fyi social media buttons on the blog, at least Twitter, is not working

Will I have to pay the new and improved stealth fee for stealth transfers made through the CLI?

I think I should not. I have this feature now, and I will see the 45K as a bribery so this feature is stolen from me (and the rest of BTS holders) and sold to the  highest bidder.

Bad precedent all around.

Great point if this is changing the blockchain code.

I posit that if applications could charge *ABOVE* blockchain fees, then it would be no issue and would give the applications more freedom.

I think that CNX would beat him to market by a long shot, and his technology, coming out later, would have to be better and/or less expensive to gain traction, right?

Is there a plan for promoting your FBA?

"The Stock Market of Things" could be a killer tagline for Bitshares. Maybe better than "Decentralized Exchange."  Kudos to this guy for coining it.

Quote from: Samupaha on December 12, 2015, 04:51:56 pm

Quote from: BunkerChain Labs on December 12, 2015, 03:44:50 am

4. Are the fees generated from FBAs standalone, or is the 20% that goes to the network eligible for the refer program to also gain from the features? My concern is that larger and larger portions of the eco-system develop and what the refer program claims to offer starts to become less true as what refers can earn becomes marginalized against all the other areas of Bitshares where transactions are occurring.

I'm not sure if this is a bad thing. The purpose of referral program is to get more users. If we get more users more effectively with FBAs we don't have a need for a referral program.

I have nowhere seen the discussion or rationale about 80/20 split.  Is it fair for the network
and shareholders ? Why not 90/10 or 50/50 ? Who sets ten numbers ? Should not this be
discusses or voted first what is fair for the network and for FBA holders ? Because
this percentage splits will be set forever !

Agree with these concerns.  Also concerning is that there is no business plan, especially in the case of the STEALTH asset.  With no business plan results will be disappointing and may cause shareholders to take measures that circumvent that FBA.  I see infighting in our future if profits for bts holders are not generously shared and if marketing is not well incentivized.

Great talk, Charles.

I think one of the best things is how you engage bitcoiners.  Somehow you keep everybody in the room happy even though many of the solutions you allude to circumvent the bitcoin holy water.

On a much more general note, and I stage this for everybody, Charles' allusions to negative relationships with bitshares and lack of mentions of its problem solving strategies that seemingly would have blended tremendously with the talk possibly speak generally to Bitshares' PR problem. Charles has a very strong working knowledge of bitshares yet must avoid speaking positively about it.  It's an awful quandary in my opinion.

I am in the camp that PR and marketing may be best served at the application level by entrepreneurs, but none the less, I am certain it would be valuable to have a world-class CS and blockchain guy like Charles speaking positively and guiding devs and entrepreneurial, interested and bright folk to the project.

After finishing the video, my predominant thought was to have the blockchain pay a high-profile and very knowledgeable guy such as Charles to speak and do Q&A at these types of conferences.  Some shareholders fret about about paying for marketing, but with escrow based on proof of performance it could be handled in a measurable way by a trusted team such as Bunker Chain Labs.  It would also be a very nice demonstration of a Smart Contract  

Does anyone agree bitshares would benefit from some public face driving entrepreneurs and devs to the platform? Or are there better avenues?

I fully support this proposal.

I am disappointed by the one dimensional thinking that seems to surround arguments around the entrepreneur profiting from its development.

Everyone seems to not realize that if you want to have a similar feature to profit from you can certainly spend the money to have it done and profit it from it for yourself.

I think this is where the 'something for nothing' argument comes from. If you really are serious about wanting to profit from a feature like this, you can certainly have a competing feature that does so.

Just to weigh in on this numbers debate. Once again, it assumes only one option will ever exist. It also assumes massive growth from where we are now, and that every transaction will be stealth. So I tend to agree it's weighing on the lala land side of having any semblance of accuracy as far as projections go. I believe there is a higher probability it will take him years to recover just his investment.

  We're in the free market now, boys.