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 - amatoB

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
46
Muse/SoundDAC / Re: Website name. Brainstorming
« on: May 02, 2014, 03:14:06 am »
"Canary" has grown on me... it seems quite good for a front-end website. Probably hard to go really wrong with it.

How about "Songster"? It's an actual word in the dictionary.

Maybe worth considering ancient Greek names too, in the same vein as Pandora, Sirius, etc.


47
Muse/SoundDAC / Re: Website name. Brainstorming
« on: April 29, 2014, 02:17:08 pm »
Here's the thing. We want a title that is broad enough to cover all types of music, all types of artists, including even jazz, classical, etc.

Also, ideally the name would have only two syllables.

My suggestions as of now, in no particular order (some of these were posted before by others):

SoundCloud
SoundShell
MuseCloud
CloudMuse
CloudVibe
BitSound
BitVox
BitMuse
ShareVox
ShareMuse
Cloudbass

48
Muse/SoundDAC / Re: Website name. Brainstorming
« on: April 29, 2014, 04:20:47 am »
Sorry, just felt I had to chime in here.
With all due respect to Toast or whomever, "upnote" is too staid and boring. Not edgy or catchy enough. It makes one think of office supplies, or greeting cards, or word processing software, something like that. C'mon, guys... we need to swing for the fences and get a name that is truly worthy of a huge market opportunity. Ideally, the name would be able to hold its own alongside the likes of "twitter", "myspace", "facebook"...

49
Muse/SoundDAC / Re: Website name. Brainstorming
« on: April 28, 2014, 05:14:52 am »
ShareVibe, or Sharevibe

50
Does someone have a reasonable explanation why at least 45-70% of all PTS are not in the AGS fund?

Personally, I've never understood AGS well enough. It's not been made obvious that PTS can be converted to AGS.

If the idea of future DACs honoring AGS/PTS is proven and it's clear that benefit you suggest would continue, then perhaps swapping to AGS would be attractive. Perhaps if another snapshot deadline is looming a push for this would go down well.

Jumping extra hoops, and contending with whatever the changing balance of AGS/PTS is, is off putting. I expect I'm more likely to see PTS for sale than AGS, so keeping everything PTS is simple. Also, if some PTS holders switched to AGS, would PTS value not fall?.. Perhaps AGS offers an option to those unfamiliar with cryptocurrencies but I wonder having everyone in one flavour of holding would be easier to understand.

Maybe in future if change to a simple PoS is required to avoid issues with the PoW PTS, perhaps both AGS and PTS can just have that PoS instead - perhaps coupled with a default inflation that doesn't require a server to action, just every account gets interest - or perhaps that is the effect that AGS achieves already??


Perhaps the seemingly low exchange ratio between PTS and AGS can be partly explained by the option value and flexibility of PTS with respect to timing of donation. Even if a PTS holder doesn't donate to AGS today, they have the flexibility to do so tomorrow, or the day after, or the day after that... That is to say, if the exchange terms for donating could be almost as good tomorrow, or even better, why jump into donating right away? Indeed, it'll be more surprising if exchange rates stay low throughout the entire remainder of the donation period.

51
General Discussion / Re: You should read this
« on: April 12, 2014, 07:43:53 pm »
Your heart is in the right place. Sorry, but mine isn't. I think the whole point of air-dropping is to get this thing going in a hurry (a jump-start, if you will). Dumping to foundations, etc. is unlikely to have the same effect. We need people who will spend, invest more, and start using the Bitshares ecosystem. I would argue that we need to find the fastest route to making this the #1 or #2 crypto (by market cap) and that is dropping to people who are more profit-minded and knowledgeable about cryptos. In other words, the holders and users of bitcoin or alt coins. Charities are just going to sell it first chance they get, if indeed they know what to do with it. I say get rich first, then give it away to charities.

This depends on which sort of charity you give it to. If you give it to charities who don't understand technology then of course they'll sell it. Some charities understand technology as well as any of us and already accept Bitcoin. Find the charities which accept Bitcoin endowment and aren't immediately cashing that out, those are the charities you should target.

There are actually plenty of people doing things which involve extremely high technology but which is public funded. I also think the idea to help people who lost to MtGox is a good idea.

It's also a good idea to give to journalists who write good stories explaining DACs or Bitcoin 2.0 technology. Award people for doing good for the community even if they do good by accident or as part of their job. If they have a Bitcoin address and are a journalist who has been writing good stories about the Bitcoin 2.0 community even if they are writing about Ethereum, they still believe the same general concepts and want a better future. Support them and be random about it.


