Poll

What do you think of this idea for Angelshares?

I like the idea as it is
18 (35.3%)
I like the idea but posted things I think should be different
6 (11.8%)
I don't like the idea, Invictus should not raise more money
5 (9.8%)
I don't like the idea, Invictus should only sell PTS or Bitshares
22 (43.1%)

Total Members Voted: 49

Author Topic: [POLL] Setting another 10% Bitshares as "Angelshares" to fundraise for DACS  (Read 14782 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Number 1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 87
    • View Profile
Re: [POLL] Setting another 10% Bitshares as "Angelshares" to fundraise for DACS
« Reply #37 on: December 16, 2013, 02:57:16 pm »
Bytemaster's PTS 2.0 pitch came as a surprise, dropping the price of PTS.. transiently... One positive thing it did allow was room for reevaluation, prompting fast-paced discussion with big input from a great number of active community members.
The passionate, contrasting viewpoints from newbies and respected community members alike highlighted Protoshare's strong community input.
Furthermore despite Bytemaster's lesson in humility his clear willingness to concede to the opinion of the community showed Invictus' clear commitment to decentralisation and to the better interests of the PTS community at large.

Today's short term dip in the curve has in my opinion done more for the progress of Protoshares than months of discussion could. It brings to the floor the main issue: the clear need for capital investment to fund future DAC development and product marketing.

Watch this space over the next couple of days for solutions which will launch PTS into the stratesphere.. BTC looks ready for a christmas slump.. its time to invest in cryptequity.
Anyway...crowdfunding is quicker with cryptocurrency..isnt it..
PTS: Pj8UH9ExVidcFd4LKtEgPSrwrtpYhPhug8

Offline Pocket Sand

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
    • View Profile
Re: [POLL] Setting another 10% Bitshares as "Angelshares" to fundraise for DACS
« Reply #36 on: December 16, 2013, 01:46:53 pm »
I think there's an elephant in the room. Yesterday, bytemaster dropped a red hot fiery 'development engine' right in our laps. Some memes are just too powerful to stand against. At this moment, everyone is just sitting around, staring at this amazingly potent, jewel of an idea. But how long will it keep until someone picks it up and rides it into the future.
Sorry I missed the "jewel" of an idea that Bytemaster gave us. Mind explaining?

Offline que23

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 165
    • View Profile
Re: [POLL] Setting another 10% Bitshares as "Angelshares" to fundraise for DACS
« Reply #35 on: December 16, 2013, 09:18:47 am »
I think there's an elephant in the room. Yesterday, bytemaster dropped a red hot fiery 'development engine' right in our laps. Some memes are just too powerful to stand against. At this moment, everyone is just sitting around, staring at this amazingly potent, jewel of an idea. But how long will it keep until someone picks it up and rides it into the future.
PTS: Pa75dEzGkMcnM85hRMbdKiS1YdF81rnSCF

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
Re: [POLL] Setting another 10% Bitshares as "Angelshares" to fundraise for DACS
« Reply #34 on: December 16, 2013, 08:12:05 am »
I still don't see any need for having miners in the future. If Invictus is moving towards a more Mastercoin like approach, then you have to work for BTC and Angel Shares by doing the bounties, a real service that will benefit the DACs. After PTS, which will always get 10%, there is no more use for mining.

Everyone keeps saying there will be bounties. Until Bytemaster says that we can mine by using Bitshares in our signature here and/or on Bitcoin talk then it's just hot air.

I gave some ideas on how to automate and decentralize the process. It is how Mastercoin was able to market itself. It is not an accident that Mastercoin is so well marketed.

So you cannot mine anymore? Put Bitshares in your signature and the amount of coins you would have got from mining will be received from advertising. Difficulty will adjust just as it does with mining according to a fixed algorithm so that if too many people are on the spreadsheet then the amount you get of the credit supply shrinks. The same should apply to all bounties equally according to the same algorithm. There are only 1 million credits in the system I proposed which means the algorithm will have to prioritize by voting. Human beings will have to be paid to check forums and maintain spreadsheets.

All work should be considered a level of Commitment to the DAC. The DAC itself should have an internal algorithm which works partially by human vote to prioritize the To-Do list and partially set in stone such as difficulty and rate of distributing the credits. That means if too many human do the same kind of work then the work of that type will generate less credits for them all. This would be "difficulty" and it would encourage human beings to diversify the kind of work they do.

So you can have a signature in your name on forums for a while but eventually everyone will do that and you'll have to do something else besides that to bring up your credit income stream. Now you'll have to write documentation or click ads as well and if everyone does that too then there will be some other task which gets pushed to the top which no one will want to do and you'll have to do that to get more credits.

Keeping PTS "1.0" as they are is necessary and good. Even if mining doesn't pay at current rates / difficulty, but no one knows where PTS will be in 2014.

As for Angelshares/coins I'm not sure how they could be evenly/fair divided. Angelshares without mining would mean already rich people will get even richer by being able to invest more BTC into Angelshares right from the beginning. By mining poorer people would be able to get a good amount of "coins" while difficulty is low. - If Invictus wants to avoid mining they should think about mechanisms to give poorer investors a chance of getting lots of Angel"coins" by being fast/early/whatever. Just being rich shouldn't give anybody such a huge advantage at the start of a new "investment round".

