Hard Questions for Bytemaster

[wasthatawolf]

Secret marketing plans...

[Ander]

But yeah, Dan, given our marketing track record, your references to secret marketing plans are a sell signal.

Indeed.  Had I sold any time Dan or Stan mentioned secret marketing plans, and rebought 20% lower, I would have many more BTS now.

(At this point though, I think the time for selling and rebuying is over, unless you are selling a big rise.  After all, the COMMUNITY marketing has now begun, and it exists as more than a figment of the dev team's imagination).

[toast]

The saving grace is that BM does not think getting governments to use this voting solution is required to make it an effective marketing move.

But yeah, Dan, given our marketing track record, your references to secret marketing plans are a sell signal.

[mitao]

You guys are avoiding the 500 pound gorilla in the room.  You think you can create an open source voting system, show a couple people how cool it is and then make money off it? You are entering a world you know nothing about and, FMV knows nothing about based on their résumé.

EAC, HAVA, Secretary of State, election like load testing, 3rd party testing and County acceptance are huge hurdles I don't see Bitshares clearing.

Oh, and don't think for one second that Dominion or ES&S won't jump on your open source code if it even looks like we are the slightest of competition and beat us to the punch. You are entering a world were real world money is on the line and believe me, those companies are not of the altruistic types. With cryptocurrency, you are going after states whose egos will let the little guy try there thing. But a companies earnings on line is a whole different game.

You also have nobody involved in real politics consulting or guiding you. This is your biggest mistake. In politics, things happen through and because of who you Know or because who you know is owed a favor, not because of what you think you know or what you think you can offer will change the world.

The sharedrop will turn out to be a huge mistake in hindsight as VOTE will never be what you think it's going to be unless you hire a Consulting firm, aka a lobbyist, or a seasoned insider with connections to begin pulling weight.

You could also start telling us your plans. So far, no plan that was kept secret here had ever needed to be a secret to begin with after the revelation. Saying there is a plan, or über secret stuff to come most likely means there is no good plan or stuff to come yet.

Or, I would like one reason anything on an open source project should remain a secret to the people floating your meal ticket.

Based on what I saw in the past 13 months, there was no marketing before, no marketing now. And there will be nahda in future, only one "big thing".



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hpenvy]

I would love to hear more from Adam on what he's working on specifically to voting. 

[bytemaster]

My personal opinion is that you should never vote in a system that is rigged/unprovable on the principle that your "vote" may or may not actually be counted but your participation is certainly counted on to give the result legitimacy.

...

I respect this position, but I think it's flawed.  The issue is the implication that higher participation can somehow give the result legitimacy or moral weight.

I would argue that it can't, and thus that voting is an amoral act of self expression.  Certainly a very limited form of self expression, and one that's frequently taken out of context by those claiming it grants them extra moral rights, but the fact that others misquote you and take your words out of context is not an evil act on your part.

A vote is an expression of an opinion and is amoral.

An election is the aggregation of everyones opinion which is then used to justify some action, usually government coercion of some kind.

The legitimacy of the aggregation of everyones opinion depends upon the number of people who contributed their opinion to the aggregate.

The corruption of societies ability to assess the aggregate opinion results in abusive immoral power derived from fraud.   Fraud is immoral.

Participating in a system designed to facilitate corruption means you are not actually casting a vote, you are supporting a fraud.  Your opinion cannot be provably expressed, but as byte master said, your participation can.

An opinion that supports coercion when publicly expressed by voting ends up enabling coercion and is not a passive act.   If no one voted then no one could claim they had public consensus on the use of coercion.  If you have ability to file an active protest vote against coercion then that would be the most moral thing to do.    In this case you can simultaneously reject the system and help project public consensus that voting is not a means by which coercion can be justified. 

So I agree with Bytemaster that voting in any system that allows your voice to be stolen and reprojected is irresponsible toward your fellow citizen and gives your power away to someone without your consent.    Expressing your opinion in a system such as VOTE will allow you to be responsible for standing up for what is right.   

So it really comes down to an assumption on the part of those who say you should vote in the current system.  That assumption is that the current system actually works as intended.  If the entire premise of your product is that the current system does not work as intended then the only logically consistent conclusion is to be pro-active in your stance that the current system should be shunned entirely and that is the RESPONSIBLE thing for a voter to do.   It is a VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE.

