Author Topic: BitShares X Status Update  (Read 173007 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jsidhu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1335
    • View Profile
Thats so amateur! Yes go ahead and
buy so I can sell to u for a quick buck. Whos going to buy when everyone is thinking the same thing? Only way is if there is a service implemented to offer utility then that iis what its worth... but usually devs will price it in before announcement so really its not a wise move unless you wanna get caught holding bags.
Hired by blockchain | Developer
delegate: dev.sidhujag

Offline jwiz168

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 409
    • View Profile
3i suck!

As much as I want to agree with  you but I really can't. It's true that bts has been delayed over and over which is the source of your 3i disappointment. But let me tell you this , a wise investor has enormous amount of patience and will make his/her at exactly the way he  or she wants to move. Now instead of grudging on 3i, invest on other crypto. Balance your portfolio . Indeed it is the best ever remedy to wait and see situation. wanna tip? take a look at pawncoin. They wlll be releasing their own exchange and witness the skyrocket phenomenon that is happening now.

pawncoin is not a very good investment. slow block time, mining, and no community does not translate to a good investment. diversification is not the best investment strategy. the best investment strategy is knowing what you are investing in. if you are not comfortable waiting for the development of this platform you clearly do not understand what you are investing in. take the time to understand the situation better. take the time to understand the concepts that bitshares brings to the table and you might find that your concerns are not fully warranted.

If you are referring to my comments above, I would clearly stay with bitshare as I believe in its principles. But time is more important than anything else. I was soothing the pain of somebody's agony of waiting . Let someone earn a quick buck or two so that the anguish lessens. Eventhough what you have said about pawncoin is true , look at their project timeline. It is almost in sync. That is why short term investors are having hands on this opportunity. But when the smoke is clear as to say, people might dump it . At least they have earned from their investment in such small period of time.

clout

  • Guest
3i suck!

As much as I want to agree with  you but I really can't. It's true that bts has been delayed over and over which is the source of your 3i disappointment. But let me tell you this , a wise investor has enormous amount of patience and will make his/her at exactly the way he  or she wants to move. Now instead of grudging on 3i, invest on other crypto. Balance your portfolio . Indeed it is the best ever remedy to wait and see situation. wanna tip? take a look at pawncoin. They wlll be releasing their own exchange and witness the skyrocket phenomenon that is happening now.

pawncoin is not a very good investment. slow block time, mining, and no community does not translate to a good investment. diversification is not the best investment strategy. the best investment strategy is knowing what you are investing in. if you are not comfortable waiting for the development of this platform you clearly do not understand what you are investing in. take the time to understand the situation better. take the time to understand the concepts that bitshares brings to the table and you might find that your concerns are not fully warranted.

Offline jwiz168

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 409
    • View Profile
3i suck!

As much as I want to agree with  you but I really can't. It's true that bts has been delayed over and over which is the source of your 3i disappointment. But let me tell you this , a wise investor has enormous amount of patience and will make his/her at exactly the way he  or she wants to move. Now instead of grudging on 3i, invest on other crypto. Balance your portfolio . Indeed it is the best ever remedy to wait and see situation. wanna tip? take a look at pawncoin. They wlll be releasing their own exchange and witness the skyrocket phenomenon that is happening now.

lzr1900

  • Guest


That's why we stopped giving estimates.  We don't know what we don't know. When our conventional mining solution for PTS pointed out that mining was centralizing and unprofitable, a new invention was necessary.  Our supporters have watched (and helped) us make that invention in real time - with access to every chin-scratching twist and turn of our thinking.  Is that not being treated like adults?

