I like the addition of a "propose bounty  here" thread. 

Remember to PM me if you are interested in the Curecoin project!

Thanks for what you are doing here BitShire.  Your posts everywhere are productive to the community as a whole. 

With that said, will CureCoin be honoring ProtoShares/AngelShares holders like MMC did?  Even if it ends up being a Coin used primarily to donate to cure diseases, it would be awesome to have some for donating...

This would also open up joint advertising opportunities for CureCoin and the ProtoShare Brands as the entire community could donate a large portion of our stash to a single, big cause (Like the 3D Printing of Organs on a Large Scale, like here:  http://www.ted.com/talks/anthony_atala_printing_a_human_kidney.html). 

A huge boost in price would ensue for both DACs...

This is a relatively simple way to instill value into something--make it something that represents a concept important to society...and let there be perfect transparency.  We are fighting many battles here, and can coordinate communities to create a system of free thought where citizens' individual power is amplified by transparency where it needs to be.  CureCoin could replace the Red Cross, and BitShares could value it.  Imagine the wonderful implications...and Moore's Law isn't showing signs of slowing!

Writing an article about that would be amazing.

@CL  I 100% agree.  For DACs to want to accept our social consensus model we as a community need to provide value similar to how BitCoin's community does.  A vibrant and helpful community will, in turn, attract vibrant and helpful Devs...which will, in turn, create more value within the community. 

Establishing ProtoShares/AngelShares as the preferred investment vehicle among our increasingly flourishing community will set the stage for a substantive rise in value over time.  It will also serve to harden the resolve of stake-holders when inevitable attacks come...

Oh, Bytemaster, if only thousands of people could hear your voice saying that...

Quote from: AdamBLevine on January 21, 2014, 02:47:08 pm

We are using DAC in different ways.  I am using DAC as Distributed Autonomous Consensus in the sense of that paper I wrote, which is a way to essentially sequester money that can only make the outcome or reality the consensus is trying to achieve gets dragged into reality to be rewarded.

Also unlike a vending machine, prices fluctuate based on market valuations.

A vending machine is a  Centralized  Autonomous Company and many of the ideas presented by Mike Hearn that rely on automation, artificial intelligence, and the like are really just more advanced vending machines.   

A DAC coordinates HUMAN effort to achieve results beyond what even the most sophisticated vending machine (Autonomous Taxies, Fully Automated Pizza Delivery, etc) can do.   

I am not implying that your 3D printer DAC is or isn't a mere vending machine.  I am just suggesting that many people need to understand this difference before they can design a DAC or propose solutions.

Very good point and one that we should all keep in the back of our minds.  But these services could, theoretically, be attached to a DAC that serves as the underlying market mechanism, design database, and transaction ledger correct? 

If this were the case, it would serve a similar utility to google images, app store or youtube with regard to its deriving value from user-created content and sharing..

I love the concept of DAC Platform, but it definitely ruffles my feathers when people come out saying they were the pioneers.  Just tastes a bit too much of Bill Gates' stolen success.  The biggest issue, to me, is that if we adopt a platform created by people willing to lie to get mass adoption, what else will they be willing to do down the road? 

They are getting buzz because people are going out on twitter and posting about them all over the place.  Viral Marketing is how they are doing it.  Creating a bit of mystique around their brand before it launches was one part of it, but having meetups and interviews with lead devs in the industry not only brings up the level of "product" awareness to potential users, but also sets the stage to recruit more talent to their community. 

BitCoin had the first-movers advantage and that is PRECISELY the image Ethereum is moving to attain (though a bit shady imo).  If this keeps up and Invictus doesn't find some way to fight back against this, I honestly do not see how they win.  I would like to think it would be the product that would win it for them long-term, but if Invictus relies on the value of their #PTS and #BTC donations, Ethereum, if not handled properly could cripple project development long before it starts on some projects. 

Not trying to be negative as I believe there is more than enough room at the table for everyone, but this is potentially a very concerning development. 

If you would like to see what I mean, just take a second and go to twitter--then compare the results when you type in ProtoShares, Invictus Innovations, BitShares...compared to "Ethereum".  There is absolutely no time to mess around with getting Invictus out there...name recognition is #1 priority and the Invictus Brand will certainly suffer if they lose this their status as the pioneer in the public's mind.

This is a cheap means of establishing the Invictus Innovation's Brand.  I am only 18min in but suffice it to say, Vitalik Buterin is already trying to say this is the first of its kind...of course, noone in the crypto community would know any different at this juncture since there are no Invictus faces and voices on the net.  Outreach creates Buzz, Hangouts can be nearly free and can be leveraged for cheap advertisement and to establish a foundation to stand as a bulwark against other teams try to say they were first to this arena. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtnojp454DA

I would gladly host weekly hangout-styled interviews with the Invictus Team for updates on progress, changes, opinions.