Why are posts being deleted? And who is deleting them?

Quote from: bytemaster on February 08, 2015, 06:05:01 pm

Quote from: Rune on February 08, 2015, 06:01:19 pm

Looks like everything already got covered, crisis over folks

BitUSD supply is now at 500k, and 24 H volume is at 200k making it number 5 on CMC

And people claim you cannot sell 200K of BitUSD at anywhere near $1 in one day.   Looks like someone managed to exit their position at the FEED price.   In other words they bought up $200K worth of BTS without moving the price.

and is that good?

just trying to understand...

Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 997D

yes, it is good. it suggests that BitUSD is functioning as intended

someone 'sold' $200k worth of BitUSD and the price remained very close to $1.00

pretty funny read. too bad nobody took the bait

We need to be a little patient with this model.

Many devs prefer technical complexity to social complexity.
Asking them to participate in a continuous job interview is asking a lot.

I expect that those of us who enjoy interacting with people are going to have to pitch in and help them out a bit here.  Bytemaster has told us who he would like to have on his team.  He is very, very, very picky.

If we want BitShares to succeed, we won't ask alpha-geeks to perform unnatural acts.

Excellent point. Sometimes these forums are an absolute shitshow, can't say I blame them for wanting to avoid the crossfire here.

Thank you both for the well reasoned responses. I have to admit I was expecting a gratuitous amounts of handwaving, as was nearly always the case when people would call out Brian Page, so forgive me for being skeptical. I am pleasantly surprised.

All paid delegates are going to have to get used to the fact they need to be more transparent in what they are specifically developing and the value they are adding to the network going forward.

This. So hard.

What contributions has Stan made so far that qualify him to be worth as much as a full-time dev?

I would love to see some well reasoned responses to this question from the pro-Stan camp.

In the year and some odd months I've been following these forums, Stan has:

- Thrown together a handful of half baked newsletters, often well past their promised deadlines.
- Performed many PR blunders on the forums, mostly through poor communication. I have seen Stan create several threads where he puts his foot directly in his mouth, only to spend the next 5+ pages of the topic failing to mitigate the damage he's caused.
- Flown to a few conferences

To his credit, he has stopped making empty promises (for the most part) and has restricted himself to the role Forum Cheerleader as of late. No doubt an improvement, but hardly worth a 45k bonus.

Any evidence of Stan's valuable contributions in his "Operations" role would be greatly appreciated and a pleasant surprise, I'm sure, to many readers of this forum.

thanks for the suggestion - i was just messing around with the market and my client crashed. when i reset the application, it prompted me to reset the database (or something lol) and that seems to have fixed it. cheers riverhead

Quote from: .yoshi on October 31, 2014, 01:20:20 am

hi AB, i can understand where you're coming, but i dont think the vision has changed. the timeline for implementing the vision has merely become more realistic

The way i see it, the old vision fragmented development of several products and pigeonholed the bitshares toolkit developers into working on their own projects in relative isolation. from what i can tell, the bitshares toolkit still requires some major development time, and realistically there are only a handful of developers alive that currently have the know how to do so.

 the old plan essentially dictated that key devs like Toast, HackFisher etc would have to stop developing the toolkit (which is critical to DAC industry growth) and work on their own projects. between coding, taking on the role of project manager, providing support for delegates and users, etc i cant imagine there would be any time left for them to help develop the toolkit. software development is rarely a one man job and for good reason imho

developing separate, competing DACs is a great idea (and inevitable if bitshares succeeds) but the infrastructure needs to be sufficient first

These two things are not mutually exclusive. I3 can do the merger and not stray from the "open" strategy. I am merely saying that I3 should "bless" the open platform strategy and convey it clearly. I outlined some simple bullet points that would be sufficient for doing so.

i totally agree, theyre not mutually exclusive. but i feel like i3 has completely embraced the open platform. sure they could do more, and i like your ideas, but have they changed course? absolutely not