Author Topic: Bytemaster and Mumble - A Proposed Solution  (Read 7735 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cube

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1404
  • Bit by bit, we will get there!
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcube
..
So is this minimal developer effort worth it? Personally, I think we need better cold storage and restricted_owner support first. And not just blockchain and CLI support but GUI support and usable UX. Otherwise, I worry that voter apathy is just going to remain bad and the proposals will be of limited value. But after that I definitely think it is worth it to have at least this basic feature set so that we can actually give a fair voice to the shareholders.
..

arhag has given a good well-thought proposal for a short-term solution to the problem. We are discussing an important issue here and I like to know how the core team would consider it.

I hope they would comment on it.
ID: bitcube
bitcube is a dedicated witness and committe member. Please vote for bitcube.

Offline fuzzy


Look where we are after one year. From decentralized system with TaPOS - to centralized DPOS, then price feed enforcement, then merger massacre and dilution, now a censorship and insider trading. Not to mention main wallet resource hog and lack of progress(Vote DAC, anyone?), and super failure with marketing push. WTF, can't say i'm happy where things are going towards.  :-X

Could easily frame much of that and more as positive
 
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
For some people glass is always half empty  :)

We are growing up.  We need more leaders and I am reaching out to them as we speak. 

It is a fact that there are many people who are very important in this ecosystem that it is unfair to only reach out and empower Bytemaster to speak.  For this reason, I intend on moving forward with having frequent hangouts under the same format with other individuals who have stepped up to the plate to become leaders in our ecosystem. 

Many people are building onto BitShares as we speak.  And most of the broader community doesn't even know about them.  It is time to fix that :)
So look at the glass as half full and preparing to fill further...because we are not stopping just because of PR hangups.
That is kind of attitude this community needs. Most important thing is cooperation among community members.
Thank you fuzzy for spreading message of cooperation.  :)  +5%

I know as well as probably just about anyone how gut-wrenching our growing pains are...so I can't blame him. 
But as always, if you have solid tech (which we do)...as long as we have a community who lifts each other up and holds on for the ride, we will be gtg. 

Don't get me wrong though, I'm not always a ball of sunshine.. Ask BM and Stan!
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline vegolino

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 450
  • Reality is Information
    • View Profile

Look where we are after one year. From decentralized system with TaPOS - to centralized DPOS, then price feed enforcement, then merger massacre and dilution, now a censorship and insider trading. Not to mention main wallet resource hog and lack of progress(Vote DAC, anyone?), and super failure with marketing push. WTF, can't say i'm happy where things are going towards.  :-X

Could easily frame much of that and more as positive
 
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
For some people glass is always half empty  :)

We are growing up.  We need more leaders and I am reaching out to them as we speak. 

It is a fact that there are many people who are very important in this ecosystem that it is unfair to only reach out and empower Bytemaster to speak.  For this reason, I intend on moving forward with having frequent hangouts under the same format with other individuals who have stepped up to the plate to become leaders in our ecosystem. 

Many people are building onto BitShares as we speak.  And most of the broader community doesn't even know about them.  It is time to fix that :)
So look at the glass as half full and preparing to fill further...because we are not stopping just because of PR hangups.
That is kind of attitude this community needs. Most important thing is cooperation among community members.
Thank you fuzzy for spreading message of cooperation.  :)  +5%

Offline fuzzy


Look where we are after one year. From decentralized system with TaPOS - to centralized DPOS, then price feed enforcement, then merger massacre and dilution, now a censorship and insider trading. Not to mention main wallet resource hog and lack of progress(Vote DAC, anyone?), and super failure with marketing push. WTF, can't say i'm happy where things are going towards.  :-X

Could easily frame much of that and more as positive
 
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
For some people glass is always half empty  :)

We are growing up.  We need more leaders and I am reaching out to them as we speak. 

It is a fact that there are many people who are very important in this ecosystem that it is unfair to only reach out and empower Bytemaster to speak.  For this reason, I intend on moving forward with having frequent hangouts under the same format with other individuals who have stepped up to the plate to become leaders in our ecosystem. 

Many people are building onto BitShares as we speak.  And most of the broader community doesn't even know about them.  It is time to fix that :)
So look at the glass as half full and preparing to fill further...because we are not stopping just because of PR hangups.
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline vegolino

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 450
  • Reality is Information
    • View Profile

Look where we are after one year. From decentralized system with TaPOS - to centralized DPOS, then price feed enforcement, then merger massacre and dilution, now a censorship and insider trading. Not to mention main wallet resource hog and lack of progress(Vote DAC, anyone?), and super failure with marketing push. WTF, can't say i'm happy where things are going towards.  :-X

Could easily frame much of that and more as positive
 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
For some people glass is always half empty  :)

Offline carpet ride

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 544
    • View Profile

Look where we are after one year. From decentralized system with TaPOS - to centralized DPOS, then price feed enforcement, then merger massacre and dilution, now a censorship and insider trading. Not to mention main wallet resource hog and lack of progress(Vote DAC, anyone?), and super failure with marketing push. WTF, can't say i'm happy where things are going towards.  :-X

Could easily frame much of that and more as positive


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
All opinions are my own. Anything said on this forum does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation between myself and anyone else.
Check out my blog: http://CertainAssets.com
Buy the ticket, take the ride.

Offline vlight

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: vlight
Look where we are after one year. From decentralized system with TaPOS - to centralized DPOS, then price feed enforcement, then merger massacre and dilution, now a censorship and insider trading. Not to mention main wallet resource hog and lack of progress(Vote DAC, anyone?), and super failure with marketing push. WTF, can't say i'm happy where things are going towards.  :-X

Offline CLains

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: clains
A simple SWOT analysis would help to better understand the underlying issue.

SWOT

A SWOT analysis (alternatively SWOT matrix) is a structured planning method used to evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats involved in a project or in a business venture. A SWOT analysis can be carried out for a product, place, industry or person. It involves specifying the objective of the business venture or project and identifying the internal and external factors that are favorable and unfavorable to achieve that objective.

Strengths: characteristics of the business or project that give it an advantage over others.
Weaknesses: characteristics that place the business or project at a disadvantage relative to others.
Opportunities: elements that the project could exploit to its advantage.
Threats: elements in the environment that could cause trouble for the business or project.

Offline wasthatawolf

What is the basic premise behind the recent censorship proposals?  I suggest identifying all stakeholders then checking that premise. 

A simple SWOT analysis would help to better understand the underlying issue.

Offline mike623317

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 637
    • View Profile
I feel this controversy highlights the fact the BitShares ecosystem is far from mature and proves that our rhetoric doesn't match our practice. Our vision is good great, but the words used to describe it strongly imply our ecosystem is stronger than it is and our claims of self regulation / self governance are better than they actually are.

Totally agree.  +5%

Offline Thom

arhag's proposal seems like a reasonable short term solution to providing shareholders a voice in making decisions, but it may be too early to provide an open proposal system to anyone.

To limit the breadth of the proposals, it might be worth considering that only delegates or dev staff be allowed to submit proposals until at least 1.0 is released. Perhaps even narrow that to just the dev staff. All of the controversy seems to arise from that source anyway.

Obviously this still puts the primary responsibility on the dev staff to recognize what should be put out as a proposal, and in that regard the solution is somewhat weak.

I'm much more in favor of Dan / Stan selecting a trusted review board, perhaps in conjunction with arhag's proposal scheme. To address Fuzz's concerns I would strongly limit the time frame such measures are allowed operate. My suggestion is they operate at least until the release of 1.0, but perhaps as long as it takes to implement a more solid system of governance that benefits the ecosystem and balances all interests through consensus.

I feel this controversy highlights the fact the BitShares ecosystem is far from mature and proves that our rhetoric doesn't match our practice. Our vision is good great, but the words used to describe it strongly imply (by not mentioning the gee whiz features discussed are not yet implemented) our ecosystem is stronger than it is and our claims of self regulation / self governance are better than they actually are.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech2 Witness Reports: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23902.0.html

Offline GaltReport

- Create a public roadmap similar to Maidsafe to keep investors in the loop. Not everyone lives on Github.

- If Dan feels the need to speak, Bitshares.tv. Max is smart enough to present it in the best way possible.

- Client voting proposals so we hear from the larger holders, not just those that have time to hang out around the forums.

- Any PR releases should be reviewed by multiple people.

- Mumble sessions for other people important to the ecosystem.

- We need a polished client and a real reason for the millions of Bitcoin wallets to use our decentralized exchange. That is what generates the PR we need to survive.

