0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: BitShares News on May 28, 2016, 11:18:44 pmQuote from: Shentist on May 28, 2016, 08:44:53 pm"don't throw more money into things that are not going well"Throwing money into Steem is not required. The account is free! Create an account, make a post, upvote other good post, earn money. What could be simpler? In order for you to earn money, somebody has to throw money at you. What could be simpler, damn it!
Quote from: Shentist on May 28, 2016, 08:44:53 pm"don't throw more money into things that are not going well"Throwing money into Steem is not required. The account is free! Create an account, make a post, upvote other good post, earn money. What could be simpler?
"don't throw more money into things that are not going well"
Quote from: Shentist on May 28, 2016, 08:44:53 pm"don't throw more money into things that are not going well"Throwing money into Steem is not required. The account is free! Create an account, make a post, upvote other good post, earn money. What could be simpler? In the time spent here complaining you could have earned back thousands and probably done so complaining on Steem about Steem or BitShares. I'm sure there are people who agree with you, but you're doing it here FOR FREE! That's nuts man. Do it and get paid to do it, possibly. I make no promises that bringing your same sour attitude will pay off on Steem, it's likely not to, but what did you lose? Nothing. But you could possibly make something and if nothing else you could upvote others post and make some money.You guys are refusing to take free money from the guy you say cost you money. If you don't take advantage of that situation it's your own fault and you have no one to blame but yourselves.
Lets have some patience guys I bought at 825 n I not complaining....bitcoin is having his bull run lets uave some patience, bitshares will explode soon, is near n I fell it
Quote from: sudo on May 28, 2016, 03:06:39 pmkeep away of SteemitThat's horrible advice from my perspective. Anyone who feels stuck in BTS would have done themselves a favor by posting on Steemit.com early, but it's not too late! You still have another month to earn part of the $2 million given to posters and curators. I have done quite well myself and would highly recommend anyone here complaining about their BTS investment to give Steemit a try if for no other reason to make up some of your perceived or real losses.If you feel bytemaster has somehow let you down, why would you not want to take some of the free money offered by Steem to make up for your claimed misfortunes? It seems counterproductive to sit here complaining about your woes when you could have already made up any losses by simply making good post on Steemit or curating some good content and even better you could be accomplishing this off of the Steem platform you appear to despise so much for whatever reason.If you blame someone for costing you money due to a decision or action on their part are you going to sit around moaning about it all day or would you rather go make that money back from them off of another project they created? "I lost money from that guys last project so no way I'm going to go take some easy money off of his next one to make up for my losses!"Seriously consider what you are saying here. It makes absolutely no sense. Dan's like, "Hey here's $2 million dollars for you!" and you guys/girls are like, "No way man, I'm not typing and posting links to earn back my money! I'd rather bitch all day and earn nothing!".
keep away of Steemit
Claims of BM saying BitShares has failed
Steemit is most like Reddit imo
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RedditSo Reddit is valued at like $15 per user? So Steemit at a valuation of $30 million implies they expect to have 2 million users in the near future.That's not taking into account that Steemit are actually directly paying for those users, are also directly paying for their content and have no monetisation so I imagine they will actually experience a significant loss per user for the forseeable future so their valuation should be...
