Bitshares 3.0 - It Is Time

[karnal]

The only major issue with bitshares right now is volume.

And the complete transparency of the blockchain (lack of privacy).
And a few minor others 

[Yao]

I appreciate the effort put into the OP, but I have to disagree with most of it. The one thing I do agree with is point 2: the liquidity proposals. I do think some kind of liqudity incentives need to be implemented, but we probably need some more discussion and some concrete proposals by developers able to implement them (@abit ?) before we decide what to do here.

Otherwise, I'm happy to finally see some stability in terms of features for Bitshares, and will not support any kind of 3.0 involving a change in the supply or IPO. We now have Ronny from Openledger stepping up to support development of the GUI, and many other projects taking advantage of the recent stability of BTS, let's not jeopardise that.

I also have no problems whatsoever with DPOS as the consensus model, it's been working very well and there's no point changing it if you ask me. While implementing a queued mining system like Steem has might be possible, I don't really think it's worth the effort. Mining will slowly disappear from crypto if you ask me so we would be adding support for a legacy, wasteful, soon-to-be obsolete system. Keep in mind I'm not saying it will disappear soon here, but over time I think it will become less and less important.

I can see merits from mining when it comes to building a "community" .. In Steem, the whole platform DEPENDS on a community, while in BitShares, the platform depends on business partners, traders and liquidity .. That's why I agree with svk that mining BTS (compromising max supply) makes no sense for BTS.

COMPROMISING MAX SUPPLY? Absolutely not!

[xeroc]

I appreciate the effort put into the OP, but I have to disagree with most of it. The one thing I do agree with is point 2: the liquidity proposals. I do think some kind of liqudity incentives need to be implemented, but we probably need some more discussion and some concrete proposals by developers able to implement them (@abit ?) before we decide what to do here.

Otherwise, I'm happy to finally see some stability in terms of features for Bitshares, and will not support any kind of 3.0 involving a change in the supply or IPO. We now have Ronny from Openledger stepping up to support development of the GUI, and many other projects taking advantage of the recent stability of BTS, let's not jeopardise that.

I also have no problems whatsoever with DPOS as the consensus model, it's been working very well and there's no point changing it if you ask me. While implementing a queued mining system like Steem has might be possible, I don't really think it's worth the effort. Mining will slowly disappear from crypto if you ask me so we would be adding support for a legacy, wasteful, soon-to-be obsolete system. Keep in mind I'm not saying it will disappear soon here, but over time I think it will become less and less important.

I can see merits from mining when it comes to building a "community" .. In Steem, the whole platform DEPENDS on a community, while in BitShares, the platform depends on business partners, traders and liquidity .. That's why I agree with svk that mining BTS (compromising max supply) makes no sense for BTS.

[Yao]

I appreciate the effort put into the OP, but I have to disagree with most of it. The one thing I do agree with is point 2: the liquidity proposals. I do think some kind of liqudity incentives need to be implemented, but we probably need some more discussion and some concrete proposals by developers able to implement them (@abit ?) before we decide what to do here.

Otherwise, I'm happy to finally see some stability in terms of features for Bitshares, and will not support any kind of 3.0 involving a change in the supply or IPO. We now have Ronny from Openledger stepping up to support development of the GUI, and many other projects taking advantage of the recent stability of BTS, let's not jeopardise that.

I also have no problems whatsoever with DPOS as the consensus model, it's been working very well and there's no point changing it if you ask me. While implementing a queued mining system like Steem has might be possible, I don't really think it's worth the effort. Mining will slowly disappear from crypto if you ask me so we would be adding support for a legacy, wasteful, soon-to-be obsolete system. Keep in mind I'm not saying it will disappear soon here, but over time I think it will become less and less important.

OpenLedger is a big customer of BitShares 2.0 now, so it is willing to support the development of GUI. Now we just need more big customers like OpenLedger, they will have a variety of needs and to support the development of BitShares. Compared with the way through the project budget (Workers) supports the development of, this can better promote the benign development of BitShares. Reserve funds ( worker budget) should be used in the development of the core.

[svk]

I appreciate the effort put into the OP, but I have to disagree with most of it. The one thing I do agree with is point 2: the liquidity proposals. I do think some kind of liqudity incentives need to be implemented, but we probably need some more discussion and some concrete proposals by developers able to implement them (@abit ?) before we decide what to do here.