Here's the list of R&D progress we've made pursuing that invention, as summarized by bytemaster a week or so ago.  None of it could be anticipated until we did the work, thought the thoughts, listened to input from this forum, scratched our chins and engineered the required breakthroughs:

Quote
Yes, I released a white paper on DPOS last week and have implemented a large part of it and will be testing it in the days ahead.   Resolving the security model in a way that one can thoroughly understand and prove is secure was a major challenge.  You can follow discussions on this forum where about a half dozen variations / iterations where vetted and found wanting...  Let me list the evolution:

1) Mining with Momentum... tossed due to centralization and non profitability
2) Transactions as Proof of Stake white paper (Nov 28th, 2013) adjusted mining difficulty by stake.  Suffered from weakness on deciding who should produce the next block.
3) Ripple Consensus + TaPOS was the concept in January at the Miami event through Feb, but after attempted implementation we realized it had several deal breakers:
      a) the unique node list was an invite-only group and a point of trust
      b) the UNL was not compensated in any way
      c) the bandwidth requirements / scalability were an issue
4) Fall back on a simple mining + TaPOS and various variations on equations for option 2.  All of these variations suffered from many potential attacks and would require many confirmations.  It became too complex to analyze.  (Feb through March)
5) Single trustee which could be fired... the process was too manual but otherwise sound.
6) Delegated POS this solution has been reviewed, found to be decentralized, fast, and secure without ambiguity.  We have finally resolved the issue.

In that time we also identified problems and found solutions to several market manipulation attacks.  These need to be implemented, but then we should be good to go.

As you can see R&D is not predictable when you are at the bleeding edge of innovation and solving problems as they are discovered. 

We are now much, much stronger than we were then and the total industry value proposition is bigger than ever.

I have been lurking through the forums; this statement just made me register on the forum. If I am reading it correctly, your solution to incorrect estimates (not only BTSX but keyhotee too) is not to provide an estimate any more. So basically, what you are saying is "we will never try to make a correct estimate, so yeah lets leave it?" I am just dumbfounded by this way of thinking. :-X


While I also appreciate the amount of work BM has put in compiling the list. The question really is - why weren't they tried before the snapshot or March dates? Is it going to be I3's policy to make a commitment, generate an interest from the public and then say this doesn't work so trust us for some more time? I guess you might think there is a whole new value proposition here so, I3 can get away with its tardiness.

I also work in the IT industry. Whenever I am asked for an estimate, my efforts are always padded with 30% of rework, rethink and general avoidance of being rushed. So if I need 10, I say 13.
In worst case, if I do cross 13 and there is 14/15th day, I am answerable to my end users. I certainly don't take a stance saying "well, as my estimates have proven wrong, so no estimate from here on."

That said, I understand there must be a lot of stress on BM. So if you can't give a day-wise estimate, how about a week/month estimate. Say we are looking at end of June or Q2 end or Q3 , that allays some nerves and certainly better than "we don't know when we will be ready (will it ever be?)"
3i suck!

Offline oco101

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 586
    • View Profile
Nooo my point was what was announced before stays. It just distributes some to the post Feb 28 at a smaller rate as well. Or is 100% of BTS allocated with the feb 28 snapshot?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is 100% allocated with Feb 28 snapshot. It is done can't be change now.  I think Stan and Bytemaster pretty much cover  why we have the delay. And for the estimates here is Stan answer :

Quote
Alas, we promised 2-weeks notice, so that means the snapshot had to happen 2 weeks before the earliest possible date.

The alternative we plan to use in the future is to wait until latest possible date (when testing is totally complete), and then wait two more weeks before we can launch.

This is also why we no longer release estimates or target dates.  We'd like to share our hopes and goals, but that has proven to be counterproductive.
.

So to me it is pretty clear, From now on no more estimates they will announce the lunch when they are 100% sure.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2014, 04:27:37 pm by oco101 »

Offline speedy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1160
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: speedy
Yes 100% of BTS-X was allocated from the 28th Feb snapshot of AGS donations and PTS holdings.

