Bitshares 3.0 - It Is Time

[fav]

PoW is shit, thought we got over this debate months ago

on a more serious note, what BTS needs is liquidity and traders - everything else is secondary

[CoinHoarder]

I am not saying that I necessarily agree with all of the grievances of Bitshares, just admitting that they exist.

I think that correcting the main grievances people percieve Bitshares as having may sway Bitshares' target market's overall perception of Bitshares. Greatly increasing usage, support, community, and liquidity.

I am certain that implementing all things in the OP would be more effective than only implementing one or a few, but disdain for idea #1 should not be a reason to write off the other ideas.

The only difference for steem that justifies the small additional pow is to capture a large initial community. Steem depends on its community way more than BitSahres. The target audience for BitShares are TRADERS ..

I disagree. I would argue that Steem's community and Bitshares' traders are of equal importance. The only way Bitshares will be more valuable one day is if it obtains traders. My suggestions in the OP are ways Bitshares can do that.

Abandoning the "if we build it, they will come" mentality is key to Bitshares' future success. Admitting Bitshares is incomplete as it exists today is paramount, just as it is to realize that getting rid of IOUs (like open.BTC, meta.BTC, etc) is one of the biggest reasons people should use DEXs in the first place.

You may not agree with the arguments that the antagonists make against Bitshares. All I am suggesting you do is accept that these arguments exist,  that they are negatively effecting Bitshares, and do everything in the Bitshares' community's power to attempt to assimilate them. The most effective way to do so is by writing code, and eliminating perceived weaknesses.

[arhag]

The only difference for steem that justifies the small additional pow is to capture a large initial community. Steem depends on its community way more than BitSahres. The target audience for BitShares are TRADERS ..

Also the PoW implementation in Steem doesn't even gain any of the pros of PoW that CoinHoarder is concerned about. It is entirely a marketing gimmick so that irrational PoW zealots [1] don't automatically dismiss it because it isn't PoW.

[1] CoinHoarder, I am not calling you that, since you seem to have weighed the pros and cons and analyzed it critically (you just seem to have different values than me on what is important for you to come up with a different conclusion). But the vast majority of cryptocurrency PoW enthusiasts don't have the skills to actually analyze consensus mechanism critically and they just follow the herd blindly.

[xeroc]

All consensus mechanisms have both, pros and cons. You guys are focusing on dPoS's pros, meanwhile forgetting the cons of dPoS and the pros of PoW.

The main issue with dPoS (and all other forms of PoS) is that an attack  can be maintained indefinitely at no to little cost once 51% is reached. The same cannot be said for PoW, because of the costs of electricity to maintain an attack.

I know the pros and cons. I have carefully weighed the pros and cons. And the optimal solution to me is crystal clear.

There are plenty of PoW coins out there for people if they personally believe PoW wins over DPoS in the pro/con analysis. I would hate to see BitShares lose one of its defining features that makes it so great in my opinion. The good thing is I am pretty sure this community overwhelmingly sees it the same way.

I fully agree with arhag here. The only difference for steem that justifies the small additional pow is to capture a large initial community. Steem depends on its community way more than BitSahres. The target audience for BitShares are TRADERS ..

[arhag]

All consensus mechanisms have both, pros and cons. You guys are focusing on dPoS's pros, meanwhile forgetting the cons of dPoS and the pros of PoW.

The main issue with dPoS (and all other forms of PoS) is that an attack  can be maintained indefinitely at no to little cost once 51% is reached. The same cannot be said for PoW, because of the costs of electricity to maintain an attack.

I know the pros and cons. I have carefully weighed the pros and cons. And the optimal solution to me is crystal clear.

There are plenty of PoW coins out there for people if they personally believe PoW wins over DPoS in the pro/con analysis. I would hate to see BitShares lose one of its defining features that makes it so great in my opinion. The good thing is I am pretty sure this community overwhelmingly sees it the same way.

[yvv]

One real problem of bitshares is the lack of fiat gateways. Traders need a smooth way to deposit/withdraw fiat.

[CoinHoarder]

Maybe you all have spent too much time sequestered in this community to realize this, but dPoW is a big reason why a lot of cryptocurrency users have written off Bitshares.

I realize it, but they are wrong. If they are ignorant about the benefits of DPoS over PoW, then we can try to educate them. But if they refuse to listen to reason (which so far seems to be the case), then that's unfortunate. We have created the internal combustion engine, and you are asking us to go back to horse and buggy because that is what some of the people in the cryptocurrency crowd are comfortable with. I refuse.

