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 - tbone

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 43
76
General Discussion / Re: [hangout feedback] BitShares fees / Referral program (+ Fav interresting idea )
« on: January 15, 2017, 11:38:17 pm »
@bitcrab, I really hope you'll agree that the referral program is not inconsistent with your desire (and the desire of many others) to keep rates low while the platform gains traction.  And I hope you'll participate in some constructive discussion about what we can offer users that would incentivize them to pay a one-time membership fee, which would benefit everyone by making the referral program more powerful.   
 
To add my 2 cents to the original discussion, I like the idea of offering something like an interest bearing savings account or a CD (certificate of deposit).  We could entice people to lock their funds for periods of time in exchange for a rate of return.  Interest payments could be made in the form of bitUSD, bitCNY, bitEUR (or any BitAsset).  A program like this would have many benefits.  It would encourage people to get their shares off the exchanges.  It would encourage them to hold longer term.  It will help increase the supply of BitAssets.  And we could make LTM a requirement to participate, which would benefit the referral program.

One of the main points of contention with this idea (as it has been in the past with the LTM in general) may be that the LTM fee is too high for some countries.  I think this is a valid concern and we should come up with a solution to this problem in general if we want to use the LTM to help drive the up-front portion of referral rewards.   Thoughts, anyone?

77
General Discussion / Re: [hangout feedback] BitShares fees / Referral program (+ Fav interresting idea )
« on: January 15, 2017, 10:43:16 pm »
Reading this thread, it appears there is total disagreement.  But there really isn't.  Everyone knows that referral marketing is one of the most basic and accepted concepts in business.   Not only can referral marketing grow your user base, but referred customers are higher margin and have a higher retention rate than non-referred customers.  This is fact. 

So I don't think what we're seeing here is disagreement.  But there's clearly some misunderstanding.  For example, although it seems @bitcrab argued against the concept of referral programs in general, I'm fairly sure he's really just against raising fees.  In fact, I'm pretty sure he is only against raising fees at this early stage.  And I don't really have a problem with that.  Of the other vocal participants in this thread, I don't think @EstefanTT, for example, has a problem with it either.  In fact, he said this about the referral program:

Quote from: EstefanTT
It is an amazing way to have people working on promoting Bitshares without paying them, just on the perpective to win money if BitShares takes off and their referred users start using it.

My point is, what @EstefanTT said here is NOT inconsistent with @bitcrab's desire to raise rates later.  The bottom line is that anyone currently referring users will initially reap the benefits only to a small extent  a) while they build their referral base, and b) while fees remain low during the time the platform is maturing.  But as their base of referred users grows, and once the platform is in a position where fees can be raised, referrers will reap the benefits to a much larger extent.  Again, where is the disagreement?

Even @fav's and @bitcrab's positions are not really at odds.  It appears to me @fav is NOT suggesting we raise fees as he has in the past.  He is suggesting we create something of value that would entice people to pay a membership fee so that as a referrer, he can have greater incentive with an up-front source of revenue, in addition to the more long-term, residual income stream previously discussed.  There is nothing wrong with this.  In fact, it would be in everyone's interest to see what we can come up with. Let's please have constructive dialog.  And before responding in a knee-jerk way, please remember that many people participating in this conversation are speaking English NOT as a first language.  And that we're all working toward the same goal (i.e. the long-term success of Bitshares).  Aside from our resident idiot troll, of course.

78
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares 3.0 - It Is Time
« on: December 30, 2016, 01:56:27 am »
Quote from: Chronos on December 28, 2016, 04:56:20 pm
I've put some thought into a bitcoin sidechain peg. One major challenge: it turns Bitshares into a high-trust environment. Here's why:

1) We create the two-way peg
2) Various users transfer a large amount, for example 25000 BTC, onto the BTS chain
3) Those bitcoins are held in the BTC chain, controlled by Bitshares witnesses in case of "withdrawal request"
4) This creates a huge bounty for witnesses to go rogue and steal the bitcoins.

