46
Keyhotee / Re: Keyhotee Status Update
« on: December 21, 2013, 06:43:50 pm »
Thanks for the update
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.
47
BitShares PTS / Re: [POLL] Setting another 10% Bitshares as "Angelshares" to fundraise for DACS
« on: December 20, 2013, 02:52:31 am »We now need centralised Angelshares? Have you decided on a later date for 'Godshares' yet...
Mastercoin really got a terrible reputation after their centralised issuance. Now you're going to do it too & worse, you're doing it after you already went the route of PTS funding first! Now I've seen it all!
To be constructive though, despite the hiccup at the start, people probably feel that Protoshares have been issued in a fairly decentralised way. You would probably be able to decrease the stated Bitshare issuance thereby increasing the value of Protoshares as long as you only made such a huge market moving move ONCE.
(Obviously you could just purchase PTS before the announcement and get more than enough funding that way and as sickening as this move might be in terms of insider trading. It will probably be infinitely better for your reputation than trying to issue Angelshares after having initiated Protoshares. (Whether or not PTS is unaffected or benefits.)
In terms of trying to launch. Another group could just steal your Bitshares platform and start it in a fairer, more transparent and decentralised way and potentially receive massive support from the crypto community that may shun you for going about funding in the way you are suggesting right now.
(Also part of the point of mining is that the shares are issued in a fair, decentralized way, based on maths not human/centralized estimation of value - ie. as in the form of development bounties. Also the miners then bring those shares to the market in a fair decentralised way so that investors feel they are more likely to be paying fair market value not an inflated Quark price because of hoarding/other price manipulation schemes.)
48
BitShares PTS / Re: [Feedback Needed] Protoshares.net Launched
« on: December 16, 2013, 01:51:23 pm »
Website is looking great, other than what has already been said, I would like to add that the download navigation button does not make it clear where to download the program, if you could shrink the laptop and move up the download buttons for Windows/Mac/Github it would be preferable.
49
BitShares PTS / Re: [POLL] Setting another 10% Bitshares as "Angelshares" to fundraise for DACS
« on: December 16, 2013, 01:46:53 pm »I think there's an elephant in the room. Yesterday, bytemaster dropped a red hot fiery 'development engine' right in our laps. Some memes are just too powerful to stand against. At this moment, everyone is just sitting around, staring at this amazingly potent, jewel of an idea. But how long will it keep until someone picks it up and rides it into the future.Sorry I missed the "jewel" of an idea that Bytemaster gave us. Mind explaining?
50
BitShares PTS / Re: [POLL] Setting another 10% Bitshares as "Angelshares" to fundraise for DACS
« on: December 16, 2013, 06:30:49 am »Que you didn't answer Any part of Lighthouse's last question, the one you quoted. Just thought I'd point that out.Regardless, it still provides a decentralized method that supports equal opportunity distribution. This should be one of the most important ideas to keep in mind, less we'd like to be the next quark coin.Educational giveaways would be difficult to agree on collectively among the members of the community as to who would deserve more coins and to who.I still don't see any need for having miners in the future. If Invictus is moving towards a more Mastercoin like approach, then you have to work for BTC and Angel Shares by doing the bounties, a real service that will benefit the DACs. After PTS, which will always get 10%, there is no more use for mining.
You could just as easily replace mining with educational giveaways and I'd be happy. The point is a non-monetary way to get invested in the success of the project.
Also with that, mining provides equal opportunity for everyone. Transactions need to be secured and mining provides a method for doing this. Lucky's idea provides 1.) Fulfillment of the PTS social contract 2.) Funds Invictus 3.) Provides an incentive for new people without their own large pool of money to participate in Bitshares.
In my opinion it's the best option out there, but as of right now I am extremely against 90% of the bitshares being distributed to "Angel Investors" that pay off Invictus.
Mining used to be necessary. There is no longer a need for it anymore. Read: Transactions as Proof-of-Stake & The End of Mining https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1138.0
You're asking to pay for work that doesn't need to be done and giving money to the electric company.
But Bitshares isn't a currency. It's more a cross between a share and a commodity. There is always a limited amount of commodity to go around. The PTS community will get their 10%. The only reason to add more shares is if it brings value. That value is the real work that can be paid for with funds. The reason to use BitsharesDAC is for its service. Many people think that service is very valuable.