Offline bitmeat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
    • View Profile
Nooo my point was what was announced before stays. It just distributes some to the post Feb 28 at a smaller rate as well. Or is 100% of BTS allocated with the feb 28 snapshot?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline speedy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1160
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: speedy
Here is how to make it fair - if I am not mistaken the feb 28 snapshot would only convert to 50% of BTSX (if that is not the case then this idea needs fine tuning)

Could we find a fair way to allow post feb 28 to also convert to BTSX but at a proper rate? I.e perhaps at 1:10 ratio since some people put in 150BTC on some days close to Feb 28. Perhaps post Feb 28 would yield only 1/10th. And do this until they release it that way they have incentive to do it sooner.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Feb 28 snapshot was announced with something like a months notice, and people like me donated before then based on that announcement. It would hardly be fair on us if Invictus reneged on that date would it? Im tired of hearing people suggesting changing the snapshot - its a non starter.

If you want to get BTS-X cheap then there will be another opportunity once its made liquid but before the BitAsset trading is enabled.

Offline changematey

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 45
    • View Profile

That's why we stopped giving estimates.  We don't know what we don't know. When our conventional mining solution for PTS pointed out that mining was centralizing and unprofitable, a new invention was necessary.  Our supporters have watched (and helped) us make that invention in real time - with access to every chin-scratching twist and turn of our thinking.  Is that not being treated like adults?

Here's the list of R&D progress we've made pursuing that invention, as summarized by bytemaster a week or so ago.  None of it could be anticipated until we did the work, thought the thoughts, listened to input from this forum, scratched our chins and engineered the required breakthroughs:

Quote
Yes, I released a white paper on DPOS last week and have implemented a large part of it and will be testing it in the days ahead.   Resolving the security model in a way that one can thoroughly understand and prove is secure was a major challenge.  You can follow discussions on this forum where about a half dozen variations / iterations where vetted and found wanting...  Let me list the evolution:

1) Mining with Momentum... tossed due to centralization and non profitability
2) Transactions as Proof of Stake white paper (Nov 28th, 2013) adjusted mining difficulty by stake.  Suffered from weakness on deciding who should produce the next block.
3) Ripple Consensus + TaPOS was the concept in January at the Miami event through Feb, but after attempted implementation we realized it had several deal breakers:
      a) the unique node list was an invite-only group and a point of trust
      b) the UNL was not compensated in any way
      c) the bandwidth requirements / scalability were an issue
4) Fall back on a simple mining + TaPOS and various variations on equations for option 2.  All of these variations suffered from many potential attacks and would require many confirmations.  It became too complex to analyze.  (Feb through March)
5) Single trustee which could be fired... the process was too manual but otherwise sound.
6) Delegated POS this solution has been reviewed, found to be decentralized, fast, and secure without ambiguity.  We have finally resolved the issue.

In that time we also identified problems and found solutions to several market manipulation attacks.  These need to be implemented, but then we should be good to go.

As you can see R&D is not predictable when you are at the bleeding edge of innovation and solving problems as they are discovered. 

We are now much, much stronger than we were then and the total industry value proposition is bigger than ever.

I have been lurking through the forums; this statement just made me register on the forum. If I am reading it correctly, your solution to incorrect estimates (not only BTSX but keyhotee too) is not to provide an estimate any more. So basically, what you are saying is "we will never try to make a correct estimate, so yeah lets leave it?" I am just dumbfounded by this way of thinking. :-X


While I also appreciate the amount of work BM has put in compiling the list. The question really is - why weren't they tried before the snapshot or March dates? Is it going to be I3's policy to make a commitment, generate an interest from the public and then say this doesn't work so trust us for some more time? I guess you might think there is a whole new value proposition here so, I3 can get away with its tardiness.

I also work in the IT industry. Whenever I am asked for an estimate, my efforts are always padded with 30% of rework, rethink and general avoidance of being rushed. So if I need 10, I say 13.
In worst case, if I do cross 13 and there is 14/15th day, I am answerable to my end users. I certainly don't take a stance saying "well, as my estimates have proven wrong, so no estimate from here on."

