Author Topic: Proposed Allocation for Merger  (Read 43253 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline NewMine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 552
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #75 on: October 21, 2014, 07:23:16 pm »
Does anyone want to tell me why VOTE changed everything?

I haven't been able to find the amazing revelations related to vote.

Offline mint chocolate chip

Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #76 on: October 21, 2014, 07:26:09 pm »
Does anyone want to tell me why VOTE changed everything?

I haven't been able to find the amazing revelations related to vote.

Possibly California exploring new voting systems and the VOTE concept fitting what it is California is looking for.

Offline xxeyes

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #77 on: October 21, 2014, 07:26:17 pm »
I haven't yet claimed the BitsharesX I am entitled to based on my AngleShares donations.  Can I continue to put this off or will I have difficulty claiming my share once the merger has happened?  The reason I haven't claimed them yet is that the client doesn't work on my older iMac and I haven't had the time to upgrade it yet.

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #78 on: October 21, 2014, 07:26:25 pm »
Does anyone want to tell me why VOTE changed everything?

I haven't been able to find the amazing revelations related to vote.

It was at the right place at the right time.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline NewMine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 552
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #79 on: October 21, 2014, 07:29:49 pm »
Does anyone want to tell me why VOTE changed everything?

I haven't been able to find the amazing revelations related to vote.

Possibly California exploring new voting systems and the VOTE concept fitting what it is California is looking for.
Does anyone want to tell me why VOTE changed everything?

I haven't been able to find the amazing revelations related to vote.

It was at the right place at the right time.

Neither of these explain it.  Do we not know the true catalyst thinking behind all of this? I could only find teasers about something to be announced and if this is the case, a huge mistake is being made here.

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #80 on: October 21, 2014, 07:31:19 pm »
Does anyone want to tell me why VOTE changed everything?

I haven't been able to find the amazing revelations related to vote.

Possibly California exploring new voting systems and the VOTE concept fitting what it is California is looking for.

Yea, California is going to want to accept BTS as a voting solution?  Does that seem plausible?  A custom blockchain - yes.  The 2nd swiss-army of blockchains ?  ... ?

Yea it keeps track of your votes !  And does your Name Service !  The ultimate vote solution !  OH yea, we're a bank denominated in all manner of commodities !  Come one ! Come all !

<facepalm>

Am I being too cynical ? 
« Last Edit: October 21, 2014, 07:33:55 pm by gamey »
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline Ander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3506
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Ander
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #81 on: October 21, 2014, 07:33:57 pm »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline nomoreheroes7

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 756
  • King of all the land
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nomoreheroes7
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #82 on: October 21, 2014, 07:38:26 pm »
Does anyone want to tell me why VOTE changed everything?

I haven't been able to find the amazing revelations related to vote.

Possibly California exploring new voting systems and the VOTE concept fitting what it is California is looking for.

Yea, California is going to want to accept BTS as a voting solution?  Does that seem plausible?  A custom blockchain - yes.  The 2nd swiss-army of blockchains ?  ... ?

Yea it keeps track of your votes !  And does your Name Service !  The ultimate vote solution !  OH yea, we're a bank denominated in all manner of commodities !  Come one ! Come all !

<facepalm>

Am I being too cynical ?

It seems for this reason that the various aspects of the "super DAC" should be branched off into their own wallets or something -- there needs to be a separation between all these different ideas, while still being ultimately backed up by the BTS super token so that investors are happy and developer focus isn't pulled to competing ventures.

Offline NewMine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 552
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #83 on: October 21, 2014, 07:40:21 pm »
Does anyone want to tell me why VOTE changed everything?

I haven't been able to find the amazing revelations related to vote.

Possibly California exploring new voting systems and the VOTE concept fitting what it is California is looking for.

Yea, California is going to want to accept BTS as a voting solution?  Does that seem plausible?  A custom blockchain - yes.  The 2nd swiss-army of blockchains ?  ... ?

Yea it keeps track of your votes !  And does your Name Service !  The ultimate vote solution !  OH yea, we're a bank denominated in all manner of commodities !  Come one ! Come all !

<facepalm>

Am I being too cynical ?

I'll second that        <facepalm>

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #84 on: October 21, 2014, 07:41:44 pm »
Does anyone want to tell me why VOTE changed everything?

I haven't been able to find the amazing revelations related to vote.

Possibly California exploring new voting systems and the VOTE concept fitting what it is California is looking for.

Yea, California is going to want to accept BTS as a voting solution?  Does that seem plausible?  A custom blockchain - yes.  The 2nd swiss-army of blockchains ?  ... ?

Yea it keeps track of your votes !  And does your Name Service !  The ultimate vote solution !

<facepalm>

Am I being too cynical ?
Obviously, the VOTE DAC has more implications than some of us have considered. I know I hadn't given it much credit. Seems like a neat project, but I'm unclear on where the value comes from and how the heck they are going to get any government or corporation to use it. But it seems there's more to VOTE than meets the eye. I'm guessing it moves us more into Ethereum territory.

