Author Topic: 2016 Vision Blog Post  (Read 27149 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Riverhead

Read my last 1000 posts. 
We have done nothing but encourage and incentivize this competition.

Ask the Maker guys what I told them in Shanghai.
Ask BunkerChain Labs how we work with them.
Ask BitSapphire how we work with them.

The only thing hindering competition is the economic opportunities they can see.
And we are fully focused on that.


There is an opportunity cost for CNX to be the only subject matter expert. Having the knowledge and needing to do the legwork isn't ideal at all. The better situation for CNX would be to get work with a revenue stream while continuing to be a knowledge resource to others.


Anyway, what I really came to say is that Stan was very excited about the prospect of other developers working on projects independently. The only time he suggested using CNX was in the capacity I mention above - as subject matter experts.


Offline bytemaster

I enjoyed the blog post! Vision isn't everything, but it's important to have.. and this is a good one. The MAS is a smart strategy all around, and to have it on our chain could bring a lot of the right people and attention to the project.

It's important to realize that BitShares is already ready for people to build beta apps on (and they are). Yes, it has a lot of "technical depth" so the current learning curve is a bit steep. Testing, experimentation, documentation, & support by non-core developers and users is all it takes to lower the curve.. it just takes time.

Because the DEX is not an FBA, there is little incentive to allocate FULL resources towards making it into the next Poloniex.. maybe that's the price we pay for socialist features ;) The good news is that since it's part of  core infrastructure, businesses will be incentivized to improve it going forward.

+1
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile

Offline roadscape

I enjoyed the blog post! Vision isn't everything, but it's important to have.. and this is a good one. The MAS is a smart strategy all around, and to have it on our chain could bring a lot of the right people and attention to the project.

It's important to realize that BitShares is already ready for people to build beta apps on (and they are). Yes, it has a lot of "technical depth" so the current learning curve is a bit steep. Testing, experimentation, documentation, & support by non-core developers and users is all it takes to lower the curve.. it just takes time.

Because the DEX is not an FBA, there is little incentive to allocate FULL resources towards making it into the next Poloniex.. maybe that's the price we pay for socialist features ;) The good news is that since it's part of  core infrastructure, businesses will be incentivized to improve it going forward.
http://cryptofresh.com  |  witness: roadscape

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
You might be right. Maybe MAS is the next big thing.
But the problem is we (the shareholders) are not given a choice.
We are forced to follow our developers' vision. Shouldn't it be the other way round?

It's quite ironic that MAS is all about non-violence but this situation feels like violence to me.
I can either follow the vision or say good-bye.

The difference is you're not being forced or compelled to act against your will.  You can freely make the determination that development is not going the way you want and freely choose to leave if necessary, or better, convince another developer to work towards your aim.  But it ultimately comes to shareholders determining direction.  At the moment voting shareholders are primarily supporting BM.

It would be violence to coerce CNX to act according to shareholder will. 
It would be violence to coerce BM to provide alternatives that he does not willingly support.

Shareholders govern bitshares, not CNX or BM and the option to do nothing is always available to them.

You're right. It's not violence but still I feel trapped in a limited choice.
The concept of worker proposals only makes sense when there is competition among developers.
Unfortunately CNX has no incentive to actively encourage this competition.

Read my last 1000 posts. 
We have done nothing but encourage and incentivize this competition.

Ask the Maker guys what I told them in Shanghai.
Ask BunkerChain Labs how we work with them.
Ask BitSapphire how we work with them.

The only thing hindering competition is the economic opportunities they can see.
And we are fully focused on that.

I have...and not surprisingly the answer was:

BitSapphire: "They pull a 'twitter' on us"
« Last Edit: December 30, 2015, 06:35:09 pm by tonyk »
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

jakub

  • Guest
http://bytemaster.github.io/blog/2015/12/30/Why-I-like-Ethereum/
This blog post is a step in the right direction.
There are quite a few things (mostly intentions and promises) in this post that I did not know before (despite following the forum closely and listening to ALL mumble hang-outs).
Unless you write more posts like that - how can the outside world know about all this?
Are we supposed to guess this stuff?

This is the cycle we repeat over and over again:
1. There is a controversial issue
2. Heavy accusations are thrown against BM & CNX
3. BM steps up and explains quite a few things which sheds some new light on (1)

Offline kenCode

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2283
    • View Profile
    • Agorise
kenCode - Decentraliser @ Agorise
Matrix/Keybase/Hive/Commun/Github: @Agorise
www.PalmPay.chat

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
You might be right. Maybe MAS is the next big thing.
But the problem is we (the shareholders) are not given a choice.
We are forced to follow our developers' vision. Shouldn't it be the other way round?

It's quite ironic that MAS is all about non-violence but this situation feels like violence to me.
I can either follow the vision or say good-bye.

The difference is you're not being forced or compelled to act against your will.  You can freely make the determination that development is not going the way you want and freely choose to leave if necessary, or better, convince another developer to work towards your aim.  But it ultimately comes to shareholders determining direction.  At the moment voting shareholders are primarily supporting BM.

It would be violence to coerce CNX to act according to shareholder will. 
It would be violence to coerce BM to provide alternatives that he does not willingly support.

Shareholders govern bitshares, not CNX or BM and the option to do nothing is always available to them.

You're right. It's not violence but still I feel trapped in a limited choice.
The concept of worker proposals only makes sense when there is competition among developers.
Unfortunately CNX has no incentive to actively encourage this competition.

Read my last 1000 posts. 
We have done nothing but encourage and incentivize this competition.

Ask the Maker guys what I told them in Shanghai.
Ask BunkerChain Labs how we work with them.
Ask BitSapphire how we work with them.