That said, I understand there must be a lot of stress on BM. So if you can't give a day-wise estimate, how about a week/month estimate. Say we are looking at end of June or Q2 end or Q3 , that allays some nerves and certainly better than "we don't know when we will be ready (will it ever be?)"
« Last Edit: April 19, 2014, 08:06:43 pm by changematey »

Offline hansonwcn

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
  • BTS: hansonwcn
    • View Profile
The biggest problem right now is the 28 Feb snapshot. As we get farther away from the date, it keeps looking worse (and is generating a lot of heartache amongst investors) and creating more pressure on Dan and co.
Yep, it really annoys me.

Having value trap in a black hole during an undetermined period of time was not part of the deal. Having value stuck is reeeeally annoying, especially in the cryptospace where things move very fast. If I didn't mind having my value be illiquid I would have buy more AGS, my portfolio was skewed toward PTS for a reason.

Is having your AGS being illiquid for 2-3 months really the end of the world? You know your returns are going to be huge once the product is released. The only thing Im annoyed about is that I didnt donate more.
No, I don't know my returns are gonna be huge, especially calculated in BTC. There are a ton of reasons why this can end up not be the case, the world is a very complex place, it's not because some smart people tell you they are gonna change the world and make you rich that that will actually happen.

Like I said if I don't mind having value illiquid I would have buy AGS instead of PTS. But I bought PTS, and my value is illiquid. That's really annoying.

Stan your parents probably responded to you "yeah soon" even when that wasn't true, but your investors are not person that you should feel comfortable treating like child.
Beside that, it raises the question: how have you end up underestimate so much the time you needed? Did you really think you could do in 15 days (February 28th => Ides of March) something you actually cannot do in maybe 45+ days? Should we always mentally triple the time when you speak about something in the future?
+5% +5%

That's why we stopped giving estimates.  We don't know what we don't know.  When our conventional mining solution for PTS pointed out that mining was centralizing and unprofitable, a new invention was necessary.  Our supporters have watched (and helped) us make that invention in real time - with access to every chin-scratching twist and turn of our thinking.  Is that not being treated like adults?

Here's the list of R&D progress we've made pursuing that invention, as summarized by bytemaster a week or so ago.  None of it could be anticipated until we did the work, thought the thoughts, listened to input from this forum, scratched our chins and engineered the required breakthroughs:

Quote
Yes, I released a white paper on DPOS last week and have implemented a large part of it and will be testing it in the days ahead.   Resolving the security model in a way that one can thoroughly understand and prove is secure was a major challenge.  You can follow discussions on this forum where about a half dozen variations / iterations where vetted and found wanting...  Let me list the evolution:

1) Mining with Momentum... tossed due to centralization and non profitability
2) Transactions as Proof of Stake white paper (Nov 28th, 2013) adjusted mining difficulty by stake.  Suffered from weakness on deciding who should produce the next block.
3) Ripple Consensus + TaPOS was the concept in January at the Miami event through Feb, but after attempted implementation we realized it had several deal breakers:
      a) the unique node list was an invite-only group and a point of trust
      b) the UNL was not compensated in any way
      c) the bandwidth requirements / scalability were an issue
4) Fall back on a simple mining + TaPOS and various variations on equations for option 2.  All of these variations suffered from many potential attacks and would require many confirmations.  It became too complex to analyze.  (Feb through March)
5) Single trustee which could be fired... the process was too manual but otherwise sound.
6) Delegated POS this solution has been reviewed, found to be decentralized, fast, and secure without ambiguity.  We have finally resolved the issue.

In that time we also identified problems and found solutions to several market manipulation attacks.  These need to be implemented, but then we should be good to go.

As you can see R&D is not predictable when you are at the bleeding edge of innovation and solving problems as they are discovered. 

We are now much, much stronger than we were then and the total industry value proposition is bigger than ever.

