Author Topic: Consensus reached on Mumble session regarding BM's "Fix-all" proposal  (Read 18750 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bytemaster

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 JoeyD

Need a bit more clarity on proposal.

PTS + AGS + BTSX => BTS
DNS => ?
VOTE => ?
PLAY => ?

Any third party dacs as I understand it will stay separate.

As far as I know, bytemaster was thinking out loud on the forums when he posted the proposal, but hadn't discussed it yet with Vote or DNS/Toast. But his idea was to have all DACS currently developed in house by the bitshares team be part of bitshares (BTS) and that  probably means talking to Vote and DNS to see if they are willing to join.

Offline Gentso1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 931
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: gentso
Need a bit more clarity on proposal.

PTS + AGS + BTSX => BTS
DNS => ?
VOTE => ?
PLAY => ?

Any third party dacs as I understand it will stay separate.

Offline bitcoinerS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 592
    • View Profile
Need a bit more clarity on proposal.

PTS + AGS + BTSX => BTS
DNS => ?
VOTE => ?
PLAY => ?
>>> approve bitcoiners

Offline vegolino

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 450
  • Reality is Information
    • View Profile
Empirical1.1
Quote
However as I've said before my BitShares investment is primarily an investment in Bytemasters grand vision. BitAssets also have a short window of opportunity to take their shot at the world. So the sooner we get things resolved and push forward the better.
My thoughts exactly  +5%

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
It was my understanding that they wouldn't be free-riding at least for the first couple years considering that development has already been paid for through AGS donations.

Perhaps we can survive against competitors with the limited funds from AGS. Or perhaps we will not. It is not clear. What I do know is that the probability of success will be MUCH better if we allow shareholders to vote on capital infusion to fund many important projects including the marketing and on-ramps that are targeted to bring value specifically to BTS. Also, see this post by bytemaster.

Then again how do you know for sure that given 2 DACs, the one with no dilution wouldn't be more popular, bring in more revenue thereby causing the dilution DAC to "free-ride" on the other DAC's increased market cap and momentum in development?

I don't know for sure. But what I do know is that the one with dilution will be able to spend the funds on marketing itself and getting on-ramps to it rather than to its competitor, and this gives it a huge competitive advantage. Also, the largest source of growth will be regular users who want to hold BitAssets. They probably won't even care about the "stock" of the "company" and whether it is being diluted or not. This is a much larger source of growth than the current relatively tiny cryptocurrency community who take such a hard line view regarding dilution.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2014, 08:11:46 pm by arhag »

Offline oldman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
    • View Profile
That said, IMO if indeed a major restructuring is necessary, then the time is now before the DAC gets too big. I remember discussions a while back about how the first implementation of bitshares may have to be redone.  So this is fine with me as long as distributed consensus is maintained and the majority of shareholders are required to approve the decisions.

Yep.

Offline bitmeat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
    • View Profile
It was a mistake to do the Feb 28th snapshot. That said I think this fixes many problems.

In fact it fixes one thing I've been bitching about since day 1 - it makes AGS liquid.

Just make sure future snapshots could be easily awarded with command line if you control an asset. This will definitely make it easier for new DACs to be created and will attract more developers.

Offline amencon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 227
    • View Profile
If you have one DAC and it employs dilution and there is a potential user/investor that doesn't like dilution then you have no products for them to invest in.

The DACs with no dilution will be free riding off the public goods funded by the DACs with dilution (see my post here). During these early stages we have so much common infrastructure that we need to fund, develop, and market to the masses. We are better off keeping things unified into a massive DAC with large network effect than splitting things up (at least for now). There can still be small third party DACs, but they will be at a disadvantage because of the weak network effect (by design). That is the cost they need to pay if they don't want to be part of BTS and pay their fair share of the common infrastructure through dilution. We want to make sure that if they opt-out of BTS and paying for the common infrastructure then they will be very unlikely to ever kill off BTS by gaining a larger network effect.

Eventually, we will get to a stage where we can afford to spin-off into multiple DACs. All the heavy lifting will have been done and we will have escaped the Earth's gravitational pull and into outer space (to continue Stan's analogy). We can then afford to split into multiple DACs that specialize into different industries and attract shareholders who only care about those industries.
It was my understanding that they wouldn't be free-riding at least for the first couple years considering that development has already been paid for through AGS donations.

Also since the separate DACs would have differnt teams, a DAC with successful dilution could re-target those funds towards that same particular DAC.  It's true though that at least some of that paid for development would benefit other DACs in way of improvements to the general toolkit.

Then again how do you know for sure that given 2 DACs, the one with no dilution wouldn't be more popular, bring in more revenue thereby causing the dilution DAC to "free-ride" on the other DAC's increased market cap and momentum in development?

You might be right that dilution is the way to go and we need to consolidate DACs, I don't share the same opinion but could very certainly be wrong.  In any case it will be interesting to see what happens.

Offline Helikopterben

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 202
    • View Profile
First of all, does anyone have an ELI5 on this?  This really looks like a mess:

This is not "one chain to rule them all".   
(Bytemaster merely mentioned that such claims would be incorrectly made.)

Two or three synergistic chains would be merged.



@bytemaster, is it possible to clarify which DACs/funtionalities would be included into BTSX?

Everything we would have ever implemented.



Secondly, I hope BM and others aren't acting irrational because of a simple correction in price.  The market cap and price increased over 800% in less than one month and is experiencing a correction that looks very similar to early bitcoin fractals.  Markets don't go up in a straight line.  This price decline is normal.  Please take a step back and make sure these decisions are what is best for the company.

