Author Topic: New Stealth Transfer Worker ($1000)  (Read 62922 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Riverhead


For every Elon Musk there are hundreds of people crying into their beers wonder where it all went wrong :P.

Offline Empirical1.2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
    • View Profile
You can get rich by risking your life savings on a 1000-1 dice spin if you want. Even if the odds are tilted highly in your favour, it's still incorrect to make such a large bet as your risk of ruin is so high.

If I gave you 20-1 odds on rolling a 6 with a dice for a 1000 spins. Would you get wealthier by risking your life savings on one spin or by betting 10% on each spin? The person who bet his life savings has an 83% chance of going broke, he's guaranteed to, if he keeps betting. However the person who bets 10% per spin is likely to become wealthier than you could imagine. 

In this industry, from an investment POV there are multiple high risk, higher reward plays so putting your eggs in one basket is uneccessary. 

He's said he's considered his decision and he's happy with it. That's fine. I agree we as BTS shareholders will likely benefit.

I wouldn't compare business opportunities with dice rolls.
In the end you have no influence in the outcome when rolling a
dice, but you can influence a business, support its ideas and help it grow.

Else, I agree. From probability POV, you better put your effs in multiple baskets.

He gives you 20-1 odds on his example! I would definitely choose dices over a business opportunity if that would be a real case scenario...

PS you have no influence, but you know  "exactly" the outcome... "longterm"...

Diversification:



Good one :) The art is to protect the downside.


If you want to take the island burn the boats

Offline CLains

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: clains
You can get rich by risking your life savings on a 1000-1 dice spin if you want. Even if the odds are tilted highly in your favour, it's still incorrect to make such a large bet as your risk of ruin is so high.

If I gave you 20-1 odds on rolling a 6 with a dice for a 1000 spins. Would you get wealthier by risking your life savings on one spin or by betting 10% on each spin? The person who bet his life savings has an 83% chance of going broke, he's guaranteed to, if he keeps betting. However the person who bets 10% per spin is likely to become wealthier than you could imagine. 

In this industry, from an investment POV there are multiple high risk, higher reward plays so putting your eggs in one basket is uneccessary. 

He's said he's considered his decision and he's happy with it. That's fine. I agree we as BTS shareholders will likely benefit.

I wouldn't compare business opportunities with dice rolls.
In the end you have no influence in the outcome when rolling a
dice, but you can influence a business, support its ideas and help it grow.

Else, I agree. From probability POV, you better put your effs in multiple baskets.

He gives you 20-1 odds on his example! I would definitely choose dices over a business opportunity if that would be a real case scenario...

PS you have no influence, but you know  "exactly" the outcome... "longterm"...

Diversification:


Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani
You can get rich by risking your life savings on a 1000-1 dice spin if you want. Even if the odds are tilted highly in your favour, it's still incorrect to make such a large bet as your risk of ruin is so high.

If I gave you 20-1 odds on rolling a 6 with a dice for a 1000 spins. Would you get wealthier by risking your life savings on one spin or by betting 10% on each spin? The person who bet his life savings has an 83% chance of going broke, he's guaranteed to, if he keeps betting. However the person who bets 10% per spin is likely to become wealthier than you could imagine. 

In this industry, from an investment POV there are multiple high risk, higher reward plays so putting your eggs in one basket is uneccessary. 

He's said he's considered his decision and he's happy with it. That's fine. I agree we as BTS shareholders will likely benefit.

I wouldn't compare business opportunities with dice rolls.
In the end you have no influence in the outcome when rolling a
dice, but you can influence a business, support its ideas and help it grow.

Else, I agree. From probability POV, you better put your effs in multiple baskets.

He gives you 20-1 odds on his example! I would definitely choose dices over a business opportunity if that would be a real case scenario...

PS you have no influence, but you know  "exactly" the outcome... "longterm"...

Offline Empirical1.2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
    • View Profile
You can get rich by risking your life savings on a 1000-1 dice spin if you want. Even if the odds are tilted highly in your favour, it's still incorrect to make such a large bet as your risk of ruin is so high.

If I gave you 20-1 odds on rolling a 6 with a dice for a 1000 spins. Would you get wealthier by risking your life savings on one spin or by betting 10% on each spin? The person who bet his life savings has an 83% chance of going broke, he's guaranteed to, if he keeps betting. However the person who bets 10% per spin is likely to become wealthier than you could imagine. 

