Website doesn't work without javascript :/ also errors on page [missing "en.labels.powered_by" translation] [missing "en.labels.countdown_timer.days" translation]. Cheap graphics. First 30 secs of the video tells me nothing.. and I didn't look past that. By default though it's an interesting idea. Perhaps will look again later at v0.0.2

Thanks @joele

This works for the server:

cd ~/x/bitcoins/Play/
mkdir ./0.0.4
cd ./0.0.4
git clone https://github.com/dacsunlimited/dac_play.git
cd dac_play

rm -r libraries/leveldb
cd libraries
git clone https://github.com/bitcoin/leveldb.git
cd ../

git submodule update --init --recursive
cmake .
export LC_ALL="en_US.UTF-8"
make

Running

cd ./programs/client
./play_client --server

# Error => fix the now existing config for rpc user & password
nano ~/.DACPLAY/config.json

#try again
cd ~/x/bitcoins/Play/0.0.4/dac_play/programs/client
./play_client --server

Note: I got these below that look like errors but still it works!

Submodule path 'libraries/fc': checked out 'fd4fc4f0cb21fc7b631ee2be827f6aea85e040d6'
fatal: reference is not a tree: 028f9409247be6d3d09a157e8eb347a173afc599

Unable to checkout '028f9409247be6d3d09a157e8eb347a173afc599' in submodule path 'libraries/leveldb'

--------------
However, less luck with the QT Wallet.

cmake -DINCLUDE_QT_WALLET=ON .
cd ./programs/web_wallet
sudo npm install -g lineman
sudo npm install
cd -
make buildweb
make DacPlay

fails at the buildweb with:

-- Spawning lineman build...
CMake Error at GenerateHtDocs.cmake:16 (message):
  lineman build spawn failed: '6'


make[3]: *** [programs/qt_wallet/CMakeFiles/buildweb] Error 1
make[2]: *** [programs/qt_wallet/CMakeFiles/buildweb.dir/all] Error 2
make[1]: *** [programs/qt_wallet/CMakeFiles/buildweb.dir/rule] Error 2
make: *** [buildweb] Error 2

But many people complained how "unprofessional" it was unedited, and stated that it looked bad on our community.  So we eventually got aj to do a more professional edit.
Interesting conversation here.  Please continue.

Again, that reflects what I've been suggesting for a while that BitShares PR/Marketing; core devs; FAQ/wiki editors etc need to consider that they are and will increasingly be addressing different audiences with different needs. That's why having a clearly stated focus is important.. where are the Mission and Vision statements?..

BitShares will succeed if it keeps in mind what makes blockchain tech appealing.. transparency is part of it. We also need to understand community management will be different that what a company might do, it's more like open source with investors interests too.

Obviously, there will be more need for polished output.. to the point that we see press releases and media celebrities but most important is the depth of information available. Where someone does find a polished snappy presentation, that might be a good hook but if they want more and do their research, find raw feeds and data for themselves, that will only help their confidence and understanding.

The community support may prove as important as any other factor and if you want to draw people into supporting the effort, then they will need educating.. their doing that for themselves is cheaper. If you have to pay everyone, then you'll burn money attracting talent to do a job; people doing what they are passionate about is again one of the core drivers of open source and blockchain - we might expect those will give better quality than paid employees too.

Keep it simple; Content is more important than Presentation; and making it useful, is about making it available.

Putting it out unedited, gives an audience more confidence what they have is authentic. Tarting it up, does not add value, except on occasions where there is very high information density. Putting the raw feed out promptly also aids communication.. we can skip over the bits we don't want. It's not as if the host doesn't have a grip - fuzzy does it well enough the raw is good. If you want edited content then that could be fed into BitShares.tv as highlights or some other presented content. An edited mumble is just more work for little added benefit.

The alternate would be to focus mumble sessions on a core topic, edit those carefully and use that as a marketing aid to describe in detail certain aspects to targeted other audiences than just those here.. pass those to MSM and let them feast on it.

A blockchain could help prove nothing changed.

That's exactly what the proof-of-realworld-asset class of activity will need, coupled with and authority mandating that blockchain is the one that represents the ownership of a class of product. So, any link to real world asset could benefit from this.. except that it's centralised but then any such link into the real world ownership of assets will necessarily need some authority confirming its legality - or accepting the liability for the perception of it. I think it's rather a novel solution but does suggest then a practical risk to other ideas about issuing stocks and bonds, as they could be done without added value held in the digital token that proves ownership. So, it might be cheaper to have a blockchain like suggested.. just a case of making it work - so that it is accessible to users, which is of course part of the strength of decentralised solutions.