Quote from: sudo on May 28, 2016, 03:06:39 pmQuote from: cryptillionaire on May 28, 2016, 01:57:00 pmStill waiting for BM to acknowledge my post: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22317.msg292330.html#msg292330Publicly FUD BTS, Pump the premined Steemit, then merge BTS as a minority stake into Steemit?! Hodling is becoming increasingly difficult, feeling like sunk cost fallacy the lower we go keep away of SteemitTell that to BM https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22317.msg290945.html#msg290945
Quote from: cryptillionaire on May 28, 2016, 01:57:00 pmStill waiting for BM to acknowledge my post: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22317.msg292330.html#msg292330Publicly FUD BTS, Pump the premined Steemit, then merge BTS as a minority stake into Steemit?! Hodling is becoming increasingly difficult, feeling like sunk cost fallacy the lower we go keep away of Steemit
Still waiting for BM to acknowledge my post: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22317.msg292330.html#msg292330Publicly FUD BTS, Pump the premined Steemit, then merge BTS as a minority stake into Steemit?! Hodling is becoming increasingly difficult, feeling like sunk cost fallacy the lower we go
Steemit is most like Reddit imoQuoteAs of June 2015, there were 36 million user accounts.As of 2015, Reddit had 542 million monthly visitors (234 million unique users), ranking 14th most visited web-site in US and 36th in the world.[6] Across 2015, Reddit saw 82.54 billion pageviews, 73.15 million submissions, 725.85 million comments, and 6.89 billion upvotes from its users.[7In October 2014 Reddit raised $50 million in a funding round... Their investment saw the company valued at $500 million.[10][11]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RedditSo Reddit is valued at like $15 per user? So Steemit at a valuation of $30 million implies they expect to have 2 million users in the near future.That's not taking into account that Steemit are actually directly paying for those users, are also directly paying for their content and have no monetisation so I imagine they will actually experience a significant loss per user for the forseeable future so their valuation should be...
As of June 2015, there were 36 million user accounts.As of 2015, Reddit had 542 million monthly visitors (234 million unique users), ranking 14th most visited web-site in US and 36th in the world.[6] Across 2015, Reddit saw 82.54 billion pageviews, 73.15 million submissions, 725.85 million comments, and 6.89 billion upvotes from its users.[7In October 2014 Reddit raised $50 million in a funding round... Their investment saw the company valued at $500 million.[10][11]
well , it translates the same in Chinese at least . "learn from bitshares' failures " = "learn from the reasons why bitshares has failed "i'm sure if his English could be better he'd use the word "mistakes" instead of "failures" .Anyway , he's right about one sentence : technology can not fix dumb people .The difference between DAO and BTS is that , BTS didn't have a 6 million USD budget in the first place , it's just in BM's imagination . The dilution plan was accepted reluctantly by the community only because of :1. BM will perform some big thing with vote , millions of users will be using BTS , hence any reputation cost by the merger and continue dilution could be compensated . 2. Upon the delivery of 2.0 , BM magically proposed that to unleash the delegate-by-delegate dilution to worker dilution , with a misleading promise that all dilution will be vested for years , no selling pressure . After the two promises were broken , he still convinced that he has 6 million budget to spend . This is what I called "wishful thinking" . Anyway , I don't believe the future holds for The DAO . But what BM said regarding the "failures" of BItShares and blame it on "dumb people" are just plain stupid . By the way , how's brownie.pts going ? As far as we know , nobody is controlling brownie.pts except BM . He can dilute it to support development . How come brownie.pts hasn't been successful already
