Consensus reached on Mumble session regarding BM's "Fix-all" proposal

[matt608]

I've been listening and find myself agreeing with BM. To summarize:

• BM has an obligation to create something for post-28th feb donations and PTS holders, leading to the perceived conflict of interest
• Fusioning all DACs into BTSX under the name BTS would focus BM on a single DAC
• A fusion would be done through a second, final snapshot of PTS/AGS
• This snapshot would create new BTSX to honor current PTS/AGS holders
• This snapshot will focus all the funds on the same project in order to accelerate development
• Any new features such as VOTE would be created inside BTS
• Future scaling problems would be addressed using a spin-off: a snapshot of BTS used to create a new DAC

TLDR: Buying out PTS/AGS to create a bigger, better DAC with more features, more funding, better marketing potential and complete developer focus.

 

[JoeyD]

Can you explain why most of your concerns were alleviated?  This proposal is a major departure from the original plan.  I liked the idea of an ecosystem.  One where you could weight your investments based on the core purpose of each DAC and it's other features and merits.

With a single chain that's lost.  Now if you see value in the vote feature (or whatever) you have to pony up for all the other features of the DAC as well.

I'm also not a fan of dilution, I don't believe there will be a way to accurately and conclusively determine the added value it will bring and the decision to dilute will most likely come from emotional campaigns or suggestion from I3.

Add that this is essentially a huge statement from I3 that their stated goals mean little and are subject to massive changed at whim, not usually a good signal to woo future potential investors.

I listened to the recording and it essentially sounds like BM wants to change his mind on how the ecosystem will be built because of backlash from BTSX holders due to poorly planned communications by BM that had them speculating that the Vote DAC was going to eat their lunch.

Can you describe exactly what it was that he said that assuaged your concerns about this radical change?  It sounds like you also liked the idea of multiple competing chains, is that now not the case?  I only ask because I didn't hear anything that changed my mind about what I like.

Oh don't get me wrong I still don't agree with the single blockchain concept and the proposal is not the way I like things to go. But I also understand the practical implications that if adoption fails and a certain threshold of adoptions is not reached this entire project will be dead in the water. So like you said, I'm not in favor of the single blockchain at all. What alleviated my concern was, that I realized that should the bitshares-project gain enough adoption and because of the opensource toolkit. It will allow for forks and spinoffs and help convince others to try and follow the same concepts and pos. The proposal is more for these separate chains to not be the sole responsibility of the bitshares team. Which is a good thing in my book, eventhough investors/speculators/stake holders might feel otherwise. Like I said, I'm an idealist, so I don't really give all that much about my stake as long as the world improves, I'm all for it.

I also realized during the session that a colossal structure would probably not be able to compete with specialized and more agile spinoffs. Also the promise by the bitshares team to support people honoring the stake in the social contract, would probably be enough for new DACs to get a better start in the future. So now I see a possibility for more independence from the bitshares team with these separate dacs, which might not be what stake holders want to hear.

So I agree looking for the easy way out is bad and communication is not being done well, I'm now seeing other ways of distributed developments more independent from bytemaster and the tiny bitshares team. I would have loved them being able to setup this entire ecosystem with competition and all, but with their current resources, funds and team-members I can see how they are not able to do that currently.

Feel free to correct my mistaken logic when you see it, I may very well be confused, I've not been sleeping well and my mind could very well have started playing tricks on me. The hangout happened in the middle of the night for me and I was already exhausted when it started. I finished the uploads and posted the links at 3:30am means my brain is not firing on all cylinders today and caffeine is no longer up to the task.

Gotta run, sorry if I'm not making sense, I'm typing this as fast as I can and I'm not a native english speaker.

[davidpbrown]

corruption resistant systems

Building robust and therefore distributed systems, is not about doing what is easier. The temptation to not distribute power and wealth; and worse consolidate it, follows from the same attitude.

Obviously, it is possible to consider that all flavours of BitShares DAC, while critically dependant on a few individuals, could benefit from BitShares playing host to all (control and power); and perhaps that is ok, so long as the intent it to later spin off sucessful self-sufficient DACs. However, there is a risk that DACs will not form such strong identities as small fish in a bid pond. While there is not critical mass, perhaps putting them under the same umberella might help.

