how MineBitShares works? worth 7 100% delegate???

[sudo]

use bts‘s  100% delegate income to  pay  POW miners,more high than direct pow altcoins
precious bitUSD!!!
do not forget there still    58,217.5892  overdue bitUSD  short orders  can't  cover

[sudo]

look at  LimeWallet   that is user needed

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,17900.0.html
android &ios mobile  bts wallet apps

[sudo]

see  what  giantcrab did  ：bitCNY gateway！！！！
and now  bitUSD is on sale  on weidian app

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18283.msg233818.html#msg233818
TRANFUND - a fund for running BitCNY gateway
provide liquid  for bitCNY

[santaclause102]

Whatever % of this or that he gives now will be different after 2.0 comes out because we don't know exactly how 2.0 will change the metrics, so he can't give an exact number until 2.0 comes out. How hard is that to understand??? Anything given now is an estimate based on how 1.0 would perform with new features.

How would 2.0 chance that?

[Pheonike]

Whatever % of this or that he gives now will be different after 2.0 comes out because we don't know exactly how 2.0 will change the metrics, so he can't give an exact number until 2.0 comes out. How hard is that to understand??? Anything given now is an estimate based on how 1.0 would perform with new features.

[santaclause102]

You said this

Without getting into specific breakdowns, the answer implies that not 100% goes to the referring miner. It is obviously in our interest to want to have the refer be attractive, but in order to generate a margin in order to maintain payouts and bonuses that are competitive we need this as another source. We still don't know what the metrics will be like after 2.0 launch. So until then, I can't even give an accurate breakdown of what % of refer bonus makes it viable to the pool. It is just one source of potential income as another way to squeeze profits out of the pool for bonuses without a network fee.

I simply don't understand what you are saying there! A plain straightforward answer, is that that difficult?

Apparently it is.

Why don't you tell me specifically you don't understand from this so we can get some traction on what you are trying to get at?

Please also refer to some of my other recent posts in this thread... maybe there is some gold'en nugget I worded in some way that will make more sense for you.

I didn't find an answer in there to my question "who gets the profits if any are made?".Just an example: "It is obviously in our interest to want to have the refer be attractive, but in order to generate a margin in order to maintain payouts and bonuses that are competitive we need this as another source" <- I just don't know what you are saying I broke this question up into a set of more detailed questions here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18362.msg235704.html#msg235704
An answer could look something like this:

-  I need x amount to deliver (of that x, y is paid to me, w is paid to server costs, z is paid to hired developers).
-  All of the profits made from the service I want to deliver is paid back to BTS holders OR r % is going to me and t % to BTS holders OR I see the delegate pay as a kickstarter for a net positive service for BTS holders and all profits will go to me.
-  In case I can not acquire the necessary x amount to deliver the service I propose I will give everything back to BTS holders (burn it) OR I will finance the rest out of my own pocket and therefore adjust the distribution of the profits.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

You said this

Without getting into specific breakdowns, the answer implies that not 100% goes to the referring miner. It is obviously in our interest to want to have the refer be attractive, but in order to generate a margin in order to maintain payouts and bonuses that are competitive we need this as another source. We still don't know what the metrics will be like after 2.0 launch. So until then, I can't even give an accurate breakdown of what % of refer bonus makes it viable to the pool. It is just one source of potential income as another way to squeeze profits out of the pool for bonuses without a network fee.

I simply don't understand what you are saying there! A plain straightforward answer, is that that difficult?

Apparently it is.

Why don't you tell me specifically you don't understand from this so we can get some traction on what you are trying to get at?

Please also refer to some of my other recent posts in this thread... maybe there is some gold'en nugget I worded in some way that will make more sense for you.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

I have said this several times over but I am guessing people are set in their own perceptions and opinions of what is actually happening in the market so I will say it again for clarify.

Well you could use hard numbers and put them in one place and reference that. Thats what would shut-up guys like me.

It took me quite a long time to come up with this plan, primarily because I identified all the same old things that have been mentioned by gamey regarding coins, miners etc.

This is why the only solution is innovation

I wish I could go into this in my details right now but I am piled on with work atm.

Answering once in concise answers is all you need to do.

Most innovation is going to come from a client that switches GPUs to the most profitable coin. This requires a client-side aspect. Other innovation is that fact you pay out in bitassets?

Bottom line.. initially our first phases does operate with the expectation to attract existing miners.

It would be foolish to think that you'll have phases to bring in *new* miners. All the spergs have been spent. Maybe some kids running GPUs off their parents electrical bill will enter the market.

Following this though, we begin to reach beyond the mining community and then get into expanding into new markets.

What are these "new markets" ? I don't want to come across as a big asshole but your answers serve up more questions from me than they answer.

The only way to do that is to make mining more accessible. Some operations in the past have done this successfully. They attracted miners far beyond the current scope, but operated on a faulty business model and bad management that resulted in their closure.

Which pools? Mining more accessible? What do you mean accessible? It is all cli and tweaking out weird parameters few understand. You think you'll inspire people to enter the mining game in this day and age with your pool? The pool I worked on had a frontend client that polled an API for profitability and could switch between mining software. I'm sure even if it got working, it would have been a lot of work for the miners.

The launch of ethereum has gotten people pulling out their old GPUs again..

Also it was mentioned we don't support sha256.. that's right.. we don't at present.. part of the updates being done right now that these delegates are paying for will include supporting sha256 among other algos that are actually worth working with contrary to the believe. Not all profitably in mining takes place on coinmarketcap. Actually some of the best opportunities often are not there.

I know other algos are worth working on, but in terms of actual mining $$ volume, BTC clobbers them all. In terms of how to make your GPU profitable, all those other algos are needed.

Anyways.. I could go on but the point is.. there is a much bigger market we are expanding into.. and with that I found the possibility to move forward.. otherwise.. I would have folded probably after the 1st month and just shut down the pool.

What is this 'bigger market'? I read your proposal and a lot of the thread, but I missed something.

I have asked this question before and I will ask it again... by not wanting to support all these delegates so we can get the dev done and create a sustainable pool that grows bitshares.. the alternative is just to stop it dead.. shut it down.. and kill all the delegates instantly. Ask yourselves.. will that be of more benefit to bitshares than what this is offering? I think the numbers shout a resounding no.

What numbers? And there is another side, and that is could the $ be spent better otherwise which requires a second set of numbers.

As the delegate dropping out.. that has been happening for days now. It happens everytime Chinese markets open.. what I think it says is that there are Chinese who are opening their wallets now that were not before and are not updating their vote. The trend has been pretty consistent like that.

I'll drop it after this post and hope to see some enlightening answers. I have nothing against you or the project. I just see all the delegates and have thought about this area a lot in the past. I am a bit skeptical. Since volume is definitely needed, it is easy to fall back as the main reason. Yet it also should be something easy to quantify.

You say you've considered everything I say then answer with a solution of innovation but where have you specified that innovation? If it is somewhere else, just post a link to it.

I think you are over analyzing it ( and/or asking for too much... so much   he can say something he do not want to!)
The problem is  - he is building a private pool with BTS (read mine and yours money). All economic inefficiencies can be overcome (paid for) with other peoples money. All those are no biggies if you pay for the software development and subsidizing the miners profit with BTS funds ...and after 2.0 comes around he can pocket all referral fees(among other mays of monetizing the pool).

What I am saying is - later on he will let BTS benefit from the pool....well benefit 20% from it. Pocketing the 80% for himself and being paid upfront for the expenses by the 'main' (but actual 20%) beneficiaries.

PS
 Actually it is not a bad deal for 7-8 delegates. We could have selected 3-4 bit/road*scape pairs of delegates and could have gotten nothing! And I mean nothing! Not even an useless video. So, all is relative.

I had actually answered this question in regards to the refer program a while back and referenced it again.

However your characterization of me or my ethical and moral disposition here are not warranted. I have been one of the most transparent, open, and upfront delegate of all delegates. I don't hide behind aliases, everyone knows who I am, and my business for years has been operating in various positions of trust and reliability.

BTS is benefiting NOW.. and has been for months since I have taken over the pool and prior. Investing a little bit into it so it can produce more benefits and become self sustaining is just good sense.

BTS will continue to benefit in the future that way.

I have already stated that the refer program will be used to help with the network effect to attract new miners.

This means that IF 80% in fees are collected (which is an exaggeration actually).. a good portion of that goes to the referrers while the other portion has to be divided between bonuses to help maintain pool profitability, and all the other expenses in maintaining and developing the pool. Specifics on how much that works out to are going to depend on a lot of factors that are not yet clear UNTIL we are in 2.0. Characterizing it as some kind of raw deal for BTS though is just plain false.

I appreciate the 'not a bad deal' comment though... that's very true.

[santaclause102]

I have said this several times over but I am guessing people are set in their own perceptions and opinions of what is actually happening in the market so I will say it again for clarify.

It took me quite a long time to come up with this plan, primarily because I identified all the same old things that have been mentioned by gamey regarding coins, miners etc.

This is why the only solution is innovation

I wish I could go into this in my details right now but I am piled on with work atm.

Bottom line.. initially our first phases does operate with the expectation to attract existing miners.

Following this though, we begin to reach beyond the mining community and then get into expanding into new markets.

The only way to do that is to make mining more accessible. Some operations in the past have done this successfully. They attracted miners far beyond the current scope, but operated on a faulty business model and bad management that resulted in their closure.

The launch of ethereum has gotten people pulling out their old GPUs again..

Also it was mentioned we don't support sha256.. that's right.. we don't at present.. part of the updates being done right now that these delegates are paying for will include supporting sha256 among other algos that are actually worth working with contrary to the believe. Not all profitably in mining takes place on coinmarketcap. Actually some of the best opportunities often are not there.