The purpose of voting is to make your voice and opinion known to all.   Bad things happen when good people don't speak out and silently consent to the evil.  So it is imperative for your own safety and wellbeing to publicly express your opinion in an honest voting system such as VOTE.    So the argument for VOTE is that you need to let your voice be heard and stop letting your voice be stolen and manipulated.

So everyone that says you have a moral obligation to vote may be right in principle, but that principle only applies when voting has integrity.  What they are really saying is that you have a moral obligation to contribute to the aggregation of public opinion.    This is what VOTE gives you.

Well said, but I would add that the legitimacy of the aggregation of everyones opinion depends not just on the number of people who contributed, but the distribution of the people who contributed.   If you got a million Jews and no Christians then a million votes is meaningless as anything other than the aggregate opinion of the sampled users.

Preference not opinion. People vote to express their preferences. People debate to express their opinions.

A preference is an opinion.

[luckybit]

My personal opinion is that you should never vote in a system that is rigged/unprovable on the principle that your "vote" may or may not actually be counted but your participation is certainly counted on to give the result legitimacy.

...

I respect this position, but I think it's flawed.  The issue is the implication that higher participation can somehow give the result legitimacy or moral weight.

I would argue that it can't, and thus that voting is an amoral act of self expression.  Certainly a very limited form of self expression, and one that's frequently taken out of context by those claiming it grants them extra moral rights, but the fact that others misquote you and take your words out of context is not an evil act on your part.

A vote is an expression of an opinion and is amoral.

An election is the aggregation of everyones opinion which is then used to justify some action, usually government coercion of some kind.

The legitimacy of the aggregation of everyones opinion depends upon the number of people who contributed their opinion to the aggregate.

The corruption of societies ability to assess the aggregate opinion results in abusive immoral power derived from fraud.   Fraud is immoral.

Participating in a system designed to facilitate corruption means you are not actually casting a vote, you are supporting a fraud.  Your opinion cannot be provably expressed, but as byte master said, your participation can.

An opinion that supports coercion when publicly expressed by voting ends up enabling coercion and is not a passive act.   If no one voted then no one could claim they had public consensus on the use of coercion.  If you have ability to file an active protest vote against coercion then that would be the most moral thing to do.    In this case you can simultaneously reject the system and help project public consensus that voting is not a means by which coercion can be justified. 

So I agree with Bytemaster that voting in any system that allows your voice to be stolen and reprojected is irresponsible toward your fellow citizen and gives your power away to someone without your consent.    Expressing your opinion in a system such as VOTE will allow you to be responsible for standing up for what is right.   

So it really comes down to an assumption on the part of those who say you should vote in the current system.  That assumption is that the current system actually works as intended.  If the entire premise of your product is that the current system does not work as intended then the only logically consistent conclusion is to be pro-active in your stance that the current system should be shunned entirely and that is the RESPONSIBLE thing for a voter to do.   It is a VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE.

The purpose of voting is to make your voice and opinion known to all.   Bad things happen when good people don't speak out and silently consent to the evil.  So it is imperative for your own safety and wellbeing to publicly express your opinion in an honest voting system such as VOTE.    So the argument for VOTE is that you need to let your voice be heard and stop letting your voice be stolen and manipulated.

So everyone that says you have a moral obligation to vote may be right in principle, but that principle only applies when voting has integrity.  What they are really saying is that you have a moral obligation to contribute to the aggregation of public opinion.    This is what VOTE gives you.

Well said, but I would add that the legitimacy of the aggregation of everyones opinion depends not just on the number of people who contributed, but the distribution of the people who contributed.   If you got a million Jews and no Christians then a million votes is meaningless as anything other than the aggregate opinion of the sampled users.

Preference not opinion. People vote to express their preferences. People debate to express their opinions.

[bytemaster]

My personal opinion is that you should never vote in a system that is rigged/unprovable on the principle that your "vote" may or may not actually be counted but your participation is certainly counted on to give the result legitimacy.

...

I respect this position, but I think it's flawed.  The issue is the implication that higher participation can somehow give the result legitimacy or moral weight.

I would argue that it can't, and thus that voting is an amoral act of self expression.  Certainly a very limited form of self expression, and one that's frequently taken out of context by those claiming it grants them extra moral rights, but the fact that others misquote you and take your words out of context is not an evil act on your part.

A vote is an expression of an opinion and is amoral.

