For what it's worth I've completed some fairly exhaustive market research on the crypto-space and hold only two assets:

- BTC: network effects/first mover/branding

- BTSX: superior tech/awesome devs/branding

I monitor and investigate all new offerings but as of yet have not identified any other attractive opportunities.

YMMV

Same here.

You are living up to your name.... fussy.    Nothing you stated is fixed or inherent in the technology... the technology at its core makes things easier to use:  names, price stability, etc.   What you are really describing is OPPORTUNITY for growth.   Imagine what BTSX would be worth once we have "stability", "history", "infrastructure", etc.... you buy now and hold you make money as those things are added.   The last thing you want to invest in is something that has no room for easy improvement.   

I just don't understand your reason for posting... what is your goal?   
1) Tell us it is hopeless and nothing can ever overcome Bitcoin?    That kind of attitude is not welcome nor productive.
2) Help us improve things so that we can overcome Bitcoin?  That kind of attitude is welcome and productive. 
3) Wine about things and do nothing?
4) Justify to yourself why you are not buying?

What is your goal in posting?  If you do not see the vision or the future then invest in what is king today (BTC).

Fair enough.  This was mostly an exploratory expedition to decide whether to invest.  I mostly want to understand how the community thinks about BitSharesX and the possibility of competing DACs within the community.  I think I understand that and I've invested.  Then I got sidetracked.

I have no idea how I can help.  One thing that I think would help would be rewriting the entire wikipage to get rid of all the superfulous terminology and recast the idea in terms that people are already familiar with.  And then redesign the client UI to hide nearly everything behind an "advanced user" interface (e.g. the typical user definitely does not need to see options for shorting, market depth charts, etc).  But I doubt the community wants either of those, which is unfortunate since they are major stumbling blocks.

Quote from: fussyhands on September 26, 2014, 01:01:12 pm

Quote from: tonyk on September 26, 2014, 12:22:42 pm

Quote from: fussyhands on September 26, 2014, 09:46:10 am

Quote from: tonyk on September 26, 2014, 01:49:32 am

1st You really do not want to hear my comments regarding those ecumenist saying inflation is good... and yes I am fully aware of their existence.

2nd bitBasket- why not, nothing is preventing us of doing it... till then we have bitGold, though!

Price of gold is also highly volatile, and thus not suitable for currency, at least according to the paper you had me read.

highly volatile??? in what? in $
... funny man you are...

In basket of goods.  In buying power.  Don't delude yourself.  Buying power of gold is highly volatile.

How did you got to that conclusion? Are you really that...., or you just play one here? Anyway I am done with you also.

Sorry dude.  Go look it up.  Gold's buying power is HIGHLY volatile.  Type "gold buying power over time" into Google and look at the charts.  You're just dead wrong on this.  If you don't change your mind to accommodate the facts then you are just a deluded moron.  Not only that, but the HayekMoney article that YOU told me to read says exactly the same thing: gold is volatile.

You act as if the infrastructure built around bitcoin couldn't be adapted to BTSX very quickly.   Here is the little secret that gives BTSX an edge:  it works at almost any scale. 

Regardless of BTSX market cap users can settle and contract in dollars, gold, silver, etc while getting a higher yield than their bank.   At the end of the day BTSX produces real value while BTC consumes real value.    BTC network effect is based upon people building infrastructure around BTC hoping to make money in this industry.  Their infrastructure becomes more valuable with BTSX and thus they will support it.

Actually I think it takes quite a bit of time and expense to integrate new cryptocoins into existing Bitcoin infrastructure.  Especially making sure you've done so securely.  Security is expensive.  The big players will not want to invest in adding a new altcoin unless they see that it has staying power and that it is going to become very widespread.

Also a lot of the big players do not see an advantage to it in terms of increasing the value of their infrastructure.  To them the challenge of cryptocurrencies is to make it dead simple and easy for everyday people to use it.  Reducing mental overhead is of absolutely paramount importance.  Adding choices for multiple different cryptocurrencies is in itself enough to confuse people and drive them away.  That is part of why the likes of Bitpay etc., are not jumping on the altcoin bandwagon.  They see more advantage to their infrastructure from one successful currency with extensive penetration than with dozens of competing currencies, each with partial penetration.

Also, this gets to one of Bitshares most obvious weaknesses, which partly has to do with how new it is.  The mental overhead is way way way too high.  There is drastically too much to learn to get started and feel that you have a grasp of how to use it.  The client is way too complicated.  And there is too much redefining of terminology that really doesn't need to be redefined.  Making people learn complicated new terminology imposes mental overhead and retards adoption.  The client can obviously be streamlined with time (or alternatives be offered).  But the community doesn't seem to get how all the new terminology, which is really unnecessary, is seriously hurting them.  If you just said "BitShares is a new cryptocoin that is nearly instant, more secure, less wasteful, more anonymous, more decentralized, and where you can peg value to any currency or asset you like" that would be a lot more effective than talking about multiple "decentralized autonomous corporations", "crypto equities", "bank and exchange", etc.  All this attempt at changing the paradigm gets little and costs a lot.