What it does not affect are digital currencies that are money or pegged tokens like BitShares assets.

Just to note that Ripple is a different class to BitShares. KYC; AML; etc, are appropriate for them, they are more like traditional money transport than digital currency.

BitShares pegged assets as digital tokens which have a value by consensus are very different and there is no need for Government to intervene or regulate such digital tokens in the way they need to for Ripple. Also, it is not for the Government to suggest the value of a digital token and the possession of items of value is a private concern.

Perhaps worth noting beyond both, Government can be useful setting up consumer protection for another class where digital tokens are truely linked to real world assets - confirming the bridge between the internet and the real world but I haven't seen BitShares looking at that class of asset.

What will be more directly relevant is the BoE resolving whether it wants and is even able to issue it's own digital currency. I think pegged assets are a better and safer option, than a fixed digital token that is formerly issued. If they do decide instead to just let the market find its way, then BitShares will be well placed to blow its own trumpet then and point out how well developed its capability to provide bitGBP is already. Question then is can we make issuing bitGBP practical in the quantity that might be wanted? Creation of bitAssets is a little beyond my understanding.. I don't know if the option to short them into existence is open ended or needs to come into being in parallel with the market buy/sell... but that's off topic too.

Quote from: luckybit on April 13, 2015, 12:08:08 am

I am glad I am not the only one, who finds this idea attractive. Is there enough liquidity? I don't know, but I will tell my perspective: I am a conservative investor in BTS terms, but I trust the bitUSD peg to hold and I believe, it would hold also for other assets (if they were useful - such as indexes). And indexes are far less speculative investment than BTS, so I could invest like 2x - 3x more than I am currently in BTS

To me, a referral program is completely worthless. At present I don't tell my friends/family about BitShares, because there is nothing useful for them here (I just discuss with them the theoretical aspects of BS, mostly without mentioning it). And a referral program won't change it. On the other hand, as soon as there appears something useful for them in BitShares, I will begin spreading the word WITH or WITHOUT the referral program.

My priorities:

1) Finish 1.0 and introduce other pegged assets (stocks, indexes, commodities)
2) Wait for the word to spread + use ordinary marketing channels
3) If this doesn't help, start referral program

This makes the most sense from everything i have read so far. Practical and realistic IMO.

 

Those 1.2.3. priorities (and in that order) are exactly what I've been looking for .. simple to understand and easy to communicate.
If those are then backed up in the marketing narrative, with or without milestones, such clear focus will go a long way to maintaining interest and confidence.

In other words the only thing that can keep this ship moving forward is additional funding and a change to the business model of the DAC that so that it can generate more revenue per user than it costs to acquire a new user.
...
In our case the cost to acquire a new user is currently well over $100, we need to find a way to fund that while lowering costs.

Surely this is wrong!? Are those really the only options?

Surely there is an option to consider more carefully how you are selling what you have? You don't necessarily need additional funding or to make a change to the business model.

In the CryptoStocks thread I challenged that the wiki is not looking as good as it might need to. See: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,15596.msg200581.html#msg200581


Imagine you knew nothing of BitShares and look at what there is with a fresh pair of eyes. Does it communicate to a new user why they want to jump at the opportunity in front of them?

If you can get new funding, that's great but communication matters too. Make the description of BitShares plain English.

Watch the Jon Oliver & Edward Snowden interview again. Sell the idea in terms that people will relate to - what's wrong with what they have and how is BitShares the answer? The marketing of BitShares is in places a turnoff, it needs to grab at people whereever they encounter it.. it's not appealing to ordinary investors level of understanding.. and in places it's not ambitious enough about the prospects of real financial investment companies making BitShares their principal platform. The narrative atm is good in places but talking more at the level of cryptocurrency nerds and those with enough vision to see the potential for themselves.


One approach to consider might be to resolve who are the potential investors and users of BitShares and think as they do. Appeal to each individual group of those users. Write directly for them and have the website filter those..

- Are you new to crypto currency?
- Are you a Government researcher?
- Are you a developer?
- Are you an entrepreneur looking for the next big thing?
- Are you a broker with a $hit tonne of money to invest and a button to push?
- etc etc
Here's what BitShares is and what it will mean.. to you. Reasons to invest ABC. and in that emphasis the strengths of the idea; the dev team; the community; the associated DAC projects; etc.


Perpetually changing the business model is not good and acquiring a new user should not cost $100 when new users are moving into crypto space. I've suggested before, perhaps pitch at MSM and get volume.. go on the Keiser Report etc and don't pull punches when articulating the vision of everything BitShares could achieve.