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 - Troglodactyl

Pages: 1 ... 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 [50] 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 ... 64
736
General Discussion / Re: BitShares PTS2 - Community Input Thread
« on: May 22, 2014, 04:27:18 am »
I'm almost entirely in AGS now, just saving a bit of PTS in case the AGS donation ratio goes even higher.  My concern about the 15% is entirely on principle and expected public perception as based on those principles.  The way I see it, the default option if no action were taken is that the PTS chain would die, and PTS would become illiquid but frozen at a higher final stake per unit than originally expected.  This is obviously not ideal, so I think the transition to DPOS to keep it liquid is obvious, but I think altering the final stake per unit, and the distribution method of those units from the default requires some debatable justification.

Quote from: Stan on May 22, 2014, 04:08:16 am
...
You hit on one of the key criteria:  recipients should have to prove they actually want to participate.  General air drops don't do that. 

Ideally though, the activity should include something that results in the participant actually learning about the value of what they are claiming and why its a better idea to hold onto your winnings while there are so many DACs in the pipeline. 

Proper "value training" would address your concern about inflation, since most of the distribution would remain off the market.


The beauty of the Google Fiber solution (and I think the reason Google chose it) is that it recruits community members who value the product to convince the rest of their communities that they should value the product (and recruit others).  Viral "value training" within the community is basically the only way for that community to win, and we only have to offer the prizes and plant the initial seeds.

737
General Discussion / Re: BitShares PTS2 - Community Input Thread
« on: May 22, 2014, 03:58:55 am »
I'm not comfortable with suddenly inflating the PTS circulation by 15%, but if this is the plan, and that 15% is to be distributed for marketing purposes, I recommend the Google Fiber approach.  I think the we should start a competition between communities and honor the communities with the highest demand with snapshots granting their chains the new PTS, much as Google selected cities and neighborhoods for Fiber internet service rollout.  This solution is (relatively) low effort on our part compared to running numerous competitions for scraps, could generate massive publicity, and ends up with stake distribution to active communities who actually want it.  It's also more transparent and easy to follow, and thus hard to accuse III of just grabbing the funds.  I would expect the top 3 communities at the most to be honored, possibly with 8%, 5%, and 2% of the 15% total.

EDIT: I should add that I fully support upgrading to DPOS and forgetting about mining and the original PTS.  Taking that opportunity to add a new distribution system for PTS is the only part about which I'm doubtful.

738
BitShares AGS / Re: The posibillity to make AGS liquid in the "near" future!
« on: May 18, 2014, 10:21:48 pm »
Quote from: gamey on May 18, 2014, 10:03:06 pm
...

Yikes.  I hadn't really thought it through and was just thinking on an individual 'my computer was likely compromised' scenario.  Hopefully I could then move my AGS before the hacker(s) realized what they had. 

The scenario you mention is a bigger problem.  The liquidity of AGS is a double edged sword when it comes to security.  This stuff really bums me out when talking about cryptocurrencies, because theft is so trivial and untraceable.  I don't ever see it not being a problem and will forever slow the widespread adoption of cryptocurrencies and for good reason. :(

It seems AGS needs a password lock function to receive dividends... If only dev resources were infinite.

Donkeypong - I wasn't suggesting you meant anything else, but what value would an AGS coin have if it didn't receive DAC dividends ?  I am missing the value proposition.

AGS already does have a password lock function to receive dividends.  AGS funds are locked by the password that locks the wallets you used to donate (they are locked, right?).

If someone compromises your computer and uses a keylogger to take your passwords, then you're in trouble whether AGS is liquid or not, the specifics just change a bit.

There are security problems with crypto, but there are also security problems with precious metals and federal reserve notes.  I think it's just that not as many people are as far along the learning curve for crypto security yet.

739
BitShares AGS / Re: The posibillity to make AGS liquid in the "near" future!
« on: May 18, 2014, 09:13:00 pm »
Quote from: gamey on May 18, 2014, 07:30:28 pm
Quote from: donkeypong on May 18, 2014, 04:54:01 pm
This topic has been discussed before. I doubt AGS will ever be made directly liquid. However, on another thread, someone raised the possibility that a smart person could some day create an AGS linked coin. Essentially, a separate coin could be created and distributed/premined/airdropped to the AGS holder list. Fascinating science experiment...