Quote from: BunkerChain Labs on May 25, 2016, 10:29:59 pmQuote from: Empirical1.2 on May 24, 2016, 04:56:58 pmQuote from: Akado on May 22, 2016, 02:43:52 pmThe creator of a now defunct crowdfunding site fueled by Bitcoin, BitShares, wrote a biting online post on Tuesday arguing that the D.A.O. would most likely fail for the same reason that BitShares ultimately failed: “people problems, economic problems and political problems.”http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/business/dealbook/crypto-ether-bitcoin-currency.htmlFrom his original post, I get that he only talks about BitShares mistakes in the past, he didn't exactly claim bts is dead? It's certainly not in a good condition but did he actually claim that? Or did the nytimes just twist his words?Some of his blog post was correct regarding the DAO facing some of the same challenges as BTS. However he came to an incorrect conclusion about shareholders being anti-spending. The anti-spending was more a direct result of BM/CNX being unable to add value to BTS since the merger (incl. merger itself) and as result shareholders are specifically reluctant to throw money at CNX & cautious and unexcited about other spending as a result. Graphene also seems to be a less popular codebase that is harder to independently add too, so we had very few non CNX related options, DAO and (also LISK holders - DPOS) should theoretically be presented with a much wider choice of options and lower barriers to entry. The merger also adds little value and puts downward pressure on price which shareholders aren't easily able to dissociate from other dilution. We were also mostly presented with developments BM was more interested in working on as opposed to things like margin trading that there may be a lot more support for. So I think once the merger is over shareholders will be more likely to fund development as there will be less other downward price pressure. We should also have transitioned to a post CNX stage by then. I hope we are at least funding SmartCoin liquidity and one major feature prior to that though personally. Stan also came to the same incorrect conclusions. Quote from: Stan on April 19, 2016, 07:00:00 pmQuote from: lil_jay890 on April 19, 2016, 06:17:18 pmQuote from: oldmine on April 19, 2016, 06:00:29 pmSo when is the bond market proposal available for voting?This is what I don't get... CNX complains that bitshares is unwilling to pay workers yet they never even create a proposal to vote on.The only worker out there are bug fixers, GUI improvement and documentation. Important, but none of those are adding a new core feature.Proposals are based in part on what resources are available to work on them.Resources are hired based on the availability of stable funding.A constant battle over who controls the funding light switch means no one dares hire against any line item.So the resources remain allocated elsewhere.Voting is overrated. I wouldn't want to ride on an aircraft controlled by voting passengers.Give me a benevolent whale any day What I find ironic given their above conclusions that decentralised voting is over-rated as well as the distribution of Steem is that it's slogan is... QuoteSteemit - The way social media should be - DECENTRALIZED https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1466593.msg14800086#msg14800086If this was really the case, about it being directed at BM/CNX, why then not vote for all the proposals that were put forward that were not them? Heck majority of the proposals were not them.I can understand this perspective and the conclusions drawn, I just don't think its that specific because the lack of support for others. Almost all workers teetered on losing support almost always on a daily basis, effectively making it unworkable (pun intended). This was out of basic economics arguments of dilution primarily... not BM/CNX.The argument is that BM/CNX failed to add value over such a long period since merger (incl. merger) that the market was skeptical about any dilution for development adding shareholder value & the things they might have funded like a bond market I don't think were presented. (This was also conflated by merger sell pressure which amplified the idea that dilution for development is draining.) Had BM/CNX as the main developers of BTS, managed to grow it's value post merger shareholders would have been willing to fund a wide range of other workers imo. https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-startups-failQuoteWithin 3 years, 92% of startups failed. Of those who failed 74%, failed due to premature scaling.Premature scaling means spending money on marketing, hiring etc. either before you found a working business model (you acquire users for less than the revenue they bring) or in general spending too fast while failing to secure further financing.While there are other ways to add value like increasing utility, partnerships and more, primarily BTS like many start-ups has struggled to find a business model/app that constantly attracted new users or generated revenue/profit.BTS shareholders waited 14-18 months for something. If DAO via Slock.it for example, a LISK DAPP, or even something on BTS is funded that is hot and either brings in users by the droves or generates revenue/profit like good investments should then I don't think we will see anti-spending and will also see a willingness to fund more general development to keep the underlying platform competitive too.
