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.
Topic: Proposal to Resolve a Million Issues at Once (Read 156293 times)
