Yunbi started voting against all workers except refund/burn workers

[tbone]

@btswildpig, obviously DOGE is not innovating.  That has been one of your points all along.  @BunkerChain Labs pasted a couple of snippets from reddit in which some fanboys claim DOGE is innovating.  But of course that is absurd.  DOGE is simply NOT innovating.  bitcoin is NOT innovating.  And litecoin is NOT innovating. 

These 3 stagnant currencies (BTC, LTC, DOGE) all achieved their network effect at a time when there was essentially no competition.  And it's difficult to displace that.  Yet they are slowly being surpassed by projects that are innovating.  And it will get a lot worse for the "stagnant 3".  ETH has already surpassed LTC and is gaining on BTC.  DASH and MAID have already surpassed DOGE, and will undoubtedly surpass LTC before long as well.  And many other projects will surpass DOGE.  Do you not see the trend?  If not, then you must be obtuse.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

If people can't tell I find this whole thing pretty obnoxious.

I think the Chinese have a point.  Looks at the scape's video.  How many BTS did they get for that?  1600 views?  I thought it was a waste to begin with, but a real video that would be effective would have been work and not fun. Those guys milked that for a looong time. The non-technical scape was part of the reason I left. The other one was ended up being extremely valuable to the BTS ecosystem.

In the current form, I would never wish to work for the blockchain.  At one point I thought it was a cool idea.  Very sci-fi.  Neat stuff.  Now, I realize that the more you put your own well being in the hands of others, the more likely you are to just get screwed.  This is even more true, the more talented you are. I would not touch working for the BTS blockchain unless I absolutely had to do it. Far too many unknowns and whims of people controlling things.

The reason I was pulled into this thread is because someone suggested that a developer should just buy their stake, implement a feature and Allah willing they'd end up selling their stake for more. I'd love to see someone actually come up with numbers on how that is to work. It means the developer has enough money to gamble on BTS and then have enough to live off until they can cash back out. This only works assuming the gamble has a good chance of paying off.  What happens if BTS drops 40% during that time but then goes up 30% after the developers work is released?  How much money vs % of increase is required for this to be reasonable given what an average person would be willing to invest. To suggest this is an alternative model for development is stupid.  It assumes future developers must already be wealthy. Unlikely. 

I have never been against people judging the proposals on their individual merits.  I have never been against people being against dilution in general. I have been against this blind marching forward with nothing more than hope, while other projects are actually implementing new features.  I personally learned it was a big mistake putting much faith in Bytemaster's decision making. That doesn't impact my views on this.  To the contrary - I WANT to see BTS grow up and not be dependent on him. Shutting down all dilution/payment is not the way to do this.  It is just a recipe to not be competitive.

Spot on... 

Keep in mind from where you sit your arguements make perfect sense.

From China.. when they see the tons of money that Westerners make.. they think we are all rich and should be able to buy shares in the ridiculous way that has been suggested.

Also from where they sit, developers are being paid far too much.

DACPlay received over $1m in donations about 14 months ago. By western standards this can fuel a  sizable dev team for a good 2 years. In China terms,  20 years. Yet we haven't seen one single free improvement delivered from them since 2.0.

From all I have seen.. the Worker proposal is not well suited for independent  developers in its current iteration, but better suited to well funded companies that can do all the extras about detailed reports, marketing themselves, and even potentially taking payment in some vested balance.

When you see other graphene chains come up where work they do can, if not paid, simply be taken to the next chain that is willing to pay for it, then you will might see this happen.

Right now though as many can see, we have a regime that is attempting to put a strangle hold to it all... possibly because of some of the things I mentioned, making the time ripe for a company with the available funds to just launch a competitor to Bitshares... a competitor that understands innovate or die. How's our 1.5% current dilution going to look then? Kinda like too little too late.

Have you looked at coinmarketcap recently ?
It doesn't take a company with funding to compete with BTS . A coin with a silly Doge face is doing it already .
Dogecoin is already doing it with zero features/zero funding .

Figure out how to beat Dogecoin , and I'll have a serious conversation with you . 

Of course , you will say ..."Dogecoin is pump and dump , marketcap doesn't count " . But how can you talk about beating all the innovation projects by increasing dilution when you can't even beat a silly project called Doge ?

There was a time when we were beating it.... so your arguement is moot.

Why you insist on making comparisons to snapshot moments as the reasoning behind and overall future strategy to running a company is beyond me.

This thought occurred to me while making my last post but it didn't match the rest of my reasoning.

Another reasonable explanation for the situation we are facing is that this is what you get when you lets traders pretend to be visionaries/CEOs/entrepreneurs. You get silly notions like the above as though it is a reasonable explanation for their position, when in fact they can't think beyond the speculative trader headset.