Quote from: Empirical1.2 on May 24, 2016, 04:56:58 pmQuote from: Akado on May 22, 2016, 02:43:52 pmThe creator of a now defunct crowdfunding site fueled by Bitcoin, BitShares, wrote a biting online post on Tuesday arguing that the D.A.O. would most likely fail for the same reason that BitShares ultimately failed: “people problems, economic problems and political problems.”http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/business/dealbook/crypto-ether-bitcoin-currency.htmlFrom his original post, I get that he only talks about BitShares mistakes in the past, he didn't exactly claim bts is dead? It's certainly not in a good condition but did he actually claim that? Or did the nytimes just twist his words?Some of his blog post was correct regarding the DAO facing some of the same challenges as BTS. However he came to an incorrect conclusion about shareholders being anti-spending. The anti-spending was more a direct result of BM/CNX being unable to add value to BTS since the merger (incl. merger itself) and as result shareholders are specifically reluctant to throw money at CNX & cautious and unexcited about other spending as a result. Graphene also seems to be a less popular codebase that is harder to independently add too, so we had very few non CNX related options, DAO and (also LISK holders - DPOS) should theoretically be presented with a much wider choice of options and lower barriers to entry. The merger also adds little value and puts downward pressure on price which shareholders aren't easily able to dissociate from other dilution. We were also mostly presented with developments BM was more interested in working on as opposed to things like margin trading that there may be a lot more support for. So I think once the merger is over shareholders will be more likely to fund development as there will be less other downward price pressure. We should also have transitioned to a post CNX stage by then. I hope we are at least funding SmartCoin liquidity and one major feature prior to that though personally. Stan also came to the same incorrect conclusions. Quote from: Stan on April 19, 2016, 07:00:00 pmQuote from: lil_jay890 on April 19, 2016, 06:17:18 pmQuote from: oldmine on April 19, 2016, 06:00:29 pmSo when is the bond market proposal available for voting?This is what I don't get... CNX complains that bitshares is unwilling to pay workers yet they never even create a proposal to vote on.The only worker out there are bug fixers, GUI improvement and documentation. Important, but none of those are adding a new core feature.Proposals are based in part on what resources are available to work on them.Resources are hired based on the availability of stable funding.A constant battle over who controls the funding light switch means no one dares hire against any line item.So the resources remain allocated elsewhere.Voting is overrated. I wouldn't want to ride on an aircraft controlled by voting passengers.Give me a benevolent whale any day What I find ironic given their above conclusions that decentralised voting is over-rated as well as the distribution of Steem is that it's slogan is... QuoteSteemit - The way social media should be - DECENTRALIZED https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1466593.msg14800086#msg14800086If this was really the case, about it being directed at BM/CNX, why then not vote for all the proposals that were put forward that were not them? Heck majority of the proposals were not them.I can understand this perspective and the conclusions drawn, I just don't think its that specific because the lack of support for others. Almost all workers teetered on losing support almost always on a daily basis, effectively making it unworkable (pun intended). This was out of basic economics arguments of dilution primarily... not BM/CNX.
Quote from: Akado on May 22, 2016, 02:43:52 pmThe creator of a now defunct crowdfunding site fueled by Bitcoin, BitShares, wrote a biting online post on Tuesday arguing that the D.A.O. would most likely fail for the same reason that BitShares ultimately failed: “people problems, economic problems and political problems.”http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/business/dealbook/crypto-ether-bitcoin-currency.htmlFrom his original post, I get that he only talks about BitShares mistakes in the past, he didn't exactly claim bts is dead? It's certainly not in a good condition but did he actually claim that? Or did the nytimes just twist his words?Some of his blog post was correct regarding the DAO facing some of the same challenges as BTS. However he came to an incorrect conclusion about shareholders being anti-spending. The anti-spending was more a direct result of BM/CNX being unable to add value to BTS since the merger (incl. merger itself) and as result shareholders are specifically reluctant to throw money at CNX & cautious and unexcited about other spending as a