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.
I just talked with the FMV team and they have plans to launch a service on the BTS chain this year.
After all, that's it? This year?So it has been threatened three times that the devs will leave? I only remember the time when DNS/Vote/AGS merge. When did the other two happen? Thanks pig!
Consistently taking positive actions to ensure that developers and their families are able to afford to work full time in the ecosystem is hardly "threatening to leave."
@Rune, Just out of curiosity, why have you moved your efforts to Ethereum?
He gets bored quickly and has big ideas. If Ethereum takes an eternity, we may see him back here again.
Pretty much. Also Ethereum is so easy to develop on that even I can do it, which is wonderful for someone who has never tried coding or developing apps ever before.
Regarding ethereum ever coming out, if anyone here has money stuck in the presale, i can confirm that its finally coming very soon, probably like a week. There is evidence that more than 20 exchanges are looking into integrating it, but I dont necessarily believe in the long term value of ether since fees can be paid in any currency on ethereum, including dai, so ether has no inherent value beyond the numismatic (which could still turn out to be significant).
I still hold bts btw, and im waiting for 2.0 hoping itll be good so i still visit this forum often.
The main problem I see with ethereum now in having taken more time to learn about it over the past week, is that unless there is something integrated to protect development code, people will quickly learn that there is no point in developing on ethereum (outside of the fact that it is easy and you just love coding) because few will pay the smart contract fees when they can fork the project and run it for free and then the developer totally loses out. I'm not sure how many developers will be able to find a "centralized niche" worthy of paying the smart contract fees on top of the ether gas....such is the new decentralized world we are creating.
Decentralization also means the survival of the project can be sustained without a centralized party , which we're clearly lack of right now .
In fact , almost all of the unfinished 2.0 projects , BitShares , Eth , are not really decentralized enough if we want to use bitcoin as an example .
A project can not really be called decentralized if the survival of the projects lies in couple of people , and if those people go look for jobs the projects would be dead in the water , which is what we've been told many times .I started to convert part of my BTS holding to Bitcoin after threats like this happened the third time , which is a magical number in my mind . I think it is fears like this makes major investment in crypto also goes back to Bitcoin for long term holding , and invest in alt-coins as a venture investment .
(I remembered some people imagined 2.0 projects would take over bitcoin by the end of 2015 in the past year , but clearly , it's not going to happen . )
I would throw the word "decentralized" around maybe one year later , but not now .
It's nothing new though , in the stock market , there are always magical stocks like BTS ,Eth which has great potential , but the biggest market cap lies in those stocks with zero imagination just because people know ----- It's steady and big ....
yThere are definitely delegate squatters. 3% and 100%ers. For crying out loud, some 100%ers are in the low 90% reliability range and one is in the 80% range. The goddamn network is less secure because of them.
This is why the new system separates workers (with finite pay period) from witnesses (producers), from delegates (who propose forks and changes). Problem solved. NextDan definitely passively threatened to abandon BTSX if the merger did not happen.
Which he had every right to do. He made a fully functional BTSX that exceeded expectations, and then went on to the next chapter of his life. We did not own him (as much as we do now)(merger guaranteed BM support like a "no compete clause" in a contract) BM abandonment issues solved. Next.Dan definitely proposed delegate pay of +$2K a few days after he claimed I3 had plenty of funds.
At that market cap, we all had "plenty of funds", and delegate pay was equal to about $2K. Delegates always got paid in BTS not BitUSD. Old news, never changed. Next.Stan is a propaganda artist spreading more BS than I can even come up with in my wildest dreams.
Stan loves to talk about BitShares, always has, always will. I ignore him constantly because I'm not into cheer-leading, but hey, that's just me.
Stan meet Newmine, Newmine, Stan. There, now you have met Dan's proud (real proud) papa. Do you have kids?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuyfRtvadh0Dan is not "like" a Steve Jobs and Bitshares is not like the next Apple.
