Farewell to Mike Hearn and Some Thoughts on Scalability

[jakub]

I wish he can stay and we need to learn how to react to harsh remarks.

CH never offered any "harsh remarks" about BitShares.
He just kept ignoring BitShares.

[twitter]

@fav   @Shentist

Do you think it is a good idea to move this thread back to where Charles posted.......   

BTS  welcomes any kind of ideals and suggestions .... no matter in any kind of ways .... more harsh more welcome 
we are going to build the best de-centralized exchange platform and not a cat fight platform   

What's with the hate?

WTF did Charles do to you to illicit such a powerful negative response?

This debate is a perfect opportunity to inject Bitshares into the discussion about reaching scalability.

Are you guys nuts?

Maybe I'm too new here and don't know the history of how he pissed in stan's gas tank, but I would love to learn, so I could hate this guy too.

Might even host Ethereum VM on the Graphene real time platform and simply 100% sharedrop it on Bitcoin holders. 

The trouble is it would have to be done by somebody other than us or it would be perceived as an attack.

Why would it be viewed as an attack?

Is IBM attacking ethereum by using a fork of its code and sharedropping it to its businesses?

No

Did NEM  get pissed when that bank forked its code (POI) and distributed it to its subsidiaries?

No, it's market cap doubled.

What present reality are you guys watching, because I have no real world reference for your scientific perspective, and frankly, I'm beginning to think that we are speaking a different language.

I prefer math, science, and historical fact, vs unprecedented speculation.  What historical precedent are you referencing when you make such claims that we would not be perceived as just another Ethereum marketing fanclub like IBM?

Where are all the "OMG IBM is ATTACKING Ethereum" links?  All I've seen are "down goes another domino, first, IBM, now BTS gives in to Ethereum's superior VM tech"

Thanks to BTS, Ethereum becomes the global turing complete standard.

What would appear adversarial is if we tried to set a different VM code standard.

Where are you coming from here?

Standardization is what every crypto community has always clamored for.  No?

Without standardization or standardized languages and references, great social projects are inefficient:

[twitter]

Charles always wanted to provoke this community, a troublemaker I say.

After his last post all I have to say is good ridance charles, we will miss your provocations. "Bitshares is mentioned" LOL

Sure, that's much more effective to tell him to 'get off our lawn' then asking him if we could provide some commentary to his articles that reach behind our very limited reach.  It's not like we have a flood of new supporters banging down our door.  I read he deleted his account, just food for thought for the next identified 'troublemaker'.  We need to learn to work with people that see things differently and find some value in the exchange.

Totally agree. I think we all owe Charls an apology for not treat him in a professional way. @stan. Could you please ping him and bring him back to our forum[emoji12]

[Stan]

What's with the hate?

WTF did Charles do to you to illicit such a powerful negative response?

This debate is a perfect opportunity to inject Bitshares into the discussion about reaching scalability.

Are you guys nuts?

Maybe I'm too new here and don't know the history of how he pissed in stan's gas tank, but I would love to learn, so I could hate this guy too.

Might even host Ethereum VM on the Graphene real time platform and simply 100% sharedrop it on Bitcoin holders. 

The trouble is it would have to be done by somebody other than us or it would be perceived as an attack.

Why would it be viewed as an attack?

Is IBM attacking ethereum by using a fork of its code and sharedropping it to its businesses?

No

Did NEM  get pissed when that bank forked its code (POI) and distributed it to its subsidiaries?

No, it's market cap doubled.

What present reality are you guys watching, because I have no real world reference for your scientific perspective, and frankly, I'm beginning to think that we are speaking a different language.

I prefer math, science, and historical fact, vs unprecedented speculation.  What historical precedent are you referencing when you make such claims that we would not be perceived as just another Ethereum marketing fanclub like IBM?

Where are all the "OMG IBM is ATTACKING Ethereum" links?  All I've seen are "down goes another domino, first, IBM, now BTS gives in to Ethereum's superior VM tech"

Thanks to BTS, Ethereum becomes the global turing complete standard.

