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 - Ben Mason

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... 72
151
General Discussion / Re: Should we Abandon Proof of Stake Marketing?
« on: February 05, 2016, 09:59:53 am »
DPOS is an innovation to be proud of.....it is fundamental to the existence of the BitShares network and Graphene technology.  I welcome as much integration and co-operation with other blockchain projects as possible, but it's everyone else that matters more in terms of adoption.

I completely support Monsterer's suggestion for a white paper.

I don't think we should re-brand BitShares without a serious re-examination and optimization of all the marketing material/information (including the website) has been completed.  We need a comprehensive plan for targeting our chosen market/s and to adjust the material towards that goal.  Only then will we really know if there is a problem with the name of the network/community/platform.

152
Technical Support / Re: Vesting Balances in Bitshares2 light client
« on: February 04, 2016, 05:59:03 pm »
Got it, thankyou Testz

153
Technical Support / Vesting Balances in Bitshares2 light client
« on: February 04, 2016, 05:11:02 pm »
Is there a way to view them within the wallet? Thanks

154
General Discussion / Re: Blockchain & Decentralised Journalism
« on: February 03, 2016, 12:57:50 pm »
Cool, thanks EstefanTT. I will definately take a look!

155
General Discussion / Blockchain & Decentralised Journalism
« on: February 03, 2016, 08:30:58 am »
Could the BitShares or muse blockchain be used in conjunction with a mobile app to aid and incentivise decentralised journalism? Supporting any person in the world to make the most of their proximity to a story/piece of evidence and connecting that to a new social news network could be a powerful tool for truth and anti-propaganda.

Great exposure for our tech and a superb use case with incentivised growth for either network.

156
Openledger / Re: Successful OBITS crowd sale on OBITS site has ended
« on: February 02, 2016, 12:24:32 pm »
Gotcha, thank you

157
Openledger / Re: Successful OBITS crowd sale on OBITS site has ended
« on: February 02, 2016, 12:14:30 pm »
Ronny, has the buyback begun?  There's no movement on the ccedk OBITS/BTS market?

158
Muse/SoundDAC / Re: Unanswered question thread
« on: February 02, 2016, 11:27:45 am »
Quote from: TravelsAsia on February 01, 2016, 11:58:53 pm
@cob

Thank you for addressing investors questions. Although we have some major disagreements on some of the things you said about communicating the issues, I'm satisfied with the direction and look forward to seeing something to test down the road.
Yes thank you for the update Cob.  You deserve a great deal of credit for your hard work and passion for this project.....you've clearly given plenty of yourself to it.  I am excited that so much has been accomplished but I would like to list some key points for the next stage;

Please increase community involvement greatly in the lead up to launch.  I mean regular concise updates and wherever possible, ask for help....we need to build momentum and buzz.
Make sure that when the product is launched, it is a significant step forward and really worthy of the incredible vision for the project.
Try to demonstrate lessons learned about our approach to marketing, PR and engagement within and outside the existing community.
Remember ease of use is key with all the new ideas and functionality that will be available to music fans.

Good luck with the next stage.  I really think this project retains it's massive potential and believe the rewards for your hard work, everyone's hard work are around the corner.
 


159
General Discussion / Re: proposal to restrict voting numbers for committee members
« on: February 01, 2016, 10:58:25 am »
I think the only way to address the issue bitcrab has raised that doesn't change the expectations of current network participants, negatively effecting the network at a time when consolidation and growth are the most important factors is...

We increase the expectation of transparency and become more mindful of suitability characteristics of those wishing to hold a committee position. Whenever a parameter change is put forward, we must increase the amount of empirical reasoning behind it's effects in order to bring the maximum number of participants to a position of objective support.  That goes especially for a change that brings short term pain for longer term gain.

If we succeed in the above, then assuming a large stake holder wishes to make a change that works against the network or majority and has voted for committee members believing they will put his interests first, there will be checks and balances that minimize the likelihood such a strategy will be successful.  This is similar to the peer review of blockchain code.  Intentional, exploitable flaws are revealed.

160
Muse/SoundDAC / Re: Unanswered question thread
« on: February 01, 2016, 09:54:19 am »
Marky0001, no-one is cuddling up to Cob.  TravelsAsia's and others approach happens to be the most reasonable and constructive way to handle this situation.

I do not believe Cob is in any way a scammer and will certainly be reserving judgement until more facts are available.

I would urge Cob to hold nothing back at this stage.....the community and investors need to understand the difficulties the project has experienced in full and how the money has been spent with no working product available.  This is an ambitious project but It may be that we are not so far away from a live product as we think.

161
General Discussion / Re: poll for the "1 BTS for transfer" proposal
« on: January 31, 2016, 11:12:39 am »
Quote from: xeroc on January 31, 2016, 10:48:24 am
Quote from: jakub on January 31, 2016, 10:43:49 am
Quote from: yvv on January 31, 2016, 02:02:43 am
Quote from: jakub on January 31, 2016, 01:06:30 am
So to answer your question: no, there is no way to create a new account and skip the referral fee.
The referral program would not make sense, if there was a way to avoid paying the referral fee.

