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 - luckybit

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ... 195
211
General Discussion / Re: New Stealth Transfer Worker ($1000)
« on: November 24, 2015, 01:41:35 am »
Quote from: topcandle on November 23, 2015, 04:56:38 pm
Quote from: Bhuz on November 23, 2015, 04:43:35 pm
First, I said no to LIFETIME royalties, not to a revenue for him.
I would highly prefer give him a 1000% ROI than a lifetime one.

Second, this feature will be made eventually.
The community now seems to doesn't want to pay for it, just because there are other proposals that are more important/requested.
This doesn't mean that the community will never vote for a worker proposal for stealth transfers.
Plus, this seems very important for CNX, so they would want to implement it in graphene anyway.



That's what I'm saying.  Even though the Community wants to pay for it, they can't.  They can't afford it at these liquidity rates.  imagine if we dry up our liquidity for stealth addresses, how much left would we have (before the price drops even further) for other projects?  Not much I'd say.

What if we crowdfunded the bond / pm market to the community?  Would you say that those who invested wouldn't get lifetime fees?  Then nobody would want to crowdfund.

This could be a potential new source of funding for Bitshares.  It could accelerate our development if we allowed for this.

How do we know the private investor didn't crowd fund to get the $45,000? Maybe they asked their friends to pool money together to come up with that? We don't even know.

We should treat it as if it was crowd funded. In a private crowd fund, for a private feature, since the feature isn't being paid for by the blockchain or by the community as a whole, the community has no right to profit from this implementation. If the community eventually has the money, the community can simply use a worker proposal to put a community funded and even better version of the same feature and that is when the community has a right to transaction fees.

As far as I'm concerned the community has a right to 0% transaction fees because it's not being paid for by the blockchain. I think the precedent is a good one. Not every feature will be funded by the blockchain, and not every feature has to be. If private entities fund private features they should get private profits, until  a worker proposal decides to pay $45,000 to implement the feature.

As far as I'm concerned, competing implementations is not a bad thing. It can result in multiple implementations of a feature, so that you have multiple bond markets, multiple prediction markets, with significantly different features. Some would be private, some would be blockchain funded, some would be done because some developer just does it.

Quote from: Bhuz on November 23, 2015, 05:07:28 pm
Quote from: topcandle on November 23, 2015, 04:56:38 pm
What if we crowdfunded the bond / pm market to the community?  Would you say that those who invested wouldn't get lifetime fees?  Then nobody would want to crowdfund.

This could be a potential new source of funding for Bitshares.  It could accelerate our development if we allowed for this. 

So a 1000% ROI would not be enough to join the crowfund?! Where esle you can find such a deal?

This could also bring to big whales funding features and taking all the revenues for lifetime, leaving the blockchain with nothing and without the possibility to have community worker proposals.

There should be unlimited ROI. When people invest in anything else there isn't a cap on the ROI so why for this?

Quote from: DMo09 on November 23, 2015, 11:02:09 pm
What if ROI was capped at $5 Million.  Would the investor be dissuaded?   ...  $5 Mil is far short of lifetime, IF Bts is a big success...

I can't believe "capitalists" are here talking about ROI caps. I do not support ROI caps for something like Bitshares. That is straight communism.

This would be fine if Bitshares were marketed as communism but it's called Bitshares, and shareholders don't want to hear that there ROI is capped. Do you want a cap on your ROI as a holder of BTS? I didn't think so.

So if someone privately funds and pays for a new feature even if it's not entirely paid for by them, they should get 100% of the fees of the part they paid for. Which means if you use the GUI they paid for, you pay them, and if you want to avoid paying them then you use a worker proposal to build a community version of the GUI.

Stealth transfers already exist and have been paid for by community funding so that isn't the issue. The issue is the interface. Nothing stops the community from creating a UIA at some point in the future to create a new interface feature if people see millions of dollars flowing to an anonymous person.

But at this point in time it's so risky that most people don't even want to put up a UIA. So why don't you offer a counter proposal where there is a bidding contest between a UIA and the anonymous person? If you can raise $45,000 then the more decentralized version wins?


212
General Discussion / Re: New Stealth Transfer Worker ($1000)
« on: November 23, 2015, 04:23:41 pm »
Quote from: Bhuz on November 23, 2015, 04:17:31 pm
Quote from: luckybit on November 23, 2015, 04:05:45 pm
Quote from: Riverhead on November 23, 2015, 03:48:25 pm
What if they took 80% of the fees until they'd recouped, for example, $60k worth of BTS - currently about 18 - 20 million shares. That's a 33% ROI - more if the price of BTS goes up during the payback phase.