Otherwise, I'm happy to finally see some stability in terms of features for Bitshares, and will not support any kind of 3.0 involving a change in the supply or IPO. We now have Ronny from Openledger stepping up to support development of the GUI, and many other projects taking advantage of the recent stability of BTS, let's not jeopardise that.

I also have no problems whatsoever with DPOS as the consensus model, it's been working very well and there's no point changing it if you ask me. While implementing a queued mining system like Steem has might be possible, I don't really think it's worth the effort. Mining will slowly disappear from crypto if you ask me so we would be adding support for a legacy, wasteful, soon-to-be obsolete system. Keep in mind I'm not saying it will disappear soon here, but over time I think it will become less and less important.

[Yao]

OK, I am pretty much done with the OP pending any other thoughts jumping into my head (or feedback from replies).

Coinhoder,

I will give my input.

Bitshares model is pretty stable.......n is innovative by itself......what bitshares have we can call it 3.0, 4.0....whatever......
Too much people looking for problems because a lot ofcoins had huge pumps n Bitshares "only" made 50% in the last few days.....
I follow a lot of data about bitshares n other projects n can safely say bitshares can explode at any time, it will, it has everything needed to make crypto scene shake hard. be patient about ROI.

This reasoning was not developed based on the past 3 days of market indications, but instead from a year and a half of market indications, and two years worth of many discussions/debates with Bitshares' antagonists on Bitcointalk.

No offense, but the lazy mantra of "Bitshares will explode at any time" and "Liquidity will increase with adoption" has been used for two years with no to little effect. It is time to take matters into our own hands, and realize there are issues with Bitshares that we need to fix.

I would argue Bitshares as we know it today is only 8 months old.. when 2.0 came out it was a giant rest button really. Since then refooting to gain liquidity into the network has taken place. Due to some of the changes some has been lost.

I like some of your suggestions. I understand the idea of appealing to crypto folk and it makes sense in certain ways.

You are proposing we hit the rest button again.. but with no real serious innovation to justify it. At present Steem is going through an experiment that may lead to solving the liquidity problems we see in bitshares today. We are not very far from seeing what the results of that experiment yield, and I would rather see that before making any kind of clear cut plans.

I agree that liquidity is needed, and various projects are actively creating ways to produce that. BlockPOS through merchant adoption for example. Peerplays through online tournament wagering. Openledger with ICOO and all the other projects that make up the pyramid of the decentralized conglomerate.. and so on. There are other projects in the making as well that are not publicly discussed that plan to introduce solutions to liquidity as well, like Freedom Ledger. There is the bitCASH wallet, there is Echo... list goes on.

I don't think bastardizing dpos really provides any value aside from making those that invested thousands in mining equipment happy they got another coin to attempt to get their investments back. Believe me, I know the feeling.

While going the ICO route sounds like the latest gravy train to get on, I think it would be particularly challenging for Bitshares. Frankly, anybody can do this.. doesn't need the community to do it.. and the market will decide afterwards.. as bytemaster himself said a few months ago.

I think as long as everyone executes and completes the projects they are working on to take to market, you are going to see our liquidity issues reach a tipping point and no longer be an issue. Look at our transaction volume... its slowly but surely increasing. That is the right direction we want to see.. its just a matter of like @bitsharesbrazil already said.. we just got to be a little patient and just keep doing MORE of what we are doing to reach that tipping point.

Also.. from a value proposition perspective as a reboot ICO offering... the optics of doing an ICO for Bitshares right now would go TERRIBLY bad... as a matter of fact.. I am certain it would be the death blow for Bitshares market cap. It has to do with how messaging is currently handled that would inevitable lead the ICO into a very bad place. Again I say though, anybody could do it if the choose too.

I like to hear more ideas on creating liquidity though.. its a good discussion to have.

BitShares3.0 is bad, BitShares 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, ... is bad too. The price of BTS has already explained everything -- changing MAX SUPPLY of BTS is a very bad idea.
It's terrible to lose trust, especially in the area of the BlockChain, random changes to the maximum supply will allow people to avoid and far away.

We just need to go along with the current direction of BitShares 2.0, we only need to make the use of BitShares 2.0 to build a model of the business model, people will see it.

[CoinHoarder]

I thought of another main problem, which I will add to the OP. It is regarding Smartcoins themselves. Some people perefer to trade real assets. There are projects that will trade the real assets (supernet and b&c exchange).

Bitshares should give DEX participants a choice whether they want to trade Smartcoins, IOUs (open.BTC, meta.BTC, etc), or the actual tokens themselves.

