Show Posts

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.


Messages - Empirical1.1

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 59
16
General Discussion / Re: How can you have a stable cryptocurrency without counter party risk?
« on: January 31, 2015, 12:02:05 pm »
It's good but still too complicated still for a casual reader.

I would remove the COMEX reference,  while few Goldbugs are alt-coiners, most alt-coiners are also Goldbugs and the COMEX specifically has very negative connotations associated with it as it is viewed as being the home of 'paper gold' & also at the heart of gold manipulation.

The focus should be on dissociating ourselves from the COMEX by pointing out we have over-collateralised BitAssets that can sustain large price shocks. I also think ideas like our BitSilverEagle (tracking real vs. paper prices.) as well as a PM gateway, so that we can offer and encourage physical delivery will be positive developments that help explain why BitShares is different.

17
General Discussion / Re: Decentraliced Dice Game is a awsome idea!
« on: January 31, 2015, 11:45:15 am »
Quote from: xiahui135 on January 31, 2015, 05:24:44 am
this is what bitshares play working on, I suppose. What I concern is that whether bitCNY or BitUSD can cross chain so that we can play with bitCNY or USD.

I suspect they will have their own asset. I will try to look into PLAY more this weekend.

Look at how much volume gambling cobtributed to BitCoin at a similar stage and CAP.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/2013/01/22/bitcoin-casinos-release-2012-earnings/
New popular sites are also generating big volume and MoM growth.

Given that our BitAssets are pretty stagnant with no key short term growth catalyst, the numbers clearly suggest PLAY would rapidly outgrow BitShares if they offer gambling and we don't.

Edit: I see they've been discussing bingo. I looked and 80%+ bingo players are female but 90%+ BTS users are male. So I personally wouldn't pursue bingo over other options. We should give existing male users recreational gaming and gambling options if we want to grow BitAssets as well as challenge for some of the Bitcoin market share.

18
General Discussion / Re: [Provocative] BitUSD Isn't Worth The Trouble
« on: January 31, 2015, 11:30:10 am »
Quote from: klosure on January 31, 2015, 03:44:38 am
Quote from: Empirical1.1 on January 30, 2015, 10:57:22 pm
I give the guy some credit. He at least understands the power of rivalry marketing.

Quote
I am planning to start a blog here, to give this project some context, and heavily criticize the microeconomics of rivial cryptocoin projects, as most contain (or are based on) the purest nonsense. I hope to take criticism in return!
   http://www.truthcoin.info/
We are starting to reap what we sowed with that "NuBit is a ponzi scheme" blog post.

I agree NuBits was an example of how not to employ this strategy.

Timing - They were making big gains and ergo we looked threatened & had just done critical blogs on BTC & NXT.
Language - The ponzi language while currently pretty accurate should have been softened from the outset.
Bitcointalk - Someone originally titled the main thread  'Sell your NuBits for BitUSD before they become worthless' - No subtlety, tact and pretty FUD-ish, later changed to 'NuBits are operating on a fractional reserve'- much better.

In Truthcoin's case, it's a good strategy though as he has literally nothing to lose so he can be as critical & controversial as he likes in the hopes of getting a reaction. If Truthcoin had a bigger audience it would be great to engage them as being attacked is a great excuse to educate people about your product. However Truthcoin has no audience and no third party investors would be drawn into viewing the debate so 'taking the bait', would only benefit them from a publicity POV.

How debates should be done is polite, respectful and measured, while hoping your opponent fails to observe those rules. The NXT vs. BitShares threads on Bitcointalk as well as Daniel's articles on NXT and interchange with Come-From-Beyond was a great example of how it should be done - It was interesting, entertaining and informative, giving us top billing on BitCointalk alternative section for weeks & getting 10k+ combined views. There's nothing like seeing the heavyweights debate the merits of their systems.

19
Beyond Bitcoin [closed] / Re: BeyondBitcoin hangout with Bytemaster 01-30-15
« on: January 31, 2015, 01:12:18 am »
Quote from: Stan on January 31, 2015, 01:05:15 am
Quote from: bytemaster on January 30, 2015, 11:03:00 pm
I know several people that play bingo for money multiple times per week.   I know others that play bingo every time they go on a cruise!   It is "entertaining" in the same way as TV.

It is mindless....  but you know what... so are most people ;)

I think a key ingredient of any built-in promotional game is the possibility for an escalating jackpot.  The bigger the jackpot grows the less boring the game becomes.  Heck, I might even play if the jackpot was big enough to buy Apple.  Or at least I would use it to get my wife, mother, and sister interested.   :)

Every big jackpot blowoff is as good as a news release about ShapeShift in terms of its potential to motivate new people to download a wallet.

 +5% a jackpot game does bring attention whenever the jackpot gets large, lottoshares though never gained much traction.

I would say we definitely need quick turn around games though if that were possible, those are what most recreational gamblers like and what seems to drive the market, the lower the house edge & the sooner they can find out if they made a winning bet the better.

Gamblers also tend to leave their winnings on to play later so you end up not only building liquidity but a bigger BitAsset CAP if the games are playable in BitAssets.

