Quote from: BunkerChain Labs on May 25, 2016, 10:29:59 pm

Quote from: Empirical1.2 on May 24, 2016, 04:56:58 pm

Quote from: Akado on May 22, 2016, 02:43:52 pm

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.

Quote from: Stan on April 19, 2016, 07:00:00 pm

Quote from: lil_jay890 on April 19, 2016, 06:17:18 pm

Quote from: oldmine on April 19, 2016, 06:00:29 pm

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...

Quote

Steemit - 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-fail

Quote

Within 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.

To quote Neil in our recent press release:

“Blockchain projects need to stop playing in the sandbox, and start solving real world problems,”

http://www.peerplays.com/news/nuclear-bunker-reactivates-war-games-protocol-on-the-blockchain/

I would argue that most.. even now.. are still just sandbox experiments with very little business fundamentals because blockchain in its current infancy is unadoptable to the masses.

BM has said time and again in regards to bitshares.. and even steem.. this is an experiment. Other crypto projects are not so forthright in what they are doing.

So basically you are saying that because dilution went so long and with so little return the idea of the worker proposal was seen as just another thing that would provide little value/return is what you are saying.. I can agree with that.

If you are going to compare blockchain development to business development though, it is still critical during the early stages to have capitalization.. and companies that don't have money use shares. Just stopping dilution and not having any kind of development of any kind (beyond just programming) is not how to carry an organization forward.

The scaling quote you gave was not just because of what was done, but I believe primarily it was because of lack of business acumen and experience that lead to those decisions... something that was lacking in Bitshares, and most blockchain projects today.

It's important to note though.. people learn.. experience is gained.. and the same mistakes tend not to get repeated.

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.

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!

THAT'S THE KEY!!

Quote from: Shentist on May 14, 2016, 08:22:47 am

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.

Sorry I thought this was already answered in the post above. We are already well on target with our current progress after only making 2 forum threads.

If you haven't looked at our Allocations and Milestones announcement from last week, please do.

The plan is to sell out all 200k tokens prior to the testnet launch. We have backup sources to accomplish this, however, I would rather see this accomplished by contributors who we will be most thankful to for their contributions in carrying this project forward.

Quote from: onceuponatime on May 19, 2016, 03:11:22 am

@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!

 

Videos need to be evergreen and need to focus on the value proposition Bitshares provides.

That would be supportable as a worker.

These videos also would/should integrate into the bitshares.org website as part of our content and be fashioned as such.

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?

If you paid with bitUSD they were sent to the account you paid with.

If you paid with bitcoin, instructions on what to do next would have been sent to your email.

Maybe check your spam folder, but if you don't see anything, submit a ticket and we can reissue out instructions to you.

All through the week we have been asked about milestones and allocations and today we made the big announcement on Beyond Bitcoin.

We will be posting the show when it becomes available as a podcast.

Go to www.peerplays.com to join in this game changer! (pun intended)