2016 Vision Blog Post

[neo1344]

this look like a family run business.

[Empirical1.2]

Lol. Dan never was the leader, but the inventor.

Wrong

My job is to lead not code.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,10118.msg131991.html#msg131991

As for the vision, it's pretty niche, I don't think it will attract new users or increase support for a DAC that's been more or less in a solid downtrend for 15 months, during which time BM's views on NAP have been fairly well known.

Looking forward to seeing a 2016 vision from a business perspective regarding how BTS will hope to attract new users, revenue and profit from innovative and compelling blockchain features.

[jakub]

CNX being a knowledge bottleneck is a legitimate concern but not one for them to solve alone. One could think of this as a marshmallow bus test.

I agree. We cannot just sit back and wait for CNX to offer us perfect tutorials and teach us everything.
However, for me personally, a clear declaration of CNX's intention to put effort into this educational area in 2016, would be much more uplifting than a new grand vision like MAS.

I have nothing against MAS, actually I quite like the concept, but it would be much more encouraging for me to be able to build something similar to MAS on my own than sit back and wait for CNX to realize their grand vision on my behalf.

CNX, please don't give us one more thing on the horizon and make us hope that this time the magic will happen.
Just give us tools and good tutorials how to utilize what we already have.

[Zapply]

https://youtu.be/TK57RiMqTdk

[Riverhead]

I'm just lost at what bitshares is and what we're focused on.  I cant explain it to anyone much less get them to buy something so complex.  I thought we were going to find a niche (like the decentralized exchange) and leverage and exploit that niche.... That is what successful businesses do. They don't go running after every new idea they have without completing their previous one.

I don't see how that's changed. The core devs for Bitcoin don't need to buy into every business idea out there that uses the protocol. Businesses look at what Bitcoin is and figure out how best to use it.


CNX being a knowledge bottleneck is a legitimate concern but not one for them to solve alone. One could think of this as a marshmallow bus test.

[jakub]

BitShares Vision should have been called "My Vision for BitShares" since it
really is only the vision of Dan.
Also, BitShares is independent of Dan and CNX and you can have your OWN vision.
I think every feature that can be implemented in BitShares and makes it a
profitable business makes sense independent of the actual timing.

It should have been titled and marketed as "CNX's idea for a killer app built on BitShares".
As it is now, it looks like BM has a grand vision for the whole new direction for BitShares.

I don't see BitShares change course. It actually never had a course, it had
several. You could say that Dan changed his course and interpretation as well as
his goals for BitShares, but it is not in his hands alone.
He also does NOT change any existing feature but merely ADDS a new feature
leaving existing features as stable as they are already.

Theoretically you are right.
But practically, due to limited resources,  it means other areas listed in the roadmap will be neglected or abandoned. So it has the same effect as changing course.

Not sure why people blame "poor documentation". Have you read into the source
code already? It is well documented and very easy to read!
I know that for a fact because I tried to get into it even though I am not a
coder and yet here I am, knowing about the tech and the implementation.

No, I have not read into source code. Do you expect an average entrepreneur to do that?
I need to be able get a rough idea how it all works before the people I hire jump into the code.
I need guides and tutorials like Android offers. And I'm willing to pay for their creation.

BitShares gives them a means to build a business. It does not make them
inherently profitable. The list of projects here have had very different reasons
to change course.

All of those projects are seriously delayed.
And still there is not a single company (apart from CNX) able to produce a worker proposal involving a protocol change.
It must be either extremely difficult or there are not enough financial incentives.
As nobody is even bidding, it must be the former reason, not the latter.

How so? What does this have to do with the OP? Would you pay anyone for
improving the migration process? If not you can't expect anyone to do it for
you!

This is a clear example of a task that only CNX can do. An attempt at this by a third-party company would be crazy.

So you want CNX to do all the work that no-one pays them for! Got it.
It's also not CNX concerning about vision, it is Dan and I very much appreciate
that he still has big plans for BitShares and sticks with it!
But I agree that CNX is a bottleneck. We need a lot more independent developers
joining and I am personally working hard to achieve exactly that.

Why are you saying no-one wants to pay for it? I do want to pay for it.

Lol. Dan never was the leader, but the inventor. CNX is neither a dictator but
an innovator.

He clearly said in one of the posts in this thread that in 2016 he would aim to be a better leader.

