Quote from: OldMan on October 22, 2014, 10:40:27 pm

Do folks really want to model DACs on traditional corporate paradigms?

Take BM and the key devs up into the ivory tower and have all correspondence vetted and neutered by the PR police to ensure the share price is not inconvenienced?

The whole point of DACs is to implement a public and transparent business model with direct and unencumbered lines of communication to shareholders.

BM saw an opportunity and presented it to the community.

Funny how folks love to knock big bank/corp/gov but push to recreate the same systems they deride.

Freedom and security do not run together.

Respect to BM for his candour and courage.

Maybe you haven't notice,every time BM does something that's not in the basic principal of a DAC (total decentralization),he and stan claim that

"that's what a traditional company would do" 
"merge,that's what a traditional company does"   
"This is not a crypto currency,this is a company,we do what company does" 
"the social consensus is not a suicide pack"

That's alright,for the sake of the future of the Bitshares enterprise,I concur every major decision Bymemaster does.

But that does not change the fact that this is still a enterprise,not some dream of the libertarians.-----If you want libertarians's DAC , go to the ones who don't not care about their shareholder's price,just like .....  ....  ....  ..   you name it ,the ones who watch their share price shrink 90% and still do nothing aggressive to change that.

Just like bytemaster said, Perspective is Everything.Forum has only 200+ people behind it ,there are more shareholders and supports out there ,as well as enemies. If bytemaster were to entertain a few people on the forum instead of making right business decisions for the very best interest of his shareholders , I would've go to the PPC community.(That's a happy family,even the price of their DAC shrink 90%,they're still very happy,dancing with Sunny King,and Sunny King was very happy too,he does all kinds of little useful software for the people,and still not concern with the Price )

Bytemaster is an entrepreneur, not just a developer.

One wrong move,the future of this enterprise would be in deep trouble.

Had NXT at least pretended a fair distribution model other than 71 people,they would have been popular  , Bitshares would not have been grabbing the heart of the people by "fair distribution" so easily. Every time people wants to buy NXT , there are always a lot more people out there reminding him that "NXT only enrich 71 people".Although I think now the distribution of NXT has become more fair than before,but still,the
"71 big stick" is a worst nightmare for their image.

You don't need to believe me. I've watched startups fallen , I've watched major business failed .

I'm a libertarian myself,I've never wore a suit.I like T-shirts. But that kind of decision only threatens what I look on formal events.
This is a business,one wrong move,there are thousands of people lives ruined. I haven't even count in the "depositor" that would deposit their money into BitUSD on this equation.

Quote from: teenagecheese on October 22, 2014, 08:56:58 pm

Quote from: wasthatawolf on October 22, 2014, 08:41:43 pm

Quote from: Stan on October 22, 2014, 07:47:28 pm

Quote from: donkeypong on October 22, 2014, 07:32:22 pm

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9874

Pretty sure devs are working on it. I can't find the post where BM said this, but I seem to recall that he did. Link above to another discussion.

Eventually we will develop better and better ways to "wire" bitAssets from one DAC or SuperDAC Business District (Mall) to another.  But it will probably always be most efficient to do "high frequency trading" within a DAC or Business District.

So we start by engineering the first SuperDAC Business District - BitShares. 

As the industry grows, we'll worry about, um, SWIFT-ish interconnections.

I'm a little surprised that a protocol for atomic cross chain transfer of BitUSD isn't a higher priority. 

If all BitUSD isn't created equal, how do you expect to sell the idea of BitUSD to the general public?  Especially since Peertracks will exist as a separate entity even if the proposed merger goes through.

These are really good points. I am also very concerned about the BitUSD coordinating among various daqs; it needs to be seamless, but also I think DACs shouldn't have to be the the BTS blockchain to achieve this. I don't know if that's technically possible, but it is an important feature to allow growth of the ecosystem.

Also, is peertracks really going to have to have their own BitUSD exchange and trading system to achieve market peg just like Bitshares X? Maybe I'm wrong about that? If I'm not that is a ridiculous and inefficient way of doing things. A music company should not have to also worry about stabilizing their currency which they use to sell their product.

I would really appreciate some clarification on this from anyone who has a good understanding because it seems to be an obviously bad choice from my current understanding.

One of the big reasons for of the merger was to keep bitUSD together, to prevent vote-bitUSD from competing with btsx-bitUSD, so that is a big improvement imo.

I agree it's weird for Peertracks to have its own bitUSD on top of its own shares and artist coins.  I haven't invested in it for that reason even though I came up with the idea of artist coins myself about a year ago (along with tons of other people) and really like that concept.  If BTS wanted to buy out peertracks I wouldn't object.

Quote from: oco101 on October 21, 2014, 10:55:53 pm

Quote from: cob on October 21, 2014, 06:49:10 pm

As of now the Music DAC is taking a wait and see approach. We have to develop the front end as well to bring value and use to the underlying asset. We have plenty of time to make a decision as to what we plug in to. BitShares Music or BitShares mega flagship.

We still have another 40 days of pre-sale at least + bytemaster's announcement to look forward to.
Then we have to consult the forums (:

A month is a long time in the BitShares world!

There are loads of people that are buying in pre-sale because they like very much the Music idea but they don't care about the  Bitshare mega Dac. Say I bought 10 $ worth of Notes  because the idea is so great, and I hope I will make 10x more    If  the acquisition happens and  now you want to give me 10$ worth of BTS( a different  example:  I bought 100000 Notes and now you give me 10000 BTS), this will be a very hard sell. So I suggest to consider very carefully and maybe not to wait until the end of pre-sale  to decide.

Eddie and I's responsibility is to the Music Project and the Note holders.
Whatever we end up doing has to be either neutral or beneficial to whoever spent funds on aquiring Notes.
So we are not changing course.
If anything happens down the line the BTS merger appears super beneficial, then of course we will do what's best for your guys and ourselves.

Point is. Right now, Plan A stays. BitShares Music is it's own DAC.

Also Stan, I noticed some of your old posts have disappeared. For example, this months-old post is now gone: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4684.0

Any explanation as to why these old posts have selectively disappeared? Not jumping to conclusions as there may be a perfectly valid reason.

You will be rewarded extremely handsomely by shareholders as a paid delegate if you do something like this. Just look at how big corporations reward top executives with massive bonuses. We will do the same thing for people we can see have made us money.

As of now the Music DAC is taking a wait and see approach. We have to develop the front end as well to bring value and use to the underlying asset. We have plenty of time to make a decision as to what we plug in to. BitShares Music or BitShares mega flagship.

We still have another 40 days of pre-sale at least + bytemaster's announcement to look forward to.
Then we have to consult the forums (:

A month is a long time in the BitShares world!