In this industry, from an investment POV there are multiple high risk, higher reward plays so putting your eggs in one basket is uneccessary. 

He's said he's considered his decision and he's happy with it. That's fine. I agree we as BTS shareholders will likely benefit.

I wouldn't compare business opportunities with dice rolls.
In the end you have no influence in the outcome when rolling a
dice, but you can influence a business, support its ideas and help it grow.

Else, I agree. From probability POV, you better put your effs in multiple baskets.

Yes, I agree, it makes a difference.

The ability you have to influence outcomes results in a higher probability of being successful, you would as an investor estimate that advantage (increase your odds of winning in the calculation) & work out your optimum investment size in the same way as a dice roll/any risk return scenario.
If you want to take the island burn the boats

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
You can get rich by risking your life savings on a 1000-1 dice spin if you want. Even if the odds are tilted highly in your favour, it's still incorrect to make such a large bet as your risk of ruin is so high.

If I gave you 20-1 odds on rolling a 6 with a dice for a 1000 spins. Would you get wealthier by risking your life savings on one spin or by betting 10% on each spin? The person who bet his life savings has an 83% chance of going broke, he's guaranteed to, if he keeps betting. However the person who bets 10% per spin is likely to become wealthier than you could imagine. 

In this industry, from an investment POV there are multiple high risk, higher reward plays so putting your eggs in one basket is uneccessary. 

He's said he's considered his decision and he's happy with it. That's fine. I agree we as BTS shareholders will likely benefit.

I wouldn't compare business opportunities with dice rolls.
In the end you have no influence in the outcome when rolling a
dice, but you can influence a business, support its ideas and help it grow.

Else, I agree. From probability POV, you better put your effs in multiple baskets.

Offline Empirical1.2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
    • View Profile

Warren Buffet is already rich. Poor people should not invest like him if they want to ever get rich.

Getting rich requires you take big risks. Odds are you'll never get rich if you don't risk your life savings trying.


You can get rich by risking your life savings on a 1000-1 dice spin if you want. Even if the odds are tilted highly in your favour, it's still incorrect to make such a large bet as your risk of ruin is so high.

If I gave you 20-1 odds on rolling a 6 with a dice for a 1000 spins. Would you get wealthier by risking your life savings on one spin or by betting 10% on each spin? The person who bet his life savings has an 83% chance of going broke, he's guaranteed to, if he keeps betting. However the person who bets 10% per spin is likely to become wealthier than you could imagine. 

In this industry, from an investment POV there are multiple high risk, higher reward plays so putting your eggs in one basket is uneccessary. 

He's said he's considered his decision and he's happy with it. That's fine. I agree we as BTS shareholders will likely benefit.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2015, 09:28:50 am by Empirical1.2 »
If you want to take the island burn the boats

Offline cube

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1404
  • Bit by bit, we will get there!
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcube

Warren Buffet is already rich. Poor people should not invest like him if they want to ever get rich.

Getting rich requires you take big risks. Odds are you'll never get rich if you don't risk your life savings trying.


I like Warren Buffet's investment approach too.  However, contrary to common belief, Buffet does not take "big" risks.  In fact, he is a very careful man who takes well-researched and well-calculated risk for most of his investment decisions.

"The basic ideas of investing are to look at stocks as business, use the market's fluctuations to your advantage, and seek a margin of safety. That's what Ben Graham taught us. A hundred years from now they will still be the cornerstones of investing.   -- Warren Buffett"

ID: bitcube
bitcube is a dedicated witness and committe member. Please vote for bitcube.

Offline onceuponatime

@onceuponatime +5% for your offer!

I also like the crowdfunding idea very much .. this feature can be marketet quite nicely (take a look at obits) ..

I bought obits  ;)

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
@onceuponatime +5% for your offer!

I also like the crowdfunding idea very much .. this feature can be marketet quite nicely (take a look at obits) ..

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
I really do not get 'the no lifetime fees' crowd.

What is up with you people? Someone making too much money, according to you?

If yes go pay it yourselves, or get up and organize it as a UIA funding that you can buy into...


PS
And keep in mind that I say that while I have only 3 prime suspects for this secret investor - CNX being one of those.