This is what you get when the control of how funds are spent are given to the majority of speculators. There is no other crypto-project that has this type of control given to its stake holders.

Ultimately you need leadership, you need people who know what they are doing. Instead you have traders and speculators that have taken hold of the enterprise and are making decisions that are driving it into the ground.

BUUUUUUUUT... since you brought up dogecoin... lets take a look at what was posted just 3 months ago:

https://www.reddit.com/r/dogecoin/comments/3x9ei0/brain_dump_dogecoin_on_ethereum/

What was the first comment?



Wow.. that sounds exciting.. what else?



Wait what? Doge innovating... perhaps why they got such a market cap... noooo it couldn't be?

What kind of commentary does Bitshares innovation and dedicated development team look like?

"Oh yeah.. Bitshares looks like it has potential, but the China regime has stopped all development and they have lost all developers and development because of it. They wanted everyone to work as slave laborers and contributed nothing themselves. Shame really, it had some really cool stuff."

So now @btswildpig now that we have established that Dogecoin is all about innovation.. lets turn on those spigots and start supporting MORE innovation! How about it?

Please refer to my original Innovate or Die image above.

then you should start to buy some Dogecoin .After , you believe innovation should drive competitiveness , and Dogecoin is innovating ....It makes no sense not to buy some right ?  Even just to expand your crypto
portfolio ..... 

Based on this response the fundamental reasoning logic to your response it also means it makes no sense not to fund development in Bitshares with the Workers. You just said it yourself.

It's not what I believe.. I just showed it's what EVERYONE believes, sees, and is being done with Dogecoin. You JUST said figure out how Dogecoin is getting a higher cap than us... and I just showed you the market is saying innovation.

[freedom]

no bts no vote，if you think is not correct，buy more bts vote。

[btswildpig]

If we're fine with price rising while usage data did not increase , then we're kidding ourselves about not being speculative .

Usage data will increase when the right feature-set/market fit is in place...features which need to be developed...development which requires funding.

How you guys can't see the underlying economics fundamental to all this is frankly bewildering to me.

So how are we gonna compete with Lisk , you know , they have 5 million USD funding now , they can build tons of features that no amount of dilution can afford .
And with their endless feature development budget , will they take over zero-feature Bitcoin and Litecoin at least ?
Are you temped to buy some now that you know they have funding to develop features ?

(Needless to say 5 million USD beats dilution in many ways , if competitiveness is all about new features , we don't have much ammo .....)

Well , my estimation is , they could spent 5 million and never find the right feature to achieve major usage . But those features would play nicely in some headlines and then some market reaction from time to time .

It's just features , it's not magic , if people don't need it or have a cheaper alternative  , they just don't use it no matter how many feature it offers . (That's goes to a lot of 2.0 projects , and I've seen some quite nice wallets and features around them . If having nice features is ground for competitiveness , then BTS have a lot of competition already , some you may not even heard of because their marketcap is so low that you never bother to pay attention . Some even have nice mobile apps . )  .

[btswildpig]

If people can't tell I find this whole thing pretty obnoxious.

I think the Chinese have a point.  Looks at the scape's video.  How many BTS did they get for that?  1600 views?  I thought it was a waste to begin with, but a real video that would be effective would have been work and not fun. Those guys milked that for a looong time. The non-technical scape was part of the reason I left. The other one was ended up being extremely valuable to the BTS ecosystem.

In the current form, I would never wish to work for the blockchain.  At one point I thought it was a cool idea.  Very sci-fi.  Neat stuff.  Now, I realize that the more you put your own well being in the hands of others, the more likely you are to just get screwed.  This is even more true, the more talented you are. I would not touch working for the BTS blockchain unless I absolutely had to do it. Far too many unknowns and whims of people controlling things.

The reason I was pulled into this thread is because someone suggested that a developer should just buy their stake, implement a feature and Allah willing they'd end up selling their stake for more. I'd love to see someone actually come up with numbers on how that is to work. It means the developer has enough money to gamble on BTS and then have enough to live off until they can cash back out. This only works assuming the gamble has a good chance of paying off.  What happens if BTS drops 40% during that time but then goes up 30% after the developers work is released?  How much money vs % of increase is required for this to be reasonable given what an average person would be willing to invest. To suggest this is an alternative model for development is stupid.  It assumes future developers must already be wealthy. Unlikely. 

I have never been against people judging the proposals on their individual merits.  I have never been against people being against dilution in general. I have been against this blind marching forward with nothing more than hope, while other projects are actually implementing new features.  I personally learned it was a big mistake putting much faith in Bytemaster's decision making. That doesn't impact my views on this.  To the contrary - I WANT to see BTS grow up and not be dependent on him. Shutting down all dilution/payment is not the way to do this.  It is just a recipe to not be competitive.

Spot on... 

