Author Topic: You guys don't understand devshares.  (Read 36036 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline alt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2821
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: baozi
I'm totally confused.
I thought Bytemaster decide  to abandon PTS,  so we sharedrop BTS to PTS holder.
I just want to confirm again from Bytemaster, what's your plane, will you continue support PTS?  thank you.

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.

edit - Honestly, I'd suggest renaming devshares to shitshares.  Arguing over who should own the most of a testnet just seems like such a waste.  That is what it is, a testnet. 

Aiight I'm too irritated.  My lack of people tolerance is starting to really show. :)
« Last Edit: December 26, 2014, 05:14:06 am by gamey »
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.
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.

I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
Quote
You're bitshares delegates. BTS is your product. You need to do what's best for BTS

Thanks for pointing that out.  I need to start training myself to phrase things to reflect this new status.

The "we" I am talking about is the collective developers you have hired and will hire.
We put our heads together and earnestly seek do what is best for our new employer.

Sometimes that will include working out strategic deals with partners, even competitors, that grow the pie for everyone.  Sometimes that will involve unpopular decisions to achieve longer term goals.  BitShares delegates are charged with making those tough calls and are always aware that every single decision they make will cost them votes. (Especially those tasked with explaining those decisions - messengers often get shot!)

DevShares is a strategic asset that can best benefit BTS by attracting other developers to use it as well.  I hope it will become a way to develop standardized components and shared testing volume.  Nothing like it has been tried before - a chain with enough value to work but not too big to fail!

You have hired a team of risk-takers who are willing to take on outside-the-box ideas like this and wrestle with them till they work.

I suppose it might be possible to eventually hound us into being risk averse...taking the easy, uncontroversial paths before us...

...Nah. Your team of thoroughbreds can't be broken.  We will work for you as long as you'll have us... and then ride off into the sunset. 

 :)
« Last Edit: December 26, 2014, 03:23:14 am by Stan »
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline nomoreheroes7

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 756
  • King of all the land
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nomoreheroes7
Quote
We reserve the right to do what we think is best for the product we are releasing.

You're bitshares delegates. BTS is your product. You need to do what's best for BTS, not DVS, not AGS, not PTS.

I feel like we're talking to a brick wall. How can the devs not see the problem here? There's basically nothing that can be said to justify the current allocation -- it goes against BTS holders' interests, and BTS is the only chain the devs should be answering to. Period.

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
Quote
We reserve the right to do what we think is best for the product we are releasing.

You're bitshares delegates. BTS is your product. You need to do what's best for BTS, not DVS, not AGS, not PTS.

Offline speedy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1160
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: speedy
I havent bothered to follow all of this thread, but to me the name makes it obvious what it is - its a testnet and should be treated accordingly.

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
we fully understand DVS .
We just don't understand why people keep saying "we never said 11.05 was supposed to snapshot for devshares " .
Because , they did said it .

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10608.0

read the bottom of the OP , then you'll know what kind of issue we're talking about here .

This is getting to be a fun way to spend Christmas.

Who, exactly, said that "we never said"?       This is one of scores of manufactured promises and quotes in this thread.  "We bought them out." is another one.  No, we did an almost normal airdrop on them.  "Buying them out" was a metaphorical concept that failed to reach consensus.

I never say "we never said" because I could easily be wrong.  I do not remember half of what I said even yesterday. (We interact here informally a lot.  Perhaps we should stop?)  Instead I always ask, "show me the link so we can look at it in context."

So lets look at the context.  You have quoted something from a thread marked [DRAFT].

It is not possible for a promise to appear in something marked [DRAFT]

Drafts are there to show the language we are considering and are open for comment and subject to change.

Neither is it possible for a promise to appear in a casual post where we may get sloppy in our wording.  There are demands on our time and we do our best to stop by frequently and respond to posts in the few minutes we scrape together between other tasks.  We can't take the time to proof read and dwell on the possible misinterpretations of each casual post.  The alternative is to drastically curtail our interactions with everyone to just what has been reviewed by lawyers, marketeers, and public relations specialists.   No one wants that.

Later in that same thread we have:


This newsletter was our official announcement and explanation of what we were going to do after proposing several ideas and drafts in the preceding week.  It shows everything that made the cut and tries to explain our reasoning.  Everything else was either rejected or still under discussion.

Most of the things people "know" are things that someone else has incorrectly asserted as facts taken out of context from some casually-stated preliminary draft straw man proposal seeking feedback from the community.  In this case our draft concept was 40/40/20, with AGS and PTS getting the lion's share.  BTS got 20% in the first proposal, not 100% like some have been trying to claim.  After discussing this concept with the Devs and considering other feedback for more than a month, we tweaked the percentages to "just make them all the same" and chose the December 14 snapshot as representing a potentially larger mix of users.  We reserve the right to do what we think is best for the product we are releasing.   

Our pattern has always been:  float one or more proposals, listen to discussions, refine our position and formally post it.  That has been done in this case, as always.  And there is another pattern that also continues:  cherry pick something out of context that we have said during the discussion phase and represent it as a "promise" to stir up anger which winds up damaging everyone's stake and hurting the whole community.

In the future, perhaps we should add double asterisks to the [**DRAFT**] banner to help make sure it is not mistaken for a promise.

I'm sure that will work just as well as all our other attempts in the past.

