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 - Xypher

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
181
General Discussion / Re: Off-ramp / exchange options in 2.0?
« on: November 09, 2015, 06:45:53 am »
We are in the works for a product on this line.
We have the product ready and are currently working on optimal release of the tipbot before we officially release that.
We'll have more information regarding this posted soon

Regards

182
Freebie / Re: Open Beta: Testing the Tip/Sharebot Today @ Noon!
« on: November 09, 2015, 06:40:53 am »
I think what needs to be noted is that we're only laying the ground work for a much larger system.
Yes, tipping is in the core, but the user cases and implications are much larger.
Admittedly , this change in mass consumption happens one step at a time and that is what we are vying for.
We are laying down the bricks / foundations for the actual stuff.

Its hard to break it down when you look at short term profitability. We are working on the viability of things.
Admittedly our "cash burn" for the project, has been much lower than any other projects of similar stature and am sure anyone that's worked on the financials of the project with us can vouch on it.

P.s - IMO, its time we built products that truly went "beyond bitcoin" - as in, our target markets should no longer solely focus on the crypto community but gamers, bankers, businesses, and your average internet users. What we have here is the "backbone". What we need now, is the face or the user experience that makes it worth a switch to the end user.

Regards

183
Freebie has the internal technical skills required to pull this off, it seems like the forums are more and more unstable, and people are hoping for something new...

perhaps we should do a worker for this or something?

I like the idea for Ultra but I don't think it should get funded by a worker right now. We have to prioritize! First things are core technology and GUI, and also things that are really important for the usability of Bitshares (what mindphlux is doing with pool funding worker).

After the basic things are in order, we can start to think if we should fund projects like Ultra.

BTW, Ultra is a horrible name. Please choose something unique. Commonly used words are foolish as names because it's difficult to get search engine visibility.

Ultra was a weekend hack. Pretty much the result of our team talking about things and how we could further enhance communities to be governed better while ensuring individual contributors are empowered to share good content. The name in itself is subject to change. As for now, we have a few projects we are working to completion. We'll most probably slap together a better proposal and put it live before we go further with this. I agree, the name and branding needs to be worked upon.

Regards

184
General Discussion / Re: Beyond Bitcoin Worker Proposal Funding (Poll)
« on: October 31, 2015, 09:59:02 pm »
Hello everyone,
 
Good Questions.
 
I understand the community's apprehension in a young organization like ours trying to be involved so heavily and its a very welcome emotion. Some of the ways we intend to add value to the community here are
 
 
1. Share drops And Intrinsic Value
We intend to have ShareDrops on virtually all of the products we build for the community.  We build into communities, knowing that sharing ownership of what we build also helps us scale it to new heights.  In keeping in line with the same line of thought, we'll be doing ShareDrops on BitShares holders (and being gamers, we also like dkp ;)) This should help us ensure we do deliver in terms of adding value to those that hold coins here, because your community is at the beginning of the Sharing economy in crypto, and sharing also brings liquidity (see part 3).  But it brings much more richness as well.
 
2. Increasing Adoption
 
We are a gaming community with a network of projects reaching over 200,000 users. We have been working with a very niche group of users whose preferences and demands pretty much defines what runs the internet. We understand the importance of efficient integration and breaking down the nuances of crypto to the average user.  We have also seen a lot of concern regarding the GUI here and have some gamified ideas to make users drool.  I request you guys to please take a look at some of our projects to get a basic idea of our proficiency in this regard, but for some special reasons we have to be careful giving you all our intentions.  Just know that we hope to prove ourselves to you and thank fuzzy for his trust.
 
3. Increasing Liquidity
 
A large number of our operations run on crypto and due to the same we'll be required to buy in and sell crypto often. In lieu of this very idea we have even begun work on our own trade bot and have made announcements of an exchange (to be named Barter) in this week’s hangout. It is in our best interest to ensure the markets run efficiently and that you trust us. We are trying to make a move to BitShares for obvious reasons.  We can bring ease of use.
 
 
4. Adding value to the ecosystem
 
I believe we have shared at least 5 key concepts we intend to release in the months to come in the recent past directly on these forums.  By enabling us to build what we intend to bring to these marketplaces we will be able to further empower the growth of the community.  That is why we got along with fuzzy.  He seems to understand that roads and highways need built for an economy to prosper.  This is true for gaming and crypto worlds just as in the analog one.  It is also why we are partnering with Beyond Bitcoin and seeking funding.  To help build those roads and to let fuzzy help us with transparency along the way. 
 