My instinct is to be tough from the start and I thought that what has been occuring to date was exactly what we wanted to see - that has been what has set BitShares apart from other similar efforts. I wonder what is behind this is simply a level of frustration and impatience. If that is the case, then perhaps such a change would be an error. If all the difference here sums to a couple of years delay and better more robust products for it, then perhaps it is worth keeping DACs separate?

The risk with one brand, is that brand fails. PeerTracks for example could become strong on its own; same with VOTE or DNS. If a FailDAC fails, should that be supported and draw strength away from the stronger DACs?


It seems the core issue is simply the cost of maintaining a PoW PTS, which is unfortunate. As an idea I really liked PTS. I have backed out now into BTSX as a result of all this uncertainty and life is then simpler. Personally, I think I would have opted for a simple hosting of PTS within DPOS and left everything else the same. Too much change, leads to uncertainty. Alternately, if you are to make a change, get it over with sooner rather than later and do not drag it out - that would signal risk to the market.


Edit: rereading this, perhaps the tone is stronger than my opinion but I feel that those thoughts needed to be expressed. I really do not mind what occurs at this stage.. it's early days and I trust the wisdom of those more core to development that I am. Perhaps such an approach as proposed can work. It's all good

[amencon]

So now that I've gotten some sleep and a cup of coffee I'll post my reaction.

First to address some worries about this socalled shareholder meeting. The mumble meeting happened completely unexpectedly and spontaneously, probably mostly because of people wanting to vent their anger. The only person I could find on mumble earlier that day was Gamey, who was busy drowning his worries away because of the proposal and resulting commotion. He then went off to drown his worries some more and nobody has heard off or seen him since. Goodbye Gamey, you will be missed, hopefully by someone with better memory than mine.

I then checked Mumble again later that day, just before going to bed to see if anybody was there so I could do a little venting and forgot to turn it off. Purely by accident I heard gentso1 calling out while I was in another room and out of the blue the channel started filling up with people. Eventually even Bytemaster and Stan showed up, but that much should be clear from the chatlog and unedited recording I uploaded.

Now here is my perspective on what Bytemaster said, but first and formost no final decisions have been made nothing is set in stone, in the mumble session Bytemaster just explained the context of his proposal that was a reaction to people voicing their worries about the voting dac.
If you saw my post in the proposal discussion, you may have noticed I was not happy with the proposal at all and probably made one of the harshest posts in that giant thread. I have been passionate about corruption resistant systems for most of my life and I donated to AGS for the bitsharestoolkit and in hope that it would help bring the developments I've been striving for for more than 20 years to finally become reality. To me the concept of a single blockchain to rule them all is one of the biggest concerns I have.

After listening to Bytemasters point of view, he did manage to alleviate most of my concerns and restore a lot of faith in the future. I'll try to list the important points for me (sorry if it's not the speculator point of view), development of the opensource bitshares toolkit will continue and decentralization still is the main objective. However he feels that, at this embryonic stage, the bitshares team might do better to focus all their efforts on this single proto-dac with all the features of the previously announced separate DACS. This would make things clear for new people, and would help the marketing of bitshares enormously, because now they only have to sell this one project and focus all energy and developments to give the project critical mass / escape velocity.

Bytemaster argues, that in the case bitshares reaches adoption rates similar or beyond that of bitcoin, then decentralization will happen naturally by people making clones of bitshares or successful experimental DACs in this proto-dac spinning off on their own chain when they start to run into limitations and the free market will take care of it on it's own. For the short to medium term however the Bitshares team would  not be creating competition with itself and for now concentrate on assuring the biggest chance of survival for the current projects and maximum focused and efficient use of their current resources, be it manpower, capital or whatever.

Should the proposal gain general acceptance then the social contract will remain intact and Bitshares-team would still offer support to anyone using the toolkit and honoring the percentage stake in this separate chain/DAC if even it is a competing one.

Can you explain why most of your concerns were alleviated?  This proposal is a major departure from the original plan.  I liked the idea of an ecosystem.  One where you could weight your investments based on the core purpose of each DAC and it's other features and merits.

With a single chain that's lost.  Now if you see value in the vote feature (or whatever) you have to pony up for all the other features of the DAC as well.