20
Beyond Bitcoin [closed] / Re: BeyondBitcoin hangout with Bytemaster 01-30-15
« on: January 31, 2015, 12:52:47 am »
Quote from: Carpet Ride on January 30, 2015, 11:34:19 pm

Quote from: bytemaster on January 30, 2015, 11:03:00 pm
I know several people that play bingo for money multiple times per week.   I know others that play bingo every time they go on a cruise!   It is "entertaining" in the same way as TV.

It is mindless....  but you know what... so are most people ;)

so apparently you know several people and those people occasionally play bingo.  This is an absurd way to justify bingo development.

I think gambling may be a great angle.  But this is just an absurd approach.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can't download the mumble on my phone & I don't what the case specifically for bingo is, I haven't seen any numbers/figures on that but the case for gambling in general is very strong imo.
I've already put most of my thoughts here - https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=13788.0







21
General Discussion / Re: Decentraliced Dice Game is a awsome idea!
« on: January 30, 2015, 11:50:59 pm »
They discussed decentralized gambling, Cool!

I already put most of my thoughts on the subject here -  https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=13788.0
I really love the figures on this, been worried about whether I should be divesting a bit into PLAY actually, so will definitely listen.

22
General Discussion / Re: [Provocative] BitUSD Isn't Worth The Trouble
« on: January 30, 2015, 10:57:22 pm »
I give the guy some credit. He at least understands the power of rivalry marketing.

Quote
I am planning to start a blog here, to give this project some context, and heavily criticize the microeconomics of rivial cryptocoin projects, as most contain (or are based on) the purest nonsense. I hope to take criticism in return!
   http://www.truthcoin.info/

He currently has a fairly insignificant project, which has generated minimal interest & has gained almost no traction so he's leveraging BitUSD's current spotlight to bring attention to Truthcoin. In his little to lose position it's a smart move. While few will view/discuss/comment on our Bitcoin friendly overtures, this critical approach (which is really just a segue into a Truthcoin advert) may generate heated discussion, responses, comments & views from exactly the type of market Truthcoin is aimed at. It will end up being an excuse to come onto competitor forums and debate (promote) Truthcoin, which few were paying any attention to prior.


23
General Discussion / Re: ShapeShift useful for bitUSD?
« on: January 30, 2015, 05:17:22 am »
Quote from: toast on January 30, 2015, 04:37:17 am
Soft launch for bitUSD and BTS. Try it out.

We'll do a joint marketing thing once all the kinks are worked out

 +5% +5%

24
General Discussion / Re: What do you do when you buy a $1600 laptop from Dell and pay through Coinbase...
« on: January 29, 2015, 11:55:51 am »
Quote from: ElMato on January 29, 2015, 06:15:12 am
Quote from: jcalfee1 on January 29, 2015, 02:02:32 am
You plug Bitshares and hope to make it back one day!

https://community.coinbase.com/t/what-do-you-do-when-you-buy-a-1600-laptop-from-dell-and-pay-through-coinbase-but-coinbase-changed-the-deposit-address-and-dell-has-no-idea-you-paid/250/4

+1000!!!
You rock!

 +5%

25
General Discussion / Re: Bitgold on coindesk but not our bitgold..
« on: January 29, 2015, 11:36:10 am »
Quote from: liondani on January 29, 2015, 11:23:33 am
Is it a bad idea to have some 100% delegates that short our low liquidity bitassets with their funds?....

PS at least until we hit a specific market-cap on the particular bitAssets and then fire the delegates... can we discus that?

Some options along those lines are...

1. BitGold delegates who build up BitGold reserves. These can be later burnt so building up BitGold may come at very little cost. They can also be used at a later date to fund projects or act as insurance that we'll be able to pay developer salaries in the event BTS falls low.

2. BitGold delegates who short at a huge yield rate. What yield would make you hold BitGold just for a few months? I imagine with a few thousand dollars yield we can really get the CAP up. (I know this isn't sustainable it's just a promotion to kickstart them.)

Other creative option -

- BitGold Dice, even a bit more creative like WheelofDoge, this gets the turnover up and also the CAP. (The reason centralised dice sites can run with the money is that people tend to keep their winnings on the site to gamble later, similarly if you get people into BitGold, people will keep some of ther winnings there so it will build the BitGold CAP.)

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/17980/my-experience-on-wheel-of-doge/

If there was something similar maybe with a bit of a controversial/entertaining edge, it could get a lot of attention as well. (I.e On that wheel of fortune, a winning slice would have different images such as a Max Keiser Slice with a sound effect, whereas one of the losing slices might have a picture of Mark Karpeles etc.)


26
General Discussion / Re: Bitgold on coindesk but not our bitgold..
« on: January 29, 2015, 11:20:31 am »
We're still in the lead for what our product is, a decentralized way to store/hold the value of gold and other real world assets.

Though I expect them to easily get in the tens of millions of dollars in assets held, possibly even a hundred to two hundred, there's a ceiling on these centralized services that a decentralized solution will surpass.