Feature funding for profit makes sense. Lifetime royalties not so much.

I say give them 100% of the fees indefinitely. If they funded it then they deserve 100% of the fees indefinitely unless they decide they don't want the fees and in that case burn the fees.

Is there any rational reason why they shouldn't get 100% of the fees indefinitely if they privately funded the feature? By giving them that we could encourage new efforts to privately fund features, like the bond market or prediction markets.
Quote from: Riverhead on November 23, 2015, 02:51:07 pm

A bold move by this individual and a very long term bet. What would happen if before they recovered their $45k in fees a new worker proposal is submitted and approved to build a better stealth transfer mechanism?

The 25% royalty on the stealth transfer fees for life leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Perhaps it's the precedent it would set for future proposals.

I think it should be 100% on the stealth transfer fees for life. What is the argument for keeping it at 25% If they paid for it they own it entirely don't they?

If all of us did it through a worker proposal we would get lifetime royalties, so if they do it privately I don't see why they can't get lifetime royalties. I don't see why it's at 25% other than that is what they agreed to.

What is gained by not having lifetime royalties vs what you gain by having it? For a feature like this, it might require lifetime royalties to get it funded immediately.

And the blockchain will never earn anything from them... Lifetime royalties is a no for me.
The point is that this feature will be made, sooner or later, with or without this private investment.
Making it now, with this person, the community/blockchain will earn nothing from it (speaking of fees and so revenue for future worker proposals)

Edit: refering to a 100% lifetime  royalties

A private feature doesn't even require your money to be built yet you want to say no to it because it's not funding "the blockchain" which didn't fund the feature? I don't get your argument.

You don't mind the feature, and you don't want to pay for the feature, but you don't want someone else to profit from it?

213
General Discussion / Re: New Stealth Transfer Worker ($1000)
« on: November 23, 2015, 04:16:25 pm »
Quote from: topcandle on November 23, 2015, 03:09:45 pm
We should crowdfund the bond market after this.  Those who bought into the bond market will get a % fee.

You will be surprised at how quickly the bond market fund raiser would max out if it's set like that.

214
General Discussion / Re: New Stealth Transfer Worker ($1000)
« on: November 23, 2015, 04:05:45 pm »
Quote from: Riverhead on November 23, 2015, 03:48:25 pm
What if they took 80% of the fees until they'd recouped, for example, $60k worth of BTS - currently about 18 - 20 million shares. That's a 33% ROI - more if the price of BTS goes up during the payback phase.

Feature funding for profit makes sense. Lifetime royalties not so much.

I say give them 100% of the fees indefinitely. If they funded it then they deserve 100% of the fees indefinitely unless they decide they don't want the fees and in that case burn the fees.

Is there any rational reason why they shouldn't get 100% of the fees indefinitely if they privately funded the feature? By giving them that we could encourage new efforts to privately fund features, like the bond market or prediction markets.
Quote from: Riverhead on November 23, 2015, 02:51:07 pm

A bold move by this individual and a very long term bet. What would happen if before they recovered their $45k in fees a new worker proposal is submitted and approved to build a better stealth transfer mechanism?

The 25% royalty on the stealth transfer fees for life leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Perhaps it's the precedent it would set for future proposals.

I think it should be 100% on the stealth transfer fees for life. What is the argument for keeping it at 25% If they paid for it they own it entirely don't they?

If all of us did it through a worker proposal we would get lifetime royalties, so if they do it privately I don't see why they can't get lifetime royalties. I don't see why it's at 25% other than that is what they agreed to.

What is gained by not having lifetime royalties vs what you gain by having it? For a feature like this, it might require lifetime royalties to get it funded immediately. It's interesting and perhaps the economics can be given more thought, but I think lifetime royalties are a good idea and would even go as far as 100% fees.

The thing is if you don't want to keep giving them royalties then anyone could just build an alternative implementation at some point in the future, if that became such a big deal. I doubt it will be a big deal though and with crowd funding it's possible they have a bunch of people who pooled $45,000 to get it done.

