Hangout every Friday @ 10am EST/STD

[konelectric]

Fuzzy, Any big plans for your 100th episode?

[xeroc]

I hope our new wallets will be modular in this sense.
ie: Don't present me with "this or that" if I'll never use it. Let me plugin to just the stuff that I will actually use. K.I.S.S.

 

BTS2 wallet is already very modular .. it uses react and separates all functionalities into views/components, stores and actions .. You will certainly like it ..
take a look into the graphene-ui repository @ github

[MJK]

I hope our new wallets will be modular in this sense.
ie: Don't present me with "this or that" if I'll never use it. Let me plugin to just the stuff that I will actually use. K.I.S.S.

 

[jakub]

I'd love to find answers to the questions asked in OP of this thread

Could you let me know if the following assumptions are true:

1. Regarding transferable account names and subscription fees:
1A. A BitShares account can have multiple account names associated with it and any of these names can be transferred to another BitShares account.
1B. The choice between the pay-as-you go mode and prepaid mode (obtained by paying a subscription fee) refers to a BitShares account, not a particular account name.
1C. A new account is pay-as-you-go by default and if the user wants to upgrade to the prepaid mode s/he needs to acquire some bitUSD and buy the subscription from the BTS blockchain.

2. Regarding HWP business model:
2A. Main revenue stream for HWP is supposed to come from the referral program for signing up new users for the BitShares ecosystem.
2B. Let's assume a user opens a BitShares account by signing up with my HWP and then decides to switch to another HWP:
- if the user has already paid the subscription fee: my referral income is unaffected
- if the user has not paid the subscription fee: I will most likely lose the referral income from this user as the other HWP will create a new account for him and he will probably transfer his existing account name to this new account. As a result the initial account signed up with my HWP will most probably be abandoned.

[sudo]

So, then we had to completely redesign the GUI (nowadays you guys call it UI/UX but whatever), color coding the top-level menus, making every ounce of it multilingual, making it more modular so that certain features could be totally removed from the GUI if desired, etc. That re-dev process alone took us another year.
 
I hope our new wallets will be modular in this sense.

This is really good point. GUI don't have to include all features. We can have multiple versions of GUI that utilize BTS modules for specific purposes. Or we can install certain modules(like extensions) on top of basic functions of BTS.

modular good idea
good idea

[clayop]

So, then we had to completely redesign the GUI (nowadays you guys call it UI/UX but whatever), color coding the top-level menus, making every ounce of it multilingual, making it more modular so that certain features could be totally removed from the GUI if desired, etc. That re-dev process alone took us another year.
 
I hope our new wallets will be modular in this sense.

This is really good point. GUI don't have to include all features. We can have multiple versions of GUI that utilize BTS modules for specific purposes. Or we can install certain modules(like extensions) on top of basic functions of BTS.

[kenCode]

Does adding features add any kind of bloat to BitShares? Let's assume tx / sec are not a limiting factor? What would be other limiting factors related to adding features to Bitshares?
More generally: What would be reasons to not allow a feature on Bitshares?

 
 
When we were developing the Tek9 Pro eBusiness software 20 years ago, this became a huge issue, really fast. Customers said "we want this" or "we want that" and based on the number of requests for a new feature, I had my team implement it.
 
So, we ended up with kick ass software that offered it all, but it became incredibly difficult to use since you now had to weed through so many of the new features just to access the one or two features that you actually used.
 
So, then we had to completely redesign the GUI (nowadays you guys call it UI/UX but whatever), color coding the top-level menus, making every ounce of it multilingual, making it more modular so that certain features could be totally removed from the GUI if desired, etc. That re-dev process alone took us another year.
 
I hope our new wallets will be modular in this sense.
ie: Don't present me with "this or that" if I'll never use it. Let me plugin to just the stuff that I will actually use. K.I.S.S.

[santaclause102]

This is very long, but I think a very good discussion question to see how BM, Stan, and Dev Core are approaching the referral system.  I think it has great potential. But I see the referral system having more longwithstanding success if smart contract developers can earn referral fees for the contracts they make.  My concern is in the long-run, initial referrers don't provide innovative developments as much as developers do.  Referrers can just squat on the capital effort that brought them all the users in the first place and still earn fees without providing any new value-add as compared to a developer.  They in some ways get the public to squat as many accounts as they can for them.  At least that's one way this would work. 

Last week BM spoke about specialized contracts being made for BTS.  This will allow curation and through testing and takes a "soft update" each time.  And afterwards, Cryptosile brought up a good idea that I've been pondering myself.  In one of the posts he asks:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,17801.0.html
"I'm curious if we could provide these two things:
1.  Allow a specific smart contract to pay 10% of fees to the creator of said smart contract.
  - This would incentivize a lot of developers to submit smart contracts and compete for inclusion into the blockchain."

