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 - Erlich Bachman

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 20
106
General Discussion / Re: Visa would love to hire Daniel Larimer...or somebody to fork bts...
« on: March 03, 2016, 09:50:54 am »
I think you're missing the point

What would happen to the market cap of BitShares if the algos started picking up news stories of how the lead dev of B.T.S. just got hired by V.I.S.A?

107
General Discussion / Re: Visa would love to hire Daniel Larimer...or somebody to fork bts...
« on: March 03, 2016, 08:46:05 am »
Headline:

Visa hires Dan Larimer as lead blockchain engineer

headline the following week:

Lead blockchain engineer for Visa, Dan Larimer quits Visa after liquidating a portion of his BitShares position to purchase the state of Virginia. When asked why he quit Visa, the engineer replied:

"Because upon getting hired, I learned that Visa launders money for ISIS, and I happen to have morals"

108
General Discussion / Re: You are not allowed to work
« on: March 03, 2016, 08:37:53 am »
European Headline:

Refugees adopt crypto to buy local homes following the collapse of the western financial system!

Locals, now homeless, are fleeing Europe and migrating south, but not before voting to stop the arms trade, global peace ensues.

109
General Discussion / Re: How "Free transactions" feature have to be promoted - VERY IMPORTANT NOTE!
« on: March 03, 2016, 08:32:45 am »
 +5%

Sounds good.

110
General Discussion / Re: COMPUMATRIX COMPUCEEDS investigation
« on: March 02, 2016, 05:24:09 pm »
word

sorry, just trolling

 ;)

111
General Discussion / Re: Potential BitShares Road Map for 2016
« on: March 02, 2016, 03:31:59 pm »
Our marketing execution has been a joke

 ;D


112
General Discussion / Re: Potential BitShares Road Map for 2016
« on: March 02, 2016, 07:16:41 am »
"why are sidechains so critical to our success?"

seriously?  Did you not read a word of this thread?!!

here, let me help you:











look up:










 






where's your pride woman?!

This is BitShares!


The world outside your closed bedroom door is saying that we are not a real crypto unless our workers run a bitcoin node too.



What do you think our market cap would be if the world viewed us as a "real" crypto?

And how hard is it for our workers, who are already running a BTS node, to run a BTC node as well?



Let me try to explain this to you in a ELI5 Disney fashion OK Pinochio


You are not "real" and therefore, you will not obtain any "real" capital investment.  You may think that you are "real" but you do not posess the $30 mllion necessary to raise our market cap to profitibility.  The public has this money, but they need you to prove that you are "real" in order to give you their real money.  Just like how you need to prove to a woman that your love for her is real (if you want her to love you back) you need to prove to the market that your crypto is real. And it just so happens that it is easier for us to do this than it is for BlockShares. Why? becauae DPOS has already established some (enough) trust.   They need to develop a multisig system, we don't. Why? Because  our miners have never screwed us, and thus have proven trustworthy.  Their miners have zero history, and are by definition less trustworthy than ours. Thus our first mover advantage in this particular space. So why stop competing in this race I say, when we are already half way to the finish line?  Are we not Spartains?  Now we have the ability to effectively monetize this trust.  But we need some of our miners to run multiple nodes if we want this money. 

If your definition of "success" is increasing "market cap(ital investment)" then you. MUST convince the world that you are in fact "real". and the only truly logical way that they are saying will convince them that we have become real is for us to pay a couple miners a few extra bucks to donload the BTC blockchain and manually exchange a few "actual (not fake)" BTC for BTS (without stealing them), and just like that Pinochio, you become a real man.

Call them gateway nodes, exchange nodes, masternodes, DEXnodes. Hell, I got 1000 BTS for the most creative and inspiring answer:

SpaaaTaaaaNodes!!

TLDR : this is the most bank for your buck low lying fruit that would legitimize us among the top "real cryptocurrencies", because, your market cap will continue to suck until the point in time that you choose to become "real"

So the question is simple:

When do you want to become real? When can a worker volunteer to run multiple nodes, and how much extra will they need to be paid?



If you kids don't take this free money, then I'm leaving to join the "real" men in the BlockShares community because you obviously have no clue what awaits you outside your bedroom door. Your obvious lack of life and love experience has stunted your ability to empathize with your target market (living/loving/emotional human beings who hold the cash that you desire to "successfully" raise your market cap).  See, Pointdexter, marketing is just logical math after all.

And anyone who thinks that having the ability to trade "real BTC" is bad for the bitBTC will be floored when they see that it actually legitimizes the reputation of bitBTC as a "real cryptocurrency"

113
General Discussion / Re: BitShares and Ethereum - Similarities and Differences
« on: March 01, 2016, 10:06:41 pm »
Indeed, we are two separate tools (far from clones) with completely different strengths.  Theirs are apparent now.  Ours will eventually be desired.

114
General Discussion / Re: BitShares and Ethereum - Similarities and Differences
« on: March 01, 2016, 09:54:46 pm »
Quote from: Xeldal on March 01, 2016, 08:26:15 pm
Quote from: CLains on March 01, 2016, 08:05:13 pm

2) BTS committee members need to approve APPs.