Sounds like a plan. Why don't YOU step up and do it?
Who are you to tell Dan what to do with his time and money?

There is a very simple reason I don't step in. Because BM's knowledge about Graphene is incomparable to mine.
Even if I tried very hard, documentation for developers written by me would be worthless.

What exactly is unfriendly in our environment? Don't you get help when you need
it? Don't we contact businesses and reach out to them for integration? Are you?

I do get help, and especially your help, xeroc, is very appreciated.
But despite this help I still won't call this environment stable and open for third-party development.

[lil_jay890]

I'm just lost at what bitshares is and what we're focused on.  I cant explain it to anyone much less get them to buy something so complex.  I thought we were going to find a niche (like the decentralized exchange) and leverage and exploit that niche.... That is what successful businesses do. They don't go running after every new idea they have without completing their previous one.

[jakub]

@xeroc , you know damn well that I've always been advocating the "BM owes us nothing" stance.
Yes, he is free to do whatever he wants but I am also free to express my view what the most important areas are *in my eyes*, so that BM can get some feedback.

And there are areas where currently CNX is the only entity capable of getting things done, especially when a protocol change is involved.
Theoretically there is a choice, practically there is no choice. As of 2015, if BM does not like something it won't be implemented.

And it's not entirely due to his voting power. It is mainly due to his code development power.
I just wish for 2016 to be the year when this situation finally changes. And BM's vision for 2016 about MAS is not a step in this direction.

We all feel bad about it:
- CNX (because this situation puts pressure on them and prevents them from perusing their vision)
- the community (because we can have our ideas but we still feel dependent on CNX to execute them)

Thus what I am actually suggesting is first eliminate (at least partially) our dependence on CNX and then let them pursue whatever visions they have.
And this will only happen when we can honestly say that Graphene is a friendly & stable environment encouraging third-party development.

[xeroc]

I got very worried when I read the "vision blog post" by BM.
This Mutual Aid Society concept might make sense but not now.

BitShares Vision should have been called "My Vision for BitShares" since it
really is only the vision of Dan.
Also, BitShares is independent of Dan and CNX and you can have your OWN vision.
I think every feature that can be implemented in BitShares and makes it a
profitable business makes sense independent of the actual timing.

Yet again BitShares seems to be doing that terrible thing: avoiding stability and changing course.

I don't see BitShares change course. It actually never had a course, it had
several. You could say that Dan changed his course and interpretation as well as
his goals for BitShares, but it is not in his hands alone.
He also does NOT change any existing feature but merely ADDS a new feature
leaving existing features as stable as they are already.

And those suggestions "if you don't like BM's ideas just build your own stuff on BitShares" are just false.
With the current poor documentation and no real efforts to attract third-party developers, it is just not possible.
Even if you have an idea you are left alone with it.

Not sure why people blame "poor documentation". Have you read into the source
code already? It is well documented and very easy to read!
I know that for a fact because I tried to get into it even though I am not a
coder and yet here I am, knowing about the tech and the implementation.

Look at Moonstone. Look at BitShares-based ATMs by devlux. Look at Nexus by Rune.
Look at our roadmap - plenty of great ideas but no realistic chance to achieve them.

BitShares gives them a means to build a business. It does not make them
inherently profitable. The list of projects here have had very different reasons
to change course.

Even the migration process seems to be still unfinished.

How so? What does this have to do with the OP? Would you pay anyone for
improving the migration process? If not you can't expect anyone to do it for
you!

[qquote]
CNX is the bottleneck here and instead of focusing on documentation, education
and building a strong community of developers who will eliminate this
bottleneck, CNX is concerned about "vision".
[/quote]
So you want CNX to do all the work that no-one pays them for! Got it.
It's also not CNX concerning about vision, it is Dan and I very much appreciate
that he still has big plans for BitShares and sticks with it!
But I agree that CNX is a bottleneck. We need a lot more independent developers
joining and I am personally working hard to achieve exactly that.

BM, I wish your New Year's resolution was not a new attempt at leadership.
I wish it was the opposite - stepping down from this role.

Lol. Dan never was the leader, but the inventor. CNX is neither a dictator but
an innovator.