What would appear adversarial is if we tried to set a different VM code standard.

Where are you coming from here?

Standardization is what every crypto community has always clamored for.  No?

Without standardization or standardized languages and references, great social projects are inefficient:

I don't seem to remember Dan or me posting anything negative about Charles in the history of this forum.

I agree with your other points.

[Erlich Bachman]

What's with the hate?

WTF did Charles do to you to illicit such a powerful negative response?

This debate is a perfect opportunity to inject Bitshares into the discussion about reaching scalability.

Are you guys nuts?

Maybe I'm too new here and don't know the history of how he pissed in stan's gas tank, but I would love to learn, so I could hate this guy too.

Might even host Ethereum VM on the Graphene real time platform and simply 100% sharedrop it on Bitcoin holders. 

The trouble is it would have to be done by somebody other than us or it would be perceived as an attack.

Why would it be viewed as an attack?

Is IBM attacking ethereum by using a fork of its code and sharedropping it to its businesses?

No

Did NEM  get pissed when that bank forked its code (POI) and distributed it to its subsidiaries?

No, it's market cap doubled.

What present reality are you guys watching, because I have no real world reference for your scientific perspective, and frankly, I'm beginning to think that we are speaking a different language.

I prefer math, science, and historical fact, vs unprecedented speculation.  What historical precedent are you referencing when you make such claims that we would not be perceived as just another Ethereum marketing fanclub like IBM?

Where are all the "OMG IBM is ATTACKING Ethereum" links?  All I've seen are "down goes another domino, first, IBM, now BTS gives in to Ethereum's superior VM tech"

Thanks to BTS, Ethereum becomes the global turing complete standard.

What would appear adversarial is if we tried to set a different VM code standard.

Where are you coming from here?

Standardization is what every crypto community has always clamored for.  No?

Without standardization or standardized languages and references, great social projects are inefficient:

[jsidhu]

If thats all it took for him to delete his account then i agree, a frontfacing community member as fragile as him might do more harm than good once our marketcap is higher... Remember this ismthe second or third time he has deleted his account and gone away. First time he didnt beleve in the direction, second one i guess he conceded and went away after overstock went with another platform and now third time,i believe.

Child like antics from a not so grown up man who thinks he is too smart for his own good.

[TravelsAsia]

Charles always wanted to provoke this community, a troublemaker I say.

After his last post all I have to say is good ridance charles, we will miss your provocations. "Bitshares is mentioned" LOL

Sure, that's much more effective to tell him to 'get off our lawn' then asking him if we could provide some commentary to his articles that reach behind our very limited reach.  It's not like we have a flood of new supporters banging down our door.  I read he deleted his account, just food for thought for the next identified 'troublemaker'.  We need to learn to work with people that see things differently and find some value in the exchange.

[twitter]

People has different personalities and use different way to communicate.  charles knows all the weakness of our product. I wish he can stay and we need to learn how to react to harsh remarks.

[chryspano]

Charles always wanted to provoke this community, a troublemaker I say.

After his last post all I have to say is good ridance charles, we will miss your provocations. "Bitshares is mentioned" LOL

[fuzzy]

I for one would love to see the BitShares governance structure (versus others) debated in the broader community. So why not write a BitShares media piece to lead that discussion?

there is an epic divide for some reason between charles and dan from past.  where i think those disagreements would actually create two camps that powerfully contribute to bitshares while also competing with often opposing ideas...would be cool.

but i do agree that it would be nice to see.  everyone ignoring bitshares' answers to bitcoins current problems does tend to offend those who have invested in the project.  I can definitely appreciate why you think he should have put bts in there as a proposed solution (dpos/graphene), but because of this history i dont think we can really ever expect charles to mame bitshares or plug it in any positive way. 

Interesting and difficult dynamic of you ask me...though i think that this energy could be directed toward more beneficial means.

