Quote from: BunkerChain Labs on April 08, 2016, 05:47:30 am

I added another response that I think expresses your position and possibly others.

There are no statements in the poll that I agree with. A simple 'no' would be better. I just see a lot of reasons why your suggestion could involve a lot of work and expense for little real gain. But hey, if you can make this work, then I'm not against it. Here's an idea: why not run your survey outside of BitShares and see what other potential customers think? This place can be a bit of an echo chamber.

I added no..

Thanks for the suggestion .. this is really just more for fun to see how the Bitshares community thinks of this. .. I already know how some other segments respond to this... heck.. the crowdfund that was expected to go a month that sold out in 14 hrs is a pretty clear indication of what others think about this. Referring to DigiX of course.

Thanks for your input.

My answer is "no", I don't think gold is needed here. I could not find a poll response that was appropriate for me to choose. Crypto is not perfect and there would be much to gain from backing it with real assets, but I don't see gold as delivering a lot more value in a way that could help one of these businesses much.

First, gold bugs are mostly suspicious sorts. Average age is probably around 50. They don't even trust paper money or electronic money, so even though we trust crypto, it's a big stretch -- most of them won't. I know people here think there's a natural libertarian overlap, but I think converts are difficult to attain this way and that the overlap is therefore overblown -- you won't attract that many of them and the ones you do will cost you too much in terms of time/effort/money.

Second, storing/transporting/insuring gold is costly and it only makes sense if you have lots of volume. Until then, it's hard to buy/sell gold for anything near its spot price.

Third, maybe gold is as good as an asset gets, but it's still deeply flawed. Its price is heavily manipulated by big powers (isn't that one reason many people turned to crypto?). It's not as good of a store of value as it was in previous generations; a lot of younger people don't see it as so important as previous generations did. I still hold gold just as I hold crypto. I think (there's a good chance that) its value will stand the test of time. But I don't think it's a good basis for this kind of business.

Just so I understand.. what do you mean in regards to 'this kind of business' specifically?

This would be brilliant bunker. How could you ever prove reserves though? The trend over time would be towards fractional reserves / corruption.

Perhaps that is a reason why crypto could be considered superior to gold? During the transition, bitgold and bitsilver could play a huge role in bringing everyone in.

In my hangout with jonnybitcoin the week before I actually gave away some of how it could be done. I don't want to get into it here, but it's possible.

GOLD

Just a simple question. We all saw the DigiX crowdsale not to long ago. Their whole thing is about gold on the blockchain. Regardless of weather or not you agree with how they are executing that, assume for the sake of this poll that the way the gold was stored was transparent, secure, and provable.

This would mean instead of backing assets against a crypto-currency like BTS, there is a real potential to create assets backed by REAL Gold!

So I am just curious if the realism of all this strikes a cord with everyone, or if you all feel that speculative prices of crypto-currencies is part of your love of crypto.

Do you think something like this could potentially create a gold currency that more people would want to adopt beyond crypto? (for discussion)

To be clear, this is not about bitGOLD, this is about real gold being stored somewhere in a secure manner with a crypto-currency counterparty representing that exact gold on the blockchain is available to buy/sell/trade/collateralize tuck away in your pillow via paper wallet etc.

Also this poll has nothing to do with if this would be launched on Bitshares or not. Just interested in the core concept.


Ready? .. Go!!!!ld!

Quote from: bitcrab on April 06, 2016, 03:17:13 pm

@dannotestein then let's continue to discuss this at the end of April, have a good holiday.

@BunkerChain Labs yes I think this work proposal have chance to continue, if the price can be limited in a relatively reasonable level, we should support useful and efficient work, if it is not over paid.

sounds good

 

in China Community discussion seems the main point for this worker proposal is:

the price is too high.

as:

1.the job is normal maintenance/update job.
2.comparing to the date this proposal is created, the price of BTS has rised a lot.

so maybe a 20~30k  perday price is reasonable in current date?

I don't think I got enough knowledge and information to give such a suggestion, but I hope this can be a starting point for discussion.

@bitcrab 

What if the worker agrees to refund the portion of his worker each month to match the rate or close to the rate you are talking about, would that at all change the voting position in China?

I'm trying to determine if there is a solution to be created for the current worker proposal to continue. Is something like this sufficient?

These assets will be shorted everywhere else in the world and probably, in the not too distant future.

Except here (on bitshares) where its cheaper, more secure and fair.

How can we change that?

Are we getting anything out of this or is it just 3.5 million BTS down the drain because 1 guy, who doesn't appear to be critical to the operation other than holding an owner key, disappeared?

Correction.. one anonymous guy disappeared. Thus bringing me back to my preference that workers be doxable.

He could still show up.. and if the funds become available perhaps it can be brought back to life.

Fact is though this dev working on it for months with no payment now doesn't see a way forward where he doesn't come out screwed despite his best efforts.

For a proxy voter who was overtly critical over the Committees decisions, this certainly doesn't look good for his reputation.. whatever that maybe .. being anonymous.

The work that has been done thus far has been done.. its there.. just not complete.. and the dev hasn't seen another for it and won't.

I have a feeling if there ever comes a point where @jakub does make an appearance again, I think a portion should be sent to abit for whats been done thus far.. and the rest returned to the reserve pool. @jakub shouldn't see anything for effectively derailing this project by abandoning it and also not fulfilling his work obligation. That's just my take though.