Here is my thread on how to solve the distribution problem.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1413.msg15246#msg15246

The best numbers I came up with is 2,2,2 or 2,2,1.

Either 2 million PTS, 2 million Angelshares and 2 million mined Bitshares.

Or 2 million PTS and 2 million Angelshares and 1 million reserved for Proof of Commitment.

Proof of Work is probably dead. Proof of Stake can be useful if the transaction scheme can be used. Proof of Commitment can replace mining as a distribution scheme.

Basically it would work where we'd all have Keyhotee IDs and we'd all earn credits working and then in the future we redeem those credits for Bitshares which are "mined" by our labor. I think this would work well.

For example instead of mining to get your Bitshares you put a signature advertising Bitshares up and at the end of 1 month straight of having that signature up for 24/hr * 7 * 30 you receive your marketing credit which will give you the same amount of Bitshares as if you mined for that month. Now you've turned the miner into a marketer and you reward him with credits which can be redeemed for Bitshares.

If everyone were to use the signature method then "difficulty" would go up and the payout would shrink. This would encourage everyone to select different tasks.
We would vote on tasks which would come in the form of a To-Do list. As we vote then the tasks which rise to the top of the To-Do list would be the most profitable tasks to complete or "mine" but if it's something everyone wants to do then difficulty will rise and it will not be as profitable.

So basically the jobs that no one wants to do or cannot easily do but which receive the highest priority by vote will be the most profitable tasks on the To-Do list and will receive the greatest payout. Every task no matter how small will receive some payout though so that anyone could earn some Bitshares doing some BitcoinGet like tasks such as watching videos or something similar.

The signature tasks could also have tiers which reward people who keep the signature for longer with greater payouts each month, or which reward based on how many posts, or which reward based on the ratings of posts on the forum so that highly rated posts get pushed to the top and are more likely to receive credit.

Until we build this there shouldn't be talk about removing mining from Bitshares because you're right the way it seems is like they want to make it a toy for the rich who can afford to buy Bitshares. Also what if people don't even have Bitcoins and aren't deep into the Bitcoin community but just happen to be into or stumble upon Bitshares? Now they cannot just mine Bitshares but have to figure out how to buy Bitcoins? What if they can't buy them so easily?

For this reason we need to let people work for them.

This is not a bad idea. You're basically saying that they should set some shares aside to set bounties and payout faucets and stuff like that. Wouldn't it be better and more efficient though to pay bounties in Bitcoin from the Angel Shares fund. After all, we don't want to just give money to people who believe in the project, we want to attract new talent to the project as well.

A bit deeper than just 'bounties' and 'payout faucets'. A faucet does not require them to actually prove their level of Commitment. A signature in their forum profile does require they prove their Commitment and is an active task.

So I do not want faucets which give free Bitshares or whatever because those people wont value it because they got it completely for free. Instead they should prove their Commitment to the DAC by doing some voted upon task from a To-Do list which is accessible from within Keyhotee somehow.

We need Keyhotee because we don't want sock puppets voting but real committed Keyhotee IDs with reputations voting. The Keyhotee ID who completes the task earns the credit. It would be very easy to allow it to be pseudo-anonymous as well so that the Keyhotee ID could create some kind of hash signature under their advertisement signature and this would allow the script to automatically know which Keyhotee ID they are without them revealing their wallet address. The script would then send them a private message over Keyhotee to connect and verify their wallet address to send the payout.

The point is to automate this as much as possible and to make it as much like "mining" as possible with a predictable and set algorithm. It should provide no advantage to any particular kind of labor but it should reward what the community votes up to the top as being high priority and reward for the unwanted jobs. If job is high priority and no one wants to do it then the algorithm should determine that should pay out the most credits.

As far as attracting new talent I think if you build this automated system then you'll get everyone in the community on this forum active promoting the project. First you'd see everyone putting something about Bitshares in their signature here and on Bitcointalk which would attract a greater amount of mind share. Since for them it would be equal to mining we could expect almost everyone on this forum to do it which would result in the difficulty going up significantly and the payout decreasing significantly but it would be something and a place to start.

From there if people want higher payouts they have to prove their Commitment. Talent wouldn't have much to do with it as Commitment would be rewarded primarily above talent. If someone does have talent they could still get a lot of credits by doing really difficult tasks on the To-Do list which no one wants to do or perhaps solve problems no one can figure out how to solve. This would earn them a lot of credits.

Angelshares would be used to hire full time programmers and that would be 2 millon. Protoshares would be 2 million. This would be either 1 million (if we remove Proof of Work entirely) or 2 million if we have a hybrid system and phase this in to replace it where 1 million would go to traditional Proof of Work and 1 million to Proof of Commitment.

Whatever choice is made it is essential that anyone can earn Bitshares by showing Commitment to the DAC. Not by being richer, not by something subjective like talent, but just a willingness to Commit.