B&C and Supernet have concocted ways to eliminate the need for smartcoins and IOUs, and this is another way Bitshares' lunch may be eaten. However, smartcoins are still useful to provide leveraged trading. The best solution should incorporate both the real assets AND smartcoins. Then let the market decide which is more valuable.

I am not proposing you all agree that these are problems. I am asking that you admit that these are plausible problems, correct them, then let the market decide who is correct.

[CoinHoarder]

Why not use BTS to IPO?
Then assets within the disc tokens for IPO

I agree, any IPO should be done on the BTS 2.0 network. The initial distribution of Bitshares 3.0 could be derived from that distribution of BTS 3.0 tokens issued on Bit shares 2.0

Worst case scenario, it provides short term buy pressure to the BTS token. Best case scenario... BTS 3.0 takes off like Ethereum, and shareholders are content with the equity reduction based on evaluation increase of the BTS 3.0 token.

If you antagonists are correct, Bitshares 2.0 will beat out Bitshares 3.0 in the market. Otherwise, Bit shares 3.0 will beat out Bit shares 2.0, and you may not get such a pleasant share drop. Someone will eventually come along and do what I am proposing.

[xiangxn]

Why not use BTS to IPO?
Then assets within the disc tokens for IPO

[CoinHoarder]

OK, I am pretty much done with the OP pending any other thoughts jumping into my head (or feedback from replies).

Coinhoder,

I will give my input.

Bitshares model is pretty stable.......n is innovative by itself......what bitshares have we can call it 3.0, 4.0....whatever......
Too much people looking for problems because a lot ofcoins had huge pumps n Bitshares "only" made 50% in the last few days.....
I follow a lot of data about bitshares n other projects n can safely say bitshares can explode at any time, it will, it has everything needed to make crypto scene shake hard. be patient about ROI.

This reasoning was not developed based on the past 3 days of market indications, but instead from a year and a half of market indications, and two years worth of many discussions/debates with Bitshares' antagonists on Bitcointalk.

No offense, but the lazy mantra of "Bitshares will explode at any time" and "Liquidity will increase with adoption" has been used for two years with no to little effect. It is time to take matters into our own hands, and realize there are issues with Bitshares that we need to fix.

I agree with 2) without it it will go nowhere....does not mater if we have more n more stuff n new things.....work on what can improve liquidity n adoption is a must...I will take a look at those topics, thanks for input.

It does matter though. Some variation of #2 (whether it be 2a, 2,b, or 2d, or some combination of those) will matter, along with #1 and #3. #1 will matter hugely to the cryptocurrency community that has written off Bitshares simply because it is dPoS. #3 matters because we need money to self-fund #1 and #2, or alternatively to raise money to solve #s 1, 2, and 3.

about 3 Im not convinced that more money is the problem here, would be great for sure, but we should make something sustainable n useful without focusing too much about creating new things......in my opinion we should focus pretty much about people use what we have, because hide behind development on somenthing is pretty much what factom maid n others do.....but do they will delivery something useful n needed for crypto world?

You are right, more money is not the problem. Numbers 1 and 2 of the OP are mainly the problem. However, solving problems #1 and #2 requires raising money. While we are at it, why not solve problem 3c3?

I am not trying to persuade you that these are the only problems Bitshares faces, just that these are several problems that Bitshares faces.

[CoinHoarder]

I don't think bastardizing dpos really provides any value aside from making those that invested thousands in mining equipment happy they got another coin to attempt to get their investments back. Believe me, I know the feeling.

While going the ICO route sounds like the latest gravy train to get on, I think it would be particularly challenging for Bitshares. Frankly, anybody can do this.. doesn't need the community to do it.. and the market will decide afterwards.. as bytemaster himself said a few months ago.

There are many people in the cryptocurrency community that immediately write off any PoS cryptocurrency, and dPoS shares much of the same vulnerabilities as most PoS cryptocurrencies. Bitshares is immediately cutting the easiest obtainable target market of a decentralized cryptocurrency exchange (the cryptocurrency community) by relying on dPoS for consensus. This can be solved by enacting PoW at a higher weight than dPoS.

I don't think bastardizing dpos really provides any value aside from making those that invested thousands in mining equipment happy they got another coin to attempt to get their investments back. Believe me, I know the feeling.

