So I thought that overall the announcement went really well but unfortunately it only took newmine and his new brother in arms klosure a couple posts to get the pitchforks out.

I think it's pretty crazy how ready people can be to read the worst into every statement and look for conspiracies everywhere. If you actually think BM and the rest of the team are looking for ways to stab BTS in the back then I'm not sure what planet you're from. Not only do they have lots of stake (though fortunately nowhere near what Ripple Labs has for Ripple), it's also their baby, the fruit of their vision and blood and sweat, and the future showcase of their technology. I reckon the interests of Bitshares and its main devs have never been as well aligned as this.

BM has said BTS will get full use of the Graphene toolkit, and all this talk of multiledgers for "demultiplexing" is just a strawman, if it ever comes to to that it means BTS is successful enough to pay for it itself.

I don't see it that way.

I think most people here with legitimate concerns (by now I think most of us know who to read, who to consider and who to skip) are over Cryptonomex as a company.

We don't know the ownership percentages - what little we do know is from the mumble - that bytemaster doesn't own 51%.

But how much do the angels own? Who are they?  What are their goals? Interests? Alignment?  This matters.

bytemaster's claim that they plan to diversify holdings is somewhat bothersome as well and a lot of that part of the mumble came off as kind of like - (not a quote) 'well, things are different now - we are Cryptonomex, you're not - so it's none of your business'

Yes, that is bothersome - and this is coming from someone who has been here since the beginning and trusted in the devs through every minor crisis to date.

If the diversification is short term, to pay for rather immediate expenses - OK, but if Cryptonomex is truly all-in on BTS - their holdings should reflect that.

Also - who is Cryptonomex?

What makes the team? I've been looking for a team page and have yet to find it.

Is Toast part of Cryptonomex? Vikram? Agent86? theoretical? who? - is there a link I'm not seeing?

Again, I think most concerned here have a tremendous amount of trust and faith in the Larimer's and the rest of the dev team, but we have yet to be convinced that Cryptonomex is not something that can run away from them.

I really hope to get some reassuring answers soon. We have our first Bay Area meetup on Thursday and I'm sure most of us have had enough of a hard time trying to get up to speed with the technical and operational 2.0 changes - I really would like this issue to be worked out before being blindsided by a newb with interest and not having an answer.

Lastly, thanks again to everybody in this community - from the devs to the lurkers who show up for 1 or 2 important posts. The last 18 months have been the most optimistic I have ever been that the next 100 years will be one of enlightenment and abundance.

Quote from: tonyk on June 14, 2015, 10:29:58 pm

I understand that developers need to be paid. And the more they are paid the better. What is odd to me is they are paid by Bitshres to produce something and after this thing is produced they end up being the owners of the product. Kind of like someone paying you to build a house and after you are done you become the owner of the house.
 In this regard I see the logic in the proposed solutions - using some of the funds received by CNX to buy and burn BTS shares. As far as such a scheme working in practice - I have serious doubts...

Regarding the rest of the issues discussed - For me the correct thing to do is not restrict the free license to only one chain BTS, but to "BTS and any other chain that is 100% snapshot of BTS"

And 'yes' discussing this issues is a good thing. Actually I do not quite understand why this needed to be kept secret for months before 06/08, just do not see what was/is the benefit from hiding it it?

The only benefits I see from it are:

• It allowed the dev team to produce a disclosure plan and documentation to support it
• It satisfies the a requirement imposed by one or more of Cryptonomex's funders (just guessing)

I am literally disillusioned by what I've read today here on the forums, and although living without illusions is a good thing it also comes with a bit of sadness and feelings of loss for the optimistic future I assumed was on the way.

I started the day highly motivated to begin a new book series, and spent a good number of hours researching bytemaster's posts on the bitcointalk forum, going back to his first one on July 27th, 2010 and the most recent one being on May 21st of this year. This was research I started to support the series that I'm tentatively calling The BitShares Saga. I have 5 books in the making, starting with part 1: The Genesis of a Revolution. The 30 page start that was to become The Coming BitShares Revolution will not go to waste but will be revised and become part 3: Experiments for a Revolution. That was the plan I started to formulate and put into action today.