« Last Edit: December 16, 2013, 08:40:12 am by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline que23

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 165
    • View Profile
Re: [POLL] Setting another 10% Bitshares as "Angelshares" to fundraise for DACS
« Reply #33 on: December 16, 2013, 08:06:51 am »
Keeping PTS "1.0" as they are is necessary and good. Even if mining doesn't pay at current rates / difficulty, but no one knows where PTS will be in 2014.

As for Angelshares/coins I'm not sure how they could be evenly/fair divided. Angelshares without mining would mean already rich people will get even richer by being able to invest more BTC into Angelshares right from the beginning. By mining poorer people would be able to get a good amount of "coins" while difficulty is low. - If Invictus wants to avoid mining they should think about mechanisms to give poorer investors a chance of getting lots of Angel"coins" by being fast/early/whatever. Just being rich shouldn't give anybody such a huge advantage at the start of a new "investment round".

Here is my thread on how to solve the distribution problem.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1413.msg15246#msg15246

The best numbers I came up with is 2,2,2 or 2,2,1.

Either 2 million PTS, 2 million Angelshares and 2 million mined Bitshares.

Or 2 million PTS and 2 million Angelshares and 1 million reserved for Proof of Commitment.

Proof of Work is probably dead. Proof of Stake can be useful if the transaction scheme can be used. Proof of Commitment can replace mining as a distribution scheme.

Basically it would work where we'd all have Keyhotee IDs and we'd all earn credits working and then in the future we redeem those credits for Bitshares which are "mined" by our labor. I think this would work well.

For example instead of mining to get your Bitshares you put a signature advertising Bitshares up and at the end of 1 month straight of having that signature up for 24/hr * 7 * 30 you receive your marketing credit which will give you the same amount of Bitshares as if you mined for that month. Now you've turned the miner into a marketer and you reward him with credits which can be redeemed for Bitshares.

If everyone were to use the signature method then "difficulty" would go up and the payout would shrink. This would encourage everyone to select different tasks.
We would vote on tasks which would come in the form of a To-Do list. As we vote then the tasks which rise to the top of the To-Do list would be the most profitable tasks to complete or "mine" but if it's something everyone wants to do then difficulty will rise and it will not be as profitable.

So basically the jobs that no one wants to do or cannot easily do but which receive the highest priority by vote will be the most profitable tasks on the To-Do list and will receive the greatest payout. Every task no matter how small will receive some payout though so that anyone could earn some Bitshares doing some BitcoinGet like tasks such as watching videos or something similar.

The signature tasks could also have tiers which reward people who keep the signature for longer with greater payouts each month, or which reward based on how many posts, or which reward based on the ratings of posts on the forum so that highly rated posts get pushed to the top and are more likely to receive credit.

Until we build this there shouldn't be talk about removing mining from Bitshares because you're right the way it seems is like they want to make it a toy for the rich who can afford to buy Bitshares. Also what if people don't even have Bitcoins and aren't deep into the Bitcoin community but just happen to be into or stumble upon Bitshares? Now they cannot just mine Bitshares but have to figure out how to buy Bitcoins? What if they can't buy them so easily?

For this reason we need to let people work for them.

This is not a bad idea. You're basically saying that they should set some shares aside to set bounties and payout faucets and stuff like that. Wouldn't it be better and more efficient though to pay bounties in Bitcoin from the Angel Shares fund. After all, we don't want to just give money to people who believe in the project, we want to attract new talent to the project as well.
PTS: Pa75dEzGkMcnM85hRMbdKiS1YdF81rnSCF

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
Re: [POLL] Setting another 10% Bitshares as "Angelshares" to fundraise for DACS
« Reply #32 on: December 16, 2013, 07:53:27 am »
Keeping PTS "1.0" as they are is necessary and good. Even if mining doesn't pay at current rates / difficulty, but no one knows where PTS will be in 2014.

As for Angelshares/coins I'm not sure how they could be evenly/fair divided. Angelshares without mining would mean already rich people will get even richer by being able to invest more BTC into Angelshares right from the beginning. By mining poorer people would be able to get a good amount of "coins" while difficulty is low. - If Invictus wants to avoid mining they should think about mechanisms to give poorer investors a chance of getting lots of Angel"coins" by being fast/early/whatever. Just being rich shouldn't give anybody such a huge advantage at the start of a new "investment round".

Here is my thread on how to solve the distribution problem.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1413.msg15246#msg15246

The best numbers I came up with is 2,2,2 or 2,2,1.

Either 2 million PTS, 2 million Angelshares and 2 million mined Bitshares.

Or 2 million PTS and 2 million Angelshares and 1 million reserved for Proof of Commitment.

Proof of Work is probably dead. Proof of Stake can be useful if the transaction scheme can be used. Proof of Commitment can replace mining as a distribution scheme.

Basically it would work where we'd all have Keyhotee IDs and we'd all earn credits working and then in the future we redeem those credits for Bitshares which are "mined" by our labor. I think this would work well.

For example instead of mining to get your Bitshares you put a signature advertising Bitshares up and at the end of 1 month straight of having that signature up for 24/hr * 7 * 30 you receive your marketing credit which will give you the same amount of Bitshares as if you mined for that month. Now you've turned the miner into a marketer and you reward him with credits which can be redeemed for Bitshares.