Any large-enough group of witnesses could claim to be hacked and steal all the sidechained bitcoins. This isn't possible on the network today, I mean, witnesses can't steal your BTS. Using this would be very scary for me, just because I'm trusting that 20 or 30 people won't be tempted to steal 25 million dollars that they collectively control.

Another potential attack: a majority-by-votes BTS holder can vote in new witnesses for himself. Before, it was scary enough, as he could mess with our blockchain somewhat, with double-spends, etc. But with this sidechain, now he can steal all the bitcoins.

Thoughts?

I think instead of a bunch of anonymous witnesses, the node operators in this scenario could be known entities such as OpenLedger, Blocktrades, Blockpay, Transwiser, BitKapital, etc.  Maybe a few witnesses can be added to the mix, perhaps with a requirement to ID themselves and/or put up a security deposit.  A solution like this would not be trustless, but it would be far less centralized than the current setup and it would ensure that there are never fractional reserves.  This would give users far more confidence.

79
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares 3.0 - It Is Time
« on: December 28, 2016, 11:13:27 pm »
I think this is a very important issue and I thank @bitcrab for resurrecting the discussion.  To add my 2 cents, here's what I posted in Telegram as part of a discussion on the matter there.

"(Graphene + Bitcoin + Ethereum) sidechains would be amazing.  but i can't imagine that happening within a year.  perhaps in the meantime we should consider the multi-sig gateway approach.  even though it's not a trustless solution, it would be less centralized than what we currrently have, which would give users more confidence, especially if there's a proof-of-reserves component. also, it would give us a single BTC asset to focus on, which should help with liquidity and hopefully also help simplify matters for DEX users"


From Stan in Telegram RE: sidechains between Bitshares, Steem, Peerplays, Bitcoin and Ethereum:
Quote
I've discussed it with several community leaders over the past few months.  It's one I'd like to see happen in the coming year - no promises yet.


80
General Discussion / Re: Update on Chronos Videos
« on: December 22, 2016, 07:08:38 pm »
Quote from: Chronos on December 22, 2016, 06:25:42 pm
Quote from: tbone on December 22, 2016, 05:17:30 pm
P.S.  I would really like to see the DPoS error (distributed vs. delegated) fixed, at least in the on-screen graphic.  I'm sure that can be done with some editing alone (i.e. no need to re-record).
Unfortunately, we can't upload a new video without losing the 1000+ views, along with the 50 likes and 11 comments, on that video. However, I was able to find a way to use YouTube Annotations to update the text. It's not perfect, but it's pretty clean considering the constraints. Check it out! https://youtu.be/eSgsbBTxNfo?t=22s

Ah, ok, I wasn't thinking about that.  Anyway,  you can barely notice the annotation even if you're looking for it.  I think it might also make sense to pop up an annotation for a few seconds correcting what you verbalized so people who notice the inconsistency will know which is correct.  What do you think?

81
General Discussion / Re: Update on Chronos Videos
« on: December 22, 2016, 06:36:44 pm »
Quote from: yvv on December 22, 2016, 05:42:34 pm
Quote
But let's have a real conversation about the cost vs. the value.

Ok, let's look at number of views for each video. What cost per viewer is adequate?

If you're going to judge by cost per view, you have to do it over time, not right at the beginning.  But more than anything, it's just plain common sense to understand that it's helpful to have tutorials, especially video tutorials.  Of course, the videos should be nicely done, with the subject matter articulated in an easy to understand manner, which I think Chronos has done.   

In any event, I think the new bitshares.org site should have a page that lists these tutorial videos (similar to Tableau, linked below).  When people see such resources, they are much more likely to dive in...and more likely to stick with it.  How do you measure that?

http://www.tableau.com/learn/training

 

82
General Discussion / Re: Update on Chronos Videos
« on: December 22, 2016, 05:17:30 pm »
I do think the cost of the videos is a bit steep.  But let's have a real conversation about the cost vs. the value.  To look at the number of referrals is utterly absurd and unhelpful.  It's obvious that people finding Bitshares on their own would find these videos useful.  In fact, it is imperative to have tutorials if we want to encourage people to take the platform seriously.  That's what I thought the whole point was.  Having said that, maybe Chronos can offer a little more for a little less. 

