dShares Name discussion

[liondani]

[Riverhead]

How about "Liquid"

'Liquid' is nice.  It signifies fluidity. 

But perhaps it needs a simple name to convey the concept of shares in a co-operative, pricefeed-less market-based peg and an interest-paying instrument backed by tx fees.

That's a lot to ask of a name.

[Pheonike]

Consortia
Consortium

[emailtooaj]

How about Flipuid

[cube]

How about "Liquid"

'Liquid' is nice.  It signifies fluidity. 

But perhaps it needs a simple name to convey the concept of shares in a co-operative, pricefeed-less market-based peg and an interest-paying instrument backed by tx fees.

[onceuponatime]

Link to dShares forum?

 

lol

[liondani]

FRAGMENTS

[liondani]

How about "Liquid"

I like it too but I think a synonym will be a better choice for international users... what about...

serous

[Tuck Fheman]

Link to dShares forum?

[tonyk]

I mean apple and half eaten apple as a logo (I know what the half-eaten apple probably refers to, but 99.9 of the customers do not) worked well enough.

Does it have to do with Alan Turing?

I believe so. Yes.

[unreadPostsSinceLastVisit]

I mean apple and half eaten apple as a logo (I know what the half-eaten apple probably refers to, but 99.9 of the customers do not) worked well enough.

Does it have to do with Alan Turing?

[tonyk]

 "Celerity Sagacity of Desiderata"  (CSD)

or

Orange...
I mean apple and half eaten apple as a logo (I know what the half-eaten apple probably refers to, but 99.9 of the customers do not) worked well enough.

[Riverhead]

How about "Liquid"

[unreadPostsSinceLastVisit]

How about "Liquid"

[tonyk]

I don't think that you have considered all of the consequences. At a bare minimum a forked chain in an "overlapping market" will be competing for readily available capital.

I also think it likely that some BTS hodlers will sell in order to buy more stake in the forked chain's crowdfunder. The downward pressure on BTS will be substantial. Tonyk is proposing that the "dshares" be priced at 1/7 BTS.   BTS dumpers will be expecting a dshares pump.They will want to get 7 times the number of "dshares" as they sell BTS and then hope that they can sell some of these dshares at a quick profit in terms of DOGE or whatever.

If Tonyk had the leadership ability and personality to be a successful team or business leader then he would continue, and be able, to garner support for the changes he wants  within the BitShares consensus mechanism. But he does not. He does not have that kind of ability or personality. His considerable strenghts lie elsewhere. So he is instead attempts a very divisive fork at a time when we should be pulling together as a community which is on the verge of major innovation and progress.

Frustrated ego appears to have gotten the best of him.
Or has tonyk come up with some new consensus mechanism more to his liking to enable in this fork of his?

Let us not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory people.

WOW... That dangerous/destructive?

If I was not absolutly positive you are angry as hell, I would have asked -"Which victory exactly ( that is  just an arms away) do you mean?"


PS
btw New chain never was, and still is not the goal.  If I had my choice.

PSS
and my god
 "selling out of BTS"... by buying BTS products (bitUSD)?...
I will call this a "clear intend to hurt BTS", but sure the next fork will offer you pure gold delivered to BTS holders... 70 cent on a dollar, for every coin they do not drop on BTS.

[unreadPostsSinceLastVisit]

Sharedrop on BTS?

Sounds in line with BitShares vision to me.

Although I'm pretty sure most people were behind the proposal, including myself. I bet this could be done on bitshares if you wanted. I take that back after going back and reading more of the original thread. You have a lot of interesting ideas and I'll be excited to see how this experiment pans out.

I'm one of the ditch the "shares" people, though if you're not, liondanis suggestion is pretty good.

Elastic

Interface

Those are probably crappy suggestions. But it should be a name like that.

[onceuponatime]

forking should include rebranding on all levels, even drastic technical improvements go largely unnoticed

It's a clean slate with some of the best tech in the industry. Focus on a few key points, make the branding consistent and interfaces easy to use.  BitShares will still continue to expand items such as the PM, bonds, VMs on and on. I don't see them as competing, just different markets that have overlap.

I don't think that you have considered all of the consequences. At a bare minimum a forked chain in an "overlapping market" will be competing for readily available capital.

I also think it likely that some BTS hodlers will sell in order to buy more stake in the forked chain's crowdfunder. The downward pressure on BTS will be substantial. Tonyk is proposing that the "dshares" be priced at 1/7 BTS.   BTS dumpers will be expecting a dshares pump.They will want to get 7 times the number of "dshares" as they sell BTS and then hope that they can sell some of these dshares at a quick profit in terms of DOGE or whatever.

If Tonyk had the leadership ability and personality to be a successful team or business leader then he would continue, and be able, to garner support for the changes he wants  within the BitShares consensus mechanism. But he does not. He does not have that kind of ability or personality. His considerable strenghts lie elsewhere. So he is instead attempts a very divisive fork at a time when we should be pulling together as a community which is on the verge of major innovation and progress.

