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 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ... 195
226
General Discussion / Re: Why are we Here? Why BitShares? Why this community? Why Me?
« on: November 20, 2015, 01:23:51 am »
Quote from: Myshadow on November 20, 2015, 01:17:06 am
Quote from: Ander on November 20, 2015, 01:06:36 am
Quote from: Myshadow on November 20, 2015, 01:01:39 am
I'm with BM on this one. Privacy is absolutely essential to exchange function...

I agree.
We had privacy in bitshares 0.x

So why did it get taken away and then sold back to us for $45k?

good question...I'd imagine there are reasons though... i'm guessing due to the requirement that developers eat and its technically more challenging and time consuming than was thought previously...  BM?

Bitshares 0.9x was not private. I can confirm that there were ways to track people. I don't know the details of stealth blind transfers but I would say they aren't going to be totally private either. It's all about costs, and the security comes from the expense it would take to invade privacy. If your computer for example gets rooted then it's not going to matter if you use anonymous transactions.

What they do is raise the expenses in violating the privacy of the participants who use it. This is why I would say if you use it, use it properly, or don't use it. Also know the risks before you use the feature.

For most people, anonymous transactions will not be useful. For the diehard protesters and activists these features will be useful. I also agree $45,000 for this kind of feature is very expensive, I looked at the javascript, while I don't know fully how it works, it doesn't look like it's $45,000 to implement but who knows? Maybe it has to be tested quite a bit?

In general, at this point in time $45,000 is probably more than people have to spend with prices this low and other higher priorities like Margin Trading and Fees. If the community can summon $45,000 then that would show there is a group of diehard activists demanding this feature. I think due to the controversy it should be done via a crowdsale and funded by a UIA.

I also like the idea @donkeypong or was it @Anders who put forth that NRS should get the feature. If it's funded by crowdsale UIA then Bytemaster could develop the feature for multiple blockchains and receive funding from multiple communities. That would get it implemented a bit faster and get more of the code out there.


227
General Discussion / Re: Why are we Here? Why BitShares? Why this community? Why Me?
« on: November 20, 2015, 01:19:09 am »
Quote from: yvv on November 20, 2015, 12:59:05 am
Quote from: Tuck Fheman on November 20, 2015, 12:48:37 am
Quote from: yvv on November 20, 2015, 12:38:04 am
Most of people in the world are not bothered by governments

Where is this imaginary land? I want to move there! 

The fact that they can't or choose not to see the tyranny does not mean it doesn't exist. They WILL see it and experience it sooner or later ... probably sooner.

Oh year if you ask 1000 people on the street if they like their government or not, 900 of them will answer not. But they will not pay you a fraction of cent to liberate them because a) they don't actually suffer from regime in most of the world (with very rare exceptions), they suffer from completely different things; and b) you can't give to those who actually suffer from regime any freedom anyway, my libertarian friend. WHAHAHA!!!

@yvv  On some level I agree with you which is why I said what I said. On the other hand financial independence is politically neutral as a term which is why it's the only phrase I use.

The libertarian stuff is why Bytemaster is here. Financial independence is why anyone would be here whether they love or hate government, libertarian or not. The concept we should promote in my opinion is to help people to become more resilient, to help people to reduce their dependency on governments and large corporations, to allow people to work directly for the blockchain, to allow people to be left alone.

I think most people don't have an agenda except to live and peace and be left alone. People pay taxes so the IRS will leave them alone. People pay the warlord mafia kingpin so they'll be left alone. People follow the laws so they'll be left alone. People want to be left alone.

People also want to be able to survive without having to depend on government handouts, and without having to depend on an employer. Can Bitshares make all of these practical desires possible? If the answer is yes then you can build an ecosystem around financial independence alone, without the need for any other concept.

If you ask a person if they like the government many of them do because they require the government services to live. It's like asking an infant if they like their parents when their parents give them food and shelter. If you ask a person if they like their boss, they'll have to say they do or they might get fired from their job and not be able to pay their rent.

