Price of BTS is 0.000014 btc/bts before announce bts2.0, but now the price is

[tbone]

That being said from my perspective (end user of bitshares) nothing has changed between 0.9x and 2.0, i mean that when i say nothing, the wallet is just as hard to set up and use, importing or making accounts is still confusing, using the rpc functions is still obscure and requires a lot of clarification etc, if your an enduser of crypto and don't care about how good the new code is, im certain you find all of this very annoying and that is my primary point.

That doesn't sound like an end user perspective.  From an end user perspective, I no longer have to download a clunky client.  I can just create an account on the openledger website.  I can move fairly seemlessly through markets.  I can delegate my vote.  I can easily create bitassets.  From an end user perspective, this client interface is far superior to 1.0. 

What is missing? 

1) liquidity
2) 2fa or multi fa, if necessary
3) an easy-to-use tool for offline cold storage
4) bond market - leveraged trading
5) probably other things that I can't think of right now
6) liquidity

IMO bitshares is the most undervalued project out there right now.  Markets are often irrational for periods of time.  This is one of those times.  It looks to me like the price has been basing for 6 months now and could easily enter a real uptrend at any time. 

The web interface does not engender trust, it reminds me of the very early Mastercoin web wallets and I was particularly disturbed by "you're responsible for backing up your wallet..." with the dot dot dot and no button or link immediately visible to actually take care of that fact really gives me the feeling that even the active participants and like "We're doing our best but this might not work and good luck getting help if something does go wrong so, meh?"

the only thing on your list of six that matter to me is #5, I am very much hoping that Bitshares offers a relatively easy way to integrate Bitshares into my project Tokenly but from what i'm hearing that is not easy.

With all due respect, Adam (big fan of your work here), if the user hasn't backed up within a certain period of time, there's a link right at the bottom that says "BACKUP REQUIRED".  If you click on that, it takes you to a screen to perform a backup.  What's the problem with that?  And beyond that, what about the interface reminds you of a very early Mastercoin wallet? 

By the way, perhaps you're not aware that this is a reference design.  Many of us understand the point of it to be a usable wallet for the community to jump start the new governance model, for early adopters and investors to use more generally, and at the same time a working demonstration of the features business builders can design into their own product/service offerings built atop the Bitshares 2.0 platform and aimed at the end-user masses.  Obviously it's not perfect, but I think it's delivering on that promise.

As for the API, like anything else clearly there were/are some kinks to be worked out.  But I really doubt it will be overly difficult for you to integrate Bitshares 2.0 into your platform. 

[tbone]

That being said from my perspective (end user of bitshares) nothing has changed between 0.9x and 2.0, i mean that when i say nothing, the wallet is just as hard to set up and use, importing or making accounts is still confusing, using the rpc functions is still obscure and requires a lot of clarification etc, if your an enduser of crypto and don't care about how good the new code is, im certain you find all of this very annoying and that is my primary point.

That doesn't sound like an end user perspective.  From an end user perspective, I no longer have to download a clunky client.  I can just create an account on the openledger website.  I can move fairly seemlessly through markets.  I can delegate my vote.  I can easily create bitassets.  From an end user perspective, this client interface is far superior to 1.0. 

What is missing? 

1) liquidity
2) 2fa or multi fa, if necessary
3) an easy-to-use tool for offline cold storage
4) bond market - leveraged trading
5) probably other things that I can't think of right now
6) liquidity

IMO bitshares is the most undervalued project out there right now.  Markets are often irrational for periods of time.  This is one of those times.  It looks to me like the price has been basing for 6 months now and could easily enter a real uptrend at any time. 

Markets are irrational at times because people are often irrational.  Look no further than some of the posts on this thread.  It's shocking that some here would reduce this to a question of promising y and delivering x.  You try conceiving, building and delivering - under extremely difficult circumstances and on a shoestring budget - one of the great technical wonders of the world and see how that goes.  I'm not saying everything is perfect, but geeze louise. 

[AdamBLevine]

That being said from my perspective (end user of bitshares) nothing has changed between 0.9x and 2.0, i mean that when i say nothing, the wallet is just as hard to set up and use, importing or making accounts is still confusing, using the rpc functions is still obscure and requires a lot of clarification etc, if your an enduser of crypto and don't care about how good the new code is, im certain you find all of this very annoying and that is my primary point.

That doesn't sound like an end user perspective.  From an end user perspective, I no longer have to download a clunky client.  I can just create an account on the openledger website.  I can move fairly seemlessly through markets.  I can delegate my vote.  I can easily create bitassets.  From an end user perspective, this client interface is far superior to 1.0. 

What is missing? 

1) liquidity
2) 2fa or multi fa, if necessary
3) an easy-to-use tool for offline cold storage
4) bond market - leveraged trading
5) probably other things that I can't think of right now
6) liquidity

IMO bitshares is the most undervalued project out there right now.  Markets are often irrational for periods of time.  This is one of those times.  It looks to me like the price has been basing for 6 months now and could easily enter a real uptrend at any time. 