In my mind, that is the biggest difference.

You don't need to ask permission to innovate with etherium contracts, with bitshares you do.

As a developer (im not a developer) I would not want to mess with all the fuss and headache required in communicating with a community in order to get approval.   Or spend the time and money on something just to have it refused, pulled out, or ignored.

Etherium allows you to move forward with or without anyone even having heard of you or spoken a word.  Your app/contracts can't be blocked or refused.

I think there is a huge opportunity for BitShares in replicating EVM, because Etherium as I understand it can not match the speed, efficiency, and scalability of BitShares.   If I can run my eth contracts on either network, why would I choose Etherium?

when anyone can copy your code and run it on our blockchain at 4x speed (and scalability), then I would say that the devs who invented that code might want first crack at that opportunity.

 8)

But then again, I won't balk at the opportunity to approve the first Augur clone proposal either.  It is truly up to the developers of Augur weather they want our speed and scalability, or if they want to give this advantage to a competitor.  The Augur team would obviously be our first choice to launch on our blockchain, but it is their choice, and no one else's.

Yeah, we will have to wait a while (after the open source apps are done being developed) before our advantages become relevant and saught after.  And when "speed" becomes en vogue again, we will still be here waiting.

 8)

115
General Discussion / Re: Potential BitShares Road Map for 2016
« on: March 01, 2016, 09:22:48 pm »
Like I said, considering that we would not have to do all that "automated sidechaining bullshit" because we already have a "vetted trusted and easily fire-able" network of responsible miners means that it would only take a fraction of the time that it would take any other community to develop a "multisig based trust" environment.

Therefore, theoretically, we are in the lead on the sidechaining forefront, and this "lead" is ours to lose.

If you do not believe this, then how can more people buy Nubits which have more counterparty risk than bitUSD?  You cannot argue with the logic here: our customers don't want security, they want ease of use, and have been voting with their cash.  The proof is in their (Nubits) marketcap.  The market wants pegged assets and sidechaining and obviously does not care that they are accepting more counterparty risk with Nubits than they are getting with bitUSD, so why would they care that our sidechain has more counterparty risk than that of "BlockShares"?

They wouldn't (as long as the principles of math are still in effect here)

Yes, we can always improve our security (counterparty risk) profile by adopting any multisig best practices in the future, but we already have invested time and money into creating a "trusted mining network" and the "multisig" level of security is not technically necessary to create a functional product.  Therefore, it would be stupid for us to not bring a simplified sidechaining product to market. And frankly, any criticism against the counterparty risk of our sidechaining system (no multisig yet) would highlight the fact that our trusted DPOS miners have been not screwing us for years, so why should they start now?

In other words, all we have to do is pay xeroc or someone else to run a bitcoin and Ether node, and transfer bitcoins to Ether to bts, and just like that, we have the first ever:

"TRUSTED (based on the fundamental power of DPOS  to create trusted mining systems) REAL (not market pegged assets or UIA's but real Ether and BTC) DEX"

and who cares that "our Nubits" have more counterparty risk than "their bitUSD"

See, the shoe is on the other foot now so to speak.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.  We are beating them at their own game.  Do unto others etc.  Do you get it?  You think that they are not taking this as a competition?  They took your marketing angle:

BLOCKSHARES?!

Seriously?

Not an ounce of originality.

If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then, let's give them something tangible to immitate at least!

This is one area where we don't need to be perfect in order to grab market share (not just market share, but FIRST MOVER ADVANTAGE in the "REALDEX" space!)(what's that worth?)(and thus future funding).  We are getting our best bank for our marketing buck, and I would personally donate to such an initiative.

I'm no computer expert, but I know that a streamlined system is easier to develop than one with all the bells and whistles expected from a new (BlockShares, can you believe the balls of these guys, our market obviously cares not for originality either) blockchain.

So to finally answer your question about how long it would take us to launch our "simplified sidechain system ("REAL" DEX), I can only say with confidence:

not as long as it would take to launch the complex multisig-trust based sidechain system that BlockShares is proposing

They realistically can't take our "streamlined" approach, because they are not the incumbent.  Let's leverage our historically established DPOS invention here to get some more funding!  If we are not going to leverage/use our "first mover advantage" benefits (DPOS), then what kind of game are we playing????  Do we like getting our ass kicked by an unoriginal clone of ourselves?

Well then let's step it up.

I got a day job, so I got donations.  What do you bring to the table?

116
General Discussion / Re: Potential BitShares Road Map for 2016
« on: March 01, 2016, 07:57:52 pm »
Quote from: Empirical1.2 on March 01, 2016, 06:33:48 pm
I'm not sure how soon they'll be launching, the latest update is that their most optimistic guideline is middle of the year which hinges on the work of two developers yet to be hired.

I anticipate the SmartCoin leader could easily be the overall crypto market leader in a few years.

The world is looking for a decentralized place to store the value of USD/Gold/Other that won't have negative interest rates/bail-ins/capital controls/KYC etc.

