I am glad to see people fighting to see Bitshares improve, but personal attacks and arguments on such an important topic really unnecessary. An entire page was dedicated on arguments about steem and another one on personal attacks. Most of the people here want to see Bitshares shine, even if they have different agendas for their projects or visions.
In my opinion there is no need to vote for a leader. We have proxies and a committee whose role could be extended to giving some insight. These people are voted there for a reason, and if you can trust them to who they are going to elect as a witness etc, then you should be able to trust them on development issues as well. If that’s not enough for you and I know many people would dislike what I will say, but I would prefer
@fuzzy as a ‘’leader’’. Not because of his vision, but because he really really wants to see this project succeed and he really tries to get the community together, definitely more than anybody else. I would also like to see
@abit and
@xeroc being a bit more vocal on what has to be done, as they have almost everyone’s trust. And if they make a worker proposal, vote for it!
There are a lot of very useful things that can be added to Bitshares like
1) Stealth, 2) Bond Market, 3) Liquidity/Parking Rewards, 4) Limited Rate Fees, 5) MetaTrader Support, 6) Sidechains, 7) Backups
And we’ve been talking about these things for more than 4 months now and not much has been done. However patience is key. Do you want all of them done soon? Find 0.5M$ and put it all in Bitshares. Even if we started doing everything now it would take at least 6 months until everything is implemented.
Being part of a DAC is tough and often things don’t go as we want. 90% of startups fail, but here we are, 2.5 years later, still alive and ready to move even further.
According to
@kenCode, stealth needs funding, but I still don’t see any proposal about the backups. Isn’t there anyone that would like to make a proposal for this very important feature, so that we can progress with stealth afterwards? Because I am feeling that part of the reason we are stuck with Stealth is that there were 3 more things that had to be done on Bitshares before adding stealth which were not considered appropriately in terms of funding.
Rate limited fees are almost there. Either abit’s implementation or the upcoming one on steem could be used at some point.
Regarding sidechains, I made a post about a month ago and I was told from @bunkerchainlabs that they were going to do this through peerplays and hopefully Jonathan is going to keep his word and implement sidechains successfully (something that I don’t doubt).
I know everyone is talking about the 5th of November as if it the Bitcoin halving, but it is nowhere near the same as Bitcoin. With the Merger, value was instantly added to Bitshares, by adding AGS and PTS to BTSX (as well as VOTE and DNS). In Bitcoin though, you don’t count coins that are going to be mined as if they are adding value to the existing coins. Again, when the merger stops we’ll probably see some things moving, not because the dilution is going to be less, but because people’s wrong perception of the dilution will come to an end.
Finally, I just wanted to say to
@jakub that re-branding isn’t an issue at the moment. It wasn’t a bad idea and it sparked a good discussion, but there is no need for anyone to be mean to each other or replying in cheeky ways just to take the piss out of people who have different opinions.
Have a nice day guys and thanks for your time!
Topic: Now that Daniel Larimer (aka bytemaster) is gone... (Read 62807 times)