215
General Discussion / Re: New Stealth Transfer Worker ($1000)
« on: November 23, 2015, 04:02:51 pm »
Quote from: delulo on November 23, 2015, 03:50:10 pm
In order to get a sense for whether this is a good deal for BTS holders , it would help to express the deal in known terms/concepts. I hope others can help to make the below more accurate:

The suggested deal offers a funding for a 75% royalty until the investment is recovered and a 25% life long royalty once the investment is recovered.

Does anyone know what (more or less) "standard" funding conditions for royalty deals are?

The royalty is basically a third option for compensation of the opportunity costs of capital besides interest (loans) or equity. Background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue-based_financing

It's really interesting. It's a privatized feature. That is a first because I don't recall seeing that happen before or if it has it's very rare. Maybe once or twice Bitcoin has done something like this but it's unusual for a private investor to fund a new feature, but if we can standardize the process, maybe we can use this process over and over again and let people suggest new features, crowd fund them privately, and then pay up front to have it implemented while pocketing the fees to reward investors in the private crowd fund.

216
General Discussion / Re: New Stealth Transfer Worker ($1000)
« on: November 23, 2015, 04:00:28 pm »
Quote from: bytemaster on November 23, 2015, 02:23:52 pm
I have been approached by a community member who has offered to cover the $45,000 to implement stealth transfers in the GUI *IF* he can get his money back through stealth transfer fees.

Interesting. I suppose if they are willing to pay for the creation, the whole $45,000, then I guess it's worth it to them. I also think it's a very interesting business model that has never been done before but this could actually work.

Quote from: bytemaster on November 23, 2015, 02:23:52 pm
Stealth transfers cannot participate in the referral program. The fee for a stealth transfer can be higher (premium service) at about $0.50, with $0.10 going to the network and $0.40 going to the individual who funds this improvement to the GUI. 

Considering the novelty of the feature I think the fee could be higher than that. You could probably set it to $1 per transfer. I doubt people would be using it all the time so unless it's used frequently I don't know how it would pay for itself in fees.

Blockchain.info used to have a similar feature, a sort of stealth transfer based on Coinjoin or something like that, and maybe based on how popular that was we could try to figure out how popular stealth transactions could be for Bitshares?

Quote from: bytemaster on November 23, 2015, 02:23:52 pm
After the first 20 Million BTS worth of fees have been paid to this individual, the split would reverse, with $0.10 going to him and $0.40 going to the network.

Is he going to get paid in BTS or in USD? If it's in USD and the price of BTS crashes, then he could end up with more BTS than we might expect or want. Although I don't think it's a bad model, it's very different.
Quote from: bytemaster on November 23, 2015, 02:23:52 pm
The bottom line is that rather than diluting to pay for this feature, it will be entirely funded from future revenue generated by the feature itself.  As fees are set in terms of BTS, we would allow the individual who paid for this feature to set the fee until the first 20M BTS have been paid, then the committee members would take over setting this particular fee.

Okay I can go for that. All fees in BTS is cool. If it were in USD then I would think hell no.
Quote from: bytemaster on November 23, 2015, 02:23:52 pm
Without paying for this work there would be few transfers of this type. So the network doesn't lose much nor take much risk.

I have put this as a $1000 worker proposal because it requires a hard fork to add the fee splitting and it requires stakeholder approval.  $1000 is a token amount to show that the stakeholders standby this decision.

I am still working through the details with the individual who has made the offer, but we cannot do this unilaterally.

If there is demand for it, and someone is willing to pay for it, then do it. What do you lose?
On the other hand I'm more interested in the bond market and prediction markets, and while I do know privacy is essential, it's kind of like having privacy built before we have the playground with which to attract people in the first place.

If he's going to bring people to Bitshares because that feature has been built then it could be interesting.

217
General Discussion / Re: Get Circle
« on: November 23, 2015, 01:45:11 pm »
Bitshares needs to do something similar. Many technologies and startups should be powered by Bitshares without actually using Bitshares in the name or quoting Dan Larimer.

But we aren't there yet. The API isn't at that point yet. The technology isn't that mature yet.

Only nerds and activists care about the underlying technology. Maybe drop the Bitshares from marketing and just do stuff.