- Further development on wall features such as subscriptions provides a huge boost to delegate reporting effectiveness outside the forum.
  +5%


+5%

Publishing without review is a bad idea in general. In the end it is up to each individual to be responsible for the quality of their own output by delegating time to different media and seeking reviews from confidants whos judgements they know they can trust.

 +5%

Offline pseudoscops

Yep that was my initial reaction to this too, someone will want to listen to it enough to automate the recording of it which could easily be published or used out of context to cause more damage. Audio drivers such as soundflower for OSX coupled with a simple scripts would probably make this possible.

I have to say I just don't get the OP logic for having the live only mumble sessions. Also this seemingly increased need for censorship that floating about everywhere at the moment. Everyone should realise, Chinese included, that parts of the mumble sessions, and other discussions, are off the cuff and brainstorm like in nature. If Dan or anyone else suggests something sub-optimal people should have the sense to realise that it does not mean that it is enshrined future policy. We usually correct course pretty quickly and open and public debate is instrumental in allowing the course-correcting to occur as swiftly as possible.

I do agree that certain things should not be discussed in public if they might be considered very controversial, especially if they are brought forward by prominent members of the team such as Dan. I'm sure that is already the case and that much more radical ideas have been discussed by various teams that only a few have been privvy too.

To combat the controversial issues perhaps there should be a second monthly mumble sessions that only the 100 elected delegates can attend that is not recorded or made public. This could operate on the Chatham House Rule, (i.e. what was discussed can be disclosed publicly, but who said it cannot).

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


Someone could be responsible for summarising the this private session, fuzzy?, and perhaps it would allow BM to save anything that might be considered a little controversial for these more private sessions instead of the main Mumble sessions.

Just a thought - not sure how practical it would be give the time it might take to summarise what was discussed. Also it relies on every one of the delegates agreeing to keep true to the Chatham House Rule and not disclosing who said what or recording the session.

Offline CryptoPrometheus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 324
    • View Profile
Haven't read the whole thread, but anyone can trivially record mumble sessions without using the built-in function. There is going to be no way to stop people from recording.

Fluxer, you are right. This is actually the most iron clad counter argument I have heard yet. Still, the thread is definitely worth reading if you get the chance.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2015, 06:45:28 am by crypto_prometheus »
"Power and law are not synonymous. In fact, they are often in opposition and irreconcilable."
- Cicero

Offline fluxer555

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 749
    • View Profile
Haven't read the whole thread, but anyone can trivially record mumble sessions without using the built-in function. There is going to be no way to stop people from recording.

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
What makes it difficult is that I envision a very large overhaul being needed, rather than quick and messy proposal vote system being slapped together without anonymity and without access to all voters due full client usability problems (which are improving but still have a fair distance to go).

Forget privacy, that is way too difficult to implement. I think a hacky solution (as ugly as it is) is the best way to go at the moment. We don't even need to hard fork the blockchain (although I would prefer to do so using a specifically designed proposal submission transaction). We can create an account whose wall is specifically meant for proposal submissions. The protocol could require the burn message to start with some keyword followed by a space and then a version number and then another space and then a digest of the proposal contents, and the burn amount would need to be positive and equal to some constant F amount of BTS that we define as part of the protocol. If a burn message meets these criteria it should be considered a proposal submission and the digest is the digest of the proposal content. We take all such burn messages in order of submission and number them sequentially starting from 1 (this is the proposal ID). The blockchain allows putting negative numbers in the delegate slate down to -2^31. I suggest that if a proposal has ID N, then if the negative number -(2*N) is included in the delegate slate it represents an upvote for proposal N and if the negative number -(2*N-1) is included in the delegate slate it represents a downvote for a proposal N (if both are included they cancel each other out and act as the default neutral vote which is equivalent to not including them in the delegate slate). This allows for 2^30 proposals (or roughly a billion). That should be more than enough for the time period that we use this hacky solution.

Everything else can be interpreted from the blockchain by the client. The delegates do not need to upgrade and no hard fork is necessary. You could even use a separate client to analyze the blockchain and tally the up and down votes for each proposal. However, the normal client would need to be modified for a user to be able to up or down vote a particular proposal. I would suggest providing a set of up to 111 unique negative numbers to the wallet (which is stored in the wallet database). Every time BTS is moved or update votes is pressed, the wallet should automatically add these numbers to the delegate slate of a BTS balance and the remaining slots of the slate are used to vote for delegates as usual. The user should be able to make changes to these set of negative numbers through the CLI but it should also ideally be possible to make the changes in a more natural way: something like proposal_update_vote <digest|ID> <up|down|neutral> which would use the indexed proposal database to automatically figure out how to do the correct thing; it should also be possible to visualize the current set of negative numbers in sensible format using a command like proposal_list_votes. However, in the worst case an outside script could use the CLI commands to update the set of negative numbers directly and provide this nice interface by tapping into the indexed proposal database created not by the main BitShares client but a separate outside utility that scans the chain folder (I prefer the in-client solution).

Although the UI described above is all CLI and I don't really expect GUI support in the client initially, it would be great if bitsharesblocks.com could visualize the tally for the submitted proposals so that people could easily view them from their web browser. It would also be really cool if bitsharesblocks.com stored the actual contents of the proposal and displayed it to users. Anyone could submit the content because the website would take the digest of the content and compare it to the digest of the proposal on the blockchain and only accept the content submission if the digests matched. If a sensible size limit was provided for the proposal contents and the value of the fee F chosen was reasonable, there would be no spam/abuse issues. Of course one could also just host the proposal content anywhere (say a post on this forum). Users could copy and paste the contents to the proposal page on bitsharesblocks.com and the web page would locally compute the digest and check if it is valid by comparing it to the actual digest of the proposal as determined from the blockchain.

So is this minimal developer effort worth it? Personally, I think we need better cold storage and restricted_owner support first. And not just blockchain and CLI support but GUI support and usable UX. Otherwise, I worry that voter apathy is just going to remain bad and the proposals will be of limited value. But after that I definitely think it is worth it to have at least this basic feature set so that we can actually give a fair voice to the shareholders. The good news is that it doesn't require any additional hard fork changes and so doesn't require consensus from all the delegates. Also a lot of the code (tallying the blockchain and visualizing the tally) could be done without any core dev support. But I think it is important to have an official wallet feature (even if only CLI) that allows the user at a minimum to specify some number of negative ints to vote for in BTS balances before using the rest of the delegate slate to do the traditional delegate voting. I wonder if pc would be interested in enabling such a functionality that could be merged into the official wallet (like he did with computing the balances of an account at an arbitrary point in time)? His delegate isn't in yet, if he is interested in enabling this then maybe shareholders interested in this idea could then vote him in as a way of showing support for this proposal (I think they should vote him even if he doesn't want to do it too). Anyway, if he doesn't want to do it I'll see if I can find the time to get something working, but it might take a while before I have enough free time to work on this (plus I don't want to waste my time on it if the community won't find it desirable).
« Last Edit: March 02, 2015, 04:43:14 am by arhag »

TurkeyLeg

  • Guest
So basically you propose BM continue doing the Mumble hangouts but from now on they wouldn't be recorded? But then people that miss the chats will come on the forum and ask what was said and things will be misquoted leading to more confusion plus what's really stopping anyone from recording if they wanted to? Not a good idea in my opinion.

I prefer BMs idea to just do the BitSharesTV stuff to be honest.

 +5% Yes - this. The Mumble sessions should be recorded - I don't have a problem listening to them after the fact and deciphering context. If I don't understand something, I replay that part until I do.

I think using Bitshares.TV for announcements or discussion from Dan (or a PR representative) is a great idea.

Offline fuzzy

It's a matter of resource management while in the early stages.  Which would you rather have, a stable client or proposal voting?
Both would be nice but as it stands we have neither.

I understand the limited resources issue. The problem at hand however is management decisions and how they're made. Proposal voting is a mechanism that could solve that, IF leadership offers proposals to provide shareholder input / review / decisions. So even if we did have proposal voting it wouldn't do any good if management chooses not to use it and go in whatever direction they will.

This seems like a management culture issue.

I'm all for letting the inner circle of devs set policy & plot a course into the future, so long as those decisions are wise for all shareholders & the ecosytem, it's even OK if they make a few mistakes along the way. That's been my perspective all along, but  I'm beginning to question the wisdom of continuing to let them do so when experience is showing a pattern of poor decisions. At what point do shareholders say, enough? Is that the very trigger that got us here, some whale said enough? Fine, but to compound whatever problem upset the whale there's a knee jerk reaction to cut off ALL communication? Two wrongs don't make a right.

The team has demonstrated clear and innovative thinking in the technical realm, as well as the business realm at the high level. But leadership is sorely lacking in marketing skills and analysis of market impact released information can have. This isn't the first time this issue has arisen and unless measures are put in place to address this core issue it is bound to happen again. It disrupts the culture, which isn't always a bad thing but in this case will dramatically affect it to be less transparent and more centralized.

