Author Topic: Proposal to Resolve a Million Issues at Once  (Read 77464 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Empirical1.1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile
Hm ... I am not so sure I like the 'all-in-one blockchain' aspect here ..
I really was in favor for a multi-chain ecosystem

how would you include PLAY and DNS and further DAC-ideas into the one blockchain without having a constant need for hard-forks?

Yeah me too. But in practice for network effect I really see you need to get as many people as possible into one thing. It also simplifies BitShares a lot.

If there are use cases that are more competitive as individual DACs then it will be so anyway.

Offline Akado

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2752
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: akado

So why dilute btsx when is is getting ready to actually be marketed and partnerships are on the cusp of being formed? What is the need to change the plan before we give the original one a chance to succeed?

I too wonder about this.

Also, what's the problem with PTS? Is it it's not being profitable to mine? So what? Maybe I'm not seeing the point or I'm misunderstanding future consequences of this, but don't fix what doesn't need to be fixed. It's not profitable? Leave it as it is. You cannot try to perpetuate things. You can't try to revive things everytime they are about to die. Maybe it's just meant to be that way. If it isn't profitable, miners will have to dump them at higher prices. If people don't want to pay a higher price, they won't have a cut on future DACs, simple as that.. and I'm sure there will always be people willing to pay the right price to ensure they have their cut on a future DAC.

As for the rest, money is the problem right? It might not be so simple but have you tried out things like Kickstarter? We really should organize ourselves and have a list of all possible solutions. At the moment I only see dilution. At the moment the only reason why that doesn't please me is because of an outsider's point of view. People jump to conclusion, if they see something like that, they will immediately think of bitshares as a pump and dump. While I tend not to care about such opinions, I don't know how bad the consequences of this might be. That's what worries me.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Hm ... I am not so sure I like the 'all-in-one blockchain' aspect here ..
I really was in favor for a multi-chain ecosystem

how would you include PLAY and DNS and further DAC-ideas into the one blockchain without having a constant need for hard-forks?

Offline GaltReport

There are many problems we need to resolve as a community:

1) We don't want to compete with ourselves and divide our network effect.
2) We don't want to confuse users with a million brands.
3) We want to have 1 BitUSD for everything rather than many different BitUSDs
4) We need to recognize those who have helped fund development after Feb 28th so they don't compete with us.
5) I don't want to have divided loyalties... I cannot serve two masters.
6) We need to provide for long term funding and growth.
7) We need to resolve the consensus problem once and for all.

As a community effort we are stronger if we can agree on changes using proof of stake and we should agree once and for all that the majority will rule here.   Those that want a stable money will use BitGold or BitSilver because those are not subject to change, only supply and demand.    If you cannot trust the community of stakeholders to act wisely then create a rigid system with no rule changes and attempt to compete.

My Proposal:

1) Drop all other BitShares brands.... rename BitShares X to just BitShares
2) End PTS...  BitShares will evolve to incorporate every possible feature that stakeholders vote on.
3) If there is a clone then it should start out with stakeholders it thinks are best... because BitShares holders are uniting.
4) Add stake holder approved dilution without limit to BitShares X.
5) Bring in all AGS holders and given them a stake in BitShares X that cannot be moved for 6 months... the ratio that this stake should be given should be equal to PTS market cap... so $5 million or 10% dilution of BTSX allocated to these individuals.    This is effectively BTSX buying out our competition. 
6) Bring in one last PTS snapshot also valued at $5 million for another 10% dilution of BTSX... 6 months until funds could be spent... buy out this competition and end PTS.
7) Our team will focus on no other DACs other than BitShares in general and work to make it the most robust and *FLEXIBLE* DAC out there. 

There will still be other DACs based upon our toolkit  (Music, Gaming, DNS, etc) but those clones will not be dividing my loyalty because they have their own teams and are already known and operating independently of us.  Those who have joined those DACs can attempt to grow them how they see fit and BitShares will be competing with them where we can.

Our goal will be to scale BitShares to handle the transaction volume and users... to solve the scaling problem while still remaining decentralized and allowing 0 barriers to entry for competition except our network effect.