[fuzzy]

So you moved my post to random? Fucking seriously? Fuck it Fav, I won't post any articles or items on Bitsharestalk anymore.

hi charles, lots of members from our community like you. You are  valuable asset in our community. 

Just like BM, i am re-thinking your pow/pos design for bts mining  which you pointed out before dpos was in place . Time just proved you were right[emoji1]  . ether's  pow mining has brought lots of  miners into the game ....

just so you guys know, there was something called sparkle that ar one point a dev released that did precisely that but didnt work out :/

regardless, i have been asked by charles to let everyone know he has deleted his account and will not be responding anymore.   

[twitter]

So you moved my post to random? Fucking seriously? Fuck it Fav, I won't post any articles or items on Bitsharestalk anymore.

our community  really need someone like charles .  we need some 3rd parties opinions to  make us turning more better .....

we need to learn to be smart enough to listen to harsh remarks from other communities

[starspirit]

I for one would love to see the BitShares governance structure (versus others) debated in the broader community. So why not write a BitShares media piece to lead that discussion?

[DMo09]

"...the support of ideas from over a thousand altcoins running experiments including Bitshares and Ethereum. The fact that we are having a transaction crisis is a symptom of success not coming doom!"

To me, it kind of sounds like Charles is foreshadowing the success of Bts & Eth..... and I would have to agree.  It is unrealistic to expect Btc to shoulder the task of revolutionizing the global financial world.  Especially as a first-generation blockchain technology.  Who still has a first-gen iPhone?  I don't.

[twitter]

So you moved my post to random? Fucking seriously? Fuck it Fav, I won't post any articles or items on Bitsharestalk anymore.

hi charles, lots of members from our community like you. You are  valuable asset in our community. 

Just like BM, i am re-thinking your pow/pos design for bts mining  which you pointed out before dpos was in place . Time just proved you were right[emoji1]  . ether's  pow mining has brought lots of  miners into the game .... 

[TravelsAsia]

I'm trying not to laugh here with some of these responses. I just fail to see the value trying to smack down Charles.

@IOHKCharles

I'm basically a nobody in this community, just a heavy MUSE investor. However, if it was me, I would ask you 1 simple question:

Charles,

I appreciate what you wrote about (insert article). If BitShares provided a response to address on how we believe we address the issues you pointed out in (insert article), would you be willing to include it at the bottom?

That at least attempts to find value and reach outside this direct community. 

[Shentist]

Enjoy: http://hoskinsoncharles.blogspot.com/2016/01/goodbye-mike-and-some-thoughts-about.html I even mentioned Bitshares.

you even mentioned Bitshares - kappa!

you made a post of x1000 words and the name of Bitshares is 1 word of it.

you talked a lot of solving the problems, but it seems we have no solutions for this problems, because we are not mentioned for our technology. Why should your post stay in "Bitshares" thread?

moving to other threads is happening here a lot and will always be, so i would like if you also keep a nice wording. I expect more!!

So you moved my post to random? Fucking seriously? Fuck it Fav, I won't post any articles or items on Bitsharestalk anymore.

and why did you not include yourself to this community? Your are posting like your oponent, so it seems strange that you are not part of bitsharestalk.

You know what the fundamental problem that the Bitshares community has always had. You guys decided that you solved all of the space's problems and then went into a bubble saying let's not interact with others outside of declaring our vast superiority. This debate is a perfect opportunity to inject Bitshares into the discussion about reaching scalability. Bitcoin issues are Bitshares issues. Bitshares was funded by Bitcoin. Bitcoin is the reference cryptocurrency for all people to compare against. And both use the same family of technologies.

If someone is saying hey let's improve the core technology in Bitcoin, then everyone in the Bitshares community should be leaping at the opportunity to have a discussion about it. It means you get media exposure, new developer interest and perhaps more funding. Use common sense man!

