Author Topic: You guys don't understand devshares.  (Read 36049 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline alt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2821
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: baozi
I see the people here arguing with Stan are NOT asking for more DVS.

The messages they are trying to deliver are:
1.  PTS has been 'dead' since 11.05. This is the only snapshot date for PTS after then regarding the 'official' DACs like DevShares.
2.  Bytemaster said in one post that DevShares would respect 11.05 snapshot for PTS.
3.  Message 2 was widely spreaded around both English and Chinese community.
4.  Actually Stan/developers/3I (I don't know whom I should put here :'( ) failed to follow message 2.
5.  Stan didn't want to admit the fault and tried to defend himself by a reason which is not so reasonable and surely not accepted by them.

In a word, they hate someone always dance around the questions.

I, for one, think what they are trying to fight for is reasonable.
+5%
I don't care even if the sharedrop for DevShares is a fault.
I just want to know if PTS is still  support by this community or not

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile


The fact that this is an issue pisses me off to no end.  Maybe rename it to testshares, or bullshitshares and then the greedy people who can't see past their big toe won't make a pointless issue.

There are a lot of honest people here who are oppose any snapshot from I3 post 11.05 as well .
Devshares is just the example .

No one cares about the value of devshares . But there is a rabbit hole here . If as they said , 11.05 is just an misunderstanding , and I3 did not promised 11.05 was the final snapshot for all I3 DACs , then that would bring a whole new question : Will there be a "valuable-shares" from I3 devs sharedrop to PTS post 11.05 as well ? Is that 100% impossible ?  That's the real question people are afraid of , if that happens , it will tear this community apart again .

i3 doesn't really exist and from what I understand the developers are no longer employees.  So if one of them has a project and sharedrops to something besides BTS then there is nothing to prevent that.  Nor can I3 even make any statement saying it won't happen.  The developers are independent operators sharing a common goal.

This is all about greed.  Like those who scream the loudest about social/welfare programs.  You really start to examine these people and it isn't some sort of morale/ethical reasoning.  That is what they claim and how they view themselves, but the truth is they're just pissed off someone else is getting something for free and they're not.  I've seen it too many times in life for anyone to convince me otherwise.  Humanity is a broken record of s**t.

People paid big bucks to buy PTS for the promise of allocation , people lost big bucks when I3 decided to stop the promise of allocation and return a 2 year vest in plan instead . Now , they're greedy about some worthless devshares ?  You are kidding , right ?

No, not kidding at all.  So you are arguing about the future and I explained to you that I3 is basically dead and it is all BTS. I don't even understand your point.  Out of all the discussions we can have, this one doesn't even seem like an issue.

I can't even figure out your argument .  People "lost big bucks"... so are those the same people hurt by this allocation or not?  It is just a total waste of time arguing about this shit.

If a developer wants to make a new DAC in the future they'll be able to do what they wish regardless of whether they were an I3 employee.  Again, I don't understand your argument or the expectations.  if I work for someone, they do not own all my projects after I change employers. At least that is  how it works in America, but I can't speak for the rest of the world. Your expectations seem to be different from mine or there is a communication breakdown.

Are you familiar with the term "de facto" ?
Also , if you think for a second that the obligations can easily be removed , then why we need the merger to begin with ?
We could have just keep BTS where it was and hired by the blockchain , and there will be no I3 , so no one should have the right to ask the "original" I3 devs to honor the social consensus , so we don't even need to dilute BTS to buy out PTS and AGS to begin with .

Right ? That's what you're arguing , I3 devs are not I3 . So technically the merger did not have to happen , because if everybody is hired by BTS thus changed employee , they don't need to hold their promise to AGS and PTS .

No, never heard the term "de facto".  Explain how it relates to this.

If I knew Chinese then perhaps you would not be so confused. :(

De facto is the latin term for something that's not written in black and white like legal paper but in fact they have the same outcome and social recognition thus it is the same thing in practice .

For example :
If you have a broken leg before you took an issuance policy and got pass the exam somehow without mentioning the leg condition , the issuance company could argue that you've hidden your condition thus the policy must be void according to the contract . But , if you've constantly twitt about your leg condition in social media with real name , then you have "de facto" announced your condition , and the issuance company accepted your policy would be "de facto acceptance after the fact" , thus the policy can not be void .