So at the core of all dependency issues is the fact that most people are financially dependent on others, often the whims of politicians, or a boss who lives overseas who is the person who owns the company. Most people never have the financial independence to own companies of their own, or to be their own boss, or to even hope to experience what freedom is like.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_independence
Quote

It does not matter how old or young someone is or how much money they have or make. If they can generate enough money to meet their needs from sources other than their primary occupation, then they have achieved financial independence. Age is potentially irrelevant with respect to financial independence. If they are 25 years old and their expenses are only $100 per month and they have assets that generate $101 or more per month, they have achieved financial independence, and they are now free to do things that they enjoy without having to worry as much. If, on the other hand, they are 50 years old and earn a million dollars a month but still have expenses above a million dollars a month, then they are not financially independent because they still have to generate the difference each month just to stay even. However, this needs to take into consideration the effects of inflation. If a person needs $100/month for living expenses today, that figure will be $105/month next year and $110.25/month in the following year to support the same lifestyle assuming a 5% annual inflation rate. Therefore, if the person in the above example obtains their passive income from a perpetuity, there will be a time when they lose their financial independence because of inflation.
https://www.reddit.com/r/financialindependence/comments/3dm8yc/meta_read_this_before_posting/

I think Bitshares should simply promote financial independence. Bytemaster can have his grand ideology, his philosophy, and it's all respectable, but we should not expect a majority of people to understand any of it. Most people don't have degrees in political philosophy, and don't know or have faith in any of that. People simply want the American dream which in my opinion Bitshares and the concept of the DAC are in a position to completely re-imagine.

Present a new dream, which invites everyone regardless of ideology or politics, to interact with the blockchain, to live a better and safer life. Protesters aren't always after a better or safer life. Protesters are looking to sacrifice for others, to go to prison for their beliefs when necessary, to in some cases die for their beliefs, but we shouldn't expect that all Bitshares users are going to be protesters, nor should the function of Bitshares be for protest.

Bitshares should be a decentralized exchange and nothing else. Apps built around it can be for protesting, or apps UIAs can be protest UIAs, but I don't think the entire Bitshares should get caught up in that and lose focus on financial independence which is a mainstream dream.

228
General Discussion / Re: Why are we Here? Why BitShares? Why this community? Why Me?
« on: November 20, 2015, 12:06:06 am »
Quote from: Empirical1.2 on November 19, 2015, 11:55:53 pm
Quote from: clout on November 19, 2015, 10:01:43 pm
I'm a little confused at the purpose of this post.

The reason/purpose for this post imo, is that not many in the community were supportive of the stealth transfers workers proposal - https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20104.0.html

It's a repeated behaviour pattern that occurs when BM wants to direct his focus to something but the community/shareholders would prefer him to work on something else.

When his currently preferred direction deviates from the community, it  results in him questioning his reasons for being here, as he is more of a creative leader than an employee. If he is unsuccessful at shifting short term focus to the above proposal, then the stakes are usually raised.

It's the cost that people didn't like. People don't mind having the feature but at that cost, and because it's presented in an ideological manner, it appeared to stakeholders that it's a feature which will not be worth the ROI and potentially negative publicity as well due to the timing.

But I think we do need privacy. If you don't have privacy no one is going to want to be a large holder if everyone can target them. So the way Bytemaster should have marketed the feature is by revealing the risks associated with not having it. It might be that if Bitshares become worth too much money people will have to move it to Indentabit or a bank just so it's safe.

I think reputation is a greater priority than anonymity, but I do think you need privacy in some form, even if you keep some minimal transparency I highly doubt you want the world to know exactly what your net worth is or where you put your life savings.

Currently the risk/benefit analysis may not favor priority implementation of that feature. In my opinion the exchange features should have priority implementation, but I do think privacy is necessary in some form. I just think careful thought should go into how it's done so that it's privacy that reduces risks more than it creates them, and I think that is handled by the interface.

Just having stealth/blind transactions don't give you much if you don't know how to use it.

229
General Discussion / Re: Why are we Here? Why BitShares? Why this community? Why Me?
« on: November 19, 2015, 11:47:28 pm »
Quote from: bytemaster on November 19, 2015, 11:38:28 pm
This post was not motivated by any external news (I wasn't aware Bitcoin was being blamed for recent terrorist activities).  I posted this as a reminder to everyone (and myself) of why we are here.

