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.
Competition is decentralization and everything else is centralized. Based upon this insight I believe that we should redefine our goals for DACs:
1) Public Ledger that is easily migrated between competing Cartels
2) Each cartel should have many servers, owned by different people, in as many jurisdictions as possible
3) Many Parallel Alt-DACs powered by different Cartels
As a whole the ecosystem would be entirely decentralized and impossible to shutdown. It would also be entirely transparent.
With this understanding we have an entirely different approach to security with a focus on making competition as fierce as possible. This means the following goals:
1) API Standardization
2) Merchant solutions should be designed to accept a new DAC's BitUSD with a click of a button so merchants can simply support "EVERYONE" and thus anyone can rapidly gain the network effect.
3) DACs should be as easy to build and deploy as possible
4) Cross-DAC trading needs to be made easy.
With these things in place, competition will force fairness and openness.
A key ingredient in a DAC is the dividend. Bitcoin doesn't have dividends it has tariffs. In this way a DAC is more company like. It should be distributed so that anyone can use its services and so it doesn't have a single point of failure.
Dividends may not be necessary. There are many brick-and-mortar corporations that don't pay dividends to shareholders but simply rely on an increase in share value to reward investors. Blockchains will probably be necessary to keep track of transactions. As for miners, POS seems to be replacing POW, but ideally a DAC would have some kind of mining that uses computing power to help the DAC in more ways than securing the network. If the DAC offers some kind of service, mining should be based on miners performing that service
With bitcoin, the transaction fee is given to the miners. I think of this as a tariff. I think this may actually be bitcoin's true Achilles' heel. The bottom of the bitcoin market is made up of true believers and people who think demand will go up. But mostly, people are incentivised to trade BTC like you would trade any commodity on an exchange. I had early warning on the news coming out of china, so I sold my BTC and bought back in at 450. This is risky. I'd rather just sit on my coins and enjoy demand going up. But what would be better is if I also received a dividend. If bitcoin had dividends, it could have a stabilising effect on the market. Risk averse people could just sit on their shares and collect dividends. To be a DAC, is to have a dividend. It gives a DAC life. The service creates value. Bitcoin is not a DAC. Its service is useful but not value producing. (I would argue that its efficiency is creating value for society, but that has to do with the technology.)
I'd love some feedback on this idea. Everyone feel free to shoot me down.
Dividends are one service that a DAC can provide, but DACs are also capable of offering so many other services as well. I'm not saying that dividends are bad, just that most good companies are able to re-invest in themselves, making their services better. A good DAC should do this too, perhaps through bounties for developers.
Ok, this is good. So a DAC can generate profits and direct those profits into investments rather than to investors. This was what I was looking for. There are some interesting things you might be able to do with that.
So, is Bitcoin a DAC? Might we say Bitcoin is a DAC that makes bad investments? And what about my stabilization argument? Does that hold water?
QuoteYou'll need the private keys for your ProtoShares balance to claim your MemoryCoin distribution. If your balance is held at an exchange, the exchange will hold the private keys and be able to make the claim. However it is uncertain how different exchanges will handle this. To be certain of receiving your full distribution, I recommend holding your full balance off-exchange, and in a single address for simplicy.
Does this mean I still get in on the MemoryCoin 2.0? If so, what do I ask/do at my exchange?
A key ingredient in a DAC is the dividend. Bitcoin doesn't have dividends it has tariffs. In this way a DAC is more company like. It should be distributed so that anyone can use its services and so it doesn't have a single point of failure.
Dividends may not be necessary. There are many brick-and-mortar corporations that don't pay dividends to shareholders but simply rely on an increase in share value to reward investors. Blockchains will probably be necessary to keep track of transactions. As for miners, POS seems to be replacing POW, but ideally a DAC would have some kind of mining that uses computing power to help the DAC in more ways than securing the network. If the DAC offers some kind of service, mining should be based on miners performing that service
With bitcoin, the transaction fee is given to the miners. I think of this as a tariff. I think this may actually be bitcoin's true Achilles' heel. The bottom of the bitcoin market is made up of true believers and people who think demand will go up. But mostly, people are incentivised to trade BTC like you would trade any commodity on an exchange. I had early warning on the news coming out of china, so I sold my BTC and bought back in at 450. This is risky. I'd rather just sit on my coins and enjoy demand going up. But what would be better is if I also received a dividend. If bitcoin had dividends, it could have a stabilising effect on the market. Risk averse people could just sit on their shares and collect dividends. To be a DAC, is to have a dividend. It gives a DAC life. The service creates value. Bitcoin is not a DAC. Its service is useful but not value producing. (I would argue that its efficiency is creating value for society, but that has to do with the technology.)
I'd love some feedback on this idea. Everyone feel free to shoot me down.
A key ingredient in a DAC is the dividend. Bitcoin doesn't have dividends it has tariffs. In this way a DAC is more company like. It should be distributed so that anyone can use its services and so it doesn't have a single point of failure.
i'm going to test some of them this weekend, had to reindex my bllockchain
Major differences are:
1) Human readable IDs
2) Has a wallet attached
3) Aims to be for more than just text-based communication
4) Aims to be friendlier to "non-tech" people
I don't see how this would be any different for the miners from using the hash-cow mining pool to automatically switch between the most profitable coins. Here, the miners would be guided by people buying computing power from the DAC, and making less than if they just mined the coins directly. If you could put them to work on various projects with the BOINC protocol, then you might be onto something.
Amen on the BOINC protocol, too, btw. I am just trying to think of new ways Invictus could use decentralized means to gain more cash-flow with minimal effort.
The BOINC protocol would allow cloudshares (I really like that name) to perform more services, but would it be possible for people to trick the miners into running some sort of a virus? I doubt it would be economical, since they would have to out-bid everyone else on the network. Also, perhaps you could have the DAC charge customers based on computing time, since the BOINC protocol already has a computing time based credit-claiming system built in.
Potential use for this DAC: rendering 3D animations in the cloud.
Can BOINC be used as a layer on top of any form of coin? Not sure I understand what you mean. I am listening
Not enough computers in the world
