Author Topic: Proposal to Resolve a Million Issues at Once  (Read 66777 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline kisa

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 240
    • View Profile
BTER.COM/TRADE/DNS_BTC

VOTE stakes are out there for pre-snapshot PTS holders. Not yet tradeable.

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
We need to communicate clearly to shareholders the advantages of introducing dilution. Perhaps we should rename it to "delegated share issuance" so people will understand what its purpose is. The idea is that every new share issued will be used in a profitable way to generate a return higher than 1:1.

It seems to me the Chinese community is panicking right now. It needs to be communicated clearly to them as well.

Offline happybit

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 87
  • Happy Bit!
    • View Profile
Does anyone know how many downloads of an update there are every time there is an update to BTSX?  I know it is not the number of individuals that matter, but the number of stakes that decide.  Just curious how big the community is.

This whole thread reminds me of when NXT had the 50M NXT stolen from an exchange and it was "proposed" that everyone quickly within 72hours, I believe, download an update and REVERT the transaction, the forum was full of supporters of that idea (myself included) and in the end only about 3% of the nodes had the "update"... point is the vocal forum turned out to be NOTHING in the real world.

Is the Bitshares community more easily swayed then NXT?

btw, this thread is not about bitDNS and VOTE.. just letting you know that I still haven't found where these things are, and how I can buy them.  (It is either my stupidity, or a failure of marketing...probably a bit of both)

Offline 520Bit

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
Make an AGS wallet and let people trade AGS freely. All issues will be resolved immediately.
Accept BTC/XCP/MSC: 152oBitoBwHwxR5UpUQnsvWSFjYHkheDJk
PTS: PtPXhrP5jk8BPH5fFcPnBgNSrfmJ6DCFcW
PPC: PRT95iQEKUzJSb2XsPjLgdbyoSyKiDmyb9

Offline Pheonike

I am in favor of the changes for the most part. We are never going to agree on a perfect solution. But simpler in my opinion is better and this simplifies a lot of things.  People are worried about dilution.  10 percent of a dollar is better than 100 percent of a penny any day.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2014, 10:47:28 am by Pheonike »

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
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.

I think we should keep Bitshares X and PTS. Changes like these at the last minute only confuse people. It's already launched so it's too late to change in my opinion.

It's better to connect all DACs into a union using atomic cross chain capabilities.

I don't like this sort of centralization in this particular way. I think it's better to keep separate DACs and interconnect them. Think of DACs as separate corporations or states which are separate for a reason. Then connect them using atomic cross chain capabilities to allow DACs to communication with the network of DACs.

一天一个想法,3I的诚信在哪里?规则就是规则,这样搞和原来的规则差别实在太大了!

I am happy to translate your words here:

Where is 3I's integrity, why change the rules so often? Rule is rule, current proposal is very different to previous one.

I agree, too much impatience. If you change the fundamentals now then you tell all investors that you may do it again in the future. This can only result in a calapse of confidence. I would urge the core developers to stem this quickly with a reassuring statement and pray you haven't already let the cat out of the bag
It's some kind of interesting that people are already panicking (tanking price) because of a proposal ..

In the end it's a shame to have investors on board that won't allow an open discussion of a proposal and respond wo BM's openness with sell pressure ..

Also, I have the impression that people in the timezones around BM, are alot more patient and open for discussion than the following timezones which react stupidly IMHO ..

The OP still is a PROPOSAL... and for this not around here for long should be made one thing clear: BM's proposals almost never get implemented as initially proposed ... this is all a hugh discussion

These are the kind of changes you don't make after a launch. It's way too much change for the market to handle and it's not the kind of change anyone wants. The market is speaking.

In my opinion if you want unity then network the DACs using technical means. Don't change the names, don't change the internal structures or centralize it. Allow all DACs to pay a fee to join this network of DACs and use that network as a sort of support network for all the DACs.


« Last Edit: October 19, 2014, 10:50:05 am by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline mf-tzo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1725
    • View Profile
I am not so sure how I should feel about that and I am confused about what I should do right now.

