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 - bitmeat

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 75
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares Wikipedia article
« on: June 13, 2015, 10:29:36 pm »
In my understanding of the term it does not imply a requirement for arbitrary computations.

What good is a BTS "smart contract" if Bytemaster et al can step in at any point and change the rules as they see fit? I hope to see these formalized and documented in a way everyone can understand and trust the system will behave as they expect. I doubt there are more than 15 people on this forum who fully understand how the system works. There have been so many changes I lost track.

General Discussion / Re: Cryptonomex? WTF is this?
« on: June 13, 2015, 07:48:52 am »
What would be really great is if proposals like this can be vetted and gradually released by the stakeholders.

General Discussion / Re: Bitshares price discussion
« on: June 13, 2015, 07:03:17 am »
My analysis says it will go down to 0.000020 - 0.000025 first. But you never know.

As far as cup/handle goes - there have been plenty of failed cup/handles on the way down.

General Discussion / Re: Bitshares Wikipedia article
« on: June 13, 2015, 03:28:43 am »
Disclaimer: In case it's not clear - I believe in the project. I'm just sick of the hype, so I hope to see less hype and more deliveries.

General Discussion / Re: Bitshares Wikipedia article
« on: June 13, 2015, 03:27:38 am »
The real question is what features advertised on the web refresh are completed already in the graphene codebase? Even though the live net isn't released, if the code is completed and privately testable I don't think the assertions are such a stretch. They aren't in the wild yet, but do they already exist?

Even if they have the code 100% complete, I would take it with a grain of salt. The fact is it was developed in a vacuum. It is so easy to think you are God Almighty, when you live in a bubble. Furthermore if there is some fundamental security issue, the whole thing may need to be refactored anyways. Security through obscurity doesn't work.

The restrictive license is funny too. As if everyone and their mom, rushed to "steal" the current BTS code. There have been a lot more NXT clones than BTS clones. (In fact I can't think of a single clone of BTS that was listed on exchange anywhere, but I could be wrong)

General Discussion / Re: Bitshares Wikipedia article
« on: June 13, 2015, 03:09:17 am »
Lol "BitMeister". Did you see that the new architecture will have Privatized BitAssets that allow users to configure the parameters?

Will being the key word. The wikipedia article claims that this IS now. Fact is that it isn't. Just saying. If the article said, "BitShares has the ambition to..." then I would wholeheartedly agree with it.

Hey if they can deliver more power to them. But fact is, until there is a solid documentation, security threat tree, protocol definition, etc. No one is going to take this work seriously in the crypto community. Any big player would hire an expert to assess the tech before they commit to it.

I keep reiterating these points, because I think they are doable, and I hope they do it right this time. Enough of this day dreaming, let's have community and devs focus on deliverables, roadmaps and what's viable, doable, etc.

General Discussion / Re: Bitshares Wikipedia article
« on: June 13, 2015, 03:00:23 am »
Aren't BitAssets technically a financial smart contract?

Smart contract is an overloaded term, but to me it means that anyone can negotiate the terms and write their own rules in some script. e.g. Ethereum, Eris would satisfy that. So far BitAssets have not only been in full control of the devs, but aside from being hard coded and not customizable, the rules have been constantly changing. One minute you can short indefinitely, the next there is a 30 day window to cover, then there is interest rate, then there isn't, etc.

So until they have a proposal with clearly defined protocol, and an implementation that follows it and works flawlessly, I'm going to call this a wishful thinking.

Don't get me wrong BitAssets are better in my mind than NuBits, but could have been so much better.

The issue is BitMeister wants to invent everything and control everything. I would've liked to see BitAssets be freely defined by users in a way that people can compete as to which formula tracks an asset the best. All of these discussions could've been competing smart contracts, instead of the whole community waiting on one man to come up with the holy grail.

Just my 2 bits.

General Discussion / Re: Bitshares Wikipedia article
« on: June 13, 2015, 01:02:55 am »
Please proofread the submitted draft at the link below;  it can take up to 3 weeks to be reviewed so we have plenty of time to do some more edits.

