Quote from: alphaBar on November 06, 2014, 12:08:17 am

Quote from: gamey on November 06, 2014, 12:04:45 am

Quote from: alphaBar on November 05, 2014, 11:57:25 pm

Ok, so you think reputation is enough. I disagree. But for the sake of argument explain to me how this entire system would not be radically improved by using multi-sigature oversight of one or more third parties?

And then we have countless debates on who this third party should be.  Using Toast as an example..  In CS I doubt you'd ever come across someone as accomplished academically in any normal developer circles.  (And this comes from someone who has a BSCS at a decent school but pretty much believes 'it just means I'm not a retard')  So I think his reputation is actually quite valuable, especially since crypto isn't going away.

Personally, I am just happy the guy is working for Bitshares.  I don't want some him reporting to some dipshit, I'd rather he just use his passion to move the project forward. 

If there is a problem with incentives being screwed up, I'd look elsewhere.  I wish I had their job for the utter-coolness of it all. 

So..  No. I don't think layering rules of multi-sig accounts and all this would really help anything along.  It might just as well do the opposite. Part of the reason I don't work full time is because I've never worked with developers/under managers that I felt were as smart or smarter than me. Which is all I ask. So if I was to take your system and apply it to me, I wouldn't be surprised if the consequences aren't negative.

Simple. Let the devs oversee themselves with multi-sig. If one guy tries to literally walk away with the money, the other devs lock him out of his unvested shares.

I'm ok with this. I see it as a risk that might be worth the positive PR. I'm interested in multisig for security reasons anyway.

Vesting pay is easy to block with a hard fork too.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Thank you for considering this. Sometimes I lose my temper but believe me when I say I have a vested interest in your success. Better to vet this stuff with an irritable insider (me) than the general public...

I just do not get why?

The guy first obviously did not donated anything to AGS, which is just fine. It is his choice.

Then started arguing that he must get more for keeping his PTS in his pocket as the people who actually gave their money in the form of a donations.
Now comes and says he has to set the rules for the funds that  not only do not belong to him now, but were never ever his, even before donating them.

Utter nonsense and arrogance.

I would expect nothing different from you, Tony. Literally everything I've seen from you on this forum has been either illogical or utterly biased.

Quote from: alphaBar on November 06, 2014, 12:06:22 am

Quote from: Troglodactyl on November 06, 2014, 12:01:10 am

I donated because I trusted the people to whom I was donating sufficiently to risk my donation.  So far I'm very pleased with what they've accomplished with it, and it seems like they're on track to continue that.  I think they've also been and continue to be very transparent.

It's regrettable if no one else would be able to use the toolkit at all, but it's to be expected that the team that developed it thus far would have a considerable head start in its use.  If the entire team were abducted by aliens, I suspect the toolkit would be used by others, but it might be years before another team gathered comparable network effect and community to what the current team has now.

Why would you insist on giving away the funds when you could very easily implement some oversight and accountability. Do we prefer blind trust over accountability? It would be trivially simple to implement some oversight with multi-sig.

Trusting a few people to act independently is much more efficient than forming a multisig oversight committee, if the independent actors are actually worthy of trust.  This isn't blind trust.  Some of us have been around here for quite a while now and have reason to trust these people.  If I required or even wanted such oversight, why would I have donated before it was there?  Do you really think people just assumed it would be added in later, even though they didn't trust the people who would have to add it?  O.o

Efficiency? That's the reason? So there is too much overhead associated with simply signing a transaction now? This is a non-argument. Mutli-sig oversight was an absolute no-brainer. Look, I trust Dan too. I don't know much about the other developers and I believe in actually using the systems we are building for their intended purpose. Mark Karpeles, Alex Green, and Danny Brewster were more prominent than these guys and they had no problem ruining their reputation for financial gain. Trust when there is no alternative. Any developer worth his salt would understand the value in doing this (not saying our guys don't).

Quote from: alphaBar on November 05, 2014, 11:57:25 pm

Ok, so you think reputation is enough. I disagree. But for the sake of argument explain to me how this entire system would not be radically improved by using multi-sigature oversight of one or more third parties?

And then we have countless debates on who this third party should be.  Using Toast as an example..  In CS I doubt you'd ever come across someone as accomplished academically in any normal developer circles.  (And this comes from someone who has a BSCS at a decent school but pretty much believes 'it just means I'm not a retard')  So I think his reputation is actually quite valuable, especially since crypto isn't going away.

