bts

[James212]

I don't believe in democracy. I'm glad we don't have one, otherwise we'd be subject to the whims of individuals that do not understand the technology or the economic implications of the technology.

     Well said.  Many might understand the concept of too many cooks in the kitchen, but the really problem is when half of them really think they can make a souffle but are unconscious of the fact that their ideas just can compete with the more capable Chef...  One of the reasons for having a representive (democracy) republic and not direct vote. 

On a separate but related note, a very interesting lecture regarding (electronic) voting from World Bitcoin Network.  Something to be considered when formulating the features for the VOTE DAC (or new BTS feature)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gEz__sMVaY

[CLains]

Nobody knows if this will work. No need to retire for that reason. It is a matter of fact that will wash over us like an uncaring ocean - either it will force us to rethink or it will gift us with an endless, blossoming treasure. As with bitUSD most of us are optimistic in the face of this complex situation that will only fully reveal itself in the unfolding wake of release.

[Empirical1.1]

You are correct, it is about trust first and foremost.

Dan fulfilled his promise to get a minimally functional DPOS to market with a hard cap on the total coins available (no dilution).  And the BitAsset price feed mechanism worked which was a bonus not a promise.  BTSX trading on BTER is proof of promise fulfillment.

That was all that was promised.

100% trust preserved, next.

If you want to continue with the BTSX verion 4.20 (with a hard cap on total coins), then you may continue running your delegate of that version.  Nobody, besides the Bolivian government is going to try stop you.  Your dilution free BTSX v4.20 is yours and nobody can ever change that forever!  You are lucky to have this freedom, and yet you are unhappy?  Maybe if you experienced some good old fashioned Bolivian slavery, then you would have a different perspective, but I digress.

You should be thanking Dan for honoring his promise instead of:

its not about profit，it's about trust.fuck you fools

I know you are right. I've been telling them newtree for a month before dilution talks started. They have their own vision. I tried but I can't help them.

我试过，但我不能帮助他们

It’s not Dan’s fault that delegates who are free to do as they please choose to run the new 8% dilution version of BitShares, and not the old v4.20 that you like.

Would you force the free delegates at gunpoint to run a version of BitShares that they would rather not?

What kind of person does that make you?

People like you are the reason why I would rather choose to run the new free-market version of BitShares over the one where you force delegates against their will to do your selfish bidding (secure the system for you, build smart phone apps for you, promote your favorite version of BitShares that Dan made for you).

Dan already fulfilled his promise to construct BitSharesTyranny, now his next project is called BitSharesDemocracy.

And you currently own both versions, and are mad why?
______________________________________________Please fill in the blank, I love learning the mechanisms of psychopathy.

Thank you Dan, for fulfilling your previous commitment.  Good luck in your future adventures (of which I am also interested in being a part of).

You prefer the hard capped version of BitSharesX.

Well, you are in luck sweetheart, because what you want is already invented (BTSX v4.20), and you already have it.  And you are mad why?

What I want still has never seen the light of day, and yet I am happy?

Why?

because I'm a fool.

Could you ever be happy?

BitShares come in many flavors (versions) (they put them out weekly practically), and you are free to choose any one you like.  Just be aware that if you choose to use a certain one, then people might hate you and call you names.

BitShares - where choosing your flavors will bring out the haters

Actually the above comment about it being about trust and not profit was not a personal attack on Dan. However yours is very personal indeed. As your account is Dan/Stan that's very sad.

The above quoted statement from myself and from newtree (apologies for his last sentence, you can see I striked that.) was a statement about the marketability of the product.

Specifically that success in this space is about requiring less trust than centralised institutions not more.

The points I've made about Dan having a dictatorial stake and dilution are about the fact that the trust BTS requires will reduce profit not increase it.

It's the difference between being able to market...

'Store the value of a dollar in a robust BitAsset focused, decentralised system backed by limited digital tokens'

Vs. a detractor being able to market us as

'Store the value of a dollar in a new, risky system controlled by 1 man backed by unlimited digital tokens.'