Those are solid facts, maybe not as important as protecting BitShares workers, witnesses, and delegates from government persecution, or providing the most competitive banking / asset options on the planet, or constructing a solid back end with integrated comprehensive marketing solution (new automated user monetization function to spark front end development) but, yeah, you speak the truth.VOTE has no "secret sauce" as I pointed out when FMV met with CALVO.
That too is a solid fact. They are not disclosing the exact details of what they are working on. Eddie and Cob are doing the same low profile development, and I'm glad because the competition is fierce. Nobody really knows what all those guys are detailing exactly, but I'm sure the competition would love to find out. Who do you work for again?AK is only a drain on BTS funds and wealth as has been proven with his lack of presence and effect so far.
Damn, I did not realize that the FMV vote project was dead (good thing that their 1% of this co-op is only vesting and can't be liquidated for a while)(so you can sell your stake before them first if you choose).
Hey wait a minute....
https://followmyvote.com/team/
ha ha, you got me Newmine, that was a good one. You are a funny guy. For a moment there, I thought that nobody was working on FMV.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LilUQdhlm4g#t=1m17sPTS needed an upgrade last March and I was shit on for saying it.PTS got airdropped on (with BTS). That chain served its purpose. Any time spent by the devs working on anything but BTS related stuff is a conflict of interest / waste of time (PTS included). Anyone who thinks that any or all of the BTS/FMV/MUSIC/Moonstone devs should drop anything or everything that they are doing and spend any amount of time on crypto circa 2013 is _______________(1000BTS bounty to the best answer)__________.Freetrade secretly gave himself a boatload of MMC in the genesis block that he admitted to after I pressured him and ABL jumped in.
Who is Freetrade (and why would a parent name their kid such a stupid name)(I bet he got beat up in school)?Charles Evans was a little too close to the project given he was auditing AGS funds. He left ~5 days after pointing this out.
Forgive me, but I don't know what you are talking about. Who is Charles Evans, and exactly how much money did he steal from who? Theft is a serious issue, and we should definitely get to the bottom of this.These are some of the major points I believe I helped come to light.
Maybe we could add one. I think that the point about BitShares being as centrally controllable big bro style as Ripple, and simultaneously (your choice) more free and controllable by the shareholders than bitcoin is a point that might be considered as "major" as why a father loves his son, or why 2013 Protoshares needs to exist today.
Now don't get me wrong, but I'm as big a fan of nostalgia as the next guy, and I don't have many posts here, but I do love a good old catchy tune as much as anybody... but what year is it again?
Oh, heck, you're right ! "can we take it to the bridge!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmMogbcl5B8#t=4m10s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPqBZH-59tA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n62J9-WP1A
And Stan, maybe you should be a little more like Barry Sanders's dad who dissed Barry at his Hall of Fame introduction:
http://newsok.com/william-sanders-ignores-son-barry-in-hall-introduction/article/2861725
William Sanders cracked up the crowd of about 25,000 at Fawcett Stadium by saying, with a straight face, "I want to say hello to the No. 1 running back who ever lived. He's not with us today. Mr. Jim Brown."
Speaking of major points, Dan is not Steve Jobs nor is he Barry Sanders
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKjfoQVssBo
做的渣一样的产品还纳斯达克么，人家顾俩人三天就做出来一样功能还好用的多的就事论事，比特股钱包渣在表层，底层还是比较稳定的。你这话明显不懂行兼暴露你的智商。你雇两人三天重新发明个出块技术出来试试。笑话，你说这话不脸红吗？要黑也请黑到点子上。
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My suggestions based on my previous post here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,1692.msg18720.html#msg18720How about a bounty exchange platform with an Ask/Bid?
This is essentially a bounty auction and exchange platform. It is completely algorithmic in approach and completely automated. It determines the true market price of any kind of labor by reaching the equilibrium point between the supply and demand through the bid/ask.
It would be centralized at first but could be made decentralized, it's also a way to determine who would be selected for the bounty in a completely automated fashion.
It may even allow workers to trade jobs on the exchange provided they do so before the expiration date. This way if a worker bit off more than he could chew he could exchange his bounty with someone else and they'd get paid in his place if they complete it.