CNX is not one of them, nor is it CCEDK nor Bunker.   In other words, there is no slight of hand here, I just wanted to air the idea without involving them.  Would the mystery investor please speak up if you are ok discussing this publicly?

I approached Stan and Dan with the thought of my paying CNX $45,000 to get the Stealth work funded. This is a huge chunk of my lifetime savings, and it is a huge risk for me to be taking. However, I am in total harmony with Bytemaster's philosophy and goals as far as I understand them and want this project to succeed, and to succeed .

I find that a lot of community members are expecting others to do the work needed to get this project rolling for free or for less than market rates. And out and out jealousy rearing its ugly head in some comments today.

Any reason you prefer stealth transfer over bond or prediction market? Is it because you think it is more important or you feel that the developers are intent on doing this first?

Will you be open to a crowd funding where you dont have to put up the whole $45,000?

Only curious, dont attribute anything to my questions.

I am all in favor of bond and prediction markets. My thinking was that if I pay for the stealth transfer myself, then the other funds can be used for those. With a $45,000 up front cash infusion CNX would have the stability and wherewithall to expand and produce more and more quickly.

Crowdfunding would be great, but I am a technically challenged person and am still grappling with the 2.0 release which I have only just recently gotten set up. I suppose that I could try to hire Cryptonomex to take care of that for me (Stan?).

I approached Stan and Dan with the thought that I fund the whole Stealth Worker proposal for $45,000to to get CNX working on it and get the ball rolling. This was for several reasons, among them that Dan stated that he thought that it could be a valuable boost to our ecosystem, and also that I personally am uncomfortable with current levels of privacy.

Stan and I tossed the idea back and forth a couple of times with Stan actually seeing the opportunities for entrpreneurs much faster and more thoroughly than me. He came up with the analogy of building a parking garage attached to someone else's mall.  And then Bytemaster put it out here in the forum for public discussion.

I would gladly be responsible for less than the full $45,000 if others want to join in.
For me to put up $45,000 in an effort to get BitShares out of the doldrums and kickstarted is a huge risk. IT REPRESENTS THE MAJORITY OF MY LIFE SAVINGS. The risks are huge. But I believe in what we are attempting to do with BitShares, and I am trying to do everything in my power and within my limited skill set to make BitShares a success as a way to safeguard life liberty and property in face of the enormous economic disruptions that are headed our way as the legacy financial system reaps what it has sown.

While this might benefit my BTS investment...

As a general rule, unless you are under 30 and have a very secure profession, I would advise against risking the majority of your life savings on any investment.

In this calculator http://www.albionresearch.com/kelly/ input your savings under bankroll and input what you think your return and odds of being successful are.

Quote
This is the same question that a business owner, investor, or speculator has to ask themself: what proportion of my capital should I stake on a risky venture?

This will return the upper bound/maximum you should mathematically  risk & most would reccomend much lower.

Quote
Many investors including Warren Buffett[8] and Bill Gross[9] use Kelly methods.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion

Warren Buffet is already rich. Poor people should not invest like him if they want to ever get rich.

Getting rich requires you take big risks. Odds are you'll never get rich if you don't risk your life savings trying. Not saying everyone wants to gamble like that but we don't want to discourage risk taking or else why would anyone start a business at all?

In a UIA you distribute the risks but you socialize the rewards. On the other hand centralized risk should produce centralized rewards unless the risk taker decides they want to socialize the rewards through some mechanism. In any case, the UIA or an individual can fund it and get the rewards.

Dilution in my opinion isn't worth it for this and most people don't want to wait 6 months or a year for it.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2015, 07:44:50 am by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline onceuponatime

I really do not get 'the no lifetime fees' crowd.

What is up with you people? Someone making too much money, according to you?

If yes go pay it yourselves, or get up and organize it as a UIA funding that you can buy into...


PS
And keep in mind that I say that while I have only 3 prime suspects for this secret investor - CNX being one of those.

CNX is not one of them, nor is it CCEDK nor Bunker.   In other words, there is no slight of hand here, I just wanted to air the idea without involving them.  Would the mystery investor please speak up if you are ok discussing this publicly?

