutral honest broker mode since the Fourth of July.
• Setting up a formal neutral honest broker entity takes time and regulator approvals but is well underway.
• We have repeatedly said we are building a decentralized industry, not a big company.
• We do not care who develops each DAC.
• It doesn't matter to us whether a DAC or component is developed by an employee, a contractor, a consultant, a bounty hunter, a start-up, or a third party.
• Some good developers don't want the risk of being their own company.  They want the security of being somebody's employee.  So we hire them to give them that security.  Does that make them suddenly ineligible?
• Do you really want to exclude our top talent from working on AGS-funded projects?  Should we hire someone lesser-qualified and make them work as a consultant or bounty hunter instead of as an employee?
• To get risk-averse top talent quit their secure day job to sign on as an employee, they always want to know their job is funded for at least a year, sometimes two.  Should we stop raising funds now and spend all the existing funds in the next six months as some have suggested?  What is our recruiting potential then?
• Most AGS members became that way for one reason:  they trust bytemaster's judgement in evaluating the potential and viability of DACs to be funded.  How would they feel if he turned that duty over to the judgement of others?
• If you want to offer your services as an industry evangelist, start another incubator and convince people you have a better way to run it.  We might even offer to kickstart you. 
• We are eager to fund any competent developer to develop any viable DAC, but the developer must be truly competent, put his own skin in the game, and have an idea better than the ones that are already queued up for development.
• We will gladly fund a qualified and committed 3rd party to build any of the DACs we have already queued up.  You can get to the top of the list and be funded even without having your own idea.  Convince us you can and will deploy something near the top of our queue.
• If we have not sponsored a proposed DAC yet, its because it hasn't crossed that minimum threshold.
• A new developer can get plenty of incentive from the remaining 80% she has to allocate in what she is developing.  Owning PTS and AGS should not be her incentive. Owning shares in her own DAC should be where her heart lies.
• The incentive to honor AGS and PTS holders is independent of actually being an AGS or PTS holder.  The incentive is to attract a community of proven supporters to critique and evangelize what you are doing.  Read the 10 Natural Laws again (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=2876.0).  Those are the incentives that matter.
• How would you suggest we improve on Shark Tank article in the February newsletter?  Does it not meet your goals of building public interest by holding a competition and involving the community at every step in evaluating and selecting a winner?
• Should we fund every DAC that comes along as soon as it is proposed without holding any form of competition?  Do you really want bytemaster not to filter, sort, and rank them?
• Can you make us a list of potential Shark Tank Judges who have consistently demonstrated a clear understanding of all the above considerations?
• Is there another list of those who you would absolutely not want to have involved in making these decisions?  Those who consistently offer non sequiturs and fail to consider the Big Picture?
• Which list is longer?  Do you really want to have the combined members of both lists vote on how the industry's precious resources are deployed?

Thoughts?   

Thanks for cleaning thing up .. need to read this a little more often though ..

 

so it's a problem with the tool. hmm, this messes up my plans.

Sorry to hear that .. but better late than never :-)

Quote from: xeroc on March 05, 2014, 10:38:04 am

about 2014.8

and the snapshot states that you have 2000 exactly?

Jup