Knowing when to stop

[liondani]

I think what people are worried about is that you won't stop here. Once you have erased a hard line you put in place (no dilution), how can the random investor know which other lines will be preserved? The uncertainty is hurting the community, and we are not without competition.

I think his proposal is very very good but he handled the situation not very well... Many communication mistakes... And a "feeling" that the community had not an active role because  the decisions have already been  made... It was more like a announcement, than a proposal to the community...I really believe we could end up with the merge decision without the big negative impact (at least not so much) we had,coming to consensus before the decision and not after it.... We are in the middle of a crisis and if I am not wrong in Chinese the word "crisis" is synonym with the word "opportunity"... I believe/hope it is in reality the greatest opportunity we could ever imagine ...these precious.... bitshares are waiting for us 

[Method-X]

The halving occurs every 210,000 blocks, which is roughly equivalent to four years. Why not simply perform a miniscule adjustment on every block, which occurs roughly every 10 minutes? To be equivalent to the four-year halving, the reward amount would simply be multiplied by a cumulative constant. That constant would be the inverse of the 210000th root of 2, which is 0.99999669930458749782628258129969. The resultant value would need to be rounded down to the nearest satoshi, so that it eventually rounded down to zero.

To make the conversion as equivalent as possible, it could either be done at the midpoint between two halvings (the next one being Nov 2014), or, at the next halving (in Nov 2016), a "half of a halving", i.e., a reduction by the square root of 2 (0.70710678118654752440084436210485) could be performed.

I'm surprised that this was not implemented in the original protocol by Satoshi. It just avoids a big abrupt event that will cause chaos.

EDIT: Read what bytemaster had to say: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9217.msg119662#msg119662

[Ander]

I think what you predict is accurate in what will unfold. I guess it depends on how many mining operations go dark and can the remaining miners foot the bills until the diff adjusts.

The well capitalized will live longer.  As soon as some of the weaker miners start dying, difficulty falls and the other miners start doing better.


It seems like this actually happened a little bit in september.  Hash rate flatlined for a few weeks because some smalller miners had to shut down due to crashing prices. 

[Riverhead]

I think what you predict is accurate in what will unfold. I guess it depends on how many mining operations go dark and can the remaining miners foot the bills until the diff adjusts.

[Ander]

So is it your belief that mining determines price? Because the big mining outfits need to pay their bills with half the revenue until price adjusts. Yes, they've been through it before but with each halving it is more centralized and the pain is much worse.

No, mining doesnt determine price.  (Price determines level of investment into mining is a lot more accurate).


If block reward halves, and price DOESNT increase, then tons of miners die off, and mining gets centralized further into the regions of the world that are most energy efficient, and the remaining miners continue on at a reduced difficulty where they can break even again.


The halving could hurt MINERS a lot.   Honestly I dont think that matters much.  Most people who use bitcoin dont mine it.  They buy and spend it, or they invest in it.  The price of bitcoin going up or down helps or hurts is popularity.  Most people dont care if some miners go out of business because they couldnt be profitable.

[Riverhead]

So is it your belief that mining determines price? Because the big mining outfits need to pay their bills with half the revenue until price adjusts. Yes, they've been through it before but with each halving it is more centralized and the pain is much worse.


I think BTC will survive...but I think it's going to hurt.

[Ander]

There has been talk of a new difficulty algorithm called, "Gravity well" that may help BTC survive the 08/16 halving. However given BTC's lethargic pace to implement change this may not happen.

For the diff to drop they need to find blocks. If the big mining powers lose half their revenue on 8/16 and go dark it could be years before anyone else finds a block and the diff can adjust. It doesn't mean BTC is dead; just that supply is fixed until they figure something out. Nevertheless some will jump ship.

This seems kindof ridiculous to me.

Bitcoin will go through the halvening and literally nothing will happen.  Bit coin will be fine.

Its already happened before.


