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 ... 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 [190] 191 192 193 194 195
2836
It was pointed out in the other thread that Bitshares is supposed to be out sooner than in 21 months, I think it is still appropriate to target this number of months because things don't always go to plan and as a startup you want to have "a long runway" so that even if it takes a few extra months you can not need to raise funds in a time of weakness where you might be compelled to take a bad deal because you have few options.

I believe Invictus should be able to essentially presell another 10% of Bitshares to fund its creation, but I disagree with them taking more than 25% in this way.   If that was the dicision that was to be made, they needed to do it before the first set of promises were made.

I see no reason why Bitshares should need 21 million coins or why Bitshares has to be mined at all. I also don't understand why you need to have 80% of wasted unallocated coin space.

That space should either go to miners, or remove it entirely because it dilutes everyone elses holding to inflate Bitshares for no reason other than to hang onto 21 million as an arbitrary number. The limit or cap should be like how Mastercoin did it which is to say that you generate it until Bitshares is released.

I suggested 6 million coins in the other thread.
2 million for PTS holders. 2 million for a hybrid Proof of Work Proof of Stake where the goal is to completely transition out of Proof of Work entirely. If we cannot do the hybrid then remove Proof of Work entirely and get rid of the 2 million turning it into 4 million total and do it 50/50. 50% to PTS holders and 50% to Angels.

Forget about percentages because that was based on the idea that the coins had to be mined via Proof of Work over 10 years. It makes no sense to mine Bitshares over 10 years so it makes no sense to hang onto 21 million. If there is no Proof of Work then there is no legitimate reason to have any more coins other than PTS+Angelshares for a total of approximately 4 million Bitshares.



2837
General Discussion / Re: Development and Accountability Tracking
« on: December 16, 2013, 05:03:13 am »
You guys want better accountability and I agree with you. I want you to tell us how it should be done.
Some sort of voting software? Daily updates via Twitter? Video cameras on everyone?

The Invictus team is spread among multiple continents, so development is happening in real time 24 hours a day. This is why I think we have had some problems.   
tldr; Ideas to make community input real time to keep pace with all the cool things we are working on.

Also I'll try to be on #protoshares on freenode for my waking hours(super3). If you have immediate concerns just ping me there. I have access to the whole team so use me a resource till Brian takes over.

Back to work on the new website for me.

My opinion is each success should result in receiving reward credits. This would allow for the automated tracking of task completion. Basically upon each completed task the reward credits get released to the Keyhotee ID of the developer who completed the assigned task.

I don't think this is too difficult. You set up a board where the to-do list is displayed. Then you have the community vote up certain tasks to the top of the to-do list and those tasks should pay more in credits than the tasks which are not voted to the top. Also the tasks which a lot of people are doing should result in the difficulty level rising for those tasks which means the amount of credits should decrease as more people do the same task.

So if its bug testing for example if everyone is trying to be a bug tester then bug testing shouldn't pay as much. If it's a task no one wants to do but which is very important then it would be voted to the top and would pay the most.

In my opinion this functionality should be built into Keyhotee itself or should be one of the primary and most fundamental functions of Keyhotee. If we cannot use Keyhotee for something like this and have to resort to using blogs then why develop Keyhotee?

Since Keyhotee has Reputation, Wallets, and pseudo-anonymous communication it is perfect in my opinion to use for something like communication among developers. As far as accountability beyond that then of course you have change logs, blogs, or something similar to the planetKDE.org site.

http://planetkde.org/ is a good model for how to do a development blog.

2838
So here is my idea, we create a system where KeyhoteeID, Reputation, and Credits are used to replace Proof of Work mining.

Anyone can earn Credits by proving their Commitment level to the DAC. To do this they will do tasks which can range from stuff similar to BitcoinGet to bounties that heavily committed Keyhotee IDs vote on.

So anyone who has no Commitment at all should be able to earn some Credits from doing some sort of BitcoinGet like tasks. These Credits should be like coupons which can be exchanged for Bitshares. 1 million Bitshares should be reserved specifically for this purpose. The system should be set up in such a way that even people who do BitcoinGet all day should earn some reasonable amount of Bitshares but the difficulty should adjust so that if too many people are doing that task then the amount of Bitshares they get for it should decrease appropriately.

Miners should be retrained to do different tasks now that Proof of Work is considered obsolete and we should build Keyhotee up in such a way so that it can be used to automate the process of rewarding Keyhotee IDs for completing specific tasks. It should be as simple as clicking a link, going to a website, claiming a task, associating it with your Keyhotee ID, and Keyhotee wallet address, do the task, win the credits, save the credits until you want to redeem them for the Bitshares or whatever future DACs decide to set aside some shares to use to reward those who show Commmitment through action.

This could be getting referrals, it could be seemingly pointless tasks like you find on Bitcoinget, it could be FAQs, documentations, Wikis, Tweets, putting Bitshares or Protoshares in your signature or anything else.

When I ran the giveaway thread the rule stated that you could put Mastercoin in your signature, Tweet, or do anything like that and I was assigned to check to make sure everyone followed through on their end of the deal. A script could do something similar and make sure everyone follows through or a human can simply check to make sure they keep the signatures for a month and credit them if there is a trusted Keyhotee ID with the reputation to do that kind of work.