So, I need to pay to ccedk (or fav or whoever) at least $80 just because I was signed up by them? Thanks a lot, I am going to skip this. And good luck with such a "smart" marketing.

I get your point @yvv .
I agree with you that, there should be an alternative option: a non-profit faucet run by the official BitShares website.
This way you could get LTM without paying anything to a third-party, you'd just pay 4k BTS straight to the network.
(I assume 4k is the current network fee for upgrading to LTM)

I think creating such a non-profit faucet is worth a worker proposal. I would support that.
why should a worker be paid to run a non-profit faucet? It would be better to have the faucet itself pay 10% for maintenance and burn the other 90%. It is technically also possible to identify those referers that upgraded to LTM and pay them back automatically (invovles trust) after 90 days of vesting. Since this needs coding and resouces, this should at least make some little money for however sets it up.
Wouldn't it?

I can certainly set something like this op on bitshares.eu if you want it

This really does sound like a great solution.  I support it too!

162
General Discussion / Re: poll for the "1 BTS for transfer" proposal
« on: January 31, 2016, 11:11:48 am »
Quote from: lovejoy on January 31, 2016, 07:19:28 am
I would very much like to see fewer rash and hateful words here.
I'm extremely disappointed with certain members of this community based on the tone of their posts in this thread.
While others are standing out for their clear and genuine efforts at reaching some understanding.

I understand a certain degree of skepticism and mistrust here, but we mustn't let it get the best of us.  We can solve this issue, like so many before it.

I for one stand to benefit greatly from the referral program, yet I wish for a solution to the great fee debate which gives the Chinese members of our community the tools they need to succeed, and therefore the tools we need for all of us to succeed.  Others have already pointed out the obvious, and I will reiterate, we are a global blockchain, a global community.  We need to look after the interests of as many members of our community as we can manage.  We will be as strong as our diversity, and we haven't yet begun to exhaust options for devising a plan which can accommodate the many communities of which we are comprised.  Let's not let haste, or greed, for our little piece of the pie, distract us from the greater purpose here.

I'm generally in the don't change things until we've had a chance to see what's really happening as a result of current parameters camp, but we are faced with a situation in which a significant portion of our community is expressing a strong desire for another way of doing business, and we would do well to listen.  Try to understand where bitcrab is coming from, and respond accordingly... don't just react.  @merivercap and @abit, among others,  are really keeping it real on this front.  Respect.

We must have real dialogue between all interested parties, not just throwing stones. There must be a way to resolve this issue to the benefit of everyone involved.  May reason and goodwill prevail.

C'mon, we're only on page 19 of this thread.. I think we'll have it around page 34.  Someone start a prediction market for the fee debate already.  ;)

The whole world is counting on us... no pressure.  8)
@bytemaster alluded to some thoughts on the matter in the last mumble... I'm curious when he will weigh in... page 20?

Every word....fantastic.

163
General Discussion / Re: Please vote out Bitcrab if you care about bitshares.
« on: January 31, 2016, 11:01:47 am »
Quote from: xeroc on January 31, 2016, 10:32:28 am
I don't see how any of this will result in a fork. We are still in the phase of discussion and solution finding.
It helps no one to separated the network into two even more illliquid networks and splitting user bases. It wouldn't even make sense for bitcrab.

At least I would like to see an ACTUAL PROPOSAL being voted on, then shareholders can voice their opinion by casting an indirect vote.
Furthermore, not every possibility has been discussed.

One way to resolve this in the short term (until we have figured out BSIP#10) is to require LTM for some more operations, currently only witness, committe_create and account create requite LTM. How about we require LTM for asset creation aswell?

IMHO, this discussion is neither going towards civil war nor will it end bitshares' referral program. It's just a matter of moving focus for revenue

Totally.  I would be very surprised if the majority of the community would be so foolish as to react against their own best interests over a parameter setting that is still in discussion.  Granted, the issue has been somewhat clouded by committee member positions (we should get used to that by the way) but the dividing lines are certainly not china vs the rest. Committee members don't have followers, we are not at war.....ridiclous.  The vast majority of people simply want to build businesses, connect with each other, own their wealth in a stable corruption resistant environment.

164
General Discussion / Re: Please vote out Bitcrab if you care about bitshares.
« on: January 31, 2016, 10:17:06 am »
What a great shame.  This community needs to make sure that committee positions are held by people with untarnished reputations that can uphold the ideals which built this network and respect the core purpose of Blockchain technology implemented for a public ledger.  Perhaps no person can be beyond reproach indefinately and we do all make mistakes, but there must be powerful incentives/accountability to make sure those holding these honoured positions of trust make the attempt and understand their tenure will be over forever if they fail.

The fees issue is on the way to being resoved through compromise and discussion.  The issue of integrity within the commitee is far more urgent.  Any genuine conflict of interest must be exposed as must untrustworthy or exploitative behaviour.......the reaction to which should be immediate and final.  Unless we think that there are too few competent people with integrity that are interested in BitShares out there.

165
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Committee member: abit
« on: January 30, 2016, 11:59:02 pm »
Congratulations abit!

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... 72

Page created in 0.234 seconds with 23 queries.