I think Dan & Stan should think about choosing a trusted set of community members to serve as a vetting committee or review board for potentially volatile decisions that could negatively impact the market. Information to be disclosed to the public should be numerically ranked in terms of market impact. IMO it would be wise to select these members from the pool of 101 delegates. How many to choose? As long as there are at least 3 it would be a dramatic improvement over the zero we have now. Should those committee members be made public? I can see pros & cons for anonymity as well as public accountability.

I am just frustrated by seeing this problem repeat itself.

Quote
What we should be aiming for is the success of the project, that is BitShares BTS, for the sake of bringing financial freedom to the world and enriching those who believe in it enough to invest in it.  Handing over full power to the shareholders with proposal voting may be a beautiful principle, and inevitable, but it's worthless if it doesn't result in success of the project and could even be harmful if done in a rush or with the sacrifice of other vital features.

I agree with this, as I believe most here do.

Quote
I'm always open to rational argument and could change my mind.  Cube's argument of investors 'voting with their legs' if this feature isn't implemented is compelling.
 

Let's hope we can keep that from occurring! How this issue is dealt with may very well put anchors or wings on people's feet.

Stan and Dan are open to having a review board like the one you mentioned.  Stan actually asked me in a pm if I could help set it up. ..
But .
That is one hell of a position to be in.  I mean yeh. ..I care a GREAT DEAL about our community,  but I am not as wise as all of us are,  together.
These small committees also make it far easier for the loyalties of a few to be bought and paid for. If that is what the community wants,  I'd consider it. ..but id do so with a great deal of trepidation.
There is a reason why we have a separation of powers built into our systems of governance.

And I think even that should be for short periods of time and only in times of emergency...which I personally don't think this is.


I'll tell u what though...crypto is doing a good job trying to figure it all out.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2015, 01:47:43 am by fuzzy »
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline Thom

It's a matter of resource management while in the early stages.  Which would you rather have, a stable client or proposal voting?
Both would be nice but as it stands we have neither.

I understand the limited resources issue. The problem at hand however is management decisions and how they're made. Proposal voting is a mechanism that could solve that, IF leadership offers proposals to provide shareholder input / review / decisions. So even if we did have proposal voting it wouldn't do any good if management chooses not to use it and go in whatever direction they will.

This seems like a management culture issue.

I'm all for letting the inner circle of devs set policy & plot a course into the future, so long as those decisions are wise for all shareholders & the ecosytem, it's even OK if they make a few mistakes along the way. That's been my perspective all along, but  I'm beginning to question the wisdom of continuing to let them do so when experience is showing a pattern of poor decisions. At what point do shareholders say, enough? Is that the very trigger that got us here, some whale said enough? Fine, but to compound whatever problem upset the whale there's a knee jerk reaction to cut off ALL communication? Two wrongs don't make a right.

The team has demonstrated clear and innovative thinking in the technical realm, as well as the business realm at the high level. But leadership is sorely lacking in marketing skills and analysis of market impact released information can have. This isn't the first time this issue has arisen and unless measures are put in place to address this core issue it is bound to happen again. It disrupts the culture, which isn't always a bad thing but in this case will dramatically affect it to be less transparent and more centralized.

I think Dan & Stan should think about choosing a trusted set of community members to serve as a vetting committee or review board for potentially volatile decisions that could negatively impact the market. Information to be disclosed to the public should be numerically ranked in terms of market impact. IMO it would be wise to select these members from the pool of 101 delegates. How many to choose? As long as there are at least 3 it would be a dramatic improvement over the zero we have now. Should those committee members be made public? I can see pros & cons for anonymity as well as public accountability.

I am just frustrated by seeing this problem repeat itself.

Quote
What we should be aiming for is the success of the project, that is BitShares BTS, for the sake of bringing financial freedom to the world and enriching those who believe in it enough to invest in it.  Handing over full power to the shareholders with proposal voting may be a beautiful principle, and inevitable, but it's worthless if it doesn't result in success of the project and could even be harmful if done in a rush or with the sacrifice of other vital features.

I agree with this, as I believe most here do.

Quote
I'm always open to rational argument and could change my mind.  Cube's argument of investors 'voting with their legs' if this feature isn't implemented is compelling.
 

Let's hope we can keep that from occurring! How this issue is dealt with may very well put anchors or wings on people's feet.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech2 Witness Reports: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23902.0.html

Offline carpet ride

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 544
    • View Profile
I somewhat agree it's a good idea to change the title from beyond Bitcoin to beyond BitShares and change to the letstalkbitcoin format


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
All opinions are my own. Anything said on this forum does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation between myself and anyone else.
Check out my blog: http://CertainAssets.com
Buy the ticket, take the ride.

Offline matt608

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile
The solution is not about limiting ideas or the channel where the ideas flow.  There are great values in transparency and the free-flow of ideas.  Rather it should be how the ideas are to be taken up by the sharesholders.  We need a way for the sharesholders to VOTE on those ideas.  If the shareholders VOTE for the ideas, they will have no reason to panic or sell bts as a way to 'vote with their legs'. 

- Client voting proposals so we hear from the larger holders, not just those that have time to hang out around the forums.

Fuzz, you may be right this ability is another year out, but IMO it's a year overdue. If the whole point of this DPoS ecosystem is to empower the shareholders this should have been a high priority to implement early. The fact it's still not considered important is clear testimony to how comfortable "the leaders" are with being in control. For all the "talk" about principles and giving people a voice thru "honest voting" why is it we don't have this extremely important functionality for our very own community?


It's a matter of resource management while in the early stages.  Which would you rather have, a stable client or proposal voting?   An unuseable product would render us voting over how to best use a pile of ashes.  What is it that people want to vote on anyway?  I've not seen any proposals considered urgent other than the proposal to be able to vote on proposals, which I agree is needed in the future.  It will be vital for the governance of the DAC.  But people seem to want to have a say just for the sake of having say, without actually having anything to say.  If you can tell me which development branch you would axe in order to develop proposal voting I am all ears. 

What we should be aiming for is the success of the project, that is BitShares BTS, for the sake of bringing financial freedom to the world and enriching those who believe in it enough to invest in it.  Handing over full power to the shareholders with proposal voting may be a beautiful principle, and inevitable, but it's worthless if it doesn't result in success of the project and could even be harmful if done in a rush or with the sacrifice of other vital features.

Having said all this I am not a developer and don't know if implementing proposal voting in a useable way is even very difficult.  Toast demonstrated it can already be done in a primitive way by starting up 0% delegates.  However, the full client is still very slow for many people so you can't have a representative proposal vote anyway without increased client usability, backing up my argument that basic functionality must continue to be improved first.

If a dev wanted to step in now and say 'actually, we can get it done to a reasonable standard in a week', then that is great.  But these things have a way of taking far longer than anyone estimates, and we know it will take months for the full client to be very stable and useable for everyone.  We cannot afford delays.  Also proposals ideally need to be voted on anonymously as some may be controversial and I know that is a not an easy feature to develop.  We can still vote for delegates to get paid via dilution.  That's a pretty big innovation right there, let's not forget the power we have already been given.

I'm always open to rational argument and could change my mind.  Cube's argument of investors 'voting with their legs' if this feature isn't implemented is compelling.  What makes it difficult is that I envision a very large overhaul being needed, rather than quick and messy proposal vote system being slapped together without anonymity and without access to all voters due full client usability problems (which are improving but still have a fair distance to go).  This makes me think more time is needed before this becomes top priority. 
« Last Edit: March 01, 2015, 09:28:37 pm by matt608 »

Offline Thom

The solution is not about limiting ideas or the channel where the ideas flow.  There are great values in transparency and the free-flow of ideas.  Rather it should be how the ideas are to be taken up by the sharesholders.  We need a way for the sharesholders to VOTE on those ideas.  If the shareholders VOTE for the ideas, they will have no reason to panic or sell bts as a way to 'vote with their legs'. 

- Client voting proposals so we hear from the larger holders, not just those that have time to hang out around the forums.

Fuzz, you may be right this ability is another year out, but IMO it's a year overdue. If the whole point of this DPoS ecosystem is to empower the shareholders this should have been a high priority to implement early. The fact it's still not considered important is clear testimony to how comfortable "the leaders" are with being in control. For all the "talk" about principles and giving people a voice thru "honest voting" why is it we don't have this extremely important functionality for our very own community?

And I don't recall who broached the subject (I believe it was JoeyD), but we're all speculating about what occurred to trigger this muzzling event in the first place. We're all just hacking away at branches rather than getting to the root of the issue, the trigger event that put us all here.