And that Keyhotee ID should of course be given reward credits for his/her work as well. Having Bitshares in your signature would be marketing it and would be just about the same amount of Bitshares as you would get from mining it if the scheme were to work correctly. This could replace mining entirely with signature marketing and other kinds of marketing.

If you write on the Wiki then just like with Devtome it should be that there is a script which checks it and then credits everyone who added to the Wiki.

Please consider this idea and improve on it. I think it is necessary if we are going to move away from mining to replace it with something like this.

2839
General Discussion / Re: Angel Shares Feedback Requested
« on: December 16, 2013, 04:12:55 am »
Crash the price.that's what u want.Good job,bytemaster!You made it!

If we took the original proposal, PTS should go up 10x the current price. Also, Invictus doesn't benefit from protoshares. And it's debatable if it's worked to bring in the talent the project needs to grow. People are willing to work, but they need money.

Expand the economy. Don't take money from miners to pay programmers. That is the only problem I had with the original proposal. I think Super3 and I have outlined that you have to throw a bone to miners. The hybrid proposal allows for that and you can also reduce the amount of Bitshares if there will be a lot less need to mine them due to Proof of Stake.

Honestly no one has made the case why having 21 million Bitshares is necessary if it does not take 10 years of mining. So how many Bitshares is necessary? As much as can be mined between when mining starts and when mining is phased out to be replaced by Proof of Stake. This way you still have some mining and you give miners a chance to transition without removing mining entirely. Also the shares they do mine will be much more scarce so they'd win there as well.

So for that reason cut 21 million to something reasonable like 4-5 million and then go with hybrid Proof of Work Proof of Stake where Proof of Work is slowly phased out. Everyone wins. The main area we'd need consensus on is the cut off point.

Super3 could also give more detail on his plan, does it include a cut off? Is it 21 million Bitshares in the hybrid model and how many would go for Proof of Work or Proof of Stake etc?

I think one of the options we could decide on is to let protoshares run its course and start angel shares in January. That was the only deal miners could count on anyway. Invictus has always been conspiring to cut mining for profit out. In fact, you weren't suppose to be able to mine protoshares for profit either.

I'm not defending the miners who mine for profit and then day trade. I'm defending miners who are mining at a loss and who are holding with the expectation that this DAC idea and Bitshares will be a success. They built rigs or set up businesses around the mining industry and are mining and I suppose you could say for some people it might be profitable but not really. The real profit will only come for them if they talk and hype the value of their Protoshares up which is why I say miners can be used as viral marketers and undercover grassroots marketing.

There are some people who mined from the beginning who only have maybe 100-200 Protoshares. They mined at a loss and now they want the Protoshares to be worth as much as possible. They'll be the biggest advocates because they are the shareholders with the most to lose.

The botnets suck and I agree with you that they leech off the economy. The mining pool centralization sucks and is a threat to the security of the network. We need to solve those two problems without hurting the miners who actually have small amounts and who could not afford to get Protoshares by buying it. Now they have Protoshares and should be treated with respect for the time investment they made setting up rigs, building rigs, selling rigs and paying electricity.

The best transition is to go with the hybrid model and slowly phase out mining. Bitshares could be a hybrid, you throw a bone to the miners of 1 million Bitshares to Proof of Work and then the other 1 million to Proof of Stake. This will allow miners to get the last chance to mine and get as many Bitshares from it as possible while the infrastructure is set up to begin the marketing contests funded by angel investors.

Without Keyhotee you don't even have a way to credit people who are successful working for a DAC marketing the idea. So put Keyhotee out first and develop a crediting and reputation system before phasing out mining entirely. Otherwise all this talk about promises of contests, bounties and jobs for everyone is just empty when you don't have funding of infrastructure in place.


2840
General Discussion / Re: Angel Shares Feedback Requested
« on: December 16, 2013, 04:01:22 am »
Yes, at the expense of people who haven't yet gotten into Bitshares.  We go from having 90% being distributed via mining which is perceived to be free and available to anyone (because we keep talking about how CPU minable Momentum is) to Invictus selling 50% into the market. 
It's not going to be 90% if you want the angel investing built in. So even you admit it has to be 80% or less if you have to give 10% to angel investors.

If you go with a hybrid model you can still set aside some shares to be mined so that miners don't lose but they don't need 80% because miners aren't necessary to secure the network. Since transactions would secure the network you have 10%-15% for PTS, 10% for angels, that is only 35%. You still have 75% for miners and for Proof of Stake.

Lets look at the numbers.

2 million is the original amount for PTS. Let's say it's made into 2.5 million. Let's say 1.5 million for Angels. You still have 2 million for Proof of Work & Proof of Stake.

Or you could say 2 million for PTS as in the idea you proposed and 2 million for angels. Now you add 1 million for Proof of Work and 1 million for Proof of Stake for a total of 6 million Bitshares. Everyone wins.

Of course thats a better deal for existing holders of Protoshares, but the deal is already plenty good for them.  This will make it seem like the people who are already in are voting themselves a better deal, or being bribed.
Not at all. Everyone must feel like they are winning or you cannot make a deal.