Frustrated ego appears to have gotten the best of him.
Or has tonyk come up with some new consensus mechanism more to his liking to enable in this fork of his?

Let us not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory people.

[liondani]

metaShares 

if you don't like it what about...

metaSlices  or  metaSlice





because what matters is the value of "our" shares in the future (meta=after)...
shares will include our meta-profits ... I hope 

The prefix comes from the Greek preposition and prefix meta- (μητά-), from μητά,[2] which meant "after", "beside", "with", "among" (with respect to the preposition, some of these meanings were distinguished by case marking). Other meanings include "beyond", "adjacent" and "self", and it is also commonly used in the form μητα- as a prefix in Greek, with variants μητ- before vowels and μηθ- "meth-" before aspirated vowels.
"The earliest attested form of the word "meta" is the Mycenaean Greek me-ta, written in Linear B syllabic script.[3] The Greek preposition is cognate with the Old English preposition mid "with", still found as a prefix in midwife. Its use in English is the result of back-formation from the word "metaphysics". In origin Metaphysics was just the title of one of the principal works of Aristotle; it was so named (by Andronicus of Rhodes) simply because in the customary ordering of the works of Aristotle it was the book following Physics; it thus meant nothing more than "[the book that comes] after [the book entitled] Physics". However, even Latin writers misinterpreted this as entailing that metaphysics constituted "the science of what is beyond the physical".[4] Nonetheless, Aristotle's Metaphysics enunciates considerations of natures above physical realities, which can be examined through this particular part of philosophy, e.g., the existence of God. The use of the prefix was later extended to other contexts based on the understanding of metaphysics to mean "the science of what is beyond the physical"."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta

see also: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/meta-

Meta (pronounced MEH-tah in the U.S. and MEE-tah in the U.K.) derives from Greek, meaning "among, with, after, change." Whereas in some English words the prefix indicates "change" (for example, metamorphosis), in others, including those related to data and information, the prefix carries the meaning of "more comprehensive or fundamental."

PS it comes meta-after bitshares  ...  the meta-morfosis of bitshares !!!

[speedy]

FrostyShares

[TravelsAsia]

forking should include rebranding on all levels, even drastic technical improvements go largely unnoticed

It's a clean slate with some of the best tech in the industry. Focus on a few key points, make the branding consistent and interfaces easy to use.  BitShares will still continue to expand items such as the PM, bonds, VMs on and on. I don't see them as competing, just different markets that have overlap.

[CLains]

forking should include rebranding on all levels, even drastic technical improvements go largely unnoticed

[tonyk]

d in dShares stands for - digital; dex; "da shares" and dan - I will still insist on that, if I have a choice.

OK duly note and added .

Just for the record, DSHARES was the original name for my early ideas on stable crypto...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=213588.0

 

d in dShares stands for - digital; dex; "da shares", Dan and his original idea

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

Tonyk needs to put up a worker proposal to fund forking Btishares for his experiment.

This thread is filled with so much ass-backwards I figured I would throw that one out there.

[gamey]

When resources are scarce, it will hurt badly even if only a little of them are lost. Not everybody are going to jump on the new chain, but even if only few people leave Bitshares, it will have negative consequences. We have already lost lots of active community members and developers.

Except you have no way to judge the amount of new interest this type of thing might bring to the BitShares based chain community. I'm getting the vibe that people are willing to just do both at the same time. (Assuming everything else points to the project as being feasible.

If there is going to be fork, it has to be done properly. The goal should be the destruction of Bitshares so that there won't be two competing projects that will eat each others resources.

Huh?

By half-assed fork I mean that it's useless to "just try something because it sounds interesting". If there is a fork, it's goal should be that it is better than Bitshares. If it's not better than Bitshares, it's stupid to waste resources on that. If it's better than Bitshares, it should get everybody from Bitshares onboard. It should be like transition from 0.9 to 2.0 when everybody abandoned the old chain. Of course not everybody are going to do that, but it should be the goal of the fork.

Well that would be the "goal" ...  or that BTS sees the light and adopts the features.  I don't get your point.  The goal is to come up with a product that wins in the marketplace.  If dShares wins, BTS loses.  So in that regard, it is the goal.

.9 to 2.0 happened because it was controlled by a small party.  You are setting standards superficially high so they can not be reached.

This concept in general is furthering the idea of decentralization.

[tonyk]

By half-assed fork I mean that it's useless to "just try something because it sounds interesting". If there is a fork, it's goal should be that it is better than Bitshares. If it's not better than Bitshares, it's stupid to waste resources on that. If it's better than Bitshares, it should get everybody from Bitshares onboard. It should be like transition from 0.9 to 2.0 when everybody abandoned the old chain. Of course not everybody are going to do that, but it should be the goal of the fork.

well it is much better than Bitshares...what do you mean by get everyone on board? Get everyone realize that no feed assets are better than the outdated feed backed assets?
well what if they prefer the warm cushion of BM telling them "all will be fine. I have a plan"? What if they listen to outspoken kids that sold (admittedly) out of their BTS but still insist on posting their juvenile thoughts at 50/h rate and everyone agrees with them?