At the risk of calling BitShares one DAC to rule them all... I think we can worry about that after we have achieved critical mass, until then someone else may come along and build one DAC to rule them all and we don't want them to get there if we can get there first.

Once again... just proposals... everything will be thought out and community input is valued.

 +5% - Do it!  You have to adapt.  Current situation is very confusing, complicated and limited resources are spread to thin.  I see this as very positive long-term with possibilities of short-term down-turn (buy opportunities).


« Last Edit: October 19, 2014, 02:45:52 pm by GaltReport »

Offline carpet ride

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 544
    • View Profile
I agree with the OP, from a company standpoint
All opinions are my own. Anything said on this forum does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation between myself and anyone else.
Check out my blog: http://CertainAssets.com
Buy the ticket, take the ride.

Offline Empirical1.1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile
What BM said likes a rob to AGSer and PTSer.I like btsx just as other DACs and I do not want to lose the opptuinity to get all other DACs.

I think what everyone has missed is that with this proposal there would be "no other DACs" because all funds will be going towards one BitShares DAC that then provides features all of the others would have had.

VOTE would direct all network effect and marketing toward BTS
DNS would either focus on a different TLD or get integrated into BTS
Everything Ethereum can do will get integrated into BTS

So given our focus on building everything into BTS until such a time that someone wants to clone BTS and focus on a smaller demographic and "specialize"...


How cool is that  +5% +5% +5%

Quote
  Those that claim that "dilution will kill BTSX" are some of the same people who say that "VOTE" will kill BTSX because it has BitAssets + Dilution.   

I've been one of them. I can see a market for & will probably be an in investor in both, though BitShares can only be associated with one imo. I definitely think BitShares should do the dilution especially as it gets all that above.

(Dilution will harm BTSX because there's a market for & it was started with a hard cap. I also believe it could have bootstrapped in the next three months with full focus as it was first to the party but not if it has to compete against Vote and in other areas within BitShares. (Which is why Vote + dilution harms BTSX) However the proposal for 1 BitShares is much stronger in general anyway. I think it looks great.)

Offline Troglodactyl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 960
    • View Profile
Is VOTE dac an independant dac and are they still getting its own bitUSD debit card (for their own version of bitUSD) or are they on the same blockchain as BTSX with this proposal?

This proposal is to bring them all on to one chain.. no BitUSD competitors.
So BTS will have only one blockchain?
Weren't you saying few months ago that scalability requires having several parallel blockchains?

I suspect the plan would be to do a spinoff whenever the transaction fees got too high for a particular application due to high volume on the single chain.  The issue is that while splitting may be necessary for scaling, as long as the scale is small enough that it's unnecessary unity is better for exponential network effect.

Offline Gentso1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 931
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: gentso
A couple of things:

I for one dumped my PTS to go all in on BTSX because that was the DAC I believed in. Under your original model users would invest in just the DAC's they believed in and not invest in the ones they didn't.

What happened to profitable DAC'S funding themselves, paying their own way so to speak?

Remind me why we are diluting btsx to help PTS? These users have the liquidity advantage and are free to move into any DAC they like.

I looked at BTSX as a DAC on the edge of breaking out. The reason being "the big marketing push" , the creation of on and off ramps through the partnership with a bank or more likely credit union.Your argument is bitshares is to complex which is valid.Mine is that we have done nothing to educate (other then community lead efforts) the average user. Marketing up to this point seems to be completely centered at attracting big money, not education of the consumer. 

So why dilute btsx when is is getting ready to actually be marketed and partnerships are on the cusp of being formed? What is the need to change the plan before we give the original one a chance to succeed?

Offline James212

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 312
    • View Profile
Focus our effort on dominating one area first, then once we are doing well, spread out to the others. 
Like google first dominated search, built a revenue base, and then branched out.

Exactly... but I cannot do this if there are people waiting for a return on their PTS / AGS.... thus the need to change things for everyones benefit.