To me this would spur use of smart contracts, experimentation and new products for the general public.  Sure it would be in the interest of the first referrers to create new types of contracts.  But I see this as further incentivizing development on the Bitshares blockchain and bring tools and smartcoin programs that mesh in the bitshares network.  A pie in the sky hypothetical example: someone wants to build a decentralized Uber on Bitshares can do so and profit.   But in short, incentives and rewards are further brought together.

Not to mention it would allow the little guy to profit for bringing something new to do table.  He will be able to build a  better business model to compete with the veterans and not be squatted out like the current method has it. 

Is this something that is currently being discussed or considered?  Do you think this is feasible or even possible for Bitshares under the current structure of the referral system?

This really is a great idea!
If you think it further, the logical consequence would be to eliminate the worker pay and pay workers only through getting their share of the tx fee. But that would have the disadvantage that the reward for the developer / worker would only rely on tx volume even though there might be other factors like tx size (amount of money) which often relates to how much BTS will be demanded as collateral (that though could be  mitigated through % based fees: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=17721.0).
 How would competition between two workers / developers / similar apps / similar features work within the Bitshares model (curated apps)? What if the decentralized uber is operational on Bitshares and some other developer thinks he can do better?
The competition aspect is particularly important in the light of different devs competing with regards to fees they offer. In the example: Uber is operational on Bitshares but another dev thinks the "developer fees" are too high. Lowering fees through competition is essential because the developer fees estimated and proposed by the dev and confirmed by stakeholders might be way "too high". Such relativity of fees / prices in an open market are solved by competition. How does that work here?
Are there any rules to protect the IP of the dev behind Uber1? Could some other dev just copy (most of) the code of Uber1 and submit it to Bitshares with lower developer fees?

One question on my side that is related but also relevant apart from this proposal: Does adding features add any kind of bloat to BitShares? Let's assume tx / sec are not a limiting factor? What would be other limiting factors related to adding features to Bitshares?
More generally: What would be reasons to not allow a feature on Bitshares?

Ideal would be a combination of the free market competition of the android model with the efficiency  of the apple model :-/

[Ander]

This is very long, but I think a very good discussion question to see how BM, Stan, and Dev Core are approaching the referral system.  I think it has great potential.  But I see the referral system having more longwithstanding success if smart contract developers can earn referral fees for the contracts they make.  My concern is in the long-run, initial referrers don't provide innovative developments as much as developers do.  Referrers can just squat on the capital effort that brought them all the users in the first place and still earn fees without providing any new value-add as compared to a developer.  They in some ways get the public to squat as many accounts as they can for them.  At least that's one way this would work. 

Last week BM spoke about specialized contracts being made for BTS.  This will allow curation and through testing and takes a "soft update" each time.  And afterwards, Cryptosile brought up a good idea that I've been pondering myself.  In one of the posts he asks:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,17801.0.html
"I'm curious if we could provide these two things:
1.  Allow a specific smart contract to pay 10% of fees to the creator of said smart contract.
  - This would incentivize a lot of developers to submit smart contracts and compete for inclusion into the blockchain."

To me this would spur use of smart contracts, experimentation and new products for the general public.  Sure it would be in the interest of the first referrers to create new types of contracts.  But I see this as further incentivizing development on the Bitshares blockchain and bring tools and smartcoin programs that mesh in the bitshares network.  A pie in the sky hypothetical example: someone wants to build a decentralized Uber on Bitshares can do so and profit.   But in short, incentives and rewards are further brought together.

Not to mention it would allow the little guy to profit for bringing something new to do table.  He will be able to build a  better business model to compete with the veterans and not be squatted out like the current method has it. 

Is this something that is currently being discussed or considered?  Do you think this is feasible or even possible for Bitshares under the current structure of the referral system?

I feel this is critical.  Developers should want to develop smart contracts for bitshares in the hope of getting some fees from their use.

[Bitcoinfan]

This is very long, but I think a very good discussion question to see how BM, Stan, and Dev Core are approaching the referral system.  I think it has great potential.  But I see the referral system having more longwithstanding success if smart contract developers can earn referral fees for the contracts they make.  My concern is in the long-run, initial referrers don't provide innovative developments as much as developers do.  Referrers can just squat on the capital effort that brought them all the users in the first place and still earn fees without providing any new value-add as compared to a developer.  They in some ways get the public to squat as many accounts as they can for them.  At least that's one way this would work. 

