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 - pendragon3

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9
IDentabit / Re: Important Criticism
« on: August 16, 2015, 02:58:55 pm »
+5% for ubit
btw is already taken

underwun, I think the name decision should be based on what is your target audience, if it's for instance financial institutions - Identabit would make a sense because the may care about "identity" and have a value proposition in the name can be a good thing, but if you are going to promote it to more mass market Identabit name wouldn't contain any value proposition for them and having more simple name like ubit or idex can have more benefits. If you are going to target Bitcoin users and crypto enthusiasts, having identity in it's name can even do some harm.
Also more general name you use, the easier it would be to pivot and target different markets.
Take a look at Dash - they were able to double their market cap with rebranding.
More good names examples (in my opinion): Ripple, Stellar, Ethereum, Graphene (btw I suggested to call new version Graphene and I think the name works great so far, I was even advocating to rebrand Bitshares into Graphene completely).

"graphene" is a winner, imo.

Is already taken? I thought it was still available for purchase (at

IDentabit / Re: Important Criticism
« on: August 16, 2015, 02:55:42 pm »
"Identabit" might be fine for the blockchain or a company, but it's not such an effective name for the currency units. That's why "Bitcoin" has been a pretty good name: it's relatively simple to spell and say out loud, and it works well in connection with sending, spending, or receiving units of value. "Ubits" would be at least as good for this purpose, imo...

IDentabit / Re: Important Criticism
« on: August 16, 2015, 01:45:21 pm »
The branding brief mentions "an easy to remember retail name".
I think I have a brilliant name proposition. Actually a couple of them:



I especially like UBIT. As a currency unit it is just perfect.

It sounds natural: "You owe me 12 ubits."
And it plays out nicely: it is your virtual currency and your identity.

What's more, and are still available.

As for the other service I'd go for REMIT. Then you'd have a nicely matching pair: UBIT & REMIT.


Brilliant suggestion, jakub. Absolutely brilliant.

"ubit", imo, is a perfect name for a consumer-oriented currency intended to challenge Bitcoin head-on.

"ubit" is short, simple, memorable, and replete with meaning. It seems to have almost unlimited potential. It even subliminally evokes "uber." If John can fit this name into his plans for the naming system and future business strategy, that would be a huge coup. Maybe the currency name is not as precious as the overall business strategy, but here's one instance where the name could dramatically boost the rate of uptake by consumers, young and old.

I'm surprised that and are still available.

It seems the sell order is still outstanding. I think the " Withdraw 54096981335 satoshi amount of asset" just means the order was placed.

A similar thing happened to me a while ago, with some NOTES seemingly gone from the wallet after I placed an order. Actually, the notes were not gone; they were just not displaying properly. IIRC, what I did to correct this was to start a brand new account and wallet, and let it sync (this can take a long while). Then, in the BitShares folder for the new wallet, I deleted the "wallet" subfolder and replaced it with the "wallet" subfolder from an earlier backup. After syncing and scanning, the missing NOTES had reappeared. Be sure to backup the BitShares folder to one or more safe places before doing any of this. Also, keep earlier backups if you have them...

IDentabit / Re: Important Criticism
« on: August 16, 2015, 06:33:46 am »
This is an ambitious and extremely thoughtful proposal you've forwarded here. You make a compelling case for bringing to market--and none too soon--a currency that will help fill a void, delivering on the promises that we know Bitcoin cannot.

About the name "IDentabit": yes, it's drawn attention here on this thread, but frankly I'm quite skeptical that means the name is clearly a win. It's not the capital "D" that is most concerning. Actually, "Identabit" would be memorable to consumers, as would be "Remitabit", provided that critical mass had already been achieved. These would be perfectly fine names for a company, a protocol, a platform... or a blockchain. But they would definitely be less useful as names of currency units. Perhaps most importantly, these names are unwieldy. Being four syllables, "Identabit" is a risky choice for currency units because it won't make it easy for people to speak of, think of, spell, and read about without stumbling over them or, worse yet, scoffing at them. All of this could impede the rapid uptake of the currency by consumers. Maybe when crypto has become mainstream, then clunky, long currency names will be more typical and more effective. But I don't think we are there yet, not nearly so.