Giving to journalists, either systematically or at random, doesn't seem like a good idea at all to me. It opens the door to huge perceived conflicts of interest. Can you imagine the controversy that would ensue if people found out that bitshares "paid" journalists to write favorable stories about DACs? It would be just too easy for detractors or competitors to accuse bitshares of bribing the press.

With respect to giving to charities, I agree with the previous poster: get rich first, then consider donating plenty to charities later. I think Ripple tried donating to charitable causes, and this probably didn't spread adoption much (although their situation was different--they donated perhaps to offset criticisms about the 90+% "premining").

Let's keep sight of what the main purpose of an airdrop would be: to raise awareness, build a loyal following, encourage people to try out the technology, and attract investors and developers to this nascent industry. What would be the best way of accomplishing this? I submit that the best way would be to target current crypto-currency holders, the vast majority of whom have not yet encountered the new breed of crypto-equities.

52
General Discussion / Re: Nodeshares
« on: April 12, 2014, 03:51:24 am »
This is why Bitcoin and other coins that don't reserve funds for developers will have problems.... they depend upon charity.

Bitcoin can handle itself... if lack of full nodes becomes a real problem then we have more to worry about than nodeshares.

I get your point, but if full nodes become a real problem it is too late already. Initiative is to solve the problem before it becomes a problem. I3 should buy nodes. It is essential to the survival of cryptocurrencies all together. As said before: I'd rather see the revolution today. Not in 2075.


Makes sense. A precipitous drop in bitcoin price could really shake the confidence of investors and would-be investors in bitshares and substantially delay buy-in into the DAC industry. No matter how different bitshares are from bitcoin, they wouldn't be immune to the effects of big price crashes in BTC (at least in the short term). As a pts/ags holder, I worry most about a BTC implosion that would take down the whole sector....

It depends on if there is a fiat exchange and ATMs. If there is then people will be buying. BTC shouldn't be the center of gravity which is too big to fail and I think only greedy people are pushing things in that direction.

Nothing has been learned from MtGox or central bank failures. Here we have people centralizing around Bitcoin itself making it into the new MtGox. Bitcoin cannot be too big to fail, it should be able to fall and some other coin rise to take it's place in a healthy free market.

Yes, agreed: BTC shouldn't be the center of gravity. However, for the time being, it is. So, a slow decline and evolution into something better would be preferable to a sudden collapse, because right now BTC is pretty much the only point of entry for new money and investors to get into cryptocurrency and crypto-equity.

53
General Discussion / Re: Airdrop Ideas
« on: April 12, 2014, 03:29:35 am »

I need to find the thread and reread the claiming process works.  Do you get to claim an amount proportional to your balance ?

10 altcoins sounds quite ambitious.  I suppose if you remove premines then we avoid non-bitcoin forks.  I would suggest that if I3 (?) is willing to pay for this work, then you even out the amounts given to each coin a bit.  btc just dwarfs the other communities. 

 One thing I can say about a lot of the altcoin holders is that they're loyal true believers.  Those coins have been on a steady downward trend.  If people have held on to them, then that is the type of loyalty you want. :)


If an airdrop is to be undertaken (and I'm not saying it necessarily should be), it should be timed and structured to build suspense, with a countdown like "airdrop commencing in XX days, YY hours, ZZ minutes." That way, it can maximize attention and eyeballs on bitshares as recipients re-visit websites repeatedly over time to monitor the price, learn about the DAC, claim their shares, etc.

54
General Discussion / Re: Nodeshares
« on: April 12, 2014, 03:17:54 am »
This is why Bitcoin and other coins that don't reserve funds for developers will have problems.... they depend upon charity.

Bitcoin can handle itself... if lack of full nodes becomes a real problem then we have more to worry about than nodeshares.

I get your point, but if full nodes become a real problem it is too late already. Initiative is to solve the problem before it becomes a problem. I3 should buy nodes. It is essential to the survival of cryptocurrencies all together. As said before: I'd rather see the revolution today. Not in 2075.


Makes sense. A precipitous drop in bitcoin price could really shake the confidence of investors and would-be investors in bitshares and substantially delay buy-in into the DAC industry. No matter how different bitshares are from bitcoin, they wouldn't be immune to the effects of big price crashes in BTC (at least in the short term). As a pts/ags holder, I worry most about a BTC implosion that would take down the whole sector....

