Can we use VOTE DAC to vote what to do with PTS?

If you want something like this to get done, you only need to build enough consensus.  Once you have enough consensus, no matter how hard, it will just happen.  It is all in the consensus building, and measuring, quantitatively how many people are on board, who is not yet on board and why, and what it would take to get them on board.  Everything else is easy.

http://Canonizer.com can do this.  So, if you want something done, simply create a survey topic (like a modern dynamic petition in many ways) and once you have enough consensus, it will just happen.

What, exactly, is it that you want to happen with PTS?  And lets get started getting it done.

Brent Allsop

My understanding is that the bit asset bitJPY has already been created, there is just not enough capital backing it to get it started.

Am I wrong?

Thanks for the great questions, and thanks to everyone, especially xeroc for all these great answers.

Quote from: Rune on October 01, 2014, 06:20:28 pm

1) how many developers are working on the bitshares? Are there any independent
developers not "controlled" by dan larimer? Is development being organized
solely through the github framework?

No single developer is working on bitshares. .. thats because bitshares is a brand .. a ecosystem ..
What you most certainly mean is either the bitshares toolkit which is developed
by the developers of Invictus Innovations and some others .. (should all be
mentioned at the team page at bitshares.org)
... or you are talking about bitshares-x (a 'fork' of the toolkit) .. which is
basically also "maintained" and not developed (same people, just different
legal entity)

A 'fork' in the toolkit already?  Please describe this more.  What are these two 'forks', who is doing them, which one is used in the wallet, which one do the delegates use....?  What different dirrections are these forks taking?

My guess is that Dan controls about 100M to 180M BTSX .. (just a guess)

So that is around 5% to 9%, respectively  of all bitshares, right?  What evidence do you have for this?  I've heard that the largest single stake holder is about 10%, but again, no evidence was provided.  but it sounds like Bitshares X is more widely distributed than any other currency.  In other words not very many people with enough stake to take things over, or kill the market if they decide to sell.

3) does Dan have any official "policy" in the event of a conflict between him
and the delegates?

A huge threat, right now, is Dan dying in an accident of any kind.  The kind of governance like you are asking about is also a huge problem, and in my opinion, what is holding the entire industry back.  But, in my opinion, the bitshares community, with their voting systems, and other systems in the work, they could be the first real crypto currency community to solve this problem in a way that not only amplifies the Bytemasters wisdom, but in a way that amplifies the wisdom of the entire crowd.  But this, by no means, has happened yet, so is definitely still a concern.

Sure, that's the source of power for most governments: military force. Where the military goes, so goes the power.

The funding for the military comes from the people.  The funding, will always eventually follow what the people want.  Not knowing that is the only problem.

And you could also know, concisely and quantitatively, what any such "military" (simply a subset of the people) wanted.  Knowing that would enable everyone to work within whatever that was.  Again, that which you measure, improves.  And the ultimate goal is to get everyone everything they truly want, and never give up till it is achieved.

Quote from: donkeypong on September 24, 2014, 08:01:02 pm

Direct democracy is too unwieldy to implement on a large scale. Ancient Greece had it. New England-style town halls have it. But these are much smaller populations that can fit in one place. Most modern democracies are representative in nature because they're too big to let everyone participate at once in decision-making. This does concentrate some power, though it is less centralized than a monarchy where a king or queen rules. The one other example of DD is ballot initiatives, such as some U.S. states allow, but the cost is prohibitive (limited to rich interest groups) to get the right # of signatures or a legislative vote to place these proposals on the ballot.

You just cannot put the whole population in a room and try to make decisions. But can you do this electronically, using the security of the blockchain? With some selfless facilitators, such as delegates, I really think it could work. We would need some sort of gate-keeping mechanism, though, or else would be inundated by crap and spend all our time voting on this and that. I'm not sure how to run that gate-keeping function, because delegate elections at some point might start to resemble what we have now for our elected representatives. We must think about how to do better.

Direct democracy is the future... and Vote DAC will make it so impossibly easy to implement, that even the government will have to agree.

Exactly.

The only reason hierarchies, such as Kim Jon Un, in North Korea, have any power, is because, to date, it has been impossible to know what the general population wants.

If you could air drop some kind of celular phone networking system to the entire population, and if you could use an efficient bottom up consensus building / voting system, to find out, concisely and quantitatively, what everyone wanted, suddenly Kim Jon Un would have zero power, and everyone could just ignore him, as long as he wanted something different than everyone else.

Quote from: Brent.Allsop on September 11, 2014, 06:30:36 pm

Quote from: GaltReport on September 11, 2014, 05:23:45 pm

Quote from: Brent.Allsop on September 11, 2014, 05:04:22 pm

...The majority of delegates will want to jump off the cliff, and only a few will be trying to do the right thing and change directions faster...