I don't think we need a leader at this stage.
What we need is someone who leverages his knowledge about the inner workings of Graphene and spreads this knowledge to the outside world.
Someone who creates tools for developers and opens up Graphene to become the blockchain equivalent of Android.

Sounds like a plan. Why don't YOU step up and do it?
Who are you to tell Dan what to do with his time and money?

In short, what we need is stable and friendly environment for developers and
businesses. Not a vision.

What exactly is unfriedly in our environment? Don't you get help when you need
it? Don't we contact businesses and reach out to them for integration? Are you?

The only thing I am concerned is that Dan/CNX is way too innovative to handle
the load alone. Just because people don't understand the concepts, innovations
and ideas technically does not mean they are bad ideas. what we need is to reach
decision makers attracted by our vision and ideas and only then have them
fascinated by our technology. </imho>

[JonnyB]

Just keep improving the decentralised exchange and make the smartcoin spread smaller because this is what investors in bitshares want.

[clayop]

I got very worried when I read the "vision blog post" by BM.
This Mutual Aid Society concept might make sense but not now.

Yet again BitShares seems to be doing that terrible thing: avoiding stability and changing course.

And those suggestions "if you don't like BM's ideas just build your own stuff on BitShares" are just false.
With the current poor documentation and no real efforts to attract third-party developers, it is just not possible.
Even if you have an idea you are left alone with it.

Look at Moonstone. Look at BitShares-based ATMs by devlux. Look at Nexus by Rune.
Look at our roadmap - plenty of great ideas but no realistic chance to achieve them.
Even the migration process seems to be still unfinished.

CNX is the bottleneck here and instead of focusing on documentation, education and building a strong community of developers who will eliminate this bottleneck, CNX is concerned about "vision".

BM, I wish your New Year's resolution was not a new attempt at leadership.
I wish it was the opposite - stepping down from this role.

I don't think we need a leader at this stage.
What we need is someone who leverages his knowledge about the inner workings of Graphene and spreads this knowledge to the outside world.
Someone who creates tools for developers and opens up Graphene to become the blockchain equivalent of Android.

In short, what we need is stable and friendly environment for developers and businesses. Not a vision.
The idea of MAS might be good. But it is not the right time for this.

This ^^^^^

[jakub]

I got very worried when I read the "vision blog post" by BM.
This Mutual Aid Society concept might make sense but not now.

Yet again BitShares seems to be doing that terrible thing: avoiding stability and changing course.

And those suggestions "if you don't like BM's ideas just build your own stuff on BitShares" are just false.
With the current poor documentation and no real efforts to attract third-party developers, it is just not possible.
Even if you have an idea you are left alone with it.

Look at Moonstone. Look at BitShares-based ATMs by devlux. Look at Nexus by Rune.
Look at our roadmap - plenty of great ideas but no realistic chance to achieve them.
Even the migration process seems to be still unfinished.

CNX is the bottleneck here and instead of focusing on documentation, education and building a strong community of developers who will eliminate this bottleneck, CNX is concerned about "vision".

BM, I wish your New Year's resolution was not a new attempt at leadership.
I wish it was the opposite - stepping down from this role.

I don't think we need a leader at this stage.
What we need is someone who leverages his knowledge about the inner workings of Graphene and spreads this knowledge to the outside world.
Someone who creates tools for developers and opens up Graphene to become the blockchain equivalent of Android.

In short, what we need is stable and friendly environment for developers and businesses. Not a vision.
The idea of MAS might be good. But it is not the right time for this.

[luckybit]

The entire "cryptocurrency isn't property" argument is really hard for me to follow.

Any "property" which you can't protect with your body (the theft of which would then require violating NAP) is protected for you by the government via property laws.

Your car deed is also a shared societal perception that the car "belongs" to you. If I come hotwire it while you are asleep, by your own reasoning I have not violated NAP.

A lot of anarchists don't believe in property rights other than what you can carry, and it's not an invalid argument, I just think it's not what you actually believe.

Personal property vs private property. Personal property is the most essential property to defend while private property might just be owned by a corporation or by some sort of a cartel.

[tuckfheman]

I'm just pleased to see that FISTBUMP's are in your visions Dan.

And why wouldn't it be, since it's the #1 Social Currency on the BitShares DEX and has the ability to defeat the New World Order built into it.

[Xypher]

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.

Disruption is not the equivalent of logical fallacy