55
General Discussion / Re: Profits, Performance, Trust & Efficiency
« on: March 29, 2014, 09:00:48 pm »

And Luckybit has a good point that the focus of our argument for requiring a trustee should be based on the fact that shareholders are not placing any more trust in our trustee than XRP holders place in a gateway, or BTC holders place in the ASIC pools; and far less destruction to our personal holdings can result in a 100% breach of trust by our trustee in our case as compared to those who recently got goxed.
 
And does this trustee method really speed up transactions? Because Ripple is FAST !

Bytemaster is leaning toward kicking up the UTILITY factor here, and I wholeheartedly agree.

Ripple is a great example of how we already have proof the market hates a trusted gateway approach.
Despite it's utility, speed and the investment that went into it, it's trending to zero and the fact that there are no ripple clones/forks out there is very telling.

The biggest currencies since Bitcoin are the ones that have developed methods that involve less trust in ASIC pools, Litecoin,  Peercoin, then NXT.  (Do you think the introduction of scrypt asics soon will increase or decrease Litecoins value?)

It's why no-one's afraid of JPM-coin it might have a lot more utility, but if it involves more trust than existing decentralised alternatives I think it's already dead in the water.


Last time I checked, Ripple was the 2nd largest cryptocurrency in terms of market cap, still worth over $1 billion. For example, this is over 20x bigger than peercoin and over 30x bigger compared to NXT. The price of Ripple XRP seems to have tracked bitcoin pretty well over the past few months.

I thought that most of the hostility towards Ripple was due to their initially being closed-source and also the seemingly self-serving, "premined" way in which they distributed the Ripple XRP currency (i.e., they initially held on to 99% of the supply and only promised to give something like 1/2 away)?

56
+1 for "witness" instead of "trustee"

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Witness has a negative connotation too because it's associated with courts and crime.

To me witness is almost as bad as trustee because of the frame and subliminal images it evokes.

Operator evokes the images of telephone operators from the time where calls had to be connected to each other manually. Older generations will remember this and have a positive frame of reference while younger generations may not know what it means except that it's associated with 911 or 0. Finally to make my case for use of the word more solid, operators reference communication or information networks while "witness" and "trustee" seem to reference the legal, justice, or government type of networks which people tend to want to avoid.

Observer also have a better frame and connotation than witness and means the same thing. So if you want to use something like witness but not have it evoke negative frames then observer would work.


Just a thought. The problem with terms like "trustee" or "witness" or "operator" may not really be one of positive vs. negative connotation. Maybe the problem is that such terms tend to evoke the wrong image in a reader's mind. A casual reader (maybe someone only slightly familiar with cryptocurrencies and bitShares) who first sees a term like "trustee" or "operator" would probably tend to think of an actual, flesh-and-blood person. I certainly did. Then, the reader's natural reaction would be to wonder whether a human being who oversees such centralization of power can be fallible, corruptible, etc. This type of gut reaction to the notion of having one human being wielding a lot of power could be why some people seem to be uneasy with the new scheme.

Wouldn't it be better to use terms that don't immediately lead the reader down the path of visualizing a human being? Terms like "facilitator" or "processor" might be better. Or, how about something like "trusted node" or "custodian node" or "operator node"? I confess to knowing almost nothing about the technical details of the newly proposed scheme, but I hope the point I'm making is clear. We want developers, people, and the community to evaluate the proposed scheme on the basis of its true merits and limitations, not on the basis of a misconceived view that evokes negative emotions...

57
General Discussion / Re: Contingency Planning?
« on: March 27, 2014, 05:58:36 am »
Of course not. Wheres the fun in that? The use of prediction markets to get accurate, decentralized consensus has been proven empirically already. Its just a matter of putting it on a blockchain and using the information provided from it as means of decision making and operation for whatever DAC might use this consensus technology. If the later phases of bitshares xt that incorporate bitassets does not work properly at least TaPos is a better alternative to PoW than other network consensus mechanisms out there. The price of btx will also reflect the increased security of the network that is created at a much lower cost relative to PoW.

I agree with Clout. I would put significant financial stake on it being a success and have. That is why I'm here.

Do I think it could fail? Theoretically. But I believe in my own intellectual capabilities, and the intellectual capabilities of Dan, Stan and the other developers who are some of the smartest individuals in the cryptocurrency community.

Why do I believe that? I read the source code, I've debated with them, and in some cases have been proven wrong by them.

So far their judgement at least on the matters at hand have been on point. Additionally I think that they don't like losing money, which is the right attitude to have for this.