Anyways.. I could go on but the point is.. there is a much bigger market we are expanding into.. and with that I found the possibility to move forward.. otherwise.. I would have folded probably after the 1st month and just shut down the pool.

I have asked this question before and I will ask it again... by not wanting to support all these delegates so we can get the dev done and create a sustainable pool that grows bitshares.. the alternative is just to stop it dead.. shut it down.. and kill all the delegates instantly. Ask yourselves.. will that be of more benefit to bitshares than what this is offering? I think the numbers shout a resounding no.

As the delegate dropping out.. that has been happening for days now. It happens everytime Chinese markets open.. what I think it says is that there are Chinese who are opening their wallets now that were not before and are not updating their vote. The trend has been pretty consistent like that.

What are these markets you mentioned?

You may also be inspired by this:

I still think that it would be reasonable to point out whether profits (if any are made) will go to you or to BTS holders. I think that IN GENERAL delegate proposals are WAY TO VAUGUE. A delegate proposal imo should look like this:
-  I need x amount to deliver (of that x, y is paid to me, w is paid to server costs, z is paid to hired developers).
-  All of the profits made from the service I want to deliver is paid back to BTS holders OR r % is going to me and t % to BTS holders OR I see the delegate pay as a kickstarter for a net positive service for BTS holders and all profits will go to me.
-  In case I can not acquire the necessary x amount to deliver the service I propose I will give everything back to BTS holders (burn it) OR I will finance the rest out of my own pocket and therefore adjust the distribution of the profits.
Naturally these numbers can only be estimates.

I can't say whether you ignored the question about where profits go but you def. haven't answered it despite all the long answers you gave.

This is the 3rd time I am now referencing you to my answer here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18253.msg233626.html#msg233626

It's a paragraph.. wouldn't call that long.

You said this

Without getting into specific breakdowns, the answer implies that not 100% goes to the referring miner. It is obviously in our interest to want to have the refer be attractive, but in order to generate a margin in order to maintain payouts and bonuses that are competitive we need this as another source. We still don't know what the metrics will be like after 2.0 launch. So until then, I can't even give an accurate breakdown of what % of refer bonus makes it viable to the pool. It is just one source of potential income as another way to squeeze profits out of the pool for bonuses without a network fee.

I simply don't understand what you are saying there! A plain straightforward answer, is that that difficult?

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

I have said this several times over but I am guessing people are set in their own perceptions and opinions of what is actually happening in the market so I will say it again for clarify.

Well you could use hard numbers and put them in one place and reference that. Thats what would shut-up guys like me.

It took me quite a long time to come up with this plan, primarily because I identified all the same old things that have been mentioned by gamey regarding coins, miners etc.

This is why the only solution is innovation

I wish I could go into this in my details right now but I am piled on with work atm.

Answering once in concise answers is all you need to do.

Most innovation is going to come from a client that switches GPUs to the most profitable coin. This requires a client-side aspect. Other innovation is that fact you pay out in bitassets?

Bottom line.. initially our first phases does operate with the expectation to attract existing miners.

It would be foolish to think that you'll have phases to bring in *new* miners. All the spergs have been spent. Maybe some kids running GPUs off their parents electrical bill will enter the market.

Following this though, we begin to reach beyond the mining community and then get into expanding into new markets.

What are these "new markets" ? I don't want to come across as a big asshole but your answers serve up more questions from me than they answer.

The only way to do that is to make mining more accessible. Some operations in the past have done this successfully. They attracted miners far beyond the current scope, but operated on a faulty business model and bad management that resulted in their closure.

Which pools? Mining more accessible? What do you mean accessible? It is all cli and tweaking out weird parameters few understand. You think you'll inspire people to enter the mining game in this day and age with your pool? The pool I worked on had a frontend client that polled an API for profitability and could switch between mining software. I'm sure even if it got working, it would have been a lot of work for the miners.

The launch of ethereum has gotten people pulling out their old GPUs again..

Also it was mentioned we don't support sha256.. that's right.. we don't at present.. part of the updates being done right now that these delegates are paying for will include supporting sha256 among other algos that are actually worth working with contrary to the believe. Not all profitably in mining takes place on coinmarketcap. Actually some of the best opportunities often are not there.

I know other algos are worth working on, but in terms of actual mining $$ volume, BTC clobbers them all. In terms of how to make your GPU profitable, all those other algos are needed.

Anyways.. I could go on but the point is.. there is a much bigger market we are expanding into.. and with that I found the possibility to move forward.. otherwise.. I would have folded probably after the 1st month and just shut down the pool.

What is this 'bigger market'? I read your proposal and a lot of the thread, but I missed something.

I have asked this question before and I will ask it again... by not wanting to support all these delegates so we can get the dev done and create a sustainable pool that grows bitshares.. the alternative is just to stop it dead.. shut it down.. and kill all the delegates instantly. Ask yourselves.. will that be of more benefit to bitshares than what this is offering? I think the numbers shout a resounding no.

What numbers? And there is another side, and that is could the $ be spent better otherwise which requires a second set of numbers.

As the delegate dropping out.. that has been happening for days now. It happens everytime Chinese markets open.. what I think it says is that there are Chinese who are opening their wallets now that were not before and are not updating their vote. The trend has been pretty consistent like that.

I'll drop it after this post and hope to see some enlightening answers. I have nothing against you or the project. I just see all the delegates and have thought about this area a lot in the past. I am a bit skeptical. Since volume is definitely needed, it is easy to fall back as the main reason. Yet it also should be something easy to quantify.

You say you've considered everything I say then answer with a solution of innovation but where have you specified that innovation? If it is somewhere else, just post a link to it.

I have referenced the links several times in this thread. Here is the #s one specifically https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18253.0.html

As for the rest.. this is a public forum.. I have pretty much told in regards to our market approach at later stages as much as is safe to say without totally pooching the opportunity for the pools mover advantage. Remember when cob jumped the gun and posted their plans on peertracks and how it would operate and quickly removed them because it could easily blow their opportunity? Similar situation.

I been up front on everything we are doing with development, features, benefits, and plans to grow in the early stages for the foreseeable future. Anything with plans further out are too far to reveal now, and have zero impact on any of the current delegate support being given at this stage. It's like asking Tesla to show you their 2025 model right after they showed you whats coming in their 2016.

Fact is our current support will either stop in a month, or take on a new form. So I can only speak to what we are doing right now. Which is to deliver on development to Phase 2 for the pool.. and grow it out so we get more liquidity to the markets, more volume, and more users/miners.

Regardless of this point, the present mining market makes up over 500 BTC a day (all algos). I have said before our plan is to capture just 10% of that. Reliability, consistent payouts, profitability, and innovation are key factors. I do not expect to accomplish this with Phase 2 alone. I think we will have done well if we achieve 2% at that stage actually. That's roughly 300 BTC a month being brought into the bitasset markets for the cost of roughly 18 BTC one time.

In-between Phase 2 & 3 we are implementing our own wallet and promoting the refer program. Other programs that were ponzis basically attempted to introduce refer by way of giving a % of what was mined by the refer to them. That doesn't work.

We are going to utilize the refer program as a means to create network effect for the pool. I will go on about that in another post in this thread so I am answering someone elses at the same time.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

a user-friendly mobile bts wallet app  can Attract and retain more user  than mine BitUSD
a pc light wallet also needed

Awesome.. find me a dev team that will get that done for 16 BTC a month.

Moonstone took in $36k USD.

I am working with  less than 10% of that budget.

You are already on the hook to pay back everyone that contributed to that according to the terms of the crowdfund.

I don't think it's sensible to be directing funds to another such project at this time.

Also.. no liquidity created. It would be paid for double in refer bonuses paid out to the mobile app maker by bitshare holders regardless of what kind of volume is generated by users.

This is not as much about users but volume support for all bitasset markets to help make them more liquid in these early stages.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

How much is the daily payout now, it used to be only 2,000 BTS per day back in January/February, and looking at the current stats http://pool.minebitshares.com/workers there just aren't that many actual workers mining.

what is the daily payout on this mining pool right now?

2000 BTS on average...

Last nights payout was roughly $139 bitUSD for the day.

Actually thats up from previous days. Shortly after the announcement about Oct 13.. we started getting mined more... by 50% over the typical performance in the past week. We have had some days where we paid out over $300 bitUSD.

This is no indication of what the actual volumes we can achieve after we complete our dev. Overall volume hovers around $4000 bitUSD per month in the pools present state. We want plan to ramp that up to per day once we have the new pool that will deliver the features needed.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

I have said this several times over but I am guessing people are set in their own perceptions and opinions of what is actually happening in the market so I will say it again for clarify.

It took me quite a long time to come up with this plan, primarily because I identified all the same old things that have been mentioned by gamey regarding coins, miners etc.

This is why the only solution is innovation

I wish I could go into this in my details right now but I am piled on with work atm.

Bottom line.. initially our first phases does operate with the expectation to attract existing miners.

Following this though, we begin to reach beyond the mining community and then get into expanding into new markets.

The only way to do that is to make mining more accessible. Some operations in the past have done this successfully. They attracted miners far beyond the current scope, but operated on a faulty business model and bad management that resulted in their closure.

The launch of ethereum has gotten people pulling out their old GPUs again..

Also it was mentioned we don't support sha256.. that's right.. we don't at present.. part of the updates being done right now that these delegates are paying for will include supporting sha256 among other algos that are actually worth working with contrary to the believe. Not all profitably in mining takes place on coinmarketcap. Actually some of the best opportunities often are not there.

Anyways.. I could go on but the point is.. there is a much bigger market we are expanding into.. and with that I found the possibility to move forward.. otherwise.. I would have folded probably after the 1st month and just shut down the pool.

