Quote from: yiminh on February 15, 2015, 07:59:04 pm

It's sad BM have no regard of the conventions of bitcoin community, cap increase every month, hard fork every month, must update wallet every month, you still want trust?

This is alpha software, so yes you might have to update every month - so what? It means theyre actually producing new code.

Comparing with Bitcoin is a bit unfair - Bitcoin is just a simple token that doesnt do anything. BitShares is incredibly complicated in comparison.

Maybe they would like to see an autoupdate feature to make it stupid simple.

Yeah, but imagine what the world would think if we successfully thwarted a blatantly obvious MtGox type heist by voting as a community to roll back a couple transactions on the blockchian (and the transactions that sprouted from those of course) and returned to them to the affected party (BTER).

We would look like superman-coin!

And of course we could explain to Max Keiser, USA Today, Wall Strett Journal, Bloomberg, etc., that this was something that could only easily be done right now because our coin and community is so small (so no future guarantees)

reimburse those affected via donations.  Of course it would be much easier right now because hardly anybody is using  our blockchain.

What good is our BitShares VOTING capability if we cannot vote to thwart the greatest criminal villain mastermind in BTS history!

We would say that once 1.0 comes out, then it's every man, woman, and centralized exchange for themselves from that point onward or something to that nature.

If we do nothing but take it, then the price of BTS will fall like BTC after MtGox, if we become the first blockchain in history to thwart a crime, then we would gain the "centralized community control margin of safety" that causes Ripple to be such a high market cap that we crave.

BitShares - the first and only safe AND decentralized crypto (Ripple is "safely controlled" but not decentralized).

Safety builds confidence, and investors love confidence and transparency.

"the greatest criminal villain mastermind in BTS history!" << huh? You talk as though you know them.

Nobody has said anything about BTS being stolen.

I agree though that if something large enough like this were to occur.. I agree that a voting rollback would make tremendous headlines and would be a huge deterrent for any wannabe thieves.

are there threads on btt and hashtalk on this ?

Yeah.. think these updates should have their own thread in these places as well.

This is great work.. I have 100% of my miners pointing there.. I'm always one of the TOP 5 miners... for now.

 

Quote from: starspirit on February 15, 2015, 02:18:29 am

When BitShares was established, the idea seemed to be to promote a toolkit on which entrepreneurs could build new businesses, and share-drop the existing community in recognition of past value created and future network effect. Potentially there could have been dozens and eventually thousands of such businesses, significantly enhancing the value of community tokens being share-dropped on, such as BTS. The Super-DAC seems to have created a situation however, at least in my mind, where the entrepreneur is forced to choose between replicating the same infrastructure as Bitshares without the advantage of an initial network effect (e.g. its own stable currency or its own exchange), or to work for the system as a delegate within BitShares, subject to the constraints on business structure, nature of work and income (a delegate is as much a public servant as an entrepreneur). I'd be keen to hear alternative thoughts on this.

First of all, I am not a huge fan of this sharedrop theory. Putting myself in the shoes of an entrepreneur trying to create a new DAC, I don't see the point in sharedropping to all BTS holders when only a fraction of them would be interested in actually holding the new token. The rest would probably just dump the gifted tokens anyway. Instead, I think it makes more sense to filter out the stakeholders who are apathetic or outright against the new DAC idea by only sharedropping on the "mailing list" of people who are willing to put their money where their mouth is. In other words, a crowd-sale. [1]

But even if we accept this sharedrop theory as rational, I don't see how it adds value to BTS. It gives value to BTS holders, but it doesn't increase the price of the BTS token. Therefore, it does not help support the pay of BitShares delegates funded through BTS dilution who are, for example, funding the development of all the common toolkit code that all these other DACs could benefit from.

I do however see the value of allowing entrepreneurs to innovate on blockchain technology even outside of the role of a paid delegate on the BitShares blockchain. This doesn't solve the BitShares delegate payment issue, but it does still add to the overall ecosystem. I agree with you that it is ridiculous to rebuild the entire infrastructure, in particular market-pegged assets with sufficient liquidity. It would be better if these new DACs could simply use the BitAssets of the BitShares blockchain. The solution to this in my opinion are child DACs, which I have discussed here.