The problems with bitcoin are NOT that its reward is going to get halved in 2016.   In fact, bitcoin becomes a LOT more attractive at that point, with inflation down to 4%.  Proof of Work isnt nearly as much of a drag at only 4%.

[Riverhead]

There has been talk of a new difficulty algorithm called, "Gravity well" that may help BTC survive the 08/16 halving. However given BTC's lethargic pace to implement change this may not happen.

For the diff to drop they need to find blocks. If the big mining powers lose half their revenue on 8/16 and go dark it could be years before anyone else finds a block and the diff can adjust. It doesn't mean BTC is dead; just that supply is fixed until they figure something out. Nevertheless some will jump ship.

[Thom]

Awesome post luckybit, thanks for spelling out what the implication of a powerful scripting engine can have on the utility of BitShares tech!

  to the moon!

[joele]

I like bytemaster's approach.

The BitShares rocket's ignition is on, but it has not taken off yet. It's a good idea to make changes now to give it enough fuel and the necessary systems to exceed escape velocity and get it into space. People are invested in, and watching the launch and having doubts because of these alterations. It would be too dangerous, though, to overhaul the rocket after lift-off when it's at full acceleration.

So I say make the adjustments now which will allow it to reach the stars. Fine tuning can be done later by spacewalking delegates.

[hadrian]

I like bytemaster's approach.

The BitShares rocket's ignition is on, but it has not taken off yet. It's a good idea to make changes now to give it enough fuel and the necessary systems to exceed escape velocity and get it into space. People are invested in, and watching the launch and having doubts because of these alterations. It would be too dangerous, though, to overhaul the rocket after lift-off when it's at full acceleration.

So I say make the adjustments now which will allow it to reach the stars. Fine tuning can be done later by spacewalking delegates.

[luckybit]

Agree.  Enough visionary thinking, we need code-crunching.  We've got bitUSD and bitassets and other awesome stuff.  Lets get it out there.

We need both. I don't think we can ever stop innovating if you want the Bitshares community to compete with Vitalik and Ethereum. They aren't going to stop having bigger and better visions if you look at their grand designs. Vitalik is always researching, always coming up with new ideas, always willing to try new things.

POW, and the expectations from Etherium shareholders, is the albatross that hangs from Vitalik's neck.  When will the blockchain hire him to implement his vision in an economically sustainable way?  Would Etherium shareholders accept a consensus algorithm thats not based on proof of work?  Would Vitalik be willing to switch teams in order to drop the dead weight, or does he feel imprisoned by external expectations?

The key to give Bitshares an advantage or disadvantage over Ethereum will be based on whether or not Bitshares VOTE is a success.

I think with algorithmic voting we can surpass PoW in decision making flexibility. I think CP nets (conditional preference networks) will make all the difference. I would expect that if this works then Proof of Work will become irrelevant because if you have decentralized reputation, decentralized identity, decentralized decision making, then you've got everything you need to build a decentralized autonomous society.

Algorithmic voting is perhaps the holy grail. The DACs which allow for the best decision making will have advantages over the DACs which can reach a consensus but slow, or which cannot adapt because of politics. Bitcoin has political issues because of Proof of Work creating these issues so now it cannot adapt or innovate. Ethereum if it falls into that same trap will be able to perhaps get out of it because Vitalik is forward thinking but it gives an advantage to Bitshares which is designed specifically to allow humans to operate the DAC through voting.

When we think of voting we usually think of the flawed process we call voting but Proof of Work is also a form of voting. Algorithmic voting could allow users to use a voting language to script their preferences on a range of issues so that certain votes are conditional. So you could for example abide by a smart contract which promises your votes to go down different paths depending on the conditions ( such as market conditions, events that occur or whatever).

In this case over time as the DAC gets smarter it could adjust to the preferences of shareholders ever more efficiently. That advantage is an advantage Bitcoin will never have with it's mining cartel and Ethereum could have due to being Turing complete but may not.

