Author Topic: Proposal to Resolve a Million Issues at Once  (Read 108782 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Felix

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 87
    • View Profile
Conclusion:  sacrifice the benefit of btsx shareholders in order to compensate that of ags/pts holders.  But why not allocate annual bonus to ags/pts holders as an indemnity???
 
as a predict, btsx will be stronger, better! It sounds very nice but when? Also, even if btsx shareholders have no loss, invictus will still push forward btsx ecosystem for success.  right?

Offline Musewhale

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2881
  • 丑,实在是太丑了 !
    • View Profile
If 3i can use the price of 2.28 to buy PTS and AGS.
I can quit this game!

You represent the views of the people 50%  :P :P :P


On this matter, I want to say: This is our “big thing"
MUSE witness:mygoodfriend     vote for me

Offline kbrom

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
Sorry guys my English is not very good,  use  translation tools.

I think only a certain variety of USD is better than USD, USD kind of too much results may be each one will unsucceed.
Can make  based I3 TOOLKIT' DACS independently, but run in the same block chain.Thus, USD can flow in different DAC

USD issuance powers are limited to BITSX, so USD was only one, keep the core competence of BTSX.

If a DAC is successful, there is a need for the increase of USD, enhance the BTSX value, the win-win situation, and a DAC is not successful is not on the whole ecosystem cause what effect. So all of these DACS based on TOOLKIT to form a powerful ecological circle. I do not know whether it is technically feasible?

For the already released DNS, it's very simple,we can get a point in time, the existing DNS address for the snapshot, and then re released a X chain based on the new DNS, address asset retention, re register ID (to prevent  X ID same name)

Through DNS, MUSIC, VOTE these have come out and coming out of the DACS, the BTSX BITSUSD popularized, the initial establishment of the DACS ecosystem I3.

So, later if someone wants to fork BTS, their USD will be very difficult to get market recognition, cannot  competition with the I3 DACS

If we do not have the same block chain, sooner or later I3  will still have independent DACS, face a variety of problems with USD, because X can not put all the functions, it will increase the risk of system. why don't we solve it now?

It can be understood as, BTSX is a parent company, other based design of 3I TOOLKIT' DACS is the subsidiary company ,delegates appointed by the company, they maintain the entire BTS, rather than a specific DAC.

The one chain and representative can use BTSX, or other better solutions.

So AGS and PTS scheme is also no change, at least without changing the rules too much, BTSX said to issue has caused a very bad influence on the market, especially in the initial stage of I3  development that now. I am a Chinese, my reaction to the market very intuitive feel, because many people here have BTSX.

Based on I3 TOOLKIT'DACS can mutually help each other more powerful, not the resource consumption in the competition,this is very regrettable.

Again,what I want to say is  use one USD---BTSXUSD.BTSX don't focus too many functions, the parent company mainly do banks and exchanges ,incude other DACS's main coin. ,So we can win-win situation whith other DACs.Who don't use X based USD, it will be difficult to achieve success.

The advantages outweigh the disadvantages,I think it is worth to do it.

Offline networker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
    • View Profile
If 3i can use the price of 2.28 to buy PTS and AGS.
I can quit this game!

Offline James212

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 312
    • View Profile
Honestly I would rather there be competition than to have one central DAC where all risk is centralized there. I just don't understand why these ideas are any good.

If you want to compete you and anybody else are absolutely free to fork the BitShares toolkit and do anything. But don't expect Dan and I3 to divert resources supporting the competition.

The point of this proposal is to allow the team to focus their attention on one DAC during this early growth stage and take advantage of Metcalfe's law.

Why not hire more developers as was planned but wasn't followed through with? I would stay away from any dilution as it is a sensitive topic and threshold for which investors in this space watch like a hawk.. that is why the Chinese dumped at the mere proposal of it... so the only other option is to merge without dilution, which may be too deflationary (or not?)... but if you keep things separate.. and have problems down the road with one of them its isolated... and another thing is to hire more devs to concentrate on the individual chains and have BM oversee them all... this way we can have reports of each project and decide which one to concentrate on if any, or work on new r&d to develop further, and the rest of the devs become sustaining engineers fixing bugs or applying concepts already specced out.

My understanding its that BTSX does not have the financing to do it right (execute the full plan) without a capital infusion.  Of course all capital infusions should more than pay for themselves so the funding must be discussed and put to a vote.

It's not a question of whether we can do something useful with the funds available.
It's the rate at which we can grow the network effect.
Going slow to stretch the resources is possible.  It is also fatal.
Look around the industry.  We are in a race.
This is how serious companies win races.

 +5% +5% Well said Stan
BTS: theangelwaveproject

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile

Being the only cryptocurrency that has the ability to allocate capital for marketing and development purposes is going to be such an insane competitive advantage once things starts to ramp up.

