dShares Name discussion

[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.