While FUD, it's currently not entirely incorrect. So I have been pushing for both decentralisation and no/capped dilution from a business as well as personal ideological position.

Gamey/Method can also confirm that in PM's I've already previously stated I would definitely give up making my position strongly after Nov 5th and withdraw from the forums to prevent being marketing negative. So I don't feel I'm a psychopath hater just because I don't agree with you Dan/Stan, I apologise to the community if I've come across that way. I feel I was just someone putting my position strongly forward.

I've also said many times on this forum I still expect BitShares to have a good shot >70% at being wildly successful. In PM's, I said 40-45 million CAP within a week. 60-80 million based on announcements but then the rest hinges on the network marketing plan which could make or break the case for dilution. You've given yourselves, a one arrow strategy imo.

I'm quite hurt by your unprofessional, personal rant against me. It's very dissapointing. I've been a supporter since the start & freely given a lot of my personal time to BitShares. Including my old account (Empirical1)  I'm probably in the top 20 post contributors.  I've never taken a solitary BTS/PTS. (I was awarded 30 PTS  by Toast once but gave them back & asked they be directed to BitShares marketing.) Despite not having a lot myself, I've  also donated 50k BTSX to try improve BitShares marketing within the alt-coin community https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9824.0  as well as other donations.

I've really got not much personal to say about Dan. I think he's an incredible talent. I would say his weakness is that perhaps he is more chess than poker, (More optimal solution than behavioural optimal solution) so BitShares has been product strong but marketing & PR weak.

My heart also lies with a hard cap because I feel companies, especially in finance, worldwide, often end up being pretty reckless about dilution and risk. This puts financially uneducated customers at a lot of risk. For me this space is about the opportunity to make the world better & building something that stands the test of time. I also believe the free market will choose that. So when you see a fully decentralised BitAsset hard cap, you'll probably see an Empirical1 will be there

I'm still an investor here and I wish you guys the best of luck especially  Dan for all his selfless hard work and world changing talent. Despite my above opinions, I think in BitShares, BitAssets & DNS are going to do a lot of good for a lot of people. Think of people currently having their value inflated away, people having their hard earned savings put at risk, or unfairly seized. Governments trying to censor the internet. You can be proud of the people you are helping. It's been a privilege and an honour to be part of this community. I wish you great success and despite my personal reservations I truly believe Bitshares can do it!

But for now I say goodbye...

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CjSzCuC7tOI

 

[Empirical1.1]

its not about profit，it's about trust.fuck you fools

I know you are right. I've been telling them newtree for a month before dilution talks started. They have their own vision. I tried but I can't help them.

我试过，但我不能帮助他们

[newtree]

its not about profit，it's about trust.

[Empirical1.1]

I don't believe in democracy. I'm glad we don't have one, otherwise we'd be subject to the whims of individuals that do not understand the technology or the economic implications of the technology.

I agree.

...

It currently takes 15% approval to elect a delegate.

I3 stake, BM stake & your (Stan) stake = circa 15% range imo.

So the 101 delegates may be currently selected by Bytemaster.

Hence my conclusion of benevolent dictatorship.

Which is fine. I think most people get that. I'm still a significant investor.

The OP 'BTSTV' was 'Decentralised Application' who I believe is you Stan. So as I said I'm trying to get feedback from other BitShares community members about how they would define BTS at present.

Why, thank you, but no, I can't keep up with DA. 

What we've got is an ideal case of "silence means consent".  If there is ever a case when apathy turns to anger, then the majority has the ability to remove the benevolent dictator by raising as little as 5% or 10% worth of opposition.  That is less power than the captain of a ship has.  And captains are given such authority for good reasons.

I would never set sail on a ship commanded by its passengers.
I would never bet on a ball team coached by its fans.
I would not invest in a company directed by its shareholders.

All is swell. 
If not, sell.

 

  that's how you win a debate. Well done. I agree with the majority of that and it makes sense. It might look like benevolent dictatorship but many have essentially delegated their vote to the captain as they have enough confidence in him, but you're right they could raise enough, given how much stake is out there, if the community really didn't agree with something.