While going the ICO route sounds like the latest gravy train to get on, I think it would be particularly challenging for Bitshares. Frankly, anybody can do this.. doesn't need the community to do it.. and the market will decide afterwards.. as bytemaster himself said a few months ago.

I am sure someone will do this. It is such a good idea. I am tempted to do it myself, but in my country (the USA) it is risky to conduct cryptocurrency IPOs. I am suggesting the Bitshares community to be the first to move on this. Otherwise, the people that decide to do it may not give Bitshares token holders such a big share drop as I am proposing. Technically, only 10% is required by the social consensus. Let the market decide whether Bitshares 2.0 or Bitshares 3.0 is more valuable.

I think as long as everyone executes and completes the projects they are working on to take to market, you are going to see our liquidity issues reach a tipping point and no longer be an issue. Look at our transaction volume... its slowly but surely increasing. That is the right direction we want to see.. its just a matter of like @bitsharesbrazil already said.. we just got to be a little patient and just keep doing MORE of what we are doing to reach that tipping point.

Everyone for the past 2 years has been certain that whatever project they were working on would bolster liquidity. There have been many proposals passed and developments made... most of which the supporters were certain of higher liquidity being the outcome. How has that worked out? The Bitshares DEX trades "pennies" while centralized exchanges trade "hundos".

Also.. from a value proposition perspective as a reboot ICO offering... the optics of doing an ICO for Bitshares right now would go TERRIBLY bad... as a matter of fact.. I am certain it would be the death blow for Bitshares market cap. It has to do with how messaging is currently handled that would inevitable lead the ICO into a very bad place. Again I say though, anybody could do it if the choose too.

Nxt token holders disagree with you at the moment. For the record, Ardor was announced on June 19th, and was at 0.00001130 BTC. Since the announcement of Ardor, it has increased to 0.00002688 BTC. That is a 237% increase. Going with 3c4 (cancelling 3c1 through 3c3), while still implementing some variation of #s 1 and 2, could do wonders for BTS shareholders.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1518497.0
http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/nxt/

[CoinHoarder]

The only major issue with bitshares right now is volume.

As the saying goes... "The first step is admitting you have a problem."

Liquidity is an obvious problem, of which there seems to be consensus amongst shareholders that we need to correct it.

However, you need to also admit that at this time dPoS is holding Bitshares back. You also need to admit that the Larimers/co-conspirators have rubbed the cryptocurrency community the wrong way.

My proposal fixes several problems- not just the liquidity problem.

[okidoki]

OK, I am pretty much done with the OP pending any other thoughts jumping into my head (or feedback from replies).

Coinhoder,

I will give my input.

Bitshares model is pretty stable.......n is innovative by itself......what bitshares have we can call it 3.0, 4.0....whatever......
Too much people looking for problems because a lot ofcoins had huge pumps n Bitshares "only" made 50% in the last few days.....
I follow a lot of data about bitshares n other projects n can safely say bitshares can explode at any time, it will, it has everything needed to make crypto scene shake hard. be patient about ROI.

This reasoning was not developed based on the past 3 days of market indications, but instead from a year and a half of market indications, and two years worth of many discussions/debates with Bitshares' antagonists on Bitcointalk.

No offense, but the lazy mantra of "Bitshares will explode at any time" and "Liquidity will increase with adoption" has been used for two years with no to little effect. It is time to take matters into our own hands, and realize there are issues with Bitshares that we need to fix.

I would argue Bitshares as we know it today is only 8 months old.. when 2.0 came out it was a giant rest button really. Since then refooting to gain liquidity into the network has taken place. Due to some of the changes some has been lost.

I like some of your suggestions. I understand the idea of appealing to crypto folk and it makes sense in certain ways.

You are proposing we hit the rest button again.. but with no real serious innovation to justify it. At present Steem is going through an experiment that may lead to solving the liquidity problems we see in bitshares today. We are not very far from seeing what the results of that experiment yield, and I would rather see that before making any kind of clear cut plans.

I agree that liquidity is needed, and various projects are actively creating ways to produce that. BlockPOS through merchant adoption for example. Peerplays through online tournament wagering. Openledger with ICOO and all the other projects that make up the pyramid of the decentralized conglomerate.. and so on. There are other projects in the making as well that are not publicly discussed that plan to introduce solutions to liquidity as well, like Freedom Ledger. There is the bitCASH wallet, there is Echo... list goes on.

I don't think bastardizing dpos really provides any value aside from making those that invested thousands in mining equipment happy they got another coin to attempt to get their investments back. Believe me, I know the feeling.