Instructions
As the employer first you'd put up your bidding price which is the highest you're willing to pay, then a bunch of potential bid fillers put up their asking price and according to the algorithm it would meet in the middle according to supply and demand at an equilibrium point. This would give the market the true price of the labor.
Input: Employers enter a job description and bidding price to be displayed as the maximum bounty reward.
Input: Employees/Job hunters enter their asking prices, mapped to their Keyhotee IDs.
DAC: An algorithm selects the employee willing to work for the lowest asking price (lowest bounty reward)
DAC: A bot sends an encrypted message to the public key of the Keyhotee ID address and sends a bounty token to their wallet.
DAC: The transaction and exchange exist entirely in a blockchain so that if necessary anyone with that bounty token can exchange their bounty token for anyone else's.
Output1: The job is completed by the expiration date on the bounty token, and the bounty token is redeemed at the true price of labor in the market.
Output2: The job is not completed by the expiration date and the bounty token is never redeemed, therefore it is invalid and expired.
Social Contract: 50% Protoshares, 45% Angelshares, 5% Promotion, Discount and Giveaway shares
What could go wrong? Someone could lose their bounty token and then the bounty would expire wasting valuable time. On the other hand it would save time if someone can trade their received bounty with another person or split their bounty with another person all in automated fashion by using the divisibility of the bounty token. So if I did 90% of the labor and I could not do that final 10% then I could break off 10% of the bounty token and give it to anyone willing to work for it.
Let me know if this idea could work?
^^^^
The gist of the idea is to create a job auction exchange. Jobs are auctioned on the blockchain. A UIA could represent a job and when the job is done all who have the asset can redeem for BitUSD.
Of course it would have to be simplified due to the limitations of the blockchain but ultimately the market should determine things. Let anyone bid for positions. Let the community for up or down the positions from which could be bid for and let the community set the amount it is willing to pay in some algorithmic fashion so that the jobs are auctioned to the lowest bidder.
http://www.jobauctions.com/
After reading this fantastic idea I came up with my own proposal for how this could work.
TL;DR:
Separation of community/company maintenance (Delegates) and core development.
Delegates compete to act as maintainers of the blockchain and as the human element to DAC decision making.
Core development could be funded by contracts between the shareholders and developers.
Devs propose development and a pay schedule. Shareholders pay into proposal-specific funds as they see fit and development starts once a given pledge-threshold is met.
These proposals are contracts to complete a given task within a stated timeframe for a price acceptable to the shareholders.
Here is a hypothetical scenario I hope will illustrate how this could work.
I unlock my BitShares wallet and see that I have 500 cds (core-dev-shares) and navigate to the 'Development Proposals' tab. 1 cds = 1 bts but can only be spent per the terms of a core development contract.
I see that Invictus Innovations has a proposal for bitAssets 2.0. The team claim it will take 2 months and are asking for 200k bts and $2k bitUSD upfront with a 5M bts completion-'bounty'. Of this 5M bts, 2.5M will be held in escrow for 1 year and 2.5M will be converted to bitUSD on a weekly basis from the start of development until depleted. The team promises to provide proof of progress to
the community and expects Delegates to scrutinise the details.
Underneath this proposal I see that two delegates I trust (delegate.kencode and fuzzy.beyondbitcoin) have evaluated the proposal and interviewed Invictus Innovations and conclude that they think it is a proposal worthy of investment. Fuzzy has provided an .mp3 file to his 'town hall' interview and kencode has convinced me that the economic reasoning holds up.
I am now a reassured and confident shareholder so pledge 60% of my 500 cds to this proposal.
I see Moonstone is nearly funded so I send another 20% there.
But I also notice that ByteMaster has another great proposal but doesn't have the time to implement it right now. It's a minor feature not worth the time yet. He has requested an exorbitant fee to prioritise this work over his spare time but I'm sure he expects someone else to pitch for a much lower cost.
I see underneath that 'script.kiddie' has already offered to whip up the code for just $500 bitUSD with a 5k bts royalty fee to be paid to bytemaster. I pledge some more of my 500 cds and see it is instantly converted to bitUSD at market price.