Should I wait for those to get on board? What is your cut out rate? And what if other people have different way of measuring where support stands?

[tonyk]

well, I am neither wild, nor a pig when it comes to development.

PS
Hope this makes sense to anybody but myself.

We get it. You are all bts in your development.

Yes I am totally bs in my development. have  have no clue what the unexpected "t" in the middle stands for but...

[Samupaha]

BTS-owners will get new shares in sharedrop, but it seems to me that tonyk have no idea what he is doing. Quick and half-assed fork will probably fail and the value of new shares will remain very low, so it doesn't compensate the losses from BTS price decline.

This is nonsensical.  Either Tonyk has no idea what he is doing and it will fail .. or is a legitimate concern.  Above you talk about how everyone will abandon BTS.  (people are stupid / TonyK is smart)  Now you make your argument on TonyK failing. It really remains to be seen whom he would be able to hire. In all fairness, the guy has been around and contributed more in discussion and counter-thought than anyone else.  Why would it be a "half-assed fork" when he has pretty much defined what he wants to do.  A half-assed fork does little in the change of features.

When resources are scarce, it will hurt badly even if only a little of them are lost. Not everybody are going to jump on the new chain, but even if only few people leave Bitshares, it will have negative consequences. We have already lost lots of active community members and developers.

If there is going to be fork, it has to be done properly. The goal should be the destruction of Bitshares so that there won't be two competing projects that will eat each others resources.

Huh?

By half-assed fork I mean that it's useless to "just try something because it sounds interesting". If there is a fork, it's goal should be that it is better than Bitshares. If it's not better than Bitshares, it's stupid to waste resources on that. If it's better than Bitshares, it should get everybody from Bitshares onboard. It should be like transition from 0.9 to 2.0 when everybody abandoned the old chain. Of course not everybody are going to do that, but it should be the goal of the fork.

[gamey]

well, I am neither wild, nor a pig when it comes to development.

PS
Hope this makes sense to anybody but myself.

We get it. You are all bts in your development.

[tonyk]

When the lead developer of the project wants the BTS price to go down* who am I to argue with him. And as I have no other means to short BTS I did the next best thing - sold (not now but within days of the brownie points announcement) and am waiting for the price to at least cut in half to buy back.

When the lead developer of Mutiny wants the BTS price to go down* who am I to argue with him. And as he has no other means to short BTS he did the next best thing - forked (not now but needed just an announcement) and is waiting for the price to at least cut in half to buy back.

really, dilution didn't hurt the price but a random guy named tonyk who just posted a thread about forking it (who has no experience on development)can hurt the price ?
If that's the case , then I'm gonna short the hell out of BTS on polo and start my own fork to profit big time .

I am becoming annoyed and drinking my monthly rations and thus posting out of sequence.

TonyK can take up for himself but how do you know that he has "no experience on development"? 

You have no clue about such matters.

This is becoming so absurd.

well, I am neither wild, nor a pig when it comes to development.[but yes, wildpig knowing it all is truly amusing]

PS
Hope this makes sense to anybody but myself.

[gamey]

When the lead developer of the project wants the BTS price to go down* who am I to argue with him. And as I have no other means to short BTS I did the next best thing - sold (not now but within days of the brownie points announcement) and am waiting for the price to at least cut in half to buy back.

When the lead developer of Mutiny wants the BTS price to go down* who am I to argue with him. And as he has no other means to short BTS he did the next best thing - forked (not now but needed just an announcement) and is waiting for the price to at least cut in half to buy back.

really, dilution didn't hurt the price but a random guy named tonyk who just posted a thread about forking it (who has no experience on development)can hurt the price ?
If that's the case , then I'm gonna short the hell out of BTS on polo and start my own fork to profit big time .

I am becoming annoyed and drinking my monthly rations and thus posting out of sequence.

TonyK can take up for himself but how do you know that he has "no experience on development"? 

You have no clue about such matters.

[TravelsAsia]

Open source, free market, not much else to talk about. If BitShares is really that vulnerable to any fork, I expect many to pop up fairly quickly.  As we know, the Expanse fork of Ethereum really destroyed everything Vitalik built.   

[gamey]

Since the sharedrop is 1:1 with no shares brought into existence, then it does not follow to me that BItShares stake holders will be hurt. BitShares might be hurt or might be helped, but it seems likely that shareholders would benefit.

Forks didn't kill Bitcoin. They spawned a legion of developers.

Bitshares will definitely hurt. Some developers move to the new chain which will slow down development. Some investors will sell their BTS to buy shares from new chain, which will lower the price. We might very well get all time low, if other traders realize that developers are leaving Bitshares for a new project. Some active users will leave our internal exchange, which decreases trading. Some members of our current community will stop marketing Bitshares and focus on the new chain.

BitShares would be able to implement any and all changes to other source code base. We can come up with a ton of pros and cons. I am not going to go into all of them.  So you are saying all the altcoins hurt Bitcoin in the longrun?  I can list a bunch of things that can happen and treat them as fate.

