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.
You people sure do love to FUD. There's nothing new here, so please stop making such a big deal out of it..
Sent fra min MotoG3 via Tapatalk
no, but is the same like BTS 1.0 and he worked behind the scenes on BTS 2.0
- this community did a merger to keep him and we lost in this process a DNS blockchain, Follow my Vote blockchain and we deluted BTS
- in BTS 2.0 we got stripped of the sharedrop and now
"i am moving on, because i am funding the development from private funds since...."
the "secret source" is now going into something new, and this community left behind. Really funny!
and i don't like to blame the "chinese community for not supporting workers" for it.
There is not going to be a share drop.
The biggest benefit to this is that bitshares is no longer the guinea pig for cnx.
What I find absolutely hilarious is how earlier this year Dan said his new year's resolution was to become a "better leader for bitshares"... Quits 4 months later.
hey man,If you think that is not fair, you can buy more BTS
If somebody thinks that situation where we are now is bad, then wouldn't it be better to sell everything and wait. After a while BTS price will crash because customers are abandoning Bitshares. Then BTS can be bought back with better price – if the project has any credibility left.
BTS holders are still paying off the merger, the intent of which was to prevent the fracturing of development effort/code/chains/community.
Yet this fork receives official blessing and assistance.
It must be April Fools.
But feel free to record it on your whale watch, (which by the way, DOES kindof make me want to sell some BTS, and reminds me constantly how awesome Monero is, where no one can do this).
lol
what, then buy back later when stealth launches?
smart
If we're fine with price rising while usage data did not increase , then we're kidding ourselves about not being speculative .
Usage data will increase when the right feature-set/market fit is in place...features which need to be developed...development which requires funding.
How you guys can't see the underlying economics fundamental to all this is frankly bewildering to me.
If people can't tell I find this whole thing pretty obnoxious.
I think the Chinese have a point. Looks at the scape's video. How many BTS did they get for that? 1600 views? I thought it was a waste to begin with, but a real video that would be effective would have been work and not fun. Those guys milked that for a looong time. The non-technical scape was part of the reason I left. The other one was ended up being extremely valuable to the BTS ecosystem.
In the current form, I would never wish to work for the blockchain. At one point I thought it was a cool idea. Very sci-fi. Neat stuff. Now, I realize that the more you put your own well being in the hands of others, the more likely you are to just get screwed. This is even more true, the more talented you are. I would not touch working for the BTS blockchain unless I absolutely had to do it. Far too many unknowns and whims of people controlling things.
The reason I was pulled into this thread is because someone suggested that a developer should just buy their stake, implement a feature and Allah willing they'd end up selling their stake for more. I'd love to see someone actually come up with numbers on how that is to work. It means the developer has enough money to gamble on BTS and then have enough to live off until they can cash back out. This only works assuming the gamble has a good chance of paying off. What happens if BTS drops 40% during that time but then goes up 30% after the developers work is released? How much money vs % of increase is required for this to be reasonable given what an average person would be willing to invest. To suggest this is an alternative model for development is stupid. It assumes future developers must already be wealthy. Unlikely.
I have never been against people judging the proposals on their individual merits. I have never been against people being against dilution in general. I have been against this blind marching forward with nothing more than hope, while other projects are actually implementing new features. I personally learned it was a big mistake putting much faith in Bytemaster's decision making. That doesn't impact my views on this. To the contrary - I WANT to see BTS grow up and not be dependent on him. Shutting down all dilution/payment is not the way to do this. It is just a recipe to not be competitive.
Spot on...
Keep in mind from where you sit your arguements make perfect sense.
From China.. when they see the tons of money that Westerners make.. they think we are all rich and should be able to buy shares in the ridiculous way that has been suggested.
Also from where they sit, developers are being paid far too much.
DACPlay received over $1m in donations about 14 months ago. By western standards this can fuel a sizable dev team for a good 2 years. In China terms, 20 years. Yet we haven't seen one single free improvement delivered from them since 2.0.
From all I have seen.. the Worker proposal is not well suited for independent developers in its current iteration, but better suited to well funded companies that can do all the extras about detailed reports, marketing themselves, and even potentially taking payment in some vested balance.
When you see other graphene chains come up where work they do can, if not paid, simply be taken to the next chain that is willing to pay for it, then you will might see this happen.
Right now though as many can see, we have a regime that is attempting to put a strangle hold to it all... possibly because of some of the things I mentioned, making the time ripe for a company with the available funds to just launch a competitor to Bitshares... a competitor that understands innovate or die. How's our 1.5% current dilution going to look then? Kinda like too little too late.
Have you looked at coinmarketcap recently ?
It doesn't take a company with funding to compete with BTS . A coin with a silly Doge face is doing it already .
Dogecoin is already doing it with zero features/zero funding .
Figure out how to beat Dogecoin , and I'll have a serious conversation with you .
Of course , you will say ..."Dogecoin is pump and dump , marketcap doesn't count " . But how can you talk about beating all the innovation projects by increasing dilution when you can't even beat a silly project called Doge ?
There was a time when we were beating it.... so your arguement is moot.
Why you insist on making comparisons to snapshot moments as the reasoning behind and overall future strategy to running a company is beyond me.
This thought occurred to me while making my last post but it didn't match the rest of my reasoning.
Another reasonable explanation for the situation we are facing is that this is what you get when you lets traders pretend to be visionaries/CEOs/entrepreneurs. You get silly notions like the above as though it is a reasonable explanation for their position, when in fact they can't think beyond the speculative trader headset.