Keep in mind from where you sit your arguements make perfect sense.

From China.. when they see the tons of money that Westerners make.. they think we are all rich and should be able to buy shares in the ridiculous way that has been suggested.

Also from where they sit, developers are being paid far too much.

DACPlay received over $1m in donations about 14 months ago. By western standards this can fuel a  sizable dev team for a good 2 years. In China terms,  20 years. Yet we haven't seen one single free improvement delivered from them since 2.0.

From all I have seen.. the Worker proposal is not well suited for independent  developers in its current iteration, but better suited to well funded companies that can do all the extras about detailed reports, marketing themselves, and even potentially taking payment in some vested balance.

When you see other graphene chains come up where work they do can, if not paid, simply be taken to the next chain that is willing to pay for it, then you will might see this happen.

Right now though as many can see, we have a regime that is attempting to put a strangle hold to it all... possibly because of some of the things I mentioned, making the time ripe for a company with the available funds to just launch a competitor to Bitshares... a competitor that understands innovate or die. How's our 1.5% current dilution going to look then? Kinda like too little too late.

Have you looked at coinmarketcap recently ?
It doesn't take a company with funding to compete with BTS . A coin with a silly Doge face is doing it already .
Dogecoin is already doing it with zero features/zero funding .

Figure out how to beat Dogecoin , and I'll have a serious conversation with you . 

Of course , you will say ..."Dogecoin is pump and dump , marketcap doesn't count " . But how can you talk about beating all the innovation projects by increasing dilution when you can't even beat a silly project called Doge ?

There was a time when we were beating it.... so your arguement is moot.

Why you insist on making comparisons to snapshot moments as the reasoning behind and overall future strategy to running a company is beyond me.

This thought occurred to me while making my last post but it didn't match the rest of my reasoning.

Another reasonable explanation for the situation we are facing is that this is what you get when you lets traders pretend to be visionaries/CEOs/entrepreneurs. You get silly notions like the above as though it is a reasonable explanation for their position, when in fact they can't think beyond the speculative trader headset.

This is what you get when the control of how funds are spent are given to the majority of speculators. There is no other crypto-project that has this type of control given to its stake holders.

Ultimately you need leadership, you need people who know what they are doing. Instead you have traders and speculators that have taken hold of the enterprise and are making decisions that are driving it into the ground.

BUUUUUUUUT... since you brought up dogecoin... lets take a look at what was posted just 3 months ago:

https://www.reddit.com/r/dogecoin/comments/3x9ei0/brain_dump_dogecoin_on_ethereum/

What was the first comment?



Wow.. that sounds exciting.. what else?



Wait what? Doge innovating... perhaps why they got such a market cap... noooo it couldn't be?

What kind of commentary does Bitshares innovation and dedicated development team look like?

"Oh yeah.. Bitshares looks like it has potential, but the China regime has stopped all development and they have lost all developers and development because of it. They wanted everyone to work as slave laborers and contributed nothing themselves. Shame really, it had some really cool stuff."

So now @btswildpig now that we have established that Dogecoin is all about innovation.. lets turn on those spigots and start supporting MORE innovation! How about it?

Please refer to my original Innovate or Die image above.

then you should start to buy some Dogecoin .After , you believe innovation should drive competitiveness , and Dogecoin is innovating ....It makes no sense not to buy some right ?  Even just to expand your crypto
portfolio ..... 

[nomoreheroes7]

If we're fine with price rising while usage data did not increase , then we're kidding ourselves about not being speculative .

Usage data will increase when the right feature-set/market fit is in place...features which need to be developed...development which requires funding.

How you guys can't see the underlying economics fundamental to all this is frankly bewildering to me.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

If people can't tell I find this whole thing pretty obnoxious.

I think the Chinese have a point.  Looks at the scape's video.  How many BTS did they get for that?  1600 views?  I thought it was a waste to begin with, but a real video that would be effective would have been work and not fun. Those guys milked that for a looong time. The non-technical scape was part of the reason I left. The other one was ended up being extremely valuable to the BTS ecosystem.

In the current form, I would never wish to work for the blockchain.  At one point I thought it was a cool idea.  Very sci-fi.  Neat stuff.  Now, I realize that the more you put your own well being in the hands of others, the more likely you are to just get screwed.  This is even more true, the more talented you are. I would not touch working for the BTS blockchain unless I absolutely had to do it. Far too many unknowns and whims of people controlling things.

The reason I was pulled into this thread is because someone suggested that a developer should just buy their stake, implement a feature and Allah willing they'd end up selling their stake for more. I'd love to see someone actually come up with numbers on how that is to work. It means the developer has enough money to gamble on BTS and then have enough to live off until they can cash back out. This only works assuming the gamble has a good chance of paying off.  What happens if BTS drops 40% during that time but then goes up 30% after the developers work is released?  How much money vs % of increase is required for this to be reasonable given what an average person would be willing to invest. To suggest this is an alternative model for development is stupid.  It assumes future developers must already be wealthy. Unlikely. 