Have you considered keeping "Identabit" and "Remitabit" as the names of the respective blockchains but using shorter and simpler names for the actual currency units? Using different names for tradeable units and their underlying blockchain seems to be quite a common practice nowadays: e.g., Ripple and XRP, Ethereum and Ether, MUSE and notes, etc.

You could call the blockchain "Identabit" but the currency units "IDbits" (which would jive well with "IDbank" and "IDpay"). Likewise, you could call the Remitabit blockchain's currency units "Rembits". The logo for IDbits (which evokes Bitcoin's logo) could stay the same. Which of the following sounds better: "I'd like to send you XX.XX Remitabits" versus "I'd like to send you XX.XX Rembits". Or "That'll be XX.XX Identabits, please" versus "That'll be XX.XX IDbits, please". To me, it seems obvious that the short & sweet names are more likely to catch on.

Another thought is that you could promote the usage of abbreviations for Identabits as much as possible, so that users would come to refer to them as IDB. Remitabits could be RMB (or some variation thereof to avoid confusion with the symbol for Chinese currency).

General Discussion / Re: Announcing Brownie Points (BROWNIE.PTS)
« on: August 14, 2015, 11:50:56 pm »
Ok, so my contributions to BTS to date may be modest, but please be assured that they were earnest and well-intentioned:

1. I've followed developments here from nearly the beginning, circa Dec. 2013 or so. Used a goodly amount of my take-home pay to make AGS donations and PTS purchases throughout the first six months of 2014, both before and after the DPOS breakthough happened--and even throughout the Dark Days of Spring 2014.

2. Shorted BitUSD heavily around Sept. of 2014, and did not fully cover until this past Spring (ouch!). Well, the way I see it, this was a good contribution to the liquidity of the BTS system  :D. Who knows whether BTS would even be viable now if not for my "butterfly-effect" contribution?

3. If memory serves me well, I was one of the first to ask about whether it's "bitshares", or "Bitshares", or "BitShares".

4. Sept. 2014: I pointed out to Bytemaster a potentially serious order-matching bug leading to an erroneous increase in the BitCNY supply. This was back in the BTSX days when even syncing the wallet without crashing it, not to mention placing trades, was a frustrating experience, to say the least.

5. Railed repeatedly against the suggestion of open-ended dilution of BTSX to pay delegates for signing blocks. Criticized the merger plan as being unfair to those who believed that Vote with its special sauce would eclipse BTS.  As iron sharpens iron, hopefully my arguments and views helped Bytemaster in some small way to adopt a balanced perspective and forge the right path for the BTS community going forward.

6. Listened to virtually every Mumble session recording, even if I wasn't able to make it to the live sessions. Honestly, after each listening I always walked away more excited and impressed about the direction of the ecosystem.

BTS: pendragon3

Congrats to Dan et al. for everything BitShares has become and for all the promise it holds for the future. Much obliged to the PTB for any brownie.pts that may be deemed appropriate!

Let the people bet whatever amount they want on songs they like and let them get paid every month when/if they reach the top 100 best songs on the platform (charts)...
Or much better copy the BINARY OPTION system from the forex markets...
Let the people bet on songs making a CALL (if they like it)  or PUT (if they don't) using the music tokens !!!
Let them have a potential profit from 70% to 85% and let the platform keep the rest!

PLEASE SEE HOW BINARY OPTIONS WORK and implement the idea here !!!!

Intriguing idea, but would it be legal? For speculators based in the United States, probably not...

Some miscellaneous thoughts:

The freemium ad-supported model seems to be central to peertracks, so really anything that increases the ease and ROI for big advertisers to bring big $$$s to the site would be good. This includes, for example, selling or offering access to "big data" on the demographics and habits of curators and regular users... sophisticated, cutting-edge data analytics tools, making peertracks the advertising site of choice... detailed, tamper-proof (blockchain/trustless) analytics on the exact results of ad campaigns, etc., etc.

