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 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ... 195
241
General Discussion / Re: The idea of to establish a BTS big shareholders’ club
« on: November 16, 2015, 11:22:41 pm »
Quote from: chryspano on November 16, 2015, 10:44:12 pm
If cheap bts price makes further development of the project difficult, we can ask for another round of donations in exchange for brownies.
Donations from who? If the biggest losers are the longest holders who are you going to get future donations from? The dumpers aren't going to donate.
Quote from: chryspano on November 16, 2015, 10:44:12 pm
People that after 2 years are still here donating, despite all this pain, deserve brownies more than a whale who decides to lock 10 out of her 20M bts (he wouldn't sell those 10M in any case, he will "only" dump the remaining 10M he has, but now he can earn some free brownies too! 10M bts x 50.000 brownies equals 500.000 brownies! isn't that great? what will be the next project that this whale will dump his "free" brownies-sharedrop? identabit? )

While I'm a person who was here for the full 2 years, I still think because a whale has more of an impact on the network by their holding, they should get more reward because ultimately they are taking more risk TODAY. People who held since the beginning took a lot of risk over a long period of time but the risk wasn't the same opportunity cost as it is for the whale today.

There was no Ethereum back then, there was no competition from anything but NXT back then, but now the competition is fast rising, and the ecosystem is different. These opportunity costs have to be factored in and I think you're missing the opportunity costs that a whale is taking that a small holder isn't taking.

A person who holds 10,000 BTS isn't taking the same risks in terms of opportunity cost as the person who holds 10 million BTS.  10 million BTS is worth a lot more money than 10,000 and 10 million BTS may be a person's entire life savings while 10,000 BTS is a lot for a lot of people, but it's not the same. Brownies by the way should be slow release and capped at 50,000 so 500,000 isn't possible.

People in the 10,000 BTS range might be more willing to trade all 10,000 BTS in the hope of increasing it. They have opportunities within BTS itself to make a profit off 10,000 BTS. A person with 10 million BTS can't do a lot right now and most people aren't going to risk their entire life savings gambling in the high risk opportunities currently offered.

Quote from: chryspano on November 16, 2015, 10:44:12 pm
Giving candies to a "criminal" may stop him from doing "criminal" activities but this doesn't mean that he deserves the candies, it's just a bribery. I don't know how many TRUE "criminals" you will find that are willing to be "good guys" in exchange for candies.
I'm not sure where you are going with this. Why should we be using terms like "criminal" and "good guys" and "bad guys" as if this is a black and white space? We only have math to work with and a person willing to lock up a significant portion of BTS no matter who they are, is doing a favor for BTS, and is showing faith in BTS.

It might be that some of the BTS holders who do this held BTS and never sold any for the full 2 years. It might be that they acquired the BTS by accident when some whale dumped recently. It doesn't really make a difference as long as they are willing to lock up their BTS.

If you view a gift as a bribe then Protoshares could have been the bribe used to create Angelshares and ultimately Bitshares X. If you view gifts as bribes then all sharedrops could also be bribes. Anything which is a gift could be viewed as a bribe if you take on that glass half empty perspective, but if you take on the glass half full perspective then it's just loyalty credits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalty_program

Companies use loyalty credits all the time on employees and on customers. Bitshares is currently using similar sorts of credits with Brownie points which basically are a kind of loyalty point, but without the promise of any reward. We might have people willing to buy them because they trust Dan will reward them or sharedrop on them but it's very possible that Dan can change his mind and there is nothing legal they could do about it.

That is why I haven't bought any, and that is why I don't treat Brownies like a currency or like some kind of stock. It's a gift token, and anyone can offer a gift token and redeem them or not, it's at their discretion. So you can't call it a bribe unless there is a promise involved. These tokens are speech and the Supreme Court of the USA has made a decision.

 
Quote from: chryspano on November 16, 2015, 10:44:12 pm
If in the other hand we care about those people that still HODL and we feel we need to reward them, then we should randomly(once per month? random date) check for accounts(in the future and in the past if this is possible) that keep accumulating bts and reward them.

That is fine too but you're not offering enough of a detailed plan on how we would go about doing that. Also I think because there is a limited about of Brownies I don't see how what you're doing could be done with Brownies which is why I think we should focus on the whales first, as a test case to see if a reputation economy can be built with the people taking the most financial risk and accepting the most opportunity cost.

Opportunity cost, I'll put the definition here so people can understand my arguments.

Quote

In microeconomic theory, the opportunity cost of a choice is the value of the best alternative foregone, where a choice needs to be made between several mutually exclusive alternatives given limited resources. Assuming the best choice is made, it is the "cost" incurred by not enjoying the benefit that would be had by taking the second best choice available.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost

Quote
DEFINITION OF 'OPPORTUNITY COST'
1. The cost of an alternative that must be forgone in order to pursue a certain action. Put another way, the benefits you could have received by taking an alternative action.