I have asked this question before and I will ask it again... by not wanting to support all these delegates so we can get the dev done and create a sustainable pool that grows bitshares.. the alternative is just to stop it dead.. shut it down.. and kill all the delegates instantly. Ask yourselves.. will that be of more benefit to bitshares than what this is offering? I think the numbers shout a resounding no.

As the delegate dropping out.. that has been happening for days now. It happens everytime Chinese markets open.. what I think it says is that there are Chinese who are opening their wallets now that were not before and are not updating their vote. The trend has been pretty consistent like that.

What are these markets you mentioned?

You may also be inspired by this:

I still think that it would be reasonable to point out whether profits (if any are made) will go to you or to BTS holders. I think that IN GENERAL delegate proposals are WAY TO VAUGUE. A delegate proposal imo should look like this:
-  I need x amount to deliver (of that x, y is paid to me, w is paid to server costs, z is paid to hired developers).
-  All of the profits made from the service I want to deliver is paid back to BTS holders OR r % is going to me and t % to BTS holders OR I see the delegate pay as a kickstarter for a net positive service for BTS holders and all profits will go to me.
-  In case I can not acquire the necessary x amount to deliver the service I propose I will give everything back to BTS holders (burn it) OR I will finance the rest out of my own pocket and therefore adjust the distribution of the profits.
Naturally these numbers can only be estimates.

I can't say whether you ignored the question about where profits go but you def. haven't answered it despite all the long answers you gave.

This is the 3rd time I am now referencing you to my answer here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18253.msg233626.html#msg233626

It's a paragraph.. wouldn't call that long.

[tonyk]

I have said this several times over but I am guessing people are set in their own perceptions and opinions of what is actually happening in the market so I will say it again for clarify.

Well you could use hard numbers and put them in one place and reference that. Thats what would shut-up guys like me.

It took me quite a long time to come up with this plan, primarily because I identified all the same old things that have been mentioned by gamey regarding coins, miners etc.

This is why the only solution is innovation

I wish I could go into this in my details right now but I am piled on with work atm.

Answering once in concise answers is all you need to do.

Most innovation is going to come from a client that switches GPUs to the most profitable coin. This requires a client-side aspect. Other innovation is that fact you pay out in bitassets?

Bottom line.. initially our first phases does operate with the expectation to attract existing miners.

It would be foolish to think that you'll have phases to bring in *new* miners. All the spergs have been spent. Maybe some kids running GPUs off their parents electrical bill will enter the market.

Following this though, we begin to reach beyond the mining community and then get into expanding into new markets.

What are these "new markets" ? I don't want to come across as a big asshole but your answers serve up more questions from me than they answer.

The only way to do that is to make mining more accessible. Some operations in the past have done this successfully. They attracted miners far beyond the current scope, but operated on a faulty business model and bad management that resulted in their closure.

Which pools? Mining more accessible? What do you mean accessible? It is all cli and tweaking out weird parameters few understand. You think you'll inspire people to enter the mining game in this day and age with your pool? The pool I worked on had a frontend client that polled an API for profitability and could switch between mining software. I'm sure even if it got working, it would have been a lot of work for the miners.

The launch of ethereum has gotten people pulling out their old GPUs again..

Also it was mentioned we don't support sha256.. that's right.. we don't at present.. part of the updates being done right now that these delegates are paying for will include supporting sha256 among other algos that are actually worth working with contrary to the believe. Not all profitably in mining takes place on coinmarketcap. Actually some of the best opportunities often are not there.

I know other algos are worth working on, but in terms of actual mining $$ volume, BTC clobbers them all. In terms of how to make your GPU profitable, all those other algos are needed.

Anyways.. I could go on but the point is.. there is a much bigger market we are expanding into.. and with that I found the possibility to move forward.. otherwise.. I would have folded probably after the 1st month and just shut down the pool.

What is this 'bigger market'? I read your proposal and a lot of the thread, but I missed something.

I have asked this question before and I will ask it again... by not wanting to support all these delegates so we can get the dev done and create a sustainable pool that grows bitshares.. the alternative is just to stop it dead.. shut it down.. and kill all the delegates instantly. Ask yourselves.. will that be of more benefit to bitshares than what this is offering? I think the numbers shout a resounding no.

What numbers? And there is another side, and that is could the $ be spent better otherwise which requires a second set of numbers.

As the delegate dropping out.. that has been happening for days now. It happens everytime Chinese markets open.. what I think it says is that there are Chinese who are opening their wallets now that were not before and are not updating their vote. The trend has been pretty consistent like that.

I'll drop it after this post and hope to see some enlightening answers. I have nothing against you or the project. I just see all the delegates and have thought about this area a lot in the past. I am a bit skeptical. Since volume is definitely needed, it is easy to fall back as the main reason. Yet it also should be something easy to quantify.

You say you've considered everything I say then answer with a solution of innovation but where have you specified that innovation? If it is somewhere else, just post a link to it.

I think you are over analyzing it ( and/or asking for too much... so much   he can say something he do not want to!)
The problem is  - he is building a private pool with BTS (read mine and yours money). All economic inefficiencies can be overcome (paid for) with other peoples money. All those are no biggies if you pay for the software development and subsidizing the miners profit with BTS funds ...and after 2.0 comes around he can pocket all referral fees(among other mays of monetizing the pool).

What I am saying is - later on he will let BTS benefit from the pool....well benefit 20% from it. Pocketing the 80% for himself and being paid upfront for the expenses by the 'main' (but actual 20%) beneficiaries.

PS
 Actually it is not a bad deal for 7-8 delegates. We could have selected 3-4 bit/road*scape pairs of delegates and could have gotten nothing! And I mean nothing! Not even an useless video. So, all is relative.

[gamey]

I have said this several times over but I am guessing people are set in their own perceptions and opinions of what is actually happening in the market so I will say it again for clarify.

Well you could use hard numbers and put them in one place and reference that. Thats what would shut-up guys like me.

It took me quite a long time to come up with this plan, primarily because I identified all the same old things that have been mentioned by gamey regarding coins, miners etc.

This is why the only solution is innovation

I wish I could go into this in my details right now but I am piled on with work atm.

Answering once in concise answers is all you need to do.

Most innovation is going to come from a client that switches GPUs to the most profitable coin. This requires a client-side aspect. Other innovation is that fact you pay out in bitassets?

Bottom line.. initially our first phases does operate with the expectation to attract existing miners.

It would be foolish to think that you'll have phases to bring in *new* miners. All the spergs have been spent. Maybe some kids running GPUs off their parents electrical bill will enter the market.

Following this though, we begin to reach beyond the mining community and then get into expanding into new markets.

What are these "new markets" ? I don't want to come across as a big asshole but your answers serve up more questions from me than they answer.

The only way to do that is to make mining more accessible. Some operations in the past have done this successfully. They attracted miners far beyond the current scope, but operated on a faulty business model and bad management that resulted in their closure.

Which pools? Mining more accessible? What do you mean accessible? It is all cli and tweaking out weird parameters few understand. You think you'll inspire people to enter the mining game in this day and age with your pool? The pool I worked on had a frontend client that polled an API for profitability and could switch between mining software. I'm sure even if it got working, it would have been a lot of work for the miners.

The launch of ethereum has gotten people pulling out their old GPUs again..

Also it was mentioned we don't support sha256.. that's right.. we don't at present.. part of the updates being done right now that these delegates are paying for will include supporting sha256 among other algos that are actually worth working with contrary to the believe. Not all profitably in mining takes place on coinmarketcap. Actually some of the best opportunities often are not there.

I know other algos are worth working on, but in terms of actual mining $$ volume, BTC clobbers them all. In terms of how to make your GPU profitable, all those other algos are needed.

Anyways.. I could go on but the point is.. there is a much bigger market we are expanding into.. and with that I found the possibility to move forward.. otherwise.. I would have folded probably after the 1st month and just shut down the pool.

What is this 'bigger market'? I read your proposal and a lot of the thread, but I missed something.

I have asked this question before and I will ask it again... by not wanting to support all these delegates so we can get the dev done and create a sustainable pool that grows bitshares.. the alternative is just to stop it dead.. shut it down.. and kill all the delegates instantly. Ask yourselves.. will that be of more benefit to bitshares than what this is offering? I think the numbers shout a resounding no.

What numbers? And there is another side, and that is could the $ be spent better otherwise which requires a second set of numbers.

As the delegate dropping out.. that has been happening for days now. It happens everytime Chinese markets open.. what I think it says is that there are Chinese who are opening their wallets now that were not before and are not updating their vote. The trend has been pretty consistent like that.

I'll drop it after this post and hope to see some enlightening answers. I have nothing against you or the project. I just see all the delegates and have thought about this area a lot in the past. I am a bit skeptical. Since volume is definitely needed, it is easy to fall back as the main reason. Yet it also should be something easy to quantify.

You say you've considered everything I say then answer with a solution of innovation but where have you specified that innovation? If it is somewhere else, just post a link to it.

[NewMine]

But if they can't acquire and use bitassests because of low liquidity why would they stay?

[Serious]
Is Liquidity really that dependent on minebitshares?  Can anyone provide the daily minebitshares* bitUSD totals vs. entire market daily totals?

*Let's not cherry pick one day, let's get an average.

[mint chocolate chip]

How much is the daily payout now, it used to be only 2,000 BTS per day back in January/February, and looking at the current stats http://pool.minebitshares.com/workers there just aren't that many actual workers mining.

what is the daily payout on this mining pool right now?

2000 BTS on average...

[santaclause102]

I have said this several times over but I am guessing people are set in their own perceptions and opinions of what is actually happening in the market so I will say it again for clarify.