But now, I am just not sure. My doubts are growing about this project. As strongly as I'm convinced of bytemaster's drive and conviction, his passion to create an ecosystem with teeth that empowers individuals and disrupts the corrupt mainstream financial systems, I can't help feeling like another stomach ache is coming upon me from too much sugar in the koolaid.

I am just being honest. I think this thread and the one newmine started have surfaced many issues that need to be discussed. Hindsight is 20/20 and I wonder if the Larimers, the dev team and their new investors saw this controversy coming. I think not, or they would have probably chosen a different way to disclose the new business approach that is Cyptonomex.

I can see the situation from at least 3 angles (dev team+Larimers, Cryptonomex's investors and the BitShares community), and all have a vested interest in how this plays out. How BitShares and the community will come out of this when the dust settles is difficult to say right now.

It's gonna take some calm voices, some rational thinking and wisdom on everybody's part to hash this out. Let's strive for respectful consideration, a check on our emotions and a measure of empathy and cooperation with all parties, aiming to work out a positive outcome where everyone benefits.

I have seen some really great people in this community voice similar perspectives, some of whom have distanced themselves from participation. I truly hope we work out a solution that will also bring them back into the fold and restore their confidence in the future of BitShares.

Your voice is much appreciated. I hope you stick around for a long while.

Tomorrow is a new day, let's hope we get some positive clarification.

Quote from: clout on June 11, 2015, 03:01:20 am

Yeah... you guys should probably redo this one.

Still really good work though.

Good job and thanks Max for keeping it up.

Good work, but it is also quite important that we correct this information.

The bitshares.org website still links to this page: http://www.nasdaq.com/services/homw.stm - which appears to be ~8 year old information.
Found here: https://bitshares.org/blog/2015/06/08/measuring-performance/

The current transaction/message capability of NASDAQ is found on clouts link: http://www.phlx.com/Trader.aspx?id=Latencystats

Max and Dan should probably redo this video with the updated information.

The bitshares.org website needs to update that link as well.

Quote from: bobmaloney on June 01, 2015, 06:19:52 pm

I protect myself from engaging in insider trading by performing all my trades from the front porch.

I'm here to inform you that you are now on the BITN watchlist.

Mad Tips from the Front Porch (aka Outsider Trading): From August 19, 2014 - August 25, 2014, Bitshares will increase 4x - I guarantee it.

Bob and Thom, I think there's no need to be that rude. If you want BitShares to grow, it's not going to be a purely libertarian crowd that gets it done. I respect your strong beliefs and agree with many of them. But offending people that want to help and make this succeed is not the way to run things. We can do better. Fuzzy is a model of diplomacy.

Who was the one that was rude?

I think you should reread the posts in order and consider where blame was being directed and by whom.

I have no problem entertaining a short conversation about the topic of Obama possibly being a "good" president - hell, I'll even entertain one considering the possibility of GWB being "not-so-bad", but if Turkey was being genuine in his claim of opinion - he had plenty of opportunity to explain why.
Instead, he chose to play the victim and try to make a post from myself reflect upon the entire community.

He was completely disingenuous in his feigned offense - and if it was real...no comment.

I love you guys - but come on. Obama has been a good president, and my personal life, liberty and property has only become better in the past 8 years, not worse.

 

lol - That's a good one, Turkey.


It's good to see that people haven't lost their sense of humor.

I haven't seen this posted here yet:

http://www.coindesk.com/western-union-pilot-program-ripple-labs/

TO TOAST!
(I still think BitSharesTOAST was the best idea that never happened) 

Hear, hear!

I still hope to purchase a .toast domain with crumbs and jelly someday soon.

Sent from my Cap'n Crunch Bo'sun whistle.