The more I think about it the more I think I'll join JoeyD in the time out zone!  >:(
« Last Edit: March 01, 2015, 08:45:56 pm by Thom »
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech2 Witness Reports: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23902.0.html

Offline fuzzy

It sucks that I currently just can't find the time to join you guys in the mumble .. even though it's 4 pm local time :(

I'm considering moving them to Saturdays/Sundays anyway.  Maybe that would help.


@joeyd  we are not stopping the hangouts no matter what.  If that means it is just yourself and the 80+people who openly voted to keep the hangouts as is,  just speculating on the decisions of the overlords,  then that is what it will be.  Of course,  Bitshares was made to be forked too...so keep in mind if this DAC becomes 2.0 version of apple,  we can always build a strong community with cool clones.   

DPOS is political. There will always be a demand for an inclusive community with devs who connect with them.  :)
« Last Edit: March 01, 2015, 08:35:42 pm by fuzzy »
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline JoeyD

Disclaimer- Sorry if I sound a bit miffed, but that's because I am.

During the meet and greet I suggested a single one time (unrecorded if absolutely required) conversation with Dan and or Stan Larimer and a few community members to get to the bottom of this new decision to no longer communicate with the community and from now on only dictate. This was an off the cuff remark in the hopes of getting to know the actual argumentation  instead of us having to speculate and trying come to some sort of community consensus on solutions to these speculations.

Hey Joey, I wasn't trying to imply that this was your suggestion. I did my best to make it clear in the OP that I just wanted to explore this idea a bit further and get everyone's opinions.

Truthfully, I was not fully convinced myself of the validity of this approach myself, but nevertheless, I thought it prudent to continue the dialogue for purposes of gaining clarity about the issue from the community. I tried to present the strongest arguments I could as to its merits, and to offer them up as a prospective solution. If we can use this forum to clarify where we all stand on divisive issues such as this one, it will be easier to understand how and where to apply our efforts at addressing any real or perceived elephants in the room.

Ok, thanks for the clarification.

I'm finding myself getting angrier every passing minute about the idea of not being allowed open discussion anymore, what the flying capital f followed by a towering exclamation mark. Are you trying to commit suicide here? Are there actually people or investors (note the excluding differentiation there) out there who honestly think that creating the bitshares groupie DAC is a good idea? If this is the influence of some whales, let them speak up and make themselves clear, because I was under the impression this was a community effort.

Btw I challenge anybody throwing out the Ethereum marketing as a good thing to defend that with actual arguments, because I've been unable to have any meaningful discussion about ethereum anywhere on the internet and their forums are a joke, how in hell can you find anything there. Ethereum marketing to me looks like letting fanboys dream and not hindering anybody with some common sense. I'm not in favor of bullshitting people like that at all and find it a very very dangerous development in our attempts in providing new improved transparent solutions.

I find the shooting in the foot analogy far to weak, these new developments are more like shooting yourself in the temple or throwing ourselves off of a cliff.

Maybe I should talk with people on mumble to vent some steam, because this thing is really really pissing me off.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2015, 06:57:15 pm by JoeyD »

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12920
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
It sucks that I currently just can't find the time to join you guys in the mumble .. even though it's 4 pm local time :(

Offline CryptoPrometheus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 324
    • View Profile
Disclaimer- Sorry if I sound a bit miffed, but that's because I am.

During the meet and greet I suggested a single one time (unrecorded if absolutely required) conversation with Dan and or Stan Larimer and a few community members to get to the bottom of this new decision to no longer communicate with the community and from now on only dictate. This was an off the cuff remark in the hopes of getting to know the actual argumentation  instead of us having to speculate and trying come to some sort of community consensus on solutions to these speculations.

Hey Joey, I wasn't trying to imply that this was your suggestion. I did my best to make it clear in the OP that I just wanted to explore this idea a bit further and get everyone's opinions.

Truthfully, I was not fully convinced of the validity of this approach myself, but nevertheless, I thought it prudent to continue the dialogue for purposes of gaining clarity about the issue from the community. I tried to present the strongest arguments I could as to its merits, and to offer them up as a prospective solution. If we can use this forum to clarify where we all stand on divisive issues such as this one, it will be easier to understand how and where to apply our efforts at addressing any real or perceived elephants in the room.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2015, 07:11:57 pm by crypto_prometheus »
"Power and law are not synonymous. In fact, they are often in opposition and irreconcilable."
- Cicero

Offline JoeyD

Disclaimer- Sorry if I sound a bit miffed, but that's because I am.

During the meet and greet I suggested a single one time (unrecorded if absolutely required) conversation with Dan and or Stan Larimer and a few community members to get to the bottom of this new decision to no longer communicate with the community and from now on only dictate. This was an off the cuff remark in the hopes of getting to know the actual argumentation  instead of us having to speculate and trying come to some sort of community consensus on solutions to these speculations.

I do agree with the statements made earlier that either the mumble hangouts are recorded or not done at all. Maybe the format or frequency can be altered, but not recording or performing a pre-scripted staged play are both not an option for me.

I don't understand what the point is of a letstalkbitcoin setup, that's the same thing as bitshares.tv. With all due respect (and I do enjoy the bitshares.tv episodes that I've seen) that would be just another non-interactive dictating format where you have to trust interviewers and editors and offers no way for community members to react in real time if at all.

Btw, for anyone without the time to attend these "hangouts" just imagine the time required to actually create something close to what's proposed for setting up such a "show". Anyone who wants it should probably go for it themselves, because I can't think of anyone with the free time to do it.

Maybe the problem is in the name beyondbitcoinshow, while the mumble voicechat is more like irc, but with voice. It's just that occasionally the bitshares main-developer shows up at predetermined intervals and community members have a chance to interact and make absolutely sure that their concerns are actually being heard and not buried in the massive shitstorms on the forums or comment-sections. Actually I think comment sections and forums incite shitstorms because of that reason alone, people have no way to make sure that their message came across and in their self enforcing anxiety make things worse. With voice in realtime this is a lot harder, because for one it would be noisy, but when you do manage to get your statement or question in, you are at the very least certain that your message came across.

Offline davidpbrown

..the various PR blunders that we have experienced in the past year
..
My proposal to bytemaster and to this community is that he consider continuing to hold mumble sessions with us, but that we do not record them.

I haven't time atm to catch up with this but it seems a change for the worse.

Talk of PR blunders .. meh .. I've seen none that matter more than providing raw insight that maintains support. Not recording mumble sessions is just a way to frustrate a good insight into what really is going on. Who in their right mind relies on PR!?.. My experience is that marketing tends to be full of flunkies, who will say and do whatever is in their interests and usually that maps to the shortterm. Obviously not necessarily true of all and some will have good intentions but the reality of normalising all messages, does that.

My advice would be, if you want to action strict PR, do it at v1.0 - careful craft and action the marketing from there on in. Doing it now, neutralises what will attract devs and early investors. Bare in mind that devs and shortterm investors love to big up the reality but we are early on and there a way to go yet.

 8)
฿://1CBxm54Ah5hiYxiUtD7JGYRXykT5Z6ZuMc

Offline fuzzy


My proposal to bytemaster and to this community is that he consider continuing to hold mumble sessions with us, but that we do not record them. I do not believe that this would betray our principals, because anyone is still welcome to join and participate. What it does provide is an opportunity for all of us to continue the lively discussions that we have grown fond of, while protecting ourselves significantly against the accidental rapid dissemination of subjective misinterpretation.


Are you suggesting having no recording at all? Not even an edited release? If this is the case, my response follows.

It's all well and good making anyone welcome, but I'm frustrated by the idea of having no recording.
The problem is that the mumble sessions are brilliant! Currently I can listen to a recording if I can't make it to the session in real time. I can even submit questions on reddit for fuzzy to ask for me.
As it stands the mumble sessions are wonderful for the community. I consider them to be a very valuable part of the BitShares experience.

If there are no recordings, only people lucky enough to be able to attend will get the benefit, and I think this is CRAP! I don't care for the conference analogy - it doesn't hold water (surely the reasons are obvious?).


Anyone is welcome to the mumble sessions if they're lucky enough to not be:
  • at work
  • asleep
  • doing something with their family
  • having a medical procedure done
  • in an area with no internet access...

