Quote from: delulo on May 07, 2014, 10:16:53 pm

This is the craziest name finding thread I have ever seen! 

Agree.

leech ---> definition: a hanger-on who seeks advantage or gain. Kind of summarizes what a share owner is plus it has a peer to peer connection as well.

Applicable, but people don't like being called leeches. 

Go with Egret instead and you can indirectly reference the relationship even more descriptively, but you get a pretty bird logo and a bunch of bad "Regret" puns out of the deal.

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

Eventually PTS is expected to be migrated to DPOS, but I think the vast majority of PTS holders prioritize development of DPOS and DACs that are expected to pay them snapshots well above where they prioritize any stopgap efforts to increase PTS liquidity.

gamey, I think these are the trends you're looking for: http://techcrunch.com/2013/12/10/fred-wilson-on-bitcoin-unbundling-data-leakage-and-health-care/

I think most of the BitShares projects and most of the BitShares community is based on the idea of making the world a better place (creating value) by freeing the market from the overhead, inefficiency, and barriers to entry that are inherent in traditional hierarchical structures.  There's nothing anti-capitalist about collaborating, if you can find the right people with whom to collaborate such that it increases your productivity.  In fact, if collaboration is the most efficient approach, those who refuse to collaborate will not be able to compete and succeed in a free market.  The suggestion of a new system that is "not competition based" implies tyranny, because the two ways to get people to accept a new system are competing to convince them that it is best so they'll accept it voluntarily, or trying to force them to accept it.  No one has to be forced to collaborate if collaboration is to everyone's benefit, and no one needs to be forced to look for alternatives to scarce resources.

Where BitShares and blockchain technologies fit in is reducing economic friction such that anyone can be their own bank, and participate in global business of many other types, not just the well established and well connected.  This reduction to the barriers to entry, and expansion of reach for potential business relationships and collaboration streamlines free market capitalism, reducing overhead costs and creating more value for everyone.

...
What we have today is better considered "crony capitalism".  Also, the idea of infinite growth is well and good with respect to innovation.  Many of the people today sayjng that the earth cannot provide for all of us not only are introducing dangerous strawmen problems, but also implying only one solution--which has actually worked out FAR worse historically for humanity than the initial "perceived" problems.  Sustainability will not come from a central authority dictating our lives, but from competition to create systems that benefit the largest number of people with the smallest possible input of resources. Let us try not to unnecessarily attribute the the problems that were a byproduct of an outdated paradigm to our inability to sustain "growth".  Rather lets change our conceptualization of what growth is so it does not limit our potential.

The people who drastically change our world for the better are ALWAYS told by the flock that their dreams are impossible.  They manufacture reasons why we cant instead of asking "how can we?"

I would argue we have never realy experienced true capitalism and that America was the closest we've ever been to it...and even today I do not see innovators from all over the world fleeing to other countries in the hope of giving their impossible dreams a chance to be realized.

Unfortunately at this point many are fleeing the U.S. to pursue their innovative dreams, but I agree that for many years the U.S. was a great environment for innovation.  Now I think it's closer to average, depending on the field.

Sustainability is not the problem...our willingness to discount the power of human ingenuity, given proper motivation is our only problem.  Anyone who says otherwise wants to enslave you to their own, dangerously narrow perception of reality.

People really need to research Enron, "Blood and Gore", and there proposed carbon exchanges...it perfectly sets us up for a better understanding of how Agenda 21 is destroying markets and hurting the world population. From there its just a hop skip and jump to 9/11, the "War on Terror" ( which, ironically only serves to perpetuate it), the 2008 stock market attack (it was economic warfare), the larry summers memos, and the "New World Order".

We have ALL the tools we'll ever need.  The question is: will we let those in power let their myopic fears of losing control frame the debate with Warnings of Impossibility...or will we ask forgivness from the scared sheep AFTER proving the nay-sayers wrong?

I like to say that Prometheus stole fire from the gods for mankind, and carbon taxing is the state-worshipers' attempt to steal it back for their god.

...
This all gets fixed with a single upgrade to PTS 2.0 after DPOS is proven via Bitshares X. 
We don't want to perturb the PTS chain more than once.

Agreed.  The switch to DPOS will require a total disruption anyway, so might as well wait until that instead of disrupting it twice and wasting the extra development time on an intermediate step.  Also, no one should be using PTS for point of sale transactions, so the block times aren't really a big deal.  If people are in a hurry to grab some stake, they can use BTC to AGS anyway, and that way the resources actually go to development.

I think theres a conflict between centralization and descentralization.
I think descentralization is against capitalism.
Capitalism tend to concentrate power and generate centralized structures of control and command with a top down approach.
We have now the technology for descentralize , miniaturize and integrate to human scale all the components of society but this go against the interests of big capital .

I dont think we are gonna shift from centralized to descentralized in a peaceful way.
Big capital is trying to centralize everything.  For example the internet , they are trying to finish with the "neutrality of internet". They want to recentralize all the architecture of internet.

Descentralization is dangerous for  capitalism.
...

Decentralization I think is a threat to monopolistic capitalism, crony capitalism, fascism, and probably a great many other things, but I don't see how it's a threat to capitalism.  Probably this is a question of what connotations "capitalism" has, depending on your political background.  Decentralization and flattening hierarchical structures doesn't undermine property rights, productivity, or investment, but it lowers the barriers to entry, which I think is a direct decrease on economic friction.  Basically I think it will increase the efficiency of the capitalist system, by making the market more free.

Nice one, toast, "Upnote" sounds pretty awesome.

-Audibit
-Muser

I think Keyhotee is evolving because of DPOS, but I think originally the transactions were mostly the registration and renewal of names.  I'm not sure about comprehensive writings, but I'd like to add that I still think Keyhotee can be economically sound without tokens or exchangeable profit, because it can produce more utility value than the resource value necessary to sustain its network.