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.
Anyone can confirm this about Erik V?
I confirm ... that Erik's last name is Voorhees.
And that he's also buying BTS in large stack......
The point is, if people think that BM moving on will destroy bts, then it was already destroyed. The main point is for bts to decentralised and self governing. If one person or group leaving the project can destroyed it, it had already failed. BTS has the tools it needs to carry on. Being able to survive without its creator is the hallmark of any successful project or species.
Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk
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.
While perhaps an isolated and overly suspicious view, posts like the above make me think a lot of Stan's recents threads like this one are actually veiled pitches for Steem which is already controlled by a 'benevolent whale' in form of Steemit. If so I think they should be moved to random discussion.
On the contrary...they should forever stay in the General area as a remind of a great lessons learned in the past
This lesson in particular - on how the fighter for decentralization and freedoms for all, can turn the blockchain into a centralized solution where she holds virtually all of the stake ( and constantly tries to increase it by 9x ratio each and every time a new crumble of stake is thrown to the masses... small bait given in a hope to gain network effect and so even more money for her). This Opost in particular being a brainstorming on "how to justify what is in our personal narrow interest, is the only and true way forward for everyone else"...
This lesson of course - when money and power are at stake, all other virtues tend to be twistable...
Crickey you guys just won't let up will you? How about using your big brains to contribute to the discussion without trying to twist it with some dark agenda? Steemit does not qualify as a 'beneve-whale' and as such is clearly not the point of the discussion. If you don't like Steem, fine. We have BitShares. We have BitShares and its vision in part because of the virtue of those you are disparaging.
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.
In the other thread Stan seems to have relegated the bond market to an optional feature that is "still possible", whereas in reality it is essential if BTS is going to be seen as a real competitor to Polo. People want to short everything, not just BitAssets.
Stan doesn't get to relegate anything to anywhere.
The voters are 100% in control of what gets funded and hence, what gets built.
So when is the bond market proposal available for voting?
This is what I don't get... CNX complains that bitshares is unwilling to pay workers yet they never even create a proposal to vote on.
The only worker out there are bug fixers, GUI improvement and documentation. Important, but none of those are adding a new core feature.
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.
So you are only going to create a worker proposal if you are guaranteed to get funding... yet there is no way to guarantee funding.
Good job CNX... you designed a system that not even you guys can utilize.
Sorry for the simple question, but if nothing is done, when does vesting naturally end? What named accounts are receiving vesting funds, and in what amounts?
I don't think it should end early. To me, that seems like breaking an agreement.
Also, did anyone else notice how the initial Steem git commit was a dump of the all files, rather than a fork the graphene repo?.
Nice way to keep the work hidden from the Github history/fork browser and the project secret during its initial stages.
Should also make it more difficult to cherry-pick and back-port changes to the Bitshares code-base.
Very sneaky!
Grow up.
"You just need thick skin and the ability to ignore the Bitcoin pharisees and the angry mob they incite to nail you to a cross for failing to sacrifice your creation to the prevailing mining gods."
Bytemaster, How to Launch a Crypto Curency Legally while Raising Funds
http://bytemaster.github.io/article/2016/03/27/How-to-Launch-a-Crypto-Currency-Legally-while-Raising-Funds/
My wild speculation is that when you funded STEALTH you were unaware of another DAC being concurrently developed. I think it's a possibility you have been given some of the 80% of STEEM they initially mined themselves (& obfuscated in their Bitcointslk announcement) as some form of compensation, hence your multiple post support for a DAC that I would think you would otherwise not be thrilled about in your position.
@Empirical1.2
You were offered a paid position with signatory power on the STEALTH Board of Advisors. Had you accepted, you would realize that I have not made any decisions without extensive consultations with the members of that Board who are all long term and trusted members of the BitShares Community.
But you turned down the offer.
So for you to now make "wild speculation" about my actions and motivations out of ignorance when you could have had full knowledge is just a wee bit disingenuous, don't you think?
"support for a DAC that I would think you would otherwise not be thrilled about in your position"
And just why would I not be thrilled about a new DAC which I consider to have a long term possibility of getting BitShares out of the temporary impasse it has come to?
Just because some directions taken by Bytemaster may appear, in the myopic short term, detrimental to my narrowly defined financial interest, does not mean that I have ever wavered from my full support of his vision and mission to secure life, liberty and property. That is because his mission harmonizes well with my own goal of enabling and cultivating free expressions of the free human spirit.
Also, did anyone else notice how the initial Steem git commit was a dump of the all files, rather than a fork the graphene repo?.
Nice way to keep the work hidden from the Github history/fork browser and the project secret during its initial stages.
Should also make it more difficult to cherry-pick and back-port changes to the Bitshares code-base.
Very sneaky!
Grow up.
"You just need thick skin and the ability to ignore the Bitcoin pharisees and the angry mob they incite to nail you to a cross for failing to sacrifice your creation to the prevailing mining gods."
Bytemaster, How to Launch a Crypto Curency Legally while Raising Funds
http://bytemaster.github.io/article/2016/03/27/How-to-Launch-a-Crypto-Currency-Legally-while-Raising-Funds/
i think the question is not clear.
if you intent to free my vesting BTS we could do it, if you want to delete it i am against it. I hope this poll is about the first one.
Apologies for the unclear question, the poll was to delete it, merockstar has also declared his yes vote void.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22237.msg289902.html#msg289902
I don't like editing polls after but as a few have been unclear on this point I will put an edit in the OP.
deleting! what a terrible idea. i don't even want to think about this, why should we do this? srew me and others more then now?
i think the question is not clear.
if you intent to free my vesting BTS we could do it, if you want to delete it i am against it. I hope this poll is about the first one.
The result is that as part of the merger many people (including the large Dev fund) are taking a long-term vested interest in things.
Do you really want Toast, Adam, and I to have instant access to a large percentage of all new funds or do you want us vesting with a long time horizon?
I suspect a lot comes down to how one views the vested balances. I view them as just as legitimate as other BTS, fungible or not. Others seem to take the view that because these BTS are not liquid, then somehow they are in a second class. Obviously I disagree.
The result is that as part of the merger many people (including the large Dev fund) are taking a long-term vested interest in things.
Do you really want Toast, Adam, and I to have instant access to a large percentage of all new funds or do you want us vesting with a long time horizon?
We are the single largest holder of PTS by far. Giving a large stake to PTS and AGS would be massively in our favor.
We have secured ~80% of the initial STEEM via mining.
Only 0.47% of STEEM is liquid in individual accounts, this is going to make the pump on CMC legend... wait-for-it... dary!I...
sry, but for "free" is a little bit underestimate. They got plenty of funds, but some of these funds got thrown away carelessly. I am pretty sure that bytemaster has a large
balance from mining PTS and this is the reason why he cannot compare his position with svks. in most cryptoprojects the devs are not paid because they are the founders and hold large positions, so i think it is not wicely that the founder leave this project without delevering what was promised. To say this project is complete and he moves on - leaves me just not understanding.
keep in mind what was promised for BTS 2.0 and with the mergers. So far not much was acomplished.