Offline NewMine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 552
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #85 on: October 21, 2014, 07:46:48 pm »
Here are the threads where the new VOTE changes were discussed:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10057.0
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10118.0

If you can't tell me in one sentence and you'd rather take the time and post links to direct me to the maze for what a simple answer this should be, then I am convinced you truly have no clue what us going on or about to happen. And it's funny that you and one other are the loudest trumpets in favor of this. Weren't you just defending NuBits the other day?

Offline CryptoPrometheus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 324
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #86 on: October 21, 2014, 07:48:16 pm »
Does anyone want to tell me why VOTE changed everything?

I haven't been able to find the amazing revelations related to vote.

Possibly California exploring new voting systems and the VOTE concept fitting what it is California is looking for.

Yea, California is going to want to accept BTS as a voting solution?  Does that seem plausible?  A custom blockchain - yes.  The 2nd swiss-army of blockchains ?  ... ?

Yea it keeps track of your votes !  And does your Name Service !  The ultimate vote solution !  OH yea, we're a bank denominated in all manner of commodities !  Come one ! Come all !

<facepalm>

Am I being too cynical ?

It seems for this reason that the various aspects of the "super DAC" should be branched off into their own wallets or something -- there needs to be a separation between all these different ideas, while still being ultimately backed up by the BTS super token so that investors are happy and developer focus isn't pulled to competing ventures.

Separate Wallets would work, no? Think about what cob and eddy were talking about with peertracks- an interface that sits "on top of" the blockchain. Room for as many other interfaces/wallets/clients as needed. The Bitcoin crowd has had this idea for a long time- use BTC as the ledger and ride everything else on "top". Same idea with Bitshares, but with BTS it could actually work, thanks to DPOS, faster transaction times, touring completeness, etc.
"Power and law are not synonymous. In fact, they are often in opposition and irreconcilable."
- Cicero

Offline carpet ride

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 544
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #87 on: October 21, 2014, 07:53:43 pm »

I'm not very happy about PTS not being liquid.  The vesting period needs to be a lot shorter.  PTS is getting screwed.  0

I'm not even sure marketing one big DAC is that great of an idea.  Metcalfe's or not.  We're a currency, but also DNS provider, but we do voting too !   Is this easier to market ?   How about using it?  I guess one blockchain with separate front ends ?   No one had to even mention PTS/AGS previously in marketing.  Now we have a million different things under 1 roof. 

I suppose it might be better because I don't particularly disagree with Metcalfe's/network effect but you guys better think real carefully before blindly following a law.  There is a real problem with technical people applying stuff like this and having utter faith in it but failing to see the limitations of men in some regard.

So are there going to be separate front ends ?

So how many steps have we taken backwards from a point of stability ? 

Adam Ernest now gets 1% of BTS because he did what ? 

This is sort of what I was worried about when I first read Dan's initial posting.

Adam earnest gets 1%? For real?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
All opinions are my own. Anything said on this forum does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation between myself and anyone else.
Check out my blog: http://CertainAssets.com
Buy the ticket, take the ride.

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #88 on: October 21, 2014, 07:54:51 pm »
Does anyone want to tell me why VOTE changed everything?

I haven't been able to find the amazing revelations related to vote.

Possibly California exploring new voting systems and the VOTE concept fitting what it is California is looking for.

Yea, California is going to want to accept BTS as a voting solution?  Does that seem plausible?  A custom blockchain - yes.  The 2nd swiss-army of blockchains ?  ... ?

Yea it keeps track of your votes !  And does your Name Service !  The ultimate vote solution !  OH yea, we're a bank denominated in all manner of commodities !  Come one ! Come all !

<facepalm>

Am I being too cynical ?

It seems for this reason that the various aspects of the "super DAC" should be branched off into their own wallets or something -- there needs to be a separation between all these different ideas, while still being ultimately backed up by the BTS super token so that investors are happy and developer focus isn't pulled to competing ventures.

Separate Wallets would work, no? Think about what cob and eddy were talking about with peertracks- an interface that sits "on top of" the blockchain. Room for as many other interfaces/wallets/clients as needed. The Bitcoin crowd has had this idea for a long time- use BTC as the ledger and ride everything else on "top". Same idea with Bitshares, but with BTS it could actually work, thanks to DPOS, faster transaction times, touring completeness, etc.

Having a a multilayered complicated transaction system on the blockchain is almost the opposite direction from transparency and the main reason you are selling voting on a blockchain.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2014, 08:17:35 pm by gamey »
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #89 on: October 21, 2014, 07:55:42 pm »
I'm 100% against this proposal. EDIT: I support the merge but not with these numbers
What AGS/PTS get is ridiculously low.
It is against the initial promise.
I fully agree with this. Agree with the merger but the allocation is so low for PTS/AGS after Feb28! Those were the ppl that donated most of the AGS dev fund...

The vote DAC was described as having the potential to have more value than BTX (plus the DNS DAC...). This allocation proposal does not reflect that.

disclaimer: I donated more to AGS after Feb28 than before.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2014, 07:59:26 pm by delulo »