Then how do future DACs support it?   To the detriment of the original AGS ?  Or does AGS then get twice the shares ?

One thing that has concerned me is that if you had a suspicion your wallet was compromised, you would be powerless to do anything.  You would have to create a system to withdraw all dividends  ASAP.  If you had enough AGS, it might be enough incentive for the hacker to do the same.  Then it would be a race to see who would transfer funds the quickest whenever dividends landed in the wallet.

I really like Stan's #2 point.  Previously I had suggested a mining pool that could pay in AGS (impossible to implement).  He explained how it affected the social contract. I disagreed at the time but later after a bit of thought I changed my mind.  If you want DAC implementors to honor the social contract, it really helps to do stuff like keep AGS illiquid.

Security is definitely the strongest argument for making them liquid I think, but really I think there are very few scenarios in which a key is compromised but the owner knows and has time to move to a new key.  The most likely scenario for key compromises targeting AGS specifically would be if someone put out a malicious DAC wallet and got people to import their keys into it.  As it is, the malicious wallet could forward their keys to the attacker, but if AGS were liquid it could immediately send all of their AGS to the attacker.  Either way the solution is not to use wallets unless you either trust the source or read the source.

740
General Discussion / Re: MaidSafe IPO on Mastercoin
« on: May 17, 2014, 10:46:53 pm »
Quote from: Agent86 on May 17, 2014, 10:20:35 pm
Quote from: Zeus on May 17, 2014, 09:47:04 pm

I must be the guy with the worst decisions here.
Kept PTS instead of AGS pre snapshot ==> Less BTS X
Donated PTS after snapshot ==> PTS the screaming deal of the century..


I think he is referring to PTS and AGS as a whole.  You did fine to donate for AGS.  They don't like to tell people to do one or the other as far as PTS/AGS but you can look at agsexplorer and decide for yourself.

Indeed, personally I think AGS and PTS are both good opportunities right now.  I learned about this mid November, so I missed the beginning, but I've been around for most of it.

741
General Discussion / Re: DPOS chain based ratings and reputation
« on: May 17, 2014, 09:18:36 am »
Quote from: jwiz168 on May 15, 2014, 06:00:22 am
AirBnB is a forefront p2p home rental company that has too many regulatory challenges from the government. Making a DAC from a similar model might also end up risk of having to explain to the regulators how the business would operate in a legal manner.

These businesses operate internationally, and it's inefficient to try to manage them centrally and organize compliance with all the different law sets from the center.  It would be much more efficient to use a DAC for the core business model and let the individual service providers work out the legal compliance in their respective jurisdictions.

On further analysis and discussion with modprobe, it seems like it would be more flexible to use a reference system and likely a dedicated storage DAC for the review content.  In place of the reviews themselves, each business chain's transactions could support cross chain references including an identifier for the chain being referenced and the transaction ID to reference in that chain.

Modprobe suggested an escrow payment system for the storage DAC in which a service provider can prepay to reserve storage and provide the customer's public key.  The customer would then have a limited time to leave a review in that reserved space, or the escrow would be returned to the provider (minus transaction fee).

742
General Discussion / Re: Market for Bandwith
« on: May 16, 2014, 01:04:14 pm »
I think it's easy to get blockchain DAC-happy, but I don't see a dedicated blockchain for this as being useful.  I think what's needed is just a protocol for prepaid purchase of bandwidth on a mesh network.  It could work with any chain based payment system of course, and would likely also depend on an ID chain and perhaps others, but I don't see how a dedicated chain would help the business model.