2. The difference in return between a chosen investment and one that is necessarily passed up. Say you invest in a stock and it returns a paltry 2% over the year. In placing your money in the stock, you gave up the opportunity of another investment - say, a risk-free government bond yielding 6%. In this situation, your opportunity costs are 4% (6% - 2%).


http://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/opportunitycost.asp

Brownies offset the opportunity cost and are therefore fair. If you think it's fair for commercial entities to offer frequent flier miles, then it's the same exact concept going on here. People who are loyal to the Bitshares network, who are whales, will get more credits, just as people who fly more will get more points, or people who shop more. Over time you could expand on this to include people who test out new features of the network receive Brownies, but the point is at this time we need to test it out on whales because currently whales don't have any better way to contribute to the benefit of Bitshares.

242
General Discussion / Re: Bridges, Gateways, and... Mixers
« on: November 16, 2015, 09:19:19 pm »
Quote from: CoinHoarder on November 16, 2015, 09:18:18 pm
Meh.. you guys are derailing the thread. A security/anonymity debate was not the intended purpose. The purpose was to add a feature that would make the Bits hares DC more profitable.

IP addresses being exposed are a legitimate privacy risk.

243
General Discussion / Re: Bridges, Gateways, and... Mixers
« on: November 16, 2015, 09:18:26 pm »
Quote from: CoinHoarder on November 16, 2015, 07:46:04 pm
Quote from: fav on November 16, 2015, 07:27:54 pm
we don't need mixers as we got something far more superior: stealth transactions

First of all, people smarter than me have indicated BTS transactions are subject to heuristics and other analyses techniques even when using stealth addresses and confidential transactions. This is what the Cryptonote camp alleges. They argue ring signatures and stealth addresses, plus confidential transactions provides more privacy.

Quote
CT plus stealth addresses is not "more anonymous" than Monero. Mostly the two aren't comparable (both do something the other doesn't), although Monero is arguably somewhat more anonymous, as I will explain.

Privacy/anonymity consists of:

A. unlinkability (can't tell two transactions are to the same recipient): stealth (or just not reusing addresses)
B. untraceability (can't trace paths between tranasctions): ring signatures (or coinjoin, coinswap, though with many complications and hazards, etc.)
C. content privacy (can't see amount being spent): CT (or limited ambiguity of which outputs are change)

Bitshares with CT gives you A and C, but nothing at all for B. Monero gives you A and B, and somewhat C (via ambiguity of change outputs). Monero with ringCT will give A,B, and C, for a comprehensive solution.


Second of all, I meant add mixing services for major coins like Bitcoin and Litecoin similar to the way bridges/gateways work.. integrated into the wallet. Everyone benefits from the fees associated with such as they are destroyed.

Edit: Spellchecker on my phone is a PITA sometimes, plus I elaborated a bit.

This post is a bit more clear. For the gateways into and out of BTC then you have a logical point to make that perhaps mixing could be important but I don't think you need to do all that.

A proxy service to mask the IP address is all you would need.

244
General Discussion / Re: Bridges, Gateways, and... Mixers
« on: November 16, 2015, 09:12:33 pm »
Quote from: CoinHoarder on November 16, 2015, 07:46:04 pm
Quote from: fav on November 16, 2015, 07:27:54 pm
we don't need mixers as we got something far more superior: stealth transactions

First of all, people smarter than me have indicated BTS transactions are subject to heuristics and other analyses techniques even when using stealth addresses and confidential transactions. This is what the Cryptonote camp alleges. They argue ring signatures and stealth addresses, plus confidential transactions provides more privacy.

Quote
CT plus stealth addresses is not "more anonymous" than Monero. Mostly the two aren't comparable (both do something the other doesn't), although Monero is arguably somewhat more anonymous, as I will explain.

Privacy/anonymity consists of:

A. unlinkability (can't tell two transactions are to the same recipient): stealth (or just not reusing addresses)
B. untraceability (can't trace paths between tranasctions): ring signatures (or coinjoin, coinswap, though with many complications and hazards, etc.)
C. content privacy (can't see amount being spent): CT (or limited ambiguity of which outputs are change)

Bitshares with CT gives you A and C, but nothing at all for B. Monero gives you A and B, and somewhat C (via ambiguity of change outputs). Monero with ringCT will give A,B, and C, for a comprehensive solution.


Second of all, I meant add mixing services for major coins like Bitcoin and Litecoin similar to the way bridges/gateways work.. integrated into the wallet. Everyone benefits from the fees associated with such as they are destroyed.

Edit: Spellchecker on my phone is a PITA sometimes, plus I elaborated a bit.

Those smart people, some of whom I've communicated with as well, always say Bitshares isn't decentralized, or it's not secure. Not one of them have ever proven it by successfully attacking the Bitshares network.

In information security you determine risk based on risk assessment. If something is frequently attacked, and the outcome is catastrophic, then it's high risk. Bitshares has been more secure than Bitcoin, it's not frequently attacked, and even if it is attacked it's not catastrophic.  It's safe to say that in practice DPOS and even Bitshares 2.0 is secure.