...I was going to do an absurdly long list for comedy value, but unfortunately I have to go out because I have other commitments which are unavoidable... :P

Thanks for the input. As i havevsaid before,  community organisation is what i do.   I don't know why but it comes as naturally to me as coding for these whiz kids around here.   As for the perspective on them as conferences, at present I completely agree.  In another 16 months (if they survive a chopping block), you will see precisely why I call them what I call them.  ;)

PS, feel free to call any of my ideas brilliant at any time.  :P
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline hadrian

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 467
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: hadrian

My proposal to bytemaster and to this community is that he consider continuing to hold mumble sessions with us, but that we do not record them. I do not believe that this would betray our principals, because anyone is still welcome to join and participate. What it does provide is an opportunity for all of us to continue the lively discussions that we have grown fond of, while protecting ourselves significantly against the accidental rapid dissemination of subjective misinterpretation.


Are you suggesting having no recording at all? Not even an edited release? If this is the case, my response follows.

It's all well and good making anyone welcome, but I'm frustrated by the idea of having no recording.
The problem is that the mumble sessions are brilliant! Currently I can listen to a recording if I can't make it to the session in real time. I can even submit questions on reddit for fuzzy to ask for me.
As it stands the mumble sessions are wonderful for the community. I consider them to be a very valuable part of the BitShares experience.

If there are no recordings, only people lucky enough to be able to attend will get the benefit, and I think this is CRAP! I don't care for the conference analogy - it doesn't hold water (surely the reasons are obvious?).


Anyone is welcome to the mumble sessions if they're lucky enough to not be:
  • at work
  • asleep
  • doing something with their family
  • having a medical procedure done
  • in an area with no internet access...

...I was going to do an absurdly long list for comedy value, but unfortunately I have to go out because I have other commitments which are unavoidable... :P
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline CLains

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: clains
- Create a public roadmap similar to Maidsafe to keep investors in the loop. Not everyone lives on Github.

- If Dan feels the need to speak, Bitshares.tv. Max is smart enough to present it in the best way possible.

- Client voting proposals so we hear from the larger holders, not just those that have time to hang out around the forums.

- Any PR releases should be reviewed by multiple people.

- Mumble sessions for other people important to the ecosystem.

- We need a polished client and a real reason for the millions of Bitcoin wallets to use our decentralized exchange. That is what generates the PR we need to survive.

- Further development on wall features such as subscriptions provides a huge boost to delegate reporting effectiveness outside the forum.
  +5%


+5%

Publishing without review is a bad idea in general. In the end it is up to each individual to be responsible for the quality of their own output by delegating time to different media and seeking reviews from confidants whos judgements they know they can trust.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2015, 12:04:18 pm by CLains »

Offline vegolino

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 450
  • Reality is Information
    • View Profile
- Create a public roadmap similar to Maidsafe to keep investors in the loop. Not everyone lives on Github.

- If Dan feels the need to speak, Bitshares.tv. Max is smart enough to present it in the best way possible.

- Client voting proposals so we hear from the larger holders, not just those that have time to hang out around the forums.

- Any PR releases should be reviewed by multiple people.

- Mumble sessions for other people important to the ecosystem.

- We need a polished client and a real reason for the millions of Bitcoin wallets to use our decentralized exchange. That is what generates the PR we need to survive.

- Further development on wall features such as subscriptions provides a huge boost to delegate reporting effectiveness outside the forum.
  +5%

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
BitShares Community,

I would like to thank everyone who was able to participate in our discussion on mumble this morning,  and I want to extend my hand and express my gratitude for all of your efforts at helping to form a communication bridge between the east and west. I am looking forward to many such meetings in the future, and I am honored and humbled to be a part of such a brilliant and gifted group of individuals.

That said, I would like to offer to you a proposal. This topic was discussed in our meeting, however I do not wish to imply that there was any overall consensus. Rather, I have organized a version that I would like to bring forward in order to stimulate further discussion.

We cherish the level of intellectual intimacy that we have thus far enjoyed between ourselves and one of our beloved founders, Dan Larimer. We also understand that as a community, our organization has often suffered from sudden market turmoil because it seems we have yet to figure out how to enable the free and open exchange of ideas between us, without leaving ourselves vulnerable to subjective responses from people for whom it is impossible to grasp the larger picture. This is not by means the only force at play, but I present it for purposes of illustrative example.

We discussed, in our session today, the various PR blunders that we have experienced in the past year, and the point was often raised that if a radical idea was initially proposed by bytemaster in a mumble session, the blunder would be quickly contained and not escalate very far. We observed that this was likely due to the immediate feedback he received, combined with a general human tendency to grasp the more subtle implications of words when they are spoken, rather than written on a page. By extension, whenever he brought fourth a radical idea or concept on the forums, the asynchronous delay (lack of real-time participation) combined with natural language barriers became a powerful fertilizer for seeds of doubt that would then be cast and sewn across the landscape.

In most places within the United States, it is illegal to use recording devices inside a courtroom. The reason for this is because a recording can potentially be taken out of context, and used as a tool to manipulate public opinion. The written account of an eyewitness, or an artists graphic rendering of a dramatic court scene do not have 1: 10,000 the impact of a “viral” video or audio recording. To make up for this, a high percentage of court preceedings are open to the public, so as to protect against overt or blatant foul play. Again, by no means the rule, but presented for arguments sake.

My proposal to bytemaster and to this community is that he consider continuing to hold mumble sessions with us, but that we do not record them. I do not believe that this would betray our principals, because anyone is still welcome to join and participate. What it does provide is an opportunity for all of us to continue the lively discussions that we have grown fond of, while protecting ourselves significantly against the accidental rapid dissemination of subjective misinterpretation.

Public Relations is the art of managing the spread of information, much more than placing restrictions on the source of the information. Many Hollywood actors are prone to running at the mouth and making a fool of themselves, but if they have a good publicist, the channels through which this information might otherwise be spread are carefully observed and controlled. Thus, the restrictions I am proposing are aimed at limiting the damage that might be caused by our open discussion by eliminating the opportunity for it to spread.

The greater internal PR strategy will continue to fall upon those who are working closely within his circle of trust. Perhaps they might consider advising Mr. Larimer to limit all initial presentation of his more radical ideas to to weekly or bi-weekly mumble sessions? That way we can continue to enjoy the inspiration and excitement of his wisdom and understanding, and he can continue to enjoy the benefits of personal growth through our valuable feedback.

What say you all?
I think it would be unfair to have these mumble session like before and not record them. Like before means with updates and announcements. That would be a disadvantage for all market participants that can't attend.
If mumble sessions are not recorded then they should only serve the purpose of vetting ideas. If BM wants to discuss an idea (like the addition of bingo a few weeks ago; nothing entirely new and nothing that could shake up the market if implemented) and wants feedback from the average user (and not from blacksburg devs) he can use mumble sessions as a tool for that.

Offline matt608

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile

We are an international audience and there is no way in hell to make this fair if not recorded.

 +5%

Offline fuzzy

Why not trust the community more, or spend the money to them? All the time trusting some people the community don't know.

^This....
Amazing how many people come in expecting the highest levels of trust/compensation (which might not be the case here in this specific instance) and actually get it before proving themselves...
Meanwhile, many in the community who have trudged through mud to earn trust are working with next to nothing to make things work. 

I'm done reading this stuff for the night.  *sigh*
The more I think about this, the more frustrated I get (to be honest).
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline Shentist

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1601
    • View Profile
    • metaexchange
  • BitShares: shentist
this is so frustrating!!

- and in my opinion this kind of decision is why BitShares looks so weak!
- the CoreDevs (people in Blacksburg) just talking to themself and then decided to do it. Rush announcment, taking it back and now needs something to fix the confusion.

This is the core problem! Was and will be, if not changed how the decisions are done.

Mumble sessions without recording - are you guys realy serious? The community is seperated over a whole planet and now i have to attend to get the information?

- the weekly mumble session is great, but maybe change the format to something like "letstalkbitcoin". Just fuzzy and bytemaster.
- just speak about stuff people are working and not stuff "will" come or "soon"
- and i would not care if it is bytemaster or a PR company, but i am sure the PR company sucks, because they dont understand a thing about BitShares and this will explode big time.

Why not trust the community more, or spend the money to them? All the time trusting some people the community don't know.

Offline fuzzy


Part of the problem is that Dan runs out of stuff to say for an hour every week.  The time is not tailored to the amount of information he feels a need to share.  So sometimes we get a few more random discussion which apparently is a something of a problem. 

The proposal system is not so that we can hear from the big holders, it is so that their interests are covered.  Anyone who has enough time to post on the forums has enough time to make a proposal..

We rarely if ever have a hangout I or Dan doesn't have to actually try to end.  If I didn't, I suspect they would not end.  The problem isn't with there not being enjoy to talk about. 
At some point in the future, there will be many people who are potential developers who could come on to ask questions of Dan.  The thing about the hangouts is that it is not constrained to simply Public Relations. 

