.....

Except I said it back when it was controversial... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=662058.0

That's after I have been lobbying for innovative development in Litecoin for months...

Whatever. I spend hours... daily... for 4 years researching cryptocurrencies. Then you armchair experts try to play like you're experts. You spend way too much time on these forums. You should branch out into the rest of the cryptocurrency community and see how deluded everyone is here including yourself. Thanks for the underhanded compliment douchenozzle.

You are delusional if you think Bytemaster is not the best thing that ever happened to Bitshares. It simply would not exist, and would not be where it is today without him.

I am done with this poop flinging you have initiated, you may have the last word. Good day.

Seems like a misunderstanding to me. You guys are certainly idiots if you can't see how I could be confused... considering Tonyk's proposal has been the hot topic the past week and the underlying idea of Nxt 2.0 is splitting Nxt into two separate tokens. Regardless of there being different purposes for splitting Bitshares/Nxt into two separate tokens, there is an obvious similarity and the benefits may be overlapped if you combined the technologies. This is why I trust Bytemaster... he understands things like this:

can someone pull out the good ideas from that thread?

Bytemaster immediately saw the potential in the idea rather than stating "OMG Nxt is copying our completely original idea to make a scale-able blockchain." If you think this idea is original, then I have a bridge to sell you. So, I figured this couldn't be what you're talking about... silly me apparently. 

This is why I have pulled out of Bitshares. You guys have wrangled "control" of Bitshares from him by dragging his name through the mud for diluting Bitshares. Yet, fail to see he is the only thing that has put Bitshares where it is today. So many project have crashed and burned by now, but Bitshares is actually still doing OK compared to most. I trust Bytemaster's intellect, but I do not trust the rest of you. You guys (me including) can only dream of being as smart as him. I have been involved with cryptocurrencies since 2012. If I am a "noob", then what does that make all of you? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=114059.msg1232596#msg1232596

Why do I still care? I convinced a lot of family and friends to invest in Bitshares early. I am too embarrassed/stubborn to admit I was wrong about Bitshares, but I am certainly on the verge of doing so. Too much group think, not enough critical think. "Dilution bad", "stagnated development good" ... cave man style thought process.

Research my warnings to Litecoin several years back. I ended up being right... they are a dying coin because they failed to innovate. Ethereum one-upping them is only the first step to the slow death of Litecoin. I see similar things happening with this project... with the greedy community holding innovation and development back in this fast paced ecosystem by screaming bloody murder regarding dilution. The old adage goes.. you need to spend money to make money holds true in the cryptocurrency space. You may be ahead now as far as technology and features, but you don't seem to understand it is paramount to continue development to stay ahead instead of stagnate and fall behind a la Litecoin.

I waste too much time coaching you guys though... I will probably end up giving up like I did on Litecoin. Oh well, I tried. Right? What can you do...

Their idea is for a dual token system to deal with their forging system.  So you have equity in forging.  TonyKs idea was never to create more tokens.  Just make it so you can't trade BTS outside the DEX.  There is little commonality in these ideas..  the fact that you read that into this is quite demonstrative of how out of you are.  You are blinded by your FUD mission. I am not going to spend more time on this post.  You're a fool. I gave up refuting your nonsense after the first few. 

Let me dumb it down for you. No one here suggested they stole TonyKs idea!!!!

Good luck kid, maybe you can diceroll up another 30-50 IQ points and you can make another appearance as him.

Again, you lack reading comprehension. I'm not going to waste my time with an imbecile such as yourself. 

It is not my fault that I am capable of conceptualizing the pitfalls to Tonyk's proposal and his forking mission, when the rest of the Bitshares community does not consider them. Just because I am more vocal than others about it does not mean others do not agree with me. Most do not have the balls to say what I say because they would be worried what groupthink idiots such as yourself may think about them.

Dissenting opinions = FUD to sheep such as yourself.

Quote from: CoinHoarder on February 24, 2016, 07:12:34 pm

You guys are delusional. Check the date on the OP compared to the date of Tony's OP. If anything Tony stole the idea from Nxt. They have been discussing similar ideas for a long time now, this is their most recent design.

You are completely confused and should stop posting until you get it straightened out. 

Which idea would Tonyk have stole?  Who are the "delusional guys" in this thread??

But besides that... TonyK's idea is not "BitShares 2.0 mojo".

In your goal to manipulate/complain/whatever you have completely confused yourself.  Nap it out for a bit, kid. Try again tomorrow. Goodluck.

You mad?

You're definitely an idiot that lacks reading comprehension.

Exhibit A: The thread title is "NXT forks Bitshares 2.0 mojo!" which refers to Nxt forking TonyK's idea (considering the link in the OP).