For example you could have your votes scripted to react to an oracle so that if share prices go up for a specific company, DAC or asset your votes will go up or down. You could have the results of a football game determine where your votes if your script chooses to use that feed. This is the sort of power you can have once you have a Turing complete voting language.

These are some of the technical examples of what the big picture could look like. Bitshares could be as big of an advance to human history as democracy was or the birth of the United States was. It sounds crazy but once you have a way for a DAC to learn the preferences of the community and adapt using artificial intelligence then traditional governments (and corporations) will not be able to keep up. Once a DAC knows your preferences due to artificial intelligence it could start recommending, suggesting how you can vote to better meet your own goals based on it's knowledge of your preferences.

Not only do I think we can't stop but I think we need to hire 100 developers so we can rush to innovate, discover, build, and implement. I also think the Bitshares team should seek advice from computer science professors who study computational voting theory.

[biophil]

Once turning complete scripting is implemented in the SuperDAC, how will it be different than Etherium is trying to be?

It will have the benefits of Ethereum while ALSO having all the benefits of Bitshares.  (DPoS, TITAN, speed, bitAssets, etc).

yhea .. they are still discussing POW .. and honestly .. I don't see a different way of distributing their initial stake as they just don't have PTS/AGS .. just their IPO ..

Sounds like a PTS/AGS sharedrop is in order...

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

[jae208]

“I think what people are worried about is that you won't stop here. Once you have erased a hard line you put in place (no dilution), how can the random investor know which other lines will be preserved? The uncertainty is hurting the community, and we are not without competition.”

 

 

I think everyone is just nervous about the changes. I don't think anybody here wants to see Bitshares fail.

[Empirical1.1]

I agree with the OP and fully recognize the problem.   Every change I am making right now is toward focusing in on *ONE THING* and doing it right/well with a long term plan.

I want to color in the details on BitAssets and make them easy to use prior to branching out to many different features.

We are focusing and correcting and as a result are now stronger than ever.   We need a solid foundation prior to major growth even if it means taking a few steps back in the short term.

 

[xeroc]

Once turning complete scripting is implemented in the SuperDAC, how will it be different than Etherium is trying to be?

It will have the benefits of Ethereum while ALSO having all the benefits of Bitshares.  (DPoS, TITAN, speed, bitAssets, etc).

yhea .. they are still discussing POW .. and honestly .. I don't see a different way of distributing their initial stake as they just don't have PTS/AGS .. just their IPO ..

[Ander]

Once turning complete scripting is implemented in the SuperDAC, how will it be different than Etherium is trying to be?

It will have the benefits of Ethereum while ALSO having all the benefits of Bitshares.  (DPoS, TITAN, speed, bitAssets, etc).

[sschechter]

Once turning complete scripting is implemented in the SuperDAC, how will it be different than Etherium is trying to be?

[Ander]

Bitcoin halving will result in unprofitable mining! pretty quickly. .

Mining cannot remain unprofitable for long.  Either miners shut down, which mean difficulty falls, which helps other miners, or price rises so that everyone is profitable, or some of each.

[zerosum]

I agree with the OP and fully recognize the problem.   Every change I am making right now is toward focusing in on *ONE THING* and doing it right/well with a long term plan.

I want to color in the details on BitAssets and make them easy to use prior to branching out to many different features.

We are focusing and correcting and as a result are now stronger than ever.   We need a solid foundation prior to major growth even if it means taking a few steps back in the short term.

That's how I understand it also. The first right step was the superDAC with all its consequences and benefits. This was the second logical step needed in the same direction. It was very reassuring to hear it on the mumble and to see it in writing in this post.
I want to use this post to thank toast, who according to you was the strong supporter of this line of thinking, who helped you make the correct decision your final one.
 

[sschechter]

Agree.  Enough visionary thinking, we need code-crunching.  We've got bitUSD and bitassets and other awesome stuff.  Lets get it out there.

We need both. I don't think we can ever stop innovating if you want the Bitshares community to compete with Vitalik and Ethereum. They aren't going to stop having bigger and better visions if you look at their grand designs. Vitalik is always researching, always coming up with new ideas, always willing to try new things.