That said, IMO if indeed a major restructuring is necessary, then the time is now before the DAC gets too big.  I remember discussions a while back about how the first implementation of bitshares may have to be redone.  So this is fine with me as long as distributed consensus is maintained and the majority of shareholders are required to approve the decisions.

Offline davidpbrown

Is there a legal liability to combining all into one?.. or is that not known, which perhaps is the same??.. It does seem that provoking risk relative to PTS; AGS; BTSX with basics not resolved, is likely to cause anxiety and stress. Not to suggest it should not happen but substantial change should be well considered. Which again is why I think separating out the close of PTS and the merger of DACs might be sensible; one perhaps needs a longer conversation than the other.
฿://1CBxm54Ah5hiYxiUtD7JGYRXykT5Z6ZuMc

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
If you have one DAC and it employs dilution and there is a potential user/investor that doesn't like dilution then you have no products for them to invest in.

The DACs with no dilution will be free riding off the public goods funded by the DACs with dilution (see my post here). During these early stages we have so much common infrastructure that we need to fund, develop, and market to the masses. We are better off keeping things unified into a massive DAC with large network effect than splitting things up (at least for now). There can still be small third party DACs, but they will be at a disadvantage because of the weak network effect (by design). That is the cost they need to pay if they don't want to be part of BTS and pay their fair share of the common infrastructure through dilution. We want to make sure that if they opt-out of BTS and paying for the common infrastructure then they will be very unlikely to ever kill off BTS by gaining a larger network effect.

Eventually, we will get to a stage where we can afford to spin-off into multiple DACs. All the heavy lifting will have been done and we will have escaped the Earth's gravitational pull and into outer space (to continue Stan's analogy). We can then afford to split into multiple DACs that specialize into different industries and attract shareholders who only care about those industries.
I fully agree with everything said!

I like the analogy of 'spin-offs' instead of "merged-mined' blockchains .. or side chains .. we are talking BUSINESS .. not mining, nor chains ..

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
If you have one DAC and it employs dilution and there is a potential user/investor that doesn't like dilution then you have no products for them to invest in.

The DACs with no dilution will be free riding off the public goods funded by the DACs with dilution (see my post here). During these early stages we have so much common infrastructure that we need to fund, develop, and market to the masses. We are better off keeping things unified into a massive DAC with large network effect than splitting things up (at least for now). There can still be small third party DACs, but they will be at a disadvantage because of the weak network effect (by design). That is the cost they need to pay if they don't want to be part of BTS and pay their fair share of the common infrastructure through dilution. We want to make sure that if they opt-out of BTS and paying for the common infrastructure then they will be very unlikely to ever kill off BTS by gaining a larger network effect.

Eventually, we will get to a stage where we can afford to spin-off into multiple DACs. All the heavy lifting will have been done and we will have escaped the Earth's gravitational pull and into outer space (to continue Stan's analogy). We can then afford to split into multiple DACs that specialize into different industries and attract shareholders who only care about those industries.

Offline Ben Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1070
  • Integrity & Innovation, powered by Bitshares
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: benjojo
Do it, merge all into BitsharesX.  +5% All funding should go into 1 DAC, and that funding can be distributed according to each DAC's need, so if someone doesn't know where to fund, they just fund the main DAC.

 +5%

The devs have my full support to implement the BTS merger, and the sooner the better.

The DAC fragmentation/naming etc was a major stumbling block for marketing and investment.

Now folks can just buy BTS to invest in BTC 2.0.

Simple, clean and easy.

 +5% We need an allocation drawn up for everyone to review that is as fair as possible so we can get on and agree it.  Then we need to implement asap so the market can see the benefits and stand amazed that a crypto company can be so nimble whilst retaining it's integrity! DPOS rules!

Offline Empirical1.1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile
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.
Thanks for the detailed reply, you are making sense. 

It's a good point about team size and resources.  Originally I believe the plan was for each DAC to be "championed" by someone from their team with their own resources, for instance toast was heading up the KeyID development.  That way I3 could develop multiple ideas at once and hopefully compare notes and share among themselves so each new DAC could be built stronger.  Perhaps they now realize it's too much to grow their team large enough to fragment it to accommodate the development of multiple DACs at once.  Plenty of companies stumble when trying to cross the chasm from one man shop to small business, then again going from small business to medium sized.

Hopefully the right decisions are being made, hard to know without having all the facts.  I do feel that now it is known that this is what I3 wants and will likely happen no matter what, some investors are just painting on a smile and agreeing this is "great news" to help ease the turbulent market effects all these comments and proposals have had.  Very reminiscent of the "this is actually great news" meme in Bitcoin.  Thank you for backing up your reasoning in all this, makes a bit more sense to me.

I think you have made some insightful observations there.

I would add though that one DAC would simplify things and maximise the network effect. (Spin-offs can still happen though if a DAC is more competitive separately.)Also having key talent like Bytemasters undivided focus on a single DAC is pretty priceless.

Quote
Controlled focus is like a laser beam that can cut through anything that seems to be stopping you. 
- Tony Robbins

Trying to get consensus on all these issues is going to be tough, you just can't please everyone. I don't know what the full extent of the fallout or unintended consequences will be.

However as I've said before my BitShares investment is primarily an investment in Bytemasters grand vision. BitAssets also have a short window of opportunity to take their shot at the world. So the sooner we get things resolved and push forward the better.