A month later I come back to my wallet to check my cds balance. Script.kiddie has the new feature running smoothly but I see that another project he proposed didn't get funded within the time-window and the 50 cds that I pledged has been refunded to me to allocate to other projects.
I think that trying to merge the two distinct 'departments' of core development and efficient company maintenance stifles innovation and diversity in both departments.
Delegates should get paid for being delegates and core development teams should pitch and get paid solely for contracted tasks completed.
In order to ensure max decentralization of our DAC the shareholders need to actively participate in all aspects of the DAC.
As we are all humans with short attention spans these decisions need to be spoon-fed to us. The easier it is to participate, the more shareholders we get to take part.
If anything is complicated or hard to evaluate, participation will drop off sharply.
Groups of humans are known for witch hunts so we should make sure that when these happen they do not spill over into unrelated areas of the DAC.
For example; if a mob gets stirred up to oust a delegate providing a slow price feed then we need to be certain that there won't be any collateral damage. So delegates cannot also be responsible for funding core development.
Taulant and Moonstone have stated that they aim to demonstrate their worth by taking on risk and offering the shareholders the opportunity to invest by buying their product (their code) and having them open-source it. Could core devs take a similar approach?
Data and necessary info needs to be compiled by the DAC for presentation to the shareholders so they can make informed decisions.
Delegates need to be easily evaluated with a quick look at a list of statistics. Delegate pay should pay for the efficient running of delegate tasks only.
Core development needs to be pitched to the shareholders in a modular fashion and opened up to the free market – I propose by way of a crowd sale system.
Dev teams need to show their goals and code needs to be written in a way that allows numerous parties to add to the codebase over time. A clear list of tasks to be completed allows separate dev teams to pitch separate projects. The shareholders can then fund development as quickly or as gradually as they wish. Projects won't overlap so less time is wasted, and potential dev teams know that they will get paid for the work they do.
Shareholders who are delegates could also pitch for core development tasks if they are so inclined but shareholders need to be able to quickly see who is doing the job for which they are specifically being paid for.
For delegates this should mean that shareholders can view a list of hard stats that accurately tell them who is performing well and who isn't.
These stats include:
1) Uptime
2) Block propagation
3) Average time per price feed (possibly broken down per asset – this could be displayed next to a measure of volatility of the specified asset for a fair assessment.)
4) Other clear cut and useful stats.
5) A percentage of how many successfully funded core-dev proposals the delegate reviewed and advised on.
Delegates should also be responsible for being oracles on contracts between the shareholders/DAC and core development teams. They are the human element of the DAC so should evaluate the viability of core development proposals and also check-in on project progress. Delegates would have no authority to stop shareholders funding unrealistic proposals but should use their reputation to serve the shareholders in an advisory capacity.
Instead of funding core dev with dilution, those block rewards could be sent proportionally to each account by their holdings. The funds could be held in some kind of multisig account that allows them to only be spent by contributing to core dev project proposal crowd sales.
Proposals for core development could be published in a separate section of the core wallet in a way that acts to 'crowd sale' the proposed project.
It costs a nominal fee to publish these ideas to avoid bloat and make it easier for shareholders to assess less options. These proposals are contracts to complete a given task within a stated timeframe for a price acceptable to the shareholders.
Core Dev Proposals contain:
1) A summary of the problems aiming to be solved, what the finished product will look like/do and why/how it will work
2) a timeline
3) A fee structure. Perhaps an upfront fee and a recurring payment schedule or an on-completion bounty.
4) Proposals can also be published with the expectation that someone other than the author will bid to actually compete the task. Devs who wish the implement someone else's idea can include a royalty payment in their proposal. 'Fund us and we'll pay 10kbts to the author as a royalty.'
This 'royalty' is voluntary but encourages 'ideas people' to promote their ideas to establish themselves in the community to increase the likelihood they'll get a royalty and as a consequence more people hear about the best proposals.