Personally, I am just happy the guy is working for Bitshares.  I don't want some him reporting to some dipshit, I'd rather he just use his passion to move the project forward. 

If there is a problem with incentives being screwed up, I'd look elsewhere.  I wish I had their job for the utter-coolness of it all. 

So..  No. I don't think layering rules of multi-sig accounts and all this would really help anything along.  It might just as well do the opposite. Part of the reason I don't work full time is because I've never worked with developers/under managers that I felt were as smart or smarter than me. Which is all I ask. So if I was to take your system and apply it to me, I wouldn't be surprised if the consequences aren't negative.

Simple. Let the devs oversee themselves with multi-sig. If one guy tries to literally walk away with the money, the other devs lock him out of his unvested shares.

Quote from: alphaBar on November 05, 2014, 11:46:40 pm

2) You keep comparing your Google salary to the amount of money you are being granted for work on BTS. This is so utterly and fundamentally flawed it hurts me to have to explain it, but here goes: Your entire BTS grant is paid to you up-front with no performance evaluation, expectation, roadmap, milestones, or other provable/non-provable/binding/non-binding expectation of any kind. Even your vesting PTS does nothing to incentivize any actual work - you will receive the funds regardless of whether you perform or not.

This is very incorrect.  From Toast's standpoint, his comparison is totally valid.  You've just stated that he can still be paid and do little.  You make this statement while ignoring all the stuff he'd lose if he just took the money and split.  His public reputation which over his career would be worth far more than this goofy grant.

Alphabar, it is talk like this that makes me not care to support your PTS project.  Your reasoning is quite flawed.

Ok, so you think reputation is enough. I disagree. But for the sake of argument explain to me how this entire system would not be radically improved by using multi-signature oversight of one or more third parties?

Edit: Also, do you support the way this was handled, behind the scenes without discussion or explanation (while ignoring my repeated questions)? It would have been trivially easy to implement some minimum oversight and accountability.

Over the past couple of weeks I've been requesting an accounting of the assets entrusted to I3 for purposes of development and marketing. Just before the November 5th snapshot, and after repeatedly ignoring my private and public questions, I3 began to divide the funds into 30,000 PTS amounts held in separate addresses:
https://www.coinplorer.com/PTS/Addresses/PaNGELmZgzRQCKeEKM6ifgTqNkC4ceiAWw

Here was my initial post, which received little attention and no reply from Dan or Stan:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10908

I put together a divestiture proposal for the Angel fund which has also been repeatedly ignored by I3:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10701.0

The only response regarding the divestiture proposal was that the funds would simply be "granted" to the devs, so we don't have to worry about distribution being centralized. Really? These funds were donated to I3 with the distinct purpose of being used for marketing and development. Now the solution is to simply give them away and hope that they will be used wisely? What happened to accountability? What company just "grants" millions of dollars of its shareholder assets to third parties without any way to hold them accountable for use of those funds?

The fact that very few people on this forum even care about this is the worst part. If I3 cannot make these types of important decisions with transparency and community input, how in the world do we expect to gain the trust of investors outside of this community? Do we think that nobody will ask these questions? Or that we can simply ignore them and they will go away? What kind of unsophisticated investor are we trying to court who wouldn't care about this? Very frustrated by it all...

I hate to be "that guy" but I want to point out that delegate pay should probably not be treated as a reward for "past" work (although that can help to establish the trust that you need to get "hired" initially). I think of your past work as your resume for getting the job. In order to be voted in you should publish a list of projects or features that you'd like to implement, budget, timeline, and key results. Then once you are voted in you should commit to regular status updates, milestones, metrics, open source development, and anything else you can do to give shareholders confidence that they are getting their money's worth.

Lastly I'll just say that this is one of the main pitfalls of the dilution proposal. Personally I think the threshold for ongoing performance evaluation and management is too high for the average stakeholder. We already have very low vote participation, and the only thing we're managing is block production. What will inevitably happen is that people will trust their votes to third parties who have the time and expertise to evaluate the performance of a given delegate. Those people then become yet another "layer" of separation from the stakeholders, which in turn potentially impacts security since we've conflated the rewards for block production and literally everything else the "company" does. /rant