An election is the aggregation of everyones opinion which is then used to justify some action, usually government coercion of some kind.

The legitimacy of the aggregation of everyones opinion depends upon the number of people who contributed their opinion to the aggregate.

The corruption of societies ability to assess the aggregate opinion results in abusive immoral power derived from fraud.   Fraud is immoral.

Participating in a system designed to facilitate corruption means you are not actually casting a vote, you are supporting a fraud.  Your opinion cannot be provably expressed, but as byte master said, your participation can.

An opinion that supports coercion when publicly expressed by voting ends up enabling coercion and is not a passive act.   If no one voted then no one could claim they had public consensus on the use of coercion.  If you have ability to file an active protest vote against coercion then that would be the most moral thing to do.    In this case you can simultaneously reject the system and help project public consensus that voting is not a means by which coercion can be justified. 

So I agree with Bytemaster that voting in any system that allows your voice to be stolen and reprojected is irresponsible toward your fellow citizen and gives your power away to someone without your consent.    Expressing your opinion in a system such as VOTE will allow you to be responsible for standing up for what is right.   

So it really comes down to an assumption on the part of those who say you should vote in the current system.  That assumption is that the current system actually works as intended.  If the entire premise of your product is that the current system does not work as intended then the only logically consistent conclusion is to be pro-active in your stance that the current system should be shunned entirely and that is the RESPONSIBLE thing for a voter to do.   It is a VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE.

The purpose of voting is to make your voice and opinion known to all.   Bad things happen when good people don't speak out and silently consent to the evil.  So it is imperative for your own safety and wellbeing to publicly express your opinion in an honest voting system such as VOTE.    So the argument for VOTE is that you need to let your voice be heard and stop letting your voice be stolen and manipulated.

So everyone that says you have a moral obligation to vote may be right in principle, but that principle only applies when voting has integrity.  What they are really saying is that you have a moral obligation to contribute to the aggregation of public opinion.    This is what VOTE gives you.

Well said, but I would add that the legitimacy of the aggregation of everyones opinion depends not just on the number of people who contributed, but the distribution of the people who contributed.   If you got a million Jews and no Christians then a million votes is meaningless as anything other than the aggregate opinion of the sampled users.

[CLains]

Saying things that put you at a disadvantage later is no different from these martyrs who rest content in their hope to create a fair world by a ceremonious burning of BTC that drains all their power.

True power is the ability to honestly express what you believe.  Otherwise you give power to your opponents view by allowing others to think you agree with it.  This is why I don't like rand Paul.   It is also why I liked Ron Paul.   

You think you gain support by compromising your position, but instead people stop trusting you because you are playing political games.

Honest expression is a means to an end - truth. True power is living in the truth. What does it matter that people trust you? Trust is yet another means to an end. Truth is you contain an infinite number of potentially honest expressions, and only some of them are true, and only some of them will bring about the truth.

[sparkles]

My personal opinion is that you should never vote in a system that is rigged/unprovable on the principle that your "vote" may or may not actually be counted but your participation is certainly counted on to give the result legitimacy.

...

I respect this position, but I think it's flawed.  The issue is the implication that higher participation can somehow give the result legitimacy or moral weight.

I would argue that it can't, and thus that voting is an amoral act of self expression.  Certainly a very limited form of self expression, and one that's frequently taken out of context by those claiming it grants them extra moral rights, but the fact that others misquote you and take your words out of context is not an evil act on your part.

A vote is an expression of an opinion and is amoral.

An election is the aggregation of everyones opinion which is then used to justify some action, usually government coercion of some kind.

The legitimacy of the aggregation of everyones opinion depends upon the number of people who contributed their opinion to the aggregate.

The corruption of societies ability to assess the aggregate opinion results in abusive immoral power derived from fraud.   Fraud is immoral.

Participating in a system designed to facilitate corruption means you are not actually casting a vote, you are supporting a fraud.  Your opinion cannot be provably expressed, but as byte master said, your participation can.

An opinion that supports coercion when publicly expressed by voting ends up enabling coercion and is not a passive act.   If no one voted then no one could claim they had public consensus on the use of coercion.  If you have ability to file an active protest vote against coercion then that would be the most moral thing to do.    In this case you can simultaneously reject the system and help project public consensus that voting is not a means by which coercion can be justified. 