With that said, there is nothing saying it has to be an hour.  Dan could give his updates, maybe answer a question or two...or heck he could even ask the community what they think about certain issues (if done correctly it wouldn't even need to belie the end result for a line of thinking).  The community usually has some pressing questions to ask him that otherwise they would never get answered. 

Now when other developers come on more frequently, I might be more in agreement with you...because then we start having more information in specific areas of bitshares.
Over time, Dan's hangouts would naturally slow down...but this stuff is being rushed for some reason.  In fact, if you look, the trend is already moving away from Dan as the "king of the hangouts".  We have people wanting to come on frequently now and those people want to come on after Dan to try to get the attention of the audience he brings. 

To continue the hangouts at present only enables us to move more quickly toward what I agree needs to happen: a bitshares hangout ecosystem where Dan doesn't even need to join us.  Don't get me wrong, it will happen either way, but it is far more effective the way we were doing it. 

- Create a public roadmap similar to Maidsafe to keep investors in the loop. Not everyone lives on Github.
100% agreed. Maidsafe is no slouch on their execution.

- If Dan feels the need to speak, Bitshares.tv. Max is smart enough to present it in the best way possible.
Max is smart, BitSharesTV is awesome.  If Dan feels the need to speak, there should be no gatekeepers.  Of course Dan should also be able to reserve the right to refrain from answering questions he doesn't know the answer to or that the feels would be especially harmful to answer. 
As for people potentially taking something Dan says and misrepresenting it...it has nothing to do with the platform where it is stated...and will occur regardless as bitshares becomes more well-known and larger.  Nothing you can do about this.

- Client voting proposals so we hear from the larger holders, not just those that have time to hang out around the forums.
100% agree...however, we don't have that implemented yet and I doubt we will for another year at least.

- Any PR releases should be reviewed by multiple people.
100% agree--this idea of one PR rep to rule them all scares me more than anything--especially when said PR person has already effectively done the opposite of inspire confidence if his debut is any indicator of future performance.

- Mumble sessions for other people important to the ecosystem.
If Dan only goes on BitSharesTV, you can expect most every "important person" in the ecosystem to follow suit.  Don't get me wrong.  Of course I want to see Max successful...and I don't want to be a talking head.  I like organizing communities. 

- We need a polished client and a real reason for the millions of Bitcoin wallets to use our decentralized exchange. That is what generates the PR we need to survive.
Again, 100% agreed. 

- Further development on wall features such as subscriptions provides a huge boost to delegate reporting effectiveness outside the forum.
Again, 100% agreed. 
« Last Edit: March 01, 2015, 01:36:13 pm by fuzzy »
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline gamey

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

Part of the problem is that Dan runs out of stuff to say for an hour every week.  The time is not tailored to the amount of information he feels a need to share.  So sometimes we get a few more random discussion which apparently is a something of a problem. 

The proposal system is not so that we can hear from the big holders, it is so that their interests are covered.  Anyone who has enough time to post on the forums has enough time to make a proposal..
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline hpenvy2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
- Create a public roadmap similar to Maidsafe to keep investors in the loop. Not everyone lives on Github.

- If Dan feels the need to speak, Bitshares.tv. Max is smart enough to present it in the best way possible.

- Client voting proposals so we hear from the larger holders, not just those that have time to hang out around the forums.

- Any PR releases should be reviewed by multiple people.

- Mumble sessions for other people important to the ecosystem.

- We need a polished client and a real reason for the millions of Bitcoin wallets to use our decentralized exchange. That is what generates the PR we need to survive.

- Further development on wall features such as subscriptions provides a huge boost to delegate reporting effectiveness outside the forum.




Offline fuzzy

I don't see how unrecorded sessions help the matter. Share is a share is a share regardless of what medium it takes place in, or the ease at which it can be disseminated and access by others.

I think the only solution to all of this is to stop talking about whats coming, and start talking about what is.

"What is" ...is kind of elusive at present.  There are forces at work that I have only a hint of a clue about and actually I am pretty frustrated about it...if we are going to be a decentralized organization ...we need ORGANIZATION.  Organization of bodies starts with organization of thoughts...which means we have to effectively communicate.   This doesn't grow from decisions by fiat.

Over the past 16 months, there have only been a few truly consistent things: 
1)  There will be seemingly final decisions posted without ever consulting the community
2)  Chaos that ensues from said posts when everyone is forced to feel powerless and has to speculate on the potential outcome and what it means for not only their investment of money but also of time
3)  Mumble hangouts that form a two-way synchronous interaction with Bytemaster that seem to act as a buffer from these huge mistakes being made in the open without forewarning.

Stopping mumble hangouts is like taking off your shoes to run because they give you blisters.  It makes no sense...but then again, looking at number 1 and number 2 above, we can see this is a pattern.

(and mind you I am not saying this to be hateful...but to be honest)

If you want to continue the mumble updates with Dan.. let him talk about new features that were introduced in the last update and how they can be applied in different ways. This is something I have found he is good at... giving examples of applying bitshares technology to help understand it better.
This is generally what happens in mumble sessions.  As has been stated before, the only times anything other than that comes up is when Dan wants to run stuff by us like the "bingo inside the wallet" conversation that started and the community abruptly ended without fanfare (as opposed to what would have likely happened if he would have done the announcement through the blog, the forum, or a "PR" guy). 
There is absolutely no reason we cannot continue these in my humble opinion.  Saying that BitSharesTV is a better venue and "more professional" is like the president of the united states saying "we will not have press conferences, and will instead focus on 60 minutes interviews with people we hire to ask softball questions".  This is not to demean what Max does, but is simply calling a spade a spade. 


This eliminates the danger of 'fedspeak', eliminates the speculation fears.. and is simply an update on what is already currently in the open and is helping to promote its value.
Agreed.

Question time would have to be about what we currently have going on.. and suggestions can be given as well for consideration.

There is no problem in recording this.. on the contrary.. we would likely want to promote it.

Precisely.  History shows us (along with a pretty statistically significant community poll) that these have been of great benefit.  Now that we have marketing gurus coming in, some have even said they would like to use some of our content and promote our hangouts as one of the centerpieces of what we do! 

The off the record 'tell us the future' stuff kinda reeks of the same kind of 'insider trading' stuff that all of us on the outside have watched happen in places like Congress in the US where they get to hear about all thats coming before it happens and get to make moves accordingly.
100% agree.

BitShares will grow with visionary entrepreneurs, not with being told bedtime stories by daddy Dan to fuel our bitDreams... not to sound harsh but that's a fact.. and sooner we stop being afraid of the dark, the sooner all of us who have the potential to become shining beacons can start to shine instead of standing in the shadows of I3.
It is true that Bytemaster is not the only person who could be doing these hangouts.  I have reached out to every developer I can, including those who are not part of the "invictus" team who are working on 3rd party services and applications to bring them to the community, but have only had a few show interest.  (Honorable mentions here?  Hackfisher, Indolering, Taulant, Data, Cob, and Adam Ernest).

I have even reached out to Max Wright of BitSharesTV who said that he would be very interested in showing up as a guest in the future--when he lives in a timezone better suited for it. 

Over time, I fully expect the stories that unfold from our coverage of the different developers will become equally and perhaps sometimes even MORE interesting than the hangouts with Bytemaster.  At that point, it will even be safe for someone like Max to risk bringing those developers on for one-on-one interviews because they will be highly vetted and will have withstood the test of time.  Eventually these devs could completely replace Bytemaster if he so desires...but it is still way too soon.


Stan said somewhere when this all went down that bitshares is growing up.. from my current understanding and perspective on all this.. I can see that is what is happening now.
If we are growing up, we are genuinely considering cutting off our legs because of growing pains. 


This is my 'counter' proposal regarding holding meetings if there are going to be any. Hold reviews of releases as they happen. If this is how things start to happen then naturally this gives plenty of time and preparation for whatever PR Bitshares has in place to decide on or approve whatever Dan might want to say about the releases and even allow them to align their messaging for higher impact. Good on all fronts I think.
I am not sure I understand what you mean by this portion...could you please give more information?


*P.S.*   I have to apologize for inserting myself in this publicly on this topic.  I feel I have a bias due to having a delegate, however I assure you my bias does not come from me actually gaining anything monetarily--which you will see when I finally get the chance to pay for what we use. 
The fuzzy.beyondbitcoin delegate's pay is pretty much only used for paying for the things that need paid for to help provide these community services and to pay a team who helps me so I no longer have to pay out of pocket.  (btw, thanks Stan for bringing me closer to green last year)
I do feel very strongly about this, however, and also have quite bit of community organization and group moderation experience.  I believe that these hangouts are one of the few things outside our technology that has kept us alive and with such a strong community despite a media blackout on the western side. 


