Quote from: IOHKCharles on August 18, 2015, 07:33:39 pm

So what I'm hearing is BitShares: Life, Liberty and Property. Why not chat with Glenn Beck? This seems to overlap with the Blaze network's core message.

Generally though I would favor avoiding the philosophical discussion in public and force on marketnig Bitshares like you would market Linux, or a financial tool.

 

Quote from: Ben Mason on August 18, 2015, 02:44:24 am

The purpose of Bitshares is to secure life, liberty and property for all. How? By using technology to decentralise the power of money, to codify a digital constitution with consensus forming the backbone of its governance. Why? To ensure the network is resistant to corruption over time, enabling a participant to resist theft or censorship.

I think that's the philosophical part. Most didn't give a direct and concise answer. What services does BitShares provide? What is BitShares about? If we can't explain that how can we hope to attract new people'? Ben, I appreciate your posts and although I get you, an investor won't care at all about most of what you just said.

NuShares and Nubits aims to provide stable cryptocurrency pegged to the US Dollar.

BitShares aims to The best I can come up with at the moment is BitShares is a platform which allows for development of financial tools via smartcontracts. Dunno if that's the most correct option. However, even if it is, "financial tools" is a term too relative. I think I can't explain too well but from what I've seen neither did most people in this thread. So the question here is what will those smartcontracts be based on?

Before it was easier. I could say BitShares is a decentralized exchange but now seems to be way more than that and people may have a difficult time trying to understand the concept.

Quote from: James212 on August 16, 2015, 06:46:11 pm

but drop the "2.0"  all together in favor of new wording.   

I think - or at least, I'm hoping - that will immediately be dropped as soon as it's released.

That would be the very worst idea.  We clearly need something to differentiate the new,  greatly evolved, and much superior Bitshares from the "Bitshares" of the past.   There clearly should be a distinction in the name between phase #1 Bitshares and phase #2 Bitshares (even if it's just adding the "2.0")

Moreover, people tired of "bit" something represent 0.0001% of the world population. The very ones who were in the crypto world since the beginning. Theses are not our public target, these guys just wants a good tech, even if the name is bitcryptoblockX and they don't like it.

I don't quite agree with your statement, but I do see that the "against name change" folks have some good points, mainly that we have had goodwill built up over the past as well has issues what we'd like to put behind us, just as the multiple 90% pivots that have been made in the positioning of the product.  That said, the solution may be to keep "Bitshares" as a minor element in the brand, but drop the "2.0"  all together in favor of new wording.   Just using the word "Graphene" for this example, in my mind it would look something like this:

bitshares
        GRAPHENE

Just my thoughts....

I agree the name should be changed. Graphene sounds 1000x better than bitshares does. I asked this same question when Graphene was first announced and the answer is no, it can't be rebranded. Reading between the lines I'm pretty sure it has to do with some legal issue. If they license out Graphene to 3rd parties they can't have a public chain named the same thing. Something along those lines.

  ,   I was just contemplating this issue last week, but did not get the chance to write about it. 

I absolutely agree.   We should take this rare opportunity that we have  in this upcoming "big"relaunch to rebrand and change  the product name from Bitshares (Graphene would be a good candidate, but the decision should be very carefully weighed.)  The Bitshares name has become passe and carries with it historical baggage.  The name "BItshares 2.0"  does not provide enough distance and break with the past.  Additionally, in the mass market "2.0" is tech/geek-speak, that I think we want to avoid.  It would be better for us to use universal terms ( or a unique catchy name... like Graphene(?))  The Markeing experts of this community should get together to seriously consider this issue. 

Quote from: EstefanTT on July 18, 2015, 11:58:14 am

The "market/trader thing" is the keystone of this edifice. If we want just a functional wallet to send and receive coins, we are not very different from other altcoin. The trading platform is very important.

That being said, for regular non crypto persons, we'll need something very basic at some point. Something easy to use without having to dig inside the trading and crypto world.

I was talking about mass adoption and there it isn't just about full-nodes and lightwallets, but there you need a moronic-wallet (with extra idiot-proofing and yes that includes me as a target audience). Of course for marketing purposes you name it something fancy like iPay or uGain or something along those lines.

 

IMHO, darbon should show his product first. We had bad experiences that some delegates only promised nice things but didn't make it. If BTS or BitUSD is on Holytransaction.com I will strongly support its delegate.

      I agree with the above.  Baring that, I formal plan with timelines should be presented, and probably a mumble hangout for questions on the project and scheduled followup dates.   

Quote from: bytemaster on March 25, 2015, 12:57:28 pm

Quote from: Tuck Fheman on March 24, 2015, 09:55:18 pm

Quote from: TurkeyLeg on March 24, 2015, 09:38:50 pm

Thank you Dan. Please continue your work and know that there is a large community of supporters who share you vision. We also share your desire to see BTS become a wild success!

There will always be a vocal minority, and they have their own role to play. Onward and Upward!

All I know is, I'm even more fired up about BitShares after hearing why Charles Hoskinson left. I missed all of that in the early days.

Could you summarize his reason again?  I doubt he would EVER reveal the true reason he left.

CH said he was not interested in:

DACS
Volunteerism
Proving Austrian Economics

CH said he was more concerned with:

I3 Investors
Fiduciary Obligation
Growth
ROI

Quotes:

"The way Dan runs the company is that it is a referendum on his political philosophy."

"We're not here to prove Mises right or wrong, we are here to grow a company. So we kind of butt heads a lot and one of us had to go."

"By the way, Stan and Dan Larimer are some of the nicest people I have ever met in my life."



He went on to praise DPOS, bitUSD, DEX and paid delegates quite a bit.

If these points are in fact correct, I agree with CH on this. HIs focus is the more effective focus for the management of the organization in my opinion.    I don't know what happened personally, but professionally I was concerned for BSTX when he left.   He seemed to add a lot of solid business thinking,  structure and strategy to the organization which we are currently sorely lacking.    It seems like my concerns with his departure were quite well founded.