dShares Name discussion

[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.