Soooooooo how about that Bitshares thing huh?

WHAT do YOU want?

Ok... well that was an entertaining thread.

It's awesome to explore the idea of creating a more centralized wallet for our decentralized network.

This thread to me was another experiment in attempting to control bitshares.

You can't control it.

Those that attempt to burn out and disappear when they can't get their way.

The idea that technical people should be some kind of leaders of bitshares is really terrible. It's such a mismatch of the requirements for a truly effective roll. You want charismatic charming and well spoken and presentable people who connect with those they present to. That is often not the MO of those that seek to be programmers. It's a different skill set.

Regardless, I think the whole idea of putting our eggs into yet another basket is the wrong approach. I say, give people an easier way to have their own basket to fill up. Why not just put some TLC into the faucet/wallet to make for a simpler setup so that we have tons of 'Openledgers' that people can choose from? Cryptowannabenerds can come up with new creative ways to refer traders.. identify sticking points.. possibly even DEVELOP new stuff to improve it.

I have contemplated this idea for a while. Maybe it's time to take it off the shelf and relook at something like that the spur more adoption/innovation for Bitshares.

This DAC experiment isn't done yet. We don't need to abandon the possibility of it working in other ways when we never really even got the training wheels off yet.

Leadership comes from leading.... building.. moving forward.. and most importantly inspiring others to follow.

Right now, the Bitshares 'followership' looks so jaded.. I honestly think the only hope for new leadership in to have more people like @bitsharesbrazil join the party. The rest are just too busy circle-jerking who to blame for their dissatisfaction.

warning.. this was posted at 5am my time... I am not entirely sure how much what I wrote made sense.. but I figure it will go ignore anyways because I wasn't playing the blame game... so clicking post....now.

Quote from: speedy on June 03, 2016, 10:21:45 am

How about a community poll on rebranding to DEX? Its such a great name Im surprised there isnt a crypto out there already using it.

I agree, it's quite strange that the name DEX is still unclaimed.

I've planned to add a poll after some initial feedback is gathered, just to avoid knee-jerk reactions.
It's a tough and costly decision, but I think the opportunity is ideal and the name is just perfect for us.

Regarding the costs of rebranding (e.g. compensating people for domain names already bought) I think it should be covered by all of us, i.e. by a worker proposal.
It's an investment that has some risk associated with it but the benefits could be enormous.

Look what's happened to Crypti and Darkcoin. They took the risk and it payed off.
It seems Nxt is going to make a similar move pretty soon.

It's risky as it can further deepen the split in this community and become a distraction but on the other hand if we manage to pull it off efficiency it can become a truly fresh start and something that heals the wounds. At the same time we could also eliminate our dependence on Bitsapphire hosting this forum and finally move to some other, more modern forum platform.

We've been dumped after a long and difficult relationship. Now we need a tangible change that brings new energy and motivation.

The name sort of has been claimed by one of our community members here who plans in the future to start his own exchange on Bitshares. It is called The DEX.  The domain is http://www.thedex.org/ .. again this is not a working project now. It is just a placeholder.

In regards to a rebranding, there are two events to consider when this could/should occure

1. When community has new leadership that there is a consensus to back.

2. Post Nov 5th.

If you missed it, Dan has not abandoned Bitshares, but has just moved the experimentation to another blockchain and has suggested in other posts when the results of those experiments yield positive results, then those things can be considered for introduction/inclusion into our current blockchain. Many of the features do revolve around new ways to provide liquidity to the markets.

These changes however would require another pitch-fork, similar to that of 1.0 > 2.0, because the base functions are too radically different from our current code base. The steem experiment likely will reveal its potential successes/failures by September.. if what Dan offered previously is still at all feasible at that time, then I would list this as a pending 3rd event to coincide with a rebranding.

Humm yes why indeed.

I will bring this to the attention of the Committee and see what comes of it.

Quote from: xeroc on May 30, 2016, 07:34:32 pm

Quote from: speedy on May 30, 2016, 04:35:53 pm

And we seem to have given up on the better way to get interest, which was p2p lending/bond market.

Given up? Not me. Still in talks with people that can help fund or even develop it. In fact, there are than one party interested in doing this ..
but as you know ... developing for graphene isnt as easy as putting together javascript snippets

Glad to hear it, but BM hasnt talked about this for ages and hes the only one capable of developing it.

 

I'm afraid there is some kind of misunderstanding here.

Bytemaster never said to merge steem and bitshares together... What he has talked about is the fact that the new types of elements that have been created in steem are not compatible with the current bitshares codebase.