My hope is some of them wake up after fully realizing that even Ethereum is switching from PoW to PoS and that it isn't going to be some security disaster.

All consensus mechanisms have both, pros and cons. You guys are focusing on dPoS's pros, meanwhile forgetting the cons of dPoS and the pros of PoW.

The main issue with dPoS (and all other forms of PoS) is that an attack  can be maintained indefinitely at no to little cost once 51% is reached. The same cannot be said for PoW, because of the costs of electricity to maintain an attack.

[bitsharesbrazil]

Be patient coinhoarder, people will tell whatever they want when things dont go their way......or when they decide to sell at a loss......remeber that btc was dead when mtgox vanished?
More services like openledger in dex all around world is a good things, imagine bitfinex.btc, not bad it would increase our atmosphere around dex n it would have a network effect over smartasset n we could bring more transparency for exchange.assets n less costs involved, they dont need to pay fully for development n can share with other costs, virtuous cycle, they can have a bridge btween them making everything decentrilized n interconnected.

[arhag]

Maybe you all have spent too much time sequestered in this community to realize this, but dPoW is a big reason why a lot of cryptocurrency users have written off Bitshares.

I realize it, but they are wrong. If they are ignorant about the benefits of DPoS over PoW, then we can try to educate them. But if they refuse to listen to reason (which so far seems to be the case), then that's unfortunate. We have created the internal combustion engine, and you are asking us to go back to horse and buggy because that is what some of the people in the cryptocurrency crowd are comfortable with. I refuse.

My hope is some of them wake up after fully realizing that even Ethereum is switching from PoW to PoS and that it isn't going to be some security disaster.

[CoinHoarder]

Again, the first step is admitting you have a problem. That is the hardest hurdle. I can see most of you cannot admit/realize that these are all huge problems Bitshares faces. I see a lot of groupthink, which is unfortunate for the future of Bitshares. Don't shoot me- I am the messenger. Unlike most of you, I spend 98% of my time in the greater cryptocurrency community- not sequestered in Bitsharesland and Steemitland. I have conversed and debated with many people that do not use Bitshares over the past 2 years, mainly on the Bitcointalk forums (where I have 3.3k+ posts.) These issues always come up as being the reason why people don't like or use Bitshares. Say what you will about how your strategy is working and liquidity will improve (I would refer you to the scoreboard... the value of the BTS token). Say what you will about dPoS (the antagonists will continue to write Bitshares off because of it). Say what you will about OpenLedger solving all of Bitshares problems (but remember the whole point of a DEX is to eliminate trusted third parties and IOUs). Say what you will about Smartcoins (some people will always prefer to hold/trade the tokens of the real assets).

I am having "deja vu". I gave a similar talk to the Litecoin cryptocurrency community in 2014. At the time, they were #2 on coinmarketcap and at the top of the alt coin food chain. Their problem was that Litecoin lacked any innovation compared to most other newer cryptocurrencies. It was, and still is to this day, being propped up by its network effect. I begged and pleaded that they break rank with Bitcoin (stop copying it code line for code line) and branch out on its own innovative path. Then, Ethereum came along and surpassed Litecoin by a wide margin and it is now valued at over a billion dollars. I knew innovation would eventually win out, as relying on network effects can only get you so far. Two years later, my prediction is starting to take place and Litecoin has reverted to the #4 cryptocurrency on coinmarketcap. Is the same thing going to happen with Bitshares? If it does, then maybe people will start to listen to me when I give "the talk" to a 3rd cryptocurrency community... whoever that may be in the future. lol 

Q: What is Bitshares positioning itself to be?
A: A decentralized cryptocurrency exchange.

Q: Who uses cryptocurrency exchanges?
A: The cryptocurrency community.

In order for a cryptocurrency exchange to be successful, it must have the general support of the cryptocurrency community. At this time, Bitshares does not have the general support of the cryptocurrency community. Maybe you all have spent too much time sequestered in this community to realize this, but dPoW is a big reason why a lot of cryptocurrency users have written off Bitshares. It always comes up when anyone mentions Bitshares on Bitcointalk. PoS is considered as being less secure than PoW, and for good reasons (of which I don't care to diving into.) Implementing a PoW hybrid would be a way to appease these types of people in the cryptocurrency community that have written Bitshares off based solely on the fact it is secured by dPoS.

You guys also don't seem to get the need for drastic liquidity measures. It is a chicken and egg problem if you continue down the same road, and therefore sufficient liquidity/depth will never be reached. Where Bitshares is headed is a dead end, and someone will come along and eat Bitshares' lunch. That is guaranteed.