This is what you get when the control of how funds are spent are given to the majority of speculators. There is no other crypto-project that has this type of control given to its stake holders.
Ultimately you need leadership, you need people who know what they are doing. Instead you have traders and speculators that have taken hold of the enterprise and are making decisions that are driving it into the ground.
BUUUUUUUUT... since you brought up dogecoin... lets take a look at what was posted just 3 months ago:
https://www.reddit.com/r/dogecoin/comments/3x9ei0/brain_dump_dogecoin_on_ethereum/
What was the first comment?
Wow.. that sounds exciting.. what else?
Wait what? Doge innovating... perhaps why they got such a market cap... noooo it couldn't be?
What kind of commentary does Bitshares innovation and dedicated development team look like?
"Oh yeah.. Bitshares looks like it has potential, but the China regime has stopped all development and they have lost all developers and development because of it. They wanted everyone to work as slave laborers and contributed nothing themselves. Shame really, it had some really cool stuff."
So now @btswildpig now that we have established that Dogecoin is all about innovation.. lets turn on those spigots and start supporting MORE innovation! How about it?
Please refer to my original Innovate or Die image above.
Have you looked at coinmarketcap recently ?
It doesn't take a company with funding to compete with BTS . A coin with a silly Doge face is doing it already .
Dogecoin is already doing it with zero features/zero funding .
Figure out how to beat Dogecoin , and I'll have a serious conversation with you .
Of course , you will say ..."Dogecoin is pump and dump , marketcap doesn't count " . But how can you talk about beating all the innovation projects by increasing dilution when you can't even beat a silly project called Doge ?
Oh come on, Doge is obviously an anomaly in the crypto-world -- it's purely for "fun" and speculation on how much others will find it "fun". That's not BTS. BTS won't magically become fun and community-driven if everyone just stops developing for it.
The name's not even funny -- BitShares.
and big announcement ..... If people can't tell I find this whole thing pretty obnoxious.
I think the Chinese have a point. Looks at the scape's video. How many BTS did they get for that? 1600 views? I thought it was a waste to begin with, but a real video that would be effective would have been work and not fun. Those guys milked that for a looong time. The non-technical scape was part of the reason I left. The other one was ended up being extremely valuable to the BTS ecosystem.
In the current form, I would never wish to work for the blockchain. At one point I thought it was a cool idea. Very sci-fi. Neat stuff. Now, I realize that the more you put your own well being in the hands of others, the more likely you are to just get screwed. This is even more true, the more talented you are. I would not touch working for the BTS blockchain unless I absolutely had to do it. Far too many unknowns and whims of people controlling things.
The reason I was pulled into this thread is because someone suggested that a developer should just buy their stake, implement a feature and Allah willing they'd end up selling their stake for more. I'd love to see someone actually come up with numbers on how that is to work. It means the developer has enough money to gamble on BTS and then have enough to live off until they can cash back out. This only works assuming the gamble has a good chance of paying off. What happens if BTS drops 40% during that time but then goes up 30% after the developers work is released? How much money vs % of increase is required for this to be reasonable given what an average person would be willing to invest. To suggest this is an alternative model for development is stupid. It assumes future developers must already be wealthy. Unlikely.
I have never been against people judging the proposals on their individual merits. I have never been against people being against dilution in general. I have been against this blind marching forward with nothing more than hope, while other projects are actually implementing new features. I personally learned it was a big mistake putting much faith in Bytemaster's decision making. That doesn't impact my views on this. To the contrary - I WANT to see BTS grow up and not be dependent on him. Shutting down all dilution/payment is not the way to do this. It is just a recipe to not be competitive.
Spot on...
Keep in mind from where you sit your arguements make perfect sense.
From China.. when they see the tons of money that Westerners make.. they think we are all rich and should be able to buy shares in the ridiculous way that has been suggested.
Also from where they sit, developers are being paid far too much.
DACPlay received over $1m in donations about 14 months ago. By western standards this can fuel a sizable dev team for a good 2 years. In China terms, 20 years. Yet we haven't seen one single free improvement delivered from them since 2.0.
From all I have seen.. the Worker proposal is not well suited for independent developers in its current iteration, but better suited to well funded companies that can do all the extras about detailed reports, marketing themselves, and even potentially taking payment in some vested balance.
When you see other graphene chains come up where work they do can, if not paid, simply be taken to the next chain that is willing to pay for it, then you will might see this happen.
Right now though as many can see, we have a regime that is attempting to put a strangle hold to it all... possibly because of some of the things I mentioned, making the time ripe for a company with the available funds to just launch a competitor to Bitshares... a competitor that understands innovate or die. How's our 1.5% current dilution going to look then? Kinda like too little too late.
yunbi just vote all the refund/burn workers , the purpose is to raise the threshold to be workers.
the game rule is there, if you want to make money as a worker, you need to face the possibility to be voted out. surely you can try to convince the stake holders that your job is useful and effective. and then maybe you can be voted in.
Talented developers won't be trying too hard to convince anyone, they'll just go get a job being paid more. lol.
) .......
Or fix this potential issue considering the financial situation that the firm is facing ? 3. remove any worker
free developer maybe come. because if they don't contribute for Bitshares, they holded bts will become nothing.
If they work for it for Free. Maybe one day, they will get paid more than they ever paid Worker salary.
that is the motive.
Wow this is stupid. The obvious play is just to sell your Bitshares.
Maybe irrational Chinese gambling fever will take hold though once dilution goes to 0 and BTS will land on the moon. Maybe.