But even if PTS holders are given nothing at all (which I don't recommend from a deal making perspective), it's still 2 million, 2 million, 2 million for a total of 6 million. 21 million just isn't necessary.
Either one is a bad outcome, the deal is plenty good already - The focus should be on raising the funds required and maximizing the equitable distribution of Bitshares through non-monetary means.
Okay, so what is wrong with 2, 2, 2. That is even for everyone involved.
PTS get no additional benefits but since there are less Bitshares in total now the value of their shares are worth more. Miners are less necessary but those who do mine will be mining something more scarce so their Bitshares will be worth more now even if they mine less of them. Angel investors will now be able to invest and build it all up.

As far as I can see everyone wins.

Thats a fancy way of saying take the part we like about mining (that anybody can do it, in theory, and be rewarded) and do it with something other than mining.  I've already proposed educational games that reward with it, contests, sponsoring DAC specific media with it, lots of ways you can spread it around the ecosystem without just selling it.  Be a little creative, because going from 90% will be mined to 50% will be sold looks very bad and that's unfortunate because it doesn't have to be.

I don't agree with them selling it either. I never agreed with 50% will be sold. My favorite plan is 2.5 for PTS, 1.5 for Angel investors, and 2 for the hybrid Proof of Work Proof of Stake mining.

Honestly though if it were 2 PTS, 2.5 Angels, and 1.5 for the hybrid Proof of Work and Proof of Stake mining that would be just as favorable in my opinion.

But the idea of 2, 2, and then 17 is ridiculous. PTS holders should get at least 2 million Bitshares no matter what. Angels can get between 1.5 and 2.5 million Bitshares. Hybrid Proof of Work Proof of Stake should get between 1.5 and 2 million Bitshares.

That is fair.

2841
General Discussion / Re: Angel Shares Feedback Requested
« on: December 16, 2013, 03:48:08 am »
Crash the price.that's what u want.Good job,bytemaster!You made it!

If we took the original proposal, PTS should go up 10x the current price. Also, Invictus doesn't benefit from protoshares. And it's debatable if it's worked to bring in the talent the project needs to grow. People are willing to work, but they need money.

Expand the economy. Don't take money from miners to pay programmers. That is the only problem I had with the original proposal. I think Super3 and I have outlined that you have to throw a bone to miners. The hybrid proposal allows for that and you can also reduce the amount of Bitshares if there will be a lot less need to mine them due to Proof of Stake.

Honestly no one has made the case why having 21 million Bitshares is necessary if it does not take 10 years of mining. So how many Bitshares is necessary? As much as can be mined between when mining starts and when mining is phased out to be replaced by Proof of Stake. This way you still have some mining and you give miners a chance to transition without removing mining entirely. Also the shares they do mine will be much more scarce so they'd win there as well.

So for that reason cut 21 million to something reasonable like 4-5 million and then go with hybrid Proof of Work Proof of Stake where Proof of Work is slowly phased out. Everyone wins. The main area we'd need consensus on is the cut off point.

Super3 could also give more detail on his plan, does it include a cut off? Is it 21 million Bitshares in the hybrid model and how many would go for Proof of Work or Proof of Stake etc?



2842
General Discussion / Re: Angel Shares Feedback Requested
« on: December 16, 2013, 03:38:24 am »
Link?

Sorry, didn't you read the white paper the put out a couple of weeks ago. http://the-iland.net/static/downloads/TransactionsAsProofOfStake.pdf

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1138.0

I've read lots and lots of whitepapers including this one.

I don't have the technical background to know if it's an awesome idea. Super3 says people are excited about it and others are looking into implementing it. But I think the heart of the issue is that miners are employees of the DAC. But, it's now not known if the DAC should be wasting resources on them, who are in turn handing their money to the electric company. Invictus wants to redirect those resources to speed up development, create more sites explaining and promoting bitshares and get higher quality videos and presentations and everything else we need to grow.

If you were a part time miner who worked for the electric company you would think differently. Miners were part of the original social contract. A hybrid approach is the only acceptable compromise. If you go with the hybrid approach miners are not left out of the equation but their impact will be gradually diminished over time which gives the economic ecosystem time to adjust.

I think Super3's plan is the plan I endorse as it's the most fair. We should transition to the transaction based Proof of Stake but it should be tested in a hybrid model and Bitshares provides the opportunity to test it. In addition I think the 10% 10% 80% leaving 80% unaccounted for is senseless. Why keep the 80% if its just going to dilute the 20%? If the mining is supposed to be something we transition away from what is the 80% for if not for miners?

Super3 said 15% for PTS, 10% for angel shares and then that is still only 35%. You still have 75% to use for hybrid mining but if there will be no mining.

Everyone is happy and everyone gets a win.



2843
General Discussion / Re: Angel Shares Feedback Requested
« on: December 16, 2013, 01:36:05 am »
@luckybit, I'm sure there will be a very rich bounty program available. There is a lot of work to be done. Wikis and FAQs and how to guides. More graphics and videos....

For marketing purposes Bytemaster would have an easier time promoting these ideas if he offered it up as "We will have lots of bounties, contests, and jobs for everyone if we get additional investment". Unfortunately it wasn't presented like that so the community didn't get behind it but perhaps there is a chance to present both the investment opportunities to the community as well as the opportunity to work for DACs and get credited for it through Keyhotee.

That is how Dacoinminster was so successful. He got us all involved in contests and the contests originally paid Bitcoin but eventually Mastercoins too.