Practical security means it's secure as proven by usage. Theoretically secure is something else but again Bitcoin itself isn't theoretically secure but it is practically secure. Practical security is what matters, not the various theories on next to impossible to execute attacks.

Next time someone says Bitshares 2.0 is insecure, tell them to prove it. Tell them to attack Bitshares with everything they have and show how insecure it really is. If they cannot produce a demonstration then you can disregard their theories which have never been executed and probably never will be.

Mixing is not necessary. Bitshares 1.0 might have required mixing because it was vulnerable. Bitshares 2.0 has stealth transactions and confidential transactions. It's as secure as you need it to be but it's secure through the Cli wallet and not the GUI. So instead of asking for mixing, you should just create a GUI for the functionality Bitshares 2.0 already has, that Bitcoin hopes to have but that Bitshares 2.0 beat them to market on.

Don't get me wrong, there are still ways to track, but it's not as easy as Bitcoin. Bitshares 2.0 is in my opinion at this point in time and with this market cap, sufficiently private. It could improve when the market cap brings us to a point where it becomes a bigger concern, but when your market cap is less than 10 million I highly doubt development resources could best be invested in that way at this time.

245
General Discussion / Re: The idea of to establish a BTS big shareholders’ club
« on: November 16, 2015, 09:01:01 pm »
Quote from: donkeypong on November 16, 2015, 07:32:05 pm
Quote from: luckybit on November 16, 2015, 11:55:45 am

Angelshares was basically locked Protoshares. We don't have that anymore but we should and these ideas would basically take us back to that mentality but perhaps better because you'd get a reputation economy.

That's an interesting thought. There were some potential legal hurdles with AGS, if I recall, but mostly because it looked a tiny bit like a security. Assuming those issues could be avoided, then the community could empower someone to hold donated shares in trust. What would be the reward? I think they'd eventually get their principal back for sure. One thing I'd suggest is that we could consider modifying the social consensus, requesting that x% of any future sharedrops be made to those who have donated to the AGS trust (perhaps instead of using Brownie Points for this). That would be consistent with the gift economy, though with an uncertain future array of projects, it might make sense to combine that with some other reward.

As far as we know there were no significant legal risks with Angelshares. In a gift economy there is no legal hurdles, because everything is voluntary, there are no contracts, there are no promises, and ultimately the only thing we have to trust is the source code itself.

Bitcoin doesn't legally promise to cap at 21 million. It's capped at 21 million because the source code promises 21 million and the community has organized to make the source code into something sacred like the 10 commandments on a stone tablet. In Bitcoin the ecosystem has faith in the source code and in the mathematics Satoshi Nakamoto arrived on.

In Bitshares we don't seem to have the same level of faith. Angelshares were illiquid so when I see people saying they don't want to lock their BTS up because it would make BTS illiquid for some period of months, they don't seem to remember that illiquidity was how BTSX originally was launched and people who switched to Angelshares couldn't sell them.

Fuzzy and some others are already empowered to distribute Brownies. Additionally any of us can be empowered to distribute our own tokens. We can have a decentralized gift economy without any of the language you speak of. There is no "principal" because there is no promises, there is no "contracts" there are no "securities", it's simple people proving their loyalty and hoping at some point in the future their loyalty will be rewarded when it's time to decide who to give the gifts to.

Anyone is free to vote on who should receive gifts by making their own token and then sending their tokens to the people they would gift. This puts their intentions on the market so that it is known who they might choose to gift. At the same time Brownies are who Dan might choose to gift. These tokens just track who is on the good side of the Bitshares ecosystem, and each of us can have our votes, and value different things, but I would guess that loyalty is valuable and dumping isn't something most people want.

When there is massive dumping the costs to develop Bitshares will increase. Having a higher price will support the development of Bitshares. Reducing the amount of tokens for sale either through burning them or locking them up is a way to boost the price and it's not a "trick" if people do it voluntarily.

It's no more of a trick than people collecting interest on BTS which is what was promised in the original whitepaper. What happened to earn 5%? What happened to the prediction markets? What happened to the bond markets? Sure we have a decentralized exchange and payment system and these will impress the small holders or people just discovering Bitshares but for people who have been waiting for over 2 years, who have held and have not sold a single BTS, what about them? Should they be the bag holders to people who only bought BTS on Poloniex to pump and dump it?

Brownies in my opinion can and should be used to show appreciation for long term holders who have had to watch their $ go down month after month, year after year, but who haven't dumped. If you want to reward this behavior then reward it, if you don't care then you don't care, it's all voluntary in a gift economy.

246
General Discussion / Re: The idea of to establish a BTS big shareholders’ club
« on: November 16, 2015, 11:55:45 am »
Quote from: merivercap on November 16, 2015, 08:57:06 am
Quote from: Shentist on November 15, 2015, 07:57:58 pm
i should we want a lockup?

i want them to trade on our exchange. in my opinion it is not a good idea.

we need active user.