P.S.  I would really like to see the DPoS error (distributed vs. delegated) fixed, at least in the on-screen graphic.  I'm sure that can be done with some editing alone (i.e. no need to re-record).

83
General Discussion / Re: Graphene GUI testing and feedback
« on: September 09, 2016, 03:49:09 pm »
Quote from: GChicken on September 09, 2016, 11:46:28 am
Sorry if this has been mentioned before; i did not trawl through the 34 pages prior to making this post. (i just noticed it was also mentioned by @hammurabi a few posts back)

I am always confused by the toggle buttons within the asset creation menus...  i always finding myself going back to the market fee toggle button or the smart coin toggle button to confirm which is on and off; i do this because these are the only button with visual feedback that i can tell when it is enabled/on and disabled/off.

Given they are simple binary option i think it would be better served with a checkbox or some other button type that is more recognisable which toggle is on and which toggle is off.

i think this simple change would help the intuitiveness of that interface.

I agree 100%.

84
Random Discussion / Re: Your opinion on Bytemaster
« on: August 23, 2016, 10:18:52 pm »
Quote from: tarantulaz on August 23, 2016, 07:58:37 pm
Hello everyone!

I'd like to have people's opinion on Bytemaster. Not what he achieved in BitShares, but things that people really thought were wrong or even scummy.
I am here for events that people actually thought that were not just wrong, but had bad intentions behind them. I've come to the conclusion that Bytemaster is creating scams either purposely or by accident. I am leaning more on the accidental side, because he is very incompetent. I understand that many people will be furious for my claims, but I couldn't care less.

When I started in crypto, I viewed most crypto communities as those amazing places where people go and try to create something amazing with the best intentions. With time I learned that there are indeed many many people who are decent, but there are many scammers and people that are there to get rich quickly. But that's not the main problem of the crypto communities. The main problem is that very very few people are actually economists or top developers, yet everyone seems to know what they are doing when nobody actually does.

If I could compare the Bitshares community with a guy, in order to express in a better how I view it, that would be Fuzzy. Fuzzy is an amazing and genuinely nice person, however there are many times that when I hear him talk I think in my head : this guy has no idea of what he is talking about. He can't be that dumb, can he?

Back to the first point. BM's work in both BitShares and Steem, the way he left Bitshares and the Steem 'solo-mining' make me really doubt him as a person. Stealth, Merger, BitAssets are some of the things that I've found really doggy, but as I've been following the community only for the last 7-8 months, I would like some deeper information about him.

Are you Tone Vays?  What an idiot.  lol

85
General Discussion / Re: An appeal to revitalize the forum
« on: August 15, 2016, 06:36:57 pm »
Quote from: lil_jay890 on August 15, 2016, 05:02:15 pm
Quote from: tbone on August 15, 2016, 04:09:27 pm
Quote from: lil_jay890 on August 15, 2016, 02:27:26 pm
There is not that much to talk about now.

The product is stable.  No new features are being added other than maybe stealth at some point.  Not really any new projects.

Personally I think steem is just a giant circle jerk of people that post shit content in the hopes of getting upvoted by a whale.  The people that are making money are usually chicks who post half naked pictures while useful post get completely buried by crap.

The whole scheme of making money to like posts on the internet is extremely shady to me.  The pump was also a giant just a manipulation of CMC.

You have the facts completely wrong.  Plus you have zero vision.  Zero.


Your probably right tbone.  I guess i should just go over to steem and post pictures of naked chicks to try to earn some cash....

Do you realize what an idiot you sound like?  Just curious.

86
General Discussion / Re: An appeal to revitalize the forum
« on: August 15, 2016, 04:09:27 pm »
Quote from: lil_jay890 on August 15, 2016, 02:27:26 pm
There is not that much to talk about now.

The product is stable.  No new features are being added other than maybe stealth at some point.  Not really any new projects.

Personally I think steem is just a giant circle jerk of people that post shit content in the hopes of getting upvoted by a whale.  The people that are making money are usually chicks who post half naked pictures while useful post get completely buried by crap.