It took me quite a long time to come up with this plan, primarily because I identified all the same old things that have been mentioned by gamey regarding coins, miners etc.

This is why the only solution is innovation

I wish I could go into this in my details right now but I am piled on with work atm.

Bottom line.. initially our first phases does operate with the expectation to attract existing miners.

Following this though, we begin to reach beyond the mining community and then get into expanding into new markets.

The only way to do that is to make mining more accessible. Some operations in the past have done this successfully. They attracted miners far beyond the current scope, but operated on a faulty business model and bad management that resulted in their closure.

The launch of ethereum has gotten people pulling out their old GPUs again..

Also it was mentioned we don't support sha256.. that's right.. we don't at present.. part of the updates being done right now that these delegates are paying for will include supporting sha256 among other algos that are actually worth working with contrary to the believe. Not all profitably in mining takes place on coinmarketcap. Actually some of the best opportunities often are not there.

Anyways.. I could go on but the point is.. there is a much bigger market we are expanding into.. and with that I found the possibility to move forward.. otherwise.. I would have folded probably after the 1st month and just shut down the pool.

I have asked this question before and I will ask it again... by not wanting to support all these delegates so we can get the dev done and create a sustainable pool that grows bitshares.. the alternative is just to stop it dead.. shut it down.. and kill all the delegates instantly. Ask yourselves.. will that be of more benefit to bitshares than what this is offering? I think the numbers shout a resounding no.

As the delegate dropping out.. that has been happening for days now. It happens everytime Chinese markets open.. what I think it says is that there are Chinese who are opening their wallets now that were not before and are not updating their vote. The trend has been pretty consistent like that.

What are these markets you mentioned?

You may also be inspired by this:

I still think that it would be reasonable to point out whether profits (if any are made) will go to you or to BTS holders. I think that IN GENERAL delegate proposals are WAY TO VAUGUE. A delegate proposal imo should look like this:
-  I need x amount to deliver (of that x, y is paid to me, w is paid to server costs, z is paid to hired developers).
-  All of the profits made from the service I want to deliver is paid back to BTS holders OR r % is going to me and t % to BTS holders OR I see the delegate pay as a kickstarter for a net positive service for BTS holders and all profits will go to me.
-  In case I can not acquire the necessary x amount to deliver the service I propose I will give everything back to BTS holders (burn it) OR I will finance the rest out of my own pocket and therefore adjust the distribution of the profits.
Naturally these numbers can only be estimates.

I can't say whether you ignored the question about where profits go but you def. haven't answered it despite all the long answers you gave.

[Pheonike]

But if they can't acquire and use bitassests because of low liquidity why would they stay?

[sudo]

a user-friendly mobile bts wallet app  can Attract and retain more user  than mine BitUSD
a pc light wallet also needed

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

I have said this several times over but I am guessing people are set in their own perceptions and opinions of what is actually happening in the market so I will say it again for clarify.

It took me quite a long time to come up with this plan, primarily because I identified all the same old things that have been mentioned by gamey regarding coins, miners etc.

This is why the only solution is innovation

I wish I could go into this in my details right now but I am piled on with work atm.

Bottom line.. initially our first phases does operate with the expectation to attract existing miners.

Following this though, we begin to reach beyond the mining community and then get into expanding into new markets.

The only way to do that is to make mining more accessible. Some operations in the past have done this successfully. They attracted miners far beyond the current scope, but operated on a faulty business model and bad management that resulted in their closure.

The launch of ethereum has gotten people pulling out their old GPUs again..

Also it was mentioned we don't support sha256.. that's right.. we don't at present.. part of the updates being done right now that these delegates are paying for will include supporting sha256 among other algos that are actually worth working with contrary to the believe. Not all profitably in mining takes place on coinmarketcap. Actually some of the best opportunities often are not there.

Anyways.. I could go on but the point is.. there is a much bigger market we are expanding into.. and with that I found the possibility to move forward.. otherwise.. I would have folded probably after the 1st month and just shut down the pool.

I have asked this question before and I will ask it again... by not wanting to support all these delegates so we can get the dev done and create a sustainable pool that grows bitshares.. the alternative is just to stop it dead.. shut it down.. and kill all the delegates instantly. Ask yourselves.. will that be of more benefit to bitshares than what this is offering? I think the numbers shout a resounding no.

As the delegate dropping out.. that has been happening for days now. It happens everytime Chinese markets open.. what I think it says is that there are Chinese who are opening their wallets now that were not before and are not updating their vote. The trend has been pretty consistent like that.

[Empirical1.2]

1 of the MineBitShares delegates has been voted out, seems shareholders have chosen to upvote a dead delegate as a stop gap measure, that's saying something. 

[Tuck Fheman]

The people building the destination for your bicycle route make 1/8 what you are getting.

This is my concern with the # of delegates.

There are a lot of people working with Beyond Bitcoin (and I'm sure they're not alone) right now off of 1 delegates pay split among all of them.

There are others working with Beyond Bitcoin that rely on donations from other delegates because there's not enough to go around with only 1 delegate.

The work/content (they get this small portion of delegate pay for) is posted publicly and quickly where all can see, free of charge (outside of 1 delegates pay split among them all).

Each week I would surmise that everyone contributing to the Beyond Bitcoin Hangouts puts in 10+ hours of their time while receiving approximately 4500 BTS (best guess).

Currently, as far as I can tell, Beyond Bitcoin is one of the premier destinations outside of this forum for everything BitShares.

It's a finished product that's been producing for quite some time and all while on 1 delegate.

If people want to know what's going on, they go to BeyondBitcoin.org and listen to the Hangouts or read the transcripts (or try to find it here).

But here's the kicker. If that 1 delegate got voted out, I bet nothing would change. Beyond Bitcoin Hangouts would continue and everyone would just "make do" (I'm learning old skool english phrases).

I'm simply more willing to pay those kind of people, who produce a known beneficial product quickly no matter what pay they receive, versus paying another group that will only produce an unproven future product if they receive nearly 7-8% of all delegate pay in the entire ecosystem.

That's just my opinion.

[santaclause102]

As for Delulo.. he sent me a personal IM apologizing and letting me know that he had not seen my post prior to him making that post a few hours afterwards and told me that was not his intentions. I accepted his apology. Had he seen it he would have paused before jumping the gun on conclusions without information. Nonetheless we explored all the benefits extensively.

That sounds like I took back my content related criticism. I said " sorry if you felt like I intentionally did this before your update".

Here is the message I sent to Jonathan (Datasecuritynode) (contains what I already said elsewhere on this forum in condensed form):

non of all that was ever personal in any way. Hope it came across like that.
I just want all projects to be explicit and upfront with all the financial issues.
Is it a private for profit business that is financed by public funds etc? Such questions will come up anyway at some point if the business is successfull and if these questions were not answered right at the beginning in a prominent way, visible to all than that creates trouble for DPOS as an idea, for you as your reputation might suffer and for BTS holders because they might have assumed something else etc. I am just afraid that if we don't establish a public scrutiny / due diligence culture DPOS in general works a lot less well.
I am sorry if you felt like I intentionally did this before your update. I had no about about your update or your sleep schedule

I still think that it would be reasonable to point out whether profits (if any are made) will go to you or to BTS holders. I think that IN GENERAL delegate proposals are WAY TO VAUGUE. A delegate proposal imo should look like this:
-  I need x amount to deliver (of that x, y is paid to me, w is paid to server costs, z is paid to hired developers).
-  All of the profits made from the service I want to deliver is paid back to BTS holders OR r % is going to me and t % to BTS holders OR I see the delegate pay as a kickstarter for a net positive service for BTS holders and all profits will go to me.
-  In case I can not acquire the necessary x amount to deliver the service I propose I will give everything back to BTS holders (burn it) OR I will finance the rest out of my own pocket and therefore adjust the distribution of the profits.
Naturally these numbers can only be estimates.

I haven't seen this degree of EXPLICITNESS from anyone except PC (for a few others it is not that relevant, full time devs etc.). I pointed this out with your proposal because 7 delegates makes the above more relevant. But I would point it out with anyone else.

[gamey]

I will admit I forgot the benefit of liquidity from the project. I also admit that my needs for the mining pool project were probably higher than yours as far as userbase size. Thats not an insult.. thats just the reality of the markets outside BTC.

I was once a miner and like everyone I personally know who mined coins, I no longer do it.

I have no DPOS goggles on. To the contrary - I think Dan did a lot of great things with DPOS and the concept of partial decentralization may very well drive the next Bitcoin if and when we see one. I don't think I am blinded by any of this. From what I recall you aren't providing SHA256 mining, which along with SCRYPT are probably the only 2 worth chasing at this point. Nothing new appears on coinmarketcap at the top... just a general trend down. Mining BitUSD has a lot more appeal after people have been repeatedly hit with a decline in BTC value. BTC seems to have finally found the bottom for the time being. If that is true, then the appeal to bitUSD will be smaller and what appeal your pool has will come from the subsidizing.

I think POW is dead as far as new contender coins. It will stick around with all litecoin and BTC for the forseeable future. I don't think altcoins that are newly made to serve as a currency are going to go anywhere anytime soon except down. There will be a continued thinning of the market. That is not particularly related to blockchain technology which is just as much a computer science thing as it is a currency thing. I see them as 2 different issues. The early True Believers will always be about POW and BTC and to a lesser extent LTC.

I have no idea what you mean by "BTC bubble market outlook". The value I was referencing was that of your project. I don't think BTC will shoot up to 1k again anytime soon or drop under $200. I think it will slowly go back up, which takes the appeal of bitUSD away. I do think there was an altcoin POW bubble though and I do not believe we'll see them rising again as a general trend. Even with the big scare in China's market, BTC didn't budge much.