I have never been against people judging the proposals on their individual merits.  I have never been against people being against dilution in general. I have been against this blind marching forward with nothing more than hope, while other projects are actually implementing new features.  I personally learned it was a big mistake putting much faith in Bytemaster's decision making. That doesn't impact my views on this.  To the contrary - I WANT to see BTS grow up and not be dependent on him. Shutting down all dilution/payment is not the way to do this.  It is just a recipe to not be competitive.

Spot on... 

Keep in mind from where you sit your arguements make perfect sense.

From China.. when they see the tons of money that Westerners make.. they think we are all rich and should be able to buy shares in the ridiculous way that has been suggested.

Also from where they sit, developers are being paid far too much.

DACPlay received over $1m in donations about 14 months ago. By western standards this can fuel a  sizable dev team for a good 2 years. In China terms,  20 years. Yet we haven't seen one single free improvement delivered from them since 2.0.

From all I have seen.. the Worker proposal is not well suited for independent  developers in its current iteration, but better suited to well funded companies that can do all the extras about detailed reports, marketing themselves, and even potentially taking payment in some vested balance.

When you see other graphene chains come up where work they do can, if not paid, simply be taken to the next chain that is willing to pay for it, then you will might see this happen.

Right now though as many can see, we have a regime that is attempting to put a strangle hold to it all... possibly because of some of the things I mentioned, making the time ripe for a company with the available funds to just launch a competitor to Bitshares... a competitor that understands innovate or die. How's our 1.5% current dilution going to look then? Kinda like too little too late.

Have you looked at coinmarketcap recently ?
It doesn't take a company with funding to compete with BTS . A coin with a silly Doge face is doing it already .
Dogecoin is already doing it with zero features/zero funding .

Figure out how to beat Dogecoin , and I'll have a serious conversation with you . 

Of course , you will say ..."Dogecoin is pump and dump , marketcap doesn't count " . But how can you talk about beating all the innovation projects by increasing dilution when you can't even beat a silly project called Doge ?

There was a time when we were beating it.... so your arguement is moot.

Why you insist on making comparisons to snapshot moments as the reasoning behind and overall future strategy to running a company is beyond me.

This thought occurred to me while making my last post but it didn't match the rest of my reasoning.

Another reasonable explanation for the situation we are facing is that this is what you get when you lets traders pretend to be visionaries/CEOs/entrepreneurs. You get silly notions like the above as though it is a reasonable explanation for their position, when in fact they can't think beyond the speculative trader headset.

This is what you get when the control of how funds are spent are given to the majority of speculators. There is no other crypto-project that has this type of control given to its stake holders.

Ultimately you need leadership, you need people who know what they are doing. Instead you have traders and speculators that have taken hold of the enterprise and are making decisions that are driving it into the ground.

BUUUUUUUUT... since you brought up dogecoin... lets take a look at what was posted just 3 months ago:

https://www.reddit.com/r/dogecoin/comments/3x9ei0/brain_dump_dogecoin_on_ethereum/

What was the first comment?



Wow.. that sounds exciting.. what else?



Wait what? Doge innovating... perhaps why they got such a market cap... noooo it couldn't be?

What kind of commentary does Bitshares innovation and dedicated development team look like?

"Oh yeah.. Bitshares looks like it has potential, but the China regime has stopped all development and they have lost all developers and development because of it. They wanted everyone to work as slave laborers and contributed nothing themselves. Shame really, it had some really cool stuff."

So now @btswildpig now that we have established that Dogecoin is all about innovation.. lets turn on those spigots and start supporting MORE innovation! How about it?

Please refer to my original Innovate or Die image above.

[freedom]

If people can't tell I find this whole thing pretty obnoxious.

I think the Chinese have a point.  Looks at the scape's video.  How many BTS did they get for that?  1600 views?  I thought it was a waste to begin with, but a real video that would be effective would have been work and not fun. Those guys milked that for a looong time. The non-technical scape was part of the reason I left. The other one was ended up being extremely valuable to the BTS ecosystem.

In the current form, I would never wish to work for the blockchain.  At one point I thought it was a cool idea.  Very sci-fi.  Neat stuff.  Now, I realize that the more you put your own well being in the hands of others, the more likely you are to just get screwed.  This is even more true, the more talented you are. I would not touch working for the BTS blockchain unless I absolutely had to do it. Far too many unknowns and whims of people controlling things.