[Stan]

I don't believe in democracy. I'm glad we don't have one, otherwise we'd be subject to the whims of individuals that do not understand the technology or the economic implications of the technology.

I agree.

...

It currently takes 15% approval to elect a delegate.

I3 stake, BM stake & your (Stan) stake = circa 15% range imo.

So the 101 delegates may be currently selected by Bytemaster.

Hence my conclusion of benevolent dictatorship.

Which is fine. I think most people get that. I'm still a significant investor.

The OP 'BTSTV' was 'Decentralised Application' who I believe is you Stan. So as I said I'm trying to get feedback from other BitShares community members about how they would define BTS at present.

Why, thank you, but no, I can't keep up with DA. 

What we've got is an ideal case of "silence means consent".  If there is ever a case when apathy turns to anger, then the majority has the ability to remove the benevolent dictator by raising as little as 5% or 10% worth of opposition.  That is less power than the captain of a ship has.  And captains are given such authority for good reasons.

I would never set sail on a ship commanded by its passengers.
I would never bet on a ball team coached by its fans.
I would not invest in a company directed by its shareholders.

All is swell. 
If not, sell.

 

[Empirical1.1]

I don't believe in democracy. I'm glad we don't have one, otherwise we'd be subject to the whims of individuals that do not understand the technology or the economic implications of the technology.

I agree.

...

It currently takes 15% approval to elect a delegate.

I3 stake, BM stake & your (Stan) stake = circa 15% range imo.

So the 101 delegates may be currently selected by Bytemaster.

Hence my conclusion of benevolent dictatorship.

Which is fine. I think most people get that. I'm still a significant investor.

The OP 'BTSTV' was 'Decentralised Application' who I believe is you Stan. So as I said I'm trying to get feedback from other BitShares community members about how they would define BTS at present.

[Stan]

If you are willing to accept Wikipedia as an authoritative reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government

It is not a direct democracy, but might be thought of as a representative-democracy (people select representatives) who in turn must decide which group of technocrats to trust to provide software updates.

But one could argue that it is a democratically-elected-representative-technocracy, since the representatives effectively choose whether to accept software updates to the ruling blockchain LAW from one or more trusted technocrats.

A big difference is that it is vote-per-share, not vote-per-shareholder.  Strangely, out of the dozens of government types mentioned in this wiki, they don't have a name for the standard corporate model of government by the shareholder!  So I get to name it!  A "stakeocracy".

I note in passing that, all modesty aside, we seem to have elements of Geniocracy (rule by the intelligent), Meritocracy (rule by the meritorious), Timocracy (rule by the honorable), Technocracy (rule by technical experts) and Meekocracy (rule by the profoundly humble).

So, after considerable analysis, I believe we can safely say that our form of government is definately not a democracy.  It is a benevolant

paleo-neo-anarcho-merito-timo-genio-techno-meeko-representitive-stakeocracy.

Your actual mileage may vary.

[carpet ride]

I'm a huge fan of the idea that true voting is done via markets.  Hence, I think I will be a huge fan of our VOTE machine


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[clout]

I don't believe in democracy. I'm glad we don't have one, otherwise we'd be subject to the whims of individuals that do not understand the technology or the economic implications of the technology.

[zerosum]

Let us have intelligent debate where every voice is equally heard   

I think BTS is still a benevolent dictatorship at this stage.

Does anyone have a different POV?

I think more precisely, it is:

benevolent dilution-al  dictatorship


[disclaimer] Mainly, just messing with you Empirical.

[Empirical1.1]

Democracies were invented as a poor second-best solution
because benevolent dictators do not exist.
(If you ever find one, you should keep her.)

That joke is quite funny actually

But I'm interested in whether any community members outside I3 (& probably rune) think BTS is a democracy at present.

[Stan]

Democracies were invented as a poor second-best solution
because benevolent dictators do not exist.
(If you ever find one, you should keep her.)

[Empirical1.1]

Let us have intelligent debate where every voice is equally heard   

I think BTS is still a benevolent dictatorship at this stage.

Does anyone have a different POV?