So perhaps also pay workers in their choice of DAC currency and it can work. Like if you want to be paid in Bitshares or in Protoshares or whatever instead of $ or some combination of both. That would be great and I'd support it.

It is obvious that PTS must be mined as planned and must represent at least 10% of the total money supply in BitShares.    Bytemaster has conceded this point.

Bytemaster said his friends and family purchased PTS... do you think he would intentionally do anything that would devalue those PTS?    He also said his plan was to maximize PTS value which would make since considering Invictus is heavily invested in PTS.   So I don't see him devaluing PTS intentionally.

The problem is that most people lack knowledge of how shares of company stock work. 

Quote
Post-money valuation is the value of a company after an investment has been made. This value is equal to the sum of the pre-money valuation and the amount of new equity.[1]
External investors, such as venture capitalists and angel investors, will use a pre-money valuation to determine how much equity to demand in return for their cash injection to an entrepreneur and his/her startup company. The implied post-money valuation is calculated as the dollar amount of investment divided by the equity stake gained in an investment.

New equity is issued by diluting existing equity but the post-money valuation of the original holders usually increases as a result of the capital infusion even though their percentage ownership has decreased.   

So right now there is $500K backing 1.2 million PTS.    If Invictus were to raise $20M over 10 weeks by substituting a new form of mining then there would be $20.5M backing  2.2 million PTS2.   It seems to me that this would dramatically increase the value of existing PTS.

So you all need to stop looking at the PTS supply side of the equation and look at the fact that this is a capital infusion that greatly favors PTS holders at the expense of those greedy angels who are only asking for 50% in exchange for 20M.

But the benefit of mining it and not treating it like shares in company stock is precisely because of the regulatory burdens which go along with it. If Invictus Innovations offered stock I'm sure people would buy stock in them but that would involve law enforcement and the SEC.

Also it's not about the short term value of PTS. It's about "A deal is a deal" and "honor the social contract as it was agreed upon" and of course trying to compromise so that everyone gets some win.

I think there are some ideas now on how to compromise so every side can win.  Let's not try to attribute or treat PTS like a "stock" or apply any of the existing paradigm to the new paradigm. PTS is a new paradigm and there is nothing to compare it to in the stock market so lets not try comparing it to that and stick to comparing it to Bitcoin, Mastercoin and the other similar asset classes.

2844
General Discussion / Re: Angel Shares Feedback Requested
« on: December 16, 2013, 01:28:30 am »
The money I've made just over the past year from people dumping... I'll buy a bunch of PTS when the exchanges come back on.

Your here in the first place because Bytemaster had controversial ideas. Note that this idea comes more from the fatal centralization and algorithmic issues in Proof-of-Work than raising money. This is pretty hard to convince anyone unless they have read and understand the Bitcoin whitepaper, or had a coin they had significant value in die because of a network attack.

Here is my suggestion:
15% stake in Protoshares V2 which is a hybrid Proof-of-Work/Proof-of-Stake. This honors the original social contact to the community and the miners, plus a bonus. Also shorten the re-target time, and perhaps use the new version of momentum. Protoshares can laugh as botnets start to have a bad day, miners will be happy as they don't get squeezed. Current investors can now earn "dividends" even before the BitShares release. Also makes us resistant to 51% attacks.
I appreciate the suggestion and I support this because it does seem to allow everyone to get a win.
Bytemaster can up with a next gen Proof-of-Stake system, so I'm talking with the creator of Proof-of-Stake to see what he says. I think the 5+ crypto-currencies will proof-of-stake will implement it. Its that good. It's kind of funny that everything we come up with here has major implications on the entire cryptocurrency world.
I agree with the new Proof of Stake system its just a matter of when to implement it.

15% sake in AngelShares. Why do we need AngelShares? Simple if want a talented C++ developer making an average of $89,280(2011), we need to at least match that to get he/she to drop what they are doing. Byte estimated that around $1 million is currently being spend on mining right now. Unless you have a rig(I do), I'd much rather those funds to go development than Amazon EC2. So if we were to make similar numbers on AngelShares we could pretty much double the company overnight.
But who controls the allocation of the funds? It's a good idea but implementing it will not be easy.

How much does a programmer cost? I think programmers can take a pay cut from $89,280 a year. They should be paid $5000 a month in my opinion. Funds definitely need to be made available and not just for programmers. They should also be able to get paid in PTS/BTS in my opinion to compensate for lower than market salary, it seems to have worked for Mastercoin developers.

tldr; Hybrid Proof-of-Stake/Proof-of-Work is probably good for everyone. AngleShares good because it speeds things up.
tldr2; Will offer 1 PTS if someone can find a fatal flaw in my argument. 


Note that hybrid will take much more time. I say we keep Protoshares as it is, then release the upgraded Protoshares after we get Keyotee out.

I actually agree with the hybrid approach.

2845
General Discussion / Re: Angel Shares Feedback Requested
« on: December 16, 2013, 01:00:21 am »
Well, it appears that the company is pivoting. I'm holding all my PTS and telling my friends to buy.

Now that I've slept on it. I think Protoshare holders should get what was promised in the social contract, which is 10%. Angel shares can then get the other 90%. The new investment will benefit Protoshare holders greatly because the money for Angel shares will fuel development and growth. We'd also be more competitive with Mastercoin and Ripple.