In order for Bitshares to adopt the improvements that have been made in what we know as Steem today.. the best way to do it would be to create basically a bitshares 3.0 .. similar to how we went from 1.0 to 2.0.. in the new network it would have the new features etc.

There is, and never will be, some weird plan to 'merge' bitshares with steem.. it is technically impossible.

Here is the thing.. the codebase that bitshares run on is Graphene and is MIT licensed which means anybody can do what they like with it... which means Bytemaster has a choice.. he can come back to Bitshares and have the community vote and then implement this Bitshares 3.0 plan that incorporates new innovations that were gained from what was done on Steem.. OR.. can create a whole new decentralized exchange and call it something else. I highly doubt that will ever happen though.

Hope this helps clarify some things.

Quote from: lil_jay890 on May 26, 2016, 09:17:31 pm

"Losers average Losers"- Paul Tudor Jones (basically means loser investors average down on their bad investments...which most people here are).  Go ahead, keep bringing down your "cost average" and getting excited over every pump to lower highs... millions of bankrupt investors have done the same thing.

Yeah basically this.  Once I stopped trying to buy bitshares I started doing much better in crypto.  Lisk has made back a bunch of my BTS losses.  Maybe it will make them all back.

Lisk is a very different model from Bitshares.. I don't think it makes sense to compare the two.

Great you are making gains on your trades.

Quote from: BunkerChain Labs on May 25, 2016, 09:50:46 pm

Quote from: lovejoy on May 25, 2016, 07:46:09 pm

The average worker summary might be something like:

I was working one day, starting to make progress on worker proposal X, but then I got fired the next day so I shifted my priorities and started working on something else, trying to earn a living you know?

Then a week later I got voted back in, so I thought, ok, well I'll give it another try and start working on this project again.

After two weeks passed I was really starting to make progress, but I was once again voted out, so I went back to looking for real work where I'm not hired and fired seemingly at random.

Then one day I noticed my worker was voted back in, but by then I was so tired of the uncertainty that I had just moved on to something else less stressful and uncertain.

Is this not a problem which needs to be addressed?  What developer wants to work in such conditions?

Would it not make more sense to be hired for a fixed term determined by the project scope?

2bts

I've sort of had a similar thought in regards to worker proposals. There needs to be a consistency.

Voters have to be voting to a certain degree of commitment the same as the commitment being given by the worker.

That said, there has to be greater consistent reporting by the worker as well.

I would like to see some kind of function in workers that had a reporting period required. Basically just a cmd that had to be executed with only a URL supplied to give a report on work and progress. If this isn't executed then within 48 hours the worker expiration is executes early and his worker ends. At that point he has to open a new worker and convince the shareholders to restart.

Generally if you don't show up to work for 2 days without any explanation or attempt to communicate, you would be replaced. In this instance I think a weekly, biweekly reporting period would be ideal and keep shareholders in the loop to know that progress is being made... if there is the commitment from the blockchain, then this level of reporting to maintain isn't unreasonable to be expected from the worker.

This however would require some additional work that would require a hardfork. I don't think we should hold back on making improvements to the worker proposal space in Bitshares.. it clearly can use improvements. If our tool for improvements to BTS is working well, it will help along all other improvements more efficiently.

Just my 2bts.

Yeah, I think having mutually reinforcing expectations of both shareholder / protocol, and worker would be really good.
As I attempted to illustrate above it's currently a pretty wishy-washy scenario.  I really like the suggestion of baking a solution right into the protocol.

I would support some kind of weekly reporting criteria.  I like the command idea, but in order to keep this from being gamed for the duration of the work period, perhaps this is an area for some limited oversight, override capacity from the committee.

Haha yeah.. was just talking about this with @xeroc

What I suggested is only half the equation. On the other side we need voter dedication. If another committee dedicated to Workers was formed to handle oversight of workers, they could act as a sort of accountability measure. One thing I think is a absolute must for this to work though, is to have it where committee members are experienced employers. Otherwise the same folly of the tragedy of the commons just gets reduced to a smaller number that repeat similar mistakes. Basically in that committee roll they could override the worker if they really are not meeting up to the proposal outline. This will prevent weekly 'dumb' reports from gaming the blockchain.

With a Decentralized Project Oversight Commitee (DPOC) (copyright me) in place, then when voters vote, I think it would then be for the duration of the contract presented then.. and they cannot be voted out.. the contract either goes to the end being completed as promised, or it gets terminated earlier on by the DPOC or by the workers own lack of accountability. DPOC could act as a multi-sig perhaps on the funds being paid out as well.

I would really like to see vesting also make some kind of comeback in worker proposals. Sure people have to be paid, but give them some kind of long term upside as well for what they are doing to make it more attractive.