Please clarify what the proposal is so I can re evaluate my position:

1) BTSX and all future DACs (Play, ME etc) will migrate to an new BTS DAC? What does that mean specifically? There will be 1 bitusd for all and will continue have their fixed independent supply n0 of shares (Lotto shares, Me shares, BTSX etc...)? Why do we need 1 bitusd instead of doing ACCT? For simplicity?

2) DNS, Music and VOTE will be independent or will also migrate to BTS new DAC? If these are migrated into the new Bitshares DAC how the existing allocation of shares will be affected? I assume that no change will be made to their current supply, no dilution will be made and I get the same shares % on the DACs from my AGS but please confirm.

3) Do I understand correctly now that the new BTS DAC will award me BTSX based on my AGS and that BTSX supply of 2 bil will increase by 20% i.e to 2.4 bil? But I will not be able to use these BTSX for the next 6 months?

Basically I am very confused now...At first impression I am in favor for 1 DAC to rule them all. It's simple and stronger. Having 1 client for everything would be awesome! If I can have DNS,VOTE,MUSIC, PLAY by opening 1 application it will certainly help mass adoption. 

I just want to make sure that by this proposal my AGS after 28th snapashot wasn't a bad decision. Because pre 28th snapshot and even after the 28th snapshot I was buying and holding for no reason expensive PTS...

P.S: I really don't mind this selling pressure. Keep them selling as you please but don't come back later complaining that BTSX skyrocketed and you couldn't buy cheap BTSX..

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12920
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Rather just a proposal or real, the effect is the same. It would be a shame not to do it since it'd already being accounted for in loss value.
so then, the right thing for BM to do is NOT publicly discuss proposals and force changes upon us ..

you really like to see this happen? because I don't

Offline Pheonike

Rather just a proposal or real, the effect is the same. It would be a shame not to do it since it'd already being accounted for in loss value.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12920
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
一天一个想法,3I的诚信在哪里?规则就是规则,这样搞和原来的规则差别实在太大了!

I am happy to translate your words here:

Where is 3I's integrity, why change the rules so often? Rule is rule, current proposal is very different to previous one.

I agree, too much impatience. If you change the fundamentals now then you tell all investors that you may do it again in the future. This can only result in a calapse of confidence. I would urge the core developers to stem this quickly with a reassuring statement and pray you haven't already let the cat out of the bag
It's some kind of interesting that people are already panicking (tanking price) because of a proposal ..

In the end it's a shame to have investors on board that won't allow an open discussion of a proposal and respond wo BM's openness with sell pressure ..

Also, I have the impression that people in the timezones around BM, are alot more patient and open for discussion than the following timezones which react stupidly IMHO ..

The OP still is a PROPOSAL... and for this not around here for long should be made one thing clear: BM's proposals almost never get implemented as initially proposed ... this is all a hugh discussion

Offline BldSwtTrs

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 220
    • View Profile
So what happens to the idea that scalability requires having multiple blockchains running in parallels?

Is the "MasterDAC" BTS will have only one blockchain or will be composed of several blockchains?


(Overall I think the proposition in the OP is a good idea, I am just trying to understand).

Offline JoeyD

Just found this topic a minute ago and haven't had time to read all the pages yet, but here are my initial reactions, but I do reserve the right to be able to change my mind.

Do not use the forums as a means to find consensus, only use it to exchange arguments as a tool to formulate the final proposal.
Use or implement the voting mechanics on bitsharesX and use the network concensus mechanic to come to a consensus. Only people using the client and putting their money where their mouth is and actually use and support the network should have a say in votes like this for the bitsharesX part of the pie at least.

That way even if no consensus is reached, at least everybody with an opinion on this will actually use the network.

Is this a proposal made out of weakness, fear or feeling pressured by greedy people? If so then I suggest a weekend of separation from the internet and really think this through objectively and as rationally as possible. Decisions made in a panic or fearful state are rarely the right ones in the long run.

I am not in favor of a single monster of Frankenstein blockchain, that will do everything. To me that is the single biggest problem with bitcoin expanded by the fact that the user-owners of the network have no ability to vote. The opensource toolkit was the valuable concept to me, not the singular DACs that make use of it,  bitsharesX included.