Completely agree - We need to raise capital to speed up operations

Thanks. I don't think people understand that Invictus has strong competition. They risk being left in the dust. Angel Shares will provide value to Protoshares because it will be the vehicle that accelerates development.

As far as I can see, though, it may be most important to be first to the DAB/P2P DAC  -- I wonder if bytemaster has any ideas for getting to market faster, in that regard.  Raising capital for the DAC's to follow would be easy if BitShare were released today.

If Bitshares were released today the program would crash. Now, Invictus has an amazing lineup of coders. However, these are very difficult programs to make. And what about security. If we want the most secure products out there, we really need more eyes on the problem. And that's what we're talking about. Waiting 5 years for each DAC or getting 2 or 3 out a year. I want the 2 0r 3 a year!

It does not take 2-3 years to release a DAC. It depends on how ambitious the DAC is of course. Bitshares could really take a few years with the giant feature set it is supposed to have but it doesn't have to take that long.

The case has been made that angel investment is critical to the success of the overall project. The question is how can we do it without upsetting or disrupting Protoshare holders. And if we are going for a buy your way in Proof of Stake strategy then what about the people who aren't investors? As long as the investment money circulates then it would work but right now we don't know what would happen because a detailed plan has not been laid out.

How much money is needed? How many programmers? Will there be giveaways and contests for everyone else so the money isn't given just to the chosen few?

Work out these issues and then a compromise solution can be reached where the social contract remains the same but everyone gets some win.

Mastercoin is getting million pumped into them. It's just really hard to see how Invictus can compete with that. Also, the social contract isn't being broken. Only the people who thought they'd be able to mine Bitshares are upset and they are hoping to get something for nothing. Things are moving so fast in this space that we can't wait 2 or 3 years. If we knew only two months ago what we know now, things would be crazy different. That's how fast things are moving--only 2 months. There's really no choice but to light a fire and charge ahead.

I'm involved with Mastercoin and Bitshares. The problem you have is you think that they are competitors when in reality they don't really compete with each other as much as they compete with Wall Street, the NASDAQ, Forex, Dow, banks and so on.

Mastercoin and Bitshares are in it together in the long term and this concern about how Mastercoin has raised millions of dollars is stupid. Let's say Mastercoin raises millions and they give a job or two to me and I earn some money which I go and use to buy Protoshares or become an angel investor. Do you see now how it works?

Let's say you work for Intel, or you make mining rigs for a living so in your day job you're selling rigs so people can mine Protoshares telling them that the price will go way up even if they mine at a loss. You used to just make computers, now you make mining rigs and market Protoshares. If mining is removed now you've lost all that potential income which you could have used to buy more Protoshares or invest as an angel investor.

This is not like corporations in the real world which have to compete because the law says they must profit. These are DACs which have the same agenda and where the primary opposition will be from regulatory strangulation and competition from the real world stock exchanges.

Money will come to Bitshares as it comes to Mastercoin and money will come to Mastercoin as it comes to Bitshares. Nothing stops Mastercoin from hosting PTS or PTS and trades for MSC to PTS.

I see your point, but Mastercoin is open to change in any direction is wants. We don't know how competitive things might get. The way I see it, Invictus has the anonymity feature on it's side,  but Mastercoin or someone else might suddenly solve that problem and then PTS is screwed. Don't you think the network effect is important?

I think there is room for more than 3 choices for a decentralized stock market, currency exchange, derivatives market, etc. The idea that only one can dominate when the market cap of Forex is in the trillions? I don't think it will make a difference if all 3 were successful and in fact I think its better if there are more choices.

That is why I'm involved with Mastercoin and Bitshares. Together they will grow the economy much faster than if one dominates. This is like Mozilla, Internet Explorer, Opera and Chrome. Right now we are worried that it's still in the Netscape and Internet Explorer phase?

2846
General Discussion / Re: Angel Shares Feedback Requested
« on: December 16, 2013, 12:56:54 am »
Well, it appears that the company is pivoting. I'm holding all my PTS and telling my friends to buy.

Now that I've slept on it. I think Protoshare holders should get what was promised in the social contract, which is 10%. Angel shares can then get the other 90%. The new investment will benefit Protoshare holders greatly because the money for Angel shares will fuel development and growth. We'd also be more competitive with Mastercoin and Ripple.

Completely agree - We need to raise capital to speed up operations

Thanks. I don't think people understand that Invictus has strong competition. They risk being left in the dust. Angel Shares will provide value to Protoshares because it will be the vehicle that accelerates development.

As far as I can see, though, it may be most important to be first to the DAB/P2P DAC  -- I wonder if bytemaster has any ideas for getting to market faster, in that regard.  Raising capital for the DAC's to follow would be easy if BitShare were released today.

Doing it right is more important than doing it fast. There is strong competition but there really is only Mastercoin and Coloredcoin. The marketcaps are so huge that there is plenty of marketshare for all three so I don't see what the rush is about.

6 months from now there will be another wave and Bitcoins will be going for $10,000-20,000 each. The crowd funding rules will also be more clear and we will know what role regulation will have.

Right now we don't even know what the regulatory environment will be. The DACs should be developed for sure and angel investment should occur. There is plenty of space to reserve in the DACs for angel investors without disrupting the Protoshares 10%. So I don't see the issue.