Again , you don't need to speak Chinese , I haven't had any troubles with more serious stuff like the "US Code" before .
The language is not the issue here .

Devshares is de facto a I3 project , no matter how you read it .

I was being sarcastic about not knowing what de facto means.  It usually refers to implied/accepted social rules etc.  You don't "de facto" announce stuff.  Anyway, that wasn't my point.  My point was to try and get you to tie it into something concrete and appropriate, which you did not.  I thought you were going to go with how I3 has changed the de facto agreement, but even then it isn't a de facto agreement as Dan has explicitly said what the social consensus is.

The difference between us is you think devshares has value, so your reasoning is totally different from mine.  You think that because it may have value, they are changing the rules.  I see it like other testnets and so they're not giving anything of value and thus this argument is moot except that people insist on having it.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline ripplexiaoshan

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2300
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: jademont


The fact that this is an issue pisses me off to no end.  Maybe rename it to testshares, or bullshitshares and then the greedy people who can't see past their big toe won't make a pointless issue.

This.

You people are either insane or don't understand DevShares. I'm not sure which is better.

Seriously, who the heck cares how they are allocated as long as there is some distribution that gets them into the hands of a community.

It's about the price of BTS.

China is by in large the main market. They had a nightmare with the merger having to convince people that the merger was good and that PTS was dead and would no longer be supported. The people speaking up here couldn't care about the value of DVS. They're also not greedy themselves, they're simply care about how the market as a whole will interpret the news. The Chinese consensus is definitely that this will be seen as contrary to the conditions of the merger. This is also how the majority of the currently smaller English market seem to receive it too.

If you don't hate money. Try to get out of your own mind and answer the question, 'how will the market react & interpret this decision as a whole short and medium term?'

In this case it's PR 101 for media minds to know this is a very negative value move and there's no reason it's worth the risk of how it will be received. So what you see here is not greedy people but mostly PR and Media minded people having to step up and do damage control, for the sake of BTS CAP on their Christmas Day for the actions that a brick wall of dev minds might have thought was completely reasonable.

You got the point.

It's not about DVS at all, people know DVS has no value, no one cares about their shares percentage of DVS. Most of them don't even download the wallet of DVS.

It's all about trust. Stan/BM or previous 3I is experiencing the most sever trust crisis from the community. The blasting fuse is this post from English community:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=12609.0

And it reminded the Chinese community. People think that 3i breach their promise about PTS, but Stan denied it.  How about making a vote?
BTS committee member:jademont

Offline muse-umum

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 717
  • BitShares everything
    • View Profile
I see the people here arguing with Stan are NOT asking for more DVS.

The messages they are trying to deliver are:
1.  PTS has been 'dead' since 11.05. This is the only snapshot date for PTS after then regarding the 'official' DACs like DevShares.
2.  Bytemaster said in one post that DevShares would respect 11.05 snapshot for PTS.
3.  Message 2 was widely spreaded around both English and Chinese community.
4.  Actually Stan/developers/3I (I don't know whom I should put here :'( ) failed to follow message 2.
5.  Stan didn't want to admit the fault and tried to defend himself by a reason which is not so reasonable and surely not accepted by them.

In a word, they hate someone always dance around the questions.

I, for one, think what they are trying to fight for is reasonable.

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile


The fact that this is an issue pisses me off to no end.  Maybe rename it to testshares, or bullshitshares and then the greedy people who can't see past their big toe won't make a pointless issue.

This.

You people are either insane or don't understand DevShares. I'm not sure which is better.

Seriously, who the heck cares how they are allocated as long as there is some distribution that gets them into the hands of a community.

It's about the price of BTS.

China is by in large the main market. They had a nightmare with the merger having to convince people that the merger was good and that PTS was dead and would no longer be supported. The people speaking up here couldn't care about the value of DVS. They're also not greedy themselves, they're simply care about how the market as a whole will interpret the news. The Chinese consensus is definitely that this will be seen as contrary to the conditions of the merger. This is also how the majority of the currently smaller English market seem to receive it too.

If you don't hate money. Try to get out of your own mind and answer the question, 'how will the market react & interpret this decision as a whole short and medium term?'