BTS-owners will get new shares in sharedrop, but it seems to me that tonyk have no idea what he is doing. Quick and half-assed fork will probably fail and the value of new shares will remain very low, so it doesn't compensate the losses from BTS price decline.

This is nonsensical.  Either Tonyk has no idea what he is doing and it will fail .. or is a legitimate concern.  Above you talk about how everyone will abandon BTS.  (people are stupid / TonyK is smart)  Now you make your argument on TonyK failing. It really remains to be seen whom he would be able to hire. In all fairness, the guy has been around and contributed more in discussion and counter-thought than anyone else.  Why would it be a "half-assed fork" when he has pretty much defined what he wants to do.  A half-assed fork does little in the change of features.
We are not in the same position as Bitcoin was. There is no surplus of developers eagerly waiting to join a development team. Talent has been already scattered in hundreds of different projects and it's quite difficult for new projects to attract people who know what they are doing. It might happen but I wouldn't count on it, especially if the project is founded quickly and haphazardly.

Yes and BTC gave up being controlled by one person a long time ago.  If TonyK wants to vet his ideas and can manage to get someone to implement them. I do agree about the supply of developers.  He seems to get along well with the Chinese guys .. maybe they'd work for him without dilution.

If there is going to be fork, it has to be done properly. The goal should be the destruction of Bitshares so that there won't be two competing projects that will eat each others resources.

Huh?

Responses in bold.

You are free to keep on one chain and have Dan more or less decide everything. (I don't want to argue, I may very well be wrong here, I don't follow that process very close) I however still like the idea when I came around of forks forks forks!

[TravelsAsia]

The free market is free. Not everyone has to support the fork idea but would be nice if we didn't devolve into protectionism.

 

[Riverhead]

The free market is free. Not everyone has to support the fork idea but would be nice if we didn't devolve into protectionism.

[Samupaha]

Since the sharedrop is 1:1 with no shares brought into existence, then it does not follow to me that BItShares stake holders will be hurt. BitShares might be hurt or might be helped, but it seems likely that shareholders would benefit.

Forks didn't kill Bitcoin. They spawned a legion of developers.

Bitshares will definitely hurt. Some developers move to the new chain which will slow down development. Some investors will sell their BTS to buy shares from new chain, which will lower the price. We might very well get all time low, if other traders realize that developers are leaving Bitshares for a new project. Some active users will leave our internal exchange, which decreases trading. Some members of our current community will stop marketing Bitshares and focus on the new chain.

BTS-owners will get new shares in sharedrop, but it seems to me that tonyk have no idea what he is doing. Quick and half-assed fork will probably fail and the value of new shares will remain very low, so it doesn't compensate the losses from BTS price decline.

We are not in the same position as Bitcoin was. There is no surplus of developers eagerly waiting to join a development team. Talent has been already scattered in hundreds of different projects and it's quite difficult for new projects to attract people who know what they are doing. It might happen but I wouldn't count on it, especially if the project is founded quickly and haphazardly.

If there is going to be fork, it has to be done properly. The goal should be the destruction of Bitshares so that there won't be two competing projects that will eat each others resources.

[gamey]

Since the sharedrop is 1:1 with no shares brought into existence, then it does not follow to me that BItShares stake holders will be hurt. BitShares might be hurt or might be helped, but it seems likely that shareholders would benefit.

Forks didn't kill Bitcoin. They spawned a legion of developers.

[Samupaha]

The cat is out of the bag as far bts goes. Its nearly impossible to teturn all bts back onto dex. The amount of resources it would take would be  better used going forward with liquidity plans already in place. A system like this has to be implemented from scratch in a new chain. Its a waste of time trying to undo what has been done in bts.

I still think that creation of bitBTS would solve the transition problem from current system to a non-transferable BTS. Other exchanges could easily transform their BTS to bitBTS (or trade it in our internal exchange) and continue like nothing happened.

I thought about this idea... when I think about how it would go I believe it would just never allow the entire transfer to become complete. All it takes is  a few jerks to keep from the completion of the transfer. We couldn't unilaterally remove their rights, it would all have to be voluntary.

Hmm... Not sure if I understand what you mean here.

Of course the BTS to bitBTS transfer will be voluntary. Exchanges have an incentive to do that because they need assets that can be transferred in and out of their system to and from their customers. If exchanges keep their stakes as BTS, their customers get angry because they can't withdraw anything anymore for themselves.

Exchanges could either create bitBTS in our internal exchange or sell BTS for bitBTS (rate should be 1:1 or at least very close).

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

The cat is out of the bag as far bts goes. Its nearly impossible to teturn all bts back onto dex. The amount of resources it would take would be  better used going forward with liquidity plans already in place. A system like this has to be implemented from scratch in a new chain. Its a waste of time trying to undo what has been done in bts.

I still think that creation of bitBTS would solve the transition problem from current system to a non-transferable BTS. Other exchanges could easily transform their BTS to bitBTS (or trade it in our internal exchange) and continue like nothing happened.