We know that you team make great efforts underground before the seed of Bitsahres sprouting, we as investor just want something visible to stronger our confidence and stop the useless urge.
Support me if you think I'm doing the right thing. :)
BTS: hanson-bit
encryption always wins. 加密永胜。

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
The biggest problem right now is the 28 Feb snapshot. As we get farther away from the date, it keeps looking worse (and is generating a lot of heartache amongst investors) and creating more pressure on Dan and co.
Yep, it really annoys me.

Having value trap in a black hole during an undetermined period of time was not part of the deal. Having value stuck is reeeeally annoying, especially in the cryptospace where things move very fast. If I didn't mind having my value be illiquid I would have buy more AGS, my portfolio was skewed toward PTS for a reason.

Is having your AGS being illiquid for 2-3 months really the end of the world? You know your returns are going to be huge once the product is released. The only thing Im annoyed about is that I didnt donate more.
No, I don't know my returns are gonna be huge, especially calculated in BTC. There are a ton of reasons why this can end up not be the case, the world is a very complex place, it's not because some smart people tell you they are gonna change the world and make you rich that that will actually happen.

Like I said if I don't mind having value illiquid I would have buy AGS instead of PTS. But I bought PTS, and my value is illiquid. That's really annoying.

Stan your parents probably responded to you "yeah soon" even when that wasn't true, but your investors are not person that you should feel comfortable treating like child.
Beside that, it raises the question: how have you end up underestimate so much the time you needed? Did you really think you could do in 15 days (February 28th => Ides of March) something you actually cannot do in maybe 45+ days? Should we always mentally triple the time when you speak about something in the future?
+5% +5%

That's why we stopped giving estimates.  We don't know what we don't know.  When our conventional mining solution for PTS pointed out that mining was centralizing and unprofitable, a new invention was necessary.  Our supporters have watched (and helped) us make that invention in real time - with access to every chin-scratching twist and turn of our thinking.  Is that not being treated like adults?

Here's the list of R&D progress we've made pursuing that invention, as summarized by bytemaster a week or so ago.  None of it could be anticipated until we did the work, thought the thoughts, listened to input from this forum, scratched our chins and engineered the required breakthroughs:

Quote
Yes, I released a white paper on DPOS last week and have implemented a large part of it and will be testing it in the days ahead.   Resolving the security model in a way that one can thoroughly understand and prove is secure was a major challenge.  You can follow discussions on this forum where about a half dozen variations / iterations where vetted and found wanting...  Let me list the evolution:

1) Mining with Momentum... tossed due to centralization and non profitability
2) Transactions as Proof of Stake white paper (Nov 28th, 2013) adjusted mining difficulty by stake.  Suffered from weakness on deciding who should produce the next block.
3) Ripple Consensus + TaPOS was the concept in January at the Miami event through Feb, but after attempted implementation we realized it had several deal breakers:
      a) the unique node list was an invite-only group and a point of trust
      b) the UNL was not compensated in any way
      c) the bandwidth requirements / scalability were an issue
4) Fall back on a simple mining + TaPOS and various variations on equations for option 2.  All of these variations suffered from many potential attacks and would require many confirmations.  It became too complex to analyze.  (Feb through March)
5) Single trustee which could be fired... the process was too manual but otherwise sound.
6) Delegated POS this solution has been reviewed, found to be decentralized, fast, and secure without ambiguity.  We have finally resolved the issue.

In that time we also identified problems and found solutions to several market manipulation attacks.  These need to be implemented, but then we should be good to go.

As you can see R&D is not predictable when you are at the bleeding edge of innovation and solving problems as they are discovered. 

We are now much, much stronger than we were then and the total industry value proposition is bigger than ever.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2014, 02:33:08 pm by Stan »
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

lzr1900

  • Guest
The biggest problem right now is the 28 Feb snapshot. As we get farther away from the date, it keeps looking worse (and is generating a lot of heartache amongst investors) and creating more pressure on Dan and co.
Yep, it really annoys me.