result. Graphene also seems to be a less popular codebase that is harder to independently add too, so we had very few non CNX related options, DAO and (also LISK holders - DPOS) should theoretically be presented with a much wider choice of options and lower barriers to entry. The merger also adds little value and puts downward pressure on price which shareholders aren't easily able to dissociate from other dilution. We were also mostly presented with developments BM was more interested in working on as opposed to things like margin trading that there may be a lot more support for. So I think once the merger is over shareholders will be more likely to fund development as there will be less other downward price pressure. We should also have transitioned to a post CNX stage by then. I hope we are at least funding SmartCoin liquidity and one major feature prior to that though personally. Stan also came to the same incorrect conclusions. Quote from: Stan on April 19, 2016, 07:00:00 pmQuote from: lil_jay890 on April 19, 2016, 06:17:18 pmQuote from: oldmine on April 19, 2016, 06:00:29 pmSo when is the bond market proposal available for voting?This is what I don't get... CNX complains that bitshares is unwilling to pay workers yet they never even create a proposal to vote on.The only worker out there are bug fixers, GUI improvement and documentation. Important, but none of those are adding a new core feature.Proposals are based in part on what resources are available to work on them.Resources are hired based on the availability of stable funding.A constant battle over who controls the funding light switch means no one dares hire against any line item.So the resources remain allocated elsewhere.Voting is overrated. I wouldn't want to ride on an aircraft controlled by voting passengers.Give me a benevolent whale any day What I find ironic given their above conclusions that decentralised voting is over-rated as well as the distribution of Steem is that it's slogan is... QuoteSteemit - The way social media should be - DECENTRALIZED https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1466593.msg14800086#msg14800086
The creator of a now defunct crowdfunding site fueled by Bitcoin, BitShares, wrote a biting online post on Tuesday arguing that the D.A.O. would most likely fail for the same reason that BitShares ultimately failed: “people problems, economic problems and political problems.”http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/business/dealbook/crypto-ether-bitcoin-currency.htmlFrom his original post, I get that he only talks about BitShares mistakes in the past, he didn't exactly claim bts is dead? It's certainly not in a good condition but did he actually claim that? Or did the nytimes just twist his words?
Quote from: lil_jay890 on April 19, 2016, 06:17:18 pmQuote from: oldmine on April 19, 2016, 06:00:29 pmSo when is the bond market proposal available for voting?This is what I don't get... CNX complains that bitshares is unwilling to pay workers yet they never even create a proposal to vote on.The only worker out there are bug fixers, GUI improvement and documentation. Important, but none of those are adding a new core feature.Proposals are based in part on what resources are available to work on them.Resources are hired based on the availability of stable funding.A constant battle over who controls the funding light switch means no one dares hire against any line item.So the resources remain allocated elsewhere.Voting is overrated. I wouldn't want to ride on an aircraft controlled by voting passengers.Give me a benevolent whale any day
Quote from: oldmine on April 19, 2016, 06:00:29 pmSo when is the bond market proposal available for voting?This is what I don't get... CNX complains that bitshares is unwilling to pay workers yet they never even create a proposal to vote on.The only worker out there are bug fixers, GUI improvement and documentation. Important, but none of those are adding a new core feature.
So when is the bond market proposal available for voting?
Steemit - The way social media should be - DECENTRALIZED
Within 3 years, 92% of startups failed. Of those who failed 74%, failed due to premature scaling.Premature scaling means spending money on marketing, hiring etc. either before you found a working business model (you acquire users for less than the revenue they bring) or in general spending too fast while failing to secure further financing.
Quote from: btswildpig on May 24, 2016, 01:39:43 amand it seems STEEM is not something we should remotely consider to invest in given the history .Fuck history, look at the damn price son! Anyone that bought that last dip just doubled up.
and it seems STEEM is not something we should remotely consider to invest in given the history .
Well with bitshares you not only get no marketing but bad PR for free ..
SMF is used by Bitcointalk. Do we not want steem it links to work their either?
