2016 Vision Blog Post

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

Yea sorry, that's not how life works for 99.9999999 percent of the world.

You are correct.

Most of the world will see all the obstacles and will attempt to solve problems within the confines of the barriers placed in front of them.

Good thing some here don't think that way... otherwise Bitshares wouldn't exist at all.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

I think most of the commentators in this thread already violated the first core principle of the NAP.

Firstly, this was a very high level introduction to ONE idea for Bitshares. One of many.

Many commentators seem to always want to take BMs posts and ideas and boil down Bitshares to just that one thing. This to me is his own personal shot at building something profitable on Bitshares.

It's something he believes in, and something he thinks will do good for Bitshares and the world.

Before anybody goes tearing it apart, I ask you to consider asking yourself 'Where is my profitable idea to build on Bitshares?'

That's all this is... consider contributing some ideas on ways it can work, because anything else you do/say isn't going to help your Bitshares holdings.

If you want to see other aspects of Bitshares to be developed more and grow because that is your thing, go nuts! Do it! There isn't anything stopping you but you.

I for one look forward to helping any way I can see MAS and other such visions come alive.

Let's make 2016 the year that the blockchain evolutionized our social order worldwide.

[onceuponatime]

Here's the problem.  Most people, and i'm going to guess over 90%, are here to try to leverage the overall move of the public to blockchain tech.  They are trying to profit by beating the banks. They are trying to leverage the technical  superiority of bitshares compared to bitcoin to achieve a higher beta return.

A major problem seems to be that hiring devs to add the features and refinements and upgrades that everyone wants takes funding.  How are "they" (those making suggestions/requests) proposing to hire and pay devs to accomplish "their" desires in the order that they propose?

These discussions could be a lot more fruitful if plans for funding of requests accompanied those requests.

If you own BTS now, you own a share of the blockchain technology "as is". You have not paid for future development (the money for that ran out a long time ago).

Correct.  Bootstrapping a business means choosing from the paths through the entrepreneurial maze that are available to you at each point in time. 

Each candidate path has its estimated costs and rate of return.  Sometimes the most direct paths exceed our immediate resources. Sometimes we need to take a few detours to acquire the resources needed to pursue the final goal. 

To make a DEX successful you need market depth.  To get that you need users.  There are many potential ways to get users and effort expended in any of them is potentially productive.  We look for ways that we can afford and that are likely to pay off sooner than later.

Sometimes you can attract users philosophically while you build features that will attract others economically. 

We are not given a map to our maze in advance.  The best solution is to explore the maze in parallel as a team of fellow entrepreneurs.  We are not limited to just worker proposals or just outside investments or just creating a compelling reason to work together.  It is the sum of all those efforts that will get us there.

I solved the map:

Yea sorry, that's not how life works for 99.9999999 percent of the world.

That was Alexander the "Great's" way of solving puzzles. But then again, he wasn't big on the Non Aggression Principle (NAP).

[Xypher]

Here's the problem.  Most people, and i'm going to guess over 90%, are here to try to leverage the overall move of the public to blockchain tech.  They are trying to profit by beating the banks. They are trying to leverage the technical  superiority of bitshares compared to bitcoin to achieve a higher beta return.

A major problem seems to be that hiring devs to add the features and refinements and upgrades that everyone wants takes funding.  How are "they" (those making suggestions/requests) proposing to hire and pay devs to accomplish "their" desires in the order that they propose?

These discussions could be a lot more fruitful if plans for funding of requests accompanied those requests.

If you own BTS now, you own a share of the blockchain technology "as is". You have not paid for future development (the money for that ran out a long time ago).

Correct.  Bootstrapping a business means choosing from the paths through the entrepreneurial maze that are available to you at each point in time. 

Each candidate path has its estimated costs and rate of return.  Sometimes the most direct paths exceed our immediate resources. Sometimes we need to take a few detours to acquire the resources needed to pursue the final goal. 

To make a DEX successful you need market depth.  To get that you need users.  There are many potential ways to get users and effort expended in any of them is potentially productive.  We look for ways that we can afford and that are likely to pay off sooner than later.

Sometimes you can attract users philosophically while you build features that will attract others economically. 

We are not given a map to our maze in advance.  The best solution is to explore the maze in parallel as a team of fellow entrepreneurs.  We are not limited to just worker proposals or just outside investments or just creating a compelling reason to work together.  It is the sum of all those efforts that will get us there.