The reason I was pulled into this thread is because someone suggested that a developer should just buy their stake, implement a feature and Allah willing they'd end up selling their stake for more. I'd love to see someone actually come up with numbers on how that is to work. It means the developer has enough money to gamble on BTS and then have enough to live off until they can cash back out. This only works assuming the gamble has a good chance of paying off.  What happens if BTS drops 40% during that time but then goes up 30% after the developers work is released?  How much money vs % of increase is required for this to be reasonable given what an average person would be willing to invest. To suggest this is an alternative model for development is stupid.  It assumes future developers must already be wealthy. Unlikely. 

I have never been against people judging the proposals on their individual merits.  I have never been against people being against dilution in general. I have been against this blind marching forward with nothing more than hope, while other projects are actually implementing new features.  I personally learned it was a big mistake putting much faith in Bytemaster's decision making. That doesn't impact my views on this.  To the contrary - I WANT to see BTS grow up and not be dependent on him. Shutting down all dilution/payment is not the way to do this.  It is just a recipe to not be competitive.

Spot on... 

Keep in mind from where you sit your arguements make perfect sense.

From China.. when they see the tons of money that Westerners make.. they think we are all rich and should be able to buy shares in the ridiculous way that has been suggested.

Also from where they sit, developers are being paid far too much.

DACPlay received over $1m in donations about 14 months ago. By western standards this can fuel a  sizable dev team for a good 2 years. In China terms,  20 years. Yet we haven't seen one single free improvement delivered from them since 2.0.

From all I have seen.. the Worker proposal is not well suited for independent  developers in its current iteration, but better suited to well funded companies that can do all the extras about detailed reports, marketing themselves, and even potentially taking payment in some vested balance.

When you see other graphene chains come up where work they do can, if not paid, simply be taken to the next chain that is willing to pay for it, then you will might see this happen.

Right now though as many can see, we have a regime that is attempting to put a strangle hold to it all... possibly because of some of the things I mentioned, making the time ripe for a company with the available funds to just launch a competitor to Bitshares... a competitor that understands innovate or die. How's our 1.5% current dilution going to look then? Kinda like too little too late.

Have you looked at coinmarketcap recently ?
It doesn't take a company with funding to compete with BTS . A coin with a silly Doge face is doing it already .
Dogecoin is already doing it with zero features/zero funding .

Figure out how to beat Dogecoin , and I'll have a serious conversation with you . 

Of course , you will say ..."Dogecoin is pump and dump , marketcap doesn't count " . But how can you talk about beating all the innovation projects by increasing dilution when you can't even beat a silly project called Doge ?

+10000*5%

[btswildpig]

Have you looked at coinmarketcap recently ?
It doesn't take a company with funding to compete with BTS . A coin with a silly Doge face is doing it already .
Dogecoin is already doing it with zero features/zero funding .

Figure out how to beat Dogecoin , and I'll have a serious conversation with you . 

Of course , you will say ..."Dogecoin is pump and dump , marketcap doesn't count " . But how can you talk about beating all the innovation projects by increasing dilution when you can't even beat a silly project called Doge ?

Oh come on, Doge is obviously an anomaly in the crypto-world -- it's purely for "fun" and speculation on how much others will find it "fun". That's not BTS. BTS won't magically become fun and community-driven if everyone just stops developing for it.

The name's not even funny -- BitShares.

So .... you mean to set a bar for beating Dogecoin is unfair for a light speed blockchain ?

OK .. enough with marketcap....How about generating indication that the features being/was developed are being used by actual users ?
If BitShares is not about pump and dump and speculation , then its value should be based on the actual usage of the features instead of how the market was reacting simply because of new features and new hypes ....

It can't be gamed , after all , usage data is on the blockchain .....It's can't be gamed with  and big announcement .....
If we're fine with price rising while usage data did not increase , then we're kidding ourselves about not being speculative .

[nomoreheroes7]

Have you looked at coinmarketcap recently ?
It doesn't take a company with funding to compete with BTS . A coin with a silly Doge face is doing it already .
Dogecoin is already doing it with zero features/zero funding .

Figure out how to beat Dogecoin , and I'll have a serious conversation with you . 

Of course , you will say ..."Dogecoin is pump and dump , marketcap doesn't count " . But how can you talk about beating all the innovation projects by increasing dilution when you can't even beat a silly project called Doge ?

Oh come on, Doge is obviously an anomaly in the crypto-world -- it's purely for "fun" and speculation on how much others will find it "fun". That's not BTS. BTS won't magically become fun and community-driven if everyone just stops developing for it.

The name's not even funny -- BitShares.

[btswildpig]

If people can't tell I find this whole thing pretty obnoxious.

I think the Chinese have a point.  Looks at the scape's video.  How many BTS did they get for that?  1600 views?  I thought it was a waste to begin with, but a real video that would be effective would have been work and not fun. Those guys milked that for a looong time. The non-technical scape was part of the reason I left. The other one was ended up being extremely valuable to the BTS ecosystem.

