Canadian. Lol that's all I know about it.

Quote from: eagleeye on January 02, 2015, 10:03:24 am

Quote from: luckybit on January 02, 2015, 10:00:27 am

In my opinion the big marking push should be held off for a while. The crypto ecosystem is in a recession and people aren't buying altcoins very much. Even Bitcoin is losing market cap despite spending a lot of money on funding with the Bitcoin Bowl.

In my opinion why not save up money for a proper advertisement campaign when the time is right? Why not a period of increased interest or for the next crypto bubble? Why not wait for 1.0 to be released and tested at least?

If anything we wait for 1.0 we need a coordinated campaign and to have the delegates up and running and being generating income before 1.0 comes out so we can do a splash.

The problem is that our "splash" may be coinciding with the Ethereum launch.  We'd be going toe to toe for market attention.  Given how effective their marketing has been, I think we would do well to avoid such unfortunate timing. 

Our main weapon on the marketing front is the "first mover advantage" which we are rapidly loosing.  It is true that our product may be better- who knows, but in the short to medium term, the market may not care.  Given that not many people understand these technologies in the first place, the market will tend to gravitate to where the buzz is, thus the concern.   It is much harder work to play catch up that it is to not get yourself in that position in the first place.

 

That first mover advantage is rapidly slipping away, and in the lightning fast world of crypto, it may well already be gone. Action is needed, and quick.

"BitShares" trademark events:
2014-01-06 NEW APPLICATION ENTERED IN TRAM
2014-01-15 NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED IN TRAM
2014-01-16 NOTICE OF PSEUDO MARK E-MAILED
2014-04-02 ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER
2014-04-08 NON-FINAL ACTION WRITTEN
2014-04-08 NON-FINAL ACTION E-MAILED
2014-04-08 NOTIFICATION OF NON-FINAL ACTION E-MAILED
2014-09-17 TEAS RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION RECEIVED
2014-09-17 CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE
2014-09-18 TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED
2014-10-02 FINAL REFUSAL WRITTEN
2014-10-02 FINAL REFUSAL E-MAILED
2014-10-02 NOTIFICATION OF FINAL REFUSAL EMAILED

"BitDollar" trademark events:
2014-03-17 NEW APPLICATION ENTERED IN TRAM
2014-03-27 NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED IN TRAM
2014-03-28 NOTICE OF DESIGN SEARCH CODE AND PSEUDO MARK E-MAILED
2014-05-23 ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER
2014-05-24 SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN
2014-05-24 LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED
2014-05-24 NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED
2014-09-03 AUTOMATIC UPDATE OF ASSIGNMENT OF OWNERSHIP
2014-11-25 APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER
2014-12-09 ASSIGNED TO LIE
2014-12-12 LAW OFFICE PUBLICATION REVIEW COMPLETED

I'm not sure what exactly all these events mean, but it sounds like "BitDollar" by BitReserve is farther along than BTS' "BitShares" ever got...and if the USPTO is willing to give them BitDollar, I see no reason why they wouldn't allow the rest of their Bit* terms. I would hope that they stick to their precedent that Bit-anything is too descriptive, otherwise the entire system is a sham. Which wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

(However, it looks like they resubmitted their application for BitDollar along with all the other terms on December 2nd under the ownership of "BITRESERVE GLOBAL FOUNDATION" instead of "BitReserve Ltd". Maybe this means something went wrong with their initial application back in March and they're trying again? So there's still a chance the USPTO could rule all their trademarks as being "too descriptive"...)

To be fair, Paycoin really does appear to be a very obvious, blatant scam. Everything I've read about it sounds terrible. I wouldn't touch that one with a 20-foot pole. I guess time will tell, but I'd be very surprised if the whole thing didn't implode.

Just MHO.

Quote from: delulo on December 28, 2014, 03:23:58 pm

..
 
10% AGS 10 % PTS and 80% BTS would make everyone (heavily invested in bts) happy.

I absolutely agree.

Everyone should be heavily invested in BTS. This is the BTS forum, right?

Quote from: islandking on December 26, 2014, 01:58:17 pm

Yes please let PTS die like it should have. We paid millions during the merger so PTS should no longer be included in anything. I am confident that the shareholders are going to revolt against anyone supporting PTS through sharedrops.

What you are implying (that the merger was a "buyout") is simply a distortion of some early draft proposals. Stan and Dan have both consistently stated that PTS and the social consensus will live on. This anti-diversity view is bizarre and hurtful to BTS, which depends on the success of DPoS to gain wide adoption. We, as a community, should be glad to own the most advanced crypto-coin (BTS) PLUS a share in all future DPoS implementations (via AGS/PTS and the social consensus).

Whether or not these are just reflective of the ideas expressed in the proposals, the problem is that myself and I assume many others were under the impression that what the  second sharedrop to PTS and AGS was for was to ultimately buy out PTS and AGS for their features (including having BTS be the new sharedrop target for third parties as well). I was here all through the merger fiasco and not once did I think things would turn out like this, because it wasn't clearly communicated. I can almost guarantee there are many of us who would have strongly opposed the 14% sharedrop inflation to PTS and AGS if we would've known that PTS was gonna continue competing against us and steal resources/spotlight/community etc.

Quote from: mf-tzo on December 25, 2014, 06:49:28 pm

I really don't understand why people complaining about the allocation of something that has absolutely no value other than testing like devshares. This could have been airdroped to any coin...To my understanding Devshares have no value.

It has symbolic value.

It shows that the devs still consider PTS/AGS to be things to sharedrop on.  But we thought that the reason we were giving 7% of BTS to AGs and PTS in the merger was so that in the future, everyone would sharedrop to BTS instead.  And yes, I mean EVERYONE.    We thought that we were buying out the social consensus and replacing it with a new social consensus of sharedropping to BTS.


I would not have supported the merger if I had known how it would end up.  It turned into a betrayal of BTS holders.  We should only have merged with DNS and VOTE, not PTS/AGS imo.
PTS should be dead, and all sharedrops should go only to BTS in the future.  Our community is still fractured because this is not the case.  We were supposed to be buying community unity, and instead we bought betrayal.

    

My thoughts exactly. I'm sure many others were under this same impression.