The only thing hindering competition is the economic opportunities they can see.
And we are fully focused on that.
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline bytemaster

For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

jakub

  • Guest
You might be right. Maybe MAS is the next big thing.
But the problem is we (the shareholders) are not given a choice.
We are forced to follow our developers' vision. Shouldn't it be the other way round?

It's quite ironic that MAS is all about non-violence but this situation feels like violence to me.
I can either follow the vision or say good-bye.

The difference is you're not being forced or compelled to act against your will.  You can freely make the determination that development is not going the way you want and freely choose to leave if necessary, or better, convince another developer to work towards your aim.  But it ultimately comes to shareholders determining direction.  At the moment voting shareholders are primarily supporting BM.

It would be violence to coerce CNX to act according to shareholder will. 
It would be violence to coerce BM to provide alternatives that he does not willingly support.

Shareholders govern bitshares, not CNX or BM and the option to do nothing is always available to them.

You're right. It's not violence but still I feel trapped in a limited choice.
The concept of worker proposals only makes sense when there is competition among developers.
Unfortunately CNX has no incentive to actively encourage this competition.

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

Government is the BEST business to be in!

That's what we are talking about here!

DO IT!  +5%
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Xeldal

  • Guest
Government IS force.

Bingo.

Depends upon how you define terms.  Remove force from government but retain the ability to have an ordered, peaceful society that appears to be "governed" from the outside and what do you have? 

So we can either attempt to scare people with new terms by "taking away the government they believe deep down they need" *OR* we can say "keep your government, I just want to take away its right to use violence".

The problem with government isn't that it uses violence, but that the people believe it has the right to.  Take away the belief of the people and it is little more than organized crime.  If we tell people we can achieve everything "good" the government does without using violence then they are receptive.

I've certainly fought the word government, but I think what your saying makes sense as a strategy.   A government without the right to violence is simply a company of people offering a service, who can be replaced with a better competing company of people offering the same or better service.   I don't think this company is technically a government but perhaps the larger dynamic structure that allows an individual to voluntarily arrange for himself how he (and only he) should be governed fits the bill.  There can of course be any number of different companies involved for any number of different services. 

So really the government this creates is a personal government of one, because any attempt to govern outside of yourself requires violence/coercion.

Can a MAS be applied to services or only things like insurance, charity/welfare?  I can't quite make the link of how exactly a MAS can replace other government services like water/roads/security etc.

You might be right. Maybe MAS is the next big thing.
But the problem is we (the shareholders) are not given a choice.
We are forced to follow our developers' vision. Shouldn't it be the other way round?

It's quite ironic that MAS is all about non-violence but this situation feels like violence to me.
I can either follow the vision or say good-bye.

The difference is you're not being forced or compelled to act against your will.  You can freely make the determination that development is not going the way you want and freely choose to leave if necessary, or better, convince another developer to work towards your aim.  But it ultimately comes to shareholders determining direction.  At the moment voting shareholders are primarily supporting BM.

It would be violence to coerce CNX to act according to shareholder will. 
It would be violence to coerce BM to provide alternatives that he does not willingly support.

Shareholders govern bitshares, not CNX or BM and the option to do nothing is always available to them.

Offline Empirical1.2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
    • View Profile
Kind of related, Dash issued their 2016 Strategy post today...

https://dashtalk.org/threads/dash-strategy.7406/#post-77324
If you want to take the island burn the boats

jakub

  • Guest
Communities that share a common philosophy are potential customers we can serve.  We have suggested two or three.

But how fast you can serve them? That's my biggest problem with MAS. I'm really skeptical that you could get thousands of paying members in 2016. You still have only a vision and (as far as I know) nothing concrete has been done.

The PR from a MAS could be huge... we'really talking mainstream media. I can read the headlines now...

"Non violent drug users can now buy insurance in case they get arrested..."

"Prostitutes can now buy insurance...."

"Your next speeding ticket is covered..."

Etc etc.

Everyone's complaining about finishing the DEX,  butironically an MAS feature will bootstrap the DEX more so than "finishing" the finished DEX.

You might be right. Maybe MAS is the next big thing.
But the problem is we (the shareholders) are not given a choice.
We are forced to follow our developers' vision. Shouldn't it be the other way round?

It's quite ironic that MAS is all about non-violence but this situation feels like violence to me.
I can either follow the vision or say good-bye.

Xeldal

  • Guest
Depends upon how you define terms.  Remove force from government but retain the ability to have an ordered, peaceful society that appears to be "governed" from the outside and what do you have? 

So we can either attempt to scare people with new terms by "taking away the government they believe deep down they need" *OR* we can say "keep your government, I just want to take away its right to use violence".

The problem with government isn't that it uses violence, but that the people believe it has the right to.  Take away the belief of the people and it is little more than organized crime.  If we tell people we can achieve everything "good" the government does without using violence then they are receptive.

Those are very wise words.
However, there are many ways to dismantle this false belief in government having the right to use force.

One of them might be MAS. Another might be DEX.
So let the shareholders decide how to allocate our limited resources between MAS and DEX.

And for the shareholders to be able to choose we must have:
- a couple of worker proposals for building DEX
- a couple of worker proposals for building MAS

Instead of an abrupt announcement by BM that we need to pivot and from now on MAS is the way to go.

Shareholders always have a choice.  That's unavoidable.  The choice to do nothing is always available.

CNX can decide for themselves what worker proposals they want to offer.  If you want to see a variety of other choices it may have to come from other developers. 

It's a persistent theme, that CNX / BM should be ruled/governed by the shareholders.  That is not how it works.