How did we lose dns? Toast creating ens on ethereum?!

[NewMine]

Focusing on a million different projects at once is what killed bitshares. It would be very unwise to go back in that direction.

Your recollection of past events is very different from mine. As I recall it was the exact opposite.

[namjar]

emercoin includes emcdns, emcssl, advertising exchange,etc, support .coin  .lib  .bazar, .emc domains,  www.emercoin.com

[donkeypong]

It might seem impossible to some...but as we gain more and more infrastructure, seeding many little projects early on (with light subsidization to make the pain of entrepreneurship sting a little less) and let them build without all the extra noise...we could see some sparks turn into fires.  It is a guarantee that if we don't do it, other projects will.  This is how Google got big (and how ethereum will get big too). 

You see Fuzzy the problem is this seems to be some kind of specialized area. 90% of projects I see seem to require funding to be done. They call themselves startups but already start with huge money behind them or just tell people, we have this awesome idea, pay us or we wont do it. Entrepeneurs and startups are usually not that rich and that's what drives them. They don't get too comfortable (see ethereum ) and work very very hard to accomplish their goals. The fact that they dont have much money is a very strong motivation for them to keep going.

The problem is most people could be paid many times more on other projects. But most startup entrepreneurs could too I guess. However, I dont know why, in the blockchain world this seems to be different.

If more people actually tried to do stuff instead of demanding for money, I'm sure we would have loads of more projects in the crypto scene. Also the fact that BitShares is a niche in the cryptoscene doesnt help. The risk-reward ratio isnt worth it for many so they just wont take the risk. I guess that's why everyone demands money upfront. But that will slow everything down

I love Fuzzy's comment. And yet I think that it will not necessarily be the accumulation of small projects, but the few that really catch fire, which make this a smashing success (and perhaps pave the way for more small ones to join for the ride). Most of them do need some backing. Never forget that 'profitability' has been one of BitShares' core principles from the very beginning.

[Akado]

It might seem impossible to some...but as we gain more and more infrastructure, seeding many little projects early on (with light subsidization to make the pain of entrepreneurship sting a little less) and let them build without all the extra noise...we could see some sparks turn into fires.  It is a guarantee that if we don't do it, other projects will.  This is how Google got big (and how ethereum will get big too). 

You see Fuzzy the problem is this seems to be some kind of specialized area. 90% of projects I see seem to require funding to be done. They call themselves startups but already start with huge money behind them or just tell people, we have this awesome idea, pay us or we wont do it. Entrepeneurs and startups are usually not that rich and that's what drives them. They don't get too comfortable (see ethereum ) and work very very hard to accomplish their goals. The fact that they dont have much money is a very strong motivation for them to keep going.

The problem is most people could be paid many times more on other projects. But most startup entrepreneurs could too I guess. However, I dont know why, in the blockchain world this seems to be different.

If more people actually tried to do stuff instead of demanding for money, I'm sure we would have loads of more projects in the crypto scene. Also the fact that BitShares is a niche in the cryptoscene doesnt help. The risk-reward ratio isnt worth it for many so they just wont take the risk. I guess that's why everyone demands money upfront. But that will slow everything down

[fuzzy]

My point is that having a lot of experiments going on at once is the only way to do well in this space. Google has a lot of experiments too, and the vast majority fail. Remember Google Wave?

Disagree. Maybe if we had the resources. We don't. Bts are low, lots of community members already lost their patience, etc. It's a luxury to be able to do that. Google can try a milion different things simply because they have a budget and resources for that. BitShares is still crawling and trying to learn how to walk. We have not complete products yet we need to deliver and there are already lots of thing in the pipe line: UI, API, Bond Markets, Predictions Markets, KYC Stuff, get more liquidity, etc. That's a lot to do.

I prefer we work on that first and have something completely rock solid. Something we could FINALLY advertise without letting people disappointed. Something that could make shareholders use BitShares. Something that brings utility which consequently will bring liquidity, business partners, clients, etc

Of course we should always have an open mind regarding new ideas, but we don't have time to waste atm and there's still lots of stuff to be done. First of all, BitShares needs to be a BRAND. Something people heard of and immediately associate with a trading platform. Only then should we relax our breath a little.

^^^^^^^ very well said sir.  It's the unfinished beta nature of the product so far that has tested people's faith. We see it time and again - usability problems. If we're going to compete with, coin base for example, then we have to have a front end, website, documentation, iPhone app like theirs and it needs to just work.
We have such fantastic technology. We just need to get it finished and there's no reason this can't win.

 

[mike623317]

My point is that having a lot of experiments going on at once is the only way to do well in this space. Google has a lot of experiments too, and the vast majority fail. Remember Google Wave?

Disagree. Maybe if we had the resources. We don't. Bts are low, lots of community members already lost their patience, etc. It's a luxury to be able to do that. Google can try a milion different things simply because they have a budget and resources for that. BitShares is still crawling and trying to learn how to walk. We have not complete products yet we need to deliver and there are already lots of thing in the pipe line: UI, API, Bond Markets, Predictions Markets, KYC Stuff, get more liquidity, etc. That's a lot to do.

I prefer we work on that first and have something completely rock solid. Something we could FINALLY advertise without letting people disappointed. Something that could make shareholders use BitShares. Something that brings utility which consequently will bring liquidity, business partners, clients, etc

Of course we should always have an open mind regarding new ideas, but we don't have time to waste atm and there's still lots of stuff to be done. First of all, BitShares needs to be a BRAND. Something people heard of and immediately associate with a trading platform. Only then should we relax our breath a little.

^^^^^^^ very well said sir.  It's the unfinished beta nature of the product so far that has tested people's faith. We see it time and again - usability problems. If we're going to compete with, coin base for example, then we have to have a front end, website, documentation, iPhone app like theirs and it needs to just work.
We have such fantastic technology. We just need to get it finished and there's no reason this can't win.