I solved the map:

Yea sorry, that's not how life works for 99.9999999 percent of the world.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

Here's the problem.  Most people, and i'm going to guess over 90%, are here to try to leverage the overall move of the public to blockchain tech.  They are trying to profit by beating the banks. They are trying to leverage the technical  superiority of bitshares compared to bitcoin to achieve a higher beta return.

A major problem seems to be that hiring devs to add the features and refinements and upgrades that everyone wants takes funding.  How are "they" (those making suggestions/requests) proposing to hire and pay devs to accomplish "their" desires in the order that they propose?

These discussions could be a lot more fruitful if plans for funding of requests accompanied those requests.

If you own BTS now, you own a share of the blockchain technology "as is". You have not paid for future development (the money for that ran out a long time ago).

Correct.  Bootstrapping a business means choosing from the paths through the entrepreneurial maze that are available to you at each point in time. 

Each candidate path has its estimated costs and rate of return.  Sometimes the most direct paths exceed our immediate resources. Sometimes we need to take a few detours to acquire the resources needed to pursue the final goal. 

To make a DEX successful you need market depth.  To get that you need users.  There are many potential ways to get users and effort expended in any of them is potentially productive.  We look for ways that we can afford and that are likely to pay off sooner than later.

Sometimes you can attract users philosophically while you build features that will attract others economically. 

We are not given a map to our maze in advance.  The best solution is to explore the maze in parallel as a team of fellow entrepreneurs.  We are not limited to just worker proposals or just outside investments or just creating a compelling reason to work together.  It is the sum of all those efforts that will get us there.

I solved the map:

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

Here's the problem.  Most people, and i'm going to guess over 90%, are here to try to leverage the overall move of the public to blockchain tech.  They are trying to profit by beating the banks. They are trying to leverage the technical  superiority of bitshares compared to bitcoin to achieve a higher beta return.

A major problem seems to be that hiring devs to add the features and refinements and upgrades that everyone wants takes funding.  How are "they" (those making suggestions/requests) proposing to hire and pay devs to accomplish "their" desires in the order that they propose?

These discussions could be a lot more fruitful if plans for funding of requests accompanied those requests.

If you own BTS now, you own a share of the blockchain technology "as is". You have not paid for future development (the money for that ran out a long time ago).

That's what worker proposals were suppose to be for... adding features.

Why is everything you say in this thread about Bitshares in past tense as though it's something that doesn't exist anymore?

[sittingduck]

Knowing Bm he is always looking for profit.  Let's give him time to explain the business.

[btswildpig]

A business without philosophy is dead and pointless. Likewise philosophy without business goes nowhere.  The maze of life is too complex to make decision only on info.  It is values and philosophy the must fill the gaps and keep us focused.   

Nothing Bm said takes anything away from the dex.  It only adds something new.   The dex is nice and all, but there is no reason to use the dex. There is no reason to use bts except for the hope of adoption.

As a user why should I adopt bts TODAY?  Bm just gave me a reason to be involved today.  Speculation isn't a good reason on its own.  It created a huge sunshine soldier that left town after the easy gains were had. 

Mas is a great business that provides value today.  It gives us something unique.  I can sell that.  I can't sell a dex with no unique assets to trade to many.

Hope you can be rich since you can sell that , lots of referral fee there .
Or , not ..

[sittingduck]

A business without philosophy is dead and pointless. Likewise philosophy without business goes nowhere.  The maze of life is too complex to make decision only on info.  It is values and philosophy the must fill the gaps and keep us focused.   

Nothing Bm said takes anything away from the dex.  It only adds something new.   The dex is nice and all, but there is no reason to use the dex. There is no reason to use bts except for the hope of adoption.

As a user why should I adopt bts TODAY?  Bm just gave me a reason to be involved today.  Speculation isn't a good reason on its own.  It created a huge sunshine soldier that left town after the easy gains were had. 

Mas is a great business that provides value today.  It gives us something unique.  I can sell that.  I can't sell a dex with no unique assets to trade to many. 

[Xypher]

Did you cheat and look at the map of the maze from above?

Try it again from ground level...

Nope.
Tried multiple routes.
Went back and redid from alternative route when it didn't work.
One difference though, I began from the end point when working from the initial point got confusing.

Relates a lot to what we are doing here.
We need to make our moves with our end goal in mind and re-iterate strategies when we see some don't working

[Stan]

Did you cheat and look at the map of the maze from above?

Try it again from ground level...

[Xypher]

Here's the problem.  Most people, and i'm going to guess over 90%, are here to try to leverage the overall move of the public to blockchain tech.  They are trying to profit by beating the banks. They are trying to leverage the technical  superiority of bitshares compared to bitcoin to achieve a higher beta return.