Is the "no audio-ads" requirement set in stone? Having as a default the ability to listen ad-free for "free" is going to be a great draw that distinguishes PeerTracks from many other streaming services. Still, I can't help but wonder if doing away with audio ads completely may be leaving a LOT of money on the table. What about giving listeners or curators the ability to earn a small # of tokens or credit by opting in to audio ads? That way, peertracks can tout itself as 100% free of audio ads for those who want it that way, but it can also monetize a ton of $$$ from listeners who don't mind audio ads.

Peertracks could take a cue from LinkedIn, which currently appears to have 3 major revenue streams: premium subscriptions, advertising revenues, and talent solutions (e.g., HR recruiting tools for headhunters and corporations). Having features for professional networking would make PeerTracks something of a one-stop destination. It could have premium subscription-based accounts that allow many different types of music industry professionals to connect to others via e-mail: artists, aspiring band-members, curators/talent scouts, DJs, recording studios, technicians, record producers, nightclub owners, music lawyers. This could be a worthwhile source of revenue for Peertracks in the short- to medium-term, even if the main goal is to gain tremendous user adoption of music streaming...

Muse/SoundDAC / Re: Questions about Notes
« on: July 17, 2015, 08:01:49 pm »
Any suggestions from this incredibly smart community is welcome of course.
Actually I'm not from the smarter part of this community but if you would ask me...
I'd like to see MUSE launched as a separate Wallet/Website on the Graphene based BitShares Blockchain.
"Combine the extremes, and you will have the true center."

That's a fair suggestion.

I mean why wouldn't PeerTracks want to leverage the industrial grade graphene blockchain without having to pay for it? From what I understand, MUSE blockchain will be licensed by CNX for a price if it has its independant blockchain, and free to use if it integrates directly on the Bitshares blockchain.

You create your own wallet/trading interface for whatever artist coin that will be created and use the Bitshares blockchain as the backend and voilà! PeerTracks won't even have to maintain a blockchain, and nobody will have to short bitUSD on another blockchain. That kinds of frightens me to know that there will be two types of bitUSD backed by different assets on different blockchains. Why not have it all on a single blockchain, increasing liquidity and utility? Notes would be an asset on Bitshares (as it currently already is) and have the artist tokens as UIA.

Am I missing something, cause from my perspective it doesn't make much sense with BTS2.0 to have an independant blockchain for MUSE.

I see at least two big problems with having music as a UIA on the main Bitshares blockchain.

1. Greater risk. Putting everything on a single chain would unnecessarily concentrate risk. If (heaven forbid) something disastrous happens to BTS like being crippled by onerous regulations, malicious actors, bad publicity, security breaches, etc., that could jeopardize the music chain as well. By having a separate chain, this type of risk is spread out to some extent.

2. Loss of control. Ultimately, a UIA on the Bitshares blockchain is subject to the control of BTS holders because they control/vote over the parent chain. What if a major disagreement arises in the future between bts and note about who gets BitUSD transaction fees? Also, what if, in the future, the music chain needs to be modified at a fundamental level to adapt it to changes in consumer tastes, technology, or regulation?  It's hard to predict where the music entertainment industry might be going in the future and what changes in muse might need to occur. Note holders are better off having control of their own independent chain so that the system is flexible enough to respond to future (unforeseen) contingencies. UIAs may be good for relatively simple tokens, but something as important, complex, and multi-functional like MUSE would be best as its own independent chain.

Muse/SoundDAC / Re: Rename to Muse
« on: June 25, 2015, 07:07:49 pm »
How about ... Musechain or Muse-chain or Muse Chain?

I like NOTES for units.

Trade NOTES on the MUSER blockchain.

