All I ask in exchange for my idea is a public shaming of everyone who has accused me of trying to sabotage BTS.

Quote from: bytemaster on November 07, 2014, 05:20:50 am

My conclusion is that users will almost always be brought in via a helper service and that this thread was mostly to get the idea out of my head and discarded as well as spur ideas on how to make it easier for people to get into BTS.

I was wondering about this on a smaller/niche level - musicians/digital artisans as helper services, offering a particular track/item for a small donation w/entry of account name, and .01 BTS is sent to register your account.

Didn't notice this comment by BM, but I think my solution (above) actually solves the issue without circumventing the "helper service", which I agree is the most logical entry point. In fact I think the BTS website could require account registration with a built-in faucet before downloading the client. This way users will simply launch their client and enter their user/pass to get started.

I think I have a solution:

We create a transaction type that involves registering a "free-floating" account name and a password hash. This "free floating" name could then be "claimed" by any wallet by simply broadcasting a transaction that proves they are in possession of the password. This way, faucets and exchanges could pay for account registrations using the regular security mechanisms (captcha) and broadcast those names as free-floating registered accounts. Then a user would simply launch their client, enter the password they have chosen, and link the registered account name to their private keys. Here is a step-by-step illustration:

1) User launches their client which says "visit any of the following sites to register your account: BTSfaucet.com, BTSregister.com, Bter.com, etc. etc.
2) User visits one of those sites (possibly in a web view, or in their own browser)
3) The site has a captcha or requires email verification or whatever else to prevent spam. After passing the challenge, the site asks the user to select a username and a password (at least 10 characters - no need to be super-secure here). The site broadcasts a "free floating" account registration (including fee) and redirects the user back to their client ("Done! Now just open your client to claim your username").
4) The user returns to their client and enters the new username and password to generate a new transaction claiming the username (ie, linking the username to the private keys of that particular client).

The “chicken and egg” problem is not due to a lack of funds. Plenty of faucets and exchanges would pay for the .01 BTS necessary to register accounts. The real problem is the use of the “ugly hash” to receive that first transaction My solution solves this issue directly, without making payment-free registration (which is not necessary).

Not sure if this would be sufficient to prevent an attacker with existing idle hardware from bloating the blockchain at no cost...

Could be solved by using a currently unused hash function I guess, but using PoW does feel like jumping down a rabbit hole.

So BitShares killed PTS/AGS by removing official support.  This means all talk of toolkit is pretty much gone.

The new official suggestion is to sharedrop to BTS.

You keep spreading this wrong information, despite Stan clarifying it repeatedly. The social consensus with AGS/PTS has not changed:

False.  PTS and AGS continue to represent the exact same demographics as always and developers have the same motivation to target them with air drops.   We continue to recommend that the community insist on that behavior from developers seeking their support.  And PTS and AGS holders also naturally benefit from all efforts to grow the value of BTS.

You are making this way more complicated than it really is:

OK, so Dan has just found a stack of green paper while shredding the Invictus paperwork before the inevitable SEC letter arrives:

Dan has only a few options (remember, those SEC letters (IRS audit) will be arriving soon, and he will have to answer it or he will wind up like Peter Schiff’s dad). 

Very aware of this, but none of it precludes having some accountability with the funds or at least letting us know in advance. As for the bickering, this is not a political debate and I have no interest in playing politics. If I see something happening that is not in the best interest of the community I will voice my concern, which is what I've done publicly and privately over the past couple of weeks, and to no avail.

Quote from: alphaBar on November 06, 2014, 04:52:56 am

Quote from: gamey on November 06, 2014, 04:39:16 am

Quote from: alphaBar on November 06, 2014, 04:05:05 am

Quote from: NewMine on November 06, 2014, 03:39:10 am

I find it funny that people are using reputation, a form of trust, and decentralization, a trustless endeavor in the same thread.

We love to use the "corporation" analogy, but when it comes to performance-based compensation we abandon it completely. Not only that, but we are arguing against using our very own product to make it happen. No rational person could argue that this is unfair. If you're a developer, you get Dan or 2 other devs to sign off on your vest every month. Simple, effective, and completely obvious. Show me one company that will grant you an equity package that becomes liquid over time, but is granted in entirety upfront without any regard for your performance or status as an employee.

Outside of your issues with Dan giving grants to developers, "performance-based compensation" has not been "abandoned completely". 

I'm really starting to question your motives.  You say so many things that it almost seems you're more about the FUD than the truth.

How can this be FUD? These funds were donated for development and marketing. Is it too much to ask for transparency and accountability? If this is a one-time grant for past work then it would make sense that it was given without any precondition. If it is intended to be part of their ongoing compensation then it makes no sense to hand it out all at once. I was led to believe that all of the dev funds that are allotted for future dev and marketing work would be divided up and simply granted to the devs. We may never know what the plan is. We'll just have to watch the blockchain and take our best guess ...

Have it your way.  If choosing to view it as a year-end bonus for their roles in implementing the Crypto Product of the Year makes it acceptable in your sight, then having it done in such a way that also incentivizes continued support of the product ought to make you ecstatic.  On top of it all there are tax planning aspects and transition to the new developer funding model and the associated renegotiation of their original hiring packages that must be considered.  It is not customary to make any such compensation package negotiations public, beyond a simple transparent declaration of what is being done.

I asked the question many, many times and received no straight answer. What I do know I pieced together based on the blockchain and our private conversations, so there was definitely no "transparent declaration". I still do not know for sure whether the whole fund is going to be divided up, and for what purpose (X% for buying out the original packages, Y% for future dev). I still believe firmly that funds paid for future work should be tied to compensation, and I've proposed a simple method of doing so.

Quote from: alphaBar on November 06, 2014, 04:05:05 am

Quote from: NewMine on November 06, 2014, 03:39:10 am

I find it funny that people are using reputation, a form of trust, and decentralization, a trustless endeavor in the same thread.

We love to use the "corporation" analogy, but when it comes to performance-based compensation we abandon it completely. Not only that, but we are arguing against using our very own product to make it happen. No rational person could argue that this is unfair. If you're a developer, you get Dan or 2 other devs to sign off on your vest every month. Simple, effective, and completely obvious. Show me one company that will grant you an equity package that becomes liquid over time, but is granted in entirety upfront without any regard for your performance or status as an employee.

Outside of your issues with Dan giving grants to developers, "performance-based compensation" has not been "abandoned completely". 

I'm really starting to question your motives.  You say so many things that it almost seems you're more about the FUD than the truth.

How can this be FUD? These funds were donated for development and marketing. Is it too much to ask for transparency and accountability? If this is a one-time grant for past work then it would make sense that it was given without any precondition. If it is intended to be part of their ongoing compensation then it makes no sense to hand it out all at once. I was led to believe that all of the dev funds that are allotted for future dev and marketing work would be divided up and simply granted to the devs. We may never know what the plan is. We'll just have to watch the blockchain and take our best guess ...