Exhibit B: Someone claims NXT stole the idea.

While we are sitting here in a circle jerk arguing about dilution, other people are taken our ideas and running with them.

Exhibit C: Someone agrees with Exhibit B.

Quote from: Pheonike on February 24, 2016, 06:20:05 pm

While we are sitting here in a circle jerk arguing about dilution, other people are taken our ideas and running with them.

Same procedure as every year ..
At least we wont have much money to spend innovating in future

Exhibit D: I did not accuse Tonyk of stealing the idea, because of the use of "if anything" and the context surrounding those words. Considering those things, that statement doesn't mean "tonyk stole the idea." It means that it is impossible for NXT to have stolen the idea. Let me dumb it down for you... It is impossible for Nxt to have stolen the dual token idea, because their OP was before Tonyk's OP, and I know (since I am a Nxt investor/supporter) that they have been tossing around this idea for a while. If anyone stole the idea (Nxt or Tonyk) it was Tonyk seeing as their idea was published first.

You guys are delusional. Check the date on the OP compared to the date of Tony's OP. If anything Tony stole the idea from Nxt. They have been discussing similar ideas for a long time now, this is their most recent design.

I am not in favor of any proposal that limits the utility of Bitshares' features. Having different kinds of Smartcoins is one of Bitshares' strengths. I want to be able to diversify into multiple assets like gold, silver, Bitcoin, Nasdaq, etc... bitUSD is so boring to me.

So... no one is going to consider BM'S very valid concern that essentially this proposal creates a "walled garden" in between Bitshares and the rest of the crypto currency community?

It seems the community is blinded by the perceived benefits without fully discussing the setbacks that come with tony's proposal. I am disappointed in how irrational everyone is being by not even seriously considering the pros AND cons.

Was Expanse war on Ethereum with their fork? I can understand the concern but declaring war seems a little dramatic.

First of all, I am of the opinion Expanse is a pump and dump. Look at the lead developer's track record of failed cryptocurrencies with "gimmicky" innovation, dwindling market capitalizations, and over-promising yet under-delivering. First Franko, then Aiden, now Expanse.

Explain how Expanse was/is a positive occurrence for Ethereum?

Yet, you are comparing Apples and Oranges....

The guys behind Expanse are not (and never were) involved in the Ethereum community. See their Ethereum forum profiles and Githubs:
defaced:
https://forum.ethereum.org/profile/defaced
https://github.com/franko-org
CryptoCc:
https://forum.ethereum.org/profile/CryptoCc
can't find anything easily on their 3rd "founder"

My point with showing that information is that the Expanse fork is not a hostile takeover (a la Tonyk's fork) within the Ethereum community. If Expanse formed out of a disagreement within the Ethereum community, and a small but substantial amount of developers/community left expanse to work on the new fork, then yes it would certainly be a bad thing for Ethereum. The public perception alone that the community is splitting into two competing cryptocurrencies is a huge negative force on the market.

Further, you could still argue that since they are "working" on Expanse, that takes away possible developers (and therefore value) from Ethereum in the form of possible smart contracts that never materialize. Furthermore, Expanse community/volume/marketing certainly takes away from the Ethereum community/volume/market cap. Without its existence, these people likely would have participated/invested/traded/developed in Ethereum instead... they did choose an Ethereum fork after all.

All cryptocurrency forks are less successful than their counterparts. I can only name one anomaly (Bytecoin-> Monero), and I think that was an extreme case of an unfairly launched Cryptocurrency . Ripple dominating Stellar. Bitcoin dominating all alt coins. Litecoin dominating all of its forks. Ethereum dominating all of its forks. Nxt dominating all of its forks. Peercoin dominating all of its forks. Bitshares dominating Muse. Yet, Tonyk's fork is going to be a great success, provide a liquid smartcoin exchange, and all of us are going to switch over to it. 

Expanse did not sharedrop Ethereum so perhaps it was even worse than this scenario. Then again maybe not, it is hard to compare apples and oranges.

In summary, since it is unlikely the fork will be successful, and it also takes away developers/resources/community/volume/cohesiveness/market confidence/perception of success/etc., a cryptocurrency fork is like declaring war on the cryptocurrency it forked from. It has little chance of success, and is certain to cause negatives that would likely not otherwise occur if the chain wasn't forked.

I like the idea of Smartcoins earning interest. However, I prefer that the interest be paid from a percentage of the fee pool like in BTS1.0

If I had to choose in between dilution for liquidity, or dilution for Smartcoin interest, then I would choose the former becuase I think it is more important to the success of Bitshares.