If everyone were to use the signature method then "difficulty" would go up and the payout would shrink. This would encourage everyone to select different tasks.
We would vote on tasks which would come in the form of a To-Do list. As we vote then the tasks which rise to the top of the To-Do list would be the most profitable tasks to complete or "mine" but if it's something everyone wants to do then difficulty will rise and it will not be as profitable.

So basically the jobs that no one wants to do or cannot easily do but which receive the highest priority by vote will be the most profitable tasks on the To-Do list and will receive the greatest payout. Every task no matter how small will receive some payout though so that anyone could earn some Bitshares doing some BitcoinGet like tasks such as watching videos or something similar.

The signature tasks could also have tiers which reward people who keep the signature for longer with greater payouts each month, or which reward based on how many posts, or which reward based on the ratings of posts on the forum so that highly rated posts get pushed to the top and are more likely to receive credit.

Until we build this there shouldn't be talk about removing mining from Bitshares because you're right the way it seems is like they want to make it a toy for the rich who can afford to buy Bitshares. Also what if people don't even have Bitcoins and aren't deep into the Bitcoin community but just happen to be into or stumble upon Bitshares? Now they cannot just mine Bitshares but have to figure out how to buy Bitcoins? What if they can't buy them so easily?

For this reason we need to let people work for them.

I believe it should be well funded to create DACs. But any consideration should not decrease the value of PTS, because high price on PTS draw more attentions. I'm new to PTS. I notice PTS just because the price at bter and btc38 is higher than all other altcoins except LTC. Then I try to find out the value behind the high price, and I found PTS is a  totally different thing rather than an altcoin.

The proposal in this thread is a reasonable choice to fund 3I to keep working on DAC development. I suggest another way to fund DAC developing that is to do some business and let 3I takes the profit. I post some ideas in another thread https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1359.0

It seems that keyhotee will come soon which is the foundation stone of our DAC community. After the launch of keyhotee, an ad system should be developed on this. Everyone with a keyhotee ID is funding the DAC development by clicking ad. The system can be designed like QQ pop windows or something others. If all the people with a keyhotee ID belong to a virtual decentralized company, clicking ad is their everyday appointed wok.

Just some thought, not sure if this is possible technically. If such ad system works, we get money flow into DAC ecosystem. This will increase the price of PTS. More and more people like will involve in.

Your idea ties into my idea except the difference is that the Proof of Commitment scheme idea I present is decentralized. It wont matter what 3I is doing. The Bitshares would be distributed directly in automated fashion to whomever does the task similar to BitcoinGet. You'd still view ads and money would still be generated, but the payout should be first in credits and these credits should have no use other than to be redeemed by DACs which accept the social contract to reserve 1 million shares of their DAC for redeeming these credits 1:1.

So 1 commitment credit in Proof of Commitment would be redeemable for all DACs which accept the social contract to reserve at least 1 million shares. This means 1 million shares could be worked for starting when Keyhotee launched and the necessary scripts are written. In my opinion this is the best and most fair way to do it without concentrating power (concentrating risk) into 3I.  It also doesn't give a dramatic advantage to rich people because once again anyone can do this kind of work.

Anyone here could set up a signature and begin earning credits toward Bitshares and it would be just as easy as mining. If you post more and your posts are good then you get bonus credits. Now miners can be more active on the forum and not lose anything if Proof of Work is removed.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2013, 08:01:24 am by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline ksi

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
Re: [POLL] Setting another 10% Bitshares as "Angelshares" to fundraise for DACS
« Reply #31 on: December 16, 2013, 07:51:25 am »
I believe it should be well funded to create DACs. But any consideration should not decrease the value of PTS, because high price on PTS draw more attentions. I'm new to PTS. I notice PTS just because the price at bter and btc38 is higher than all other altcoins except LTC. Then I try to find out the value behind the high price, and I found PTS is a  totally different thing rather than an altcoin.

The proposal in this thread is a reasonable choice to fund 3I to keep working on DAC development. I suggest another way to fund DAC developing that is to do some business and let 3I takes the profit. I post some ideas in another thread https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1359.0

It seems that keyhotee will come soon which is the foundation stone of our DAC community. After the launch of keyhotee, an ad system should be developed on this. Everyone with a keyhotee ID is funding the DAC development by clicking ad. The system can be designed like QQ pop windows or something others. If all the people with a keyhotee ID belong to a virtual decentralized company, clicking ad is their everyday appointed wok.

Just some thought, not sure if this is possible technically. If such ad system works, we get money flow into DAC ecosystem. This will increase the price of PTS. More and more people like will involve in.
 
PTS: PiHnXwebXJeCMKXcGynNQHWDV6L8pE7mTS

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
Re: [POLL] Setting another 10% Bitshares as "Angelshares" to fundraise for DACS
« Reply #30 on: December 16, 2013, 07:39:53 am »
It was pointed out in the other thread that Bitshares is supposed to be out sooner than in 21 months, I think it is still appropriate to target this number of months because things don't always go to plan and as a startup you want to have "a long runway" so that even if it takes a few extra months you can not need to raise funds in a time of weakness where you might be compelled to take a bad deal because you have few options.

