Release

[xeroc]

Bitshares 2.0 needs volume more than anything else, it needs to find ways to take advantage of it's 100,000 transactions per second, and we need to fully take advantage of the innovation momentum.

How about we, as shareholders, vote for a committee with extremely reduced market fees. These are the fees we can define:

            limit_order_create_operation,
            limit_order_cancel_operation,
            call_order_update_operation,
            fill_order_operation,

AFAIU we can have different fees for market makers and takers .. so why not have extremely low fees for makers .. at least for a period of time?

[Akado]

We need some demo products to prove to people that Bitshares 2.0 can do what other platforms can't. Once people realize you can't do it on Bitcoin no matter how much Bitcoin developers try to claim otherwise, then Bitshares 2.0 will find it's niche.

Videos for BitShares Use Cases. That is really important!

See Factom videos as an example;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbRVPBFiy64
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYQ5icxGvmA

[VoR0220]

I agree! I'm all for patience and strategy but if the important stuff is ready, let's get more eyes on 2.0.! Thousands of devs  could suddenly be incentivised to start building interfaces.

Bitshares 2.0 needs volume more than anything else, it needs to find ways to take advantage of it's 100,000 transactions per second, and we need to fully take advantage of the innovation momentum.

We might have 6 months lead time before everyone else catches up to Bitshares 2.0, so in that time you would want to do everything you can to boost volume, bring in new users, and show the world what you can do with these specs. It's kind of like video card or GPU developers don't sell the cards just on specs, they show some demos.

We need some demo products to prove to people that Bitshares 2.0 can do what other platforms can't. Once people realize you can't do it on Bitcoin no matter how much Bitcoin developers try to claim otherwise, then Bitshares 2.0 will find it's niche.

I think Bitshares 2.0 has plenty of opportunities in the ATM market, the exchange sites, which will now be easy to set up and wont require regulations, the majority of exchanges host other people's money, are money transmitters, probably aren't even profitable, and they could all be convinced to switch over to Bitshares 2.0 or else lose competitive advantage.

Perhaps Shapeshift could use Bitshares 2.0 on the backend or something like Shapeshift, and then expand out from there. My opinion is Minebitshares can be leveraged.

Better yet, you could run a clone of shapeshift on Ethereum for decentralized access and then have Bitshares be the backend trading for it. Hardware integrated with BTS...liking the sound of that.

[luckybit]

I agree! I'm all for patience and strategy but if the important stuff is ready, let's get more eyes on 2.0.! Thousands of devs  could suddenly be incentivised to start building interfaces.

Bitshares 2.0 needs volume more than anything else, it needs to find ways to take advantage of it's 100,000 transactions per second, and we need to fully take advantage of the innovation momentum.

We might have 6 months lead time before everyone else catches up to Bitshares 2.0, so in that time you would want to do everything you can to boost volume, bring in new users, and show the world what you can do with these specs. It's kind of like video card or GPU developers don't sell the cards just on specs, they show some demos.

We need some demo products to prove to people that Bitshares 2.0 can do what other platforms can't. Once people realize you can't do it on Bitcoin no matter how much Bitcoin developers try to claim otherwise, then Bitshares 2.0 will find it's niche.

I think Bitshares 2.0 has plenty of opportunities in the ATM market, the exchange sites, which will now be easy to set up and wont require regulations, the majority of exchanges host other people's money, are money transmitters, probably aren't even profitable, and they could all be convinced to switch over to Bitshares 2.0 or else lose competitive advantage.

Perhaps Shapeshift could use Bitshares 2.0 on the backend or something like Shapeshift, and then expand out from there. My opinion is Minebitshares can be leveraged.

[Ben Mason]

I agree! I'm all for patience and strategy but if the important stuff is ready, let's get more eyes on 2.0.! Thousands of devs  could suddenly be incentivised to start building interfaces.

[EstefanTT]

Completely ! 

[lil_jay890]

I was just going back over the mumble from Friday and am considering BM's comments that tweaks to the user interface would be added after the official go live.

Dan mentions that the interface would be functional but not as polished as we would all like.

My 2 cents : I think a lot is riding on this release and first impressions count, especially after 1.0.
If we could polish 2.0 enough in 1 month of full time work, my opinion is to delay the launch and release something that doesn't need tweaking. I would rather get it right first time so we set the expectation that bitshares is crypto that just works.

Interested to hear others thoughts.

I sort of agree with this. Delay the initial release or don't set any deadline. Make sure the interface is top notch, not just fully functional.

Bitshares 1.0 works just fine, and while we all want Bitshares 2.0, it's not like most of us are demanding it before November. In terms of interface development, compared to all the really hard work, the interface is relatively easy. It's time consuming, but it's easy.

What ever happened to that team that asked for money in a donation a while back promising Moonstone?

The GUI is probably the least important part of the release since there will be third party developers building their own wallets/interfaces.  I don't think it's wise to delay the project until November because the GUI isn't polished, especially when other projects are waiting on the graphene release.

[luckybit]

I was just going back over the mumble from Friday and am considering BM's comments that tweaks to the user interface would be added after the official go live.

Dan mentions that the interface would be functional but not as polished as we would all like.

My 2 cents : I think a lot is riding on this release and first impressions count, especially after 1.0.
If we could polish 2.0 enough in 1 month of full time work, my opinion is to delay the launch and release something that doesn't need tweaking. I would rather get it right first time so we set the expectation that bitshares is crypto that just works.

Interested to hear others thoughts.

I sort of agree with this. Delay the initial release or don't set any deadline. Make sure the interface is top notch, not just fully functional.

Bitshares 1.0 works just fine, and while we all want Bitshares 2.0, it's not like most of us are demanding it before November. In terms of interface development, compared to all the really hard work, the interface is relatively easy. It's time consuming, but it's easy.

What ever happened to that team that asked for money in a donation a while back promising Moonstone?

[Pheonike]

Ethereum is not ready for the masses. It's an alpha release for developers. Would not call that an end-user release.

[lil_jay890]

I guess it depends upon the nature of the polishing. I don't think it has to be perfect, but it shouldn't be released until it works and looks professional enough to compete with the likes of ethereumm and ripple.

From the screenshots BM provided, I think it looks good. My only point is, after waiting this long I would rather make sure we get it right. We've gotta get this right first time IMO

Does ethereum even have a gui?

[mike623317]

I guess it depends upon the nature of the polishing. I don't think it has to be perfect, but it shouldn't be released until it works and looks professional enough to compete with the likes of ethereumm and ripple.

From the screenshots BM provided, I think it looks good. My only point is, after waiting this long I would rather make sure we get it right. We've gotta get this right first time IMO

[Empirical1.2]

Provided BitAssets 2.0 and the referral system are ready to go, I would probably get it out there.
(They might need some tweaks of their own within the first month too anyway.)

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

Well.. if you saw the other thread of the current voting area for 2.0 I think the idea of tweaking needs to be relative to what will likely be a quantum leap from where we are now.

I think once testnet comes out we are going to really understand how far along things are.. but tweaking to me meant little improvements.. not major overhaul stuff.

[mike623317]

I was just going back over the mumble from Friday and am considering BM's comments that tweaks to the user interface would be added after the official go live.

Dan mentions that the interface would be functional but not as polished as we would all like.

My 2 cents : I think a lot is riding on this release and first impressions count, especially after 1.0.
If we could polish 2.0 enough in 1 month of full time work, my opinion is to delay the launch and release something that doesn't need tweaking. I would rather get it right first time so we set the expectation that bitshares is crypto that just works.

Interested to hear others thoughts.