218
General Discussion / Re: Reverse bitshares stock split?
« on: November 23, 2015, 07:59:46 am »
Quote from: Empirical1.2 on November 23, 2015, 04:16:28 am
What about a 100 000:1 reverse stock split? Then 1 BTS will be worth more than 1 Bitcoin   :P

Quote from: JonnyBitcoin on November 22, 2015, 11:01:58 pm
A reverse stock split where the number bitshares is reduced but the same value is kept could be useful from a marketing perspective.

if for every 3 bts owned people got 1 bts the value of 1 bts would be about a cent and easier to think about.
Also a sub 1 billion number of shares in existence maybe more appealing to some people.

Shows are optimistic we are about the future, that the only way we think 1 BTS will be worth 1 cent any time soon is through a reverse stock split  :D

Old timers know that when BTS was about to pass Litecoin and had threatened Ripple, Ripple did something similar to this. In my opinion this should be considered a secret weapon or dirty trick to use when the time is right to improve perception, but not wasted.

Use it when BTS can benefit the most. What matters isn't how many BTS you have but the percentages. I told people repeatedly to change the GUI to show the percentage of Bitshares the participant owns and not just some pointless number amount but you can ask under Github why they never did that.

219
General Discussion / Re: FIRST METAFEES BUYBACK showcase on Monday Nov. 23 2015 8pm-10pm CET
« on: November 21, 2015, 11:56:12 pm »
Better to keep it secret as a policy. Having that known will only cause manipulation. It's also better not to let the day of the month be known. The less people know the less manipulation there will be.

220
General Discussion / Re: Welcome back to $50MM Market Cap
« on: November 21, 2015, 09:32:27 am »
Quote from: OldMan on October 22, 2014, 11:28:41 pm
I've been buying all the way down and back up.

I'm not selling a single share until $10/BTS.

We should really have a $1 or $10 pledge...

I wish we had that lockup feature so to make you prove it.

221
General Discussion / Re: Banks going for Ethereum
« on: November 21, 2015, 01:45:21 am »
Quote from: JonnyBitcoin on November 21, 2015, 01:38:57 am
they had $10+ million to promote it and do conferences like devcon where techies and investor attend.

sexy website and sexy presale.

also the banks tech guys are more likely to want to build something from scratch which ethereum alllows for

I think its actually a mistake for banks to try to build from scratch. It's borderline stupid in my opinion because you could have the community build it for you and it might actually be cheaper. I suppose it depends on what you're trying to do and whether or not the community chain supports the features for regulation and controls, and as far as I know if your community chain does support all the necessary regulations and controls then why would a bank waste it's time putting that stuff in?

222
General Discussion / Re: Banks going for Ethereum
« on: November 21, 2015, 01:43:36 am »
Quote from: Akado on November 21, 2015, 01:35:37 am
Quote from: luckybit on November 21, 2015, 01:33:02 am
Quote from: Akado on November 21, 2015, 01:13:20 am
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1256406.0

I understand banks dont even know BitShares exists, but they're preferring Ethereum over Ripple for example? For money transfers and banks use cases specifically, shouldnt it be something like

BitShares > Ripple > Ethereum or Ripple > BitShares > Ethereum?

We're way more into this kind of stuff than ethereum is. We have way more potential. We specialize in one thing while Ethereum is ok at everything else.

Do these people actually do decent research or only go for whatever they hear "should" be good enough? Or am I just completely wrong? Unless they want to develop other use cases for which Ethereum might be better at? I just didn't predict banks teaming up with Ethereum. I always thought that Ripple would be the one doing so becasue of all the connections they have and we would be the alternative and the "new" stuff for some other more bold banks while providing services for all exchanges.

Ethereum would just be used for... everything else

Ethereum took over Silicon Valley while Bitshares took over Virginia. Silicon Valley is more connected to the tech world so it's obvious why Ethereum is able to do certain things.

But I don't see why banks would choose Ethereum either. Ethereum has questionable security, is experimental, and I doubt banks are going to put all their hope into Ethereum at this time. Maybe in a few years if Ethereum matures it could have some support but it's not going to happen over night.

I think if they use it they might just fork it. Still, would probably be beneficial for eth. That isn't a race we should loose. Every crypto is trying to find it's niche.

We're just finding ours and would be nice if we wouldn't collide with other projects that could take away our market share.

My opinion is Bitshares should work with any organization or entity that a corporation could work with. Bitshares can work with banks, governments, non-profits, NGOs, private investors, celebrities or whomever. That in fact is the beauty of the design of Bitshares.

