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 - gamey

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 151
76
General Discussion / Re: Display maximum risk reward every trade
« on: April 29, 2016, 03:04:29 am »

How would you calculate these 2 values?  Could you walk us through a simple example with real numbers ?

77

What do you mean what happens? 

The answer is.

Steem market cap is now larger than BitShares. 

Thats what happens.

Seriously, what are you getting at ??

78
What happened to the intention of switching this forum software over to discourse?
What are the stumble stones? Maybe both versions could be run parallel, for a while?
 
I have been thinking about the possible advantages these days,
and today I searched for a related thread here … Let's roll more!

One thing we already need to add to this one is a possibility to like or heart or just acknowledge reading any post .

We also should better highlight the most interesting and informative topics - having some catchy headlines to entice further exploration

Some people are for it. I'm usually not but I never get good explanation at why discourse etc are an improvement.  I do think this site is stagnant and probably not serving as much of the purpose it should. If someone wants to start up a parallel site I can't think of a reason to complain. 

"Curation" usually means the censoring of unagreeable opinions. Thats often what the upvote etc stuff does.  I'm not a fan. I prefer older communities and a mod that is low on the censoring for anything but spam and really personal things.

79
It's the reasoning for CNX leaving that is dumb... They say there is no money available for development because of the anit-dilution (chinese) crowd.  Yet CNX hasn't even put forth a proposal for anything (MAS, Bonds, Rate Limited Transactions).

What is even dumber is how BM has basically screwed everyone who has ever followed his vision by making them jump from investment to investment.  Buy PTS, Donate AGS, Buy BTSX, Buy BTS, Buy Brownies, Buy Steem.  That's 6 different investments just to try to keep up with Dan's latest squeeze. Then you have Stan spouting off in the cryptofresh video about how people are going to wish they bought bts back when it was under a cent, all while preparing to fork bts and create steem with no bts sharedrop.  BM is like one of those TV preachers that keep asking for more and more money while guaranteeing they will take you to the promise land if you give.

In all honesty though,  BTS being out of CNX's control and focus is probably a good thing.  After all the promises and announcements that did nothing to increase the market cap of BTS, having a new group of leaders might be what BTS needs.

Don't forget DNS in the list.  DNS was live but not actively advertised.  It is my opinion that it is another thing that Dan didn't really have interest in, so he found a way to 'move on' before he even started.

Crowdfunding is all about having fun and doing stuff you want to do. The vetting of those people is minimal.  Some are the next Steve Jobs on a small scale.. and others... we'll find out...

Even Brownie.PTS are a bit LOL. His newest project he claims the reason they have to premine etc is for legality. I <3 whoever bought up BROWNIEs.  Maybe someone else will use them, but it makes more sense to just hand out your own version of brownies if that is the objective.

Really the only consistency I can see in the project is a rate in the volume of excuses put forth.

How vocal should one be about how they feel?  There are many hard working people and those who still have a large investment. I don't want to cause them to lose money or be unmotivated,  but on the other hand you feel like you have to point this out for people who have been half asleep the past couple years, along with those new.

I personally have been hoping BitShares comes up with another set of developers but it seems like China doesn't really produce many developers or people who wish to pay developers.  :P

80
Can anyone verify that they are getting the same view count I am getting for the New Money explainer vid? Its at 4300

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjqUQtuLUAk

If this is correct it seems that we have gotten 2000+ views in the last 48 hours  :D

Might be going viral right now. We plan to turn that YouTube channel into a Crypto/Mainstream powerhouse channel. So this is a good start.

4700 ..

81
General Discussion / Re: dilution for BTS and funding for development
« on: April 20, 2016, 08:27:48 am »
Correct me if I'm wrong, but some whales leaving ship just give more leadership to the remaining supporters. Right?
At that point, I think BM withdraw on a facebook/reddit (Please name me a reddit clone that doesnt feel like russian thundra right now) is all what was really needed for BTS to focus and move on with a more  'enlighten' alignement with workers/voters.

Leadership was lazy and now it's time for change. Statu quo sucks. Both for investment and development.