I'm also not a fan of dilution, I don't believe there will be a way to accurately and conclusively determine the added value it will bring and the decision to dilute will most likely come from emotional campaigns or suggestion from I3.

Add that this is essentially a huge statement from I3 that their stated goals mean little and are subject to massive changed at whim, not usually a good signal to woo future potential investors.

I listened to the recording and it essentially sounds like BM wants to change his mind on how the ecosystem will be built because of backlash from BTSX holders due to poorly planned communications by BM that had them speculating that the Vote DAC was going to eat their lunch.

Can you describe exactly what it was that he said that assuaged your concerns about this radical change?  It sounds like you also liked the idea of multiple competing chains, is that now not the case?  I only ask because I didn't hear anything that changed my mind about what I like.

[sumantso]

Should the proposal gain general acceptance then the social contract will remain intact and Bitshares-team would still offer support to anyone using the toolkit and honoring the percentage stake in this separate chain/DAC if even it is a competing one.

I would like to know how the social contract will be honoured for post Feb 28 AGS/PTS?

[JoeyD]

So now that I've gotten some sleep and a cup of coffee I'll post my reaction.

First to address some worries about this socalled shareholder meeting. The mumble meeting happened completely unexpectedly and spontaneously, probably mostly because of people wanting to vent their anger. The only person I could find on mumble earlier that day was Gamey, who was busy drowning his worries away because of the proposal and resulting commotion. He then went off to drown his worries some more and nobody has heard off or seen him since. Goodbye Gamey, you will be missed, hopefully by someone with better memory than mine.

I then checked Mumble again later that day, just before going to bed to see if anybody was there so I could do a little venting and forgot to turn it off. Purely by accident I heard gentso1 calling out while I was in another room and out of the blue the channel started filling up with people. Eventually even Bytemaster and Stan showed up, but that much should be clear from the chatlog and unedited recording I uploaded.

Now here is my perspective on what Bytemaster said, but first and formost no final decisions have been made nothing is set in stone, in the mumble session Bytemaster just explained the context of his proposal that was a reaction to people voicing their worries about the voting dac.
If you saw my post in the proposal discussion, you may have noticed I was not happy with the proposal at all and probably made one of the harshest posts in that giant thread. I have been passionate about corruption resistant systems for most of my life and I donated to AGS for the bitsharestoolkit and in hope that it would help bring the developments I've been striving for for more than 20 years to finally become reality. To me the concept of a single blockchain to rule them all is one of the biggest concerns I have.

After listening to Bytemasters point of view, he did manage to alleviate most of my concerns and restore a lot of faith in the future. I'll try to list the important points for me (sorry if it's not the speculator point of view), development of the opensource bitshares toolkit will continue and decentralization still is the main objective. However he feels that, at this embryonic stage, the bitshares team might do better to focus all their efforts on this single proto-dac with all the features of the previously announced separate DACS. This would make things clear for new people, and would help the marketing of bitshares enormously, because now they only have to sell this one project and focus all energy and developments to give the project critical mass / escape velocity.

Bytemaster argues, that in the case bitshares reaches adoption rates similar or beyond that of bitcoin, then decentralization will happen naturally by people making clones of bitshares or successful experimental DACs in this proto-dac spinning off on their own chain when they start to run into limitations and the free market will take care of it on it's own. For the short to medium term however the Bitshares team would  not be creating competition with itself and for now concentrate on assuring the biggest chance of survival for the current projects and maximum focused and efficient use of their current resources, be it manpower, capital or whatever.

Should the proposal gain general acceptance then the social contract will remain intact and Bitshares-team would still offer support to anyone using the toolkit and honoring the percentage stake in this separate chain/DAC if even it is a competing one.

[svk]

I've been listening and find myself agreeing with BM. To summarize:

• BM has an obligation to create something for post-28th feb donations and PTS holders, leading to the perceived conflict of interest
• Fusioning all DACs into BTSX under the name BTS would focus BM on a single DAC
• A fusion would be done through a second, final snapshot of PTS/AGS
• This snapshot would create new BTSX to honor current PTS/AGS holders
• This snapshot will focus all the funds on the same project in order to accelerate development
• Any new features such as VOTE would be created inside BTS
• Future scaling problems would be addressed using a spin-off: a snapshot of BTS used to create a new DAC

TLDR: Buying out PTS/AGS to create a bigger, better DAC with more features, more funding, better marketing potential and complete developer focus.

