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 - alphaBar

Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 [22]
General Discussion / No DPOS upgrade for Bitshares PTS???
« on: July 28, 2014, 04:44:34 pm »
Hi, can someone please explain the official position on this? There was intense discussion about what to do with the mining reward and then complete silence. Protoshares was created with the purpose of funding development of DPOS. What gives?

General Discussion / Re: BitShares PTS2 - Community Input Thread
« on: May 22, 2014, 11:12:29 pm »
No, I'm just trying to suggest that some of the negative posters move on; if you don't get it now, then I don't think the next few months are going to be pleasant for you and you may want to look for something that meets your needs better. The most important thing about this PTS2 proposal (aside from the needed upgrade that will eliminate mining inflation) is that we need a PR blitz as these DACs come out. If you're content to sit on your PTS/AGS and hope you will be successful, I think you're missing the point that we need a large influx of additional people and investment into this ecosystem. The fact that you think the 15% dilutes your value is extremely short-sighted when you consider how many magnitudes greater that value could be if we can use that 15% to create a buzz.

So call it what it is then - a donation. And feel free to donate 15%, heck even 50% of your PTS. Just don't force the rest of us to do it and don't try to call it "fair" by equating it to the mining block reward.

General Discussion / Re: BitShares PTS2 - Community Input Thread
« on: May 22, 2014, 11:04:54 pm »
Bitshares PTS is up at least 15% in the market since they announced this. If you don't like this upgrade, then why not sell now?

Of course this has everything to do with the development of DPOS and nothing to do with taking 15% from current shareholders and giving it to I3. By your logic we should make it 50% or 75% - maybe this will increase the price of PTS even more!

General Discussion / Re: BitShares PTS2 - Community Input Thread
« on: May 22, 2014, 10:49:20 pm »
Stan, do you understand the difference between a mathematically controlled logarithmic inflation and what you are proposing? If you know anything about the time-value relationship of money you would not try to equate an instantaneous frontloaded 15% centralized inflation scheme with what PTS currently has. It does amount to a theft of 15% from current shareholders. In other words, if I sold my coins tomorrow or next month we both know I would not incur the full 15% inflation. AGS contributors were promised a stake in FUTURE DACS, not the upgrade of PTS (which they knew about prior to investing in AGS). This hypothetical objection from AGS holders is a fiction, and is perfectly staged to grab 15% of our equity in the name of "fairness." I expected more from you guys.

General Discussion / Re: BitShares PTS2 - Community Input Thread
« on: May 22, 2014, 10:22:06 pm »
Sorry to jump in to the discussion late, but I think this discussion of the 15% unmined PTS is absurd (mathematically, economically, and morally). The inflation of PTS to account for this 15% would normally occur logarithmically over a period of YEARS and has not yet taken place. If I were to sell my shares now, these non-existent PTS would have no inflationary impact on my coins. Furthermore, the amortization schedule of the 15% is fixed. You are now proposing to frontload all of that into a marketing fund and to allocate it to I3. Guess what happens when you do that? I incur ~5-10 years of monetary inflation from you overnight. This may be overshadowed by the price bump of a working DPOS release, but that is irrelevant.

The idea that AGS holders should be compensated for the PTS upgrade is also bogus, and here is why:

1) The holders of AGS knew that the PTS chain would be upgraded to the finalized I3 protocol prior to their investment in AGS.
2) The license agreement of AGS investment was for the development of future DACs, not for the application of the protocol to PTS.

There should be a snapshot of PTS and we should transition to DPOS with a 1:1 mapping of PTS1 -> PTS2. What you guys are doing here does not inspire confidence.

I heard of Invictus a while back and thought they were trying to do too much to be successful at any one thing. Recently I watched some discussions with Daniel Larimer about BitShares and I am becoming more and more convinced that he is on the right track.
The problem I see is that there is a serious branding and messaging problem with Invictus products. For example:

* protoShares (AKA bitShares PTS)
* bitShares AGS
* bitShares and bitShares X (one is an exchange/bank, the other stores equities for all Invictus DACs? Still confused about this)
* Keyhotee

Please do not take this the wrong way, but what the hell? Even worse than being non-descriptive and difficult, these names are way too similar for the separate and distinct functions they are supposed to convey. At the very least, IMO, the names need to be changed immediately if this project is expected to gain any mainstream traction. I would go even further and say that I don't think most of the early adopters understand what these products actually are. Here is just one list of suggested names, off the top of my head, though I am sure the community can do much better if we tried:

* ProtoShares -> BitFund (funds the whole operation)
* BitShares -> BitCorps (stores equity in multiple corporations/DACs)
* BitShares AGS -> BitCorps Angel Investor Fund (why call this a "share" if it is not tradable/liquid? For consistency I would just call this a fund).
* BitShares X -> BitBank or BitExchange
* Keyhotee -> BitIdentity or BitID

I'd love to hear your thoughts, as well as clarification on the issues I am not understanding correctly. Thanks.

Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 [22]