[donkeypong]

Bitshares isn't "killed'. It's that kind of talk that is killing Bitshares.

Just because the price is down it doesn't mean it's "killed". The incomplete products isn't what killed anything, in fact it is that kind of innovation which kept me and others interested enough to stick around. Ethereum also has a lot of stuff going on and is mostly vaporware but no one is saying it's a dead project.

I would say the fact that Bytemaster and others have a grand vision is the reason to stick with this project long term. The lack of vision is a sign for when it's time to leave.

I fully agree with Luckybit. Method, I understand you are frustrated at past mistakes, but if you're going to talk about BitShares having failed in the past tense, then do it somewhere else. For those who are patient, tremendous opportunities await and I remain very hopeful about the future of this project. No one has done this before; we will keep working until we get it right.

[fuzzy]

Focusing on a million different projects at once is what killed hurt bitshares. It would be very unwise to go back in that direction.

absolutely agreed - stay focused .. and go step by step .. not get overhelmed of all possibilites, ideas and so on ...

I agree with this if you just change "killed" to "hurt".  I do also agree that experiments are important but they need to be kept separate and integrated when/if ready.

It is relatively simple concept that you see already happening in all of crypto.  Bitcoin has altcoins that float on the market based on the technology and multiple other factors...they are "experiments" that are nudging their way up the ladder (if worthwhile), or dying.

The big ones will grow and continue to grow...but it is a jungle.  However, what if altcoins were born in bitshares?? what if promising technologies and project leads knew they could come here and get coverage via hangouts and bitshares-based blogs?  what if they knew they could also get some funding to keep them afloat while they build? 

What if because of all this, we find some go to the top of the ladder and eventually sharedrop a token on us for helping them get there?

It might seem impossible to some...but as we gain more and more infrastructure, seeding many little projects early on (with light subsidization to make the pain of entrepreneurship sting a little less) and let them build without all the extra noise...we could see some sparks turn into fires.  It is a guarantee that if we don't do it, other projects will.  This is how Google got big (and how ethereum will get big too). 

I agree that current core devs should stay focused on usability (and the community should too), but we need to also acknowledge that we will only bring other devs onboard by spreading out our funding and actually giving back to those participating. THAT is not spreading ourselves too thin--that is recruiting.  We should be seeing all kinds of projects here in bitshares getting funding (and even failing) guys!  What makes bitshares amazing is that the supply is already here...and we can allow people who work hard to bring solid and consistent value to the forefront, using actual proof of "work" by giving some of our transaction fees to them.  This will create a foundation for an economy.

I hate to tell people, but volunteer economies don't tend to grow rapidly (gain liquidity).  We need to give people the resources to build.  The longer it takes us to realize that, the more we will lose marketcap.  I personally think we should all be willing to get rid of half our stake to ensure the other half goes to $10 dollars each.

[GaltReport]

Focusing on a million different projects at once is what killed hurt bitshares. It would be very unwise to go back in that direction.

absolutely agreed - stay focused .. and go step by step .. not get overhelmed of all possibilites, ideas and so on ...

I agree with this if you just change "killed" to "hurt".  I do also agree that experiments are important but they need to be kept separate and integrated when/if ready.

[thera]

  The first ever DAC seems to me to be Bitshares, the Exchange, built on top of Bitshares the Smart Platform, so I agree that it makes sense to show that the first DAC is absolutely a complete success and also to show that others can easily create future DACs on top of the platform, like Muse, etc, have already done and to promote that on the landing page as well(like theirs and others do).

 It does seem that Bitshares has narrowed the focus now and can move relatively quickly toward this end. 

[lil_jay890]

We appear to be focusing on the decentralized exchange portion of bitshares.  Creating an API that can be accessed by 3rd party platforms and addressing the fee's and referrals for trading operations.  We have narrowed our focus, which is a good thing.

---->API improvement---->Trading Fee/Referral Adjustment----> Basic UI Cleanup---->Hopefully Bond Market

[mikeytea]

Cant agree with you more method

[Method-X]

My point is that having a lot of experiments going on at once is the only way to do well in this space. Google has a lot of experiments too, and the vast majority fail. Remember Google Wave?

Bitshares is not Google. It does not have the financial or intellectual capital of Google. When you have limited financial and intellectual capital, you must prioritize. Google did not start off with a million side projects - they did ONE THING really well and made enough money to acquire the intellectual capital necessary to do a million other things. Bitshares did the exact opposite of this.

[Akado]

My point is that having a lot of experiments going on at once is the only way to do well in this space. Google has a lot of experiments too, and the vast majority fail. Remember Google Wave?

Disagree. Maybe if we had the resources. We don't. Bts are low, lots of community members already lost their patience, etc. It's a luxury to be able to do that. Google can try a milion different things simply because they have a budget and resources for that. BitShares is still crawling and trying to learn how to walk. We have not complete products yet we need to deliver and there are already lots of thing in the pipe line: UI, API, Bond Markets, Predictions Markets, KYC Stuff, get more liquidity, etc. That's a lot to do.

I prefer we work on that first and have something completely rock solid. Something we could FINALLY advertise without letting people disappointed. Something that could make shareholders use BitShares. Something that brings utility which consequently will bring liquidity, business partners, clients, etc

Of course we should always have an open mind regarding new ideas, but we don't have time to waste atm and there's still lots of stuff to be done. First of all, BitShares needs to be a BRAND. Something people heard of and immediately associate with a trading platform. Only then should we relax our breath a little.

[luckybit]

My point is that having a lot of experiments going on at once is the only way to do well in this space. Google has a lot of experiments too, and the vast majority fail. Remember Google Wave?