[Akado]

You know what the fundamental problem that the Bitshares community has always had. You guys decided that you solved all of the space's problems and then went into a bubble saying let's not interact with others outside of declaring our vast superiority. This debate is a perfect opportunity to inject Bitshares into the discussion about reaching scalability. Bitcoin issues are Bitshares issues. Bitshares was funded by Bitcoin. Bitcoin is the reference cryptocurrency for all people to compare against. And both use the same family of technologies.

If someone is saying hey let's improve the core technology in Bitcoin, then everyone in the Bitshares community should be leaping at the opportunity to have a discussion about it. It means you get media exposure, new developer interest and perhaps more funding. Use common sense man!

I agree with Charles.  Might even host Ethereum VM on the Graphene real time platform and simply 100% sharedrop it on Bitcoin holders.  Then buy up whatever gets dumped by irreconcilable maximalists.

Maybe even give bitcoiners a number of months to claim and then route unclaimed tokens into a Reserve Backed Asset (RBA) that gets a trickle of those unclaimed coins as its revenue stream.  Sharedrop the RBA to holders of ETH and BTS as compensation for their donated technology.  That would make the RBA liquid immediately while only gradually putting the unclaimed Bitcoin2 coins on the market. 

The trouble is it would have to be done by somebody other than us or it would be perceived as an attack.  Somebody equally respected by Bitcoin, Ethereum, and BitShares communities...

Any takers?

We are not respected by all communities.. but it might be a worthy undertaking for us to help organize and back.

I am kinda stunned by the prospect.

If the problem is us, just get other people to join in, it doesn't need someone completely from the outside. CNX and Vitalik for example.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

You know what the fundamental problem that the Bitshares community has always had. You guys decided that you solved all of the space's problems and then went into a bubble saying let's not interact with others outside of declaring our vast superiority. This debate is a perfect opportunity to inject Bitshares into the discussion about reaching scalability. Bitcoin issues are Bitshares issues. Bitshares was funded by Bitcoin. Bitcoin is the reference cryptocurrency for all people to compare against. And both use the same family of technologies.

If someone is saying hey let's improve the core technology in Bitcoin, then everyone in the Bitshares community should be leaping at the opportunity to have a discussion about it. It means you get media exposure, new developer interest and perhaps more funding. Use common sense man!

I agree with Charles.  Might even host Ethereum VM on the Graphene real time platform and simply 100% sharedrop it on Bitcoin holders.  Then buy up whatever gets dumped by irreconcilable maximalists.

Maybe even give bitcoiners a number of months to claim and then route unclaimed tokens into a Reserve Backed Asset (RBA) that gets a trickle of those unclaimed coins as its revenue stream.  Sharedrop the RBA to holders of ETH and BTS as compensation for their donated technology.  That would make the RBA liquid immediately while only gradually putting the unclaimed Bitcoin2 coins on the market. 

The trouble is it would have to be done by somebody other than us or it would be perceived as an attack.  Somebody equally respected by Bitcoin, Ethereum, and BitShares communities...

Any takers?

We are not respected by all communities.. but it might be a worthy undertaking for us to help organize and back.

I am kinda stunned by the prospect.

[fav]

So you moved my post to random? Fucking seriously? Fuck it Fav, I won't post any articles or items on Bitsharestalk anymore.

[IOHKCharles]

So you moved my post to random? Fucking seriously? Fuck it Fav, I won't post any articles or items on Bitsharestalk anymore.

[DMo09]

Truth:

If someone is saying hey let's improve the core technology in Bitcoin, then everyone in the Bitshares community should be leaping at the opportunity to have a discussion about it. It means you get media exposure, new developer interest and perhaps more funding. Use common sense man!

Also, Charles, whatever your issues are with Bts & the community, I'm sure you/they/we can work them out.

[jakub]

This is what you do, Charles:

(1) You write an interesting article about the issue of blockchain governance.
(2) You deliberately avoid referring to BitShares (while you manage to mention Ethereum's GHOST twice even though Ethereum has nothing to do with governance).
(3) You deliberately derail any discussion on the merits of your article because once again we get distracted by the subject of Bitshares not being mentioned.