I believe Invictus should be able to essentially presell another 10% of Bitshares to fund its creation, but I disagree with them taking more than 25% in this way.   If that was the dicision that was to be made, they needed to do it before the first set of promises were made.

I see no reason why Bitshares should need 21 million coins or why Bitshares has to be mined at all. I also don't understand why you need to have 80% of wasted unallocated coin space.

That space should either go to miners, or remove it entirely because it dilutes everyone elses holding to inflate Bitshares for no reason other than to hang onto 21 million as an arbitrary number. The limit or cap should be like how Mastercoin did it which is to say that you generate it until Bitshares is released.

I suggested 6 million coins in the other thread.
2 million for PTS holders. 2 million for a hybrid Proof of Work Proof of Stake where the goal is to completely transition out of Proof of Work entirely. If we cannot do the hybrid then remove Proof of Work entirely and get rid of the 2 million turning it into 4 million total and do it 50/50. 50% to PTS holders and 50% to Angels.

Forget about percentages because that was based on the idea that the coins had to be mined via Proof of Work over 10 years. It makes no sense to mine Bitshares over 10 years so it makes no sense to hang onto 21 million. If there is no Proof of Work then there is no legitimate reason to have any more coins other than PTS+Angelshares for a total of approximately 4 million Bitshares.


https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline 520Bit

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
Re: [POLL] Setting another 10% Bitshares as "Angelshares" to fundraise for DACS
« Reply #29 on: December 16, 2013, 06:58:07 am »
Ok, so there's been a conversation going on about how to fund the creation of future DACs as there are far more opportunities than funds.  I believe the proposal put forward by Bytemaster to have 100% of Bitshares represented by angelshares and protoshares is a non-starter because it means that all coins that will potentially be created will be owned only by people able to contribute in Bitcoin, when the perception of PTS currently (as a "CPU MINABLE COIN" is that you don't need to do that.   I believe even if the vast majority of mining being performed by participants on the network is done by botnets or cloud miners, the initial marketing of Protoshares makes it untenable to change the social contract in any way that is not optional on a investor by investor basis.

With that in mind, I think we all recognize the value of having sufficient funds devoted to the creation of DACs and I for one have no problem putting my money where my mouth is. 

I would encourage the creation of PTS 2.0 (Angelcoins) that would be another 10% of Bitshares's 21 million, so 20% of total Bitshares would be claimed at the beginning through these two rounds of "venture".

Instead of the validated mining plan that turns Invictus into a central point of failure, Invictus should set up weekly or monthly "Exodus Addresses" and replicate Mastercoin, people send BTC or PTS to "Angel" addresses and at the end of that round whatever the allocation is, is divided evenly between the people who sent value on a proportional basis.   These funds should be clearly labeled with regard to how each % will be spent.

The exodus address would be transparent, so if people see that not many have invested they will want to invest becaues they will get more value for their value.   Invictus controls the address, but each distribution basically results in a large block that issues shares to all investors in the last round.   If I were you I would accept both Bitcoin and PTS in these angel rounds, and accept PTS at a premium to Bitcoin.

2.1 million would be  21 months @ 100k Angelcoins per month - The deal stays the same with Protosharesholders, you get to raise a shitload of money to finance multiple DACs at once and try your new mechanism.  The miners still working on PTS get to keep working, and you don't have to do anything.

Most importantly, Invictus hasn't committed to what they'll do with the other 80%, so when they really solve the problem and have the RIGHT idea their won't have tied yourself down.

What do you think?

I agree that accept both PTS and BTC and accept PTS at a premium to Bitcoin.

Accept BTC/XCP/MSC: 152oBitoBwHwxR5UpUQnsvWSFjYHkheDJk
PTS: PtPXhrP5jk8BPH5fFcPnBgNSrfmJ6DCFcW
PPC: PRT95iQEKUzJSb2XsPjLgdbyoSyKiDmyb9

Offline que23

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 165
    • View Profile
Re: [POLL] Setting another 10% Bitshares as "Angelshares" to fundraise for DACS
« Reply #28 on: December 16, 2013, 06:35:22 am »
I still don't see any need for having miners in the future. If Invictus is moving towards a more Mastercoin like approach, then you have to work for BTC and Angel Shares by doing the bounties, a real service that will benefit the DACs. After PTS, which will always get 10%, there is no more use for mining.

You could just as easily replace mining with educational giveaways and I'd be happy.  The point is a non-monetary way to get invested in the success of the project.
Educational giveaways would be difficult to agree on collectively among the members of the community as to who would deserve more coins and to who.

Also with that, mining provides equal opportunity for everyone. Transactions need to be secured and mining provides a method for doing this. Lucky's idea provides 1.) Fulfillment of the PTS social contract 2.) Funds Invictus 3.) Provides an incentive for new people without their own large pool of money to participate in Bitshares.

In my opinion it's the best option out there, but as of right now I am extremely against 90% of the bitshares being distributed to "Angel Investors" that pay off Invictus.

Mining used to be necessary. There is no longer a need for it anymore. Read: Transactions as Proof-of-Stake & The End of Mining https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1138.0
You're asking to pay for work that doesn't need to be done and giving money to the electric company.
Regardless, it still provides a decentralized method that supports equal opportunity distribution. This should be one of the most important ideas to keep in mind, less we'd like to be the next quark coin.