It is good to see the solid feedback of the users that are here. Philosophy builds loyalty. Loyalty creates hoarders. Hoarders create demand. Demand increases prices.

Profits bring those motivated by "greed" and greed brings short-term thinking. Short term thinking will not get us out of a long-term hole.

I agree, I just think we have to be careful in how we frame the concepts in the philosophy. We want a big tent, and I think financial independence is a huge tent.

Here is an example of a demographic that would benefit from Bitshares but that might be scared away by the libertarian presentation:
http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/danaher20151103
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvpTmiVhcxU

What is a post work world? A world with more financial independence? In the end a lot of people, maybe even the vast majority, do not like their jobs, to have to work for a boss, and most don't know what it means to own property. Property ownership is often misunderstood and perceived as some sort of "greed", but at the same time it's a path to financial independence.

Crowd funding in my opinion will make this very clear to the masses. I do think Bitshares can attract the masses once more people understand that they can actually own stocks and that it's not just for rich people but when only half the population own stocks, it's hard to make a case. Bitshares would allow gamers to trade video game items and learn about property ownership, these might be just teenagers, but they might not be able to buy stocks through a broker, but it still would be beneficial to them if they can have the same access as adults.

230
General Discussion / Re: Why are we Here? Why BitShares? Why this community? Why Me?
« on: November 19, 2015, 11:28:06 pm »
Quote from: Akado on November 19, 2015, 11:01:09 pm
Luckybit I don't understand what your post has to do with what I said. I dont understand what it has to do with the risk people want to take or not.

My point is:
Money/profit > more feature implementation > bigger potential for liberty/privacy > Objective accomplished

If we decide to implement those features now or short term:
No profit/money > no more features/incomplete set of features > no liberty/privacy > objective wont be accomplished

Quote from: bytemaster on November 19, 2015, 10:58:21 pm
It was to simply recognize that optimizing the exchange business is a short-term strategy for a larger long-term goal.

Now that I agree and is what i've been trying to say.

We basically agree but my opinion is, features must take into account "risks" that Bitshares participants may inherit. When it comes to anonymous currency, that is inevitable, but it also brings risks.

On the other hand not having privacy brings risks. What that means is you have to mitigate and manage the risks to produce security in an ecosystem. If you don't want law enforcement to do it then you have to self regulate and build it into the design of your app.

I think we all agree on financial independence. Once we diverge from that and start going into other stuff like tax protests or controversial features, then people begin to divide and I don't think that is a good thing because it marginalizes a potentially large community.

Everyone can agree that financial independence is good. Whether you love the government or hate the government, not having to depend on the government as much isn't exactly a bad thing. But Bitshares is in my opinion no where near that point, as it has to be profitable as a decentralized exchange, and people who participate have to be financially independent in order for people to believe a blockchain can hire people and put them in a financially independent state.


231
General Discussion / Re: Why are we Here? Why BitShares? Why this community? Why Me?
« on: November 19, 2015, 11:17:32 pm »
Quote from: bytemaster on November 19, 2015, 10:58:21 pm
The purpose of this post wasn't to change any short-term direction. It was to simply recognize that optimizing the exchange business is a short-term strategy for a larger long-term goal.

There are so many choices for future work / direction that failure to take stock of product / market fit can be a disaster.

Was your post in response to the "Security Panic" we see from governments and individuals who are blaming encryption for the terrorist attacks?

Risk based approach to policy would say that because the odds of dying in a terrorist attack are something like 20,000,000 to 1, and the odds of being struct by lightening or getting in a car accident are much higher, the probability should set the policies rather than emotions.

Unfortunately I think a lot of politicians and people in law enforcement wait for a terrorist attack to push for policies they've been trying to push for years. Backdoors in encryption which would make us all less secure, or banning encryption, these policies aren't based on the statistics. The danger from a terrorist attack doesn't quantatatively justify the level of sacrifice to civil liberties they are demanding.

