196
Random Discussion / Re: Farewell
« on: May 26, 2016, 01:31:30 pm »haha
Back now. Had a great time.
On to the moon!!!
Pictures?

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.
haha
Back now. Had a great time.
On to the moon!!!
The creator of a now defunct crowdfunding site fueled by Bitcoin, BitShares, wrote a biting online post on Tuesday arguing that the D.A.O. would most likely fail for the same reason that BitShares ultimately failed: “people problems, economic problems and political problems.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/business/dealbook/crypto-ether-bitcoin-currency.html
From his original post, I get that he only talks about BitShares mistakes in the past, he didn't exactly claim bts is dead? It's certainly not in a good condition but did he actually claim that? Or did the nytimes just twist his words?
Some of his blog post was correct regarding the DAO facing some of the same challenges as BTS.
However he came to an incorrect conclusion about shareholders being anti-spending. The anti-spending was more a direct result of BM/CNX being unable to add value to BTS since the merger (incl. merger itself) and as result shareholders are specifically reluctant to throw money at CNX & cautious and unexcited about other spending as a result. Graphene also seems to be a less popular codebase that is harder to independently add too, so we had very few non CNX related options, DAO and (also LISK holders - DPOS) should theoretically be presented with a much wider choice of options and lower barriers to entry. The merger also adds little value and puts downward pressure on price which shareholders aren't easily able to dissociate from other dilution. We were also mostly presented with developments BM was more interested in working on as opposed to things like margin trading that there may be a lot more support for.
So I think once the merger is over shareholders will be more likely to fund development as there will be less other downward price pressure. We should also have transitioned to a post CNX stage by then. I hope we are at least funding SmartCoin liquidity and one major feature prior to that though personally.
Stan also came to the same incorrect conclusions.So when is the bond market proposal available for voting?
This is what I don't get... CNX complains that bitshares is unwilling to pay workers yet they never even create a proposal to vote on.
The only worker out there are bug fixers, GUI improvement and documentation. Important, but none of those are adding a new core feature.
Proposals are based in part on what resources are available to work on them.
Resources are hired based on the availability of stable funding.
A constant battle over who controls the funding light switch means no one dares hire against any line item.
So the resources remain allocated elsewhere.
Voting is overrated. I wouldn't want to ride on an aircraft controlled by voting passengers.
Give me a benevolent whale any day
What I find ironic given their above conclusions that decentralised voting is over-rated as well as the distribution of Steem is that it's slogan is...QuoteSteemit - The way social media should be - DECENTRALIZED
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1466593.msg14800086#msg14800086
If this was really the case, about it being directed at BM/CNX, why then not vote for all the proposals that were put forward that were not them? Heck majority of the proposals were not them.
I can understand this perspective and the conclusions drawn, I just don't think its that specific because the lack of support for others. Almost all workers teetered on losing support almost always on a daily basis, effectively making it unworkable (pun intended). This was out of basic economics arguments of dilution primarily... not BM/CNX.
The argument is that BM/CNX failed to add value over such a long period since merger (incl. merger) that the market was skeptical about any dilution for development adding shareholder value & the things they might have funded like a bond market I don't think were presented. (This was also conflated by merger sell pressure which amplified the idea that dilution for development is draining.)
Had BM/CNX as the main developers of BTS, managed to grow it's value post merger shareholders would have been willing to fund a wide range of other workers imo.
https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-startups-failQuoteWithin 3 years, 92% of startups failed. Of those who failed 74%, failed due to premature scaling.
Premature scaling means spending money on marketing, hiring etc. either before you found a working business model (you acquire users for less than the revenue they bring) or in general spending too fast while failing to secure further financing.
While there are other ways to add value like increasing utility, partnerships and more, primarily BTS like many start-ups has struggled to find a business model/app that constantly attracted new users or generated revenue/profit.
BTS shareholders waited 14-18 months for something. If DAO via Slock.it for example, a LISK DAPP, or even something on BTS is funded that is hot and either brings in users by the droves or generates revenue/profit like good investments should then I don't think we will see anti-spending and will also see a willingness to fund more general development to keep the underlying platform competitive too.