At the same time that is also why I try to tell people to tone down the ideological graffiti. Ideology puts people into a tribal state of mind, it makes it harder to do business dev, harder to collaborate, it divides people, makes people irrational, and while it's good at times for your community to have a deep philosophy, you don't want it on your website or in your marketing.

In your marketing and on your website you want to focus on how much $ the people or organizations can make, or how much $ they can save, by working with you over working with your competitors. You also want to highlight your strengths and compare it to the weaknesses of your competitors.

Bitshares has some clear and irrefutable strengths in the technological arms race. It also has some weaknesses. The strengths actually appeal to traditional institutions like banks and in many ways Bitshares has taken a conservative approach. On the other hand generalized programmable blockchain are a strength and while Bitshares has some of these capabilities it will be left in the dust by some of the other projects.

So Bitshares needs to focus on it's niche. It's niche is financial transactions, it's niche is decentralized exchange,  and from a technological point of view if it can do bank functions better than Ethereum then it might win over some of the smaller banks. You don't need to win the biggest banks, you just need any banks.

223
General Discussion / Re: Banks going for Ethereum
« on: November 21, 2015, 01:33:02 am »
Quote from: Akado on November 21, 2015, 01:13:20 am
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1256406.0

I understand banks dont even know BitShares exists, but they're preferring Ethereum over Ripple for example? For money transfers and banks use cases specifically, shouldnt it be something like

BitShares > Ripple > Ethereum or Ripple > BitShares > Ethereum?

We're way more into this kind of stuff than ethereum is. We have way more potential. We specialize in one thing while Ethereum is ok at everything else.

Do these people actually do decent research or only go for whatever they hear "should" be good enough? Or am I just completely wrong? Unless they want to develop other use cases for which Ethereum might be better at? I just didn't predict banks teaming up with Ethereum. I always thought that Ripple would be the one doing so becasue of all the connections they have and we would be the alternative and the "new" stuff for some other more bold banks while providing services for all exchanges.

Ethereum would just be used for... everything else

Ethereum took over Silicon Valley while Bitshares took over Virginia. Silicon Valley is more connected to the tech world so it's obvious why Ethereum is able to do certain things.

But I don't see why banks would choose Ethereum either. Ethereum has questionable security, is experimental, and I doubt banks are going to put all their hope into Ethereum at this time. Maybe in a few years if Ethereum matures it could have some support but it's not going to happen over night.

It took Ripple 5 years. Ripple I've known about since 2011, since before I got involved with Bitcoin, back when it was RipplePay. Ripple has been trying to build relationships with banks for a long time.

Ethereum in my opinion at this time, is not secure enough for banks. Because it is so new, and because it is Turing complete, it's alpha level, and at best banks are only testing it. I do understand why banks would not choose Bitcoin, Bitcoin isn't very flexible and the Bitcoin developers are extremely ideological while banks probably only care about having the best technology for shareholders.

I think the Turing completeness in the long term though will make Ethereum expensive to maintain and secure. It might be secure enough to work in the same way Bitcoin is considered secure enough or Bitshares is considered secure enough, but it will have additional risks brought on it due to it's openness and Turing completeness.

224
General Discussion / Re: Why are we Here? Why BitShares? Why this community? Why Me?
« on: November 20, 2015, 03:04:36 am »
Quote from: clayop on November 20, 2015, 02:20:47 am
Quote from: luckybit on November 20, 2015, 02:10:51 am
Quote from: clayop on November 20, 2015, 02:07:16 am
The privacy is more important in the exchange. I think this proposal is only for transferring. Can we expand this proposal to market functions?

That seems technically impossible but also why would you want that? The market statistics seem essential. If you're using a masked account that you just created for the market, and then you transfer to a stealth account after, then wouldn't it be private?

Some traders do not want to reveal their positions. That's why.

How would anyone link it to a real person?

225
General Discussion / Re: Why are we Here? Why BitShares? Why this community? Why Me?
« on: November 20, 2015, 02:10:51 am »
Quote from: clayop on November 20, 2015, 02:07:16 am
The privacy is more important in the exchange. I think this proposal is only for transferring. Can we expand this proposal to market functions?

That seems technically impossible but also why would you want that? The market statistics seem essential. If you're using a masked account that you just created for the market, and then you transfer to a stealth account after, then wouldn't it be private?

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ... 195

Page created in 0.029 seconds with 23 queries.