By shelf-life I just mean the continued downwards trend of POW based coins not including BTC/LTC.  I doubt that will change. The excitement has died off except for the most diehard of crypto-currency nerds. The market being targeted by your project has been shrinking and will continue to shrink. If you think otherwise, I personally would question your motives since I don't know you personally.

Anyway, I'm just clarifying my view since it appears I wasn't clear enough from your response.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

I tend to agree with newmine here except he is confused in his point #2 of 3.

This would have been a great idea some time ago. As it is, with BTC seeming to have hit the bottom and the halving coming in sight, the value is even more questionable. I gave up on a mining pool project, for a variety of reasons but one being the potential profits were going down considerably  and that was well over a year ago.  This is a project with a definite shelf-life.

One thing about crypto people, it is full of a lot of true believers. I wish Jonathan (?) luck but looking at this objectively it might be better to just cut one's losses.

I don't think Delulo was being underhanded, just look at the project in terms of the data available.

If you take assumptions based out of a BTC bubble market outlook everything you said would be correct.

I suggest the bubble outlook however is broken.

Without identifying the many other opportunities outside of just BTC and ignoring the many other alt coins that are introduced pretty much every quarter, this outlooks begins to falter.

I fully expect the pool to make numerous movements as the market moves in crypto.

Bytemaster in a recent hangout himself talked about how everything is moving to the blockchain. Will 'everything' immediately move to DPOS ONLY? Or is there a likelyhood that the hundreds of millions invested in various bitcoin/altcoin based projects are going to continue to use similar mining and bitcoin blockchain technology?

It's easy within the DPOS community to only look out at the future with DPOS goggles and say 'what use is mining.... we are here.. it's done'... and as much as I would like to see DPOS sweep over all others like a cleansing flood in biblical proportions, it's just not likely in reality.

This project however, enables BitShares to continue to benefit from mining.

Much needed liquidity into our markets
More volumes
Making miners BitShares users

To suggest that pooled crypto hash power has a shelf life in this early environment is a faulty assumption that like I said, is easy to have with DPOS goggles from  within our community.

It might be why a lot of the support we are getting from this community are from people who were or are miners themselves who are on the other side of the fence and can see for themselves all the benefits this brings.

As for Delulo.. he sent me a personal IM apologizing and letting me know that he had not seen my post prior to him making that post a few hours afterwards and told me that was not his intentions. I accepted his apology. Had he seen it he would have paused before jumping the gun on conclusions without information. Nonetheless we explored all the benefits extensively.

I have an exit strategy for the delegates which I have outlined in detail. In order to continue to make it sustainable and move with the market there are other elements that need to merge with mining (nice pun there) in order to make it meet the needs of the current and future markets. That might be where the 'shelf life' as noted comes into effect. The old model being shelved per/say and the new put into effect.

[Pheonike]

POW needs miners.
Miners need maximum profit.
We need liquidity.

As long as those three statements are true, minebitshares can work.

[gamey]

I tend to agree with newmine here except he is confused in his point #2 of 3.

This would have been a great idea some time ago. As it is, with BTC seeming to have hit the bottom and the halving coming in sight, the value is even more questionable. I gave up on a mining pool project, for a variety of reasons but one being the potential profits were going down considerably  and that was well over a year ago.  This is a project with a definite shelf-life.

One thing about crypto people, it is full of a lot of true believers. I wish Jonathan (?) luck but looking at this objectively it might be better to just cut one's losses.

I don't think Delulo was being underhanded, just look at the project in terms of the data available.

[mangou007]

I personally refreshed my votes for all of your delegates as I really do see the long run of what you are doing.
Keep up 

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

Datnode: "I need a truck and some to tools build a road(liquidity) for future cars and bikes. I will sell the truck when i'm done."
newmine: "Why you want a truck when we can buy cars and bikes now"
Datnode: "You wanna buy car and bikes and no roads? That's a parking lot. "

Haha.. YES!  Thanks for the more accurate perspective of the analogy.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

Note: I don't know if that fud part was addressed to me, because of my comment, but I hope it wasn't.

No it was a general statement not just in relation to this project.

FUD fəd/
noun
noun: FUD; plural noun: FUDs
fear, uncertainty and doubt, usually evoked intentionally in order to put a competitor at a disadvantage.
"the FUD factor"

I think people can look at this thread and judge for themselves if we are witnessing FUDers in action.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

most of your posts read as such though.

newmine:  This is a stupid idea.  you are all fucking idiots.  The reasons are <valid point> <valid point> <stretched point> <insult>.  You are all fucking idiots for allowing this.

What I would like to see is

newmine:  This is a stupid idea.  The reasons are <valid point> <valid point>.  It seems as if what you are attempting to accomplish is <goal of bitshares>.  Wouldn't that goal be better accomplished by <proposal>  <attempt to reach consensus>

If everyone thinks I am way off here please let me know.

What you like to see is reasonable. However, most of what is stated by the proponent you refer to are not valid points, but made up ones that have no basis in the facts. The information presented is often twisted and or outright wrong and is presented as fact to come across as a 'valid point' as you put it. For anybody else who doesn't know better, they take it as such without having cross referenced the real information.

Better yet, focusing in on a particular element and then removing others to attempt to make the point. It's like showing how 'stupid' a leg is when you don't have two of them attached to a body. In this instance, nothing has been said about 'all' the benefits, but tons of focus on creating new users. Frankly I don't see that as our primary value proposition. My responses clearly show that. Yet the discourse being presented by the proponent attempt to zoom in on one element as I stated.

Similar methods are used in political campaigns as a means of destroying opponents.

Definition of troll: informal - make a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.

People can read this thread and others by simply checking out all his posts to make the judgement for themselves if this is indeed an appropriate definition. They can see it all here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=5906

[Akado]

That however, shouldn't discourage discussion about trying to come up with something better and given that the budget includes 7- 8 delegates, we have lots of possibilities. Imagine having 7-8 more devs working on this full time. However we just don't have those resources and the only solution atm is MineBItShares. But we should try to come up with something better, which should be possible.

Sitting around in forums FUDing all over a project that voters have voted to see push forward is doing nothing constructive.

Come up with better ways to bring liquidity to the markets.. because when 2.0 hits.. we are REALLY going to need it.. otherwise it's going to be a turn and burn of new potential traders when they cannot get decent liquidity in our markets... so if there are solutions for how we can do something MORE to ensure that... awesome.. have that discussion. Pissing all over the solution you got in your hand that is actually working though and is in development while everyone sits around saying there must be a better way.. again.. is nothing constructive.

I have given all the numbers that support this in the other thread that anybody can use their good sense to judge for themselves with.

Our original bid is also at http://vote.bunkermining.com.

Exactly, we need to be constantly trying to develop new ways of increasing liquidity. And this is the best we have at the moment. However you can't deny those two points I mentioned. They're factual.

Note: I don't know if that fud part was addressed to me, because of my comment, but I hope it wasn't.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

That however, shouldn't discourage discussion about trying to come up with something better and given that the budget includes 7- 8 delegates, we have lots of possibilities. Imagine having 7-8 more devs working on this full time. However we just don't have those resources and the only solution atm is MineBItShares. But we should try to come up with something better, which should be possible.

At present most of the funds are in fact going to devs on this project.  How much dev time does 2 BTC a month gets you? That is about what 1 100% delegate makes now. Most crypto programmers want to be paid in BTC. Good luck finding someone who will even talk to you bout your project when thats all you got to offer. That was how I operated for the first 3 months and couldn't get anywhere with being able to get these updates done because of it.

The proposal is clear.. and the benefits are huge. I again refer to the links I provide already in this thread where we gave a complete breakdown of just how much each miner is worth and the returns on investment to have an effective mining pool for BitShares and how it provides liquidity, volume, and new users to all the bitassets markets in the NEW pool which is being DEVELOPED RIGHT NOW.

Here is the link again: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18253.0.html

Discussion follows on there as well about various aspects to further explain points that some people wanted clarification on.

8 delegates = 16 BTC a month. A portion of that is going to payouts, and portion to dev. On top of all that I am still out of my OWN POCKET for all the servers and network resources and my own time on this. (I know this disappoints the newmine fantasy world where I am getting rich on this)

All of the new delegates that just got voted in we cannot even get to the funds until we pay back the contributors who loaned the money in support of this project to create them. After that we actually just barely have enough for when the new pool is finished to pay up remaining balances due to the developers then.

I seriously appeal to everyones good sense and your ability to use good judgement for yourselves to look at the facts of the benefits this project brings, and support it accordingly with your votes.

Sitting around in forums FUDing all over a project that voters have voted to see push forward is doing nothing constructive.

Come up with better ways to bring liquidity to the markets.. because when 2.0 hits.. we are REALLY going to need it.. otherwise it's going to be a turn and burn of new potential traders when they cannot get decent liquidity in our markets... so if there are solutions for how we can do something MORE to ensure that... awesome.. have that discussion. Pissing all over the solution you got in your hand that is actually working though and is in development while everyone sits around saying there must be a better way.. again.. is nothing constructive.

I have given all the numbers that support this in the other thread that anybody can use their good sense to judge for themselves with.

Our original bid is also at http://vote.bunkermining.com.

[puppies]

mining  user of bitUSD
is they worth  7 100% delegate?

Really? A FUDer makes stuff up and you are +5ing them?

How many mining pools has he run? zero
Does he want to see bitshares succeed? no
Is what he is saying based on facts? no

He is here to destroy bitshares not build it up.

The fact that he is putting this much effort into trying to detract people from supporting it is evidence in itself of it being a threat to his desire to see bitshares go under rather than go to the moon. This project will drive liquidity into the bitassets markets that are much needed.

I have provided all the information needed for people to make informed decisions based on facts several times over. I recommend referencing the links provided again if you haven't yet.