743
General Discussion / Re: Idea to promote better the bitshares-AGS fundraising oportunity !!!
« on: May 16, 2014, 05:21:22 am »
Quote from: JoeyD on May 15, 2014, 11:46:18 pm
Quote from: Stan on May 15, 2014, 11:20:18 pm
Quote from: liondani on May 15, 2014, 10:42:25 pm
Quote from: davidpbrown on May 15, 2014, 02:46:55 pm
Is it possible that PTS could be in a position stronger than AGS later

In my mind in the future (after the end of fundraising) 1AGS will worth 1PTS or even more!!! And that's because the most AGS holders are 100% stronger believers of the bitshares/DACs concept then PTS holders. A percentage that hold's PTS are pure/semi speculators and not real investors of the project that will sell just a few hours before the snapshots... If you would give shares of your company (DAC) for "free"  which would you prefer most, the AGS holders or the PTS holders? Only if Bitshares concept fails PTS holders will have an "advantage" over AGS holders. Correct me please BM if you think I am partially wrong...

I like your thought processes, but you overlook one small thing:  The last-minute traders you would be giving your shares to are the people who bought PTS at the high right before the snapshot!

However it is true that people willing to sacrificially donate to your cause are the second most sought-after demographic  you can find.

(The first being those who are willing to die for your cause.)   :)
Don't think I agree with that estimate.

If they are dieing for your cause they might not be the most sustainable of demographics.

Being willing is sustainable as long as they don't actually have to do it.  :P

744
General Discussion / Re: DPOS chain based ratings and reputation
« on: May 15, 2014, 04:16:07 am »
For context I was thinking about DACs to compete with Lyft, Uber, and AirBnB when I thought of this.  Both parties being able to leave reviews would certainly be desirable for such purposes.  I think reputation tracking for other purposes is inherently very different from trust for delegates, so I'm doubtful that direct delegate voting is really applicable.  I think a review cost is necessary to kill spam, but I think the actual trust model would have to be (somewhat) closer to the traditional web of trust system.


745
General Discussion / Re: New Economic Paradigm, Collaborative Commons
« on: May 13, 2014, 04:10:31 am »
Quote from: JoeyD on May 08, 2014, 07:52:51 pm
Talking about non violent solutions is also a bit of a luxury problem. I'm not at all certain that no conflict of interest will occur about some basic necessities of life, such as drinking water for example. I'm also not that confident that the peaceful solution will prevail when things go sour even a little bit. The sustainability of the rapid growth of human population is another thing I'm not very certain of, but that might partly be caused by me having grown up in rather densely populated country. I'm bearish about the organization, structure and philosophies of most current market-leader countries and I've been expecting an economic "crisis" on a far bigger scale than the one we're in at the moment, for quite a while now.

From what I gather even though the current human species is a lot older than our recorded history, our modern civilization and success coincides with the recent period of unusual stable climate (from the last ice-age up till now). In that regard I don't have high hopes that our current specialized system of food production is very robust against even small climate changes which are bound to happen, pollution or not. I wonder what'll remain of human civilization and sensibilities once the going gets though. Of course I don't know if we'll life to see changes on that scale, but I'm hearing signals of a change from several different sources, from studies of repeating patterns in history (some matching it to some kind of 300 year or so climate cycle of our sun), right up to NASA predicting imminent climate changes based on their measurements. Curiously most seem to suggest things will start to get interesting sooner rather than later with estimates from the latter part of 2014 or 2015 extrapolated from patterns in human-history and NASA estimating a tipping point in climate change around the 2025 mark.

So for me the efforts to create robust, self-regenerative, corruption resistant means of communication and collaboration are also partly motivated out of hope to create a framework to help overcome bad times. In that regard I hope the short term estimates of 2015 are wrong, because I think of open-source, bitcoin, bitshares-dacs and the like as only the first small steps and I don't think they've penetrated human consciousness and culture far enough to cope with the effects of a short term more significant global downtrend.

I'm no pacifist.  I fully expect others to resort to violence in certain circumstances, and I fully support good, peace loving people being prepared to use violence to defend themselves if necessary.  I don't support lowering the standards to which we hold ourselves regarding the initiation of violence simply because we consider violence to be inevitable.  I'm very optimistic about the possibility of new technologies and structures reducing the occurrence of violence, but I think it's important to remain ready, since it will always only take one senselessly destructive person to break the peace.

746
General Discussion / Re: DPOS chain based ratings and reputation
« on: May 13, 2014, 03:57:31 am »
Quote from: Count of La Mancha on May 12, 2014, 12:29:11 am
This is a solid idea.   The price per-byte is already determined by selecting a fixed limit on total chain size and adjusting fees to control demand.   

