dShares Name discussion

[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.