How are workers who write a signficant enhancement to the code ever going to be elected?   It is one thing for a single person.. but a whole team?  They're supposed to assume that yunbi never becomes popular etc ?  Chinese no-dilution movement has dug a nice hole.

82
General Discussion / Re: Whale Powered Assets
« on: April 19, 2016, 04:27:03 pm »
There is no such thing as not "going where I was hoping."

I'm seeking ideas, concepts, and strategies that might interest whales who are looking for a winning way to become a player.  Some seem to realize that developing their own private blockchain (their first instinct) has its own acceptance issues.  Building on an established (real time, industrial grade) public chain with a decentralized governance mechanism may mitigate some of those issues.  Using a small billion dollar revenue stream to promote a public chain rather than perhaps committing trillions to back a suspiciously private chain is an option I think has potential.  I'm just looking for our community's best brains to figure out the gory details. 

Every unicorn I have talked to so far has liked the idea, so I think we're on to something.

Lol. Seriously though, you might have more luck with a more direct approach in your writing. (Says Mr overly direct)  At least at times...

Quote
比特股寻精之旅!
bitshares searching for sperm  of journey!

great!
good idea!
i like this!
just do it!

Wait whaat?  I'm really confused now.

83
General Discussion / Re: Whale Powered Assets
« on: April 19, 2016, 08:36:00 am »
Just loved the idea of a beneve-whale...... and dragons, I love the idea of dragons.

Unicorns too.  I just love unicorns.

84
General Discussion / Re: Should BTS end merger vesting BTS early?
« on: April 17, 2016, 05:39:39 pm »
Surprised nobody commented about the value these vested funds represent as I did. What good does delaying the vesting? The major point of vesting is to retain talent, and that aspect is mostly gone as empirical said. Same with deleting them. Sure that counters inflation, but how significant is that in the bigger picture? That primarily makes sense to the anti-dilution crowd, who offer zero input on how to pay for sustaining this ecosystem let alone improving it. They seem to loose sight of the fact their holding will become worthless if the ecosystem dies or cannot be maintained. Maybe the illusion of protecting their holdings is blinding them to the slow death that zero tolerance dilution will bring.

You could make the vesting period 5x longer and really slow the downward pressure.  You could also just stop the whole process for X years. 

What good would this do?  It would slow/stop the dilution that is apparently bleeding BTS.  My understand that is the objective of the suggestion in this thread. This would go further in the "good" it does.  It would keep people from saying their BTS was stolen from them.  Stolen from people who paid for the development of BTS2. My approach at least seems morally acceptable and is not blatant theft.

85
General Discussion / Re: Should BTS end merger vesting BTS early?
« on: April 17, 2016, 04:51:12 pm »
i think the question is not clear.

if you intent to free my vesting BTS we could do it, if you want to delete it i am against it. I hope this poll is about the first one.

No one commented on my suggestion of just delaying the vesting. Freeze the vesting balances for years.  That would be far preferable to stealing them from people who paid to invest in BTS.

What is the date when all the vesting stops?

I will admit the more I think about it, the more I slide towards agreement but I don't think I'd ever find this a good idea. There is a definite cost in the loss of trust  for the chain. It would be hard to think of worse press than doing this..

86
General Discussion / Re: Should BTS end merger vesting BTS early?
« on: April 17, 2016, 04:08:49 pm »


It really comes down to how one sees the vested balances. Does one see them as actual BTS?

I do. I assumed they'll be there just like any other BTS in my wallet. I just am not allowed to access it because the slow drain is supposed to be better than a big dump.

Others apparently see them as something else besides on chain BTS that are temporarily locked up.



This will project has had so many firsts.  If this passes it'll now be the first project to steal funds from users.

If you guys could figure out how to take money from the Larimer clan and leave the rest alone I'd be all for it. As it is there will be far too much collateral damage.



87
Random Discussion / Re: Article on problem solving.
« on: April 17, 2016, 07:57:50 am »

I looked at the answer.  I always think there is some hack/cheat.  I wonder how long it would have taken me to get it.. lol.

