Seems like others are having a hard time keeping up with our latest developments as his recent article made no mention of DPOS.  That is perhaps a failure on our part.

Quote from: Empirical1 on June 30, 2014, 06:19:33 pm

Regards the assertion that we have the smallest 2.0 community, I looked at the forum statistics, which obviously doesn't provide anywhere near the whole picture, but just for some initial indication -

NXT Forum:    most online: 480 ; online today: 54   ; 5603 members
BitShares:      most online: 383 ; online today: 105 ; 5091 members
MasterCoin:    most online: 142 ; online today: 38 ; 337 members
Counterparty: most online: 86 ; online today: 34 ; 612 members
Ethereum:      I can't see their forum statistics.

So at the moment, we're not far from being more active than the other 3 combined, and only just behind NXT in terms of members & the most online ever.

Considering NXT has a lot of stuff up and running, and we haven't released BitShares XT & DPOS yet, I think that's pretty amazing. I can't imagine how much interest there's going to be soon! Great job guys!

This is precisely the reason why people like Hosk (and adam for that matter) need to cease pushin negative propaganda our way. 

Not only does invictus have the obstacle of needing deeper, more meaningful and market-penetrating marketing, we as a community have largely been victims of Adam and Hosks LARGELY FUD-based "subjective" opinions--aka negative marketing campaigns.

Literally within weeks of invictus refusal to pay Adam for advertising,  these negative marketing campaigns started..(coincidence?..tbfair...possibly).  Of course if anyone wants to know how valid adams negative opinions were here, all they need to do is go look up proof of his expertise (the bitshares xt dry runs or his completely invalid labeling of bitshares as another ripple would be good places to start).  Or you can look at all the VALID questions our community has asked him that he refused to answer...

Or you can look at all the new PoS derivatives that use Dans visionary assessments of the current obsolete state of crypto, adopting his solutions and acting as though they are their own innovative features (for instance-- those that use 5% interest, or the 2.0 tech that been forced to acknowledge the validity of Dans argument for multiple blockchains..just to name a couple). They say mimicry is the ultimate form of flattery, but a complete lack of trust in bitshares fomented by these people is going to almost certainly effect how many "mimickers"("cloners") actually honor PTS/AGS. 

So much for adam and hoskinson actually EVER admitting these brilliant ideas started HERE, in this community, with DAN at the helm.

Or we might look to the validity and trustworthiness of Hoskinsons opinions...look at statistics that empiracl brought up...

I am so glad Hoskinson is not working actively on this project because I dont trust him (what RATIONAL reason would anyone have to trust him at this juncture?)  Dan came across to me as REAL...not overly polished and sales-pitchy.  It was SO refreshing to me to see someone who was obviously not comfortable with selling a bunch of hype, even if he made some mistakes in gettimg everything perfect the first time through.

Even though I dont often agree with invictus' marketing plans, at the very least Dan has always gone out of his way to sacrifice to make this project worthwhile and to earn our trust...even giving time on his family day to update the community on progress. 

Not sure about how this is such a mystery to you Hoskinson...but if you keep getting unflaterring feedback, you should consider the value of looking in the mirror and asking yourself "why does the bitshares community have so little trust in my motives?" Im not trying to be an asshole here...just honest (just like i am with anyone-including myself when i am part of the problem [which to a degree i am]).  We are all people and we all make mistakes...it is up to us to change them.  As a matter of fact its the primary reason I, a low-middle class veteran and student with a wife and newborn chose to take the payment I received for helping fill the void you left and ACTUALLY give it to you (who are likey far better off than most our forum volunteers) for the work you were planning.

Why blame investors for having difficulty trusting you? 

By all means, if Hoskinson feels "leaving" and not participating is how he will garner support from this community...then I suppose I wish him luck.  As far as adam goes, if he would realize that he is not the only investor in this project and that there are others in this community with valuable insights that happen to run against the grain of his opinions...and that they might actually be RIGHT sometimes...I think he'd do much better here too. 

So odd...it is only when a specific handful of people come here that the community gets riled up.  Most everything else is pure, positive and constructive interaction.  Wish you two could se that and appreciate the real value that is here.

Good luck Hoskinson...my offer is still there if you want to earn trust in probably the craziest and most distrustful member of this forum (me).

I'll invest, but I like BM can stabilize a bit, don't often put forward without thinking, there is no economic sense, no social experience, suggestions

The alpha/beta paradigm is overused.  I'd guess you think Wozniak was a beta, because he was not an ass like Steve Jobs.  You make the judgement without really knowing how they interacted.

Not everyone has the same preferences on leadership.  Dan and Vitalik have both struck me as someone I would trust.  That is rarely the case.  I want my leaders to be as smart as possible and as straightforward as possible.  It was Dan's videos that brought me around here, not Charles'.

"Funny you say that.... I would consider issuing a security... just to get the first bitcoin security or blockchain security out there. I am also exploring the possibility... we're listed on NASDAQ, but can we be dual-listed....it's possible in the states you can be listed on more than one exchange... I believe we could list on a blockchain kind of exchange. And I have some lawyers... they're talking to two different parties. And if anyone here has a technology or has a solution, call collect. But I would love... at the very list to take our current NASDAQ-traded security and dual-list it... and I would also be interested... in issuing a bond or something... and be the first to list this kind of security."

It still not born.