BitShares is a decentralized, industrial-grade financial smart contract wannabe platform.

There - fixed it for you. :) It's great wishful thinking, but there is nothing smart contract about BTS yet.

General Discussion / Re: Bitshares price discussion
« on: June 12, 2015, 04:35:39 pm »
First of all, I know that a lot of you (me as well included) are here for the long run, so short term price is not a pressing concern in the sense that we're not waiting for a rise to dump our holding and make a quick profit. I'm hoarding and accumulating because I really believe in the long term success of the platform, economically and idealogically, even more since the announcement of Bitshares 2.0. At some point I wasn't totally convinced it could go mainstream, but now it's totally clear in my mind Bitshares will become real big at some point.

That being said, I'm still wondering why the price has dropped since the announcement? Other than "buy the rumor, sell the news" type of answer, is there a logical explanation to the current situation?

In 2014 at some point we had a marketcap of more than 60-70M$ with a real buggy client and not even half the features that will come up with 2.0.

Was it all only hype and speculation, or is it because Bitshares is seriously undervalued right now?

Part of it may be because the market hasn't realized yet the potential of Bitshares 2.0 and that all those close to the project are actually already fully invested?

I'd like to have the perspective of traders (and everybody else also) on the subject!

The announcement lacks a LOT of detail. So it's really a glorified wishlist. Not that it's a bad thing, but there are a lot of moving parts and a lot that could go wrong. It also lacks whitepapers and peer reviews / security analysis. That's just what I see as a risk, which perhaps is being priced in.

The other thing is that this project keeps changing things and is constantly course correcting, not that this is a bad thing, but it's hard to take it seriously. Would you trust holding $10M in BitUSD with it? I know I wouldn't just yet.

Not just on Yahoo...
This article (and the valuable links) "Cryptonomex Inc. Introduces SmartChain Technology With The Graphene Toolkit" appears on 165 different websites.
"BitShares Announce Integration Of New SmartChain Technology Developed By Cryptonomex Inc" appears on 125 websites.
"BitShares Claims 100,000 Transactions Per Second On New SmartChain" and this one appears on 220 websites.

That's the whole point of a press release. It appears everywhere :) The real win is when media writers pick it up and interview the company or write their own article.

Isn't that Cryptonomex itself publishing a press release (for like $200)?

I mean it's great and all, but let's not fool ourselves here. Source is Cryptonomex Inc. not Yahoo, or any independent news media.

Technical Support / Re: Dilution
« on: June 11, 2015, 12:00:24 am »
No, it's not introducing more dilution.  The eventual hardfork will not increase the current supply in circulation, nor will it increase the maximum future amount in circulation.  The max potential is still about 3.7 billion, which will most likely never be reached because shareholders would have to keep voting consistently for high paid workers beyond fee revenue.

Got it. Thanks for clarifying. :) And I'm guessing the vesting is limited by a similar rate to the current distribution. Ok. I like it.

Technical Support / Dilution
« on: June 10, 2015, 11:46:34 pm »
So is BTS 2.0 introducing more dilution? Current supply for BTS is 2.5B, I remember seeing something about 1.5B for development that vests.

Not only that but claiming that this is roughly $8M at current price level. I find this calculation a bit irresponsible as it assumes you can just print money without causing the price to go down. But that's OK, if stakeholders can vote on that distribution, i.e. they vote that the work done will increase the value more than the dilution for each project.

So, am I correct in assuming that how that 1.5B is distributed to projects is to be voted by the stakeholders? And can we get an official statement from the current dev team as to what their current stake and skin in the game is?

General Discussion / Re: ALL TIME LOW .
« on: May 22, 2015, 04:13:45 am »
Yeah, I'm angry it got so low.  And I'm loving this.

Enjoy it while it lasts8)

General Discussion / Re: ALL TIME LOW .
« on: May 22, 2015, 04:08:30 am »
I hope the price continues going up so fast that bears in this thread cannot get back in. :)

Anger much? Price goes up, price goes down. What's new?

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 75