The author of a proposal may also be a large stakeholder with lots of funds to pledge to a developer team to implement their idea, so devs may want to attract this 'VC money' and so offer a symbolic/generous royalty.
The party can then pitch themselves to the shareholders on why they should get this contract. For example:
'We propose to implement BM's proposal for bitAssets 2.0. Upfront we require: 10k bts, £2k bitUSD, 5M bts to be held in escrow until completion except each month 0.5 bitGold is paid out from the fund.'
These proposals accomplish:
1) Separation of DAC maintenance and DAC development
2) Open-sourcing of ideas for core development. If a proposal contains a good idea but asks for too much funding, other parties are able to promise the same project for an alternative payment schedule.
3) A direct relationship between the shareholders and core development incorporated into the DAC itself.
http://www.jobauctions.com/How about a bounty exchange platform with an Ask/Bid?
This is essentially a bounty auction and exchange platform. It is completely algorithmic in approach and completely automated. It determines the true market price of any kind of labor by reaching the equilibrium point between the supply and demand through the bid/ask.
It would be centralized at first but could be made decentralized, it's also a way to determine who would be selected for the bounty in a completely automated fashion.
It may even allow workers to trade jobs on the exchange provided they do so before the expiration date. This way if a worker bit off more than he could chew he could exchange his bounty with someone else and they'd get paid in his place if they complete it.
Instructions
As the employer first you'd put up your bidding price which is the highest you're willing to pay, then a bunch of potential bid fillers put up their asking price and according to the algorithm it would meet in the middle according to supply and demand at an equilibrium point. This would give the market the true price of the labor.
Input: Employers enter a job description and bidding price to be displayed as the maximum bounty reward.
Input: Employees/Job hunters enter their asking prices, mapped to their Keyhotee IDs.
DAC: An algorithm selects the employee willing to work for the lowest asking price (lowest bounty reward)
DAC: A bot sends an encrypted message to the public key of the Keyhotee ID address and sends a bounty token to their wallet.
DAC: The transaction and exchange exist entirely in a blockchain so that if necessary anyone with that bounty token can exchange their bounty token for anyone else's.
Output1: The job is completed by the expiration date on the bounty token, and the bounty token is redeemed at the true price of labor in the market.
Output2: The job is not completed by the expiration date and the bounty token is never redeemed, therefore it is invalid and expired.
Social Contract: 50% Protoshares, 45% Angelshares, 5% Promotion, Discount and Giveaway shares
What could go wrong? Someone could lose their bounty token and then the bounty would expire wasting valuable time. On the other hand it would save time if someone can trade their received bounty with another person or split their bounty with another person all in automated fashion by using the divisibility of the bounty token. So if I did 90% of the labor and I could not do that final 10% then I could break off 10% of the bounty token and give it to anyone willing to work for it.
Let me know if this idea could work?
^^^^
The gist of the idea is to create a job auction exchange. Jobs are auctioned on the blockchain. A UIA could represent a job and when the job is done all who have the asset can redeem for BitUSD.
Of course it would have to be simplified due to the limitations of the blockchain but ultimately the market should determine things. Let anyone bid for positions. Let the community for up or down the positions from which could be bid for and let the community set the amount it is willing to pay in some algorithmic fashion so that the jobs are auctioned to the lowest bidder.
http://www.jobauctions.com/
IMO an automated DAC is unsuitable for matching workers and jobs, because for an employer the price is only one of many criteria for selecting an employee. An employer may want to hand over a job to a more skilled/experienced worker even if he has to pay a higher price.
You proposal is missing a crucial component: who gets to decide when/if a job has been completed? You're going to need arbitrators in case of a dispute.
Also, managing such a platform creates a massive overhead for the employers and may be unsuitable for small tasks.
Wouldn't a reputation system help with all the problems you are talking about PC?
i intend ot agree PC!
Who will decide, for example, on graphic related tasks, if an design is finished in view of requirements, graphic style, sustainability?
On technical side requirements are much more clearer to communicate ... but for esthetic etc. purposes ... who will decide if a job task is solved?
(used the designer example ... you know why^^)
