Show Posts
31
General Discussion / Re: Now that Daniel Larimer (aka bytemaster) is gone...
« on: June 03, 2016, 09:55:45 pm »On a side note, Dan Larimer has not been gone from BitShares for anywhere near as long, nor anywhere near as completely, as Jakub (the OP) was when he was mia for many months. No doubt Jakub was off doing valuable research and work - although he gave us no intimation of that. Should we expect any less of Bytemaster, who's hiatus will likely much benefit BitShares in the long run?
Please everyone take that into consideration when evaluating this thread.
All that's left of BM is his "promise" to offer worker proposals (in some undefined point in time) for the migration of his STEEM inventions *if* they prove to be successful.
He has no longer any significant stake in BTS.
He has no plans to offer any worker proposals, apart from emergency fixes.
And he's not even willing to promote OpenLedger as a trading platform for STEEM.
For me this is enough to call it "gone".
Yeah Dan and Stan seem to have both come to similar conclusions about decentralization, BTS & DPOS.
https://steemit.com/crypto-news/@dan/is-the-dao-going-to-be-doaQuoteSmart Contracts cannot fix Dumb People BitShares had all of the tools, the talent, and the money to do great things if only the BTS holders could agree on what should be done, who should be paid, and how much should be spent.Voting is overrated. I wouldn't want to ride on an aircraft controlled by voting passengers.
Give me a benevolent whale any day.
So I wish them luck with their centralized, benevolent whale blockchain, combined with all BM's tools & talent, I'm sure they'll be a Darwinian guaranteed success. BTS, LSK, DAO, DASH etc. don't stand a chance
(While I agree many aspects of it are challenging, I think they've come to some wrong conclusions by ignoring/discounting the role they played in the state of affairs BTS found itself and I also believe it's those that continue to develop the tools and incentives to make that process effective that will be the most rewarded.)
Boy, you just won't let that go, will you?
You must have quoted that line a dozen times, as if it is somehow controversial.
It is obvious that passengers on planes and ships don't get to vote on operational matters - for good reasons.
Don't make it out to be a global statement against shareholder's choosing their leaders and high level policy preferences.
Never said that.
Read Ronny's brilliant article about the value of having someone in charge of operations that the shareholders can hold accountable:
http://www.maxkeiser.com/2016/06/digital-leadership-is-a-major-benefit-of-the-decentralised-conglomerate-over-the-dao/
Shame on you for speaking, whether with malicious intent or careless neglect, to harm others reputations about things going on Behind the Scenes of which you know nothing.
I didn't say anything about choosing leaders or making high policy preferences.
My reply stated that based on recent articles/statements by BM and yourself, that you 'seem' to have come to the conclusion that the decentralized BTS/DPOS funding model was critically flawed.
Proposals are based in part on what resources are available to work on them.
Resources are hired based on the availability of stable funding.
A constant battle over who controls the funding light switch means no one dares hire against any line item.
So the resources remain allocated elsewhere.
Voting is overrated. I wouldn't want to ride on an aircraft controlled by voting passengers.
Give me a benevolent whale any day.
Your quote in it's entirety clearly concludes that a system in which decentralized shareholders control the proposal funding light switch, as is the case in the current BTS model, is critically flawed as does BM's DAO article. So I don't think I've taken those statements out of context.
I also didn't reference the apparent large scale selling of BM, (& the whole Larimer family for that matter https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22098.msg287807.html#msg287807 - a few days prior to the April 1st STEEM announcement) which adds further credence to your potential lack of confidence in the BTS model at the time.
It's true that BM sold off some significant portion of his BTS holdings prior to formally announcing his departure to Steemit, but I guess it's been obvious for some time that he was dumping shares (with BitShares being so transparent, moves by whales are usually noticed within hours and BM's accounts were closely watched).
If your position now is that you continue to have enormous faith in BTS and work on it relentlessly behind the scenes & that I should be ashamed for drawing those completely false, 'careless, shameful and malicious' conclusions that's fine.
It's fortunate that those with intractably bitter attitudes want to stay here on BitSharesTalk where no one will see their posts and only positive, optimistic people want to move their constructive, forward thinking opinions into the bright, puffy cloud of Steem where snide comments quickly sink into oblivion.
Unfortunately we're not on Steem, so my snide (critical?) comments won't quickly sink into oblivion but fortunately I posted on BitSharestalk where no-one will see it anyway
