Quote from: Chuckone on June 02, 2015, 12:02:47 PM
All you say makes perfect sense. The only issue I see is that the pre-sale investors don't have ANY stake in Peertracks itself. It is privately owned by very few people. I'll try to formulate this politely, but using the Bitshares Music pre-sale money to develop a privately owned company raises some serious ethical questions.

I agree. Investors have bought into BitShares MUSIC .. not peertracks ...
some clarification would be good

Quote from: xeroc ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ on June 02, 2015, 11:06:51 AM

Also, IIRC and they are going to offer streaming in the MVP already .. then they will need to do alot of development at the frontend and server tech too .. The Peertracks business is NOT just a blockchain .. it's more than that .. and does cost money to develop and maintain .. independent of the ACTUAL blockchain

Disclaimer: I am not defending the secrecy around Peertracks and MUSIC .. I'd rather point out to you that Peertracks is not just a blockchain ..

All you say makes perfect sense. The only issue I see is that the pre-sale investors don't have ANY stake in Peertracks itself. It is privately owned by very few people. I'll try to formulate this politely, but using the Bitshares Music pre-sale money to develop a privately owned company raises some serious ethical questions.

Quote from: christo on June 02, 2015, 11:00:21 AM
That would be worse. This is not only the way it should have been done, but after fundraising for a separate blockchain and spending all the money, you're suggesting they don't even build it and we all should have been using the original BitShares blockchain all along!?

If whatever PEETRACKS is doing with blockchain was already possible with BitShares I would agree ... But I don't think it is ..
Also, IIRC and they are going to offer streaming in the MVP already .. then they will need to do alot of development at the frontend and server tech too .. The Peertracks business is NOT just a blockchain .. it's more than that .. and does cost money to develop and maintain .. independent of the ACTUAL blockchain

Disclaimer: I am not defending the secrecy around Peertracks and MUSIC .. I'd rather point out to you that Peertracks is not just a blockchain ..

That would be worse. This is not only the way it should have been done, but after fundraising for a separate blockchain and spending all the money, you're suggesting they don't even build it and we all should have been using the original BitShares blockchain all along!?

Quote from: Ben Mason on June 02, 2015, 10:40:09 AM
I'm not chasing you around christo, promise  ;)  I just wanted to add a different perspective.....have you considered that there might be negotiations going on to bring Peertracks onto the main Bitshares blockchain?   

This would be so ... so ... bam!!

Also, recall the last dev hangout with BM where he said that there will be IP on the source code and every company wanting to fork needs to get a license to do so ..
Hence, BitShares as a software has a head start ..
and BitShares as a community .. yhea .. let's say Apple will have it's problems bootstrapping something similar with their costumers ..

Quote from: christo on June 02, 2015, 06:48:24 AM

Quote from: Chuckone on May 13, 2015, 01:20:36 PM
...
Up to now, what percentage of the crowdfunding money went into developing Peertracks compared to the music blockchain? Maybe @cob might be able to answer this one. I know this question have already been asked, but IIRC there wasn't a crystal clear answer. That answer matters, because my initial understanding when I donated to the pre-sale was that the money was to be used to develop the blockchain, not some privately held front-end.

Bravo! I asked this question and was told to wait a few months until March. Well it's June now and there is still no answer to this basic question.

What is being done with the money? How much is being put into a private company called PeerTracks and how much is being put into a blockchain resource that we can all use whether it is called BitShares Music or anything else?

When the answer is missing, the reasonable conclusion is that the people who have the money want to spend it without being accountable for how they spend it. (edit: and that's putting it very nicely!)

I'm not chasing you around christo, promise  ;)  I just wanted to add a different perspective.....have you considered that there might be negotiations going on to bring Peertracks onto the main Bitshares blockchain?   

Quote from: Chuckone on May 13, 2015, 01:20:36 PM
...
Up to now, what percentage of the crowdfunding money went into developing Peertracks compared to the music blockchain? Maybe @cob might be able to answer this one. I know this question have already been asked, but IIRC there wasn't a crystal clear answer. That answer matters, because my initial understanding when I donated to the pre-sale was that the money was to be used to develop the blockchain, not some privately held front-end.

Bravo! I asked this question and was told to wait a few months until March. Well it's June now and there is still no answer to this basic question.

What is being done with the money? How much is being put into a private company called PeerTracks and how much is being put into a blockchain resource that we can all use whether it is called BitShares Music or anything else?

When the answer is missing, the reasonable conclusion is that the people who have the money want to spend it without being accountable for how they spend it. (edit: and that's putting it very nicely!)

Quote from: toast on May 12, 2015, 11:29:04 PM
Wouldn't you NOT want the price to be so high that the income stream cannot compensate for the people selling their free sharedrop?