Last week BM spoke about specialized contracts being made for BTS.  This will allow curation and through testing and takes a "soft update" each time.  And afterwards, Cryptosile brought up a good idea that I've been pondering myself.  In one of the posts he asks:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,17801.0.html
"I'm curious if we could provide these two things:
1.  Allow a specific smart contract to pay 10% of fees to the creator of said smart contract.
  - This would incentivize a lot of developers to submit smart contracts and compete for inclusion into the blockchain."

To me this would spur use of smart contracts, experimentation and new products for the general public.  Sure it would be in the interest of the first referrers to create new types of contracts.  But I see this as further incentivizing development on the Bitshares blockchain and bring tools and smartcoin programs that mesh in the bitshares network.  A pie in the sky hypothetical example: someone wants to build a decentralized Uber on Bitshares can do so and profit.   But in short, incentives and rewards are further brought together.

Not to mention it would allow the little guy to profit for bringing something new to do table.  He will be able to build a  better business model to compete with the veterans and not be squatted out like the current method has it. 

Is this something that is currently being discussed or considered?  Do you think this is feasible or even possible for Bitshares under the current structure of the referral system?

[mf-tzo]

It seems to me that BTS is keep falling and falling in price. The other day people commented that 1 Brownie PTS will be worth 100 BTS. The whole market appears not confident about what is happening with BTS and this is reflected in the price. And now reading some posts I see long term supporters of the community valuing BTS differently. I personally don't feel this way but apparently the market is not valuing BTS like me..

To this effect I would ask BM if possible to address this by reassuring investors that BTS is going in the right direction and BTS holders will not be keeping the bag. If he can bring back lost confidence it would be nice. Explain in more details what is the plan and how BTS holders will profit. Re assure that CNX is complementary to BTS and not competitor..Things like that..

I don't think it has anything to do with lost confidence, except perhaps among the uninformed.  Our expectations are sky-high with respect to the impact our referral program will have on bringing in new users from our partners by the tens of thousands.  (In today's Mumble we briefly touched on one example - 40,000 potential new members from a professional engineers' society.) There is a really compelling incentive for all sorts of businesses to quickly monetize their existing user bases and there will be a gold rush of all kinds of people signing up new users.  And with more partners come more products and services and market depth - growing the BitShares economy in an exponential sort of way.

This is a major part of the Cryptonomex business plan - helping to find and assist new partners to do the above.  You see us doing that already with many of the Summer Announcements to date and more to come.

Another part of our business plan is to capture outside funding so we can add features to BitShares faster without requiring BitShares to pay for all of it.  This gives BitShares a higher "thrust to weight ratio" so to speak.

The ability to pay developers competitive wages is another big benefit of having Cryptonomex attract partners, customers, and investors that BitShares has no way to attract on its own.  That's the original reason Cryptonomex was founded.

And then there is the potential for BTS holders to be the targets of future share drops for new chains.  That remains a major factor in our thinking about who gets a Graphene license and thus another reason why Cryptonomex involvement in developing new chains directly adds to the value BTS holders receive.    It increases the likelihood of more share drops for public chains where that makes sense.  I'd hate to be sitting on the sidelines when one of those is announced.

Demand for BTS and its products is going to come more and more from users and less and less (percentage wise) from speculators where most other cryptos are trapped fighting over the same fickle money hopping from pump to pump.  (Of course, speculators will follow the coming surge in BitShares users too.)

Oh my dear Stan...That is exactly the kind of post I wanted to hear...I just hope others read this too.
Also since the time for the Friday hangouts don't work for me and as much as I want to participate I can't, it would be appreciated if someone does a transcript of what have been discussed.
Thanks

[mike623317]

When we have the extra on/off ramp integration features needed by our exchange partners we'll begin integration and testing with them.

how much work are these extra on/off features?

[fuzzy]

Questions below this point will be asked in next week's hangout (7 AUG 2015)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[xeroc]

Can you give us the general feeling in blacksburg about when this will be released?  Could you tentatively say this year?  It seems like there are a lot of moving parts...

"This Summer" narrows our one-sigma probability of being on target down to a specific 13 week period in 2015 while leaving us free, if necessary, to point out that technically this planet does have a southern hemisphere. 

LOL

You are killing us Stan.

I lol'ed

[mike623317]

Can you give us the general feeling in blacksburg about when this will be released?  Could you tentatively say this year?  It seems like there are a lot of moving parts...

"This Summer" narrows our one-sigma probability of being on target down to a specific 13 week period in 2015 while leaving us free, if necessary, to point out that technically this planet does have a southern hemisphere. 

LOL

You are killing us Stan.