I approached Stan and Dan with the thought of my paying CNX $45,000 to get the Stealth work funded. This is a huge chunk of my lifetime savings, and it is a huge risk for me to be taking. However, I am in total harmony with Bytemaster's philosophy and goals as far as I understand them and want this project to succeed, and to succeed .

I find that a lot of community members are expecting others to do the work needed to get this project rolling for free or for less than market rates. And out and out jealousy rearing its ugly head in some comments today.

Any reason you prefer stealth transfer over bond or prediction market? Is it because you think it is more important or you feel that the developers are intent on doing this first?

Will you be open to a crowd funding where you dont have to put up the whole $45,000?

Only curious, dont attribute anything to my questions.

I am all in favor of bond and prediction markets. My thinking was that if I pay for the stealth transfer myself, then the other funds can be used for those. With a $45,000 up front cash infusion CNX would have the stability and wherewithall to expand and produce more and more quickly.

Crowdfunding would be great, but I am a technically challenged person and am still grappling with the 2.0 release which I have only just recently gotten set up. I suppose that I could try to hire Cryptonomex to take care of that for me (Stan?).

I approached Stan and Dan with the thought that I fund the whole Stealth Worker proposal for $45,000to to get CNX working on it and get the ball rolling. This was for several reasons, among them that Dan stated that he thought that it could be a valuable boost to our ecosystem, and also that I personally am uncomfortable with current levels of privacy.

Stan and I tossed the idea back and forth a couple of times with Stan actually seeing the opportunities for entrpreneurs much faster and more thoroughly than me. He came up with the analogy of building a parking garage attached to someone else's mall.  And then Bytemaster put it out here in the forum for public discussion.

I would gladly be responsible for less than the full $45,000 if others want to join in.
For me to put up $45,000 in an effort to get BitShares out of the doldrums and kickstarted is a huge risk. IT REPRESENTS THE MAJORITY OF MY LIFE SAVINGS. The risks are huge. But I believe in what we are attempting to do with BitShares, and I am trying to do everything in my power and within my limited skill set to make BitShares a success as a way to safeguard life liberty and property in face of the enormous economic disruptions that are headed our way as the legacy financial system reaps what it has sown.

While this might benefit my BTS investment...

As a general rule, unless you are under 30 and have a very secure profession, I would advise against risking the majority of your life savings on any investment.

In this gambling calculator http://www.albionresearch.com/kelly/ input your savings under bankroll and input what you think your return and odds of being successful.

This will return the upper bound/maximum you should mathematically  risk & most would reccomend much lower.

Quote
This is the same question that a business owner, investor, or speculator has to ask themself: what proportion of my capital should I stake on a risky venture?


Quote
Many investors including Warren Buffett[8] and Bill Gross[9] use Kelly methods.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion

"If you want to take the island burn the boats"


I am way over 30  :)  and I am quite cognizant of the risks. However, having spent many many years studying monetary theory I know what is about to befall the world economic system and so I hope that BitShares, or something like it, will succeed.

Offline Empirical1.2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
    • View Profile
I really do not get 'the no lifetime fees' crowd.

What is up with you people? Someone making too much money, according to you?

If yes go pay it yourselves, or get up and organize it as a UIA funding that you can buy into...


PS
And keep in mind that I say that while I have only 3 prime suspects for this secret investor - CNX being one of those.

CNX is not one of them, nor is it CCEDK nor Bunker.   In other words, there is no slight of hand here, I just wanted to air the idea without involving them.  Would the mystery investor please speak up if you are ok discussing this publicly?

I approached Stan and Dan with the thought of my paying CNX $45,000 to get the Stealth work funded. This is a huge chunk of my lifetime savings, and it is a huge risk for me to be taking. However, I am in total harmony with Bytemaster's philosophy and goals as far as I understand them and want this project to succeed, and to succeed .

I find that a lot of community members are expecting others to do the work needed to get this project rolling for free or for less than market rates. And out and out jealousy rearing its ugly head in some comments today.

Any reason you prefer stealth transfer over bond or prediction market? Is it because you think it is more important or you feel that the developers are intent on doing this first?

Will you be open to a crowd funding where you dont have to put up the whole $45,000?

Only curious, dont attribute anything to my questions.

I am all in favor of bond and prediction markets. My thinking was that if I pay for the stealth transfer myself, then the other funds can be used for those. With a $45,000 up front cash infusion CNX would have the stability and wherewithall to expand and produce more and more quickly.