I agree Shentist.  I'm not a big fan of locking up shares.  I mean I can somewhat understand the sentiment to try to artificially create a perception about the market value of an ecosystem, but is it logical?  Is everyone considering the unintended consequences?  It's like trying to discourage people from acting as they would normally and letting the free market work.   Why give favors or brownie pts or anything to weaker holders, non-believers, or people who just need liquidity compared to those newer believers, potentially stronger holders who would have better prices to buy in? 

If we are trying to intervene with the free market, we should create a BTS big trader's club that promises to buy & sell 5 million BTS in a month.  We should refund all transaction fees.  Locking up of BTS creates illiquidity does it not?

Also in the long run, we should probably favor those who use the platform more than those that just do nothing with it...(ex. giving more voting power to BTS holders that use it for transactions/transfers)....then BTS itself eventually might be used as a form of money in the distant future...

Fortunately the plan you're talking about has nothing to do with what we discussed.

Weak holders wouldn't be people who are whales with over 1 million BTS. At some point they believed or they wouldn't have acquired so many BTS.

At the same time if you purchase that many BTS and you're watching BTC go up, or Ethereum, or Storj, or Safecoin, or anything else, even if you don't believe in it at some point you're going to have to dump because the opportunity cost of holding becomes too high.

So the options we have is encourage people to dump so they don't miss the opportunities to invest in better newer or perhaps just rising older technologies, or we will have to promote loyalty. It's your choice.

There aren't any transactions for whales to put 1 million BTS to use. We don't have a bond market so they can't loan it out. The majority of people aren't going to risk trading 1 million BTS on an untested hard to use exchange even if they were professional traders and if they do trade they probably would only trade a small fraction while dumping the rest to put it on Poloniex so they can get interest.

There is no logical reason for someone to hold millions of BTS on Bitshares 2.0 for no interest when they can hold something else which gives them interest, unless they can know for sure other people are going to hold. Basically this is like game theory where if you know everyone else is going to dump you don't want to be that one bag holder who decides not to.

So if you have people locking their coins up then you know there are people like you who still believe, and who can't dump, and now you'll be more likely to lock yours up as well. The people saying Brownies shouldn't be used this way, wait what are Brownies for then? Are Brownies supposed to be treated as BitUSD? Were any of the people saying that around for Protoshares and Angelshares?

Angelshares was basically locked Protoshares. We don't have that anymore but we should and these ideas would basically take us back to that mentality but perhaps better because you'd get a reputation economy. When you mention the free market, a reputation economy is a market, a gift economy is a market, but it's not the kind of market you're used to so you believe it's somehow less than free?

In a gift economy no one is obligated to give anything to anyone. People feel guilty if they don't return the favor because in these societies there is the value of reciprocity. People give to receive, but they don't make any promises, and they don't expect or know how the favor will be returned. So it's not barter where you know exactly what you're trading for, but more like Christmas where you give a gift of some unknown value and receive a gift of some unknown value and hopefully it all balances out.

If you would like to dump and encourage others to dump then go ahead. Ethereum and Bitcoin are waiting. If you'd like to encourage people to hold then without a Bond market, Prediction markets or any of the use cases to make a person actually use Bitshares you're basically asking people to hold a lot of Bitshares and essentially do nothing with them, not even for Brownies but out of charity to the market so that people dumping can get better prices.

I don't think it's wise to punish the most loyal holders with low priced BTS and make them bag holders.

247
Technical Support / Re: it should be possible to refer peeps before getting a membership
« on: November 16, 2015, 11:40:38 am »
Lets just give all the benefits of membership for free, low fees, referrals, everything, this way people who paid for a membership can subsidize it for everyone who didn't.

248
General Discussion / Re: The idea of to establish a BTS big shareholders’ club
« on: November 16, 2015, 06:50:50 am »
Quote from: fuzzy on November 16, 2015, 06:21:57 am
I think it would be less about Reward and more about Risk to most. 

The reward would simply need to help balance that risk.

I personally think this could be a browniable event.  Not sure, honestly, how bitassets could be given to whales who lock their tokens.  However, something like brownies (which I am fairly certain will become a huge sharedrop target), could be paid as a form of "interest" on locked funds.  But bitassets, if it can be done...would be great too.

Easy, each of us should think of our personal tokens as "speech". We then use our personal tokens to "vote" for the the people who prove themselves supporters through their actions.

So if someone is willing to lock up a million BTS, that is proof.  Then to confirm it we could vote for them by sending our tokens to them. Then later on we know the accounts who cared the most about supporting Bitshares as whales, and we can sharedrop on them later. Sort of like "Friends of Bitshares" or whatever.

It's not a promise of reward because we don't really know enough to say which among us will launch something great or be in the position to return the favor. Reciprocity is point of the gift economy though and that is essential to how it works.

