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 ... 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 [57] 58 59 60 61 62 63 64
Keyhotee / Re: Keyhotee Visions
« on: March 12, 2014, 05:27:52 am »
I think it would be interesting to see additional application specific reputation chains launch.  We could have the equivalent of eBay feedback ratings on a one year (or however long) rolling chain secured with POW and reputation risk to kill spam.  We could have dynamic webs of trust for distributed accreditation for basically any particular task or product, with a standard aggregate-able review structure for each domain.  This could replace diplomas and resumes completely.

If I'm missing any existing plans for implementing these functions, I'd appreciate links.

BitShares AGS / Re: New and confused
« on: March 12, 2014, 05:00:31 am »
You'll use the wallet you used to donate to AGS to claim your stake in the new BitShares systems.  Just keep that wallet safe, as it's the only way you can prove you donated and claim your shares.

General Discussion / Re: One possible attack to POS mining
« on: March 11, 2014, 05:28:34 am »

Pages 5 and 6 seem to address these issues.  Also, I suspect that there's a maximum on coin day accumulation.  When the inactivity fee is charged, doesn't this effectively reset the coin age to 0?

Buying AGS is more useful than mining, except to power companies.  Also, since PTS is basically an investment vehicle and not an instant payment system, I don't really care if blocks take 30 minutes or an hour.  Additionally, if the PTS mining is slower, that means that the PTS I already have will command a higher share in new DACs released before all PTS are mined.

Adjusting the block targeting system would require forking, and hardly seems justified.  The current system is working predictably, and no one is being cheated or harmed.  I expect the market price of PTS to continue rising overall until the next snapshot, and the difficulty will eventually correct.  Unfortunately the price of PTS already seems to be rising and I'm still waiting on Coinbase for my BTC.  :P

Meta / Re: Marketing effort sub-forum
« on: March 09, 2014, 02:53:28 pm »
Good call.  Someone do it.

General Discussion / Re: Intro Video Script for website: thoughts?
« on: March 09, 2014, 02:51:22 pm »
Looking great!

As onceuponatime points out, some people are going to complain about taking jobs away, just like they do whenever any new technology increases productivity.  We could have all the employees and middlemen run off screen instead of poofing, and then come back in the second to last scene as happy users of the new businesses, but that would be tricky to do without making it cluttered.

General Discussion / Re: What is a DAC
« on: March 09, 2014, 07:04:28 am »
This may be too abstract for your purposes, but the most useful non-technical teaching aid I've found for DACs is languages.  A language is just a consensus on grammatical structure and word definitions.  When enough people share a sufficient consensus on those things, they're part of the same network, and receive utility from being able to communicate with the rest of the network.  Once you get people thinking about their native language as an abstract decentralized entity with an apparent life of its own that provides value to its users, it makes more sense that other classes of such entities could be made.

General Discussion / Re: New DAC idea - BitShares Movies
« on: March 09, 2014, 06:42:50 am »
Sounds good.  This, BitShares Music, BitShares Associated Press, and a few others could share most of the same underlying code, with customized UIs slapped on top.  This basic model will support anything based on creative content generation and rating, so we could have BitShares Firefox Plugin Market also.

I don't quite get this discussion.  The AGS funding was all sent in voluntarily based on trust that the BitShares team would use it efficiently to build the DAC ecosystem.  Part of that trust is that the team would be receptive to the best ideas from the community, but which are best is subjective and determined by those with the private keys.  If community members wanted to keep direct ultimate control of these funds, they shouldn't given up control of them in the first place.  Pressuring those entrusted with these funds by the community to give direct control of a portion to a subset of the community against their better judgement would turn this into a redistribution platform rather than voluntary trust based stewardship.

There's a massive reward for building a truly successful DAC and being one of the earliest investors in it.  Any sort of artificial reward based on contrived standards of success only incentivizes faking success well enough to meet the standards.

General Discussion / Re: These T-shirts are bad.
« on: March 07, 2014, 02:07:06 pm »
I was at the conference, and I got one of the "The revolution will not be centralized" shirts.  Some of the others I would never wear, but I saw other people who really liked them.  A lot of this is personal tastes and preferences, and targeting a wide range isn't a bad thing.

I think had the ideas been posted on the forum beforehand with time for additional proposals we could have ended up with better results, but I don't know if there were time constraints or other reasons this was not done.  I also don't think what we got was bad, though it could always be better.

I just got back from the conference, and I think it went really well.  The BitShares guys were doing a ridiculous number of interviews, and I think a lot of good networking came out of it also.

No one here changed the PTS difficulty, and no one changed the algorithm by which it is determined, so I don't see how the difficulty increase can be seen as an insult to miners.  The miners are the ones who raised the difficulty anyway, because they (collectively, clearly some miners disagree...) thought it was worthwhile to invest in mining lots of PTS before the snapshot.  The current difficulty is a consequence of that community action, and slow blocks really aren't going to hurt PTS for anything for which it should be used.  I'm pretty sure no one is using it at point of sale to buy fast food anyway...

If they were equals, they would already be building their projects and giving other people bounties, not waiting for bounties before getting started.  We're all here because we're convinced that Bytemaster and the rest of the Invictus team is on to something and is offering something of value.  There are good reasons for honoring the social consensus, and there's no reason for any developers to be left without a stake in their own ventures as you suggest.

"Protoshares" is BitShares PTS, represented by the "PTS" symbol.  It was renamed because "Protoshare" is a trademark claimed by another company for an entirely unrelated product.  Some of the exchanges still haven't changed the name on their sites.

PTS was not converted on 2/28, all holders on that date keep their PTS but are additionally paid a dividend in shares of BitSharesX.

General Discussion / Re: Estimate of the dividends
« on: March 05, 2014, 06:12:50 am »
Wouldn't that cause the actual wallet balance to be confusing to the individual transacting as his % would change by a different amount then he transacted with.  Seems like it could be a source of confusion.

Last I heard was that balance was to be displayed as (yourRealBalance/totalRealSupply)*4,000,000,000.  I believe the number of zeros on the final multiplier is still flexible.  That part is purely cosmetic, but people do love large numbers.

Since you'll enter transactions in the same units in which your balance is displayed, the numbers should all be intuitive.  So in this case with a real balance of 30, and a total supply of 4,000,000, your displayed balance would be (30/4,000,000)*4,000,000,000=30,000.  If you enter to send 5000 of that displayed balance, it would send a real balance of (5000*4,000,000)/4,000,000,000=5.  This would leave your real balance at 25, which would display as  (25/4,000,000)*4,000,000,000=25,000 as expected.  If you mean people being confused by the transaction fees, I don't think it will be any more confusing than Bitcoin transaction fee deductions.

Pages: 1 ... 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 [57] 58 59 60 61 62 63 64