If the situation were different and suddenly terrorist attacks were becoming much more frequent, with much higher death tolls, then I would understand their policies and crack downs, but so far no terrorist attack that I know of has been directly funded primarily by Bitcoin, or any cryptocurrency, and as far as I know terrorists have always had encryption and value transfer.

Hawala has existed for a long time. And encryption itself was invented in the regions which are now involved in terrorist attacks. If we look at any of the World Wars or the Cold War then we find encryption was used. Law enforcement never before had the ability to decrypt everything and monitor everyone, and in war the NSA is supposed to have those capabilities.

My conclusion is that for the most part it's political. Any time when decisions are made in the heat of them moment, where emotions are high, then you could get less than rational policies and outcomes.  This isn't to say that ISIS can't hurt us or that there is no risk at all, but more that the reactions and threat of a crackdown are not rational because their own documents say so.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/468210/UK_NRA_October_2015_final_web.pdf

So when marketing certain features, it should be known that:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/03/youre-55-times-likely-killed-police-officer-terrorist.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-terrorism-statistics-every-american-needs-to-hear/5382818

The statistics reveal the true security situation. If the statistics don't show an increasing risk, maybe it's imagined.

232
General Discussion / Re: Why are we Here? Why BitShares? Why this community? Why Me?
« on: November 19, 2015, 10:51:44 pm »
Quote from: Akado on November 19, 2015, 09:56:07 pm
My thinking is exactly the opposite. What core users need to secure their liberty is profit at the moment. So you can eventually add all the features they need and even create something new and better that is non existent at the moment. With no profit you can't secure the liberty you (and all of us I guess) want so much. The features you want to implement are directly dependent on whether BitShares is profitable or not. No profit means people won't vote for expensive feature implementation.

Maybe the core users would vote for this and stay loyal to the end, but most of the user's won't approve of this if they see the amount of BitShares continually increasing in order to fund non profitable features. That's the problem. People chase money. While you need to think on core users, you need to think on the rest simply because without them BitShares has way less chance of succeeding. I'm not saying they're right or not. I'm just saying you need to take that into consideration. You spook them, they go away, BitShares' chances decrease. You need to consider the masses and the influence they might have on the future of BitShares or not, because without them you won't have the money for the features and liberty you want to achieve. The core users won't pay for all the features for sure, they dont have the money. Masses do. This means - unfortunately - that you depend on them to achieve liberty.

People should be free to take on the level and kinds of risk they want to. At the same time the consequences have to be compartmentalized.

It means how you choose to use or abuse the app is up to you. Different people will use the features in different ways, and of course there will be protesters using Bitshares just as they use Twitter. The point is to allow protesters a way to use it which doesn't bring increased risk to everyone else.

If people want to do tax protests then they are free to do that but then they have to accept the consequence that they could lose their money. At the same time Bitshares has to be able to weather the storm when people inevitably do stuff like that if it is to survive.

Profit in my opinion is important for financial independence. If you can't profit you can't have financial independence. The anti-government stance in my opinion is not necessary for financial independence, because you really only need to profit in a way which doesn't require that you have a boss. For a lot of people just being able to profit without a boss, and be financially independent, is enough of a protest.

For others who take to take on the government or who are in countries where they have to, then they should also have the tools to protest. The point is to make sure everyone knows the level of risk they are under when using different features, at any given time.


Principles I would like to endorse.

1. Every participant should be able to select the level and nature of the risks they are willing to take and the app should make this easier.
2. Every participant who decides on a course of action, should not impact the other participants who decide against that course of action. If a small group of participants decide to go the anti-government protest route then it should not negatively impact the participants who choose to follow the law, pay their taxes, and try to be left alone.

The right to be left alone is just as important as the right to protest I think.

233
General Discussion / Re: Why are we Here? Why BitShares? Why this community? Why Me?
« on: November 19, 2015, 10:38:35 pm »
Quote from: monsterer on November 19, 2015, 10:23:00 pm
Quote from: luckybit on November 19, 2015, 10:18:36 pm
While I agree with liberty, I don't endorse the "tax protest" part. I think the main danger or risk is not going to be from the government, it's going to come from cyber criminals who will find the rich list and then try to extort everyone on it. At that point the target list is going to be obvious, and the net worths for all to see, which puts people in danger not from the government, but from organized crime.