Someone does something you approve of, you remember them, and in the future you do something to return the favor. It could be as simple as priority for certain kinds of roles or jobs or voting them as the proxy, or into witnesses of different blockchains, or sharedrops or whatever. By doing this we encourage loyal growth and faith in the future of the technology we are helping to build.

249
General Discussion / Re: The idea of to establish a BTS big shareholders’ club
« on: November 16, 2015, 06:45:26 am »
Quote from: bitscape on November 16, 2015, 06:03:08 am
I prefer a voluntary, uncontrived pledge to one which is bought with a promise of reward.

Brownies don't really promise any "reward". People can sharedrop on them though and let's be honest, the faithful supporters of Bitshares is probably the best target you can sharedrop on next to developers. So I would say if anything it's a way to target the sharedrops to precisely the people who are true believers.

But of course it's not promised that that will happen which is why it would take an act of faith.
Quote from: bitscape on November 16, 2015, 06:03:08 am

If someone wants to pledge that they will hold their millions... let them stand up and say so.
Does the blockchain currently support locking it up like that? Timelock? If it does then why not use Brownies for this? What else are they for?

Additionally if any of us have personal tokens (I do), we can figure out a way to gift some of them to people who do this. The personal tokens don't express anything other than our gratitude and support for their decision. It's like a form of voting.
Quote from: bitscape on November 16, 2015, 06:03:08 am

We can see the named accounts just fine, all it really takes is for one whale to go first, no scheme is needed.  I'm sure someone will put their name and balance in glowing pixels with a big heart icon right next to it for all to see.

Let your word be your bond, literally.

I think it should be more formal than that if we want to make it a real trend. I doubt people are going to lock up unless they can know their reputation is in the permanent record of the blockchain so they can prove they did this. So one way is we can just make personal tokens and all agree to gift them to people who lock up.

Not all of us will be in a position to thank them in the future but some of us probably will be. No need for promises but only intentions. We can intend to reward loyalty in the future and the tokens would be proof of their faith and loyalty.

250
General Discussion / Re: The idea of to establish a BTS big shareholders’ club
« on: November 15, 2015, 09:04:26 pm »
Quote from: Akado on November 15, 2015, 08:50:27 pm
Quote from: luckybit on November 15, 2015, 08:48:03 pm
Quote from: Shentist on November 15, 2015, 07:57:58 pm
i should we want a lockup?

i want them to trade on our exchange. in my opinion it is not a good idea.

we need active user.

Holding BTS at this time is all most people can do until the bond markets are built to make them more active. Otherwise people with millions of BTS can only dump and move onto exchanges where there is more opportunity because of the opportunity cost.

Without a Bond Market or something to do with large amounts of BTS then why would anyone hold? So we have to encourage holding until a proper bond market and prediction markets can be set up.

Many people, however, think discussing about fees is the #1 top priority....

Unfortunately yeah people want to cut costs instead of add value. I don't even think many people see the value of a gift economy or reputation economy because it's not in $ and it's not traditional markets.

The value of faith is critical though. Without faith BTC itself would have never have gained the value it has. Without faith the dollar would have no value. And people who can use the blockchain to prove their level of faith, can encourage more faith.

It's true that whales who have to lock up their BTS will not be able to pursue opportunities elsewhere. At the same time they'd be loyal to BTS and it would be provable. In a company the founders often don't sell all their shares or dump in the startup phase but I guess in blockchains dumping is encouraged in the startup phase.

I think we should gift the accounts who go against the dumping trend with increased sharedrops to offset the opportunity costs. Of course I would think a bond market is the ultimate feature and have been promoting it but since we wont have that anytime soon what are we supposed to be doing for the next 6 months? Just lowering the fees and dumping?

251
General Discussion / Re: The idea of to establish a BTS big shareholders’ club
« on: November 15, 2015, 08:48:03 pm »
Quote from: Shentist on November 15, 2015, 07:57:58 pm
i should we want a lockup?

i want them to trade on our exchange. in my opinion it is not a good idea.

we need active user.

Holding BTS at this time is all most people can do until the bond markets are built to make them more active. Otherwise people with millions of BTS can only dump and move onto exchanges where there is more opportunity because of the opportunity cost. Holding is basically what they should be doing in a bond market but since there isn't one we can substitute with Brownies and have UIAs. Also in this case it's a reputation economy, so it's not about speculation but about proving you have faith in the project which does have some value. The fact that you'd be willing to lock up 1 million BTS means you risk whatever those BTS are worth in opportunity costs, which now you cannot dump to invest in Ethereum or some new project because they are locked.

Without a Bond Market or something to do with large amounts of BTS then why would anyone hold? So we have to encourage holding until a proper bond market and prediction markets can be set up.

Quote from: chryspano on November 15, 2015, 08:02:07 pm
What are we trying to do? to artificially pump the bts price?(I don't think it will work) or to destroy brownies? Brownies can be created out of thin air but proposing to create 5x more for something like this, is madness imo.