[fuzzy]

that can be changed.  just recognize newmine is here with "mine" in his name.  he is obviously showing a pow bias before he even speaks.    those who wanted to attend, attended.  to act like it was a net negative...is kind of insane.  just look at the charts before, during and after the speech.

I apologize I wasn't around to attend the mumble session. From now on, I will quit my job just in anticipating of a random mumble session that may or may not happen on any given day. Hell, why don't we just shut the forum down and move all discussions to the mumble since no one wants to give a cliffs notes to anything that was talked about here. Not like its a forum or anything. Usually when someone doesn't want to explain something they either don't understand what it is they are to explain or they are unsure if the explanation is worthy of publicly acknowledging.

History lesson on my user name. I only mine PTS now and actually haven't mined any for a couple months as I got rid of most mining equipment as it became antiquated. So, with that said, I created the account in January when I was still mining BTC, PTS and a few other coins. Mining BTC was never profitable for me and I regretted buying the equipment. PTS has been quite profitable in theory since I transferred most to AGS and BTSX.

What charts should I look at?

What about my post was wrong? I based my assumption on OP's self admitted misleading title.

All I want is answers and explanations. I unfortunately don't have time to listen to 2 hour conference skypes or spend 2 hours sifting through the mega thread that emerged due to this.

No offense intended to any individual.

none taken.  I have thick skin

It is going to be impossible at this juncture to gain 100% consensus for every user.  What happened today was essentially another way to communicate.  Like TonyK said...speech is humanity's primary form of communication.  The mumble server is largely a community service and the fact that BM showed up imho deserves at least a bone tossed his way. 

We ALL know (if we've been around long enough) that BM has a way of occasionally posting a topic in hopes of reaching out transparently to the community.  We also know that sometimes it backfires.  Thankfully, he has always proven he will go out of his way to consider the perspective of his investors...and that is why we had it up and running.  We know you work, but unfortunateley we cannot hold a 24/7 conference with such short notice  

Luckily, we all can record though...and do so you can still listen on the way to work and back, or when you take your shower in the morning...or read the newspaper...etc.  It is really up to the investor to either divest or take what is given them to make the best possible decisions.  As for me, I work too and also pay for the server so we have access to this.  I ask nothing in return and even when i sometimes get tipped by invictus, it is sent out to people who have volunteered to help me. 

As far as the original post, i apologize for that.  We here in the forums have found over time that we run into a great many competitors who make shell accounts and come here specifically to sell FUD.  Sorry if we are sometimes a bit defensive.

It's not about reasoning or understanding or whatever.
If a Chinese guy use mandarin to say "there",it pronounces "nay ger",and if he says that in front of a black crew in America,he would find himself in great trouble,especially when he can't use English to explain.

No one cares what you think or what your intention are,if you confuse them first.You'll have to make great effort to mend that fence.

That's what i'm talking about.How would you expect every new user and future investor to "understand" BM the way I or you did ?

that comes down to marketing and education, of which our mumble sessions are a part.  if you think there should be more (and i agree there could be), I suggest volunteering a bit to the cause.  It actually isn't as complex as many people think....but I do understand how these things can confuse newcomers. 

As far as what someone thinks or his/her intentions are.  People who invest in that someone's product BETTER care.  If not, how would I find out if it is an intentional scam?  As for Bytemaster...I've personally  never seen him change the value proposition for investors in a way that reduces value for them.  Literally never. 

If someone can prove me wrong, please link below: 

[funklr]

 

Wow. I am sure glad all 23 of you came to a consensus for the rest of the community.


How about a detailed plot of what is to happen regarding share stake percentages in already snapshot DAC's, how the new DAC's will fit into the ecosystem, what do AGS get, what do PTS get, how will dilution be voted on(since I3 controls a majority stake) and what circumstance will allow dilution, are the other Devs (Toast, Vikram etc.) on board.......

Numbers matter more than hopeful thoughts.

We didn't "decide" anything.. were merely agreed that the direction was worth pursuing further...