Having value trap in a black hole during an undetermined period of time was not part of the deal. Having value stuck is reeeeally annoying, especially in the cryptospace where things move very fast. If I didn't mind having my value be illiquid I would have buy more AGS, my portfolio was skewed toward PTS for a reason.

Is having your AGS being illiquid for 2-3 months really the end of the world? You know your returns are going to be huge once the product is released. The only thing Im annoyed about is that I didnt donate more.
No, I don't know my returns are gonna be huge, especially calculated in BTC. There are a ton of reasons why this can end up not be the case, the world is a very complex place, it's not because some smart people tell you they are gonna change the world and make you rich that that will actually happen.

Like I said if I don't mind having value illiquid I would have buy AGS instead of PTS. But I bought PTS, and my value is illiquid. That's really annoying.

Stan your parents probably responded to you "yeah soon" even when that wasn't true, but your investors are not person that you should feel comfortable treating like child.
Beside that, it raises the question: how have you end up underestimate so much the time you needed? Did you really think you could do in 15 days (February 28th => Ides of March) something you actually cannot do in maybe 45+ days? Should we always mentally triple the time when you speak about something in the future?
+5% +5%

Offline BldSwtTrs

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 220
    • View Profile
The biggest problem right now is the 28 Feb snapshot. As we get farther away from the date, it keeps looking worse (and is generating a lot of heartache amongst investors) and creating more pressure on Dan and co.
Yep, it really annoys me.

Having value trap in a black hole during an undetermined period of time was not part of the deal. Having value stuck is reeeeally annoying, especially in the cryptospace where things move very fast. If I didn't mind having my value be illiquid I would have buy more AGS, my portfolio was skewed toward PTS for a reason.

Is having your AGS being illiquid for 2-3 months really the end of the world? You know your returns are going to be huge once the product is released. The only thing Im annoyed about is that I didnt donate more.
No, I don't know my returns are gonna be huge, especially calculated in BTC. There are a ton of reasons why this can end up not be the case, the world is a very complex place, it's not because some smart people tell you they are gonna change the world and make you rich that that will actually happen.

Like I said if I don't mind having value illiquid I would have buy AGS instead of PTS. But I bought PTS, and my value is illiquid. That's really annoying.

Stan your parents probably responded to you "yeah soon" even when that wasn't true, but your investors are not person that you should feel comfortable treating like child.
Beside that, it raises the question: how have you end up underestimate so much the time you needed? Did you really think you could do in 15 days (February 28th => Ides of March) something you actually cannot do in maybe 45+ days? Should we always mentally triple the time when you speak about something in the future?
« Last Edit: April 19, 2014, 01:16:55 pm by BldSwtTrs »

Offline G1ng3rBr34dM4n

The biggest problem right now is the 28 Feb snapshot. As we get farther away from the date, it keeps looking worse (and is generating a lot of heartache amongst investors) and creating more pressure on Dan and co.
Yep, it really annoys me.

Having value trap in a black hole during an undetermined period of time was not part of the deal. Having value stuck is reeeeally annoying, especially in the cryptospace where things move very fast. If I didn't mind having my value be illiquid I would have buy more AGS, my portfolio was skewed toward PTS for a reason.

Is having your AGS being illiquid for 2-3 months really the end of the world? You know your returns are going to be huge once the product is released. The only thing Im annoyed about is that I didnt donate more.

What really annoys me is that we don't have 100 DACs deployed already occupying the top 100 slots at coinmarketcap.com.

It also annoys me that we don't have our own electric car and space launch companies and our own decentralized sovereign nation somewhere in international waters, perhaps conveniently located on the floor of the Pacific Ocean.

Having all that value trapped in bytemaster's head and only a tiny low-bandwidth output port:  The BitShares Industry.

Then there's that whole "change the world" agenda.   

Like I used to ask my parents from the back of the car... "Are we there yet?"

I'm with you Stan!  I'm truly excited for when this technology begins consuming the industries of physical goods & transportation - transposing them to a state of what they should be.