Quote from: delulo on September 11, 2015, 03:47:47 pm

Quote from: DataSecurityNode on September 11, 2015, 01:42:53 pm

I have said this several times over but I am guessing people are set in their own perceptions and opinions of what is actually happening in the market so I will say it again for clarify.

It took me quite a long time to come up with this plan, primarily because I identified all the same old things that have been mentioned by gamey regarding coins, miners etc.

This is why the only solution is innovation

I wish I could go into this in my details right now but I am piled on with work atm.

Bottom line.. initially our first phases does operate with the expectation to attract existing miners.

Following this though, we begin to reach beyond the mining community and then get into expanding into new markets.

The only way to do that is to make mining more accessible. Some operations in the past have done this successfully. They attracted miners far beyond the current scope, but operated on a faulty business model and bad management that resulted in their closure.

The launch of ethereum has gotten people pulling out their old GPUs again..

Also it was mentioned we don't support sha256.. that's right.. we don't at present.. part of the updates being done right now that these delegates are paying for will include supporting sha256 among other algos that are actually worth working with contrary to the believe. Not all profitably in mining takes place on coinmarketcap. Actually some of the best opportunities often are not there.

Anyways.. I could go on but the point is.. there is a much bigger market we are expanding into.. and with that I found the possibility to move forward.. otherwise.. I would have folded probably after the 1st month and just shut down the pool.

I have asked this question before and I will ask it again... by not wanting to support all these delegates so we can get the dev done and create a sustainable pool that grows bitshares.. the alternative is just to stop it dead.. shut it down.. and kill all the delegates instantly. Ask yourselves.. will that be of more benefit to bitshares than what this is offering? I think the numbers shout a resounding no.

As the delegate dropping out.. that has been happening for days now. It happens everytime Chinese markets open.. what I think it says is that there are Chinese who are opening their wallets now that were not before and are not updating their vote. The trend has been pretty consistent like that.

What are these markets you mentioned?

You may also be inspired by this:

Quote from: delulo on September 11, 2015, 08:37:14 am

I still think that it would be reasonable to point out whether profits (if any are made) will go to you or to BTS holders. I think that IN GENERAL delegate proposals are WAY TO VAUGUE. A delegate proposal imo should look like this:
-  I need x amount to deliver (of that x, y is paid to me, w is paid to server costs, z is paid to hired developers).
-  All of the profits made from the service I want to deliver is paid back to BTS holders OR r % is going to me and t % to BTS holders OR I see the delegate pay as a kickstarter for a net positive service for BTS holders and all profits will go to me.
-  In case I can not acquire the necessary x amount to deliver the service I propose I will give everything back to BTS holders (burn it) OR I will finance the rest out of my own pocket and therefore adjust the distribution of the profits.
Naturally these numbers can only be estimates.

I can't say whether you ignored the question about where profits go but you def. haven't answered it despite all the long answers you gave.

This is the 3rd time I am now referencing you to my answer here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18253.msg233626.html#msg233626

It's a paragraph.. wouldn't call that long.

You said this

Without getting into specific breakdowns, the answer implies that not 100% goes to the referring miner. It is obviously in our interest to want to have the refer be attractive, but in order to generate a margin in order to maintain payouts and bonuses that are competitive we need this as another source. We still don't know what the metrics will be like after 2.0 launch. So until then, I can't even give an accurate breakdown of what % of refer bonus makes it viable to the pool. It is just one source of potential income as another way to squeeze profits out of the pool for bonuses without a network fee.

I simply don't understand what you are saying there! A plain straightforward answer, is that that difficult?

I have said this several times over but I am guessing people are set in their own perceptions and opinions of what is actually happening in the market so I will say it again for clarify.

It took me quite a long time to come up with this plan, primarily because I identified all the same old things that have been mentioned by gamey regarding coins, miners etc.

This is why the only solution is innovation

I wish I could go into this in my details right now but I am piled on with work atm.

Bottom line.. initially our first phases does operate with the expectation to attract existing miners.

Following this though, we begin to reach beyond the mining community and then get into expanding into new markets.

The only way to do that is to make mining more accessible. Some operations in the past have done this successfully. They attracted miners far beyond the current scope, but operated on a faulty business model and bad management that resulted in their closure.

The launch of ethereum has gotten people pulling out their old GPUs again..

Also it was mentioned we don't support sha256.. that's right.. we don't at present.. part of the updates being done right now that these delegates are paying for will include supporting sha256 among other algos that are actually worth working with contrary to the believe. Not all profitably in mining takes place on coinmarketcap. Actually some of the best opportunities often are not there.

Anyways.. I could go on but the point is.. there is a much bigger market we are expanding into.. and with that I found the possibility to move forward.. otherwise.. I would have folded probably after the 1st month and just shut down the pool.