In the current form, I would never wish to work for the blockchain.  At one point I thought it was a cool idea.  Very sci-fi.  Neat stuff.  Now, I realize that the more you put your own well being in the hands of others, the more likely you are to just get screwed.  This is even more true, the more talented you are. I would not touch working for the BTS blockchain unless I absolutely had to do it. Far too many unknowns and whims of people controlling things.

The reason I was pulled into this thread is because someone suggested that a developer should just buy their stake, implement a feature and Allah willing they'd end up selling their stake for more. I'd love to see someone actually come up with numbers on how that is to work. It means the developer has enough money to gamble on BTS and then have enough to live off until they can cash back out. This only works assuming the gamble has a good chance of paying off.  What happens if BTS drops 40% during that time but then goes up 30% after the developers work is released?  How much money vs % of increase is required for this to be reasonable given what an average person would be willing to invest. To suggest this is an alternative model for development is stupid.  It assumes future developers must already be wealthy. Unlikely. 

I have never been against people judging the proposals on their individual merits.  I have never been against people being against dilution in general. I have been against this blind marching forward with nothing more than hope, while other projects are actually implementing new features.  I personally learned it was a big mistake putting much faith in Bytemaster's decision making. That doesn't impact my views on this.  To the contrary - I WANT to see BTS grow up and not be dependent on him. Shutting down all dilution/payment is not the way to do this.  It is just a recipe to not be competitive.

Spot on... 

Keep in mind from where you sit your arguements make perfect sense.

From China.. when they see the tons of money that Westerners make.. they think we are all rich and should be able to buy shares in the ridiculous way that has been suggested.

Also from where they sit, developers are being paid far too much.

DACPlay received over $1m in donations about 14 months ago. By western standards this can fuel a  sizable dev team for a good 2 years. In China terms,  20 years. Yet we haven't seen one single free improvement delivered from them since 2.0.

From all I have seen.. the Worker proposal is not well suited for independent  developers in its current iteration, but better suited to well funded companies that can do all the extras about detailed reports, marketing themselves, and even potentially taking payment in some vested balance.

When you see other graphene chains come up where work they do can, if not paid, simply be taken to the next chain that is willing to pay for it, then you will might see this happen.

Right now though as many can see, we have a regime that is attempting to put a strangle hold to it all... possibly because of some of the things I mentioned, making the time ripe for a company with the available funds to just launch a competitor to Bitshares... a competitor that understands innovate or die. How's our 1.5% current dilution going to look then? Kinda like too little too late.

Have you looked at coinmarketcap recently ?
It doesn't take a company with funding to compete with BTS . A coin with a silly Doge face is doing it already .
Dogecoin is already doing it with zero features/zero funding .

Figure out how to beat Dogecoin , and I'll have a serious conversation with you . 

Of course , you will say ..."Dogecoin is pump and dump , marketcap doesn't count " . But how can you talk about beating all the innovation projects by increasing dilution when you can't even beat a silly project called Doge ?

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

If people can't tell I find this whole thing pretty obnoxious.

I think the Chinese have a point.  Looks at the scape's video.  How many BTS did they get for that?  1600 views?  I thought it was a waste to begin with, but a real video that would be effective would have been work and not fun. Those guys milked that for a looong time. The non-technical scape was part of the reason I left. The other one was ended up being extremely valuable to the BTS ecosystem.

In the current form, I would never wish to work for the blockchain.  At one point I thought it was a cool idea.  Very sci-fi.  Neat stuff.  Now, I realize that the more you put your own well being in the hands of others, the more likely you are to just get screwed.  This is even more true, the more talented you are. I would not touch working for the BTS blockchain unless I absolutely had to do it. Far too many unknowns and whims of people controlling things.

The reason I was pulled into this thread is because someone suggested that a developer should just buy their stake, implement a feature and Allah willing they'd end up selling their stake for more. I'd love to see someone actually come up with numbers on how that is to work. It means the developer has enough money to gamble on BTS and then have enough to live off until they can cash back out. This only works assuming the gamble has a good chance of paying off.  What happens if BTS drops 40% during that time but then goes up 30% after the developers work is released?  How much money vs % of increase is required for this to be reasonable given what an average person would be willing to invest. To suggest this is an alternative model for development is stupid.  It assumes future developers must already be wealthy. Unlikely. 

I have never been against people judging the proposals on their individual merits.  I have never been against people being against dilution in general. I have been against this blind marching forward with nothing more than hope, while other projects are actually implementing new features.  I personally learned it was a big mistake putting much faith in Bytemaster's decision making. That doesn't impact my views on this.  To the contrary - I WANT to see BTS grow up and not be dependent on him. Shutting down all dilution/payment is not the way to do this.  It is just a recipe to not be competitive.