And if that was what they said from the beginning we wouldn't be having the argument, but guess what - they did say that you'd be able to get invested without needing to make a monetary investment directly to Invictus. Just because they made a bad decision doesn't mean they get to rewrite the rules, or they can rewrite the rules whenever they feel its necessary and the rules are as good as worthless.
Do you really not understand that?
Actually, I've tried to piece together the original commitment, but it is very difficult to understand. I'm going off what bytemaster thinks, which is he's not breaking the social contract. Now, some people have been trying to tell invictus what to do with the other 90%. I think this is really their business. When they thought giving that 90% away to miners for performing the service of maintaining the blockchain, they said only that that was what they were thinking of doing. I think they can do whatever they want with it.
If you agree that the social contract is what makes Protoshares valuable, than anything that suggests that Invictus can change the social contract when the need strikes them means the value is dependent on their continued good will to the way the deal is now but that could change in the future.
Isn't that a problem?
What you want is to make Bitshares more obtainable--the ability to perform some task that will allow anyone to obtain shares. The work miners used to do was important in proof of work but is irrelevant in proof of stake. We are both in agreement that it is a great idea to allow people to work for shares. I think you are worried about people that have no skills being able to get in on the action. In this way, proof of work miners are like blue collar workers. And now they're being replaced by white collar workers. I think although the PoW mining is going away for Bitshares, that there is still lots of other coins that need hard work done. Bitshares needs a different group of workers. I'm not in favor of paying for nothing.
51
BitShares PTS / Re: [POLL] Setting another 10% Bitshares as "Angelshares" to fundraise for DACS
« on: December 16, 2013, 05:43:54 am »Quote
Actually, I've tried to piece together the original commitment, but it is very difficult to understand. I'm going off what bytemaster thinks, which is he's not breaking the social contract. Now, some people have been trying to tell invictus what to do with the other 90%. I think this is really their business. When they thought giving that 90% away to miners for performing the service of maintaining the blockchain, they said only that that was what they were thinking of doing. I think they can do whatever they want with it.Lighthouse is trying to see what the community thinks with his poll, I think that's really important as Protoshares represent an involvement in Invictus itself. Instead of throwing up your hands and saying "this isn't our business" we should be actively trying to contribute and come to the best conclusion collectively. In the end it is Invictus's deciscion, but as we've seen Bytemaster actually values the community's opinion.
52
BitShares PTS / Re: [POLL] Setting another 10% Bitshares as "Angelshares" to fundraise for DACS
« on: December 16, 2013, 05:32:52 am »Quote
But Bitshares isn't a currency. It's more a cross between a share and a commodity. There is always a limited amount of commodity to go around. The PTS community will get their 10%. The only reason to add more shares is if it brings value. That value is the real work that can be paid for with funds. The reason to use BitsharesDAC is for its service. Many people think that service is very valuable.How do you suggest distributing the other 80% of coins? That is the real question/problem right now.
53
BitShares PTS / Re: [POLL] Setting another 10% Bitshares as "Angelshares" to fundraise for DACS
« on: December 16, 2013, 05:22:57 am »Regardless, mining still provides a decentralized method that supports equal opportunity distribution. This should be one of the most important ideas to keep in mind, less we'd like to be the next quark coin.Educational giveaways would be difficult to agree on collectively among the members of the community as to who would deserve more coins and to who.I still don't see any need for having miners in the future. If Invictus is moving towards a more Mastercoin like approach, then you have to work for BTC and Angel Shares by doing the bounties, a real service that will benefit the DACs. After PTS, which will always get 10%, there is no more use for mining.
You could just as easily replace mining with educational giveaways and I'd be happy. The point is a non-monetary way to get invested in the success of the project.
Also with that, mining provides equal opportunity for everyone. Transactions need to be secured and mining provides a method for doing this. Lucky's idea provides 1.) Fulfillment of the PTS social contract 2.) Funds Invictus 3.) Provides an incentive for new people without their own large pool of money to participate in Bitshares.
In my opinion it's the best option out there, but as of right now I am extremely against 90% of the bitshares being distributed to "Angel Investors" that pay off Invictus.
Mining used to be necessary. There is no longer a need for it anymore. Read: Transactions as Proof-of-Stake & The End of Mining https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1138.0
You're asking to pay for work that doesn't need to be done and giving money to the electric company.
