Quote from: Thom on March 24, 2015, 02:46:22 AM

Quote from: tonyk2 on March 23, 2015, 10:27:50 PM
I am not sure I managed to stay with all the twist and turns in the logic and aim of the above post so I ask:

Are you trying to saying you are a HOLPer also?

*HOLP - term coined about the end of March '15 by Gamey and meaning combination of 'hold, hope and help'

Thanks for the definition, I had no idea what the hell you were talking about (guess we're even on that score hey?)

I respect CH's rigorous approach to project management, but strongly disagree with him about the role the importance of principles. Blockchain technology is far more important than just a new way to make a profit, far more. I don't believe CH gets that.

I'm not sure why anyone fails to get that. This is not just some project. We're playing with major stakes here, the future is in our hands.

Sound overly dramatic? I really don't think so. Wake up!

Damnit Thom, sometimes I think it is me posting from your account as I read your points...

Quote from: tonyk2 on March 23, 2015, 10:27:50 PM
I am not sure I managed to stay with all the twist and turns in the logic and aim of the above post so I ask:

Are you trying to saying you are a HOLPer also?

*HOLP - term coined about the end of March '15 by Gamey and meaning combination of 'hold, hope and help'

Thanks for the definition, I had no idea what the hell you were talking about (guess we're even on that score hey?)

I respect CH's rigorous approach to project management, but strongly disagree with him about the role the importance of principles. Blockchain technology is far more important than just a new way to make a profit, far more. I don't believe CH gets that.

I'm not sure why anyone fails to get that. This is not just some project. We're playing with major stakes here, the future is in our hands.

Sound overly dramatic? I really don't think so. Wake up!

"If you get enough people behind a system, the system actually ends up being the system"

Quote from: Thom on March 23, 2015, 09:18:56 PM
The one thing about CH I disagree with is the fundamental principles of why any blockchain project exists in the first place. If you fail to establish a solid set of principles on which to base your project it won't accomplish the goals that BM and most of us are here to address.

What I got out of that interview is CH looks at all crypto-currency projects like a business, nothing more. He and I³ parted ways b/c they differ on that. What attracts me to BitShares isn't the potential monetary gain I hope to make, but rather the hope that this tech brings to everyone to realize financial freedom which will arise from adhering to the virtuous principles Bytemaster reflects so well.

However, I do feel if CH could have deferred to the principles BM established and helped to refine / evolve BitShares development methodology to be less ad-hoc and more structured and organized, the BitShares project might not have spent so much time and effort on things like follow my vote which IMO don't deserve the near term focus it got over things like DNS.

If BItShares is lacking it would have to be in it's ability to focus and evaluate the cost / benefit of where to use it's resources to achieve goals. It is in the area of project planning and management.

This shortcoming is also reflected by the fact BitShares doesn't have a formal roadmap on where it's going now. When I first heard of BitShares almost a year ago in April, the vision I heard sounded like a well thought out path of BitShares technology evolution. Keehote and DNS were part of that vision, vote was not. Interestingly MPA was not discussed back then, or at least I didn't hear about it until much later. So that is an opportunity that popped up that BitShares has been able to capitalize on.

This may sound more critical than I feel. I give Stan & Dan great credit for the monumental task of implementing a comprehensive vision while being open to opportunities along the way and sticking to principles while doing it. Have they made mistakes? Of course, anyone would. Could their management be improved? Just like software or writing a book, there's always room for improvement, perfection is an impossible goal to achieve.

I'm sticking around b/c I couldn't believe more strongly in the foundational principles BitShares is based on. My trust in Stan / Dan to learn from their mistakes and get better at focusing the team on the important priorities: 1) principles 2) technology / innovation 3) consensus+community+shareholders input is still very high. Who else / what other project provide greater devotion to these things than BitShares? None IMO. I just hope the mistakes taper off and the marketcap tapers on!

I am not sure I managed to stay with all the twist and turns in the logic and aim of the above post so I ask:

Are you trying to saying you are a HOLPer also?