The web interface does not engender trust, it reminds me of the very early Mastercoin web wallets and I was particularly disturbed by "you're responsible for backing up your wallet..." with the dot dot dot and no button or link immediately visible to actually take care of that fact really gives me the feeling that even the active participants and like "We're doing our best but this might not work and good luck getting help if something does go wrong so, meh?"

the only thing on your list of six that matter to me is #5, I am very much hoping that Bitshares offers a relatively easy way to integrate Bitshares into my project Tokenly but from what i'm hearing that is not easy. 

[Helikopterben]

That being said from my perspective (end user of bitshares) nothing has changed between 0.9x and 2.0, i mean that when i say nothing, the wallet is just as hard to set up and use, importing or making accounts is still confusing, using the rpc functions is still obscure and requires a lot of clarification etc, if your an enduser of crypto and don't care about how good the new code is, im certain you find all of this very annoying and that is my primary point.

That doesn't sound like an end user perspective.  From an end user perspective, I no longer have to download a clunky client.  I can just create an account on the openledger website.  I can move fairly seemlessly through markets.  I can delegate my vote.  I can easily create bitassets.  From an end user perspective, this client interface is far superior to 1.0. 

What is missing? 

1) liquidity
2) 2fa or multi fa, if necessary
3) an easy-to-use tool for offline cold storage
4) bond market - leveraged trading
5) probably other things that I can't think of right now
6) liquidity

IMO bitshares is the most undervalued project out there right now.  Markets are often irrational for periods of time.  This is one of those times.  It looks to me like the price has been basing for 6 months now and could easily enter a real uptrend at any time. 

[AdamBLevine]

The upgrade process first from the 0.4 password bug then the move from 0.9.3c to 2.0 were both time consuming and at times terrifying. Definitely not a smooth or easy experience.

[sittingduck]

Normally you pay part up front and part on completion. 

[Empirical1.2]

In a contract you have a paying side which enables the completion of work.   Graphene is a roadmap of unlimited scope.  There is no need to force someone to do more than 100% effort. 

Any company that demands a fixed price contract will pay a massive premium as the contractor pads everything enough to more or less guarantee they will not lose money on the job. 

Most customers gamble on time and materials and most contractors prefer that.   The only time fixed price makes sense is if something is fully specified in advance and there exists objective measures of fulfillment.   Time. Quality or cost.   Pick any two.

What I'm saying is cnx has a track record of doing things to 80% completion.  If I were to hire them to do a certain job, how could I ensure that job is done to 100% completion?  The question is still out there as well, would you hire cnx as a contractor based on their project history?

Is there another blockchain development team with a better track record of delivering complex, innovative blockchain solutions on tight budgets? It's not rhetorical, I don't know but I don't think so.

[lil_jay890]

In a contract you have a paying side which enables the completion of work.   Graphene is a roadmap of unlimited scope.  There is no need to force someone to do more than 100% effort. 

Any company that demands a fixed price contract will pay a massive premium as the contractor pads everything enough to more or less guarantee they will not lose money on the job. 

Most customers gamble on time and materials and most contractors prefer that.   The only time fixed price makes sense is if something is fully specified in advance and there exists objective measures of fulfillment.   Time. Quality or cost.   Pick any two.

What I'm saying is cnx has a track record of doing things to 80% completion.  If I were to hire them to do a certain job, how could I ensure that job is done to 100% completion?  The question is still out there as well, would you hire cnx as a contractor based on their project history?

[kuro112]

I

Honestly, I think this has a lot to do with the fact that the tech isn't quite as grand as promised, I love what bitshares is doing but if the user experience was more polished from the start we would probably not be seeing such a dramatic drop, overall as we all work to improve the experience for users and administrators, lower the learning curve and increase the adaptability the price will rise again to historic levels.

We have a great foundation to build upon; the future of this enterprise is bright.

It was supposed to be more than a foundation. There was supposed to be at the bare minimum a door. Couldn't even get that. Hell, a lot of people can't even find the place on the map because of the importing keys debacle.

Honestly, I think this has a lot to do with the fact that the tech isn't quite as grand as promised, I love what bitshares is doing but if the user experience was more polished from the start we would probably not be seeing such a dramatic drop, overall as we all work to improve the experience for users and administrators, lower the learning curve and increase the adaptability the price will rise again to historic levels.

We have a great foundation to build upon; the future of this enterprise is bright.

It was supposed to be more than a foundation. There was supposed to be at the bare minimum a door. Couldn't even get that. Hell, a lot of people can't even find the place on the map because of the importing keys debacle.

I do remember bm saying being able to import keys was the highest priority when they were developing graphene.  I didn't have a problem, but it sounds like many people are.