But Bitshares isn't a currency. It's more a cross between a share and a commodity. There is always a limited amount of commodity to go around. The PTS community will get their 10%. The only reason to add more shares is if it brings value. That value is the real work that can be paid for with funds. The reason to use BitsharesDAC is for its service. Many people think that service is very valuable.

And if that was what they said from the beginning we wouldn't be having the argument, but guess what - they did say that you'd be able to get invested without needing to make a monetary investment directly to Invictus.   Just because they made a bad decision doesn't mean they get to rewrite the rules, or they can rewrite the rules whenever they feel its necessary and the rules are as good as worthless.

Do you really not understand that?

Actually, I've tried to piece together the original commitment, but it is very difficult to understand. I'm going off what bytemaster thinks, which is he's not breaking the social contract. Now, some people have been trying to tell invictus what to do with the other 90%. I think this is really their business. When they thought giving that 90% away to miners for performing the service of maintaining the blockchain, they said only that that was what they were thinking of doing. I think they can do whatever they want with it.

If you agree that the social contract is what makes Protoshares valuable, than anything that suggests that Invictus can change the social contract when the need strikes them means the value is dependent on their continued good will to the way the deal is now but that could change in the future.

Isn't that a problem?

What you want is to make Bitshares more obtainable--the ability to perform some task that will allow anyone to obtain shares. The work miners used to do was important in proof of work but is irrelevant in proof of stake. We are both in agreement that it is a great idea to allow people to work for shares. I think you are worried about people that have no skills being able to get in on the action. In this way, proof of work miners are like blue collar workers. And now they're being replaced by white collar workers. I think although the PoW mining is going away for Bitshares, that there is still lots of other coins that need hard work done. Bitshares needs a different group of workers. I'm not in favor of paying for nothing.
Que you didn't answer Any part of Lighthouse's last question, the one you quoted. Just thought I'd point that out.

Well, I worked really hard to see things from Lighthouse's point of view. My post was the result of about 45 minutes of thinking and writing.

The problem is that the social contract is difficult to piece together. And I'm sure that we could easily find pieces of it to argue over. Bytemaster doesn't think he's breaking the contract and that's mostly good enough for me.
PTS: Pa75dEzGkMcnM85hRMbdKiS1YdF81rnSCF

Offline Pocket Sand

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
    • View Profile
Re: [POLL] Setting another 10% Bitshares as "Angelshares" to fundraise for DACS
« Reply #27 on: December 16, 2013, 06:30:49 am »
I still don't see any need for having miners in the future. If Invictus is moving towards a more Mastercoin like approach, then you have to work for BTC and Angel Shares by doing the bounties, a real service that will benefit the DACs. After PTS, which will always get 10%, there is no more use for mining.

You could just as easily replace mining with educational giveaways and I'd be happy.  The point is a non-monetary way to get invested in the success of the project.
Educational giveaways would be difficult to agree on collectively among the members of the community as to who would deserve more coins and to who.

Also with that, mining provides equal opportunity for everyone. Transactions need to be secured and mining provides a method for doing this. Lucky's idea provides 1.) Fulfillment of the PTS social contract 2.) Funds Invictus 3.) Provides an incentive for new people without their own large pool of money to participate in Bitshares.

In my opinion it's the best option out there, but as of right now I am extremely against 90% of the bitshares being distributed to "Angel Investors" that pay off Invictus.

Mining used to be necessary. There is no longer a need for it anymore. Read: Transactions as Proof-of-Stake & The End of Mining https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1138.0
You're asking to pay for work that doesn't need to be done and giving money to the electric company.
Regardless, it still provides a decentralized method that supports equal opportunity distribution. This should be one of the most important ideas to keep in mind, less we'd like to be the next quark coin.

But Bitshares isn't a currency. It's more a cross between a share and a commodity. There is always a limited amount of commodity to go around. The PTS community will get their 10%. The only reason to add more shares is if it brings value. That value is the real work that can be paid for with funds. The reason to use BitsharesDAC is for its service. Many people think that service is very valuable.

And if that was what they said from the beginning we wouldn't be having the argument, but guess what - they did say that you'd be able to get invested without needing to make a monetary investment directly to Invictus.   Just because they made a bad decision doesn't mean they get to rewrite the rules, or they can rewrite the rules whenever they feel its necessary and the rules are as good as worthless.

Do you really not understand that?

Actually, I've tried to piece together the original commitment, but it is very difficult to understand. I'm going off what bytemaster thinks, which is he's not breaking the social contract. Now, some people have been trying to tell invictus what to do with the other 90%. I think this is really their business. When they thought giving that 90% away to miners for performing the service of maintaining the blockchain, they said only that that was what they were thinking of doing. I think they can do whatever they want with it.

If you agree that the social contract is what makes Protoshares valuable, than anything that suggests that Invictus can change the social contract when the need strikes them means the value is dependent on their continued good will to the way the deal is now but that could change in the future.

Isn't that a problem?