If you have more, become an angel investor. Why do we need angelshares?

I have several BTC that I was thinking of investing.  I could buy PTS but that wouldn't actually help develop any DACs so it would be more like placing a bet on whether or not Invictus can pull it off with their current funds.  If they run out of money PTS is worthless.  Unless they manage to raise some capital I will have to sell the couple of PTS I have mined.  Looks like PTS is screwed because the socialists will dump if they attempt to raise capital and capitalists will dump if they can't. 

Is it possible for me to buy shares of Invictus?  How do they profit?  I understand the value proposition of the DACs, but I don't see how Invictus can profit from this whole effort.   Why would I as an angel investor buy Invictus stock?   The point is mute because only qualified investors can buy Invictus stock.

The insane thing is I read somewhere that they had to buy the PTS they have because the mining competition was so fierce.  So it appears PTS has sucked capital out of Invictus.  They had to buy PTS or else how could they possibly profit?

From where I sit, it looks like bytemaster attempted to play by the socially accepted norms and the result is very predictable.   Socialists will clamor against capitalists and toss about accusations of envy and greed.  Any attempt to accumulate capital to build a free society is poo-pooed.   God help us all!

If they don't fix the capta problem I am gonna have to stop posting!

I want to be an angel investor too but you have to look at the entire economic ecosystem. Changing the social contract disrupts the delicate Nash equillibrium and it's proven by the dumping and price drop.

The reason this is happening is the people who got involved decided on their profit strategy early on and these changes require them to make changes to their profit strategy.

So for instance if someone was selling Protoshare mining rigs that they build to order then the fact that future DACs will not be mined just put them and every business like theirs out of business. They were promoting Protoshares and even built a business around it and this change would put them out of business. Then you have people who bought the rigs already who would lose money as well because now their ROI isn't guaranteed and finally you have removed mining which removes an entire strategic sector from the economy and haven't replaced it with another sector which makes sense.

Yes being an angel investor is nice and all but where is the money supposed to come from if you lose your job making mining rigs or if you're not paid to work for the CPU maker, the utility or solar panel company, or even Digital Ocean and Amazon? We assume that employees are companies such as these do not know about Protoshares and do not own them? What if they do?

So we should not say mining is a waste. It might not be the most efficient way of doing things but you still have to recognize that if these changes are made there could be losers and those losers aren't going to be happy that their profit strategy was removed.

This is why I said the contests, giveaways and other mechanisms should be in place. You cannot just take away the mining sector and then ask for investment. Where is the investment money supposed to be coming from? Of course if you provide jobs, or if they do bounties for Mastercoin then it might come from there but then you have to stop looking at Mastercoin as a competitor and instead look at it as a contributor to the ecosystem and those millions can circulate into Protoshares with the right marketing.

Finally we have to accept the fact that most people have day jobs. A lot of people here work for the utility company, or make and sell solar panels, or build computers. Not everyone is a programmer and when you remove an entire mining industry you actually end up with the result of people being laid off from their real jobs or perhaps they just lose a great deal of revenue.

Solar panels have to be sold because it's a critical strategic component. Electricity is not a big deal because when it is expensive it encourages people to upgrade to renewable energy like solar. Those upgrades create jobs for people like us who can then invest in stuff like Protoshares, Bitshares or whatever. So unless we are all going to be programmers we have to try to invite the wider economy into the community and to do that we have to be buying stuff from them whether it be computer parts, solar panels, products, services or whatever but at the same time we need investment to develop the DACs which represent the future.

If we look at the situation with ASICs the problem is that the power is too concentrated into the hands of mining pools and it's centralized. So I understand the dangers of PoW and I don't think it is a long term solution. But I don't blame the small miners for that.

2847
General Discussion / Re: Angel Shares Feedback Requested
« on: December 16, 2013, 12:44:41 am »
Well, it appears that the company is pivoting. I'm holding all my PTS and telling my friends to buy.

Now that I've slept on it. I think Protoshare holders should get what was promised in the social contract, which is 10%. Angel shares can then get the other 90%. The new investment will benefit Protoshare holders greatly because the money for Angel shares will fuel development and growth. We'd also be more competitive with Mastercoin and Ripple.

Completely agree - We need to raise capital to speed up operations

Thanks. I don't think people understand that Invictus has strong competition. They risk being left in the dust. Angel Shares will provide value to Protoshares because it will be the vehicle that accelerates development.

As far as I can see, though, it may be most important to be first to the DAB/P2P DAC  -- I wonder if bytemaster has any ideas for getting to market faster, in that regard.  Raising capital for the DAC's to follow would be easy if BitShare were released today.

If Bitshares were released today the program would crash. Now, Invictus has an amazing lineup of coders. However, these are very difficult programs to make. And what about security. If we want the most secure products out there, we really need more eyes on the problem. And that's what we're talking about. Waiting 5 years for each DAC or getting 2 or 3 out a year. I want the 2 0r 3 a year!

It does not take 2-3 years to release a DAC. It depends on how ambitious the DAC is of course. Bitshares could really take a few years with the giant feature set it is supposed to have but it doesn't have to take that long.

The case has been made that angel investment is critical to the success of the overall project. The question is how can we do it without upsetting or disrupting Protoshare holders. And if we are going for a buy your way in Proof of Stake strategy then what about the people who aren't investors? As long as the investment money circulates then it would work but right now we don't know what would happen because a detailed plan has not been laid out.