POW, and the expectations from Etherium shareholders, is the albatross that hangs from Vitalik's neck.  When will the blockchain hire him to implement his vision in an economically sustainable way?  Would Etherium shareholders accept a consensus algorithm thats not based on proof of work?  Would Vitalik be willing to switch teams in order to drop the dead weight, or does he feel imprisoned by external expectations?

[luckybit]

08-01-2016. Everyone who understands that date knows exactly what will happen

Please tell me... what happens on that date?

Bitcoin block reward halving.

[xeroc]

08-01-2016. Everyone who understands that date knows exactly what will happen

Please tell me... what happens on that date?

That is the estimated date when the next bitcoin reward halving will occur.

I dont really see why that is a big deal for us though (other than that it might increase bitcoin prices some, which helps crypto in general).

For me that explains it ..

Bitcoin halving will result in unprofitable mining! pretty quickly. .

[Ander]

08-01-2016. Everyone who understands that date knows exactly what will happen

Please tell me... what happens on that date?

That is the estimated date when the next bitcoin reward halving will occur.

I dont really see why that is a big deal for us though (other than that it might increase bitcoin prices some, which helps crypto in general).

[bytemaster]

08-01-2016. Everyone who understands that date knows exactly what will happen

Please tell me... what happens on that date?

[luckybit]

Thanks for posting!
My opinion on this is:
+ I can wait some years!
+ people keep on talking about dilution hear dilution there .. they don't see the big picture and they don't see that BTC has a significantly higher dilution that is WASTED ..

Anyway, once people understand what this "share injection"/"dilution" is good for .. and that it IS GOOD for the ecosystem .. we (the strong hands) will feel glad to be part of it! </IMHO>

I think most people who are complaining right now don't see the big vision or the true potential of what Bitshares could become. They are looking at the fact that the price is going down and reacting to it like how people react to Bitcoin when the price goes down.

Honestly it seems like we have a lot of speculators who don't really have a grand vision or see a big picture. If the big picture were to make a lot of money then the people who cashed out at $100,000,000 made their money. If the big picture is to change the world and our way of life then that is a much bigger challenge.

To do that you need to create DACs which allow people to quit their day jobs and dedicate themselves full time to this industry. If it requires dilution to get people to do that then let it be. It also has to allow us to do things which no one could have imaged were possible before and by providing greater flexibility levels you can remove limits. It requires speculators but those speculators should be making money from within the Bitshares decentralized exchange and not from the centralized exchanges.

The fact that the price is going down and people are reacting like how they are to Bitcoin provides evidence that a lot of these reactions are from people who are used to day trading Bitcoin. They may not really believe in building the Bitshares community, or see the grand vision, or have a grand vision for Bitshares that they want to help bring into reality, and without these sorts of dreams how do you convince people to do anything except focus on maximum profit?

In my opinion the profits will come in 08-01-2016. Everyone who understands that date knows exactly what will happen on that date. Bitshares has to remain in the top 5 market caps while also innovating, increasing utility, and adapting by implementing the latest breakthrough technologies. It's not a time to focus on share price but it is time to focus on building the foundation so that come 08-01-2016 once people rush into Bitshares with billions of dollars the entire ecosystem will be permanently bootstrapped.

If the correct decisions are made today then 08-01-2016 will be a new start for all altcoins. That new start will bring billions and lots of media attention. The fact that DACs can self fund, that there can be decentralized decision making, sets this technology apart and only Ethereum is thinking bigger at this point. If the level of innovation can be maintained then speculators will have their chance to get rich in a few years.

[sschechter]

If you're new to the community, these kinds of sweeping changes are nothing new.  Whats different now is that BTSX is out in the open being freely traded, with a market constantly judging us, 24 hours a day.  In the past, the controversial decision has been the right one.  Eliminate mining, implement DPOS, and now, consolidation and re-prioritization of focus. It sucks seeing the share price take such a beating, hopefully, this is temporary.