What you want is to make Bitshares more obtainable--the ability to perform some task that will allow anyone to obtain shares. The work miners used to do was important in proof of work but is irrelevant in proof of stake. We are both in agreement that it is a great idea to allow people to work for shares. I think you are worried about people that have no skills being able to get in on the action. In this way, proof of work miners are like blue collar workers. And now they're being replaced by white collar workers. I think although the PoW mining is going away for Bitshares, that there is still lots of other coins that need hard work done. Bitshares needs a different group of workers. I'm not in favor of paying for nothing.
Que you didn't answer Any part of Lighthouse's last question, the one you quoted. Just thought I'd point that out.

Offline que23

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 165
    • View Profile
Re: [POLL] Setting another 10% Bitshares as "Angelshares" to fundraise for DACS
« Reply #26 on: December 16, 2013, 06:16:21 am »
I still don't see any need for having miners in the future. If Invictus is moving towards a more Mastercoin like approach, then you have to work for BTC and Angel Shares by doing the bounties, a real service that will benefit the DACs. After PTS, which will always get 10%, there is no more use for mining.

You could just as easily replace mining with educational giveaways and I'd be happy.  The point is a non-monetary way to get invested in the success of the project.
Educational giveaways would be difficult to agree on collectively among the members of the community as to who would deserve more coins and to who.

Also with that, mining provides equal opportunity for everyone. Transactions need to be secured and mining provides a method for doing this. Lucky's idea provides 1.) Fulfillment of the PTS social contract 2.) Funds Invictus 3.) Provides an incentive for new people without their own large pool of money to participate in Bitshares.

In my opinion it's the best option out there, but as of right now I am extremely against 90% of the bitshares being distributed to "Angel Investors" that pay off Invictus.

Mining used to be necessary. There is no longer a need for it anymore. Read: Transactions as Proof-of-Stake & The End of Mining https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1138.0
You're asking to pay for work that doesn't need to be done and giving money to the electric company.
Regardless, it still provides a decentralized method that supports equal opportunity distribution. This should be one of the most important ideas to keep in mind, less we'd like to be the next quark coin.

But Bitshares isn't a currency. It's more a cross between a share and a commodity. There is always a limited amount of commodity to go around. The PTS community will get their 10%. The only reason to add more shares is if it brings value. That value is the real work that can be paid for with funds. The reason to use BitsharesDAC is for its service. Many people think that service is very valuable.

And if that was what they said from the beginning we wouldn't be having the argument, but guess what - they did say that you'd be able to get invested without needing to make a monetary investment directly to Invictus.   Just because they made a bad decision doesn't mean they get to rewrite the rules, or they can rewrite the rules whenever they feel its necessary and the rules are as good as worthless.

Do you really not understand that?

Actually, I've tried to piece together the original commitment, but it is very difficult to understand. I'm going off what bytemaster thinks, which is he's not breaking the social contract. Now, some people have been trying to tell invictus what to do with the other 90%. I think this is really their business. When they thought giving that 90% away to miners for performing the service of maintaining the blockchain, they said only that that was what they were thinking of doing. I think they can do whatever they want with it.

If you agree that the social contract is what makes Protoshares valuable, than anything that suggests that Invictus can change the social contract when the need strikes them means the value is dependent on their continued good will to the way the deal is now but that could change in the future.

Isn't that a problem?

What you want is to make Bitshares more obtainable--the ability to perform some task that will allow anyone to obtain shares. The work miners used to do was important in proof of work but is irrelevant in proof of stake. We are both in agreement that it is a great idea to allow people to work for shares. I think you are worried about people that have no skills being able to get in on the action. In this way, proof of work miners are like blue collar workers. And now they're being replaced by white collar workers. I think although the PoW mining is going away for Bitshares, that there is still lots of other coins that need hard work done. Bitshares needs a different group of workers. I'm not in favor of paying for nothing.
PTS: Pa75dEzGkMcnM85hRMbdKiS1YdF81rnSCF

Offline Lighthouse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 376
  • Making a Market in PTS since 11/06/2013
    • View Profile
    • Lighthouse Bulk Orders and Trusted Escrow (Closed)
Re: [POLL] Setting another 10% Bitshares as "Angelshares" to fundraise for DACS
« Reply #25 on: December 16, 2013, 05:45:45 am »
I still don't see any need for having miners in the future. If Invictus is moving towards a more Mastercoin like approach, then you have to work for BTC and Angel Shares by doing the bounties, a real service that will benefit the DACs. After PTS, which will always get 10%, there is no more use for mining.

You could just as easily replace mining with educational giveaways and I'd be happy.  The point is a non-monetary way to get invested in the success of the project.
Educational giveaways would be difficult to agree on collectively among the members of the community as to who would deserve more coins and to who.

Also with that, mining provides equal opportunity for everyone. Transactions need to be secured and mining provides a method for doing this. Lucky's idea provides 1.) Fulfillment of the PTS social contract 2.) Funds Invictus 3.) Provides an incentive for new people without their own large pool of money to participate in Bitshares.

In my opinion it's the best option out there, but as of right now I am extremely against 90% of the bitshares being distributed to "Angel Investors" that pay off Invictus.