We need mass adoption or we die, it's as simple as that. "Tricks" are not going to save us.

Hard to encourage mass adoption when you cannot hire developers. A higher price means it's more sustainable to hire developers to build features like the bond markets, prediction markets, margin trading, and other features which could bring the mass adoption you want.

Mass adoption is expensive and without a rising price how do we pay for it? We have a chicken and egg problem where you can't attract liquidity without certain features, and those features become more difficult to build as the price of BTS falls because those features are currently funded by dilution of BTS.

In Bitcoin people are encouraged to put BTC in cold storage. Early adopters aren't dumping all their BTC to buy mining rigs anymore. People seem to believe BTC will someday be $1000 again or $10,000. Without that faith and belief people would not be leaving altcoins with better technology to go into BTC. Would BTC have a market cap in the billions if not for faith in the future potential?

How do we restore faith in BTS? How do we reward the people who have faith? It's not a trick, it's what you do. When people who don't care about the future of the project have most of the shares then you get a very low price as they pump and dump. As for Brownies, if you believe Brownies are more important than BTS then isn't that a problem that a personal token on BTS is perceived as being more important than BTS itself? And how else do you reverse that if not by encouraging people to lock up BTS until it can be put to better use?

I say we should encourage whales to lock up BTS temporarily. If there were so many things to do with BTS we wouldn't even be having this discussion because liquidity would be there and the price would be way up. The fact is right now liquidity is not there and with these low prices, there does reach a point where it endangers the perception of the project itself.

252
General Discussion / Re: The idea of to establish a BTS big shareholders’ club
« on: November 15, 2015, 07:25:03 pm »
Quote from: delulo on November 15, 2015, 07:22:39 pm
Quote from: xeroc on November 15, 2015, 08:34:36 am
Considering that I only earned about 30k working for BTS for 2 yrs, I don't think locking 1M shares up is actually "worth" 50k BROWNIE.PTS .. </opinion>

besides that, I like the idea ... but wouldn't want to be put on a "list"
+5%
I like the Brownies concept a lot but the inflationary use of it makes them worth a lot less! Stop throwing them around like that! To put things in perspective: I have gotten 8k brownies for my 2 years of contributions.

Are Brownies a currency or an asset or a gift?

If it's a currency then it has to be stable. If it's an asset like PTS then it's price doesn't really matter as long as it's sharedropped on. If it's a gift then none of this matters.

It would seem from Bytemasters own words that Brownies aren't to be a currency. It might or might not be an asset, and it appears to be a gift.  After the sharedrop the value will probably reset near zero just like with PTS so worrying about the price of it is really short term speculating and not evidence of long term faith in Bytemaster.

As for worth, what is worth more than having faith from whales? If whales have faith in Bytemaster and in Bitshares what is worth more than that?  Sure development matters but if the whales never have faith the price might never be enough to continue paying for development and the whole thing collapses. So you do need and want whales to have faith in the project, in Bytemaster's future potential, long term faith is better than short term speculation in terms of value.

30,000 PTS for 2 years of work? But if a person has 1 million BTS which they could dump right now but decide to use it to better Bitshares, doesn't that bring much more value and have a snowball effect if a few hundred do this?

But you can't get a few hundred to do this without having a fairly large incentive in the beginning. Just like with mining, in the beginning when people didn't know what mining was the rewards were high. Or just like with Angelshares which people agreed to lock up and initially were worth more than Protoshares.

253
General Discussion / Re: The idea of to establish a BTS big shareholders’ club
« on: November 15, 2015, 07:10:10 pm »
Quote from: BTS007 on November 15, 2015, 05:31:40 pm
The number of 1 m has accounted for 40% of 2.5 m .

 How much reward should be discussed.

I think  the reward could be  a little at beginning，for the BTS system operation no profits now .

Depend on others is inferior to rely on ourself.

The reward should be fairly lucrative in the beginning just like it was for early Bitcoin miners. The reward should decrease as it becomes obvious that having faith in the potential of Bitshares is producing rewards. The point is that if you don't have any faith in the beginning and you only develop faith in the end when the price is up then you're not actually taking the same risks as the people who lock up 1 million Bitshares today.

If you lock up 1 million Bitshares today you really have to be a true believer. No ordinary speculator would agree to do it for 50,000 Brownies which could ultimately end up being worthless tokens but that is the point. They would have to have enough faith in Bytemaster and in Bitshares to do the unthinkable.

If it turns out that their faith is redeemed then in the next cycle reduce the reward to 25,000 Brownies for example, similar to the reward halving mechanism in Bitcoin. You should decrease the amount of the reward tokens in every cycle, for every new generation of whales who play. The point is you want it to be that for each new generation of whales the amount of risk stays about the same in terms of opportunity cost.

So if BTS goes up in price the risk is not the same as it is now. If Brownies suddenly is seen as much more valuable the risk is not the same as it is now. Ultimately this is a gift economy, not a USD or fiat economy.

