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 - Rune

Pages: 1 ... 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 [75]
1111
When I first read about DPOS a couple of weeks back, I instantly wanted to buy some bitshares for obvious reasons. The first thing I did was to hit up coinmarketcap.com, to check out which exchanges had the highest volume.

When I saw BitShares X listed as number 4 on coinmarketcap, I was immediately confused. My first thought was literally "Why is the X there, does that mean it's not the real BitShares?". I scrolled down further to see if I could find the "real" bitshares, and when I failed to do so, I went to google "bitshares x" to find out what it actually was, and if it was the DPOS coin I was looking to buy.

Had the number 4 spot on coinmarketcap been BitShares, I would have just clicked for the exchange, then went to buy immediately.

One of the things that makes bitcoin so great is the name. I assume Satoshi is primarily a programmer, but he deserves a freaking prize for choosing a name that is such an amazing brand as Bitcoin.

Every altcoin since bitcoin has had a stupid name. Seeing rows upon rows of coin coin coin coin makes me want to facepalm. Bitshares is the first alternative blockchain system that has a good name. And by insisting on calling the main blockchain BitSharesX, we are throwing that massive advantage away.

I understand the reasons why the x is there. Bitshares is an ecosystem. Bitshares is a toolkit. Bitshares is more than just a coin.

But the fact is that decentralized banking and payments is the most important and revolutionary use of blockchain technology, by orders of magnitude. Decentralized music, DNS, computer games, whatever is a big deal, sure, but it is not nearly as big of a deal as decentralized money.

Since BTSX is, and will always be, the flagship of BitShares, I think it is a massive mistake not to use the fantastic brand name that could be used on it. Something that handles your money is something you need to trust pretty much more than anything else. And anything with "x" in it, just becomes instantly less trustworthy. Honestly, X is the least trustworthy letter in the alphabet, I'm sure some sort of psychological test could be done that would back up my opinion on this :P.

edit: Also, given that BitSharesX is the flagship, that also means it is the gateway from which many people will be introduced to all the future DAC's that will be based on BitShares. This means that BitSharesX having a crappy name will reflect badly on all the other DACS, and also hurt adoption of them.

Why can't what is currently called "BitShares" just be called "The BitShares Ecosystem", and BitSharesX be called BitShares? Right now, whenever I see bitshares mentioned in casual conversation, people just use bitshares anyway (see what I did there?). And when people talk about what is really called BitShares, they always specificy it as "Bitshares is actually an ecosystem etc...". So this is already the de facto case, and it would be really easy to switch over.

The currently dual use of the words even amplifies the negative aspect: Newcomers get really confused when they see people talk about bitshares, and then find out that they cant actually buy it, but have to buy something with an X instead. I'm sure interest is often lost due to this extra confusion in a space that is already incredibly complex and confusing. I'm convinced that switching to BitShares would have a massive benefit for adoption in the longterm, and that it will even help with regulatory acceptance ("BitShares... That sounds like Bitcoin" vs "Bitshares X... Is that for porn?")

Also another thing I hate about bitsharesx is the placement of the X. It's never consistent, and that makes it confusing. Sometimes its BitSharesX, sometimes its BitShares X. Sometimes it will freely interchange between the two within a single post or document, and that is just terribly ugly to read.

This is all just my rambling personal opinion, of course. I'd like to see the counterarguments, but I imagine many people who have recently gotten into bitshares(x), like me, agree with me because they still remember their first encounter with "what the hell does the x mean?". If there is sufficient controversy about this, perhaps a stakeholder vote could be done at some point using the delegates as a proxy.

1112
General Discussion / Re: The current path of USD to bitUSD
« on: October 04, 2014, 06:42:30 pm »
What is really fantastic about bitUSD though, is that it lends itself so perfectly to something like localbitcoins. It will be almost impossible to be scammed or ripped off (on the price) if the seller just charges a % fee and then gives you bitUSD one for one. Average people will feel a lot safer getting into it, I think.