[Method-X]

I agree with the OP and fully recognize the problem.   Every change I am making right now is toward focusing in on *ONE THING* and doing it right/well with a long term plan.

I want to color in the details on BitAssets and make them easy to use prior to branching out to many different features.

We are focusing and correcting and as a result are now stronger than ever.   We need a solid foundation prior to major growth even if it means taking a few steps back in the short term.

I can't this enough.

[luckybit]

Agree.  Enough visionary thinking, we need code-crunching.  We've got bitUSD and bitassets and other awesome stuff.  Lets get it out there.

We need both. I don't think we can ever stop innovating if you want the Bitshares community to compete with Vitalik and Ethereum. They aren't going to stop having bigger and better visions if you look at their grand designs. Vitalik is always researching, always coming up with new ideas, always willing to try new things.

Lessons learned from other industries don't apply to here 1:1. Time moves a lot slower in those other industries while time for us moves extremely quickly. 2 years in our space is like 5 or 10 years in the tech industry.

How did Google manage to stay on top? They have a strategy of always innovating, testing out moonshot ideas, but also improving on what they have which is a success. The advantage of Bitshares is that it's more adaptable than Bitcoin and decisions can be made at this time with minimal consequences.

So in my opinion it is better that Bytemaster innovate as much as he can right now and put the foundation in place so that these sorts of decisions can be made formally through Bitshares VOTE in the future. He has to make Bitshares future proof or else Bitcoin could come with sidechains, Ethereum could come with Turing complete scripting, NXT could come with transparent forging, and they all have programmers who can crunch out code.

What the Bitshares community has is Bytemaster who is not just a programmer but also a visionary. If he stops being a visionary then Bitshares will lose everything that makes it unique in my opinion.

[Method-X]

Yeah, investor uncertainty is what I'm hearing from people I speak privately with too. Nobody knows what will be proposed next and this frightens them quite a bit. However, I do believe bytemaster recognises this and it working on one simple message going forward. I'm optimistic for the future.

[bytemaster]

I agree with the OP and fully recognize the problem.   Every change I am making right now is toward focusing in on *ONE THING* and doing it right/well with a long term plan.

I want to color in the details on BitAssets and make them easy to use prior to branching out to many different features.

We are focusing and correcting and as a result are now stronger than ever.   We need a solid foundation prior to major growth even if it means taking a few steps back in the short term.

[suwoder]

“I think what people are worried about is that you won't stop here. Once you have erased a hard line you put in place (no dilution), how can the random investor know which other lines will be preserved? The uncertainty is hurting the community, and we are not without competition.”

 

[xeroc]

Thanks for posting!
My opinion on this is:
+ I can wait some years!
+ people keep on talking about dilution hear dilution there .. they don't see the big picture and they don't see that BTC has a significantly higher dilution that is WASTED ..

Anyway, once people understand what this "share injection"/"dilution" is good for .. and that it IS GOOD for the ecosystem .. we (the strong hands) will feel glad to be part of it! </IMHO>

[matt608]

  Agree.  Enough visionary thinking, we need code-crunching.  We've got bitUSD and bitassets and other awesome stuff.  Lets get it out there.

[luckybit]

Several people have attempted to explain why the price of BTSX has fallen so dramatically recently. I can't claim any special authority, but I haven't seen my theory expressed yet, so I will do so and let the community judge the correctness.

BitShares offers some of the best technology in the cryptocurrency space. Specifically, DPOS and the peg mechanism are both brilliant economic / technological solutions that are proven, solve two of the largest problems with Bitcoin, and represent a real advancement over their competitive ideas.

Unfortunately, I am seeing a pattern that I have seen at several of the early stage silicon valley startup flame-outs that I have participated in as an engineer. (OK, so I guess I am claiming a LITTLE bit of special authority). Namely, the following pattern.