edit: jeez, would somebody please fix this forum software so that steemit links will work? [...] Can someone in contact with Bitsapphire please have them fix this? Thank you
So this does NOT work but probably should: https://steemit.com/miscellaneous/&commit;kenCode/the-top-5-ways-to-make-a-steady-blockchain-income
Ken's article on STEEM
Quote from: kenCode on May 24, 2016, 01:39:22 pmedit: jeez, would somebody please fix this forum software so that steemit links will work? https://steemit.com/miscellaneous/@kenCode/the-top-5-ways-to-make-a-steady-blockchain-income Why not demand that the new kid on the block (STEEM) play by existing rules of protocol and fix their URLs?There are standard methods of encoding the "@" in the link, but none of them work in STEEM: @ @ @ because STEEM doesn't decode them. Also, as you point out SMF presumes the "@" is a reference to it's users, which is one problem, but steem makes a similar assumption (who knows, STEEM may have picked up the convention from SMF!)So this does NOT work but probably should: https://steemit.com/miscellaneous/&commit;kenCode/the-top-5-ways-to-make-a-steady-blockchain-incomeand this does work, but only for previewing your post; when you save it SMF translates the "@" into bbcode for member mention. SMF even converts the "@" in [ code ] sections, so I had to add a space so SMF wouldn't replace it, which messes up the URL Code: [Select][url=https://steemit.com/miscellaneous/@ kenCode/the-top-5-ways-to-make-a-steady-blockchain-income]Ken's STEEM article[/url]Ken's article on STEEM
edit: jeez, would somebody please fix this forum software so that steemit links will work? https://steemit.com/miscellaneous/@kenCode/the-top-5-ways-to-make-a-steady-blockchain-income
[url=https://steemit.com/miscellaneous/@ kenCode/the-top-5-ways-to-make-a-steady-blockchain-income]Ken's STEEM article[/url]
The Dao is our friend, I'm using every possible situation to talk about BitShares thanks to TheDao
https://steemit.com/miscellaneous/[member=30868]kenCode[/member]/the-top-5-ways-to-make-a-steady-blockchain-income
https://steemit.com/miscellaneous/@kenCode/the-top-5-ways-to-make-a-steady-blockchain-income
I sold BTS then BM leaved, as many more people, but now I'm ready to rebuy, because Bitsheres are finally free from authority and did't crashed!Now there is only two truly decentralized platforms in crypto: Bitcoin and Bitshares. Is is huge!This means that Bitshares resilient, it will survive hustle market conditions, and as Bitcoin, it will rise to the top! But this time, top coin will not have problems with scalability and governance. Boom!I don't think that we should be angry on bytemaster, he did tremendous amount of work and was not fairly compensated. I would like to see in the future that we hiring him as developer.I played a little with Steem and it is very promising. It has simple sell point, it is addictive like facebook, using it reminds me feeling that I have using Bitcoin in early days. Try it guys, don't hold your anger.
Quote from: btswildpig on May 24, 2016, 01:39:43 am.. and it seems STEEM is not something we should remotely consider to invest in given the history . Fair enough, but it assumes BM didn't learn from past mistakes ..
.. and it seems STEEM is not something we should remotely consider to invest in given the history .
Quote from: ripplexiaoshan on May 23, 2016, 04:36:38 pmIt's not cool for BM to blame the community or "dumb people" for the "mistakes" of BTS, instead of thinking of his own mistake for not fully discussing with community when he made those big decisions.not cool at all . I can not explain enough to people without wasting my time why bitshares' founder has announced the "bitshares' failures" . after all , a large part of BM's own mistakes wasn't even mentioned in the article . I had to teach them the history over and over again until they realized : oh , it's BM who failed , not bitshares , and it seems STEEM is not something we should remotely consider to invest in given the history .
It's not cool for BM to blame the community or "dumb people" for the "mistakes" of BTS, instead of thinking of his own mistake for not fully discussing with community when he made those big decisions.
The Dao is our friend, I'm using every possible situation to talk about BitShares thanks to TheDaoSent from my XT1063 using Tapatalk
Even bad press is good for us. Look how far Trump got with his statements. More and more people are interested in BitShares now and we are seeing a more stable Bitshares Blockchain for the next months. That is great for all of us!
By the way , how's brownie.pts going ? As far as we know , nobody is controlling brownie.pts except BM . He can dilute it to support development . How come brownie.pts hasn't been successful already