What was not a fact?

Here is fact that everyone would agree with; you don't deserve multiple delegates while the developers only get 1 each.

I didn't start this thread by the way. Oh, and I want Bitshares to succeed. I just want Bitshares from a year ago to succeed. I hold my few shares and hope with doubts that the current incarnation will be a success. You guys continue to put major hurdles in front of you. And by "you guys" I don't mean you. You have no impact in the success of Bitshares now or ever.

that was not said with the intention of making data feel good about himself.

Seriously though.  The intentional baiting in that post tells you all you need to know about newmine and his intentions.

While sometimes I agree with him, and sometimes he has good points, those points are always negative abd he never offers a solution for going forward. He is more interested in being proven right than in being right.  In short he is a troll.

"The intentional baiting in that post tells you all you need to know about newmine and his intentions." I offered up serious propositions which everyone should examine and analyze and I get called a FUDster because of it and I am the one baiting? The only thing I said that you should have taken out of this was, is data nodes ability to draw users in worth the current $700 a week or could that money be put to better use in order to bring users in?  Nobody even responded to that saying, "hey, data node brings in X amount of new users every week, so he is worth $700 per week and worth $615 more than any of the Devs per week"

Here is a quick recap of what just went down:

DatNode: hey everyone,  I need funds to make an esoteric bicycle to bring users over to Bitshares Hill Valley.
Newmine: hey everyone,  why don't we direct funds to build a car, bus, or train get users over to Bitshares  Hill Valley
DatNode: Newmines a FUDster!
Newmine: why am I a FUDster. Your bicycle idea is flawed and not worth the cost.  Especially since most users are walking here by themselves on accident. Also, The people building the destination for your bicycle route make 1/8 what you are getting.
Puppies: Newmines a troll and never offers solutions. don't listen to him.

2 of my posts in this thread offer solutions "for going forward". If I am a troll for saying that, you're a lying pos.

The only hint of a solution I saw in your posts was give random people $50 in bitshares.  If I missed something I apologize. 

It was what I took as your deliberate baiting of data that led me to call you a troll.  That and your history of negative posts that point out all of the issues you see with what is going on, while rarely if ever offering a potential solution. 

I think you have a keen mind and your analysis is quite often illuminating.  As I stated above. 

most of your posts read as such though.

newmine:  This is a stupid idea.  you are all fucking idiots.  The reasons are <valid point> <valid point> <stretched point> <insult>.  You are all fucking idiots for allowing this.

What I would like to see is

newmine:  This is a stupid idea.  The reasons are <valid point> <valid point>.  It seems as if what you are attempting to accomplish is <goal of bitshares>.  Wouldn't that goal be better accomplished by <proposal>  <attempt to reach consensus>

If everyone thinks I am way off here please let me know.

[Akado]

Guys,  the points of my post are:

1. You are fishing for users out of a jar in a small pond.  Meaning you are recruiting users from a small subset within a smaller subset within an even smaller subset of users. This is not efficient.

2. If mining is so necessary, why is everyone so quick to bash POW as a waste of money. You are justifying mining to build the network but not secure it.

3. If you think this project justifies more delegates (he actually has 8 )than the developers get, then you guys have some problems in weighing priorities.

You're not going to catch a whale or a bunch of sardines out if a jar in a pond. Go to the ocean. Use these funds for things that have a higher probability of drawing in a Bitshares user.

Also,you should check out minebitshares. Most if the payout goes to 2or 3 large farms. Wouldn't be surprised if bunker data node owns one. It's cool that you want to subsidize large mining ops, but I simply ask you, is the few users they bring in worth $700 in BTS per week? Or is there a chance that $700 could be re aligned for something better. I bet if you randomly gave away $50 in BTS to two people a day, it would bring more users in than mining pools

To Newmines point, 4 of 5 of my ASIC's have died over the past months and I'm not buying any more. 

Yeah, I sold my ASIC's over a year and half ago. Ad-aware on one computer wanted to scrub a bunch of my mining programs and I allowed it. Mining is dying. Or at least it is fading.  The obscure crap coins will eventually dry up on exchanges, and the the other coins difficulty will continue to rise. These two things make the future usefulness of a mining pool to bring in new users worthless. You are buying stock in blockbuster 6 years ago.

How is this post fud? Imo newmines tries to prove 2 points here (correct me if I'm wrong):

1. This is a high risk - high reward operation. If it succeeds, awesome, if it doesn't, given the amount of money involved, it's a huge waste and that's something we can't or shouldn't afford to loose/risk.
2. Time vs Money. Given the amount of money involved, maybe other more profitable stuff could be done, given this will take it's time to gain traction. There could be things more worthy that could either use less money or take less time to be developed.

The problem is, none of us knows a better solution, which is safer, cheaper and takes less time, so we all get behind this project and just hope it succeeds. That's what he's trying to say. Instead of trying to come up with something better - with which this community would definitely benefit - we all just cross our fingers and wait. But I'm included in that as well, I currently don't know of any other solution so I can only support this.

That however, shouldn't discourage discussion about trying to come up with something better and given that the budget includes 7- 8 delegates, we have lots of possibilities. Imagine having 7-8 more devs working on this full time. However we just don't have those resources and the only solution atm is MineBItShares. But we should try to come up with something better, which should be possible.

[Pheonike]

mining  user of bitUSD
is they worth  7 100% delegate?

Really? A FUDer makes stuff up and you are +5ing them?

How many mining pools has he run? zero
Does he want to see bitshares succeed? no
Is what he is saying based on facts? no

He is here to destroy bitshares not build it up.

The fact that he is putting this much effort into trying to detract people from supporting it is evidence in itself of it being a threat to his desire to see bitshares go under rather than go to the moon. This project will drive liquidity into the bitassets markets that are much needed.

I have provided all the information needed for people to make informed decisions based on facts several times over. I recommend referencing the links provided again if you haven't yet.

What was not a fact?

Here is fact that everyone would agree with; you don't deserve multiple delegates while the developers only get 1 each.

I didn't start this thread by the way. Oh, and I want Bitshares to succeed. I just want Bitshares from a year ago to succeed. I hold my few shares and hope with doubts that the current incarnation will be a success. You guys continue to put major hurdles in front of you. And by "you guys" I don't mean you. You have no impact in the success of Bitshares now or ever.

that was not said with the intention of making data feel good about himself.

Seriously though.  The intentional baiting in that post tells you all you need to know about newmine and his intentions.

While sometimes I agree with him, and sometimes he has good points, those points are always negative abd he never offers a solution for going forward. He is more interested in being proven right than in being right.  In short he is a troll.

"The intentional baiting in that post tells you all you need to know about newmine and his intentions." I offered up serious propositions which everyone should examine and analyze and I get called a FUDster because of it and I am the one baiting? The only thing I said that you should have taken out of this was, is data nodes ability to draw users in worth the current $700 a week or could that money be put to better use in order to bring users in?  Nobody even responded to that saying, "hey, data node brings in X amount of new users every week, so he is worth $700 per week and worth $615 more than any of the Devs per week"

Here is a quick recap of what just went down:

DatNode: hey everyone,  I need funds to make an esoteric bicycle to bring users over to Bitshares Hill Valley.
Newmine: hey everyone,  why don't we direct funds to build a car, bus, or train get users over to Bitshares  Hill Valley
DatNode: Newmines a FUDster!
Newmine: why am I a FUDster. Your bicycle idea is flawed and not worth the cost.  Especially since most users are walking here by themselves on accident. Also, The people building the destination for your bicycle route make 1/8 what you are getting.
Puppies: Newmines a troll and never offers solutions. don't listen to him.

2 of my posts in this thread offer solutions "for going forward". If I am a troll for saying that, you're a lying pos.

Datnode: "I need a truck and some to tools build a road(liquidity) for future cars and bikes. I will sell the truck when i'm done."
newmine: "Why you want a truck when we can buy cars and bikes now"
Datnode: "You wanna buy car and bikes and no roads? That's a parking lot. "

[NewMine]

mining  user of bitUSD
is they worth  7 100% delegate?

Really? A FUDer makes stuff up and you are +5ing them?

How many mining pools has he run? zero
Does he want to see bitshares succeed? no
Is what he is saying based on facts? no

He is here to destroy bitshares not build it up.

The fact that he is putting this much effort into trying to detract people from supporting it is evidence in itself of it being a threat to his desire to see bitshares go under rather than go to the moon. This project will drive liquidity into the bitassets markets that are much needed.

I have provided all the information needed for people to make informed decisions based on facts several times over. I recommend referencing the links provided again if you haven't yet.

What was not a fact?

Here is fact that everyone would agree with; you don't deserve multiple delegates while the developers only get 1 each.

I didn't start this thread by the way. Oh, and I want Bitshares to succeed. I just want Bitshares from a year ago to succeed. I hold my few shares and hope with doubts that the current incarnation will be a success. You guys continue to put major hurdles in front of you. And by "you guys" I don't mean you. You have no impact in the success of Bitshares now or ever.

that was not said with the intention of making data feel good about himself.

Seriously though.  The intentional baiting in that post tells you all you need to know about newmine and his intentions.

While sometimes I agree with him, and sometimes he has good points, those points are always negative abd he never offers a solution for going forward. He is more interested in being proven right than in being right.  In short he is a troll.