Spot on... 

Keep in mind from where you sit your arguements make perfect sense.

From China.. when they see the tons of money that Westerners make.. they think we are all rich and should be able to buy shares in the ridiculous way that has been suggested.

Also from where they sit, developers are being paid far too much.

DACPlay received over $1m in donations about 14 months ago. By western standards this can fuel a  sizable dev team for a good 2 years. In China terms,  20 years. Yet we haven't seen one single free improvement delivered from them since 2.0.

From all I have seen.. the Worker proposal is not well suited for independent  developers in its current iteration, but better suited to well funded companies that can do all the extras about detailed reports, marketing themselves, and even potentially taking payment in some vested balance.

When you see other graphene chains come up where work they do can, if not paid, simply be taken to the next chain that is willing to pay for it, then you will might see this happen.

Right now though as many can see, we have a regime that is attempting to put a strangle hold to it all... possibly because of some of the things I mentioned, making the time ripe for a company with the available funds to just launch a competitor to Bitshares... a competitor that understands innovate or die. How's our 1.5% current dilution going to look then? Kinda like too little too late.

[gamey]

If people can't tell I find this whole thing pretty obnoxious.

I think the Chinese have a point.  Looks at the scape's video.  How many BTS did they get for that?  1600 views?  I thought it was a waste to begin with, but a real video that would be effective would have been work and not fun. Those guys milked that for a looong time. The non-technical scape was part of the reason I left. The other one was ended up being extremely valuable to the BTS ecosystem.

In the current form, I would never wish to work for the blockchain.  At one point I thought it was a cool idea.  Very sci-fi.  Neat stuff.  Now, I realize that the more you put your own well being in the hands of others, the more likely you are to just get screwed.  This is even more true, the more talented you are. I would not touch working for the BTS blockchain unless I absolutely had to do it. Far too many unknowns and whims of people controlling things.

The reason I was pulled into this thread is because someone suggested that a developer should just buy their stake, implement a feature and Allah willing they'd end up selling their stake for more. I'd love to see someone actually come up with numbers on how that is to work. It means the developer has enough money to gamble on BTS and then have enough to live off until they can cash back out. This only works assuming the gamble has a good chance of paying off.  What happens if BTS drops 40% during that time but then goes up 30% after the developers work is released?  How much money vs % of increase is required for this to be reasonable given what an average person would be willing to invest. To suggest this is an alternative model for development is stupid.  It assumes future developers must already be wealthy. Unlikely. 

I have never been against people judging the proposals on their individual merits.  I have never been against people being against dilution in general. I have been against this blind marching forward with nothing more than hope, while other projects are actually implementing new features.  I personally learned it was a big mistake putting much faith in Bytemaster's decision making. That doesn't impact my views on this.  To the contrary - I WANT to see BTS grow up and not be dependent on him. Shutting down all dilution/payment is not the way to do this.  It is just a recipe to not be competitive.

[gamey]

yunbi just vote all the refund/burn workers , the purpose is to raise the threshold to be workers.
the game rule is there, if you want to make money as a worker, you need to face the possibility to be voted out. surely you can try to convince the stake holders that your job is useful and effective. and then maybe you can be voted in.

 

Talented developers won't be trying too hard to convince anyone, they'll just go get a job being paid more. lol.

So you're saying this is a dilution system designed for developers to propose their ideas and easily get paid by voting of a bunch of developers who hasn't been showing how to build product that can earn effective profit ?

If that's the case , bitshares is easy to an attack .
One can just need to ask some programmers who have a lot of free time to come here and propose some fancy function (with the clear idea it won't generate revenue for the system , but sounded cool .) ,  and they can effectively drain every last bit of money from BitShares eco-system and left BTS with some code that can be easily moved and copied to their own project or community .

IF the idea of a low threshold is to attract developer to work ( not hiring developers with clear business plan or vetting if their project is needed/benefit/profitable for the system , but just let them to do coding that could impressed the heck out of existing developers or community members who happens to be easily impressed by almost everything and gives a  ) .......

And you know what the worse part could be ?
Every project could see BTS as a experimental grant and get funding for their projects easily to code without taking risk themselves , and then move the work product to their own project ...
So BTS and their product both have a new feature , but BTS eco-system was drained out of more value .....

Attracting developers should not be the goal . Attracting developers to finish things that matters is the gold . It shouldn't be decided by developers . Even if you go out to work for companies , you don't get to decide what you do or how much you ask for it , in the end the employers decides everything with regard to their own reality or business aspects .

Developers code for a living , their enjoy working and getting paid , the more work they do the more paid they can get , they don't have regard if their work is profitable or not . Their interest and the business is not aligned in this instance even though they claim getting pay more will align their interest with the business.