Yes.  http://mashable.com/2015/04/12/silicon-valley-season-2-premiere-recap/


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Quote from: toast on May 12, 2015, 08:23:27 PM

Quote from: liondani on May 12, 2015, 06:24:13 PM

Quote from: toast on May 12, 2015, 06:04:54 PM
We've been pretty clear that peertracks will not be all public in the way bitshares is, and are giving everyone an opportunity to get out (at higher than the crowdsale price no less) if they don't like that

is this FUD ? Any reason for doing this?
I really can't believe what I am reading!  :-[

It's because there's no point answering to huge groups of stakeholders we don't know who only care about short-term returns and generally act like a hivemind. We would rather start at a low price and have real growth than to have a huge speculative market with a potential for big losses for everyone.

I am completely fine with not being completely public and a low price and long term real growth!

The only thing I would like to know is whether the peertracks team's profit / monetazation model is to increase the value of notes? I.e. whether the incentives between note holders and the peertracks team are aligned?

Quote from: Shentist on May 14, 2015, 03:45:41 PM

Quote from: cube on May 14, 2015, 03:30:32 PM

Quote from: toast on May 12, 2015, 11:29:04 PM
Maybe "real slow growth" was a bad way to explain. Let me phrase it another way. If you actually believe NOTEs will become an income-producing asset (or something close enough), wouldn't you want them to be as cheap as possible before the system actually launches?  Wouldn't you NOT want the price to be so high that the income stream cannot compensate for the people selling their free sharedrop?

I love this 'real growth and not hype' plan for NOTES.  +5%

Why is NOTES listed on CMC when there is absolutely nothing to show yet?

because you made it liquid!!!

Liquidity for a non-existence/not-ready-to-exist product?  I am not sure who will benefit from that?  Perhaps the speculators?  NOTES has to  be more than that.

Quote from: toast on May 12, 2015, 08:23:27 PM

Quote from: liondani on May 12, 2015, 06:24:13 PM

Quote from: toast on May 12, 2015, 06:04:54 PM
We've been pretty clear that peertracks will not be all public in the way bitshares is, and are giving everyone an opportunity to get out (at higher than the crowdsale price no less) if they don't like that

is this FUD ? Any reason for doing this?
I really can't believe what I am reading!  :-[

It's because there's no point answering to huge groups of stakeholders we don't know who only care about short-term returns and generally act like a hivemind. We would rather start at a low price and have real growth than to have a huge speculative market with a potential for big losses for everyone.

You guys have been fully transparent about the fact that it needs to be a bit secretive. There is just too much potential competition from deeper pockets and PeerTracks needs to have an immediate market edge. I fully support the need to keep most of the project 'in house' until it's ready to launch.

Quote from: cube on May 14, 2015, 03:30:32 PM

Quote from: toast on May 12, 2015, 11:29:04 PM
Maybe "real slow growth" was a bad way to explain. Let me phrase it another way. If you actually believe NOTEs will become an income-producing asset (or something close enough), wouldn't you want them to be as cheap as possible before the system actually launches?  Wouldn't you NOT want the price to be so high that the income stream cannot compensate for the people selling their free sharedrop?

I love this 'real growth and not hype' plan for NOTES.  +5%

Why is NOTES listed on CMC when there is absolutely nothing to show yet?

because you made it liquid!!!

Quote from: toast on May 12, 2015, 11:29:04 PM
Maybe "real slow growth" was a bad way to explain. Let me phrase it another way. If you actually believe NOTEs will become an income-producing asset (or something close enough), wouldn't you want them to be as cheap as possible before the system actually launches?  Wouldn't you NOT want the price to be so high that the income stream cannot compensate for the people selling their free sharedrop?

I love this 'real growth and not hype' plan for NOTES.  +5%

Why is NOTES listed on CMC when there is absolutely nothing to show yet?   

IMO, there is no reason to be against listing NOTE on CMC. More information will attract investors (as well as speculators), at least they will know that Bitshares Music (Temporally) exists.

Quote from: CLains on May 13, 2015, 06:13:42 PM
Who would you ideally want as an investor? Resourceful, intelligent people who HODL long term and contribute value to the project. Whatever you say or not say, do or don't do publicly, will shape the demographic who are invested in the project. All in all it becomes an elaborate game to speak in such a way as to reward who you want rewarded.

I must be one of the biggest bug holders in the history of cryptocurencies..I keep my BTS no matter the market cap 10,20,100 mil..irrelevant.. And I keep them because at least I have an idea of what BTS does and what tries to achieve long term..

I seriously want to hold NOTES as well..I just don't know why..And I wish someone could just explain me why...I guess I forgot their purpose with all the changes all the time so just a reminder would be sufficient..From my perspective I can see value on artist coins, but I don't understand why these need to be traded in Bitshares Music  and where NOTES value is derived from. The artist coins could just as well be UIA on Bitshares exchange right?..I am sure I am missing something..So if the devs don't care to enlighten us, maybe you can enlighten me why I should keep NOTES..
Thanks