In this case it's PR 101 for media minds to know this is a very negative value move and there's no reason it's worth the risk of how it will be received. So what you see here is not greedy people but mostly PR and Media minded people having to step up and do damage control, for the sake of BTS CAP on their Christmas Day for the actions that a brick wall of dev minds might have thought was completely reasonable.

I don't disagree with this.  I think it would be fine if it was given all to BTS. Those who are concerned about precedent etc need to realize that this is a testnet. There is no precedent being set. 

When we used to ask for funds on testnets, people weren't arguing about who received more. That is because they had no value and it was readily apparent.

What future DACs is I3 going to release?  That is where I am becoming confused.  Everyone is worried about a precedent that is not being set for things I don't even expect to ever exist. 

It really appears to be BTS and only BTS from here on out from I3's perspective.  All third party development will be up to developers.  AGS and PTS from I3's perspective are thing of the past.  Yet somehow people think that every developer should only sharedrop to BTS - those people who may or may not support third party DACs in the first place.  It just makes no sense to me.  Any of it.

 I suspect if the devs realized how goofy the reasoning would be over this they would have just sharedropped all onto BTS, then gave themselves each a large stake.  Then people would complain that it wasn't fair either!
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline Empirical1.1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile


The fact that this is an issue pisses me off to no end.  Maybe rename it to testshares, or bullshitshares and then the greedy people who can't see past their big toe won't make a pointless issue.

This.

You people are either insane or don't understand DevShares. I'm not sure which is better.

Seriously, who the heck cares how they are allocated as long as there is some distribution that gets them into the hands of a community.

It's about the price of BTS.

China is by in large the main market. They had a nightmare with the merger having to convince people that the merger was good and that PTS was dead and would no longer be supported. The people speaking up here couldn't care about the value of DVS. They're also not greedy themselves, they're simply care about how the market as a whole will interpret the news. The Chinese consensus is definitely that this will be seen as contrary to the conditions of the merger. This is also how the majority of the currently smaller English market seem to receive it too.

If you don't hate money. Try to get out of your own mind and answer the question, 'how will the market react & interpret this decision as a whole short and medium term?'

In this case it's PR 101 for media minds to know this is a very negative value move and there's no reason it's worth the risk of how it will be received. So what you see here is not greedy people but mostly PR and Media minded people having to step up and do damage control, for the sake of BTS CAP on their Christmas Day for the actions that a brick wall of dev minds might have thought was completely reasonable.

Offline ripplexiaoshan

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2300
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: jademont
Quote
i3 doesn't really exist and from what I understand the developers are no longer employees.  So if one of them has a project and sharedrops to something besides BTS then there is nothing to prevent that.  Nor can I3 even make any statement saying it won't happen.  The developers are independent operators sharing a common goal.

Developers are now hired by the blockchain, if they don't represent the most benefits of BTS holders, they will be fired, so they won't start a new project but don't airdrop BTS. Of course, this is only the ideal case when BM's votes do not dominate. The real case is that DPOS is now nearly a centralized system controlled by BM.  But the good news is that they are making some new functions to encourage more share holders to vote. Finally this issue will be resolved.

Besides, like Stan said
Quote
We interact here informally a lot.  Perhaps we should stop?
, I agree. We prefer less but firm information to more but confusing information.
BTS committee member:jademont

Offline merlin0113

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 286
    • View Profile

Devshares has no value, so I don't care. After this drop, let's come together and agree on a new social consensus.

I prefer the consensus on PTS is dead. The consensus I believed we have had. But Stan convinced me we hadn't.

There's good reason Stan has. I am with Stan although I have doubts.

Offline Riverhead



The fact that this is an issue pisses me off to no end.  Maybe rename it to testshares, or bullshitshares and then the greedy people who can't see past their big toe won't make a pointless issue.

This.

You people are either insane or don't understand DevShares. I'm not sure which is better.

Seriously, who the heck cares how they are allocated as long as there is some distribution that gets them into the hands of a community.

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
Devshares has no value, so I don't care. After this drop, let's come together and agree on a new social consensus.

+5%

Yet realize that even the social consensuses that have existed previously purely lay out the side of those receiving the sharedrop.  The other equally important aspect is what level of support should a developer expect for following the social consensus?  That has always been completely vague.