Imaging this happens to a company , developers could propose some tasks that involves some serious budget that the company could not afford and the company account will be forced to paid them because they controls the bank accounts now.... And what you should be worry about more ? No one works for you Or fix this potential issue considering the financial situation that the firm is facing ?

You don't give the control of the bank accounts to the workers , no matter how badly you want them to work .  Hell ... If I have that kind of juicy power in my company , I can not promise I can control myself not to do all kinds of stuff that I'm not sure would worth it just to get some overtime payment   .

You are trying really hard to make a point that isn't there.  The current place I do consulting for, I gave them my rate and they agreed to it. It wasn't an offer from them for me to work for them.  They ask if I am available.  The difference is they understand my value.  Developers are not like factory workers. A lot of guys with MBAs etc would like to think so, but that is not the case.

The fact is most people simply don't have the intelligence/IQ to do high level development work.  The guy putting out wordpress sites isn't the same guy writing a p2p application in C++.

If you can't pay market rate, then you either need to get lucky hiring someone or figure out a way to entice a a developer into working for you.  This is where BTS currently is. Finding guys who are familar with the codebase and don't waste a lot of time getting up to speed is another problem.  Goodluck there.

Everyone is completely  correct to oversee any and all work done via proposals.  That is not what is going on here.  That is your confusing of issues to try and be correct. What is going on here is mindless voting against all paid development.  Granted, you can say they are only voting to "raise the threshold".. but that is just more stupid nonsense although technically correct.

While I like the idea of a blockchain supporting itself, it has become exactly what I thought.  Too many bosses for too few workers.  What a fucking nightmare.

Keep inventing strawmen arguments though to keep up your irrationality. 

Really, this has nothing to do with developers "controlling the bank account".. And in a lot of companies that aren't very large, the developers do just as many business decisions as the rest of the company.  The last job I had where I had to show up in an office I ended up editing legal contracts because their in house attorney was a moron.  You just make up some random difference between developers and the rest of the company to try and make your case.  Nonsense.

I don't even want to get started about this being an "attack vector" for BTS.  Give us a break.  You are just completely inventing problems that have not occurred to excuse away this irrationality that will just screw BTS.

I used to think Chinese were great for BTS.  It was somehow an advantage to have their support.  I now really question that as I have yet to see any of them understand the basics of functioning companies or what is required.

Reading the above post, if you were not Chinese, I'd think you'd just smoked way too much weed tonight... Although I guess maybe it is the drink. 

Who knows. 
Good grief.

[btswildpig]

yunbi just vote all the refund/burn workers , the purpose is to raise the threshold to be workers.
the game rule is there, if you want to make money as a worker, you need to face the possibility to be voted out. surely you can try to convince the stake holders that your job is useful and effective. and then maybe you can be voted in.

 

Talented developers won't be trying too hard to convince anyone, they'll just go get a job being paid more. lol.

So you're saying this is a dilution system designed for developers to propose their ideas and easily get paid by voting of a bunch of developers who hasn't been showing how to build product that can earn effective profit ?

If that's the case , bitshares is easy to an attack .
One can just need to ask some programmers who have a lot of free time to come here and propose some fancy function (with the clear idea it won't generate revenue for the system , but sounded cool .) ,  and they can effectively drain every last bit of money from BitShares eco-system and left BTS with some code that can be easily moved and copied to their own project or community .

IF the idea of a low threshold is to attract developer to work ( not hiring developers with clear business plan or vetting if their project is needed/benefit/profitable for the system , but just let them to do coding that could impressed the heck out of existing developers or community members who happens to be easily impressed by almost everything and gives a  ) .......

And you know what the worse part could be ?
Every project could see BTS as a experimental grant and get funding for their projects easily to code without taking risk themselves , and then move the work product to their own project ...
So BTS and their product both have a new feature , but BTS eco-system was drained out of more value .....

Attracting developers should not be the goal . Attracting developers to finish things that matters is the gold . It shouldn't be decided by developers . Even if you go out to work for companies , you don't get to decide what you do or how much you ask for it , in the end the employers decides everything with regard to their own reality or business aspects .

Developers code for a living , their enjoy working and getting paid , the more work they do the more paid they can get , they don't have regard if their work is profitable or not . Their interest and the business is not aligned in this instance even though they claim getting pay more will align their interest with the business.

Imaging this happens to a company , developers could propose some tasks that involves some serious budget that the company could not afford and the company account will be forced to paid them because they controls the bank accounts now.... And what you should be worry about more ? No one works for you Or fix this potential issue considering the financial situation that the firm is facing ?

You don't give the control of the bank accounts to the workers , no matter how badly you want them to work .  Hell ... If I have that kind of juicy power in my company , I can not promise I can control myself not to do all kinds of stuff that I'm not sure would worth it just to get some overtime payment   .