[1] But I would do this crowd sale in a far more decentralized manner:

• People donate BitUSD into a special smart contract that behaves like a Kickstarter. For each BitUSD they donate into that reserve, they get back a share in the new DAC to be created. If the minimum BitUSD threshold is not reached by the specified expiration date, all funds will be returned back to their donators. This is basically an assurance contract but where the donators receive shares proving how much they donated. Another tweak is to let the creator of the contract provide some initial BitUSD that will be divided proportionally to the donators if the fundraising threshold is not reached (making it a dominant assurance contract).
• Assuming the fundraising threshold is reached by the expiration date, the crowd-sale will be officially over and the next stage of the birth of the DAC can begin. First, a super majority of the stakeholders reach consensus (by voting on a slate with their stake) on a particular multisig account that will be allowed to manage the funds (this is like the multisig managers in my child DAC proposal). This slate of accounts chosen to be part of the multisig will also be the initial delegates of the new DAC.
• The new DAC launches with its own blockchain, except its core stake is still on the BitShares blockchain and the DAC's consensus algorithm looks to the stake distribution and slate votes of the shares on the BitShares blockchain to determine delegate ranks in the new DAC's blockchain. At this point the new DAC is a child DAC of the BitShares blockchain and it can stay this way and utilize the BitAssets of BitShares blockchain (more precisely derivatives of BitAssets backed by the real BitAssets in the reserve existing on the BitShares blockchain, which can be used to withdraw the real BitAssets from the reserve with the approval of the managers and lack of panic by shareholders) rather than creating its own. It also has a large initial pool of BitUSD in its reserves from the crowd sale, which can be used to pay the delegates/workers of the child DAC instead of dilution (share dilution can work too, but the managers need to increase the share supply on the BitShares blockchain with approval, or at least lack of panic, by the existing shareholders).
• If the child DAC wants to break free from the parent as its own independent full DAC, it needs to first begin the process of moving the BitAssets in its reserves over into its own market-pegged assets collateralized by the shares in the DAC. The shares in BitShares blockchain can be destroyed in a special way which causes the delegates on the child DAC's blockchain to mint a corresponding amount of those shares on their blockchain and give it to the accounts that destroyed their shares. These shares on the child DAC's blockchain can then act as the collateral supporting the DACUSD shorted into existence in the child DAC's blockchain. The DACUSD can be exchanged for the BitUSD derivatives on the child DAC, which then can be withdrawn as BitUSD from the reserves on the BitShares DAC. If this process happens gradually and at a time when the DAC market cap is already much higher than the supply of BitUSD in the reserves, then hopefully the point at which the ownership of the remaining shares on the BitShares blockchain is not sufficiently decentralized (to prevent, via panics and forceful changes in manager slates, the managers from misbehaving) should be when the BitAssets held in reserves are already so small that the managers/delegates will have more to lose in opportunity cost from losing their delegate position than the amount they can steal. After the reserve has been depleted of all remaining BitAssets, any remaining shares still existing on the BitShares blockchain are also destroyed/moved over to the child DAC's blockchain, and then at that point the child DAC is no longer a child DAC but its own independent DAC which does not need to pay attention to the BitShares blockchain any longer.
  

Arhag.. I can't tell u how timely your post is for me right now. You have given me some things to think about.

I think the child-dac concept would certainly bring a lot of benefits.

This is awesome!! 

I think it's kinda ironic we got this going before we got something working for fiat.

Nonetheless.. with the bunker and our Bank of Canada vault that we plan to line with safety deposit boxes both for documents, valuables, and cold storage data, it is often suggested by some that it would be a great place for storage of gold and silver and other precious metals as well. You get the protection of a nuclear bunker, combined with a safe, and of course we would make the necessary legal work to ensure the utmost in trust and protection.

Not trying to hijack the thread or anything.. I think this is all awesome.. the subject of storage and where to send it was mentioned so I thought it might be worth it to get a sense of interest. In terms of fees.. we might be able to 'bundle' it somehow with data services from DSN or some other arrangement as well to save on that. Any feedback is appreciated. Otherwise.. how do you store it?

Regardless of my inquiry.. love this work.. good job! 

I'm 100℅ BTS at the moment too and still looking to buy more. Its hard not to keep checking the price but I believe in the tech and the amazing potential BitShares has to offer. Some will say not to put all your eggs in one basket but I don't see any competitors really.

Its going to be one hell of a good year by the look of it

I think so.. I'll be doing everything in my power to help make it such.

You are either in the game, watching it, or wondering how you missed it. GET IN THE GAME!

i would love to invest more into BTS right now ... unfortunately i don't have any BTC anymore to invest ^^

You got all invested long ago though

Warning: Get out of Doge if youre in it, imo.  BTS is very cheap rightnow and DOGE looks dangerous to me.  The previous moving average crossover didnt result in anything and now they crossed again to the downside.

meanwhile BTC is getting run up again!