"The intentional baiting in that post tells you all you need to know about newmine and his intentions." I offered up serious propositions which everyone should examine and analyze and I get called a FUDster because of it and I am the one baiting? The only thing I said that you should have taken out of this was, is data nodes ability to draw users in worth the current $700 a week or could that money be put to better use in order to bring users in?  Nobody even responded to that saying, "hey, data node brings in X amount of new users every week, so he is worth $700 per week and worth $615 more than any of the Devs per week"

Here is a quick recap of what just went down:

DatNode: hey everyone,  I need funds to make an esoteric bicycle to bring users over to Bitshares Hill Valley.
Newmine: hey everyone,  why don't we direct funds to build a car, bus, or train get users over to Bitshares  Hill Valley
DatNode: Newmines a FUDster!
Newmine: why am I a FUDster. Your bicycle idea is flawed and not worth the cost.  Especially since most users are walking here by themselves on accident. Also, The people building the destination for your bicycle route make 1/8 what you are getting.
Puppies: Newmines a troll and never offers solutions. don't listen to him.

2 of my posts in this thread offer solutions "for going forward". If I am a troll for saying that, you're a lying pos.

[Tuck Fheman]

In short he is a troll.

I really wish that term would die. 

I kind of see it as a cop-out last resort cluster bomb thrown out to draw the attention of like minded individuals to attack a differing opinion ... or rather to attack the person with the differing opinion because the opinion can't really be attacked because it's based on truth.

It's been used against our account many times elsewhere when we raised red flags (that were all true and proven to be true later by others) within a community.

Newmine, keep doing what you do man.

[puppies]

mining  user of bitUSD
is they worth  7 100% delegate?

Really? A FUDer makes stuff up and you are +5ing them?

How many mining pools has he run? zero
Does he want to see bitshares succeed? no
Is what he is saying based on facts? no

He is here to destroy bitshares not build it up.

The fact that he is putting this much effort into trying to detract people from supporting it is evidence in itself of it being a threat to his desire to see bitshares go under rather than go to the moon. This project will drive liquidity into the bitassets markets that are much needed.

I have provided all the information needed for people to make informed decisions based on facts several times over. I recommend referencing the links provided again if you haven't yet.

What was not a fact?

Here is fact that everyone would agree with; you don't deserve multiple delegates while the developers only get 1 each.

I didn't start this thread by the way. Oh, and I want Bitshares to succeed. I just want Bitshares from a year ago to succeed. I hold my few shares and hope with doubts that the current incarnation will be a success. You guys continue to put major hurdles in front of you. And by "you guys" I don't mean you. You have no impact in the success of Bitshares now or ever.

that was not said with the intention of making data feel good about himself.

Seriously though.  The intentional baiting in that post tells you all you need to know about newmine and his intentions.

While sometimes I agree with him, and sometimes he has good points, those points are always negative abd he never offers a solution for going forward.  He is more interested in being proven right than in being right.  In short he is a troll.

[NewMine]

mining  user of bitUSD
is they worth  7 100% delegate?

Really? A FUDer makes stuff up and you are +5ing them?

How many mining pools has he run? zero
Does he want to see bitshares succeed? no
Is what he is saying based on facts? no

He is here to destroy bitshares not build it up.

The fact that he is putting this much effort into trying to detract people from supporting it is evidence in itself of it being a threat to his desire to see bitshares go under rather than go to the moon. This project will drive liquidity into the bitassets markets that are much needed.

I have provided all the information needed for people to make informed decisions based on facts several times over. I recommend referencing the links provided again if you haven't yet.

What was not a fact?

Here is fact that everyone would agree with; you don't deserve multiple delegates while the developers only get 1 each.

I didn't start this thread by the way. Oh, and I want Bitshares to succeed. I just want Bitshares from a year ago to succeed. I hold my few shares and hope with doubts that the current incarnation will be a success. You guys continue to put major hurdles in front of you. And by "you guys" I don't mean you. You have no impact in the success of Bitshares now or ever.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

mining  user of bitUSD
is they worth  7 100% delegate?

Really? A FUDer makes stuff up and you are +5ing them?

How many mining pools has he run? zero
Does he want to see bitshares succeed? no
Is what he is saying based on facts? no

He is here to destroy bitshares not build it up.

The fact that he is putting this much effort into trying to detract people from supporting it is evidence in itself of it being a threat to his desire to see bitshares go under rather than go to the moon. This project will drive liquidity into the bitassets markets that are much needed.

I have provided all the information needed for people to make informed decisions based on facts several times over. I recommend referencing the links provided again if you haven't yet.

[sudo]

mining  user of bitUSD
is they worth  7 100% delegate?

[sudo]

Guys,  the points of my post are:

1. You are fishing for users out of a jar in a small pond.  Meaning you are recruiting users from a small subset within a smaller subset within an even smaller subset of users. This is not efficient.

2. If mining is so necessary, why is everyone so quick to bash POW as a waste of money. You are justifying mining to build the network but not secure it.

3. If you think this project justifies more delegates (he actually has 8 )than the developers get, then you guys have some problems in weighing priorities.

You're not going to catch a whale or a bunch of sardines out if a jar in a pond. Go to the ocean. Use these funds for things that have a higher probability of drawing in a Bitshares user.

Also,you should check out minebitshares. Most if the payout goes to 2or 3 large farms. Wouldn't be surprised if bunker data node owns one. It's cool that you want to subsidize large mining ops, but I simply ask you, is the few users they bring in worth $700 in BTS per week? Or is there a chance that $700 could be re aligned for something better. I bet if you randomly gave away $50 in BTS to two people a day, it would bring more users in than mining pools

To Newmines point, 4 of 5 of my ASIC's have died over the past months and I'm not buying any more. 

Yeah, I sold my ASIC's over a year and half ago. Ad-aware on one computer wanted to scrub a bunch of my mining programs and I allowed it. Mining is dying. Or at least it is fading.  The obscure crap coins will eventually dry up on exchanges, and the the other coins difficulty will continue to rise. These two things make the future usefulness of a mining pool to bring in new users worthless. You are buying stock in blockbuster 6 years ago.

 

[NewMine]

Guys,  the points of my post are:

1. You are fishing for users out of a jar in a small pond.  Meaning you are recruiting users from a small subset within a smaller subset within an even smaller subset of users. This is not efficient.

2. If mining is so necessary, why is everyone so quick to bash POW as a waste of money. You are justifying mining to build the network but not secure it.

3. If you think this project justifies more delegates (he actually has 8 )than the developers get, then you guys have some problems in weighing priorities.

You're not going to catch a whale or a bunch of sardines out if a jar in a pond. Go to the ocean. Use these funds for things that have a higher probability of drawing in a Bitshares user.

Also,you should check out minebitshares. Most if the payout goes to 2or 3 large farms. Wouldn't be surprised if bunker data node owns one. It's cool that you want to subsidize large mining ops, but I simply ask you, is the few users they bring in worth $700 in BTS per week? Or is there a chance that $700 could be re aligned for something better. I bet if you randomly gave away $50 in BTS to two people a day, it would bring more users in than mining pools

To Newmines point, 4 of 5 of my ASIC's have died over the past months and I'm not buying any more. 

Yeah, I sold my ASIC's over a year and half ago. Ad-aware on one computer wanted to scrub a bunch of my mining programs and I allowed it. Mining is dying. Or at least it is fading.  The obscure crap coins will eventually dry up on exchanges, and the the other coins difficulty will continue to rise. These two things make the future usefulness of a mining pool to bring in new users worthless. You are buying stock in blockbuster 6 years ago.

[tbone]

MineBitshares needs support. It's not yet profitable but it does serve the community. It markets directly to miners and gives people a way to acquire and try Bitshares.

Minebitshares' model only works when all delegates are in. Let's stand united behind this project.

Agree with this too.

   I would like to see what comes of this project.  It seems promising and $100/day for a short period is a small price to find out for sure. 

[fuzzy]

MineBitshares needs support. It's not yet profitable but it does serve the community. It markets directly to miners and gives people a way to acquire and try Bitshares.

Minebitshares' model only works when all delegates are in. Let's stand united behind this project.

Agree with this too.

[Akado]

I've always been a little divided by this. It seems to much, but at the same time I would really like to see what could come out of it and it seems we don't have other means to bring in more liquidity.

I think that would be an interesting discussing, trying to come up with different ways to increase liquidity. Ok we have minebitshares but that doesn't mean other solutions wouldn't be welcomed.

[Brekyrself]

If everyone can also take a step back and appreciate this democratic process.  Anyone with BTS has a vote on the delegates and based on these threads it brings forth competition among delegates!

This is a huge step forward compared with PoW.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

It IS working. Only recently did he get enough delegate pay voted in to start  development necessary to make it profitable (at which time paid delegates will no longer be necessary and can be voted out without negative effect). Please continue to vote for this very promising project so it can reach its potential. It has the potential to benefit us all (except newmine, lol).

How much more delegate pay does it need to be profitable?
What is it still missing that is making it unprofitable? It seems to be fully functional.
Isnt it just the case that miners are just not interested in being paid in BitUSD, for the reason I just described?

It's a zero fee pool with a bonus. There is zero opportunity for profitability in that scenario. What makes it more difficult to be profitable is paying out in bitUSD. Our payout process has to pass from alts to BTC and then to bitUSD, and all along the way all the exchanges are taking their cuts of transaction charges and spreads. Servers and network resources are not being supported at all other than out of pocket by me. On top of that the pool requires at least 2 hours a day of maintenance.. again not paid for.

It started out as a personal initiative by nethyb who took it upon himself to over the course of months piece together a mining pool to support bitshares. He did everything in his spare time.. he is not a programmer but he's a smart guy so he essentially kept working at stuff until it worked.

The pool only supports scrypt and x11 at present, and there are a lot more miners in sha256 and other alt protocols that are more profitable now like quark and WhisperX for example.

In order to move forward effectively the platform the current pool was built on is now outdated and it was so heavily customized for bitshares we don't have much choice but to build a whole new core and foundations in order to move forward in any effective way.