While going the ICO route sounds like the latest gravy train to get on, I think it would be particularly challenging for Bitshares. Frankly, anybody can do this.. doesn't need the community to do it.. and the market will decide afterwards.. as bytemaster himself said a few months ago.

I think as long as everyone executes and completes the projects they are working on to take to market, you are going to see our liquidity issues reach a tipping point and no longer be an issue. Look at our transaction volume... its slowly but surely increasing. That is the right direction we want to see.. its just a matter of like @bitsharesbrazil already said.. we just got to be a little patient and just keep doing MORE of what we are doing to reach that tipping point.

Also.. from a value proposition perspective as a reboot ICO offering... the optics of doing an ICO for Bitshares right now would go TERRIBLY bad... as a matter of fact.. I am certain it would be the death blow for Bitshares market cap. It has to do with how messaging is currently handled that would inevitable lead the ICO into a very bad place. Again I say though, anybody could do it if the choose too.

I like to hear more ideas on creating liquidity though.. its a good discussion to have.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

OK, I am pretty much done with the OP pending any other thoughts jumping into my head (or feedback from replies).

Coinhoder,

I will give my input.

Bitshares model is pretty stable.......n is innovative by itself......what bitshares have we can call it 3.0, 4.0....whatever......
Too much people looking for problems because a lot ofcoins had huge pumps n Bitshares "only" made 50% in the last few days.....
I follow a lot of data about bitshares n other projects n can safely say bitshares can explode at any time, it will, it has everything needed to make crypto scene shake hard. be patient about ROI.

This reasoning was not developed based on the past 3 days of market indications, but instead from a year and a half of market indications, and two years worth of many discussions/debates with Bitshares' antagonists on Bitcointalk.

No offense, but the lazy mantra of "Bitshares will explode at any time" and "Liquidity will increase with adoption" has been used for two years with no to little effect. It is time to take matters into our own hands, and realize there are issues with Bitshares that we need to fix.

I would argue Bitshares as we know it today is only 8 months old.. when 2.0 came out it was a giant rest button really. Since then refooting to gain liquidity into the network has taken place. Due to some of the changes some has been lost.

I like some of your suggestions. I understand the idea of appealing to crypto folk and it makes sense in certain ways.

You are proposing we hit the rest button again.. but with no real serious innovation to justify it. At present Steem is going through an experiment that may lead to solving the liquidity problems we see in bitshares today. We are not very far from seeing what the results of that experiment yield, and I would rather see that before making any kind of clear cut plans.

I agree that liquidity is needed, and various projects are actively creating ways to produce that. BlockPOS through merchant adoption for example. Peerplays through online tournament wagering. Openledger with ICOO and all the other projects that make up the pyramid of the decentralized conglomerate.. and so on. There are other projects in the making as well that are not publicly discussed that plan to introduce solutions to liquidity as well, like Freedom Ledger. There is the bitCASH wallet, there is Echo... list goes on.

I don't think bastardizing dpos really provides any value aside from making those that invested thousands in mining equipment happy they got another coin to attempt to get their investments back. Believe me, I know the feeling.

While going the ICO route sounds like the latest gravy train to get on, I think it would be particularly challenging for Bitshares. Frankly, anybody can do this.. doesn't need the community to do it.. and the market will decide afterwards.. as bytemaster himself said a few months ago.

I think as long as everyone executes and completes the projects they are working on to take to market, you are going to see our liquidity issues reach a tipping point and no longer be an issue. Look at our transaction volume... its slowly but surely increasing. That is the right direction we want to see.. its just a matter of like @bitsharesbrazil already said.. we just got to be a little patient and just keep doing MORE of what we are doing to reach that tipping point.

Also.. from a value proposition perspective as a reboot ICO offering... the optics of doing an ICO for Bitshares right now would go TERRIBLY bad... as a matter of fact.. I am certain it would be the death blow for Bitshares market cap. It has to do with how messaging is currently handled that would inevitable lead the ICO into a very bad place. Again I say though, anybody could do it if the choose too.

I like to hear more ideas on creating liquidity though.. its a good discussion to have.

[ebit]

The only major issue with bitshares right now is volume.

We need to concentrate on making openledger a great centralised exchange first by focusing on the OPEN.BTC trade pairs.

When Openledger has good volumes and people actually use it instead of poloniex we can then think about how to make the BITUSD market deeper.