Quote
The nature of gift economies forms the subject of a foundational debate in anthropology. Anthropological research into gift economies began with Bronisław Malinowski's description of the Kula ring[3] in the Trobriand Islands during World War I.[4] The Kula trade appeared to be gift-like since Trobrianders would travel great distances over dangerous seas to give what were considered valuable objects without any guarantee of a return. Malinowski's debate with the French anthropologist Marcel Mauss quickly established the complexity of "gift exchange" and introduced a series of technical terms such as reciprocity, inalienable possessions, and prestation to distinguish between the different forms of exchange.[5][6]

According to anthropologists Maurice Bloch and Jonathan Parry, it is the unsettled relationship between market and non-market exchange that attracts the most attention. Gift economies are said, by some,[7] to build communities, and that the market serves as an acid on those relationships.[8]
Gift exchange is distinguished from other forms of exchange by a number of principles, such as the form of property rights governing the articles exchanged; whether gifting forms a distinct "sphere of exchange" that can be characterized as an "economic system"; and the character of the social relationship that the gift exchange establishes. Gift ideology in highly commercialized societies differs from the "prestations" typical of non-market societies. Gift economies must also be differentiated from several closely related phenomena, such as common property regimes and the exchange of non-commodified labour.

Quote
According to Chris Gregory reciprocity is a dyadic exchange relationship that we characterize, imprecisely, as gift-giving. Gregory believes that one gives gifts to friends and potential enemies in order to establish a relationship, by placing them in debt. He also claimed that in order for such a relationship to persist, there must be a time lag between the gift and counter-gift;

Quote

Daniel Everett, a linguist who studied a small tribe of hunter-gatherers in Brazil,[36] reported that, while they are aware of food preservation using drying, salting, and so forth, they reserve the use of these techniques for items for barter outside of the tribe. Within the group, when someone has a successful hunt they immediately share the abundance by inviting others to enjoy a feast. Asked about this practice, one hunter laughed and replied, "I store meat in the belly of my brother."[37][38]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy

254
General Discussion / Re: The idea of to establish a BTS big shareholders’ club
« on: November 15, 2015, 06:51:21 pm »
Quote from: mf-tzo on November 15, 2015, 11:42:34 am
Luckybit I value a lot your opinions I just don't want this to be manipulated by traders and this is something that needs more thorough thought..
See below some replies to yours..

Quote from: luckybit on November 15, 2015, 11:11:03 am
Quote from: mf-tzo on November 15, 2015, 10:49:47 am
why establish a big shareholders club and not let every physical person to participate by locking BTS and reward them brownies (or even better another UIA or even better some bitusd) for doing so in proportion to their bts blocked and time blocked?
If you use another UIA it should still include a percentage of Brownies.  I don't know how it would work with another UIA which represents a basket of sharedrop tokens (including Brownies) so I would think Brownies is the easiest way to go about it in the beginning.

Brownies is the easiest way for sure in the beginning but changing the rules later on will not make people happy. Also there is always a risk of manipulating the price of Brownies since they can be used by people to get dumped once received by hedging opportunity costs. Market is irrational many times.

Quote from: mf-tzo on November 15, 2015, 10:49:47 am

Locking 1 M for 1 month and get awarded 50k of Brownies is like receiving something worth c$830 for blocking something worth c$3,330 for 1 month...I know that I would definitely go buy 1m BTS on the market and bock them for 1M if I get awarded 50k Brownies and probably dump them as soon as possible...So I don't think this is a good idea since Brownies will become worthless..
You wouldn't get your Brownies all at once. It should be you'd get them slowly over time just as if you're mining with the maximum over a fixed period of time being 50k. If you're only in it for the dollar amount then you'll dump your Brownies but people only in it for the dollar amount will probably not want to lock up 1 million Bitshares for some period of time.

I Agree with the steady release of Brownies. As I said above, don't think that market participants won't find ways to mamupulate the price of Brownies..

Also who said it has to be 1 month? The amount of time could have a minimum and a maximum, and be randomly set so that you don't even know for sure if it's going to be 1 month, or more, or less. The length of time could also be a configurable parameter which gets voted on, but in any case once you agree to lock up you can't unlock it prior to the time limit agreed to.This is just a very quick idea.I am pretty sure others with trading bots and more sophisticated techiniques will find much better ways to manipulate the prices.. So this is the reason I would prefer people to receive stable bitasstes for locking their BTS than Brownies..

The point is if you dump your Brownies then you dump, but the person who doesn't dump would still have a better reputation than the person who does, and the longest locked holders could get additional UIA sharedrops according to the length of time they locked up. You can basically create an economy around reputation for being a whale supporter of BTS.
Quote from: mf-tzo on November 15, 2015, 10:49:47 am

I think it would be more normal to earn 5% interest on the bitusd value of the locked BTS. For example, lock 1M BTS for 1 Month will earn c$15 bitusd. The question is from where the bitusd will be found?From the network reserve pool? Is this a good idea?