I thought about this idea... when I think about how it would go I believe it would just never allow the entire transfer to become complete. All it takes is  a few jerks to keep from the completion of the transfer. We couldn't unilaterally remove their rights, it would all have to be voluntary.

[btswildpig]

When the lead developer of the project wants the BTS price to go down* who am I to argue with him. And as I have no other means to short BTS I did the next best thing - sold (not now but within days of the brownie points announcement) and am waiting for the price to at least cut in half to buy back.

When the lead developer of Mutiny wants the BTS price to go down* who am I to argue with him. And as he has no other means to short BTS he did the next best thing - forked (not now but needed just an announcement) and is waiting for the price to at least cut in half to buy back.

really, dilution didn't hurt the price but a random guy named tonyk who just posted a thread about forking it (who has no experience on development)can hurt the price ?
If that's the case , then I'm gonna short the hell out of BTS on polo and start my own fork to profit big time .

[mint chocolate chip]

When the lead developer of the project wants the BTS price to go down* who am I to argue with him. And as I have no other means to short BTS I did the next best thing - sold (not now but within days of the brownie points announcement) and am waiting for the price to at least cut in half to buy back.

When the lead developer of Mutiny wants the BTS price to go down* who am I to argue with him. And as he has no other means to short BTS he did the next best thing - forked (not now but needed just an announcement) and is waiting for the price to at least cut in half to buy back.

[Ben Mason]

I like atomika, units could be atoms or atomii

BitShares should be able to compete with anything.....forking is a reality when people can't agree and to enable innovation. Maybe there will be short term resourcing availability implications but ultimately if a technology/network has enough utility, a way will be found to progress. The chains that are more successful in this regard are more likely to gain network share.

If tonyk's network succeeds, there is nothing to prevent BitShares from implementing something similar. His success will drive consensus within BitShares or encourage everyone to move to dshares.

[Samupaha]

The cat is out of the bag as far bts goes. Its nearly impossible to teturn all bts back onto dex. The amount of resources it would take would be  better used going forward with liquidity plans already in place. A system like this has to be implemented from scratch in a new chain. Its a waste of time trying to undo what has been done in bts.

I still think that creation of bitBTS would solve the transition problem from current system to a non-transferable BTS. Other exchanges could easily transform their BTS to bitBTS (or trade it in our internal exchange) and continue like nothing happened.

[Pheonike]

The cat is out of the bag as far bts goes. Its nearly impossible to teturn all bts back onto dex. The amount of resources it would take would be  better used going forward with liquidity plans already in place. A system like this has to be implemented from scratch in a new chain. Its a waste of time trying to undo what has been done in bts.

[Tuck Fheman]

Tonyk's proposal should be implemented on the main chain or not at all, just like any other proposal.

I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain that was tonyk's original plan, for it to be implemented in BitShares.

bytemaster did not feel it was in BitShares best interest.

From 2-12-16 Hangout ...
"I guess Tony’s not here but he actually came up with an interesting productive idea, even though I concluded that it’s probably not in the best interest of BitShares to implement the idea. The discussion and the ideas were incredible." - Dan Larimer

Which brings us to where we are.

[CoinHoarder]

so are you saying if people want to destroy BTS's marketcap , they just need to fork it ?

Then people will not feel safe buying BTS either . They don't know when will some one fork it.

Simply forking a chain does not harm the chain it was forked from, especially if the fork has little or no support from the main chain's community. This fork appears to have substantial support, and will certainly and negatively affect Bitshares value. All I am saying is that if the majority of the community feels Tonyk's proposal is in the best interest for Bitshares then it should be implemented on the main Bitshares chain and not a fork. A fork is bad for both parties. Tonyk's proposal should be implemented on the main chain or not at all, just like any other proposal.

[btswildpig]

The free market will decide. That's one of the reasons it has the license it does.

I suppose you are right, but forking every time someone doesn't get their way sets a bad precedence for the future. Furthermore, simply talking about forking Bitshares is certain to negatively affect the price. I see all time lows for Bitshares in the near future, and I am glad I don't own any at the moment. Bytemaster's dilution-subsidized liquidity provisions will have less of a negative effect on the price than a Bitshares fork will.

I suggest implementing Tonyk's idea on the main Bitshares chain, or not implementing at all. Forking Bitshares is bad for both parties involved as it is unclear whether a fork of Bitshares will have sufficient liquidity to function as intended, and forking Bitshares is bad for Bitshares.

Doge was forked from Litecoin .
Muse was forked from BTS.
Play was forked from BTS.
BTS2.0 was forked from BTS1.0 .
Everyday people are forking .

Apples and oranges.

Muse/Play were not forked to compete directly with the coin they forked from (BTS). They all are going after different markets, and that is justification for the fork.

This fork Tony is proposing will compete head-to-head with Bitshares for the same target market. Muse/Play were not created out of a rebellious uprising that forked a community. This reminds me of the Sparkles debacle: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11634.0

It is quite the stretch to call BTS 2.0 a fork of BTS 1.0 ...