*HOLP - term coined about the end of March '15 by Gamey and meaning combination of 'hold, hope and help'

The one thing about CH I disagree with is the fundamental principles of why any blockchain project exists in the first place. If you fail to establish a solid set of principles on which to base your project it won't accomplish the goals that BM and most of us are here to address.

What I got out of that interview is CH looks at all crypto-currency projects like a business, nothing more. He and I³ parted ways b/c they differ on that. What attracts me to BitShares isn't the potential monetary gain I hope to make, but rather the hope that this tech brings to everyone to realize financial freedom which will arise from adhering to the virtuous principles Bytemaster reflects so well.

However, I do feel if CH could have deferred to the principles BM established and helped to refine / evolve BitShares development methodology to be less ad-hoc and more structured and organized, the BitShares project might not have spent so much time and effort on things like follow my vote which IMO don't deserve the near term focus it got over things like DNS.

If BItShares is lacking it would have to be in it's ability to focus and evaluate the cost / benefit of where to use it's resources to achieve goals. It is in the area of project planning and management.

This shortcoming is also reflected by the fact BitShares doesn't have a formal roadmap on where it's going now. When I first heard of BitShares almost a year ago in April, the vision I heard sounded like a well thought out path of BitShares technology evolution. Keehote and DNS were part of that vision, vote was not. Interestingly MPA was not discussed back then, or at least I didn't hear about it until much later. So that is an opportunity that popped up that BitShares has been able to capitalize on.

This may sound more critical than I feel. I give Stan & Dan great credit for the monumental task of implementing a comprehensive vision while being open to opportunities along the way and sticking to principles while doing it. Have they made mistakes? Of course, anyone would. Could their management be improved? Just like software or writing a book, there's always room for improvement, perfection is an impossible goal to achieve.

I'm sticking around b/c I couldn't believe more strongly in the foundational principles BitShares is based on. My trust in Stan / Dan to learn from their mistakes and get better at focusing the team on the important priorities: 1) principles 2) technology / innovation 3) consensus+community+shareholders input is still very high. Who else / what other project provide greater devotion to these things than BitShares? None IMO. I just hope the mistakes taper off and the marketcap tapers on!

Quote from: NewMine on March 22, 2015, 10:35:13 PM

Quote from: speedy on March 22, 2015, 08:59:13 PM
5:30 - BitUSD is great, DACs not so. If only he was still onboard and we had listened to him. Then our core value proposition could have been much further ahead and usable by now.

No kidding.

It's unfortunate because I think the Dev's and a lot of people here got caught up in trying to have feature after feature and adding this and that instead of just focusing on the feature that gave rise to the entire project, bitUSDand the Exchange. Bitshares has become a jack of all trades and Master of none.

+5% Before there was a Google ecosystem, there was Google the search engine.

Quote from: speedy on March 22, 2015, 08:59:13 PM
5:30 - BitUSD is great, DACs not so. If only he was still onboard and we had listened to him. Then our core value proposition could have been much further ahead and usable by now.

No kidding.

It's unfortunate because I think the Dev's and a lot of people here got caught up in trying to have feature after feature and adding this and that instead of just focusing on the feature that gave rise to the entire project, bitUSDand the Exchange. Bitshares has become a jack of all trades and Master of none.

Quote from: speedy on March 22, 2015, 08:59:13 PM
5:30 - BitUSD is great, DACs not so. If only he was still onboard and we had listened to him. Then our core value proposition could have been much further ahead and usable by now.

Hoskinson had great vision.  He may also be right about the browser and one click application installs but that has yet to be see n


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Thom on March 21, 2015, 06:58:10 PM
Just watched this, which CH mentions BitShares, Etherium and responds to question about his involvement with I³ and why he departed. Some useful info on several topics in this Google Hangout.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UT3OZySRcA

+5%

5:30 - BitUSD is great, DACs not so. If only he was still onboard and we had listened to him. Then our core value proposition could have been much further ahead and usable by now.

Good interview, I agree with CH that meetups are where the fun is at.

Good stuff and it does fill in some gaps.

thx :)

Quote from: cass on March 21, 2015, 07:00:00 PM
Link?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UT3OZySRcA

Link?