How much money is needed? How many programmers? Will there be giveaways and contests for everyone else so the money isn't given just to the chosen few?

Work out these issues and then a compromise solution can be reached where the social contract remains the same but everyone gets some win.

Mastercoin is getting million pumped into them. It's just really hard to see how Invictus can compete with that. Also, the social contract isn't being broken. Only the people who thought they'd be able to mine Bitshares are upset and they are hoping to get something for nothing. Things are moving so fast in this space that we can't wait 2 or 3 years. If we knew only two months ago what we know now, things would be crazy different. That's how fast things are moving--only 2 months. There's really no choice but to light a fire and charge ahead.

I'm involved with Mastercoin and Bitshares. The problem you have is you think that they are competitors when in reality they don't really compete with each other as much as they compete with Wall Street, the NASDAQ, Forex, Dow, banks and so on.

Mastercoin and Bitshares are in it together in the long term and this concern about how Mastercoin has raised millions of dollars is stupid. Let's say Mastercoin raises millions and they give a job or two to me and I earn some money which I go and use to buy Protoshares or become an angel investor. Do you see now how it works?

Let's say you work for Intel, or you make mining rigs for a living so in your day job you're selling rigs so people can mine Protoshares telling them that the price will go way up even if they mine at a loss. You used to just make computers, now you make mining rigs and market Protoshares. If mining is removed now you've lost all that potential income which you could have used to buy more Protoshares or invest as an angel investor.

This is not like corporations in the real world which have to compete because the law says they must profit. These are DACs which have the same agenda and where the primary opposition will be from regulatory strangulation and competition from the real world stock exchanges.

Money will come to Bitshares as it comes to Mastercoin and money will come to Mastercoin as it comes to Bitshares. Nothing stops Mastercoin from hosting PTS or PTS and trades for MSC to PTS.

2848
General Discussion / Re: Angel Shares Feedback Requested
« on: December 16, 2013, 12:28:34 am »
Well, it appears that the company is pivoting. I'm holding all my PTS and telling my friends to buy.

Now that I've slept on it. I think Protoshare holders should get what was promised in the social contract, which is 10%. Angel shares can then get the other 90%. The new investment will benefit Protoshare holders greatly because the money for Angel shares will fuel development and growth. We'd also be more competitive with Mastercoin and Ripple.

Completely agree - We need to raise capital to speed up operations

Thanks. I don't think people understand that Invictus has strong competition. They risk being left in the dust. Angel Shares will provide value to Protoshares because it will be the vehicle that accelerates development.

As far as I can see, though, it may be most important to be first to the DAB/P2P DAC  -- I wonder if bytemaster has any ideas for getting to market faster, in that regard.  Raising capital for the DAC's to follow would be easy if BitShare were released today.

If Bitshares were released today the program would crash. Now, Invictus has an amazing lineup of coders. However, these are very difficult programs to make. And what about security. If we want the most secure products out there, we really need more eyes on the problem. And that's what we're talking about. Waiting 5 years for each DAC or getting 2 or 3 out a year. I want the 2 0r 3 a year!

It does not take 2-3 years to release a DAC. It depends on how ambitious the DAC is of course. Bitshares could really take a few years with the giant feature set it is supposed to have but it doesn't have to take that long.

The case has been made that angel investment is critical to the success of the overall project. The question is how can we do it without upsetting or disrupting Protoshare holders. And if we are going for a buy your way in Proof of Stake strategy then what about the people who aren't investors? As long as the investment money circulates then it would work but right now we don't know what would happen because a detailed plan has not been laid out.

How much money is needed? How many programmers? Will there be giveaways and contests for everyone else so the money isn't given just to the chosen few?

Work out these issues and then a compromise solution can be reached where the social contract remains the same but everyone gets some win.

I'm with Que on this one.  Miners efforts are wasted outside the system.  Your paying expenses to your ulility company and amazon.  If you really invested money for mining protoshares, I think that was ill-advised because there has numerous discussions here that Invictus was looking for a PoS-- which seeks to limit mining.  Mining is wasteful.  Its wasteful here.  And really would miners promote a currency?  I doubt it.  That's a myth.  Once miners get their coins, they would dump them on the market once they see a good opening.  If you really want to get involved in PTS, but with mining its thats so important, then mine another currency, exchange it and get some PTS.  Then convert those PTS to PTS 2.

And that is why you have to throw a bone to the people who did invest in rigs to mine not just Protoshares but the whole Proof of Momentum class which Invictus laid out as if it was the new paradigm. Now that half of all Protoshares are mined there is talk of lets move completely to Proof of Stake?

I'm all for promoting investment, but I don't think you can have a completely exclusive economy. In order for an ecosystem to work you do need to be a part of the wider economy. That means it isn't a bad thing to be giving money to utility companies, CPU companies or the wider IT community because then they have a stake in it indirectly. I also disagree with you that miners are just in it for the money. Everyone started as a miner and now we are acting like miners don't promote or market? How did you get involved if you didn't mine on day 1?

