Quote from: pc on October 21, 2014, 09:32:23 am

Quote from: mf-tzo on October 21, 2014, 09:23:41 am

It is merger and acquisition.

Nothing is merged or acquired:

Quote from: Ander on October 20, 2014, 07:08:02 pm

3) Capital infusion to fund marketing efforts is solved by allowing for a majority vote of BTS holders to vote to create and sell shares for funding purposes

IOW: throw on the printing press and spend the resulting notes on marketing. That's pump&dump par excellence.

Quote from: Ander on October 20, 2014, 07:08:02 pm

3) Capital infusion to fund marketing efforts is solved by allowing for a majority vote of BTS holders to vote to create and sell shares for funding purposes

That only means it would be a majority-approved pump&dump.

The problem here is that the (market) value of the DAC is not so much driven by the services it offers, but by marketing. It is easy to convince a majority with the promise of a tenfold increase in market value in combination with e. g. 10% dilution. In the long run this will destroy the DAC, though, because there is no substance in it for supporting the (temporarily) higher market value.

Updated my linux builds: http://software.opensuse.org/download.html?project=home%3Ap_conrad%3Acoins&package=memorycoin2

Quote from: Stan on October 20, 2014, 01:55:39 am

Quote from: Rune on October 20, 2014, 01:30:02 am

Guys I realize the idea of dilution is kinda scary at first sight, but once you think it through and approach it from the right context, which is the COMPANY, then it makes perfect sense.

Imagine 2 facebooks competing for world social media domination. One of them can issue shares to acquire other startups such as Whatsapp and Oculus, and also issue shares to VC companies that help them kickstart growth. The other has a fixed amount of shares because shareholders dont want to be diluted.

Which company would you rather be a shareholder in? Would you even consider investing in a facebook that could not issue new shares in situations where it would be beneficial? Taking over world finance isn't that much different than taking over world social media, because of the massive network effect involved. Share issuance is an absolute must in the competition we are about to see ramp up, and we are the first DAC that will actually manage to implement it. We will not even have a real competitior until a different blockchains realizes that share issuance is basically a requirement to be competitive.

The way I look at it, if the value of each of my shares is going up due to an infusion of new capital/talent/customers/whatever, then what do I care if there are a few more of those valuable shares?  The new shares represent the new value received plus a bunch more to share with current shareholders making their shares more valuable too.

Infusions are only done when their is more gain than pain.

Infusions are only done when shareholders believe there is more gain than pain.

Infusions are done when enough shareholders are talked into believing there will be more gain than pain.

The fund would not be simple address from which funds could be spent using a private key.

I think the fund would be more like a global counter that is updated in every block according to strict rules. If someone tried to violate the rules by paying out funds to themselves, other delegates would notice and reject that block.

Is there another way to follow the software update notifications (apart from reading the forums)?

If you have a github account you can "watch" the project. You'll receive an email when something is updated (more than one email per release version though).

Finally finished to rebuilid my linux packages http://software.opensuse.org/download.html?project=home%3Ap_conrad%3Abts&package=KeyID

Delegates updated:

delegate1-cyrano (1%)
delegate0-cyrano (0%)
 

delegate1-cyrano (1%)
delegate0-cyrano (0%)

81.7.11.13 (located in germany)

it's an empty and absurd rebranding of bitshares with no motivation (other than whaling shitshares). We should not endorse this, we will look silly.