Another reason people don't like the DEX are the inherent weaknesses with Smartcoins, and maybe you guys don't get that either? Reliance on trusted third parties is not the solution (open ledger, meta exchange, etc), as the point of a DEX is to eliminate trusted third parties. Supernet and B&C Exchange will trade the REAL assets... not smartcoins and not open ledger IOUs. Maybe you all fail to see how this is a huge advantage when it comes to competition against DEXs? open.BTC, meta.BTC, etc, should be a means to an end, not the solution as you guys are hoping it will be. IOUs will always be IOUs, and suffer the inherent shortcomings that all IOUs do.

Then, of course, there is the huge dislike of Larimer & Co. throughout the greater cryptocurrency community.

[pc]

I appreciate the effort put into the OP, but I have to disagree with most of it.

IMO DPOS is one of the biggest strengths of BitShares, since it provides a provable level of security for near zero cost. I could hardly care less if "the crypto community" (whoever that may be) disagrees.

Liquidity is our main problem, yes, but so far I haven't seen a convincing solution.

3b is a good idea.

[yvv]

Forking bitshares now would be a suicide for bitshares-2,3,4... Those who dream to get rich fast due to skyrocketing of BTS token just made a bad investment.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

I agree that liquidity is the most important thing we need to get going in order to increase the BTS toke value... I think it can be done in a less aggressive way than what the OP is suggesting.

We need to focus on forex traders.  This is the demographic that the Dex is geared toward already.  There is a common belief that we need microscopic fee's to entice traders.  That's not true.  Traders demand liquidity and are HAPPY to pay a fee as long as there accounts are secure and there orders are filled immediately.  A fee of .10-.25 per filled trade is so small a trader wouldn't even blink an eye.  @Empirical1.2  has had a few good posts about increasing liquidity.

If we are able to increase liquidity on a few smartcoins then traders will come.  Once the traders start trading, bts will finally be generating a profit.  By generating a profit BTS becomes more like a company and its shares become more attractive.  Speculators enter the system and buy BTS while also trading and dabbling within the system therefore creating more liquidity for smartcoins.  More liquidity means more traders means more fees means more profit means higher BTS price.  It's a circle and can be done without a hardfork.

I do agree with some here, that a hardfork snaphshot that changes the supply would be the death knell for BTS.

Which posts by em1.2 about liquidity in particular did you think were best?

What do you propose would be the most attractive value proposition to forex traders?

[karnal]

I agree that liquidity is the most important thing we need to get going in order to increase the BTS toke value... I think it can be done in a less aggressive way than what the OP is suggesting.

We need to focus on forex traders.  This is the demographic that the Dex is geared toward already.  There is a common belief that we need microscopic fee's to entice traders.  That's not true.  Traders demand liquidity and are HAPPY to pay a fee as long as there accounts are secure and there orders are filled immediately.  A fee of .10-.25 per filled trade is so small a trader wouldn't even blink an eye.  @Empirical1.2  has had a few good posts about increasing liquidity.

If we are able to increase liquidity on a few smartcoins then traders will come.  Once the traders start trading, bts will finally be generating a profit.  By generating a profit BTS becomes more like a company and its shares become more attractive.  Speculators enter the system and buy BTS while also trading and dabbling within the system therefore creating more liquidity for smartcoins.  More liquidity means more traders means more fees means more profit means higher BTS price.  It's a circle and can be done without a hardfork.

I do agree with some here, that a hardfork snaphshot that changes the supply would be the death knell for BTS.

One hundred percent.

[lil_jay890]

I agree that liquidity is the most important thing we need to get going in order to increase the BTS toke value... I think it can be done in a less aggressive way than what the OP is suggesting.

We need to focus on forex traders.  This is the demographic that the Dex is geared toward already.  There is a common belief that we need microscopic fee's to entice traders.  That's not true.  Traders demand liquidity and are HAPPY to pay a fee as long as there accounts are secure and there orders are filled immediately.  A fee of .10-.25 per filled trade is so small a trader wouldn't even blink an eye.  @Empirical1.2  has had a few good posts about increasing liquidity.

If we are able to increase liquidity on a few smartcoins then traders will come.  Once the traders start trading, bts will finally be generating a profit.  By generating a profit BTS becomes more like a company and its shares become more attractive.  Speculators enter the system and buy BTS while also trading and dabbling within the system therefore creating more liquidity for smartcoins.  More liquidity means more traders means more fees means more profit means higher BTS price.  It's a circle and can be done without a hardfork.

I do agree with some here, that a hardfork snaphshot that changes the supply would be the death knell for BTS.