I think a hybrid approach would probably work best. Protoshares and Bitshares (if it is 21 million units) should be mined. It might even be possible to launch a mined version of a DAC and a PoS version to see which one the community prefers long term. But to switch mid stream from one to the other creates economic losers who did nothing wrong other than to try to support the ecosystem. Miners believed they were supporting the security of the network when they purchased the rigs and they also believed that they'd be able to mine with these rigs for Bitshares or at least some of the future DACs.

If the rigs are useless now it means those rigs have to be sold or paid for somehow which means dumping will occur once they figure out their rigs are now just useful as glorified computing devices. It disrupts the Nash equilibrium and the consequence is uncertainty and price fluctuations.


2849
General Discussion / Re: Angel Shares Feedback Requested
« on: December 16, 2013, 12:23:44 am »
Well, it appears that the company is pivoting. I'm holding all my PTS and telling my friends to buy.

Now that I've slept on it. I think Protoshare holders should get what was promised in the social contract, which is 10%. Angel shares can then get the other 90%. The new investment will benefit Protoshare holders greatly because the money for Angel shares will fuel development and growth. We'd also be more competitive with Mastercoin and Ripple.

Completely agree - We need to raise capital to speed up operations

Thanks. I don't think people understand that Invictus has strong competition. They risk being left in the dust. Angel Shares will provide value to Protoshares because it will be the vehicle that accelerates development.

As far as I can see, though, it may be most important to be first to the DAB/P2P DAC  -- I wonder if bytemaster has any ideas for getting to market faster, in that regard.  Raising capital for the DAC's to follow would be easy if BitShare were released today.

Doing it right is more important than doing it fast. There is strong competition but there really is only Mastercoin and Coloredcoin. The marketcaps are so huge that there is plenty of marketshare for all three so I don't see what the rush is about.

6 months from now there will be another wave and Bitcoins will be going for $10,000-20,000 each. The crowd funding rules will also be more clear and we will know what role regulation will have.

Right now we don't even know what the regulatory environment will be. The DACs should be developed for sure and angel investment should occur. There is plenty of space to reserve in the DACs for angel investors without disrupting the Protoshares 10%. So I don't see the issue.

If you have more, become an angel investor. Why do we need angelshares?

2850
General Discussion / Re: Angel Shares Feedback Requested
« on: December 16, 2013, 12:19:51 am »
When you make a deal, keep your word.  No other option

Agreed.

It has been hard to keep track of the various permutations of what is being proposed, but I think it reduces to the basics of Inviticus effectively wants a hard fork of PS1 to gain all future PTS mined so that they can use that value to support DACs. I know it hasn't been stated that way, but that is what is seems to boil down to. The AngelShares seem to be some complicated way to keep track of the PTS that Inviticus has appropriated by these means, and was originally envisioned as a way to materially diminish the long term investment value of existing PTS ownership (which of course risks major lawsuits years later). I think bytemaster is now renewing his promise not to devalue PTS by expanding the 2 million limit.

The AngelShares abstraction seems somewhat useless except perhaps as some form of voting for how funds are allocated. AngelShares would be an Inviticus DAC, and therefore owners of PTS start with 10% at genesis. Inviticus' ownership of PTS would grow to over 50% with PTS2 over a one year period. That is a lot of PTS for them to control the market with. One should consider if AngelShare distributions are an event that preceeds every DAC being formed rather than a one time event. The important thing is that PTS not get devalued over time beyond the 2 million lifetime supply, and that ownership of PTS is used to determine your initial proportional ownership in future DACs. Consider a DAC that is formed with PTS ownership that is then traded in a closed market (between only the original PTS owners) until the DAC goes public. A market value can be approached before true market conditions reward accordingly.

The difficult part of a hard fork is getting miners to accept it. ProtoShares mining is not profitable. PS1 mining gives determined individuals an opportunity to pay a premium to acquire a small amount of PTS. It is faster and less expensive to purchase PTS at market prices. Replacing mining with incremental distributions to Inviticus (up to the 2 million PTS limit) is not destructive to our current PTS investment; in fact, the elimination of mining would increase existing PTS value. A PTS2 fork may not be hard to sell in this way.

I don't consider a change in PS2 mining rules to be a material breach of contract like a change in supply rate or quantity would undermine PTS value. It is somewhat concerning that Inviticus would have a significant stake in PTS due to rule changes, but I'd like to believe it is all in our interest to allow this. It would be nice if Inviticus would agree to never own more than x percentage of all PTS. Ownership above that percentage should be sold at market prices so that others may participate. Inviticus would keep the proceeds of that sale or be obligated to use it for DAC funding.

The way I've just described it may actually seem more generous to Inviticus than what bytemaster claimed he was going for. I suspect this grants him control he desires without undermining existing investment value. I'm trying to find a win-win scenario here, and this seemed a better start to finding that.

[edit] Upon reflection, I think it is dangerous for Inviticus to own more than even 20% of PTS because they could then dictate whatever change they wanted and the entire economy might become subject to how a government can pressure Inviticus alone.

The original angel investor proposal was pretty good. Each DAC would have an angel wallet address and anyone could send PTS to it to reserve coins in the DAC. It could have worked similar to how Mastercoin worked.

It might be best if they just release their angel wallet addresses and do a sort of crowd funding campaign. Let the millionaires give millions that way and leave the social contract exactly as it is. I could live with that.

Pages: 1 ... 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 [190] 191 192 193 194 195