54
BitShares PTS / Re: [POLL] Setting another 10% Bitshares as "Angelshares" to fundraise for DACS
« on: December 16, 2013, 05:15:30 am »Educational giveaways would be difficult to agree on collectively among the members of the community as to who would deserve more coins and to who.I still don't see any need for having miners in the future. If Invictus is moving towards a more Mastercoin like approach, then you have to work for BTC and Angel Shares by doing the bounties, a real service that will benefit the DACs. After PTS, which will always get 10%, there is no more use for mining.
You could just as easily replace mining with educational giveaways and I'd be happy. The point is a non-monetary way to get invested in the success of the project.
Also with that, mining provides equal opportunity for everyone. Transactions need to be secured and mining provides a method for doing this. Lucky's idea provides 1.) Fulfillment of the PTS social contract 2.) Funds Invictus 3.) Provides an incentive for new people without their own large pool of money to participate in Bitshares.
In my opinion it's the best option out there, but as of right now I am extremely against 90% of the bitshares being distributed to "Angel Investors" that pay off Invictus.
55
BitShares PTS / Re: [POLL] Setting another 10% Bitshares as "Angelshares" to fundraise for DACS
« on: December 16, 2013, 04:48:27 am »
I really liked Luckybit's suggestion of capping bitshares at 6 million and offering 2 million to Protoshares owners, 2 million to Angel share investors to fund Invictus, and 2 million for hybrid mining. It's a fair way of going about distribution, honors the social contract, and allows for equal opportunity distribution for everyone.
Is there anyone who is specifically against this?
Is there anyone who is specifically against this?
56
Marketplace / Re: I want to buy 66 PTS @ 0.023 btc each for a total of 1.518 btc
« on: December 16, 2013, 04:01:18 am »
I've been hearing increased reports that users on Cryptsy have had their funds disappearing and support completely ignoring them, be careful there.
57
MemoryCoin / Re: Distribution At Block 32000 - MemoryCoin 2.0
« on: December 16, 2013, 03:22:10 am »
Still a bit unclear on the idea of importing protoshare's private key to mem coin, is there a set date we need to do this by or can we still claim these coins with our pts private key a year down the road?
58
General Discussion / Re: Angel Shares Feedback Requested
« on: December 15, 2013, 08:52:06 pm »This.I bought into the PTS idea because the concepts of merged mining, multiple blockchains, blockchain security, DACs and its attraction to little miners. Now if mining is taken away from the picture, the bulk of it seems to be gone.
Essentially, the proposed change is an admission of two things:
1. Ripple model -- a centralized entity controlling money supply, issuing coins instead of mining them -- is better than Bitcoin model.
2. The MasterCoin model is better than the original PTS model, again, centralized control of funds.
I understand there may be some funding difficulty as the result of this, but to me these are not the right direction we should move to, there got to be better alternatives.
AFAIK, Ripple has some pretty deep pocket investors backing them, probably deeper than the ones you meet in Vegas, but as an investor, I won't touch it even with a 10 foot pole.
I had expected something like this would happen but didn't think it would come this early. The handling of this will not only have impact on the future of I3 and DACs, but also this type of business model, many will be watching how this plays out with great interest.
This is precisely the result of the OP. Invictus needs to deliver before they do anything else, and talking about changing the deal is arguably worse than actually changing the deal because it introduces uncertainty in the value.
Where oh where is someone with a lick of marketing sense. Stop posting, you are making things worse. Talk to your team and if they can't explain to you why this whole exercise was really stupid you should get a new team.
This is real money for us as it is for you and your family, appreciate that introducing uncertainty even if you have good intentions is a much worse situation than just shutting up until you've figured out a plan that will actually work.
59
Random Discussion / Re: Thank you, ProtoShares [pic inside]
« on: December 12, 2013, 04:49:55 pm »How did u get so many in 1 day of mining. I tried to solo mine a couple of days after it started and got nothing after 18hours so joined a pool.He got it when the difficulty was next to nothing, the only way to get the coins now is to invest while it's still pretty low now or have a very large mining rig or invest in cloud mining.
60
BitShares PTS / Re: Why have we been removed from coinmarketcap.com
« on: December 11, 2013, 07:19:34 pm »
Btsblock.com is online again (and thus up on coinmarketcap.com) but I agree, we really need an alternative chain, btsblock was down for a few days with no word.