I don't think you get the point. The goal isn't to pay people USD. The goal is to encourage people to be long term holders by giving them additional future equity, sharedrops, opportunities, rewards, etc. So people who have a reputation for proving they are willing to lock up their Bitshares for long periods of time should be rewarded.

People who just want cash will develop the reputation for immediately cashing out and compared to the people who hold longer, they'd probably not have an equal reputation. So it's kind of like how with Proof of Stake the older coin age means something, the same could be for the amount of time you keep your BTS locked up. If you set it to lock up for 1 month then 50,000 Brownies, and if you go longer than this then you could get priority in sharedrops because people launching new businesses or who are doing sharedrops probably want people who will be willing to lock up and not dump.

Earning bitusd for locking bts is like earning interest on your investment in this case bts. A BTS supporter never touches a certain amount of BTS no matter what. I think they would want to receive some bitusd, bitgold or a stable asset for holding those BTS rather than playing the market again by receiving Brownies which one day maybe worth 1BTS and the next day 20BTS depending on the news at that time and market traders who follow close pump and dump..I do not want Brownies to get manipulated the way BTS have been manipulated by traders in the past and quite often actually. Imagine I am a whale and lock 5Mil BTS for 1 month and receive within this month 250k Brownies which I dump on the market everytime I receive them..After this 1month (or whatever period) Brownies would be worth much much less now so once my BTS are unlocked I buy up all the Brownies I previously sold and keep them and next month I lock less BTS. I end up with many Brownies so people think I am a long term supporter and manage to lock less BTS next month..This is just a very quick idea.I am pretty sure others with trading bots and more sophisticated techiniques will find much better ways to manipulate the prices.. So this is the reason I would prefer people to receive stable bitasstes for locking their BTS than Brownies..

When you attach USD values then it's a lot higher chance it will be dumped. The fact is Brownies can always be worth nothing and Bytemaster pretty much makes it known that the Brownies can also be taken away. The fact is that Brownies are Bytemasters personal currency to do with as he wishes. The reason my idea could work is because any of us could pile on our own personal currencies which we could also take away from people who have the reputation to manipulate.

And if they dump they could miss out on a sharedrop so with each dump there is an opportunity cost to consider. Is the money they'd get from dumping right then going to be more than the value of potential sharedrops now or in the future?

If they only hold onto BTS for a period of months and then dump their Brownies then they'll get less sharedropped on them. When PTS was in a similar situation not many people dumped it so history shows that this seems to work. Angelshares couldn't be dumped but PTS wasn't dumped until immediately after the sharedrop.

Quote
Imagine I am a whale and lock 5Mil BTS for 1 month and receive within this month 250k Brownies which I dump on the market everytime I receive them..After this 1month (or whatever period) Brownies would be worth much much less now so once my BTS are unlocked I buy up all the Brownies I previously sold and keep them and next month I lock less BTS.

The whale who dumps would be seen dumping. People could add them to their blacklist when it comes time to sharedrop or simply only add token holders to their whitelist who held Brownies for a certain length of time. The point is there are a lot of ways to punish whales who try to manipulate using the features of Bitshares itself.

As far as changing the rules go, the rules should be dynamic but it should be that when you lock up then anyone can value what you are doing in any way they wish. They can reward you with personal currencies like Brownies but it doesn't have to be Brownies. The point here is to create a gift economy around faith in Bitshares rather than to create a speculators market.

Speculators will probably lose because speculators who have the reputation of not having as much faith as others can be punished. It is possible that we can take away the sharedrops from them and let them buy and sell Brownies or whatever tokens. But when the sharedrop comes then they'll understand the opportunity costs at that moment.

So the faith element is the fact that you believe future opportunities of holding onto Brownies and these personal tokens will be greater than immediately dumping them. If you don't believe that then dump the Brownies. I don't see Brownies as being designed to be a stable currency and you should be using BitUSD if you want that.

If you believe Bitshares will someday be worth 50 cents or even $1 then you're the kind of person we should give bonuses to, whether it be Brownies or some UIA which represents a basket of personal currencies including Brownies. The UIA could be perceived as worthless and dumped but if the length of time you hold it can improve your odds or your sharedrop opportunities then it all works. If you show that you're a long time faithful supporter then you would get maximum sharedrops because these kind of active supporters are the people who make the blockchain run.


255
General Discussion / Re: The idea of to establish a BTS big shareholders’ club
« on: November 15, 2015, 06:47:36 pm »
Quote from: EstefanTT on November 15, 2015, 02:57:16 pm
Isn't it exactely what the bond market is about. Loaning money and get interest ?
Any info in when it would be in place ?
If I remember well it's not a part of the recent BM proposal ? Why is that ? Isn't it one of the "big feature" we need ?
There is no bond market though. Also locking up isn't the same thing. Locking up is for you to prove you have faith in the network itself while the bond market is just a profit opportunity.

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ... 195

Page created in 0.034 seconds with 23 queries.