Crowdfunding would be great, but I am a technically challenged person and am still grappling with the 2.0 release which I have only just recently gotten set up. I suppose that I could try to hire Cryptonomex to take care of that for me (Stan?).

I approached Stan and Dan with the thought that I fund the whole Stealth Worker proposal for $45,000to to get CNX working on it and get the ball rolling. This was for several reasons, among them that Dan stated that he thought that it could be a valuable boost to our ecosystem, and also that I personally am uncomfortable with current levels of privacy.

Stan and I tossed the idea back and forth a couple of times with Stan actually seeing the opportunities for entrpreneurs much faster and more thoroughly than me. He came up with the analogy of building a parking garage attached to someone else's mall.  And then Bytemaster put it out here in the forum for public discussion.

I would gladly be responsible for less than the full $45,000 if others want to join in.
For me to put up $45,000 in an effort to get BitShares out of the doldrums and kickstarted is a huge risk. IT REPRESENTS THE MAJORITY OF MY LIFE SAVINGS. The risks are huge. But I believe in what we are attempting to do with BitShares, and I am trying to do everything in my power and within my limited skill set to make BitShares a success as a way to safeguard life liberty and property in face of the enormous economic disruptions that are headed our way as the legacy financial system reaps what it has sown.

While this might benefit my BTS investment...

As a general rule, unless you are under 30 and have a very secure profession, I would advise against risking the majority of your life savings on any investment.

In this calculator http://www.albionresearch.com/kelly/ input your savings under bankroll and input what you think your return and odds of being successful are.

Quote
This is the same question that a business owner, investor, or speculator has to ask themself: what proportion of my capital should I stake on a risky venture?

This will return the upper bound/maximum you should mathematically  risk & most would reccomend much lower.

Quote
Many investors including Warren Buffett[8] and Bill Gross[9] use Kelly methods.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion
« Last Edit: November 24, 2015, 07:16:38 am by Empirical1.2 »
If you want to take the island burn the boats

Offline tbone

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 632
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: tbone2
Thank you @onceuponatime for your commitment to BitShares and your willingness to risk so much for its success.  This is certainly an innovative option for funding development of worthy features that stakeholders may not otherwise be ready to dilute for.  Personally, I have yet to move my funds onto OpenLedger due to privacy concerns.  So I'm excited by this development. 

We clearly need to work out some of the details in terms of how this would all take place.  For starters, I believe we should have the right of first refusal.  In other words, assuming stakeholders believe a feature is worthy to begin with, we should decide whether we want to fund the feature through dilution or allow it to be funded by willing participants.  If the latter, then participation based on issuance of a UIA seems to make a lot of sense. 

As for fees, I would not vote to give up anything close to 100%.  But I have no problem with the idea of lifetime royalties.  Something like an 80/20 split until break-even and then 20/80 thereafter (as suggested by Dan) seems sensible, at least in the case of stealth transfers.  But generally speaking, I'm sure the fee split can and should be determined on a case-by-case basis. 
 

« Last Edit: November 24, 2015, 05:37:30 am by tbone »

Offline cube

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1404
  • Bit by bit, we will get there!
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcube

I would also strongly recommend that we open up this deal to "crowd fund" a UIA with a buyback plan. This way onceuponatime can diversify his risk and we can have an "equal opportunity" policy.  I don't want anyone accusing us of playing favorites.  By being equal opportunity we should auction it off.  Raise as much BTS as possible to fund it and then burn the rest.  This way the network gets a proper market-determined-price for this revenue stream.


Kudos to onceuponatime for raising up to help CNX and save bts from the dilution dilemma.  The "equal opportunity crowdfunding” for privatised features is a fantastic idea!  I think this will attract future investments of similar kind.

For the high risk that onceuponatime (his life saving) is taking, I do not mind him taking a percentage of the revenue for life-time.  However, bts shareholders should have access to a percentage of the revenue too because bts shareholders contributed to the bitshares foundation platform.

We can take this as a join-venture between bitshares and the private investors (with onceuponatime being the main private investor possibly) sharing the risk-reward in a 50%-50% manner.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2015, 05:37:06 am by cube »
ID: bitcube
bitcube is a dedicated witness and committe member. Please vote for bitcube.