The large majority of people discussing this will be looking after one thing and that is maximizing the return of whatever shares they hold.  They'll have little input of value discussing what the social consensus should be.

Honestly it seems like people can't get their heads wrapped around the fact that a chain really can have near 0 value. 

Toast is right, he should just make it so that the devshares randomly changes balances.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile


The fact that this is an issue pisses me off to no end.  Maybe rename it to testshares, or bullshitshares and then the greedy people who can't see past their big toe won't make a pointless issue.

There are a lot of honest people here who are oppose any snapshot from I3 post 11.05 as well .
Devshares is just the example .

No one cares about the value of devshares . But there is a rabbit hole here . If as they said , 11.05 is just an misunderstanding , and I3 did not promised 11.05 was the final snapshot for all I3 DACs , then that would bring a whole new question : Will there be a "valuable-shares" from I3 devs sharedrop to PTS post 11.05 as well ? Is that 100% impossible ?  That's the real question people are afraid of , if that happens , it will tear this community apart again .

i3 doesn't really exist and from what I understand the developers are no longer employees.  So if one of them has a project and sharedrops to something besides BTS then there is nothing to prevent that.  Nor can I3 even make any statement saying it won't happen.  The developers are independent operators sharing a common goal.

This is all about greed.  Like those who scream the loudest about social/welfare programs.  You really start to examine these people and it isn't some sort of morale/ethical reasoning.  That is what they claim and how they view themselves, but the truth is they're just pissed off someone else is getting something for free and they're not.  I've seen it too many times in life for anyone to convince me otherwise.  Humanity is a broken record of s**t.

People paid big bucks to buy PTS for the promise of allocation , people lost big bucks when I3 decided to stop the promise of allocation and return a 2 year vest in plan instead . Now , they're greedy about some worthless devshares ?  You are kidding , right ?

No, not kidding at all.  So you are arguing about the future and I explained to you that I3 is basically dead and it is all BTS. I don't even understand your point.  Out of all the discussions we can have, this one doesn't even seem like an issue.

I can't even figure out your argument .  People "lost big bucks"... so are those the same people hurt by this allocation or not?  It is just a total waste of time arguing about this shit.

If a developer wants to make a new DAC in the future they'll be able to do what they wish regardless of whether they were an I3 employee.  Again, I don't understand your argument or the expectations.  if I work for someone, they do not own all my projects after I change employers. At least that is  how it works in America, but I can't speak for the rest of the world. Your expectations seem to be different from mine or there is a communication breakdown.

Are you familiar with the term "de facto" ?
Also , if you think for a second that the obligations can easily be removed , then why we need the merger to begin with ?
We could have just keep BTS where it was and hired by the blockchain , and there will be no I3 , so no one should have the right to ask the "original" I3 devs to honor the social consensus , so we don't even need to dilute BTS to buy out PTS and AGS to begin with .

Right ? That's what you're arguing , I3 devs are not I3 . So technically the merger did not have to happen , because if everybody is hired by BTS thus changed employee , they don't need to hold their promise to AGS and PTS .

No, never heard the term "de facto".  Explain how it relates to this.

If I knew Chinese then perhaps you would not be so confused. :(
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile
Devshares has no value, so I don't care. After this drop, let's come together and agree on a new social consensus.

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
"Sharedropping to" PTS is different from "working for" PTS, is it not?

Yes, quite different.

And the sharedrop is to a chain of approximately 0 monetary value, so PTS/AGS weren't given anything of value.

However PTS/AGS is a demographic which is likely significantly different from BTS and thus may have greater value as testers

So if the devs want the testnet to have a certain demographic.  Ok! Who cares!  The goal is to choose the demographic that will help them test and establish a chain to mirror BTS in functionality so we do not have these forking problems etc.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline BTSdac

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1219
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: K1
菩提本无树, Bodhi is fundamentally without any tree;
明镜亦非台。 The bright mirror is also not a stand.
本来无一物, Fundamentally there is not a single thing
何处惹尘埃。 Where could any dust be attracted?
« Last Edit: December 26, 2014, 05:24:57 am by BTSdac »
github.com :pureland
BTS2.0 API :ws://139.196.37.179:8091
BTS2.0 API 数据源ws://139.196.37.179:8091

Offline pendragon3

"Sharedropping to" PTS is different from "working for" PTS, is it not?