5. Marketing
 
Our large user base forms a key user base for crypto's and projects in general. We sustain on advertisements and we believe, by creating synergistic partnerships with communities, we can “level up” to a point where the organization can stay profitable and manage to expand without stressing itself more than necessary. We are also working in merging with an advertising agency that deals specifically in crypto and caters to the gaming community, and if we can build what we want to build here it will be easier for us to get them interested in BitShares too.  But we need you onboard first.



Regarding Questions from Shentist

 1) the tippingbot nxthaus has is nothing like our system, we have a trustless system completely integrated with our forum, as we coded the nxthaus bot we can be certain that its features are not in line with what this community needs, regardless of that fact we arent asking that people pay for this one project, or even two projects, but that people help us bootstrap a serise of enterprises that bring intrinsic value to the entire community

 2) barter is not a shapeshift competetor, the features we plan (and will outline in our whitepaper when the time is right) will be the most advanced implementation of currently existing ideas, combined with the best ideas of the other teams and exchanges to create a technology never seen before in the industry, and may for the first time be a system that makes that claim and is correct much the same way metaexchange brought trustless (accountless) trading to the table we intend to advance technology not compete against pre existing technology

3) first and foremost we are a business, we do want to share all of our ideas with this community and the people who can use them the best, however for the sake of competition and fair market we will chose to only release information as it is time, that being said we are all for transparency and building the systems we create into the core of bitshares, but the rapid pace, high scale techonology we bring to the table requires food on our tables because we are full time cryptocurrency developers

185
General Discussion / Node Set up Query
« on: October 28, 2015, 11:34:26 pm »
Hey guys,

Not sure if this goes in the technical discussion section, but I had a query in regards to setting up a node that I needed cleared asap, so here goes.

While setting up the wallet, I've followed through all the documentation, however when i unlock my wallet and lookup my account, i get 10 assert_exception: Assert Exception
rec && rec->name == account_name_or_id:
    {}
    th_a  wallet.cpp:552 get_account

Any work around for this?

186
The exchanges haven't really moved to the new system yet, leaving only Poloniex as an exchange to support 2.0 currently.
Some of us are helping tackle this issue by coming up with our own exchanges   / API's that link with exchanges.
We could further improve the situation by getting in touch with the exchanges and having them upgrade ASAP.

187
General Discussion / Looking for Beta Testers
« on: October 26, 2015, 08:31:46 am »
Hey guys,

We've been working behind the scenes on a few things and are looking for ten beta testers to come try things out.
I am not in a state to give much specifics. However, if you are someone that

1. Trades crypto every day
2. Knows how to use Web API's
3. Would like to see changes made in the way currencies are exchanged currently

Then reach out to me via your skype id.
I am looking for feedback on a new system from a small focus group of 15 people before I  take the product public

188
General Discussion / Re: Reducing Bitshares Supply : A different approach
« on: October 24, 2015, 04:36:41 am »
We are in the works of porting things to Bitshares and (hopefully) setting up a shapeshift like system for the Bitshares community over the weekend.
Will post updates as we make progress.

189
General Discussion / Re: Reducing Bitshares Supply : A different approach
« on: October 23, 2015, 09:37:53 am »
Hey guys,

As keen as we are in collaboration and joint effort, given the current scenario it looks increasingly difficult.
We'd reached out to CCEDK, but Ronny has been busy and openledger.info's API is not yet available.
We spoke to Monsterer from Meta-Exchange who suggested we set up nodes and link it to meta exchange.
I'll be talking to another private party that is interested in the exchange business later today.

In case you guys want to share possible routes we could take to create stronger synergies, please post them here and I'll be happy to talk with the respective exchange managers to see if we can make it happen.

Given the fact that worker proposals arent active and putting them into action will take atleast a month, I think a UIA / crowdfunder route will be a lot more effective solution.
I am open to suggestions on this front too.

I'll be online for the next 4-8 hours.
Please ping me if you are interested in suggesting changes to our approach.

Regards

Can anyone confirm/deny that worker proposals are not active? I heard this from somewhere...just dont remember where atm.  Id love to be 100% certain.

Yes, we have been pretty confused about this too.
I would love to hear from someone knowledgeable on this.

190
General Discussion / Re: Reducing Bitshares Supply : A different approach
« on: October 23, 2015, 09:32:39 am »
Hey guys,

As keen as we are in collaboration and joint effort, given the current scenario it looks increasingly difficult.
We'd reached out to CCEDK, but Ronny has been busy and openledger.info's API is not yet available.
We spoke to Monsterer from Meta-Exchange who suggested we set up nodes and link it to meta exchange.
I'll be talking to another private party that is interested in the exchange business later today.