:)
« Last Edit: December 26, 2014, 01:44:33 am by Stan »
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
LOL, what a joke. The only garanty DVS has made, is that it will be on of the most unstable wallets in the crypto space. And that theft by third parties like exchanges is tolerated. Yes, I foresee the markets to be filled with non-stop 100 BTC buy walls.

Exchanges get hacked all the time and it's tolerated.  No change there.  Reputable exchanges wont just steal them as that would endanger their image.  It could end up with a stable wallet for a few months or so, you never know.

BTS makes no guarantees either and here we are.

DVS is never going to suck real value from BTS, there is zero risk of that happening. Lets not try to derail this issue into one primarily about money, it hurts the otherwise legitimate arguments. This is a symbolic thing, and is mostly about respect and trust in our own delegates.

Offline islandking

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 378
  • The king of the island
    • View Profile
This whole situation should be brought up in tomorrow's meeting at 10am EST.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=12672.0
I've been working on a new electronic cash system that's fully peer-to-peer, with no trusted third party. - Satoshi

Offline matt608

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile
LOL, what a joke. The only garanty DVS has made, is that it will be on of the most unstable wallets in the crypto space. And that theft by third parties like exchanges is tolerated. Yes, I foresee the markets to be filled with non-stop 100 BTC buy walls.

Exchanges get hacked all the time and it's tolerated.  No change there.  Reputable exchanges wont just steal them as that would endanger their image.  It could end up with a stable wallet for a few months or so, you never know.

BTS makes no guarantees either and here we are.

Offline graffenwalder

LOL, what a joke. The only garanty DVS has made, is that it will be on of the most unstable wallets in the crypto space. And that theft by third parties like exchanges is tolerated. Yes, I foresee the markets to be filled with non-stop 100 BTC buy walls.
« Last Edit: December 25, 2014, 10:03:38 pm by Graffenwalder »

Offline matt608

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile
Quote
Quote
Would you be angry if the devs coordinated a massive dump to test out undercollateralization?
DON'T HOLD DEVSHARES!

Would you be angry if the devs discovered and exploited a bug in DVS which permanently brought down the network and forced a reset?
DON'T HOLD DEVSHARES!

Would you be angry if the devs reset the network and allocated 100% to Vikram?
DON'T HOLD DEVSHARES!
The counter argument is that, devshares will be the platform that gets exposed to the best new Bitshares features first (if I understand the intention of a release-candidate/test platform correctly). 

Someone outside the community who hears about some new feature development in a public press-release for example, and wants to get involved, is going to be told that it's not in Bitshares BTS yet but is in devshares.

The first thing they will want to know is how to acquire devshares.
 
 Also, If Bitshares' developers are paid out of BTS contributions through delegate inflation, then it should be BTS holders that are the recipient of sharedrops irrespective of the perceived value. Dropping to PTS gives PTS a lot symbolic legitimacy when BTS holders already paid to acquire them, at least that seems to be the common understanding.

Yeah I would be worried if DVS is traded that it could be a competitor. My worst case scenario is something like...

DVS -  The Trojan Horse

- The sharedrop will make DVS independent of BTS & seem well distributed.
- Key BTS developers will buy it up after it's purposely made pretty worthless at first.
- The result is you now have a traded DAC that looks well distributed, isn't beholden to BTS and all the key BTS talent has a much larger % stake in.
- Will all the BTS development talent be incentivised to turn DVS into something more over time at the expense of, but while being salaried by BTS? 

Crazy I know  :P

Exactly, it's scenarios like this being possible that makes the distribution not ok.  It might turn out to be almost worthless, or something like this could happen.  A chain with lots of developers working on it each with large stakes is a recipe for a competitor.  BTS dev time is going in to it, it's BTS funded, so BTS should receive it, just to make sure that base is covered and to set a precedent of BTS loyalty from its own devs.
« Last Edit: December 25, 2014, 09:46:05 pm by matt608 »

Offline Empirical1.1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile
Quote
Quote
Would you be angry if the devs coordinated a massive dump to test out undercollateralization?
DON'T HOLD DEVSHARES!

Would you be angry if the devs discovered and exploited a bug in DVS which permanently brought down the network and forced a reset?
DON'T HOLD DEVSHARES!

Would you be angry if the devs reset the network and allocated 100% to Vikram?
DON'T HOLD DEVSHARES!
The counter argument is that, devshares will be the platform that gets exposed to the best new Bitshares features first (if I understand the intention of a release-candidate/test platform correctly). 

Someone outside the community who hears about some new feature development in a public press-release for example, and wants to get involved, is going to be told that it's not in Bitshares BTS yet but is in devshares.

The first thing they will want to know is how to acquire devshares.
 
 Also, If Bitshares' developers are paid out of BTS contributions through delegate inflation, then it should be BTS holders that are the recipient of sharedrops irrespective of the perceived value. Dropping to PTS gives PTS a lot symbolic legitimacy when BTS holders already paid to acquire them, at least that seems to be the common understanding.

Yeah I would be worried if DVS is traded that it could be a competitor. My worst case scenario is something like...

DVS -  The Trojan Horse

- The sharedrop will make DVS independent of BTS & seem well distributed.
- Key BTS developers will buy it up after it's purposely made pretty worthless at first.
- The result is you now have a traded DAC that looks well distributed, isn't beholden to BTS and all the key BTS talent has a much larger % stake in.
- Will all the BTS development talent be incentivised to turn DVS into something more over time at the expense of, but while being salaried by BTS? 

Crazy I know  :P