Doge is a different story. Doge was not created out of a rebellious uprising inside the Litecoin community. Otherwise, I think it would have had negative effects on Litecoin. You are comparing apples and oranges.

so you're saying after all the pain and suffering that dilution has brought upon BTS on the name of further and competitive development , BTS project will be threaten by a random guy on the forum named TonyK ??    Then why the hell should people buy BTS when it can be beaten by some random guy ?

A. Tonyk's chain can get diluted just as easy as the original BTS chain. With a 70% BTS sharedrop, large BTS shareholders will have a lot of sway.
B. I don't think that BTS will be threatened by Tonyk's fork, as Bitshares has garnered a network effect and forks are generally seen as inferior to their parents (see BTC vs alt coins, or Ripple vs Stellar, etc.) I do think however it will split the community, marketing efforts, development efforts, liquidity, etc... and lower the Bitshares price to all time lows.

so are you saying if people want to destroy BTS's marketcap , they just need to fork it ?

Then people will not feel safe buying BTS either . They don't know when will some one fork it.

[CoinHoarder]

The free market will decide. That's one of the reasons it has the license it does.

I suppose you are right, but forking every time someone doesn't get their way sets a bad precedence for the future. Furthermore, simply talking about forking Bitshares is certain to negatively affect the price. I see all time lows for Bitshares in the near future, and I am glad I don't own any at the moment. Bytemaster's dilution-subsidized liquidity provisions will have less of a negative effect on the price than a Bitshares fork will.

I suggest implementing Tonyk's idea on the main Bitshares chain, or not implementing at all. Forking Bitshares is bad for both parties involved as it is unclear whether a fork of Bitshares will have sufficient liquidity to function as intended, and forking Bitshares is bad for Bitshares.

Doge was forked from Litecoin .
Muse was forked from BTS.
Play was forked from BTS.
BTS2.0 was forked from BTS1.0 .
Everyday people are forking .

Apples and oranges.

Muse/Play were not forked to compete directly with the coin they forked from (BTS). They all are going after different markets, and that is justification for the fork.

This fork Tony is proposing will compete head-to-head with Bitshares for the same target market. Muse/Play were not created out of a rebellious uprising that forked a community. This reminds me of the Sparkles debacle: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11634.0

It is quite the stretch to call BTS 2.0 a fork of BTS 1.0 ...

Doge is a different story. Doge was not created out of a rebellious uprising inside the Litecoin community. Otherwise, I think it would have had negative effects on Litecoin. You are comparing apples and oranges.

so you're saying after all the pain and suffering that dilution has brought upon BTS on the name of further and competitive development , BTS project will be threaten by a random guy on the forum named TonyK ??    Then why the hell should people buy BTS when it can be beaten by some random guy ?

A. Tonyk's chain can get diluted just as easy as the original BTS chain. With a 70% BTS sharedrop, large BTS shareholders will have a lot of sway.
B. I don't think that BTS will be threatened by Tonyk's fork, as Bitshares has garnered a network effect and forks are generally seen as inferior to their parents (see BTC vs alt coins, or Ripple vs Stellar, etc.) I do think however it will split the community, marketing efforts, development efforts, liquidity, etc... and lower the Bitshares price to all time lows.

[CoinHoarder]

I see all time lows for Bitshares in the near future, and I am glad I don't own any at the moment. Bytemaster's dilution-subsidized liquidity provisions will have less of a negative effect on the price than a Bitshares fork will.

As far as I recall you sold out way before this idea was proposed.

And yet still you are very outspoken about the consequences of it...(negative according to you)

One would assume you are trying to pump the price of BTS (by this not being implemented preferably) so you can buy back at higher price?

Nice theory, but I have no intention of re-investing in Bitshares any time soon. I have no faith in the outspoken pea-brained sheep that inhabit these forums, who seem to have enough sway in public opinion to steer the Bitshares' project one way or another.

My crypto portfolio at the moment consists of Bitcoins and Litecoins. When I saw all alt coins getting pumped the other week it was obvious I should go long on Bitcoin and Litecoin which were largely stagnant during the alt coin pump. It's been a good few weeks. 

[btswildpig]

The free market will decide. That's one of the reasons it has the license it does.

I suppose you are right, but forking every time someone doesn't get their way sets a bad precedence for the future. Furthermore, simply talking about forking Bitshares is certain to negatively affect the price. I see all time lows for Bitshares in the near future, and I am glad I don't own any at the moment. Bytemaster's dilution-subsidized liquidity provisions will have less of a negative effect on the price than a Bitshares fork will.

I suggest implementing Tonyk's idea on the main Bitshares chain, or not implementing at all. Forking Bitshares is bad for both parties involved as it is unclear whether a fork of Bitshares will have sufficient liquidity to function as intended, and forking Bitshares is bad for Bitshares.

Doge was forked from Litecoin .
Muse was forked from BTS.
Play was forked from BTS.
BTS2.0 was forked from BTS1.0 .
Everyday people are forking .

Apples and oranges.