**P.P.S** If we MUST replace these hangouts with Bytemaster with press conferences with a "PR Professional" I suggest we have a PR professional capable of connecting with the community without stirring up a shitstorm.  I propose that the community vote for this person.  Whoever was behind this "PR" maneuver obviously is set on following the same exact trend described earlier in this post...only without the inclusion of the only tool we have for calming the storm.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2015, 05:38:15 am by fuzzy »
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

I don't see how unrecorded sessions help the matter. Share is a share is a share regardless of what medium it takes place in, or the ease at which it can be disseminated and access by others.

I think the only solution to all of this is to stop talking about whats coming, and start talking about what is.

If you want to continue the mumble updates with Dan.. let him talk about new features that were introduced in the last update and how they can be applied in different ways. This is something I have found he is good at... giving examples of applying bitshares technology to help understand it better.

This eliminates the danger of 'fedspeak', eliminates the speculation fears.. and is simply an update on what is already currently in the open and is helping to promote its value.

Question time would have to be about what we currently have going on.. and suggestions can be given as well for consideration.

There is no problem in recording this.. on the contrary.. we would likely want to promote it.

The off the record 'tell us the future' stuff kinda reeks of the same kind of 'insider trading' stuff that all of us on the outside have watched happen in places like Congress in the US where they get to hear about all thats coming before it happens and get to make moves accordingly.

BitShares will grow with visionary entrepreneurs, not with being told bedtime stories by daddy Dan to fuel our bitDreams... not to sound harsh but that's a fact.. and sooner we stop being afraid of the dark, the sooner all of us who have the potential to become shining beacons can start to shine instead of standing in the shadows of I3.

Stan said somewhere when this all went down that bitshares is growing up.. from my current understanding and perspective on all this.. I can see that is what is happening now.

This is my 'counter' proposal regarding holding meetings if there are going to be any. Hold reviews of releases as they happen. If this is how things start to happen then naturally this gives plenty of time and preparation for whatever PR Bitshares has in place to decide on or approve whatever Dan might want to say about the releases and even allow them to align their messaging for higher impact. Good on all fronts I think.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline cube

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1404
  • Bit by bit, we will get there!
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcube

Greenspan's professional reputation was destroyed by the 1998/ financial crisis during which the entire banking sector was discovered to be systemically insolvent.

He's not somebody we should seek to emulate.

Greenspan had a different purpose for obfuscating messages. He needed to manipulate market sentiment to the direction he wanted. It was a different ball game from what we are doing here.
ID: bitcube
bitcube is a dedicated witness and committe member. Please vote for bitcube.

julian1

  • Guest
The goal is to present full information to all parties at the same time in a more organized way -- through an outlet that is less likely to generate strong market reactions.  We share your desire to continue high-bandwidth two-way interactions, but... 

Submitted for your consideration:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedspeak

Quote
The notion of fed speak originated from the fact that financial markets placed a heavy value on the statements made by Federal Reserve governors, which could in turn lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy. To prevent this, the governors developed a language, termed fedspeak, in which ambiguous and cautious statements were made to purposefully obscure and detract meaning from the statement.

...

Although it was originally believed by some that Alan Greenspan, who is generally credited for popularizing fedspeak, may have used such language unintentionally, he revealed in his 2007 book The Age of Turbulence, that the method of avoiding the issues directly when a clear message was not desired was indeed intentional. Greenspan states that the confusion, which often resulted in conflicting interpretations, was used to prevent unintended jolts to the markets as confusing statements were typically ignored.[10]

So seek the following solution:  in what venue, if any, could a Fed chairman speak freely?

Until we master fedspeak, we know of only one approach likely to work...

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=14274.msg186169#msg186169

Greenspan's professional reputation was destroyed by the 1998/ financial crisis during which the entire banking sector was discovered to be systemically insolvent.

He's not somebody we should seek to emulate.

Offline cube

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1404
  • Bit by bit, we will get there!
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcube
The goal is to present full information to all parties at the same time in a more organized way -- through an outlet that is less likely to generate strong market reactions.  We share your desire to continue high-bandwidth two-way interactions, but... 


There is no such thing as an outlet that will not generate a strong market reactions when the communicated idea has shattering effect. Sooner or later the idea will leak out and if not relayed through the original source, it could be distorted too. 

The solution is not about limiting ideas or the channel where the ideas flow.  There are great values in transparency and the free-flow of ideas.  Rather it should be how the ideas are to be taken up by the sharesholders.  We need a way for the sharesholders to VOTE on those ideas.  If the shareholders VOTE for the ideas, they will have no reason to panic or sell bts as a way to 'vote with their legs'. 

For projects deemed 'risky', you may do what Sparkles has done.  Use an independent DAC chain to test those new ideas and see how the public reacts to it.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2015, 03:14:16 am by cube »
ID: bitcube
bitcube is a dedicated witness and committe member. Please vote for bitcube.

Offline merivercap

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 661
    • View Profile
    • BitCash
The goal is to present full information to all parties at the same time in a more organized way -- through an outlet that is less likely to generate strong market reactions.  We share your desire to continue high-bandwidth two-way interactions, but... 

Submitted for your consideration:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedspeak

Quote
The notion of fed speak originated from the fact that financial markets placed a heavy value on the statements made by Federal Reserve governors, which could in turn lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy. To prevent this, the governors developed a language, termed fedspeak, in which ambiguous and cautious statements were made to purposefully obscure and detract meaning from the statement.

...

Although it was originally believed by some that Alan Greenspan, who is generally credited for popularizing fedspeak, may have used such language unintentionally, he revealed in his 2007 book The Age of Turbulence, that the method of avoiding the issues directly when a clear message was not desired was indeed intentional. Greenspan states that the confusion, which often resulted in conflicting interpretations, was used to prevent unintended jolts to the markets as confusing statements were typically ignored.[10]

So seek the following solution:  in what venue, if any, could a Fed chairman speak freely?

Until we master fedspeak, we know of only one approach likely to work...

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=14274.msg186169#msg186169

I understand the point you're making, but it probably would be better to pick another analogy because I think most of us here wouldn't  want to model ourselves after the Fed.   :-\  Silence is better than obfuscation so I hope no one here tries to master fedspeak.  There is also value in community engagement so hopefully we're thrown a bone or two every once in a while... or at least some cute puppy pics.  :)
BitCash - http://www.bitcash.org 
Beta: bitCash Wallet / p2p Gateway: (https://m.bitcash.org)
Beta: bitCash Trade (https://trade.bitcash.org)

Offline hpenvy2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
So basically you propose BM continue doing the Mumble hangouts but from now on they wouldn't be recorded? But then people that miss the chats will come on the forum and ask what was said and things will be misquoted leading to more confusion plus what's really stopping anyone from recording if they wanted to? Not a good idea in my opinion.

I prefer BMs idea to just do the BitSharesTV stuff to be honest.

 +5% +5%

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
I would like to offer another powerful analogy to consider. Fuzzy has often used a version of this analogy, and I believe it to be very eye opening:

Let's say bytemaster is attending a crypto-conference. Lets say this conference is in Australia. He gets up on the podium and addresses the crowd. He gives the official PR approved narrative.  Perhaps someone records this. Now lets say that he is roaming around the conference, having conversations and meeting people. At some point, a small crowd forms around him. Say 15 or 20 people, all curious, asking him questions, listening with rapt attention as he fills their mind with possibilities.

Perhaps no one records this. Perhaps the only ones that ever know what transpired in this brief moment are the ones who were fortunate enough to be there, at the right place, at the right time. Would you complain that these people have somehow trespassed on your supposed "right" to freely access every bit of information that is exchanged?

Whats more, there would be many barriers to entry to even attend this event. For example, someone living in the United States would have had to spend a few thousand on a plane ticket and hotel, and perhaps hundreds more on a conference pass.

With my proposal, the same type of private conference, which is perfectly acceptable in the situation I mentioned above, would be available with FAR fewer barriers to entry. In essence, the greatest barrier is that someone living in a certain part of the world might have to stay up past their bedtime to join or listen in. While this may be personally inconvenient for some, it is not a sound argument against allowing others to benefit from it. In fact, as our hypothetical conference was happening in Australia, it was nighttime in the USA!

I've never followed the conference model.  The mumble hangout has always been primarily based around Dan talking about Bitshares and giving updates.  It was probably one of the only places a fanboy could be a fan, listening to that show. 

I tend to agree with Julian about this.  It is a bit comical but it does seem like we've jumped the shark on some level.

This can all be solved by people waiting for a proper edited version and that way Dan can say something "off the record" and the editor can just edit that out or anything else deemed questionable.  I understand that could piss off some, but thats what I did when I was editing the show.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
The goal is to present full information to all parties at the same time in a more organized way -- through an outlet that is less likely to generate strong market reactions.  We share your desire to continue high-bandwidth two-way interactions, but... 