 +5%

The governments basically exist to manage risks. We need them because they reduce the risk of us getting killed in a terrorist attack, or being a victim of crime. At the same time if we can reduce those risks on our own, we can achieve security without the need for their services most of the time, then you can protest in a way which increases security for the protesters. The point is not to sacrifice liberty or security, but to try to increase both in the same app. Depending on how you use the app should determine what you're willing to sacrifice in order to gain something else.

http://www.brighthubpm.com/risk-management/88566-tool-for-assessing-project-risk/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_Matrix

Any controversial feature in Bitshares should have a warning in red letters that using this feature can bring possible negative consequences. The users of these features in my opinion deserve fair warning. This means the people who decide to keep all their trading activities transparent need to know the latest news and or frequency of extortion. They might want to know for example that there have been multiple extortion attempts against Roger Verr simply because too many of the wrong people knew exactly how much money he was worth and in what form it was.

At the same time a feature like totally anonymous transactions can put the participant at the risk of being harassed by the government, not just the IRS, but various different agencies, and it should also be in big red letters. Total anonymity does not increase security, it brings risk, just as not enough privacy brings risk.

So the recommended way to do things I would say is to be partially transparent. It can be known who you trade with, and why. The amounts you trade on the other hand have to be hidden. If you do decide to be anonymous it should at least be possible to have enough information to prove your innocence if you are harassed. You need a way to show you were not part of the conspiracy, and because the blockchain isn't transparent this responsibility will rest entirely on you, so you would have to expect to receive a knock on the door or some questions.

Every controversial feature has benefits and risks. The user needs to be made aware of the benefits and risks, and needs to know how to use these features responsibly so that they can have the optimal amount of liberty. As Bytemaster once said about decentralization, there is a sweet spot and if you have too much it can actually reduce your efficiency, but if you don't have enough then you're not resilient.

234
General Discussion / Re: Why are we Here? Why BitShares? Why this community? Why Me?
« on: November 19, 2015, 10:18:36 pm »
Quote
1. Their activity is too public, easily tracked, and their profits/losses easily reported to the various taxing agencies. In this sense BitShares is contributing to enslavement.
2.  Attempting to do commerce with untrusted parties is still difficult (lack of simple escrow and dispute resolution).
3.  Lack of tools for building reputations, bonding users, etc
4.  Lack of tools to support and encourage civil disobedience and peaceful tax protests

While I agree with liberty, I don't endorse the "tax protest" part. I think the main danger or risk is not going to be from the government, it's going to come from cyber criminals who will find the rich list and then try to extort everyone on it. At that point the target list is going to be obvious, and the net worths for all to see, which puts people in danger not from the government, but from organized crime.

So basically while I agree with implementing privacy I think you have to market it more objectively. In a world without privacy everyone will be a victim to organized crime because anonymous currencies are going to exist regardless of if we want them to or not and privacy  has to be used to increase the ability of the property owner to secure ownership of his or her property.

As for tax protesting and the IRS, I don't support tax evasion. It's better to pay the taxes in terms of lowering risks, than to not pay them. I'm talking about it from a risk perspective and not from an ideological or passion perspective. From a risk perspective, there should always be an option available for people who would like to lower their risk in a certain area or way, but if people want to increase their risks then that option should be open to them but it should probably not be directly connected to Bitshares because not every user wants to protest in high risk ways.

On reputation, on financial independence, I pretty much agree, because both lead to liberty, but both don't break any laws or increase the risks associated with using Bitshares. It's part of the job of developers to lower the risks the participants have to take to use Bitshares, so the design has to in my opinion be approached in such a way that the user is always free to accept or limit the amount of legal risk or any other kind of security risk they take.

So if a participant wants to be totally transparent, then they risk being targeted for extortion if they have a net worth too high. No reason to even mention the government because not everyone is more afraid of the taxman than they are of the local warlord, mafia or gang. On the other hand if a participant wants to be made safe just from the local mafia, gang or extortionist, they need to be able to program Bitshares to report to the tax agency and only to the tax agency, but not to anyone else, and only to report what is necessary to reduce their risk of an audit.