Muse/Play were not forked to compete directly with the coin they forked from (BTS). They all are going after different markets, and that is justification for the fork.

This fork Tony is proposing will compete head-to-head with Bitshares for the same target market. Muse/Play were not created out of a rebellious uprising that forked a community. This reminds me of the Sparkles debacle: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11634.0

It is quite the stretch to call BTS 2.0 a fork of BTS 1.0 ...

Doge is a different story. Doge was not created out of a rebellious uprising inside the Litecoin community. Otherwise, I think it would have had negative effects on Litecoin. You are comparing apples and oranges.

so you're saying after all the pain and suffering that dilution has brought upon BTS on the name of further and competitive development , BTS project will be threaten by a random guy on the forum named TonyK ??    Then why the hell should people buy BTS when it can be beaten by some random guy ? 

[tonyk]

I see all time lows for Bitshares in the near future, and I am glad I don't own any at the moment. Bytemaster's dilution-subsidized liquidity provisions will have less of a negative effect on the price than a Bitshares fork will.

As far as I recall you sold out way before this idea was proposed.

And yet still you are very outspoken about the consequences of it...(negative according to you)

One would assume you are trying to pump the price of BTS (by this not being implemented preferably) so you can buy back at higher price?

[CoinHoarder]

The free market will decide. That's one of the reasons it has the license it does.

I suppose you are right, but forking every time someone doesn't get their way sets a bad precedence for the future. Furthermore, simply talking about forking Bitshares is certain to negatively affect the price. I see all time lows for Bitshares in the near future, and I am glad I don't own any at the moment. Bytemaster's dilution-subsidized liquidity provisions will have less of a negative effect on the price than a Bitshares fork will.

I suggest implementing Tonyk's idea on the main Bitshares chain, or not implementing at all. Forking Bitshares is bad for both parties involved as it is unclear whether a fork of Bitshares will have sufficient liquidity to function as intended, and forking Bitshares is bad for Bitshares.

Doge was forked from Litecoin .
Muse was forked from BTS.
Play was forked from BTS.
BTS2.0 was forked from BTS1.0 .
Everyday people are forking .

Apples and oranges.

Muse/Play were not forked to compete directly with the coin they forked from (BTS). They all are going after different markets, and that is justification for the fork.

This fork Tony is proposing will compete head-to-head with Bitshares for the same target market. Muse/Play were not created out of a rebellious uprising that forked a community. This reminds me of the Sparkles debacle: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11634.0

It is quite the stretch to call BTS 2.0 a fork of BTS 1.0 ...

Doge is a different story. Doge was not created out of a rebellious uprising inside the Litecoin community. Otherwise, I think it would have had negative effects on Litecoin. You are comparing apples and oranges.

[Pheonike]

Forking bts is what bytemaster always encourage. If someone feels they can do it better than they should.  In theory if someone makes something that is successful it can be forked back into the main chain.  If bts can't handle the competition then maybe it shouldn't exist.

[Samupaha]

Do not include dex or shares in a name. While many people here seem to like to talk about decentralized exchange, I don't think it really is a good selling point. Other people don't seem to care about it very much. And it is a little bit vague – how is it decentralized if the exchange still exists in one blockchain?

Name has to be easy to pronounce for everybody around the world. Bitcoin is a good name, it doesn't have any sounds that are difficult for most people.

[btswildpig]

The free market will decide. That's one of the reasons it has the license it does.

I suppose you are right, but forking every time someone doesn't get their way sets a bad precedence for the future. Furthermore, simply talking about forking Bitshares is certain to negatively affect the price. I see all time lows for Bitshares in the near future, and I am glad I don't own any at the moment. Bytemaster's dilution-subsidized liquidity provisions will have less of a negative effect on the price than a Bitshares fork will.

I suggest implementing Tonyk's idea on the main Bitshares chain, or not implementing at all. Forking Bitshares is bad for both parties involved as it is unclear whether a fork of Bitshares will have sufficient liquidity to function as intended, and forking Bitshares is bad for Bitshares.

Doge was forked from Litecoin .
Muse was forked from BTS.
Play was forked from BTS.
BTS2.0 was forked from BTS1.0 .
Everyday people are forking .

[CoinHoarder]

The free market will decide. That's one of the reasons it has the license it does.

I suppose you are right, but forking every time someone doesn't get their way sets a bad precedence for the future. Furthermore, simply talking about forking Bitshares is certain to negatively affect the price. I see all time lows for Bitshares in the near future, and I am glad I don't own any at the moment. Bytemaster's dilution-subsidized liquidity provisions will have less of a negative effect on the price than a Bitshares fork will.

I suggest implementing Tonyk's idea on the main Bitshares chain or not implementing at all. Forking Bitshares is bad for both parties involved as it is unclear whether a fork of Bitshares will have sufficient liquidity to function as Tonyk's proposal intends, and forking Bitshares is bad for Bitshares. Then again, you guys have never listened to me ever so carry on I suppose. Ironically, I got booed off the forums when I tried to stand up against dilution when BM first proposed it, and now all of you have your panties in a wad because of it.