There has never been a greater time in the history of the world for what the DEX & SmartCoins can potentially offer.

So liquidity subsidy, yield subsidy (Self funding), bond market, sidechains, get BTS SmartCoins to market leader position now and stay there.

I completely agree, with everything except doing the bond market prior to sidechains.  BM recently stated that it would take 3 months to build the bond market (they are still debating the theoretical format/mechanism), so you know this really means "6 months" in dev-speak, and would anyone really be surprised if it took a year?

So when we finally come out with our version of sidechaining, we not only would not be first or second, we would be irrelevant.  I believe Dr. Evil here makes sense in the regard that we should be paying a couple miners to run a concurrent bitcoin node just so that we can say that you can trade "real" BTC (in addition to bitBTC).  Because, check this out, here is our major advantage:

We don't have to figure out how to do "multisig" right now simply beacause our workers are already vetted (elected) and trustworthy, and of course:

able to be voted out at a moment's notice

So you see, sidechaining is a hell of a lot easier for us to do simply because we already have a trustworthy network of miners and penalty for scamming already in place.

Tell me that you would not trust xeroc running a bitcoin node?

In fact, if you took donations just to do this project alone, I think that we could have a MVP to market in no time.

Plus, if xeroc stole someone's real BTC in a trade, then I'm sure we would vote him out, and compensate the victim through community donation just to save out share price (worst case scenario)

Yes, the security (counterparty risk) would only be to a level of that of a UIA, but you know that nobody cares, why?

Does anybody care that bitUSD counterparty risk is lower than Nubits?

Based on the fact the fact that they are kicking our ass in adoption, no, it's obvious that our market doesn't care about security, so why do the whole convoluted "multisig" thing.  They must jump this hurdle because they don't already have what we have: a network of trusted miners who for years now are still working for peanuts and have not screwed us.  This network of trusted miners is a valuable asset for this particular application, and is one that can help us bring this particular product to market faster than anybody else, and to not recognize this simple fact demonstrates extreme stupidity in our ability to market our existing products (yes our existing and trusted network is a valuable asset in this case)

So why can't we play the same game and beat them to the punch (do the same thing with more theoretical counterparty risk because it's proven that the market frankly don't give a shit about counterparty risk) the worker is already proven trustworthy, and technically, the asset is "Real" bitcoin.

I think that by overlooking the fact that we already have an established "miner trust" mechanism in place, that we already have a serious advantage of getting a MVP to market tomorrow!

117
General Discussion / Re: New scam targetting Open Ledger users!
« on: March 01, 2016, 07:29:19 pm »
Also beware of look alike "OPEN.XXX" assets without the "." being sold by the account "open-ledgers" (or something like that, I forget exactly, and don't have the chain in front of me currently) whose liquidity is much higher than those of Ronny's.

Are there any blockchain forensic analysts out there who can do some detective work to see who this might be or whose account did transactions close to this?

I would love to know who this fucker is, if only to be able to shame his predatory ass in public

thank you

118
General Discussion / Re: Potential BitShares Road Map for 2016
« on: February 29, 2016, 07:18:29 pm »
This is a critical consensus.

We need to know what our market would get the most use from immediately.

If we choose correctly, then we will get development funding for the next item on the list.

Get it?

We will have a better chance of reaping more future rewards as a community instead of begging uncle onceuponatime for another loan at infinite interest (no offense of course, I'm actually very grateful, but our ultimate goal is profitability)

119
General Discussion / Re: Marketing plan for Bitshares 2.1
« on: February 28, 2016, 06:36:51 am »
You are correct. It might sound like a cheap ploy to get attention, and I was against changing the name to 2.1 for the stealth release, because honestly the stealth feature was included in the official 2.0 release, but the fact is that the "rate limiting" or "free transactions" feature is indeed a brand new feature, and one that is unique to all blockchains, and, frankly, our community will indeed develop 3,4,&5.0 feature sets because that's our strength. we adapt well and fork well.

"BitShares" is the brand. We should not get married to "2.0"

But of course we should milk the 2.0 moniker for all it's worth in the meantime.

120
General Discussion / Re: Subsidizing Market Liquidity
« on: February 25, 2016, 01:46:54 pm »
Quote from: CoinHoarder on February 25, 2016, 02:08:51 am
Smartcoins as a whole is the innovation Bitshares should be marketing, not simply bitUSD.


This "let's get the bitUSD market liquid first then branch off into other smartcoins" is rubbish. That is the same thing everyone's been saying for over two years. By the time the market is liquid we will have lost first mover advantage. Someone could code Smartcoins up on Ethereum in no time. It will happen sooner rather than later. Bitshares will again get caught with its pants down... on the cusp of a viral features (such as bitUSD), but it is unpolished/unfinished and someone else swoops in to take the meal out from under our nose.

on point jack

who is this guy?

I vote to make him king



I've been trying to get into some bitPussy for months now, but damn!


that spread just kills me!






Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 20

Page created in 0.196 seconds with 23 queries.