Ha ha! Now you'll never know how long it would've taken you. Do you think it's a good puzzle?


Yes, a very good puzzle.  The answer isn't some hack etc. If I had known the answer is legitimate, I would have never looked at the solution. My problem is I suspect it might be some semantic backdoor nonsense, so I end up not wishing to waste my time.

88
General Discussion / Re: Should BTS end merger vesting BTS early?
« on: April 17, 2016, 07:47:03 am »
I agree with Julian. How exactly do we go through this whole merger fiasco and yet still end up losing BM to a competing chain? It's completely ridiculous. Reminds me of when the promise was to focus all efforts on BTS, but then BM goes and tries sharedropping Devshares to AGS/PTS. Then came the brownies. Now obviously Steem.

How hard is it to focus on just one damn project?

But be that as it may it seems pretty obvious that ending merger vesting early would cause more harm than good. Oh well.

So much like the no-dilution crowd, your take is ... BM screwed up, so lets just screw over the chain's potential by finding it acceptable for the majority to steal from the minority ?


edit - Actually the above is not what is going on with the no-dilution crowd. At least those guys are abiding by the accepted rules.

I would have never taken this proposal seriously, but then I noticed the votes. I am a fan of Empirical's work and his support of this project. I just think he got this one very very wrong. I wouldn't lose that much. My vested balance isn't huge or signficant by any stretch, but I assumed it'll be there if/when this project lands on the moon.

I suspect a lot comes down to how one views the vested balances. I view them as just as legitimate as other BTS, fungible or not. Others seem to take the view that because these BTS are not liquid, then somehow they are in a second class. Obviously I disagree.

89
General Discussion / Re: Should BTS end merger vesting BTS early?
« on: April 17, 2016, 07:43:44 am »

Those balances *are* the property of their owners.   

That property interest was the equivalent of a royal grant made by the (former) developers of Bitshares who held merge rights on the Bitshares Github repository. The legitimacy of that act has always been in doubt, because it was never subject to stakeholder vote.

The quid-pro-quo for this gift was the alignment of the developer resources and chains (vote, dns, bitshares). Additionally there was an insight that having multiple dapps on the same chain has synergy and efficiency benefits compared with multiple dapps on different chains. (See BMs discussion on the cost of cross-chain transactions, or consult the Ethereum market cap for reference).
 
The Bitshares Royalty have now abdicated their position in favor of a new interest (Steem). It is natural to consider if Bitshares can afford to pay 700k/day with no benefit attached, and when the original terms of the arrangement no longer carry any meaning.

This is a load of verbose bullshit. The fact is that the vested stake paid the same as the others (minus the considerations of BTC/PTS price fluctuation). You can spin it however you wish, but it is nonsense.  This proposal here is less fair than deflating the existing fungible money supply proportional to the existing inflation. This proposal just robs a select group of people, so it is more acceptable to some.

I understand that some people supporting this will be also losing out in absolute terms. However it is a matter of the proportion people have of fungible stake vs vested. Yes, I sold my purchased stake some time ago, but I have yet to touch my vested balance.  Someone explain to me how I am not supporting the price vs others.

There is no Bitshares royalty. Using Dan's exit as an excuse to fuck those who donated is nothing more than that.  An excuse.

One of the biggest mistakes was Toast just acquiescing to BM's desires.  It is easy to say this with hindsight, so I am not criticizing Toast in this regard. I was never privy to any details. At that point I was still a believer in a lot of the positives from the merge. We learn.

Your selective choice of what was a "gift" is absurd.  There were lots of gifts, but in the end it was mainly BMs decision to move forward unilaterally and people believed what he said at the time. Those with vested balances "gifted" BM's labor to BTS 2.0,  but they can't take that labor back.  The ability to steal is actually possible in the other direction. The result of this constraint are nonsensical rationalizations like the above post.

90
Random Discussion / Re: Article on problem solving.
« on: April 16, 2016, 10:42:04 pm »

I looked at the answer.  I always think there is some hack/cheat.  I wonder how long it would have taken me to get it.. lol.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 151