Then you are happy to prove your point that we are not interested in any discussion and that we just declare our "vast superiority" and choose to stay "in a bubble".

This is not a genuine invitation for discussion.
This is your way of teasing us.

I know you are smart enough with PR that if you really wanted to engage us in a real discussion, you would know how to achieve this and you would have done it.

[jsidhu]

You know what the fundamental problem that the Bitshares community has always had. You guys decided that you solved all of the space's problems and then went into a bubble saying let's not interact with others outside of declaring our vast superiority. This debate is a perfect opportunity to inject Bitshares into the discussion about reaching scalability. Bitcoin issues are Bitshares issues. Bitshares was funded by Bitcoin. Bitcoin is the reference cryptocurrency for all people to compare against. And both use the same family of technologies.

If someone is saying hey let's improve the core technology in Bitcoin, then everyone in the Bitshares community should be leaping at the opportunity to have a discussion about it. It means you get media exposure, new developer interest and perhaps more funding. Use common sense man!

One person does not make the community.. Most of us are receptive to crypto news regardless thus making the community opposite of what you just made it out to be. Nice article.

[phillyguy]

@fav , please move this to Random Discussion. BitShares is not mentioned substantively in the article. The post has no relevance on this board.

It is relevant because governance is one of the core VP of bitshares and that's the core of the Bitcoin crisis. I'm truly sorry that you are incapable of abstract thinking.

LOL. Couldn't resist being a dickhead with that last sentence. For all your brains you haven't learned how to control your massive ego, apparently.

[xeroc]

Since nobody is talking about Bitcoin governance, I'm really skeptical that it can be saved. There is no serious brainstorming in Bitcoin community to find an adequate governance mechanism.

Even if they find a good governance structure, it will be very difficult to change to it. Why? Because Bitcoin is lacking it now. They are unable to do any meaningful changes to anything. I predict that it will mean that Bitcoin is pretty much doomed.

So, what's the best blockchain governance system today? IMO Bitshares is the leader, I haven't seen anything that would be even close to us. This is what I've been telling to my friends. I recommend that everyone of you will do the same. Great governance system is one of our biggest selling points.

BTW, there was already a topic for this. To keep the forum clean, OP should have been posted there. General discussion is already bloating too much of topics that should be elsewhere.

Couldn't have said any better ..

[xeroc]

You know what the fundamental problem that the Bitshares community has always had. You guys decided that you solved all of the space's problems and then went into a bubble saying let's not interact with others outside of declaring our vast superiority. This debate is a perfect opportunity to inject Bitshares into the discussion about reaching scalability. Bitcoin issues are Bitshares issues. Bitshares was funded by Bitcoin. Bitcoin is the reference cryptocurrency for all people to compare against. And both use the same family of technologies.

If someone is saying hey let's improve the core technology in Bitcoin, then everyone in the Bitshares community should be leaping at the opportunity to have a discussion about it. It means you get media exposure, new developer interest and perhaps more funding. Use common sense man!

I agree with Charles.  Might even host Ethereum VM on the Graphene real time platform and simply 100% sharedrop it on Bitcoin holders.  Then buy up whatever gets dumped by irreconcilable maximalists.

Maybe even give bitcoiners a number of months to claim and then route unclaimed tokens into a Reserve Backed Asset (RBA) that gets a trickle of those unclaimed coins as its revenue stream.  Sharedrop the RBA to holders of ETH and BTS as compensation for their donated technology.  That would make the RBA liquid immediately while only gradually putting the unclaimed Bitcoin2 coins on the market. 

The trouble is it would have to be done by somebody other than us or it would be perceived as an attack.  Somebody equally respected by Bitcoin, Ethereum, and BitShares communities...

Any takers?