Submitted for your consideration:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedspeak

Quote
The notion of fed speak originated from the fact that financial markets placed a heavy value on the statements made by Federal Reserve governors, which could in turn lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy. To prevent this, the governors developed a language, termed fedspeak, in which ambiguous and cautious statements were made to purposefully obscure and detract meaning from the statement.

...

Although it was originally believed by some that Alan Greenspan, who is generally credited for popularizing fedspeak, may have used such language unintentionally, he revealed in his 2007 book The Age of Turbulence, that the method of avoiding the issues directly when a clear message was not desired was indeed intentional. Greenspan states that the confusion, which often resulted in conflicting interpretations, was used to prevent unintended jolts to the markets as confusing statements were typically ignored.[10]

So seek the following solution:  in what venue, if any, could a Fed chairman speak freely?

Until we master fedspeak, we know of only one approach likely to work...

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=14274.msg186169#msg186169



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 LRENZ

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 85
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: enz
So basically you propose BM continue doing the Mumble hangouts but from now on they wouldn't be recorded? But then people that miss the chats will come on the forum and ask what was said and things will be misquoted leading to more confusion plus what's really stopping anyone from recording if they wanted to? Not a good idea in my opinion.

I prefer BMs idea to just do the BitSharesTV stuff to be honest.
Revolution is inevitable.

julian1

  • Guest
Haha. Ethereum is going to kill us, with it's vision of openness and friendly ability to attract developer mindshare. It's already got 4x the size of the Bitshares reddit community and even core Bitshares devs post there. In comparison a request for basic code documentation goes entirely unanswered in the technical forum here at Bitshares talk.

I seriously can't believe we are discussing trying to gag the free-speech of developers under some new financially binding agreement, and nobody in the community is even inquiring into what the terms are.

Bitshares has jumped the shark.

Offline CryptoPrometheus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 324
    • View Profile
Lots of people, such as me, listen to the recordings. If you'd propose to get that information to us another way, I'm all for it, but as long as critical updates are buried in a one hour Mumble session or in a string of 100 forum messages, then I for one am going to dig until I find what I need to make informed decisions. I would keep the recordings, but if there is an alternative, then that's fine.

I want to clarify that I am not suggesting that "critical updates" be only announced in a private mumble session. That would be absurd, although I understand where you are coming from. (We have frequented the neighborhood of the absurd on occasion, like announcing important updates on page 15 of a two week old thread)
My idea was that these would be more like brainstorming sessions
« Last Edit: March 01, 2015, 02:04:55 am by crypto_prometheus »
"Power and law are not synonymous. In fact, they are often in opposition and irreconcilable."
- Cicero

Offline starspirit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 948
  • Financial markets pro over 20 years
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: starspirit
What if each user needs to use a unique id to get access to a single play of the recording?

Offline CryptoPrometheus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 324
    • View Profile
I would like to offer another powerful analogy to consider. Fuzzy has often used a version of this analogy, and I believe it to be very eye opening:

Let's say bytemaster is attending a crypto-conference. Lets say this conference is in Australia. He gets up on the podium and addresses the crowd. He gives the official PR approved narrative.  Perhaps someone records this. Now lets say that he is roaming around the conference, having conversations and meeting people. At some point, a small crowd forms around him. Say 15 or 20 people, all curious, asking him questions, listening with rapt attention as he fills their mind with possibilities.

Perhaps no one records this. Perhaps the only ones that ever know what transpired in this brief moment are the ones who were fortunate enough to be there, at the right place, at the right time. Would you complain that these people have somehow trespassed on your supposed "right" to freely access every bit of information that is exchanged?

Whats more, there would be many barriers to entry to even attend this event. For example, someone living in the United States would have had to spend a few thousand on a plane ticket and hotel, and perhaps hundreds more on a conference pass.

With my proposal, the same type of private conference, which is perfectly acceptable in the situation I mentioned above, would be available with FAR fewer barriers to entry. In essence, the greatest barrier is that someone living in a certain part of the world might have to stay up past their bedtime to join or listen in. While this may be personally inconvenient for some, it is not a sound argument against allowing others to benefit from it. In fact, as our hypothetical conference was happening in Australia, it was nighttime in the USA!
« Last Edit: March 01, 2015, 01:56:23 am by crypto_prometheus »
"Power and law are not synonymous. In fact, they are often in opposition and irreconcilable."
- Cicero

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile
Lots of people, such as me, listen to the recordings. If you'd propose to get that information to us another way, I'm all for it, but as long as critical updates are buried in a one hour Mumble session or in a string of 100 forum messages, then I for one am going to dig until I find what I need to make informed decisions. I would keep the recordings, but if there is an alternative, then that's fine.

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
Mumble sessions might have drawbacks of some sort, but the saving grace has always been that the recordings are made available. Either record them or don't have them.  I quit attending them some time ago because of scheduling but have always listened to the shows. 

We are an international audience and there is no way in hell to make this fair if not recorded. 
I speak for myself and only myself.

julian1

  • Guest
Quote
I do not believe that this would betray our principals, because anyone is still welcome to join and participate.

I don't see how this is true when the sessions are in the middle of the night for many people.

Offline fuzzy

I'll bump this to see what response it draws.  I would also recommend adding a poll to see what the community has to say.
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline CryptoPrometheus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 324
    • View Profile
BitShares Community,

I would like to thank everyone who was able to participate in our discussion on mumble this morning,  and I want to extend my hand and express my gratitude for all of your efforts at helping to form a communication bridge between the east and west. I am looking forward to many such meetings in the future, and I am honored and humbled to be a part of such a brilliant and gifted group of individuals.

That said, I would like to offer to you a proposal. This topic was discussed in our meeting, however I do not wish to imply that there was any overall consensus. Rather, I have organized a version that I would like to bring forward in order to stimulate further discussion.

We cherish the level of intellectual intimacy that we have thus far enjoyed between ourselves and one of our beloved founders, Dan Larimer. We also understand that as a community, our organization has often suffered from sudden market turmoil because it seems we have yet to figure out how to enable the free and open exchange of ideas between us, without leaving ourselves vulnerable to subjective responses from people for whom it is impossible to grasp the larger picture. This is not by means the only force at play, but I present it for purposes of illustrative example.

We discussed, in our session today, the various PR blunders that we have experienced in the past year, and the point was often raised that if a radical idea was initially proposed by bytemaster in a mumble session, the blunder would be quickly contained and not escalate very far. We observed that this was likely due to the immediate feedback he received, combined with a general human tendency to grasp the more subtle implications of words when they are spoken, rather than written on a page. By extension, whenever he brought fourth a radical idea or concept on the forums, the asynchronous delay (lack of real-time participation) combined with natural language barriers became a powerful fertilizer for seeds of doubt that would then be cast and sewn across the landscape.

In most places within the United States, it is illegal to use recording devices inside a courtroom. The reason for this is because a recording can potentially be taken out of context, and used as a tool to manipulate public opinion. The written account of an eyewitness, or an artists graphic rendering of a dramatic court scene do not have 1: 10,000 the impact of a “viral” video or audio recording. To make up for this, a high percentage of court preceedings are open to the public, so as to protect against overt or blatant foul play. Again, by no means the rule, but presented for arguments sake.

My proposal to bytemaster and to this community is that he consider continuing to hold mumble sessions with us, but that we do not record them. I do not believe that this would betray our principals, because anyone is still welcome to join and participate. What it does provide is an opportunity for all of us to continue the lively discussions that we have grown fond of, while protecting ourselves significantly against the accidental rapid dissemination of subjective misinterpretation.

Public Relations is the art of managing the spread of information, much more than placing restrictions on the source of the information. Many Hollywood actors are prone to running at the mouth and making a fool of themselves, but if they have a good publicist, the channels through which this information might otherwise be spread are carefully observed and controlled. Thus, the restrictions I am proposing are aimed at limiting the damage that might be caused by our open discussion by eliminating the opportunity for it to spread.

The greater internal PR strategy will continue to fall upon those who are working closely within his circle of trust. Perhaps they might consider advising Mr. Larimer to limit all initial presentation of his more radical ideas to to weekly or bi-weekly mumble sessions? That way we can continue to enjoy the inspiration and excitement of his wisdom and understanding, and he can continue to enjoy the benefits of personal growth through our valuable feedback.

What say you all?
« Last Edit: March 01, 2015, 12:47:15 am by crypto_prometheus »
"Power and law are not synonymous. In fact, they are often in opposition and irreconcilable."
- Cicero