Imagine if two real world companies were competing to capture a market, such as social media. One of them is able to issue new shares (including to VC's), and one of them is not. It will not even be a competition, it will be steam rolling.

I'd been doubting if we would be able to actually kill bitcoin, but if our community embraces share issuance then we will completely gobble it up. I fantasize about the day we can hire Gavin and gmaxwell and others as delegate-developers. Will be amazing.

I wish your explanation had its own thread--more people need to understand how important this can be for the future.

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
Honestly I would rather there be competition than to have one central DAC where all risk is centralized there. I just don't understand why these ideas are any good.

If you want to compete you and anybody else are absolutely free to fork the BitShares toolkit and do anything. But don't expect Dan and I3 to divert resources supporting the competition.

The point of this proposal is to allow the team to focus their attention on one DAC during this early growth stage and take advantage of Metcalfe's law.

Why not hire more developers as was planned but wasn't followed through with? I would stay away from any dilution as it is a sensitive topic and threshold for which investors in this space watch like a hawk.. that is why the Chinese dumped at the mere proposal of it... so the only other option is to merge without dilution, which may be too deflationary (or not?)... but if you keep things separate.. and have problems down the road with one of them its isolated... and another thing is to hire more devs to concentrate on the individual chains and have BM oversee them all... this way we can have reports of each project and decide which one to concentrate on if any, or work on new r&d to develop further, and the rest of the devs become sustaining engineers fixing bugs or applying concepts already specced out.

My understanding its that BTSX does not have the financing to do it right (execute the full plan) without a capital infusion.  Of course all capital infusions should more than pay for themselves so the funding must be discussed and put to a vote.

It's not a question of whether we can do something useful with the funds available.
It's the rate at which we can grow the network effect.
Going slow to stretch the resources is possible.  It is also fatal.
Look around the industry.  We are in a race.
This is how serious companies win races.

Being the only cryptocurrency that has the ability to allocate capital for marketing and development purposes is going to be such an insane competitive advantage once things starts to ramp up.

Imagine if two real world companies were competing to capture a market, such as social media. One of them is able to issue new shares (including to VC's), and one of them is not. It will not even be a competition, it will be steam rolling.

I'd been doubting if we would be able to actually kill bitcoin, but if our community embraces share issuance then we will completely gobble it up. I fantasize about the day we can hire Gavin and gmaxwell and others as delegate-developers. Will be amazing.

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
Honestly I would rather there be competition than to have one central DAC where all risk is centralized there. I just don't understand why these ideas are any good.

If you want to compete you and anybody else are absolutely free to fork the BitShares toolkit and do anything. But don't expect Dan and I3 to divert resources supporting the competition.

The point of this proposal is to allow the team to focus their attention on one DAC during this early growth stage and take advantage of Metcalfe's law.

Why not hire more developers as was planned but wasn't followed through with? I would stay away from any dilution as it is a sensitive topic and threshold for which investors in this space watch like a hawk.. that is why the Chinese dumped at the mere proposal of it... so the only other option is to merge without dilution, which may be too deflationary (or not?)... but if you keep things separate.. and have problems down the road with one of them its isolated... and another thing is to hire more devs to concentrate on the individual chains and have BM oversee them all... this way we can have reports of each project and decide which one to concentrate on if any, or work on new r&d to develop further, and the rest of the devs become sustaining engineers fixing bugs or applying concepts already specced out.

My understanding its that BTSX does not have the financing to do it right (execute the full plan) without a capital infusion.  Of course all capital infusions should more than pay for themselves so the funding must be discussed and put to a vote.

It's not a question of whether we can do something useful with the funds available.
It's the rate at which we can grow the network effect.
Going slow to stretch the resources is possible.  It is also fatal.
Look around the industry.  We are in a race.
This is how serious companies win races.
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline James212

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 312
    • View Profile
Honestly I would rather there be competition than to have one central DAC where all risk is centralized there. I just don't understand why these ideas are any good.

If you want to compete you and anybody else are absolutely free to fork the BitShares toolkit and do anything. But don't expect Dan and I3 to divert resources supporting the competition.

The point of this proposal is to allow the team to focus their attention on one DAC during this early growth stage and take advantage of Metcalfe's law.

Why not hire more developers as was planned but wasn't followed through with? I would stay away from any dilution as it is a sensitive topic and threshold for which investors in this space watch like a hawk.. that is why the Chinese dumped at the mere proposal of it... so the only other option is to merge without dilution, which may be too deflationary (or not?)... but if you keep things separate.. and have problems down the road with one of them its isolated... and another thing is to hire more devs to concentrate on the individual chains and have BM oversee them all... this way we can have reports of each project and decide which one to concentrate on if any, or work on new r&d to develop further, and the rest of the devs become sustaining engineers fixing bugs or applying concepts already specced out.