We have less than three months though to come up with creative solutions for really kickstarting BitGold's use.

The fact that big money is getting into specifically this tells you a lot.

I'm in favour of BitShares having a website called something like 'SovereignVault', a front end that specifically tries to offer customers a decentralized gold solution vs. just the decentralized exchange. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=13325.msg174295#msg174295

27
General Discussion / Re: Bitgold on coindesk but not our bitgold..
« on: January 29, 2015, 01:25:33 am »
I know it sounds bizarre but BitGold gambling is the highest probability shot our BitGold has.
At the moment there's no recreational BitAsset or even BTS utility. BitGold dice would be a fun way to help BitAssets whereas shorting to yourself and managing your short is not. The Bitcoin numbers are compelling. 50% of all BitCoin transactions & volume were gambling up till last year & new sites have tremendous MoM growth.

Our numbers also don't lie, low CAP, volume & growth on our BitSilver & Gold. I can't see anything else that could conceivably rapidly grow & bootstrap it first based on any information/technique I've seen used in the past.

(Obviously gateways are key as well as promoting the decentralized exchange but I don't feel it's going to have the same/rapid impact, which I know sounds weird as gambling is a marginal trivial activity not directly related to what you think would drive BitAssets.)

28
General Discussion / Re: BitUSD Dice & BitAsset gambling
« on: January 28, 2015, 05:14:50 pm »
Quote from: sumantso on January 28, 2015, 03:03:56 pm
Quote from: Empirical1.1 on January 28, 2015, 09:01:46 am
If PLAY have blockchain gambling & show any decent transaction volume at all, which is growing, the more I look at the numbers (Transaction volume and MoM growth in early Bitcoin gambling or new popular sites) the more it seems BTS will capitulate (No/Low BitAsset volume and growth rate) and be replaced by PLAY in a matter of weeks.

Whats wrong with that?

Odds are this current BitShares will fail anyway, so its in our interest that something in which we have a stake does well. Much better than some other group forking BitShares, becoming successful and we getting nothing.

BTSX sacrificed immense value & momentum to become a Super-DAC capable & with the option of doing exactly this. In the case of peertracks there's a centralized part of their business model we can't replicate but PLAY & blockchain based gambling is mostly a code based solution & we still have the bigger user base, so BitShares still has the option to adapt & fight for survival if it wanted to.

29
General Discussion / Re: BitUSD Dice & BitAsset gambling
« on: January 28, 2015, 04:49:14 pm »
Quote from: Rune on January 28, 2015, 03:21:21 pm
People who gamble are seeking risk. Why would they want to gamble in a pegged asset meant to reduce volatility?

BTS is about as risky an investment as you can get. We can expect people who are invested in BTS to gamble in similar percentages to Bitcoin.  If they are only given BitAssets as an internal wagering option then...

Also BitAssets are just a currency option, currently a fairly risky one at that, BitAsset holders will often be trading speculatively & also be the exact same risky personalities who hold BTS, little reason to expect them to be much more averse or non gambling prone. (As nomoreheroes said above not much different to wagering fiat.) Even if we're talking 1/3 the rates, it's probably much bigger than anything else I can imagine.

Looking at the 2012 Bitcoin gambling report is probably our best 'bet' :)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/2013/01/22/bitcoin-casinos-release-2012-earnings/

(Bitcoin had a low user base & CAP through 2012 of about $70 million, so not too dissimilar.)

Satoshi dice had nearly 1.8 million BTC worth of volume and BitZino 700 000 BTC, so probably about $30 million dollars turnover. 2.5 million of the 9 million BTC would be about 700 million BTS worth of BitAsset volume & I think there were about 6 million betting transactions. Imagine just a fraction of that.
 
The most important thing is that a really low house edge, provably fair, funds accounted for on the blockchain option could not only satisfy gambling demand & bootstrap BitAsset use internally, but displace Bitcoin options which have recently been hit by a string of 'ponzi' take the money and runs...

Gambling is what made up half of Bitcoins volume and helped Bootstrap it and it still makes up the major chunk today. So nevermind BTS, it's possible that whoever takes the gambling even takes Bitcoin.

30
General Discussion / Re: BitUSD Dice & BitAsset gambling
« on: January 28, 2015, 09:01:46 am »
Quote from: monsterer on January 28, 2015, 07:55:22 am
The real problem is not software, since this is a trivial problem, but gambling licencing, which is crazily expensive, unless you can find someone to host in lives in a jurisdiction where crypto-gambling doesn't need a licence.

Ok yeah I haven't even thought of that. 

How is PLAY going about it?

If PLAY reach their 3000 BTC for 20%, then that will already value them at 13% of BTS and they're only at crowdfunding stage.

If PLAY have blockchain gambling & show any decent transaction volume at all, which is growing, the more I look at the numbers (Transaction volume and MoM growth in early Bitcoin gambling or new popular sites) the more it seems BTS will capitulate (No/Low BitAsset volume and growth rate) and be replaced by PLAY in a matter of weeks.


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 59

Page created in 0.203 seconds with 23 queries.