I think it's possible to get some of the infrastructure to support a coin technology like Bitshares, but it won't be easy either for the providers of the infrastructure or for Bitshares to convince them.

Ok, I think I may have overestimated how much time you have spent researching.

How is that? 

I'm well aware of the importance of network effects.  I think you underestimate how broken Bitcoin is.  Bitcoin would have to change in very big fundamental ways to stay competitive and I don't see it.  It's kind of like arguing that VHS tapes won't be replaced because they have the network effect.  I also think you underestimate how much more far reaching this tech is than "finding one coin to rule them all to replace Bitcoin."

Bitcoin is pulling further and further away from the competition everyday.  The gap of usefulness and adoption is not closing.  Bitcoin is increasing its usefulness faster than any altcoin, simply due to network effects.  Adoption is driven by usefullness.  BitsharesX is not useful because it has virtually no adoption.  Technology can increase usefulness only to a limited degree.

Does Bitcoin have to change in fundamental ways to stay competitive?  Well it is becoming more dominant and more competitive compared to altcoins every day, despite its glacial technological evolution.  Usefulness drives adoption, not technology.

If Bitcoin is increasing in usefulness so much faster than any other altcoin, why will it have to change in fundamental ways to stay competitive?  It's competitive superiority is increasing, not decreasing.

(I think BitsharesX might have a chance, toppling Bitcoin is a long shot, not a sure thing.)

First BTSX isn't just a little better than Bitcoin; it's orders of magnitude and solves fatal flaws.  Bitcoin can't stay at the top given the competition. 

I think you underestimate the importance of incumbency and economic network effects.  Bitcoin gets the essentials done:  it allows you to send money through the internet much faster, cheaper, and without the limitations of the banking system.  Altcoins are useless because of low adoption.  As far as the rest of the world is concerned there is only one cryptocurrency:  Bitcoin.  That is what is being integrated into the world's financial systems and into retail and online payments systems, what the highest quality easiest to use wallets are tailored to, what the cryptocurrency ATMs are using, etc.  For most people its becoming easy to get and spend Bitcoin, but remains prohibitively difficult to use any altcoin.

To get high adoption you need a lot of people to adopt ONE altcoin simultaneously and stick to that ONE altcoin for an extended period of time, so there is a chance to integrate it with all the systems that will make it useful.  Which altcoin should we adopt?  A groundbreaking new altcoin comes out every few months.  It doesn't really matter how much better than Bitcoin each new altcoin is if there is another one coming out in a month that will steal the attention and momentum.

Meanwhile Bitcoin infrastructure continues to rapidly grow, and the usefulness of Bitcoin compared to every altcoin continues to climb exponentially.  Like it or not, Bitshares are currently useless to most people, and no amount of technical sophistication alone will change that.  And like it or not, the usefulness gulf between Bitcoin and all altcoins has been *growing*, not shrinking, even as technically superior altcoins come out.

I'm here because I think Bitshares X has a chance.  But it's only a chance.  It wouldn't take too many missteps to miss the chance.

read the paper!

Kind of long, but you will learn stuff that will serve you for life!

OK I read the paper.  It makes some sense.  I think many people over estimate the importance of a perfectly stable currency, compared to, say USD, which is slightly but predictably inflationary.  I don't think perfect stability will change very much.  (Indeed, as I'm sure you are aware, there are many economist who believe that mild but predictable inflation leads to better economic growth because it counteracts wage rigidity.) But compared to the currencies of failed states, or to Bitcoin, either USD stability or perfect stability would be a huge improvement in some respects.  On the other hand, I think much of Bitcoin's appeal is the possibility of making huge returns.  I think that is why a lot of people are invested in it, and why it is hovering around $400 instead of something that reflects its current transactional utility (i.e. something much much less, perhaps a couple dollars).

At any rate reading the paper did help me understand the vision of Bitshares X a little better.  If Bitshares BitAssets system stands the test of time it will give you the best of both worlds.  You can peg your money to USD or a commodity basket, or you can go on the wild ride and keep it as BTSX.  Personally, I don't see any reason to be an early adopter, and take all the risk of catastrophic system failure that that entails, if you are just going to peg your money to USD.  Might as well hold onto real USD in that case.  But down the road, if the system has shown itself to be robust, that will be a great feature.

And it makes Bitshares X the first cryptocurrency system that I know of that allows you to instantly send "USD" through a meaningfully decentralized network ("meaningfully decentralized" is meant to exclude the likes of Ripple).  That seems like a pretty big deal.

Are there plans to make a BitBasket that will be pegged to the basket of commodities used to calculate the CPI?