My understanding its that BTSX does not have the financing to do it right (execute the full plan) without a capital infusion.  Of course all capital infusions should more than pay for themselves so the funding must be discussed and put to a vote.
BTS: theangelwaveproject

Offline jsidhu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1335
    • View Profile
Honestly I would rather there be competition than to have one central DAC where all risk is centralized there. I just don't understand why these ideas are any good.

If you want to compete you and anybody else are absolutely free to fork the BitShares toolkit and do anything. But don't expect Dan and I3 to divert resources supporting the competition.

The point of this proposal is to allow the team to focus their attention on one DAC during this early growth stage and take advantage of Metcalfe's law.

Why not hire more developers as was planned but wasn't followed through with? I would stay away from any dilution as it is a sensitive topic and threshold for which investors in this space watch like a hawk.. that is why the Chinese dumped at the mere proposal of it... so the only other option is to merge without dilution, which may be too deflationary (or not?)... but if you keep things separate.. and have problems down the road with one of them its isolated... and another thing is to hire more devs to concentrate on the individual chains and have BM oversee them all... this way we can have reports of each project and decide which one to concentrate on if any, or work on new r&d to develop further, and the rest of the devs become sustaining engineers fixing bugs or applying concepts already specced out.
Hired by blockchain | Developer
delegate: dev.sidhujag

Offline merlin0113

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 286
    • View Profile
My many chinese fellows don't have fine logic, what's even worse they tend to shout loudly eagering themselves to be heared. It's just so typical of chinese. As being chinese myself, my deep apologies for that.
I think the main point of bm proposal is synergy future bts can benefit from all potential dac application. Another consequence/point is that if this proposal has come to a reality (which I in favor wholeheartly) means a lot heavier burden/responsiblity will lay on bm himself by competing with other dac dev team.
One conculsion: I hate to say this , because this woould make many my chinese fellows think I am stupid, that right now we are more investing in bm rather than investing in bts or I3. As a spectacular coder, decent and openess guy like bm, have my full support.

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
I step away for one day! Sucks that I missed the impromtu Mumble. Thanks for posting the audio.



I didn't see agent86 chime in, did I miss it in the last 20 pages of posts?

This topic was presented as a proposal but it's one that's being pushed pretty hard by BM and Stan. Is it still a proposal?

It has my vote for whatever that is worth. I like the idea of I3 working on one DAC. One blockchain. One product to market. One technology to explain to folks.

The buyout of PTS/AGS is a one time pain point from a PR and investor relations perspective but the rewards will be on going.

When I worked for IBM we found that it would take us three months to change the design of the box we shipped a product in. Clearly I3 under Stan and Dan's leadership do not have that issue.

It's still a proposal in the sense that stakeholders will ultimately have the authority to decide whether it gets implemented or not, either by voting for delegates, or by a system that is made specifically for voting on hard forks that BM outlined in another thread.

Offline Riverhead

I step away for one day! Sucks that I missed the impromtu Mumble. Thanks for posting the audio.



I didn't see agent86 chime in, did I miss it in the last 20 pages of posts?

This topic was presented as a proposal but it's one that's being pushed pretty hard by BM and Stan. Is it still a proposal?

It has my vote for whatever that is worth. I like the idea of I3 working on one DAC. One blockchain. One product to market. One technology to explain to folks.

The buyout of PTS/AGS is a one time pain point from a PR and investor relations perspective but the rewards will be on going.

When I worked for IBM we found that it would take us three months to change the design of the box we shipped a product in. Clearly I3 under Stan and Dan's leadership do not have that issue.


Offline James212

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 312
    • View Profile
join the Mumble Discussion on this 18-page topic.  This is obviously getting heated...so lets bring this to a more efficient communication channel.  https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10173.0

 Download the audio:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B521Uvk7QIpYUlBBQld2b25pTVE/view?usp=sharing
BTS: theangelwaveproject

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
Here's the real question, once "stake holder approved dilution without limit" is encoded into software rules, do we have a DAC anymore or is this now a DAD (Decentralized Autonomous Democracy ?).

It is still a DAC (Decentralized Autonomous Company). Companies have shareholders. Shareholders get to vote on decisions. It is not a democracy in the traditional sense because it is not 1 person = 1 vote but rather 1 share = 1 vote.

Also, not everything can be made autonomous. Strategic decisions still need to be made by humans if we want the company to survive against all of its competitors. The most fair way of deciding these decisions is through shareholder vote.

Edit: Stan beat me to it.