That being said it could fail. If it fails I believe Dan would reset and try again. That is what the test is about, to perfect it so that it's stable by the time we start taking it seriously.


Well, there's no question that the folks working on this are extremely smart. I'm sure that they can completely take care of the coding and technical aspects. However, all the smarts in the world are of little use if the underlying economics are not sound. The problem is that Bitshares X is not really a traditional prediction market in the sense of providing well-defined payoffs tied to verifiable events that are independent of the state of the prediction market itself. Instead, the payoffs to a holder of bitUSD depend on what other investors in BTS and bitUSD believe, what they believe that other investors will believe later, and so on. This opens the door to the possibility of price "bubbles" that can take bitUSD away for some time from the fundamental USD value it's supposed to be tracking.

Don't get me wrong--this is all in the spirit of constructive criticism. I personally would love to see and Bitshares X succeed. But rather than just let the chips fall where they may and hope that bitUSD tracks USD closely, why not think about ways to reduce the unknown (and possibly high) odds of failure from this experiment? It seems important at this early stage to think broadly and creatively about what can be done to improve the odds of successful tracking. What could be useful, I think, is some scheme or mechanism that provides at least a minimum amount of "arbitrage" or linkage between bitUSD and actual USD. For example, even a low-probability threat or promise of paying off bitUSD in terms of USD under certain future conditions could go quite a ways towards anchoring people around the focal point of bitUSD-USD parity. Are there creative ways to design margin calls or interest/dividend payments to achieve anchoring? Perhaps external price feeds would be useful here. Or, maybe if participants could be led to believe there is some chance that future merchants or third parties will accept bitUSD in place of USD, that could also help enforce parity, leading to more robust tracking. I'm curious to hear others' thoughts on this...

58
General Discussion / Re: Contingency Planning?
« on: March 25, 2014, 04:48:00 am »
I'm not a really a techie type, but have recently been reading a good amount about bitshares. From what I've read, bitUSD is intended to track USD closely. If it does that, then I believe bitshares X and the entire bitshares movement could be a huge success.

But what if, after launch of Bitshares X, bitUSD decouples from the USD? Granted, if people believe that the focal point in this "prediction market" is that bitUSD will track the USD closely, then perhaps it will. But there are plenty of cases in the financial world where things that should track an underlying asset don't. Just look at closed-end mutual funds, or Royal Dutch-Shell, or any one of a number of examples of anomalous stock price behavior.

Will bitUSD track well? That is the $64 billion question, I guess, and the outcome of the Bitshares XT experiment will have implications for most or all future bitshares DACs. If tracking does not occur, would that be the end of Bitshares X? Does 3I have a contingency plan in case Bitshares X doesn't succeed?

Why do you think BitUSD needs to have 100% parity with USD in order for Bitshares X to succeed?

I don't think it needs to have 100% parity, but it should be reasonably close. If BitUSD doesn't track the USD to any significant degree, then what would it be for hedging real-world dollar exposure? Why would anyone choose to hold or short bitUSD that fluctuates without meaning if their intent is to hold something that they know will move with USD? And if tracking of USD cannot be counted on, then how can we expect tracking of bitGLD, or any other bitAsset, for that matter? A Bitshares X without any meaningful asset value tracking doesn't seem fundamentally different from any other cryptocurrency...

59
General Discussion / Re: Our new website is now LIVE!
« on: March 25, 2014, 03:50:54 am »
A minor point: I've seen "bitshares", "BitShares", and "bitShares" in different areas on the forum and website and in the logo. Which capitalization scheme is the optimal one, and should it be used consistently everywhere?

60
General Discussion / Contingency Planning?
« on: March 25, 2014, 03:44:56 am »
I'm not a really a techie type, but have recently been reading a good amount about bitshares. From what I've read, bitUSD is intended to track USD closely. If it does that, then I believe bitshares X and the entire bitshares movement could be a huge success.

But what if, after launch of Bitshares X, bitUSD decouples from the USD? Granted, if people believe that the focal point in this "prediction market" is that bitUSD will track the USD closely, then perhaps it will. But there are plenty of cases in the financial world where things that should track an underlying asset don't. Just look at closed-end mutual funds, or Royal Dutch-Shell, or any one of a number of examples of anomalous stock price behavior.

Will bitUSD track well? That is the $64 billion question, I guess, and the outcome of the Bitshares XT experiment will have implications for most or all future bitshares DACs. If tracking does not occur, would that be the end of Bitshares X? Does 3I have a contingency plan in case Bitshares X doesn't succeed?

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5