Muser sounds cool too. It's what Muse fans are called, but maybe we can say it's short for Music User.  :P

That image never gets old GMF. ;)

Muser seems too whimsical and lightweight imo, kind of like deezer. We need to think bigger and longer-term. I still like muse a lot. But, if it's a no-go, then a simple name with gravitas and universal appeal would be best. Two possibilities that come to mind:

Aura (top choice, after muse)

Muse/SoundDAC / Re: Rename to Muse
« on: June 20, 2015, 07:53:55 pm »
Muse is a terrible name anyway, trade mark arguments aside. It suggests something whimsical rather than something of value like a bank note.
Notes is an excellent name as it suggests value and music. To coin a phrase musically you use notes.

"Muse" is the new name for "BitShares Music". There's no planned change to "Notes" afaik.

I think "Muse" is a great name for the blockchain. I'm not an attorney, but calling the blockchain "Muse" is clearly different from using the name for a band, show, or performance. Most mainstream users wouldn't be interacting directly with the blockchain.

Muse/SoundDAC / Re: What artist token are you most excited for?
« on: April 14, 2015, 04:28:56 am »
Moving away from the NoteUSD collateral model is quite a positive development, in my opinion. Under a collateral model, there would have been no guarantee that people wouldn't just move their noteUSD into BitUSD for increased safety or liquidity. Under the new model, the value of the underlying blockchain units (i.e., notes or their successors) now derives from the usefulness of the service to its users. If the service is really valuable to artists, listeners, scouts, traders, etc, this will naturally lead to high transaction volumes and create substantial value for the underlying blockchain unit holders. More importantly, the blockchain unit holders have control rights and thus get to set a revenue or fee model that will lead to the best mix of growth and long-term value. In essence, the new transaction-based model keeps BitShares and the music/entertainment blockchain largely separate and allows each to focus on what it does best.

Technical Support / Re: BitShares wont launch!
« on: April 09, 2015, 05:56:39 am »
I encountered a similar problem. What seemed to work was installing on a second (older) machine, syncing, and then copying the entire bitshares folder from the older machine over to the first one.

General Discussion / Re: What's happening with the price?
« on: April 05, 2015, 11:01:50 pm »

with only $37,000 24h volume we are 5% down... what does it mean? ( I ask the traders to interpret what means low volume with increased price volatility)

It means there is very little buying support, even at these levels.

The key developers still seem very committed though and there are good developments all coming through soon. If I didn't have any BTS I would take a punt at these prices but as I've already tried to call the bottom incorrectly and lost as a result, I'm personally waiting for a significant reversal in the downtrend or evidence of actual BitAsset adoption before I buy more. (I value BTS almost exclusively on BitAsset progress and adoption.)

BitSapphire though have identified perhaps the key problem with BitAssets which is liquidity. So creative ways to address that are possibly needed.

Also if there was a use for BitAssets like buying Music, Gaming or my personal favourite Blockchain based Gambling, then we could see an uptick in BitAsset use and growth.

The two easiest ways to add gateways to the picture is in our opinion:
  • Add legal stock and bond gateways
  • Add legal fiat IOU gateways

Both need easy and friction-less KYC to be legally compliant. I think adding easy KYC compliance should be the number one thing in mind of every delegate and wallet creator out there atm.

The easiest to reach potential gateways are most likely already existing equity crowdfunding websites in Europe and already existing Bitcoin ATM networks. The ATM networks especially could easily integrate by providing ATM Gateway fiat IOUs rather than do the whole buying and selling of bitUSD at the ATM. This would also be a lot more secure.

Our two cents.

 +5% +5%
Agree. As I said a few months back, developing easy fiat on- and off-ramps is tremendously important for BitShares, second only to providing the typical user with a great wallet experience.

I hope our best talent is focusing on fiat ramps now because of the significant lead time involved. Developing good, legally-compliant ramps won't be easy. It's a bit unfortunate that BitShares has not (yet) been the beneficiary of a price bubble, as Bitcoin was. So, getting a robust system of ramps will take a lot of resourcefulness, persistence, and ingenuity, but IMO it's a make-or-break and of paramount importance.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9