Question mentioned on Mumble that didn't get answered:

Paraphrasing..."Don't chains that sharedrop 20% and then dilute violate the Social Consensus?"

Answer:  No violation.  After you get your full 20% then you have to decide whether to cash it out or let it ride.

If you let it ride you are freely deciding that your are OK with the expected growth vs. the expected dilution.
So what happens after genesis is in your control, and you shouldn't expect a developer to take that into account for you.

In the case of Identabit's Proof of Appreciation guarantees that no dilution will occur at all for a while until the algorithm has validated that offsetting appreciation has occurred.

So the worry about what the supply will be at some distant point in the future is unknowable and moot. 

You start out sharing 20% and have plenty of time to decide your own fate (and opt out if you want) before any change in the supply ever happens.

Thanks for answering!  Although I'm not completely felt whole.  I think another way to look at it is to see that the value given to BM and company now allows for a faster burn rate of transaction fees.  So similar to adding greater value, the faster the deflation, we may end up with greater than 20% someday as opposed to less.  Any of these scenarios are possible. 

Quote from: topcandle on August 13, 2015, 01:26:13 pm

How do we balance this with the sharedrop that Bitshares dev core team gets from inflation?  They will get to double dip in both Brownie Pts and the newly minted BTS.  This can yet be another controversial piece.

Nobody calls a compensation package with multiple features a "double dip".    So it would be totally reasonable (and often done in practice) to give an employee a small salary, a bonus, and some stock options.  People who do work for startups generally agree to some mix of benefits.

And "we" do not do the balancing for Identabit anyway.  This is a decision by a new chain developer about how to distribute his genesis block to maximize success.  He decided to honor the 20% consensus for BitShares and go beyond that to do something special for a group of people who made the ecosystem what it is today.  No other factors than that need be considered.

But if he wanted to give them all to Snoop Dog, that would be his business.

So your saying that the orginal social contract is now broken, since now that 20% drop is on a "inflated Bitshares" amount.  The full 20% is not fully going to orginal BTS, PTS and AGS holders.  No delegates and dev core are slowing siphoning off % amounts.  By your definition its okay to give bonsuses to those who are working for the DAC, if its done by silent inflation.  This is disappointing to see how far bitshares has veered from its roots.  We can imagine in the future, orginal BTS, AGS, PTS will only get 5% off a 20% sharedrop from the inflation introduced.  Why can't that happen?  You've certainly opened the possibility of this occuring.

Original social contract is official broken if there is no clarify on this.  BTS should get a larger stake, just 1% more since you've introduced greater risks to your social consensus. 

How do we balance this with the sharedrop that Bitshares dev core team gets from inflation?  They will get to double dip in both Brownie Pts and the newly minted BTS.  This can yet be another controversial piece.

TonyK is selling.  Trend reversal is spotted.  I believe he bought all the way down.  Are you sure you are not selling on the way up? 

j/k it might actually be a great move.  You have only yourself to deal with the varying degrees of risk. 

Quote from: Krills on July 29, 2015, 12:31:35 pm

Quote from: Stan on July 08, 2015, 03:53:21 am

Quote from: Permie on July 07, 2015, 11:31:56 pm

Quote

"Our Chief of Acquisitions and Visionary Officer, Justin LaFountain, has been spearheading a whole new crypto currency venture maybe even bigger than gaming. Its flagship website will soon debut as a one-stop education and shopping site for everything about crypto.

Sounds very promising, do we know the website yet?

I do, but since they want to rethink everything about it based on BitShares integration, they are currently not making it public until ready - the old one is out there though, if you know where to look.  Second announcement from them may clear some things up later this month.

everything come from stans mouth was unlikelihood

Still, I guess there's always somebody who'll try to turn an encouraging word into a broken promise if they can.

You set the norm that there would be an announcement each week.  You gave us the expectation that things would be handled with polished professionalism after the Chinese intervened.  We understand that things happen.  We see that there is still room for improvement.  A simple reaching out to the community, maybe quick sentence or two.  Instead of us the community pulling you for answers.  Why does it matter?  Well I think cause all these efforts displays your intent to do as you say.  And what you say could be taken authentically.  Otherwise what was the point of all the vast changes we made in October?  Can we take them seriously? 

Just my thoughts.  On the other hand you guys are always answer questions here on forums and we appreciate that.  We just think there should be consistency and better commitment to the PR piece like you had promised. 

PS: I'd rather have you guys not give any hints at all since they are always misconstrued and just have you surprise the community.  It lowers the expectation and allows you guys to over deliver. 

Quote from: lil_jay890 on July 28, 2015, 06:08:52 pm

Just read this article on cointelegraph

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114993/founder-of-european-stock-exchange-launches-blockchain-startup

Basically, they offer 100,000 transactions per second on their own blockchain.  They require all keys to be registered by a regulatory body, which sounds a lot like bts proposed ability to whitelist.

Its making me nervous that all the competitors are popping up as our product continues to have endless upgrades & feature adds without ever having a release.  Even if these competitors don't offer everything bts 2.0 is promising, it seems like there is someone to compete with almost every product bts offers.  I think the ability they have to offer 100k tps really blunts our edge.

How do you know they didn't just license it from CNX? This would not be considered a competitor to BitShares.. so I would think they would be fine with licensing it... didn't Bytemaster JUST recently say something about a big bank looking at Bitshares?

Clearly not a big bank.  They're getting their facts wrong anyhow. We do 150K TPS not 100K TPS.  If they can announce, why can't we announce?  Why didn't the mention BTS?

Wow that was great.  Someone should give you BROWNS.  Is this method Bitshares pursuing the best option out there right now?

Quote from: toast on July 26, 2015, 03:12:53 pm

I'm helping rune with this. In ethereum it is just easier to develop dynamic, self-modifying systems that still follow clear, pre-defined rules. BTS chose the "specialization" route, so we should push that advantage. If Maker adds a killer feature, BTS can create a more efficient version of it.

Maker is defined by its own consensus and so could migrate onto BTS or another graphene chain

solidity is just super fun and we have an opportunity to push our competitive advantage from our sweet system framework, which will let us do stuff like add all the smart assets on ether into Maker for backing dai without disrupting the network

Agreed on all of this. 

Why it sounds like he's extolling the benefits of Dai and Ether.  BTS is a afterthought.