The whole scheme of making money to like posts on the internet is extremely shady to me.  The pump was also a giant just a manipulation of CMC.

You have the facts completely wrong.  Plus you have zero vision.  Zero.

87
General Discussion / Re: Proposal to reward bitassets holders with interest!
« on: August 11, 2016, 02:35:15 pm »
Quote from: yvv on August 11, 2016, 01:43:37 pm
And this is not going to increase supply anyway. To increase supply, you need to incentivise shorting, not holding.

@Empirical1.2 advocated for a plan to reward people shorting BitAssets into existence.  I think we would be much further along if we had listened to him. 

88
General Discussion / Re: BitUSD needs liquidity for those that want to buy it.
« on: August 08, 2016, 02:17:12 pm »
Quote from: karnal on August 08, 2016, 08:43:25 am
Quote from: xeroc on August 08, 2016, 08:37:04 am
Quote from: tarantulaz on August 07, 2016, 04:06:59 pm
https://prestonbyrne.com/2014/08/17/dont-walk-away-run/

There you go. A detailed analysis on how dumb, 'smartcoins' are.
The facts in that article are just wrong .. they may have been right in BTS-X .. but they are no longer .. 2014 is so 1900

Sounds like a good opportunity to refute all of the points in that article and put it on steemit!

I would be very interested to read +5%

That bitMormot thing still comes up often enough after I mention Bitshares to people and they go do some research ..


If you want to extol the virtues of Bitshares in general and BitAssets in particular, that's great.  But I don't think it will be helpful in any way, shape, or form to dignify that article by linking to it and/or quoting it.  Please just let it continue fading into the dustbin of history.


89
General Discussion / Re: Michael Taggart claims to be BitShares Co-founder?
« on: August 05, 2016, 08:43:25 pm »
@Murderistic, I think it's a real misstep to let Mark be the face of of your marketing campaign.  While it may be unfair to label him a scammer, it is very clear that he is not a good business person.  Fact is, he did at the very least ROYALLY screw up and lost a bunch of money for a bunch of people.  And yeah, it doesn't look good from the outside looking in.  But again, in a civilized society where people have the right to due process, and there are laws against slandering/libeling others (as there should be), no one should be claiming with any certainty that he is a scammer.  Having said that, he has rightfully earned a poor reputation.  You should understand that and act accordingly i.e. NOT let him be the front man of any marketing campaign.   

Surely you can see why many bristle at the idea of Mark's face being on the campaign.  To begin with, this type of marketing often has a negative perception on its own.  Although of course it's unfair to assume that it's a scam, that there's spyware involved, etc.  Spyware in this case?  Really, people? 

Also, as far as having this style of marketing campaign associated with Steemit, the fact is that others are going to do it anyway.  That is the plain reality.  There are tons of these showing how to make money with Facebook, for example.  Does that reflect on Facebook?  I seriously doubt it.  So that's just not an overriding factor for anyone thinking rationally and objectively.  But I do have a couple of real problems.  First, I object to using the Steemit logo in the campaign, or otherwise making it look anything like the offering is sponsored by Steemit.  Also, I agree with @fav about the bots information.  That is not helpful at all.  And I don't think it's helpful to bill Steemit as a way to get rich quick. 

As for the reason this thread started to begin with, I will just say this.  I personally appreciate investigative journalism or anyone's attempt to uncover a scam or fraud.  But it appears Ian DeMartino is trying to make a very circumstantial case against Michael Taggart based on a couple of erroneous bits of information on a website, and based on his association with Mark Lyford (who himself has only been shown to be a shitty business person). That's pretty flimsy.   Generally speaking, unless you have conclusive evidence, you better not go beyond warning the public about any poor business practices you have uncovered (which is clearly the case with Mark).  In other words, stick to the facts.  Be professional.  And follow the law.  Otherwise you may be worse than the person you are accusing.

90
General Discussion / Re: [STEEM X-POST]: Thinking of selling your bitcoin? Put it in SteemUSD instead!
« on: July 24, 2016, 08:29:15 pm »
Nice steemit post, @karnal.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 43

Page created in 0.19 seconds with 23 queries.