So I agree with Bytemaster that voting in any system that allows your voice to be stolen and reprojected is irresponsible toward your fellow citizen and gives your power away to someone without your consent.    Expressing your opinion in a system such as VOTE will allow you to be responsible for standing up for what is right.   

So it really comes down to an assumption on the part of those who say you should vote in the current system.  That assumption is that the current system actually works as intended.  If the entire premise of your product is that the current system does not work as intended then the only logically consistent conclusion is to be pro-active in your stance that the current system should be shunned entirely and that is the RESPONSIBLE thing for a voter to do.   It is a VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE.

The purpose of voting is to make your voice and opinion known to all.   Bad things happen when good people don't speak out and silently consent to the evil.  So it is imperative for your own safety and wellbeing to publicly express your opinion in an honest voting system such as VOTE.    So the argument for VOTE is that you need to let your voice be heard and stop letting your voice be stolen and manipulated.

So everyone that says you have a moral obligation to vote may be right in principle, but that principle only applies when voting has integrity.  What they are really saying is that you have a moral obligation to contribute to the aggregation of public opinion.    This is what VOTE gives you.
 

[bytemaster]

Saying things that put you at a disadvantage later is no different from these martyrs who rest content in their hope to create a fair world by a ceremonious burning of BTC that drains all their power.

True power is the ability to honestly express what you believe.  Otherwise you give power to your opponents view by allowing others to think you agree with it.  This is why I don't like rand Paul.   It is also why I liked Ron Paul.   

You think you gain support by compromising your position, but instead people stop trusting you because you are playing political games. 

[CLains]

Saying things that put you at a disadvantage later is no different from these martyrs who rest content in their hope to create a fair world by a ceremonious burning of BTC that drains all their power.

[vegolino]

I claim it is unethical to vote in a rigged system and thus unwittingly give your support to a corrupt system.   So as long as we are going to be judging people, I think supporting a rigged system is far worse than encouraging people to shun a rigged system

   

This is why FMV is Adam's thing.  He actually believes in the democratic process and thus can market and promote it honestly.   I on the other hand would be dishonest to encourage voting in the official elections and in the event VOTE became the official system I would encourage everyone to vote "NO ONE" for every position as a protest vote.    That is me being honest.

   

Unfortunately many people are afraid to even imagine something like this. I used to be one of them, until I found this forum. Now I can imagine different future without fear.
Thanks bytemaster 

[Troglodactyl]

My personal opinion is that you should never vote in a system that is rigged/unprovable on the principle that your "vote" may or may not actually be counted but your participation is certainly counted on to give the result legitimacy.

...

I respect this position, but I think it's flawed.  The issue is the implication that higher participation can somehow give the result legitimacy or moral weight.

I would argue that it can't, and thus that voting is an amoral act of self expression.  Certainly a very limited form of self expression, and one that's frequently taken out of context by those claiming it grants them extra moral rights, but the fact that others misquote you and take your words out of context is not an evil act on your part.

[carpet ride]

It's really unethical to encourage people not to vote and "vote" here instead

I claim it is unethical to vote in a rigged system and thus unwittingly give your support to a corrupt system.   So as long as we are going to be judging people, I think supporting a rigged system is far worse than encouraging people to shun a rigged system.

Says a reporter who comes calling
I would write about this Bit Shares
Replies Byte Master to the reporter
Your national TV network is but a sham
A tool of a government I can not recognize

Unethical it is for me to promote my cause
In your wrap of a fish, your agent of tyranny
Propaganda for a system of violence to control the masses
In my life, there are no banks, no kings, no armies, and no stations
How can we discourse if your existence is ethereal?

Oh wait, I've just dismissed all the institutions
No way remains for me to grow my dream
But say no more, I've made my choice
Standing on principle, I'll close my eyes and see the world as I wish it
Far better I should starve and swing my fists in peace

Aw, maybe I should have swallowed my pride yet again
And played by those rules just a wee bit longer
I could have been king, had I played the contender
The system, it could have crashed down on terms I dictated
Gawd, I sure hope the devs and 'investors' won't mind...me standing on my own behind

Fortunately, he woke up and realized it was all a bad dream. He wiped away the sleep, dismissed it as a cautionary tale, and went forth unto the world with fork in hand. Another chance, thought he. I can still make this happen.

Anecdotic and enlightening.  Worthy of being cast into some great rock