I have asked this question before and I will ask it again... by not wanting to support all these delegates so we can get the dev done and create a sustainable pool that grows bitshares.. the alternative is just to stop it dead.. shut it down.. and kill all the delegates instantly. Ask yourselves.. will that be of more benefit to bitshares than what this is offering? I think the numbers shout a resounding no.

As the delegate dropping out.. that has been happening for days now. It happens everytime Chinese markets open.. what I think it says is that there are Chinese who are opening their wallets now that were not before and are not updating their vote. The trend has been pretty consistent like that.

What are these markets you mentioned?

You may also be inspired by this:

I still think that it would be reasonable to point out whether profits (if any are made) will go to you or to BTS holders. I think that IN GENERAL delegate proposals are WAY TO VAUGUE. A delegate proposal imo should look like this:
-  I need x amount to deliver (of that x, y is paid to me, w is paid to server costs, z is paid to hired developers).
-  All of the profits made from the service I want to deliver is paid back to BTS holders OR r % is going to me and t % to BTS holders OR I see the delegate pay as a kickstarter for a net positive service for BTS holders and all profits will go to me.
-  In case I can not acquire the necessary x amount to deliver the service I propose I will give everything back to BTS holders (burn it) OR I will finance the rest out of my own pocket and therefore adjust the distribution of the profits.
Naturally these numbers can only be estimates.

I can't say whether you ignored the question about where profits go but you def. haven't answered it despite all the long answers you gave.

As for Delulo.. he sent me a personal IM apologizing and letting me know that he had not seen my post prior to him making that post a few hours afterwards and told me that was not his intentions. I accepted his apology. Had he seen it he would have paused before jumping the gun on conclusions without information. Nonetheless we explored all the benefits extensively.

That sounds like I took back my content related criticism. I said " sorry if you felt like I intentionally did this before your update".

Here is the message I sent to Jonathan (Datasecuritynode) (contains what I already said elsewhere on this forum in condensed form):

non of all that was ever personal in any way. Hope it came across like that.
I just want all projects to be explicit and upfront with all the financial issues.
Is it a private for profit business that is financed by public funds etc? Such questions will come up anyway at some point if the business is successfull and if these questions were not answered right at the beginning in a prominent way, visible to all than that creates trouble for DPOS as an idea, for you as your reputation might suffer and for BTS holders because they might have assumed something else etc. I am just afraid that if we don't establish a public scrutiny / due diligence culture DPOS in general works a lot less well.
I am sorry if you felt like I intentionally did this before your update. I had no about about your update or your sleep schedule

I still think that it would be reasonable to point out whether profits (if any are made) will go to you or to BTS holders. I think that IN GENERAL delegate proposals are WAY TO VAUGUE. A delegate proposal imo should look like this:
-  I need x amount to deliver (of that x, y is paid to me, w is paid to server costs, z is paid to hired developers).
-  All of the profits made from the service I want to deliver is paid back to BTS holders OR r % is going to me and t % to BTS holders OR I see the delegate pay as a kickstarter for a net positive service for BTS holders and all profits will go to me.
-  In case I can not acquire the necessary x amount to deliver the service I propose I will give everything back to BTS holders (burn it) OR I will finance the rest out of my own pocket and therefore adjust the distribution of the profits.
Naturally these numbers can only be estimates.

I haven't seen this degree of EXPLICITNESS from anyone except PC (for a few others it is not that relevant, full time devs etc.). I pointed this out with your proposal because 7 delegates makes the above more relevant. But I would point it out with anyone else.

Quote from: delulo on September 10, 2015, 03:49:33 pm

Quote from: Stan on September 10, 2015, 03:13:03 pm

Quote from: delulo on September 10, 2015, 02:43:44 pm

Will Bitsahres 2.0 be live on the 13.Oktober or will the snapshot be taken then? If the snapshot is taken then will it be +14 days for 2.0 to be live?

No, because its an upgrade to a live chain, not a new chain, the chain state must be seamless from last old block to first new block.   There may be a few hours switchover pause, but we can't (and don't need to) let it remain down for very long.

Ok. So 2.0 will live live at Okt. 13th?

Totally, completely, profoundly, miraculously live live.

Now that was a definite answer

Will Bitsahres 2.0 be live on the 13.Oktober or will the snapshot be taken then? If the snapshot is taken then will it be +14 days for 2.0 to be live?

Hey all ... newbie here.

We need help on some ideas that we are working on at The Ingenesist Project.  I've been on the Beyond Bitcoin Hangout for the last several months learning about this community.  I believe that here is great potential here.  Is this the right place to ask for interaction with this members of this group?  Let me know and hopefully we can start a thread.  Thank you very much.

I posted these two topics on Curiosume:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18212.0.html

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18214.0.html

mumble: othername
forum: delulo
bts: delulo