[btswildpig]

Your proposal will not work if you fork Bitshares. Take a look at how many alt coins have over 1k USD of volume in a 24 hour period compared to how many alternative coins have less than that. It is likely this fork will fall into the "less than that" category. Thus, Bitshares as-is will have more liquid Smartcoins than your fork. Not to mention all the negatives that come along with forking a project/community.

Not if he can show major exchanges that how the current BTS is preying on their traders and investors by dilution in the name of getting the users that will never gonna enough to sustain the marketcap that the traders/investors paid for and replace BTS with his chain .

Of course I doubt if tonyk's team is strong enough to convince the exchanges to do that .

Example :  BTC38 replaced the original NXT-forked NAS coin to a new  Nubits-forked NAS coin , because the old team seem to be away for a long time .  Of course the allocation was a exact snapshot by percentage .

[btswildpig]

don't include coin or shares.

[ebit]

 Advantium is a follower of Etherium.
I think it can be named Advan.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

Why the redacted OP tonyk?

Advantium, because we so want the name to sound like Etherium.

How about the name... Mutiny/Mutinous

Mutiny ...



The idea of another chain launching like this does seem scary at first.. but as far as the testing out of this whole idea goes.. I don't see any other way to do it without causing real damage to Bitshares in the process. If it ever gets to execution is another matter.

I wasn't thinking of Ethereum when I thought of it.. I just thought what would sound cool... someone else thought it was more Marvel Comicish ... obviously it reminded them of Wolverines badass blades which are made of indestructible Adamantium..



I guess that makes it another good derivative   .. badass really... and that is what I was going for.. just something that would sound cool and attractive and advanced.

[tonyk]

Why the redacted OP tonyk?

Advantium, because we so want the name to sound like Etherium.

well, I hoped there was much more essence in the OP than just a cool name...

I love Advantium!

 but that was not the point.

[mint chocolate chip]

Why the redacted OP tonyk?

Advantium, because we so want the name to sound like Etherium.

How about the name... Mutiny/Mutinous

[tonyk]

dexSHARES

  I am aware of you choice...

I read signatures more than anyone else does (or should do).

[donkeypong]

dexSHARES

[Riverhead]

Your proposal will not work if you fork Bitshares. Take a look at how many alt coins have over 1k USD of volume in a 24 hour period compared to how many alternative coins have less than that. It is likely this fork will fall into the "less than that" category. Thus, Bitshares as-is will have more liquid Smartcoins than your fork. Not to mention all the negatives that come along with forking a project/community.

The free market will decide. That's one of the reasons it has the license it does.

[tonyk]

Thanks for clarifying what the d was all about..

I have been talking about this idea with others and off the cuff I came up with a name I thought would be more attractive.

Advantium

Derivative for Advance.. or Advantage.

All together gets away from the 'shares' name to show a real separation and reduce confusion in the market.

Advantium from/for Advance/Advancing or Advantage -  is way cool (although I see my idea as 'back to the basics' more than  any 'real leap forward') which is  somewhat ironic.
But I do like Advantium in golden colours; aka fuzzy style text, if you know What I mean, like

ADVANTIUM

but better.

[Tuck Fheman]

I think it should be called "Whinges".   

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

Thanks for clarifying what the d was all about..

I have been talking about this idea with others and off the cuff I came up with a name I thought would be more attractive.

Advantium

Derivative for Advance.. or Advantage.

All together gets away from the 'shares' name to show a real separation and reduce confusion in the market.

[CoinHoarder]

Your proposal will not work if you fork Bitshares. Take a look at how many alt coins have over 1k USD of volume in a 24 hour period compared to how many alternative coins have less than that. It is likely this fork will fall into the "less than that" category. Thus, Bitshares as-is will have more liquid Smartcoins than your fork. Not to mention all the negatives that come along with forking a project/community.

'My fork" as in the fork that I have paid for each single share competing with everybody else?

Thanks for the "I predict...cause I predict" statement. We are all very good at that... when we decide to.

My prediction is based on sound logical reasoning. Your rebuttal is more like "you're wrong just cause you're wrong" temper tantrum style.

[tonyk]

How about calling it "Slice" instead of dshares.      So instead of shares users own slices of the whole.

Slice is cool,
d in dShares stands for - digital; dex; "da shares" and dan - I will still insist on that, if I have a choice. (As for Dan I still find him genius, even somewhat lost of late)

[CoinHoarder]

Your proposal will not work if you fork Bitshares. Take a look at how many alt coins have over 1k USD of volume in a 24 hour period compared to how many alternative coins have less than that. It is likely this fork will fall into the "less than that" category. Thus, Bitshares as-is will have more liquid Smartcoins than your fork. Not to mention all the negatives that come along with forking a project/community.

[particlewave]

How about calling it "Slice" instead of dshares.      So instead of shares users own slices of the whole.

dTranche
bitTranche

[Pheonike]

How about calling it "Slice" instead of dshares.      So instead of shares users own slices of the whole.

[tonyk]

Per Title