Can we have pursue liberty in the most intelligent ways possible? Can we manage risk for participants while also allowing participants to safely protest? Can we allow some participants to take more risks than others? We have to remember not all participants are in the same boat, not all have the same stuff to lose, and while everyone willing to take part in this experiment is taking risks, I do think we should take a risk based approach to determining design of certain features, or let the participants for example select the level of risk.

I'm not against KYC or AML, I'm not against paying taxes, but it's not because I always agree with the actions of my government or that I think the money is always well spent. The reason is because it reduces the risk of government interfering negatively in my life if I go along with the rules rather than if I don't. It's a matter of risk and consequence.

When it comes to privacy, the sort of privacy which lowers your risk with the least consequence is the programmable kind. The more you can configure it, the more you have access control, and access control is ultimately all privacy is. So if you determine the IRS can access your records but no one else, that should be an option, but if you determine not even the IRS can access your records, then you're protesting, and you should be able to make that decision if you're willing to accept the consequences. The point is the consequences faced by the tax protester have to be isolated and separated from the rest of the Bitshares network, in essence compartmentalize the consequences.



235
General Discussion / Re: Can someone help me find Arhag's implementation of blind transfers in Javascript
« on: November 19, 2015, 12:25:38 am »
https://arhag.github.io/libsecp256k1-demo/
https://github.com/arhag/crypto-experiments/tree/emscripten/emscripten/libsecp256k1-demo

236
General Discussion / Re: Glidera - First Non-Custodial Bitcoin Buying Service for Wallets
« on: November 19, 2015, 12:17:58 am »
@kenCode ? Would you like to lead this effort?

237
General Discussion / Re: The idea of to establish a BTS big shareholders’ club
« on: November 17, 2015, 09:23:17 pm »
Quote from: merockstar on November 17, 2015, 06:54:31 pm

I disagree with the argument that low prices will kill BTS. Low prices didn't kill Bitcoin in the beginning.
That's because Bitcoin was Proof of Work. You could acquire Bitcoins without buying them so of course low prices didn't kill Bitcoin. If Bitcoin could only be acquired by buying it then low prices would have made Bitcoin look like a Ponzi scheme to everyone involved. It's only due to the fact that you could mine Bitcoin with your CPU or GPU until 2013 that Bitcoin could have low prices and not look like a Ponzi scheme because a lot of people could just say they'll mine some Bitcoins, take minimal risk in acquiring them,  but let Bitcoin reach the single digits now and see how that turns out after people spent almost $1000 on a Bitcoin.

Quote from: merockstar on November 17, 2015, 06:54:31 pm
If you're somebody who can afford 5m BTS immediately and you only have 100,000, then you have little faith in BTS, and rather than give you incentive to jack the price up when you'll most likely just dump as soon as you can, I think I'd prefer to just stock up on cheap BTS a while longer.
I don't see the logic of your argument. When I mentioned dumping I specifically gave the reason why people dump. They dump due to opportunity costs, not necessary to go back into fiat. Even people who believe in the crypto-revolution don't want to miss the boat on other platforms.

A lot of people don't get it. WIthout interest, without dividends, without yield, Bitshares 2.0 will not be as feature complete as 1.0. We took a step backwards here. Large holders will hold until they find a better opportunity, and there will be plenty going into the future so I don't see these prices in Bitshares holding up unless you keep the whales interested.

Whales chase yield, dividends, interest, and Bitshares at this time offers none of that. The economics of Bitshares 2.0 are wrong and it wont be fixed by fiddling around with the fees. The argument made to switch from Proof of Work to Proof of Stake was no dilution and we still ended up with dilution (the worst part of Proof of Work). The argument was that Bitshares would be profitable, the argument was that burning fees would be promoted and that there would be 5% interest, dividends.