I'm not sure what you mean by this?

All grass roots, and beurocratic organizations have the same problem.  First off, you can't do anything alone, especially with world finances like this.  You need to have the largest herd possible.  So, the problem becomes, how do you get the largest possible herd (get smart people to stop splitting), AND get that herd to make the drastic and often difficult to make changes necessary for survival and the most rapid possible progress, without getting bogged down by size.

And leading minds, like everyone creating all the Alt coins, are like cats.  If we could all work together, efficiently and intelligently, everyone working together, rather than trying to kill everyone else, or hoping they die, we would have conquered the financial world by now.

There is always popular herding opinion, that is often not the best way to think, believe, and act.  A few minority experts always see this first, but how do you make it easy for them to help the entire herd to get educated, and change directions as fast as possible.

I think that in the near future, the Bitshares community will be faced with an existential issue.  If the herd does the right thing, instantly, they will survive, if they do the wrong thing (like Bitcoin is choosing to stay with POW) or if it takes too long to get all delegates to OK a change, we will die, or be significantly hurt, compared to what could be.  You can already see this today - inability to get the entire herd to see the best rules to make for BitUSD and all that.  Sure, THE bytemaster is the world's most brilliant person with all this, but we could do so much better, if everyone could communicate concisely and quantitatively.  We need a quantitatively measurable way to determine what the experts believe is best.  Like is possible at Canonizer.com, we could be progressing so much faster, without THE bytemaster bottleneck.  We all need to be able to perform at his level, if we really want to change direction fast as a huge herd, without having lots of splitters. diluting or forking things.

Of course,  your idea of "the right thing" may be very different from someone else's idea of "the right thing". 

I'm talking about something for which, in the future, everyone will agree it is the right thing, but only a few experts see it that way today.  I'm not talking about differences like strawberry and chocolate.  Canonizer.com can find and educate and get the entire herd on board very fast.

You say "we could do so much better, if everyone could communicate concisely and quantitatively" but...EVERYONE CAN'T.

You obviously haven't yet seen how this is very possible at canonizer.com

Bottom line, everyone won't agree on everything so I don't think that's a reasonable expectation.  Seems to me BM takes as much input as he can given the constraints and makes his best decision.

Again, I am not talking about everything.  Just important things where, a year from now, everyone will agree that it is the right thing, but today, only a few experts see it that way.  This kind of amplification of the wisdom of the crowd, concise and quantitative communication can cut this time down from years to days.  The entire heard can literally change on a dime, and you can know, concisely and quantitatively, exactly how many people will be on board with any such decision.

 

Regarding the dilution, splitters and forking, I don't think you can do too much about that unless someone gets a huge investment behind them and can be big enough to be the loudest voice and push the agenda. 


Kinda like how bitcoin is now. 

The fact that Bitcoin has become a bureaucracy that is so hard to change is exactly what is holding everything back.  Canonizer.com type system can do far better be completely removing the bureaucracy and making things easy.  It's far easier and faster for someone to get a change in, than to do all the extra work to start up a brand new currency.

We are the straying cats to bitcoin as the current "establishment" crypto currency.  After all, it's open source and smart people who think they have a better idea will try to make a go of it.  I do agree that it can make for a confusing marketplace and decentralized decision making is not always pretty .

Right now, in the US, we are still using primitive magnetic credit card readers for the majority of payments.  The only reason we are unable to improve, is because the world and industry doesn't yet know how to build consensus among large herds.  It needs to know how to communicate concisely and quantitatively.

In my opinion it is just stupid to think Alibaba has anything to do with the crash in Total Crypto Currency Market Cap.

In my opinion it is all about uncertainty,  everyone knows capital flees uncertainty.  The more 2.0 currencies there are, the more people are becoming aware of the weakness in Bitcoin.

My prediction is that in 2015, a new currency will overtake Bitcoin with the leading market cap, and that Bitcoin will crash very fast when this happens.  It will only take a few months for the entire industry to switch to the new leader, sending it to the moon, and continuing the "Canonized Law of the Crypto Currency"  http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/154/2

If more experts get involved in these kinds of amplification of the wisdom of the crowd surveys, they become exponentially more intelligent.  And you can see how well people are at predicting by checking their history of what camp they were in.  I know I'm bragging, but you can see from my history that I've been in the right on the money camp, way before anyone else, many times already.  It'd be very cool if anyone could beet me in their predictions, and such would help amplify everyones knowledge about the revolution that is about to happen, so everyone can be expecting, and profiting from it, instead of getting turned off, and loosing money from it.

So where is everyone planning on meeting up in Vegas?

Where is everyone going to be eating?

And how much does it cost to get a seat next the bytemaster during dinner?

And where do you get the matching shirts?