@Rune .. he already had nice ideas of a bitcoin 'takeover' .. doesn't need to be a hostile one

[Stan]

You know what the fundamental problem that the Bitshares community has always had. You guys decided that you solved all of the space's problems and then went into a bubble saying let's not interact with others outside of declaring our vast superiority. This debate is a perfect opportunity to inject Bitshares into the discussion about reaching scalability. Bitcoin issues are Bitshares issues. Bitshares was funded by Bitcoin. Bitcoin is the reference cryptocurrency for all people to compare against. And both use the same family of technologies.

If someone is saying hey let's improve the core technology in Bitcoin, then everyone in the Bitshares community should be leaping at the opportunity to have a discussion about it. It means you get media exposure, new developer interest and perhaps more funding. Use common sense man!

I agree with Charles.  Might even host Ethereum VM on the Graphene real time platform and simply 100% sharedrop it on Bitcoin holders.  Then buy up whatever gets dumped by irreconcilable maximalists.

Maybe even give bitcoiners a number of months to claim and then route unclaimed tokens into a Reserve Backed Asset (RBA) that gets a trickle of those unclaimed coins as its revenue stream.  Sharedrop the RBA to holders of ETH and BTS as compensation for their donated technology.  That would make the RBA liquid immediately while only gradually putting the unclaimed Bitcoin2 coins on the market. 

The trouble is it would have to be done by somebody other than us or it would be perceived as an attack.  Somebody equally respected by Bitcoin, Ethereum, and BitShares communities...

Any takers?

[vegolino]

@fav , please move this to Random Discussion. BitShares is not mentioned substantively in the article. The post has no relevance on this board.

[Samupaha]

Since nobody is talking about Bitcoin governance, I'm really skeptical that it can be saved. There is no serious brainstorming in Bitcoin community to find an adequate governance mechanism.

Even if they find a good governance structure, it will be very difficult to change to it. Why? Because Bitcoin is lacking it now. They are unable to do any meaningful changes to anything. I predict that it will mean that Bitcoin is pretty much doomed.

So, what's the best blockchain governance system today? IMO Bitshares is the leader, I haven't seen anything that would be even close to us. This is what I've been telling to my friends. I recommend that everyone of you will do the same. Great governance system is one of our biggest selling points.

BTW, there was already a topic for this. To keep the forum clean, OP should have been posted there. General discussion is already bloating too much of topics that should be elsewhere.

[btswildpig]

manner is very important .... pls calm down... Charles 's points make a lot of sense  ..  pay attention to what he said .... PTS was over 50 dollars while charles was with us ....

Oh, I can assure you that we DO see BitShares as a solution to Bitcoin's scaling problems. And its 1-hour confirmation times problems. And its governance problems. That's for starters. Amid the current controversies there, we have certainly used this as an opportunity to promote our solutions.

Two questions for you: First, if you don't see BitShares as part of the solution, then why do you bother posting here? Second, if you think BitShares and Etherum and other crypto-projects each offer something from which others can learn, perhaps puzzle pieces that fit together make up something greater, then why the hell don't you mention this in any of your writings?

If you want to bust bubble thinking, then how about helping your readers connect the dots just a bit?

really ?  50*6.2=300+ RMB . ...... The highest price for PTS was 200 RMB if I remembered correctly

[twitter]

manner is very important .... pls calm down... Charles 's points make a lot of sense  ..  pay attention to what he said .... PTS was around 50 dollars  (maybe less can not recall the exactly number) while charles was with us ....

Oh, I can assure you that we DO see BitShares as a solution to Bitcoin's scaling problems. And its 1-hour confirmation times problems. And its governance problems. That's for starters. Amid the current controversies there, we have certainly used this as an opportunity to promote our solutions.

Two questions for you: First, if you don't see BitShares as part of the solution, then why do you bother posting here? Second, if you think BitShares and Etherum and other crypto-projects each offer something from which others can learn, perhaps puzzle pieces that fit together make up something greater, then why the hell don't you mention this in any of your writings?

If you want to bust bubble thinking, then how about helping your readers connect the dots just a bit?

[giant middle finger]

Nice publication Chuck, thanks for mentioning BTS in your article.