In case you guys want to share possible routes we could take to create stronger synergies, please post them here and I'll be happy to talk with the respective exchange managers to see if we can make it happen.

Given the fact that worker proposals arent active and putting them into action will take atleast a month, I think a UIA / crowdfunder route will be a lot more effective solution.
I am open to suggestions on this front too.

I'll be online for the next 4-8 hours.
Please ping me if you are interested in suggesting changes to our approach.

Regards

191
General Discussion / Re: Reducing Bitshares Supply : A different approach
« on: October 22, 2015, 04:53:24 pm »
I've reached out to a number of exchange owners for a join collaboration and will be chalking things out in the days to come..Appreciate the input folks.

192
General Discussion / Re: Reducing Bitshares Supply : A different approach
« on: October 22, 2015, 02:47:54 pm »
You really don't need to blow things out of proportion seraphim. All I really said is lets focus on the core topic at hand. We are always up for synergy and collaboration. Apologies if I offended you.

Regards

193
General Discussion / Re: Reducing Bitshares Supply : A different approach
« on: October 22, 2015, 03:59:28 am »
Also guys, I would appreciate it if you could either post here or pm me how much you are willing to back this with as individuals so we know what we are looking at. The polls have been strong indicators so far and a few individuals have shown private interest in backing this.

194
General Discussion / Re: Reducing Bitshares Supply : A different approach
« on: October 22, 2015, 03:33:02 am »
Okay, I added the burning to the description, and created a worker proposal thread.
If that can't be paid, I'm in full support of this basic solution. But I used to know this as a community that thinks big, let's get that spirit back!

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19351
Don't appreciate having my thread jacked :)

@Akado @Fuzzy and for anyone else that's watching .
Me and the team are in extensive discussions within ourselves and with a number of individuals.
Depending on what is the best route to take, we'll either go with a worker proposal or UIA.
By the looks of it, a UIA will be far "quicker" to issue and garner funds, but am open to discussions on the same.

Regards

195
General Discussion / Re: Reducing Bitshares Supply : A different approach
« on: October 21, 2015, 08:08:01 pm »
If this thread is meant to be a sales pitch directed to BTS holders to raise 75 BTC, something very important is missing.
So far I've learned that your are very passionate about what your doing and I've been told about the technical details of your concept.

But as a potential investor I still don't know what I will get in return for funding your project.
Burning 50% of your fees is good for BTS as a whole but what is the deal for the investor?

That's the problem. If we only have fee burning, the ones who didn't help will also benefit. That's why I suggest paying back to whoever gave donations. Till they have their money back they receive a higher percentage of the profits because of the risk they took. Once they are paid back, this percentage lowers and freebie can get themselves more profit or burn more bitshares or whatever they want to do. People who donated can still continue to get some part of the profits but obviously a lower amount now since they got their money back. So:

People donate 75BTC
x% of profits are to pay back.
y% will be burn
z% will be kept by freebies as profit
with x>y>z

After people get their 75BTC back:
x% are paid as dividends
y% will be burn
z% will be kept by freebies as profit

with y >= x and y>=z. Z and X are to be discussed between investors and Freebieservers, however keep in mind any income from the referral system is already included in these profits Freebie pretend to share with the community so they won't be able to take full advantage of that.
In my opinion, after the 75BTC are paid back, as long as profits burnt are >=50% or higher, everyone from the community will be pleased. Does this seem a big amount? I dont think so since I strongly believe it will take quite a while for the 75BTC to be paid back. That leaves the other 50% to be shared between freebies and investors. This is just a suggestion though. I also understand freebies will take the same amount of time to be paid decently as the BTS community will take to have a higher percentage of profits being burnt so that will probably leave investors with the smaller piece of the pie. However, I dont think that would be ungrateful because not only would this bring in volume to BitShares but it would burn more fees and attrack more people. Everyone wins.

unless it was built by funding from a worker proposal :)


Okay so here's my suggested split

10 percent for burning
50 percent for investors
40 percent for  fs.

The team will work towards delivering the product in a three weeks time frame.  Difference being, our product would be co owned by the community and we'll retain secondary roles of management

Given how current businesses don't work towards transparency and proving of liquidity at all times we strife to be different through making it verifiable via the blockchain.  We will be sending dividends on a three hour basis with the collected fees from tx fees on the platform leaving little wait times for dividend issuance. In addition, the accounting of the platform will be x

If we are to do this , our best choice is a UIA, by the looks of it.

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21