That is how Bitshares X achieved such a high market cap. Ever since the changes what has happened? The current Bitshares has an entirely different value proposition from Bitshares X and it all depends now on whether or not Bitshares 2.0 can be successful as an exchange and that requires attracting liquidity. There seems to be no coherent plan to attract liquidity and no metrics are being released on the decentralized marketing campaign or other aspects so we can make informed decisions.

238
General Discussion / Re: Can't we create a trustless gateway using the current ecosystem?
« on: November 17, 2015, 12:05:05 am »
Quote from: seraphim on November 02, 2015, 02:37:16 pm
I already proposed this, but there's currently no way to finance development (check the link in my sig for more info).

The SuperNET ICO had great support from the NXT community and ended with $2.2M. We could get something more advanced done on BTS for a fraction of that, but neither an ICO nor a worker proposal seems to stand a chance here.

At some point in the future it might but right now your idea is before it's time. It's not a bad idea and it seems Omni, and Counterparty, have the same sort of idea on the Bitcoin blockchain.

Of course doing it over Bitshares would be more efficient and you wouldn't need to rely on as much centralization, but it's not necessarily better, safer or easier. It costs more to do it right now than the current way.

239
General Discussion / Re: Bridges, Gateways, and... Mixers
« on: November 16, 2015, 11:56:15 pm »
Quote from: CoinHoarder on November 16, 2015, 11:42:04 pm
I still feel like you don't understand what I am saying. This has nothing to do with privacy for gateways, bridges, or Bitshares.

I am proposing Bitshares offer a mixing service for Bitcoin (and possibly other larger alt coins.) This will increase liquidity of Bitshares, and generate transaction/trading fees which will in turn make the DAC more profitable by the destruction of those additional fees. I am suggesting this feature be built alongside Gateways and Bridges, but in its own section titled "Mixers," and third parties can offer their mixing services built into the Bitshares wallet.

Controversial feature. It needs more discussion on whether the benefits outweigh potential risks.

I would think to reduce the risks the mixing should take place off of the blockchain for people who really want to do that. I don't see why Bitshares is needed for that purpose in specific.

240
General Discussion / Re: The idea of to establish a BTS big shareholders’ club
« on: November 16, 2015, 11:41:25 pm »
And I'm not saying that only whales should ever be allowed to be part of the "shareholders club" but that initially the whales will have to lock up before you would expect everyone else to. You can't ask the little guys to be loyal while the whales dump on them, so it has to start from the top down.

The whales might get more Brownies initially, but there should be plenty of opportunities to acquire Brownies in other ways which are more appealing to small holders, like for example EarnBitshares or some similar mechanisms like random lottery of long term holders (more than 6 months). The point is we have to start somewhere and whales are the logical place to start because they have the biggest measurable impact.

Also if you're trying to get a userbase to your DAC it makes all the sense in the world to sharedrop on whales who have enough faith in the technology to lock their BTS up for a set period of time because maybe they could be convinced to lock up on your blockchain as well, whether it be Muse or something else. This is all good because you want the founders with large holdings to have a gentleman's agreement to hold, it is what happens in corporations to improve the perception of the company.

How would Microsoft or Apple be perceived if Bill Gates or Steve Jobs were dumping the moment it went on the exchange? But I guess in altcoins it's acceptable for the founders and large holders to dump continuously in order to avoid opportunity costs? The reason people dump is opportunity costs and if we offset that then people have less reason to dump.

In the situation where a large holder locks up 50% of their BTS, if they have 20 million and lock up 10? That isn't necessary if the minimum is 1 million and the max amount of Brownies is the same if they lock up 1 million or 10 million, it would only require they lock up 1 million. Sure they could dump the rest but then they'd be reducing the price of their 1 million which is locked up.

If Brownies offset the opportunity cost enough then they'd have no incentive to dump at all, and if not then they may dump, but they'll still hold some BTS, while the alternative could be that they dump their entire stash to go to Ethereum. The purpose of the holding is to buy enough time for the development of a proper bond market or loaning or margin trading so that they have something they can do with 20 million BTS besides dump it. If they dump their whole stash then when you have the bond market feature it will be harder to get them back.

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ... 195

Page created in 0.201 seconds with 23 queries.