[Brekyrself]

In regard to PTS, what time frame are we thinking for a snapshot date?

[lakerta06]

fuck.people keep dumping shit load of btsx.kill me.

Chance to buy cheap

[lzr1900]

fuck.people keep dumping shit load of btsx.kill me.

[Pheonike]

One way is to start making Bitshares simplifier so there is less confusion for new ppl. Oh wait, hmmm I think that's what he's trying to do...

[fuzzy]

that can be changed.  just recognize newmine is here with "mine" in his name.  he is obviously showing a pow bias before he even speaks.    those who wanted to attend, attended.  to act like it was a net negative...is kind of insane.  just look at the charts before, during and after the speech.

I apologize I wasn't around to attend the mumble session. From now on, I will quit my job just in anticipating of a random mumble session that may or may not happen on any given day. Hell, why don't we just shut the forum down and move all discussions to the mumble since no one wants to give a cliffs notes to anything that was talked about here. Not like its a forum or anything. Usually when someone doesn't want to explain something they either don't understand what it is they are to explain or they are unsure if the explanation is worthy of publicly acknowledging.

History lesson on my user name. I only mine PTS now and actually haven't mined any for a couple months as I got rid of most mining equipment as it became antiquated. So, with that said, I created the account in January when I was still mining BTC, PTS and a few other coins. Mining BTC was never profitable for me and I regretted buying the equipment. PTS has been quite profitable in theory since I transferred most to AGS and BTSX.

What charts should I look at?

What about my post was wrong? I based my assumption on OP's self admitted misleading title.

All I want is answers and explanations. I unfortunately don't have time to listen to 2 hour conference skypes or spend 2 hours sifting through the mega thread that emerged due to this.

No offense intended to any individual.

none taken.  I have thick skin

It is going to be impossible at this juncture to gain 100% consensus for every user.  What happened today was essentially another way to communicate.  Like TonyK said...speech is humanity's primary form of communication.  The mumble server is largely a community service and the fact that BM showed up imho deserves at least a bone tossed his way. 

We ALL know (if we've been around long enough) that BM has a way of occasionally posting a topic in hopes of reaching out transparently to the community.  We also know that sometimes it backfires.  Thankfully, he has always proven he will go out of his way to consider the perspective of his investors...and that is why we had it up and running.  We know you work, but unfortunateley we cannot hold a 24/7 conference with such short notice  

Luckily, we all can record though...and do so you can still listen on the way to work and back, or when you take your shower in the morning...or read the newspaper...etc.  It is really up to the investor to either divest or take what is given them to make the best possible decisions.  As for me, I work too and also pay for the server so we have access to this.  I ask nothing in return and even when i sometimes get tipped by invictus, it is sent out to people who have volunteered to help me. 

As far as the original post, i apologize for that.  We here in the forums have found over time that we run into a great many competitors who make shell accounts and come here specifically to sell FUD.  Sorry if we are sometimes a bit defensive. 

[NewMine]

that can be changed.  just recognize newmine is here with "mine" in his name.  he is obviously showing a pow bias before he even speaks.    those who wanted to attend, attended.  to act like it was a net negative...is kind of insane.  just look at the charts before, during and after the speech.

I apologize I wasn't around to attend the mumble session. From now on, I will quit my job just in anticipating of a random mumble session that may or may not happen on any given day. Hell, why don't we just shut the forum down and move all discussions to the mumble since no one wants to give a cliffs notes to anything that was talked about here. Not like its a forum or anything. Usually when someone doesn't want to explain something they either don't understand what it is they are to explain or they are unsure if the explanation is worthy of publicly acknowledging.

History lesson on my user name. I only mine PTS now and actually haven't mined any for a couple months as I got rid of most mining equipment as it became antiquated. So, with that said, I created the account in January when I was still mining BTC, PTS and a few other coins. Mining BTC was never profitable for me and I regretted buying the equipment. PTS has been quite profitable in theory since I transferred most to AGS and BTSX.

What charts should I look at?

What about my post was wrong? I based my assumption on OP's self admitted misleading title.

All I want is answers and explanations. I unfortunately don't have time to listen to 2 hour conference skypes or spend 2 hours sifting through the mega thread that emerged due to this.

No offense intended to any individual.