On a side note I have a question. If you were a business looking for development on a blockchain, would you hire cnx based on their track record?  I know they created a very complex system, but it only included about 75% of what was originally promised.  How would a contract be structured in order to force them to complete everything that is agreed upon at the project outset?

pretty much my point exactly, promises were made, timelines set, x was delivered while y was promised,

however I'm a developer myself, I understand they delivered a system as close as humanly possible to what they promised, they didnt walk away from it just because it was released, the framework they have is solid and they are working every day to improve it.

That being said from my perspective (end user of bitshares) nothing has changed between 0.9x and 2.0, i mean that when i say nothing, the wallet is just as hard to set up and use, importing or making accounts is still confusing, using the rpc functions is still obscure and requires a lot of clarification etc, if your an enduser of crypto and don't care about how good the new code is, im certain you find all of this very annoying and that is my primary point.

All in all, if graphene had delayed their timeline a little more, and put more effort into polishing the user experiences (not just a gui cmon guys that doesnt solve the underlying problems with your tech) i dont think anyone would have room to talk about the tech, because overall its rapidly becoming a solid competitor to NXT and ETH with the new features and concepts...

I hope no one mistakes my opinion on the tech for disrespect toward its team, they are doing everything they can to deliver to a hungry community... they get my highest respect for that.

[sittingduck]

In a contract you have a paying side which enables the completion of work.   Graphene is a roadmap of unlimited scope.  There is no need to force someone to do more than 100% effort. 

Any company that demands a fixed price contract will pay a massive premium as the contractor pads everything enough to more or less guarantee they will not lose money on the job. 

Most customers gamble on time and materials and most contractors prefer that.   The only time fixed price makes sense is if something is fully specified in advance and there exists objective measures of fulfillment.   Time. Quality or cost.   Pick any two. 

[lil_jay890]

I

Honestly, I think this has a lot to do with the fact that the tech isn't quite as grand as promised, I love what bitshares is doing but if the user experience was more polished from the start we would probably not be seeing such a dramatic drop, overall as we all work to improve the experience for users and administrators, lower the learning curve and increase the adaptability the price will rise again to historic levels.

We have a great foundation to build upon; the future of this enterprise is bright.

It was supposed to be more than a foundation. There was supposed to be at the bare minimum a door. Couldn't even get that. Hell, a lot of people can't even find the place on the map because of the importing keys debacle.

Honestly, I think this has a lot to do with the fact that the tech isn't quite as grand as promised, I love what bitshares is doing but if the user experience was more polished from the start we would probably not be seeing such a dramatic drop, overall as we all work to improve the experience for users and administrators, lower the learning curve and increase the adaptability the price will rise again to historic levels.

We have a great foundation to build upon; the future of this enterprise is bright.

It was supposed to be more than a foundation. There was supposed to be at the bare minimum a door. Couldn't even get that. Hell, a lot of people can't even find the place on the map because of the importing keys debacle.

I do remember bm saying being able to import keys was the highest priority when they were developing graphene.  I didn't have a problem, but it sounds like many people are.

On a side note I have a question. If you were a business looking for development on a blockchain, would you hire cnx based on their track record?  I know they created a very complex system, but it only included about 75% of what was originally promised.  How would a contract be structured in order to force them to complete everything that is agreed upon at the project outset?

[NewMine]

Honestly, I think this has a lot to do with the fact that the tech isn't quite as grand as promised, I love what bitshares is doing but if the user experience was more polished from the start we would probably not be seeing such a dramatic drop, overall as we all work to improve the experience for users and administrators, lower the learning curve and increase the adaptability the price will rise again to historic levels.

We have a great foundation to build upon; the future of this enterprise is bright.

It was supposed to be more than a foundation. There was supposed to be at the bare minimum a door. Couldn't even get that. Hell, a lot of people can't even find the place on the map because of the importing keys debacle.

[xeroc]

Honestly, I think this has a lot to do with the fact that the tech isn't quite as grand as promised, I love what bitshares is doing but if the user experience was more polished from the start we would probably not be seeing such a dramatic drop, overall as we all work to improve the experience for users and administrators, lower the learning curve and increase the adaptability the price will rise again to historic levels.

We have a great foundation to build upon; the future of this enterprise is bright.

just because people don SEE what you can do doesnt mean the features arent there ..

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

Honestly, I think this has a lot to do with the fact that the tech isn't quite as grand as promised, I love what bitshares is doing but if the user experience was more polished from the start we would probably not be seeing such a dramatic drop, overall as we all work to improve the experience for users and administrators, lower the learning curve and increase the adaptability the price will rise again to historic levels.

We have a great foundation to build upon; the future of this enterprise is bright.

 

[mint chocolate chip]

Honestly, I think this has a lot to do with the fact that the tech isn't quite as grand as promised, I love what bitshares is doing but if the user experience was more polished from the start we would probably not be seeing such a dramatic drop, overall as we all work to improve the experience for users and administrators, lower the learning curve and increase the adaptability the price will rise again to historic levels.

We have a great foundation to build upon; the future of this enterprise is bright.