I'm not concerned about the technical limits of  bandwidth or blockchainbloat, but I am concerned with the systemic/social problems that this imposes, and this is also why I am opposed to other single blockchain to rule them all solutions. Even on this forum it is clear that the bitsharesX crowd does not have the same interests as people interested in the other DACs, but in the proposed model they will be the ones with the majority vote on ALL decisions. That is a recipe for disaster. The separate DACs is the only way forward, because they need to live by their own rules and adapt not by the limitations and conflicting interests. Being small, light on your feet and flexible is only possible in smaller groups and at the very beginning. Once the network gets big and succesful, like all big companies they have become inflexible and in my eyes will collapse under their own weight or rot away from the inside, like for example is happening to Microsoft and Apple, both of whom I now see as past their prime and on their way down.

Also this completely passive attitude by socalled stake-holders and making themselves completely depended on bytemaster is a failure in creation of a self-sustaining decentralized  network. To be honest bytemaster should be working to leave bitsharesx and let it live on its own, maybe set a target for that as well and let it's community and the concept prove itself on it's own. I'm starting to feel a more forceful approach is needed to get people to understand what decentralized actually means. A lot of the comments come across as if people were thinking they bought Invictus shares and that they own Apple-style-stocks and through that own all things that anyone from Invictus touches. If that's the case then I suggest renaming all shares to Midas-shares or Invect-shares, if that is the model going forward.

Sorry if I sound a bit irritated, I admit I find myself getting more and more irritated by the mindset that by just sitting at the computer and clicking with your mouse entitles you to anything. (And that also means I am frustrated with myself as well). Don't get me wrong, I also think the Invictus team carries a lot of responsibility for creating the current culture of passivity by the community.

Involving the community and getting more people involved is what is lacking, not the monopoly on Bytemaster and his time.

For now I've run out of time, I'll try to come back later today and read the other pages of comments and hopefully list the rest of my points.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2014, 09:18:04 am by JoeyD »

Offline Felix

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 87
    • View Profile
here some of my opinions:

1:let ags/pts holders  have a quantity of  shares of all DACs is definitely a bad idea! It's more acceptable that AGS/PTS holders get the annual bonus of 3I company.

2: Btsx hard fork should be avoided as soon as possible. This idea is similar to financial QE! If it is unavoidable, the benefit of all original btsx shareholders should be well considered.

3: But in order to resolve the issues from ags/pts holders, we can do the btsx hard fork for only one time. Again, it must still consider the benefit of all original btsx shareholders. Maybe all three parts can share new shares in proportion. After that, ags/pts should disappear in 3I and only btsx shareholders still exist!

hope that these ideas help to remove equity issues in 3I! By the way, actually, I think that btsx shareholders should get a quantity of other DACs shares because other DACs take way of btsx techniques!

Offline stuartcharles

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 281
    • View Profile
一天一个想法,3I的诚信在哪里?规则就是规则,这样搞和原来的规则差别实在太大了!

I am happy to translate your words here:

Where is 3I's integrity, why change the rules so often? Rule is rule, current proposal is very different to previous one.

I agree, too much impatience. If you change the fundamentals now then you tell all investors that you may do it again in the future. This can only result in a calapse of confidence. I would urge the core developers to stem this quickly with a reassuring statement and pray you haven't already let the cat out of the bag

Offline graffenwalder

I think this panic dumping is going to be the bottom of the current BTSX downtrend.
(But I'm not sure how much this panic dumping is going to take us down before we hit that bottom). 

I wish I had more to buy with right now, to try and catch the bottom of thisdump, but the sad thing is that I just bought a bunch earlier today.  One day too early :(
I'm waiting for the fudsters sold me even cheaper.
 ;)

Unbelievable all this talk about FUD.
The only form of FUD spread is by byte master, with remarks like vote would have more potential to the moon than BTSX.

Really some funds should be spend on a PR manager, this could have gone down a whole lot easier.
Now there is mass panic, because there are a couple of proposals without any definitive outcome.