If you go to the links mentioned in this thread I have gone into a fair amount of details about how to take the pool from losing to profitability. I recommend checking them out. Essentially the combination of some innovative mining methods combined with the BunkerDEX are going to enable us to move to being competitive and profitable.

However, it has not grown only because of the fundamentals we simply do not have to be competitive right now. Consistently profitability being top of the list. Miners move to where they can make the most money.. and the current processes don't enable us to be able to be consistent enough. Because we need to get updates done to automate our payouts, and make profits consistent, and enable us to reach other miners in sha256, we haven't made any major push to promote the pool in its current state.. simply because we would only be creating a turn and burn situation.. not unlike our current situation where people are not referring people to bitshares because of client issues with current 1.0 version.. they are waiting for the shiny new 2.0 to show everyone.. so are we for the mining pool.

We also got a bit of a branding issue to overcome. Part of why when we get the new pool launched it will be rebranded to BunkerMining. It is still going to be completely powered by payouts only in BitShares/bitAssets. Later Phase 3 development will move us further into being more like a Nicehash for BitShares.

There is a clear path to sustainability.. and in the threads referenced showed the tremendous value that this mining pool brings to BitShares. With the updates we are getting done, we could really give a boost to all the bitasset markets with lots of liquidity, volume, and users. I have given a breakdown of how much each miner is worth to this project in the thread here:

 https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18253.0.html

Hope that gives you a clearer picture of where things are at and where we are going.

Finally.. http://vote.bunkermining.com !!

[Tuck Fheman]

To Newmines point, 4 of 5 of my ASIC's have died over the past months and I'm not buying any more. 

[speedy]

It IS working. Only recently did he get enough delegate pay voted in to start  development necessary to make it profitable (at which time paid delegates will no longer be necessary and can be voted out without negative effect). Please continue to vote for this very promising project so it can reach its potential. It has the potential to benefit us all (except newmine, lol).

How much more delegate pay does it need to be profitable?
What is it still missing that is making it unprofitable? It seems to be fully functional.
Isnt it just the case that miners are just not interested in being paid in BitUSD, for the reason I just described?

[onceuponatime]

Besides, what happened to the whole mining is wasting money view? Didn't want to do it to secure the network but it's okay and necessary to do it to build the network? Scratching my head on that one.

Theoretically its a good way of supporting BTS at Bitcoin's expense.

I think the problem with minebitshares is that:
Miners are hunting for the reward to pay for their expenses, which are in real $ paid for by selling their crypto frequently. It doesnt really give them any advantage to receive their reward in BitUSD - they have to sell it for real $ just like if they received Bitcoin. Bitcoin just has better liquidity so the spread they pay for getting from BTC to $ is tighter.

Just remember to vote no to this project when 2.0 comes round and the delegates have to reapply. It was a nice idea but just hasnt worked.

It IS working. Only recently did he get enough delegate pay voted in to start  development necessary to make it profitable (at which time paid delegates will no longer be necessary and can be voted out without negative effect). Please continue to vote for this very promising project so it can reach its potential. It has the potential to benefit us all (except newmine, lol).

[38PTSWarrior]

Let's look forward. I provide good work with cards, flyers, meetings, and 4 hours a day pitching to all sorts of people. From the 38 percent payrate only 3 go to liondani and 3 percent to me. This leaves 32 percent for ads, vids, cards, meetings, coding, etc.

[speedy]

Besides, what happened to the whole mining is wasting money view? Didn't want to do it to secure the network but it's okay and necessary to do it to build the network? Scratching my head on that one.

Theoretically its a good way of supporting BTS at Bitcoin's expense.

I think the problem with minebitshares is that:
Miners are hunting for the reward to pay for their expenses, which are in real $ paid for by selling their crypto frequently. It doesnt really give them any advantage to receive their reward in BitUSD - they have to sell it for real $ just like if they received Bitcoin. Bitcoin just has better liquidity so the spread they pay for getting from BTC to $ is tighter.

Just remember to vote no to this project when 2.0 comes round and the delegates have to reapply. It was a nice idea but just hasnt worked.

[NewMine]

MineBitshares needs support. It's not yet profitable but it does serve the community. It markets directly to miners and gives people a way to acquire and try Bitshares.

I am quite sure it is in need of 25,000 BTS per day. Right now that's about .42BTC per day. That is well worth the 10 or so redirects to the website per week.

In all seriousness, don't you think a mining pool should be able to profit on its own instead of being subsidized by you the shareholder? At the current rate of ~$100 per day, wouldn't you guys rather buy real ads on strategic websites or any other marketing tactic?

Instead you are giving this guy funds to fish for users out of a jar in a small pond. It's not even targeting the entire crypto community, only miners and they represent a dwindling fraction of the community.

Besides, what happened to the whole mining is wasting money view? Didn't want to do it to secure the network but it's okay and necessary to do it to build the network? Scratching my head on that one.

Buy some ads on reddit, coinmarketcap, voat, LTB etc. Or buy some bumper stickers and mail them to the users and tell them to place them in strategic areas in public places, or anything like that would be better than to subsidize a mining op that brings in virtually no real users and can't make money standing alone.

Hell, I even recommended months if not a year ago to take the 30 Million BTS vesting, that is turning out to be a complete waste, and give some to a company to start taking bitUSD. You could even include the setup cost by paying a Dev to build the app. And use these diluting BTS to pay the Dev to maintain the system for the company.

But no, you all would rather give 25,000 BTS a day to a project that what, creates page views and  brings about 1 or 2 users into the fold every month. At some point the amount of new miners (no pun intended) coming will cease if it hasn't already happened and the users coming are just jumping between pools and redirecting their hash power on their own.

[38PTSWarrior]

Minebitshares' model only works when all delegates are in. Let's stand united behind this project.

[luckybit]

MineBitshares needs support. It's not yet profitable but it does serve the community. It markets directly to miners and gives people a way to acquire and try Bitshares.

[Brekyrself]

Why  minebitshares need 100% delegate???

So he can pocket free BTS. Why else?

DataSecurityNode has been very up front and honest about the business model.  The pool is actually up and running with many planned upgrades to make it stand out from the rest.  Look at the big picture, if the pool is profitable from bonus payouts, this will attract miners thus new users.

Start questioning the other delegates that do not even provide price feeds.
http://bitsharesblocks.com/delegates

[NewMine]

Why  minebitshares need 100% delegate???

So he can pocket free BTS. Why else?

[sudo]

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18229.msg233017.html#msg233017


about 60% bitUSD short order expired，who lost bitUSD or holding bitUSD?
« 于: 八月 31, 2015, 07:23:34 上午 »
short  110%       664.3274bitUSD              0.569%
short  expired   67825bitUSD                    58.083%
total                  116773bitUSD


anticipate  Annual interest  6.27%  so high
he design of the interest, encourage hold bitUSD, then short people tragedy

how to solve it?


the only way  to produce more  bitUSD is  short

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

Everyone is welcome to see our latest update here:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18253.0.html

Also you can see our original bid which explains why we put in a bid for this many delegates here:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16340.0.html

Also remember in a recent hangout Bytemaster talked about how much more can be accomplished by giving $1000 to one person to accomplish something, than to give $10 to 100 people to have an impact.

We are right in the middle of these updates getting done, and they would have been done long ago if we managed to get voted in sooner. It is extremely exciting that we are getting this support now and can start bringing in more volume, liquidity, users, and transactions to BitShares that is going to support the entire BitAssets eco system with much needed liquidity.

Feel free to ask any questions you may have.

[freedom]

Why  minebitshares need 100% delegate???

[sudo]

we need 100% delegate  to support  core developer  to release the brandnew  BTS2.0  as soon as possible

[bitcrab]

I think the minebitshares business model is OK, but the contribution to the BTS ecosystem does not worth so many 100% delegates.
hope we can vote them off, and vote the developers, the ecosystem fosters to be 100% delegates instead of them.

[浅蓝~~~]

DING!!!!

[sudo]

total  100% delegate   is 36       7/36 = 19.44%

graphene is still developing

bitshares  price is low

is that worth to cost 7 100% delegate  for minebitshares?

[sudo]

I guess 
mine altcoin  --sell altcoin- buy bts-sell bts to get BitUSD
but now  BitUSD is lack  &much more expensive than  USD   compare to bitCNY

if the mine MODE  make the bitUSD price higher?



等级   24小时改变   7天改变   帐户名   投票的数目   产出   缺失   支付率   平均延时   活跃的喂价种子数   喂价频率   稳定率   版本
16   4   -1   minebitshares-reloaded   
15.76%
13,061   155   100%   1.38s   24   35   98.83%   0.9.2
23   3   -2   minebts1.bunkermining-com   
15.01%
9,017   32   100%   1.39s   24   34.5   99.65%   0.9.2
52   0   -2   www.minebitshares-com   
12.27%
30,767   275   3%   1.64s   24   35   99.11%   0.9.2
68   -1   -2   www2.minebitshares-com   
11.25%
投票的数量给:
284,480,602 BTS
30,424   595   3%   1.65s   24   34.5   98.08%   0.9.2
92   2   4   minebts4.bunkermining-com   
8.79%
1,074   1   100%   1.47s   24   34.5   99.91%   0.9.2
93   2   4   minebts3.bunkermining-com   
8.75%
890   3   100%   1.27s   24   34.5   99.66%   0.9.2
98   2   4   minebts6.bunkermining-com   
8.51%
563   1   100%   1.86s   24   34.5   99.82%   0.9.2
100   0   2   minebts2.bunkermining-com   
8.48%
735   1   100%   1.65s   24   34.5   99.86%   0.9.2
101   3   3   minebts5.bunkermining-com   
8.31%
26   0   100%   0.89s   24   34.5   100%   0.9.2