Mining used to be necessary. There is no longer a need for it anymore. Read: Transactions as Proof-of-Stake & The End of Mining https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1138.0
You're asking to pay for work that doesn't need to be done and giving money to the electric company.
Regardless, it still provides a decentralized method that supports equal opportunity distribution. This should be one of the most important ideas to keep in mind, less we'd like to be the next quark coin.

But Bitshares isn't a currency. It's more a cross between a share and a commodity. There is always a limited amount of commodity to go around. The PTS community will get their 10%. The only reason to add more shares is if it brings value. That value is the real work that can be paid for with funds. The reason to use BitsharesDAC is for its service. Many people think that service is very valuable.

And if that was what they said from the beginning we wouldn't be having the argument, but guess what - they did say that you'd be able to get invested without needing to make a monetary investment directly to Invictus.   Just because they made a bad decision doesn't mean they get to rewrite the rules, or they can rewrite the rules whenever they feel its necessary and the rules are as good as worthless.

Do you really not understand that?

Actually, I've tried to piece together the original commitment, but it is very difficult to understand. I'm going off what bytemaster thinks, which is he's not breaking the social contract. Now, some people have been trying to tell invictus what to do with the other 90%. I think this is really their business. When they thought giving that 90% away to miners for performing the service of maintaining the blockchain, they said only that that was what they were thinking of doing. I think they can do whatever they want with it.

If you agree that the social contract is what makes Protoshares valuable, than anything that suggests that Invictus can change the social contract when the need strikes them means the value is dependent on their continued good will to the way the deal is now but that could change in the future.

Isn't that a problem?
Before you say the price of PTS is too high, take a look at theThe Reason.  Protoshares are an entirely new type of Cryptocurrency, one that pays to hold.

Offline Pocket Sand

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
    • View Profile
Re: [POLL] Setting another 10% Bitshares as "Angelshares" to fundraise for DACS
« Reply #24 on: December 16, 2013, 05:43:54 am »
Quote
Actually, I've tried to piece together the original commitment, but it is very difficult to understand. I'm going off what bytemaster thinks, which is he's not breaking the social contract. Now, some people have been trying to tell invictus what to do with the other 90%. I think this is really their business. When they thought giving that 90% away to miners for performing the service of maintaining the blockchain, they said only that that was what they were thinking of doing. I think they can do whatever they want with it.
Lighthouse is trying to see what the community thinks with his poll, I think that's really important as Protoshares represent an involvement in Invictus itself. Instead of throwing up your hands and saying "this isn't our business" we should be actively trying to contribute and come to the best conclusion collectively. In the end it is Invictus's deciscion, but as we've seen Bytemaster actually values the community's opinion.

Offline que23

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 165
    • View Profile
Re: [POLL] Setting another 10% Bitshares as "Angelshares" to fundraise for DACS
« Reply #23 on: December 16, 2013, 05:39:40 am »
I still don't see any need for having miners in the future. If Invictus is moving towards a more Mastercoin like approach, then you have to work for BTC and Angel Shares by doing the bounties, a real service that will benefit the DACs. After PTS, which will always get 10%, there is no more use for mining.

You could just as easily replace mining with educational giveaways and I'd be happy.  The point is a non-monetary way to get invested in the success of the project.
Educational giveaways would be difficult to agree on collectively among the members of the community as to who would deserve more coins and to who.

Also with that, mining provides equal opportunity for everyone. Transactions need to be secured and mining provides a method for doing this. Lucky's idea provides 1.) Fulfillment of the PTS social contract 2.) Funds Invictus 3.) Provides an incentive for new people without their own large pool of money to participate in Bitshares.

In my opinion it's the best option out there, but as of right now I am extremely against 90% of the bitshares being distributed to "Angel Investors" that pay off Invictus.

Mining used to be necessary. There is no longer a need for it anymore. Read: Transactions as Proof-of-Stake & The End of Mining https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1138.0
You're asking to pay for work that doesn't need to be done and giving money to the electric company.
Regardless, it still provides a decentralized method that supports equal opportunity distribution. This should be one of the most important ideas to keep in mind, less we'd like to be the next quark coin.

But Bitshares isn't a currency. It's more a cross between a share and a commodity. There is always a limited amount of commodity to go around. The PTS community will get their 10%. The only reason to add more shares is if it brings value. That value is the real work that can be paid for with funds. The reason to use BitsharesDAC is for its service. Many people think that service is very valuable.

And if that was what they said from the beginning we wouldn't be having the argument, but guess what - they did say that you'd be able to get invested without needing to make a monetary investment directly to Invictus.   Just because they made a bad decision doesn't mean they get to rewrite the rules, or they can rewrite the rules whenever they feel its necessary and the rules are as good as worthless.

Do you really not understand that?

Actually, I've tried to piece together the original commitment, but it is very difficult to understand. I'm going off what bytemaster thinks, which is he's not breaking the social contract. Now, some people have been trying to tell invictus what to do with the other 90%. I think this is really their business. When they thought giving that 90% away to miners for performing the service of maintaining the blockchain, they said only that that was what they were thinking of doing. I think they can do whatever they want with it.
PTS: Pa75dEzGkMcnM85hRMbdKiS1YdF81rnSCF