I generally agree with BM's proposal.  The critical detail here is how will dilution be determined, controlled (voting?), and its value measured. 
BTS: theangelwaveproject

Offline matt608

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile
Is VOTE dac an independant dac and are they still getting its own bitUSD debit card (for their own version of bitUSD) or are they on the same blockchain as BTSX with this proposal?

This proposal is to bring them all on to one chain.. no BitUSD competitors.

Awesome.  +5% (so long as it's still scalable)

Offline BldSwtTrs

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 220
    • View Profile
Is VOTE dac an independant dac and are they still getting its own bitUSD debit card (for their own version of bitUSD) or are they on the same blockchain as BTSX with this proposal?

This proposal is to bring them all on to one chain.. no BitUSD competitors.
So BTS will have only one blockchain?
Weren't you saying few months ago that scalability requires having several parallel blockchains?

Offline Mysto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 382
    • View Profile

Offline Overthetop

What sais/thinks toast about the proposal?
How is he imagine the future for KeyID now?
I am very interested to hear a DAC "owner" thoughts...
What think's COB about the proposal?....

yes

we need to know the thoughts from the other dac teams ,because the BTS ecosystem is a big family.

 
个人微博账号: Overthetop_万里晴空
“块链创新与创业”交流群: 330378613

Offline bytemaster

Is VOTE dac an independant dac and are they still getting its own bitUSD debit card (for their own version of bitUSD) or are they on the same blockchain as BTSX with this proposal?

This proposal is to bring them all on to one chain.. no BitUSD competitors.
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline bytemaster

What BM said likes a rob to AGSer and PTSer.I like btsx just as other DACs and I do not want to lose the opptuinity to get all other DACs.

I think what everyone has missed is that with this proposal there would be "no other DACs" because all funds will be going towards one BitShares DAC that then provides features all of the others would have had.

VOTE would direct all network effect and marketing toward BTS
DNS would either focus on a different TLD or get integrated into BTS
Everything Ethereum can do will get integrated into BTS

So given our focus on building everything into BTS until such a time that someone wants to clone BTS and focus on a smaller demographic and "specialize"...

Those that use the "stock is falling proves the idea is bad" argument.... are no different than miners saying "BTC is rising dilution for mining is good".   

Those that claim that "dilution will kill BTSX" are some of the same people who say that "VOTE" will kill BTSX because it has BitAssets + Dilution. 

So the real problem is that people are "scared" from "uncertainty"... there are many kinds of uncertainty:

1) will dilution make my shares worthless......
2) will a competitor who is able to dilute make my shares worthless....
3) will bytemaster have to support two projects.... and end up hating one and loving the other... which will be which?
4) will other DACs having BitUSD hurt the main BitUSD?

You see... it doesn't matter what we do, say, or propose... in the short term uncertainty is what will hurt the price.   Once there is some certainty that is clear and easy to understand then the market can accurately price things:

Imagine the opportunities for press releases:

1) First ever crypto-equity merger
2) BTSX DACS unite and announce intention to offer Ethereum competitor

Now imagine how much easier future pitches are.... "buy BTS"... rather than "Buy BTSX... but you may want to put some of your money in PTS that may yield something if core developers divide their focus on your first BTSX investment".   

Change isn't always easy, pretty, or pleasant.   

Those who are dumping are likely speculating that it will fall further on the rumor... then they can buy back in cheaper once everything is sorted out and they know what they are getting.   

I leave everyone with one final thought:

If you are investing in BTSX technology because of BitAssets and what that enables.... the value is in the BitAssets which appear to be working...  then this proposal is really about preventing the dilution of BitAssets on 20 different DACs leading to user confusion.   

If you want a no dilution system with BitAssets... fine that *can exist* if you can find a dev team that will work for transaction fees and market the hell out of it.   You can even fund that team with a 1 allocation on the launch of the DAC if you want.    I suspect someone may launch such a competitor and more power to them.


Reducing the number of DACs will reduce common costs and incurred by all DACs... one large DEV team working on quality control and bug fixes rather than many small teams dealing with constantly merging upstream changes.     The cost savings to our ecosystem will be huge and thus we all benefit.


For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.