A major problem seems to be that hiring devs to add the features and refinements and upgrades that everyone wants takes funding.  How are "they" (those making suggestions/requests) proposing to hire and pay devs to accomplish "their" desires in the order that they propose?

These discussions could be a lot more fruitful if plans for funding of requests accompanied those requests.

If you own BTS now, you own a share of the blockchain technology "as is". You have not paid for future development (the money for that ran out a long time ago).

Correct.  Bootstrapping a business means choosing from the paths through the entrepreneurial maze that are available to you at each point in time. 

Each candidate path has its estimated costs and rate of return.  Sometimes the most direct paths exceed our immediate resources. Sometimes we need to take a few detours to acquire the resources needed to pursue the final goal. 

To make a DEX successful you need market depth.  To get that you need users.  There are many potential ways to get users and effort expended in any of them is potentially productive.  We look for ways that we can afford and that are likely to pay off sooner than later.

Sometimes you can attract users philosophically while you build other features that will attract them economically. 

We are not given a map to our maze in advance.  The best solution is to explore the maze in parallel as a team of fellow entrepreneurs.  We are not limited to just worker proposals or just outside investments or just creating a compelling reason to work together.  It is the sum of all those efforts that will get us there.

Solved the maze.
No more need to try to solve the maze in parallel

[Stan]

Here's the problem.  Most people, and i'm going to guess over 90%, are here to try to leverage the overall move of the public to blockchain tech.  They are trying to profit by beating the banks. They are trying to leverage the technical  superiority of bitshares compared to bitcoin to achieve a higher beta return.

A major problem seems to be that hiring devs to add the features and refinements and upgrades that everyone wants takes funding.  How are "they" (those making suggestions/requests) proposing to hire and pay devs to accomplish "their" desires in the order that they propose?

These discussions could be a lot more fruitful if plans for funding of requests accompanied those requests.

If you own BTS now, you own a share of the blockchain technology "as is". You have not paid for future development (the money for that ran out a long time ago).

Correct.  Bootstrapping a business means choosing from the paths through the entrepreneurial maze that are available to you at each point in time. 

Each candidate path has its estimated costs and rate of return.  Sometimes the most direct paths exceed our immediate resources. Sometimes we need to take a few detours to acquire the resources needed to pursue the final goal. 

To make a DEX successful you need market depth.  To get that you need users.  There are many potential ways to get users and effort expended in any of them is potentially productive.  We look for ways that we can afford and that are likely to pay off sooner than later.

Sometimes you can attract users philosophically while you build features that will attract others economically. 

We are not given a map to our maze in advance.  The best solution is to explore the maze in parallel as a team of fellow entrepreneurs.  We are not limited to just worker proposals or just outside investments or just creating a compelling reason to work together.  It is the sum of all those efforts that will get us there.

[Xypher]

Here's the problem.  Most people, and i'm going to guess over 90%, are here to try to leverage the overall move of the public to blockchain tech.  They are trying to profit by beating the banks. They are trying to leverage the technical  superiority of bitshares compared to bitcoin to achieve a higher beta return.

A major problem seems to be that hiring devs to add the features and refinements and upgrades that everyone wants takes funding.  How are "they" (those making suggestions/requests) proposing to hire and pay devs to accomplish "their" desires in the order that they propose?

These discussions could be a lot more fruitful if plans for funding of requests accompanied those requests.

If you own BTS now, you own a share of the blockchain technology "as is". You have not paid for future development (the money for that ran out a long time ago).

That's what worker proposals were suppose to be for... adding features.

I saw 3 worker proposals for 400 usd the other day, what's the largest worker proposal we have agreed to so far?

[lil_jay890]

Here's the problem.  Most people, and i'm going to guess over 90%, are here to try to leverage the overall move of the public to blockchain tech.  They are trying to profit by beating the banks. They are trying to leverage the technical  superiority of bitshares compared to bitcoin to achieve a higher beta return.

A major problem seems to be that hiring devs to add the features and refinements and upgrades that everyone wants takes funding.  How are "they" (those making suggestions/requests) proposing to hire and pay devs to accomplish "their" desires in the order that they propose?

These discussions could be a lot more fruitful if plans for funding of requests accompanied those requests.

If you own BTS now, you own a share of the blockchain technology "as is". You have not paid for future development (the money for that ran out a long time ago).

That's what worker proposals were suppose to be for... adding features.