The creator of a now defunct crowdfunding site fueled by Bitcoin, BitShares, wrote a biting online post on Tuesday arguing that the D.A.O. would most likely fail for the same reason that BitShares ultimately failed: “people problems, economic problems and political problems.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/business/dealbook/crypto-ether-bitcoin-currency.html
From his original post, I get that he only talks about BitShares mistakes in the past, he didn't exactly claim bts is dead? It's certainly not in a good condition but did he actually claim that? Or did the nytimes just twist his words?
Some of his blog post was correct regarding the DAO facing some of the same challenges as BTS.
However he came to an incorrect conclusion about shareholders being anti-spending. The anti-spending was more a direct result of BM/CNX being unable to add value to BTS since the merger (incl. merger itself) and as result shareholders are specifically reluctant to throw money at CNX & cautious and unexcited about other spending as a result. Graphene also seems to be a less popular codebase that is harder to independently add too, so we had very few non CNX related options, DAO and (also LISK holders - DPOS) should theoretically be presented with a much wider choice of options and lower barriers to entry. The merger also adds little value and puts downward pressure on price which shareholders aren't easily able to dissociate from other dilution. We were also mostly presented with developments BM was more interested in working on as opposed to things like margin trading that there may be a lot more support for.
So I think once the merger is over shareholders will be more likely to fund development as there will be less other downward price pressure. We should also have transitioned to a post CNX stage by then. I hope we are at least funding SmartCoin liquidity and one major feature prior to that though personally.
Stan also came to the same incorrect conclusions.So when is the bond market proposal available for voting?
This is what I don't get... CNX complains that bitshares is unwilling to pay workers yet they never even create a proposal to vote on.
The only worker out there are bug fixers, GUI improvement and documentation. Important, but none of those are adding a new core feature.
Proposals are based in part on what resources are available to work on them.
Resources are hired based on the availability of stable funding.
A constant battle over who controls the funding light switch means no one dares hire against any line item.
So the resources remain allocated elsewhere.
Voting is overrated. I wouldn't want to ride on an aircraft controlled by voting passengers.
Give me a benevolent whale any day
What I find ironic given their above conclusions that decentralised voting is over-rated as well as the distribution of Steem is that it's slogan is...QuoteSteemit - The way social media should be - DECENTRALIZED
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1466593.msg14800086#msg14800086
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
@bitcrab is going about this the proper way. I am impressed and pleased by his patience and professional behavior.
He created a worker, which is not free, and it received over 250M votes over a period of weeks. This is enough votes to replace half the committee with his own supporters, but instead he has allowed the committee to remain and vote as they see fit.
He then created the committee proposal, set to expire June 21. I think it's likely that @bitcrab he could have easily enacted this by June 1, but again, he provided another 3 weeks for discussion. We should appreciate his patience in this matter.
Even bad press is good for us. Look how far Trump got with his statements. More and more people are interested in BitShares now and we are seeing a more stable Bitshares Blockchain for the next months. That is great for all of us!
as far as i see the crowdsale is going slow. how long will tier1 and tier2 run if you not sell everything?
- and what will happen to the remaining PEERPLAYS from this tiers?
- how much do you need to start this project or will it start with or without this ICO met his target?
We need the answer.
@xeroc, do you?I totally do!
Though I have some critiques on it:
* If you focus on OpenLedger, then Openledger should pay you.
* I would love to see (already in the very beginning) an explanation video that distinguishes BitShares from OpenLedger/FreedomLedger/MakerX(and whatever comes next). This is where we TOTALLY failed. People believe BitShares is owned bit OpenLedger.
* Then I would like to see more walk-throughs and don't think we need all the tech lectures just yet. Tell people how to do things, then tell people how it works later on. There is documentation (in text form) for this already, so I don't think we needs this just yet.
Go for it!
So...
I got some tokens in the presale. When I log in to secure.peerplays.com I can see my contributions listed there. Fine.
How do I transfer these into my BTS wallet? I can see come PEERPLAYS being traded in the DEX, so I assume it should be possible?
The previous PTS/VOTE/DNS/BTSX merge was a nightmare - the price has yet to recover to anywhere near where it was prior to the merge & none of the DNS/VOTE/PTS functionality materialized in the BTS platform (Whilst you can theoretically sharedrop on BTS like in PTS, none of the recent new projects have bothered to do so - is sharedrop theory dead?). If history is anything to go by, if we merge, Steem's features won't materialize in any such 'next generation DEX'.