1) A brilliant engineer and technologist comes in and produces an amazing new solution to a real problem, and collects a sizable seed community. This attracts VCs (or in this case, capital from investors like myself).
2) The technologist now turned CEO, upon receiving this massive validation of their work in the form of millions of dollars of capital inflow, correctly concludes that the ideas that they have had so far were brilliant.
3) The technologist concludes that since their past ideas were great, that the future ones will be also. This is also probably true. However, large swaths of the community get alienated. They were buying into a particular vision, and that vision is now being discarded. They pull their capital, and the business suffers deeply. Sometimes it recovers, and sometimes it doesn't.

I'm not pulling my funding, but I suspect large swaths of our community have. It's important to know when to stop drawing outlines, and when to start coloring in the details of the vision. The most successful entrepreneurs know when to do that. Some of them go too far in the opposite direction, stop innovating altogether, and coast for the rest of their lives, but all the successful ones know when to stop making sweeping changes, or when to put the sweeping changes into a new vehicle.

Bytemaster, this particular set of changes you are advocating implementing might be good. Frankly, I'm not equipped to figure it out, and I suspect that it will take years of market validation to determine the answer. However, the BitSharesX of just a few weeks ago was brilliant, and was growing by leaps and bounds (if you compared it to a traditional business) even when the larger industry (cryptocurrencies in general) were shrinking. This is hard feedback, but I hope that you understand that I am coming from a place of constructive criticism, and an honest desire to improve BitSharesX.

I think what people are worried about is that you won't stop here. Once you have erased a hard line you put in place (no dilution), how can the random investor know which other lines will be preserved? The uncertainty is hurting the community, and we are not without competition.

It's also true that companies that cannot adapt quickly don't last. Google is still around.

[jonasmeyer]

Several people have attempted to explain why the price of BTSX has fallen so dramatically recently. I can't claim any special authority, but I haven't seen my theory expressed yet, so I will do so and let the community judge the correctness.

BitShares offers some of the best technology in the cryptocurrency space. Specifically, DPOS and the peg mechanism are both brilliant economic / technological solutions that are proven, solve two of the largest problems with Bitcoin, and represent a real advancement over their competitive ideas.

Unfortunately, I am seeing a pattern that I have seen at several of the early stage silicon valley startup flame-outs that I have participated in as an engineer. (OK, so I guess I am claiming a LITTLE bit of special authority). Namely, the following pattern.

1) A brilliant engineer and technologist comes in and produces an amazing new solution to a real problem, and collects a sizable seed community. This attracts VCs (or in this case, capital from investors like myself).
2) The technologist now turned CEO, upon receiving this massive validation of their work in the form of millions of dollars of capital inflow, correctly concludes that the ideas that they have had so far were brilliant.
3) The technologist concludes that since their past ideas were great, that the future ones will be also. This is also probably true. However, large swaths of the community get alienated. They were buying into a particular vision, and that vision is now being discarded. They pull their capital, and the business suffers deeply. Sometimes it recovers, and sometimes it doesn't.

I'm not pulling my funding, but I suspect large swaths of our community have. It's important to know when to stop drawing outlines, and when to start coloring in the details of the vision. The most successful entrepreneurs know when to do that. Some of them go too far in the opposite direction, stop innovating altogether, and coast for the rest of their lives, but all the successful ones know when to stop making sweeping changes, or when to put the sweeping changes into a new vehicle.

Bytemaster, this particular set of changes you are advocating implementing might be good. Frankly, I'm not equipped to figure it out, and I suspect that it will take years of market validation to determine the answer. However, the BitSharesX of just a few weeks ago was brilliant, and was growing by leaps and bounds (if you compared it to a traditional business) even when the larger industry (cryptocurrencies in general) were shrinking. This is hard feedback, but I hope that you understand that I am coming from a place of constructive criticism, and an honest desire to improve BitSharesX.

I think what people are worried about is that you won't stop here. Once you have erased a hard line you put in place (no dilution), how can the random investor know which other lines will be preserved? The uncertainty is hurting the community, and we are not without competition.