1113
General Discussion / Re: Bitcoin at $330 ?
« on: October 04, 2014, 06:39:45 pm »
IMO this fall is fine for blockchain tech. If bitcoin "dies" this fall, regulators will not feel as threatened by it, and we will see less russia style bans until bitshares or another altcoin has attained critical mass to rocket cryptocurrencies back into the spotlight. bitUSD, not bitcoin or some other coin, is what will seriously threaten the monetary sovereignty of countries like Argentina, Russia, China, Vietnam, etc.

Bitcoin has been great for creating a solid cryptocurrency infrastructure. If it continued to be successful for another couple of years, it would still not gain long term success due to PoW mining, but it might give the authorities a test battleground where they can learn how to fight cryptocurrencies. IMO it is better to have the facebook of crypto ready before we begin the global war for monetary sovereignty, rather than sending in myspace first.

1114
General Discussion / Re: The Future of the BTSX Market Engine...
« on: October 02, 2014, 05:51:58 pm »
IMO interest rates are the only economically efficient way to allocate loans.

Perhaps later several bitUSD assets can be created with different collateral requirements. Assets with lower collateral levels could be created to cater to those who wish to speculate in higher interest rates paid by shorts and are willing to assume the higher risk, and could be called bitUSD_interest. Standard BitUSD could then be geared towards being used primarily for spending by normal people, where as the other assets can be differentiated towards the different customers/investors/speculators needs, instead of the current system of a single "catch all" asset that is difficult to determine if it has an appropriate collateral level.

1115
Openbazaar is meant to eventually support all coins. I think the best thing the bts community can do is to donate to the project and mention they would like to see bitUSD integration.

1116
Thanks for the informative replies :)

1117
Hey all.

I'm thinking of putting a significant chunk of my btc holdings into bitshares after having realized the potential of DPOS (everything I dreamed bitcoin would be).

That said i have some questions about bitshares x that I haven't really been able to find proper information about. Some of them might be dumb or overly paranoid, so be warned. Most are about Dan Larimer and his role as lead developer/"CEO" of the network. I see no reason to not trust him, but I think it is important to know this information and it would help me determine how much I'm willing to invest.

1) how many developers are working on the bitshares? Are there any independent developers not "controlled" by dan larimer? Is development being organized solely through the github framework?

2) what exactly does dan larimer own of the bitshares x network through the invictus company, other than his personal shares? Are the amount of his personal shares disclosed? What about other core developers?

3) does Dan have any official "policy" in the event of a conflict between him and the delegates?

4) what are the amounts of "network owned shares", such as the "marketing fund" that I have seen mentioned elsewhere.

5) I have seen mention of a chinese venture fund seeding the bitshares development. What kind of compensation from the network have they received? Has the amount of shares they have been given been disclosed? Do they have any special rights to control the network?

6) are there any huge early stakeholders known, and what are their stakes?(in addition to the Chinese venture fund and developers) What are your assessment of the risk of them hijacking the delegates?

7) does dan larimer intend to stay on as project lead indefinitely, or does he plan to retire when the system is mature, like satoshi?

Thanks everyone for answering, and grats on being early investors in what is clearly the technologically superior blockchain.

1118
General Discussion / Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
« on: September 30, 2014, 09:01:04 pm »
Even if it is necessary to pay per byte, a payment channel will be the most efficient way to handle microtransactions between meshnet nodes. So it could even be implemented with BTC's slow transaction times.

I don't think it will ever be possible to have "true" microtransactions (i.e. arbitrarily small stand alone payments) in a decentralized fashion in any cryptocurrency, because there will always be a flat price for distributing information to a network.

1119
Thanks, I managed to withdraw from btc38 using my registered so I guess it means that bter doesn't have an updated version of the blockchain, or something like that.

Thanks for verifying it, svk.

1120
I registered my name (rune) on the blockchain yesterday. Today I attempted to transfer some BTSX out of bter.com by using the name. However, bter.com returned that the transaction failed because the name was not registered on the blockchain.

Is there any way for me to verify whether or not my name has actually been registered? I checked bitsharesblocks.com, but it doesnt seem to have a full list over registered names.

Pages: 1 ... 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 [75]