The biggest challenge is lack of privacy.  This is certainly viable for many uses though.

This works if it's acceptable for feedback to disappear after the inactivity fee interval, but not if the goal is to establish reputations that are preserved as long as the ID remains registered.

Privacy will always conflict with reputation.  I don't think there's really a way to have trustworthy reputation without revealing a legitimate history establishing that reputation.  This is why it should always be optional.  Some tasks call for anonymity, others call for establishing a good name.

Quote from: bytemaster on May 12, 2014, 12:39:50 am
I think this kind of thing may be better done off chain as there is no reason for it to be stored forever on chain or propagated via the P2P network. 

I think it's as essential to preserve the integrity of reputations as the integrity of transaction history.  Where can this be stored off chain that can be trusted to be both reliable and unbiased?  Am I missing something here?

747
General Discussion / Re: DPOS chain based ratings and reputation
« on: May 12, 2014, 01:38:14 am »
Leaving reviews is voluntary, so if you don't want a transaction linked to your persistent ID, you simply wouldn't sign with it and wouldn't leave a review.  If you want to establish a domain specific reputation (for the business model of the particular blockchain) for your domain specific identity (registered as a name in that blockchain), then you would have that option.  Each review only associates the persistent ID with the addresses involved in the associated transaction.

If people are trusted to store their own reviews, they can delete the negatives.  If the reviewer stores reviews, they have to be sought out from all previous customers by every potential customer.  Why bring in a corruptible and failure prone authority to store all reviews off chain if an on chain solution can be implemented with the added benefit of increased dividends?  Who would pay for off chain storage?

748
General Discussion / DPOS chain based ratings and reputation
« on: May 11, 2014, 11:51:46 pm »
For many DACs, it would be beneficial to have a built in ratings system to establish reliable reputation.  I propose that share transfer transactions allow the inclusion of additional transaction fee to purchase storage space in the blockchain exclusively reserved for a review of the receiver's performance by the sender.

Basically in addition to the standard transaction signatures by the sending addresses, an additional signature could be added from a DPOS registered name, attaching the transaction to that pseudonym ID and claiming the right to leave a review transaction signed by the chain registered ID after the business was concluded.

The reviews would have a different standard format specific to the needs of each chain's business model, and would persist in the chain tied to the reviewed ID.

Along with providing an indelible rating system, which increases the value of the platform, this would provide incentive for additional transaction fees, increasing dividends to shareholders.  Service providers would be motivated to provide discounts to those willing to review in order to build their reputations, and reviewers would not want to sacrifice their own reputations by providing fake reviews, or by failing to review after opting for review space in a payment.

I'd like to hear thoughts on both the economic model and the plausibility of implementing this with DPOS.  The biggest issue I see is finding a price for permanent blockchain storage space.

749
Keyhotee / Re: Keyhotee Status Update
« on: May 11, 2014, 11:27:10 pm »
With DPOS ID registrations in every chain, will there still be a dedicated Keyhotee chain, or will Keyhotee basically be the name for the multi-DPOS chain wallet with communication features built in?  If there will be a dedicated chain, will it just be barebones DPOS, or will it have additional features that aren't in all the other DPOS chains?

750
General Discussion / Re: New Economic Paradigm, Collaborative Commons
« on: May 08, 2014, 02:48:24 am »
I appreciate your honesty and depth of consideration.  I think we'd get much further on these widespread political debates if people acknowledged the role violence plays in human interactions.  I think there's certainly a case to be made that certain levels of destruction of the environment in which others are attempting to live constitutes an attack and justifies defensive violence, but I've never seen a case in which it was anywhere close to sufficiently clear that I would personally feel morally justified in using force against it.

I view legitimate government authority as the aggregation of voluntarily delegated moral authority, so I think that if a person could not morally justify using force themselves for something, they should not support their government using force for it.

The most obvious alternatives are protest and boycott for general use.  I agree about elephant tourism being a non-generalizable solution.

Pages: 1 ... 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 [50] 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 ... 64

Page created in 0.214 seconds with 23 queries.