(see, now that wasn't too hard now was it?)

Can we please try the high road for once fellas?





who the hell passes the war pipe anymore?

[Vizzini]

Oh, I can assure you that we DO see BitShares as a solution to Bitcoin's scaling problems. And its 1-hour confirmation times problems. And its governance problems. That's for starters. Amid the current controversies there, we have certainly used this as an opportunity to promote our solutions.

Two questions for you: First, if you don't see BitShares as part of the solution, then why do you bother posting here? Second, if you think BitShares and Etherum and other crypto-projects each offer something from which others can learn, perhaps puzzle pieces that fit together make up something greater, then why the hell don't you mention this in any of your writings?

If you want to bust bubble thinking, then how about helping your readers connect the dots just a bit?

[TravelsAsia]

You know what the fundamental problem that the Bitshares community has always had. You guys decided that you solved all of the space's problems and then went into a bubble saying let's not interact with others outside of declaring our vast superiority. This debate is a perfect opportunity to inject Bitshares into the discussion about reaching scalability. Bitcoin issues are Bitshares issues. Bitshares was funded by Bitcoin. Bitcoin is the reference cryptocurrency for all people to compare against. And both use the same family of technologies.

If someone is saying hey let's improve the core technology in Bitcoin, then everyone in the Bitshares community should be leaping at the opportunity to have a discussion about it. It means you get media exposure, new developer interest and perhaps more funding. Use common sense man!

I don't have much to add except what you said makes sense to me.  Especially with the discussion of bringing Mike Hearn to a hangout, I don't understand the objection.

[IOHKCharles]

You know what the fundamental problem that the Bitshares community has always had. You guys decided that you solved all of the space's problems and then went into a bubble saying let's not interact with others outside of declaring our vast superiority. This debate is a perfect opportunity to inject Bitshares into the discussion about reaching scalability. Bitcoin issues are Bitshares issues. Bitshares was funded by Bitcoin. Bitcoin is the reference cryptocurrency for all people to compare against. And both use the same family of technologies.

If someone is saying hey let's improve the core technology in Bitcoin, then everyone in the Bitshares community should be leaping at the opportunity to have a discussion about it. It means you get media exposure, new developer interest and perhaps more funding. Use common sense man!

[Vizzini]

@fav , please move this to Random Discussion. BitShares is not mentioned substantively in the article. The post has no relevance on this board.

It is relevant because governance is one of the core VP of bitshares and that's the core of the Bitcoin crisis. I'm truly sorry that you are incapable of abstract thinking.

If that's true, then why didn't you say so in the article? Why not mention some better experimental examples of governance structure such as this one? It is ALL about Bitcoin. Of course, we are all following the governance issues there with great interest. I get the indirect context. But if your article is relevant enough to post here, then we might as well stream the whole Reddit sub into the BitShares forum.

The only mention of BitShares and Ethereum is that one of Bitcoin's accomplishments has been to inspire other uses of the blockchain (such as...).

I'll tell you why you mentioned both of those in passing. Barely even in passing. You mentioned them so that you could post on the Ethereum and BitShares forums and crow about your article.

Well, it's a very thoughtful, well-researched, and reasoned analysis...of Bitcoin's issue, not ours. @fav , It belongs in Random Discussion. Or maybe Mr. Hoskinson should have his own child board for posting his enlightened thoughts on all things great and small?

[IOHKCharles]

@fav , please move this to Random Discussion. BitShares is not mentioned substantively in the article. The post has no relevance on this board.

It is relevant because governance is one of the core VP of bitshares and that's the core of the Bitcoin crisis. I'm truly sorry that you are incapable of abstract thinking.

[Vizzini]

@fav , please move this to Random Discussion. BitShares is not mentioned substantively in the article. The post has no relevance on this board.

[IOHKCharles]

Enjoy: http://hoskinsoncharles.blogspot.com/2016/01/goodbye-mike-and-some-thoughts-about.html I even mentioned Bitshares.