Dan's Next Project - EOS Rears its Head

[fav]

I currently see five ways forward for BitShares and Steem ...

a) do nothing (which works fine as well)
b) simple sidechain with asset bridge to EOS ...
c) full sidechain with 2-way message passing between chains ..
d) upgrade of the STEEM/BitShares architecture to run run on their own EOS-based chains (in parallel-side to EOS) ...
e) implement both on EOS and have them be part of EOS

agreed. I think c and e are the most interesting options

[xeroc]

I currently see five ways forward for BitShares and Steem ...

a) do nothing (which works fine as well)
b) simple sidechain with asset bridge to EOS ...
c) full sidechain with 2-way message passing between chains ..
d) upgrade of the STEEM/BitShares architecture to run run on their own EOS-based chains (in parallel-side to EOS) ...
e) implement both on EOS and have them be part of EOS

[fav]

So EOS doesn't have anything with BTS or STEEM?

it connects chains. let that sink for a second

[freebit]

So EOS doesn't have anything with BTS or STEEM?

[fluxer555]

asked about brownies:

Daniel Larimer:
I haven't forgotten those brownies... I appriciate everyone who has helped make BTS, STEEM, and now EOS great

everything else is no big news for us

bts/steem/whatever can connect to EOS and interact, or you could re-build functionality on EOS chain

And just like that, the BOWNIE.PTS market shoots through the roof, haha...

[fav]

asked about brownies:

Daniel Larimer:
I haven't forgotten those brownies... I appriciate everyone who has helped make BTS, STEEM, and now EOS great

everything else is no big news for us

bts/steem/whatever can connect to EOS and interact, or you could re-build functionality on EOS chain

[freebit]

follow this: https://steemit.com/@eosio

[vlight]

That doesn't really address any of permie's concerns (concerns that I also share), though. I'd like to believe Dan is willing to look out for the best interests of all his creations, but...I have my doubts at this point.
 

Just like he looked out for the best interest of Bitshares' bitUSD by creating Steem Dollars?

He is so ashamed of himself that he won't even come here. I think that answers your question...

Stan championing the previous Bitshares merger is also quite funny. So when will BTS Vote and BTS DNS be active on the BTS 2.0 chain Stan? 

Do you really think the BTS community is going to fall for the bait and switch a second time?

Several excellent points raised here in this thread. Let's continue this questioning until we can get some solid answers. It's a bit early for them yet, but IMO that should keep us from thinking about this and asking questions now.

I am very grateful to your @Permie for your post of skepticism, and although I don't believe the reason highlighted above is accurate, glad to see your healthy skepticism on this matter as well. I too have serious reservations about EOS in the darkness from a lack of information about EOS. I hope transparency is a high priority with the EOS team. Time will tell and until it does we all should remain skeptical and ask plenty of questions.

I might be fooled again, but i believe that BM didn't have evil intentions to just pump and dump, although he might have earned much more if he just had stuck with Bitshares. Mistakes were made, probably, and now BM wants to use all his experience to create a fair project that will benefit world the most.

[Thom]

That doesn't really address any of permie's concerns (concerns that I also share), though. I'd like to believe Dan is willing to look out for the best interests of all his creations, but...I have my doubts at this point.
 

Just like he looked out for the best interest of Bitshares' bitUSD by creating Steem Dollars?

He is so ashamed of himself that he won't even come here. I think that answers your question...

Stan championing the previous Bitshares merger is also quite funny. So when will BTS Vote and BTS DNS be active on the BTS 2.0 chain Stan? 

Do you really think the BTS community is going to fall for the bait and switch a second time?

Several excellent points raised here in this thread. Let's continue this questioning until we can get some solid answers. It's a bit early for them yet, but IMO that shouldn't keep us from thinking about this and asking questions now.

I am very grateful to your @Permie for your post of skepticism, and although I don't believe the reason highlighted above is accurate, glad to see your healthy skepticism on this matter as well. I too have serious reservations about EOS in the darkness from a lack of information about EOS. I hope transparency is a high priority with the EOS team. Time will tell and until it does we all should remain skeptical and ask plenty of questions.

[CoinHoarder]

That doesn't really address any of permie's concerns (concerns that I also share), though. I'd like to believe Dan is willing to look out for the best interests of all his creations, but...I have my doubts at this point.
 

Just like he looked out for the best interest of Bitshares' bitUSD by creating Steem Dollars?

He is so ashamed of himself that he won't even come here. I think that answers your question...

Stan championing the previous Bitshares merger is also quite funny. So when will BTS Vote and BTS DNS be active on the BTS 2.0 chain Stan? 

Do you really think the BTS community is going to fall for the bait and switch a second time?

[konelectric]

It may be that the future of BTS 3.0 is on a parallel EOS chain just like Peerplays is on a parallel Graphene chain.

I am unfamiliar with the process of a new coin sharedropping on an existing chain. Is the sharedrop in the genesis block or something?

A randomly picked block within a set time period. And no one knows which block was pick until the actual sharedrop. This keep people from gaming the system.

[nomoreheroes7]

It may be that the future of BTS 3.0 is on a parallel EOS chain just like Peerplays is on a parallel Graphene chain.

Peerplays performs functions that the bts token can not.
I hope that EOS tokens cannot possibly be used as collateral in a CFD.
This is a key selling point of BitShares, if EOS tokens can back trades/contracts of this kind then I think Dan will have a lot of explaining to do.



The security of BTS 2.0 is sole responsibility of the BTS 2.0 shareholders.
If an EOS token is required to secure the BTS 3.0 chain, then some control would be lost. Maybe so negligible that it most would say it "doesn't matter." But.

The 'slippery slope' phenomenon regarding citizens across the world losing their legal freedoms and legal privacy has been gradually chip chip chipped away.
Ever so slowly over decades so as for it to go unnoticed or ignored.

I don't want to see the 'merger' with EOS to be the first chip, the first slip, down a slippery slope.
My concerns might all be invalidated when the full story is released, but I want to say something now in the hopes that other shareholders will hold similar scepticism when they read/discuss the full details later.

BitShares Maximalism.

What a story it would be if Dan's EOS ended up directly competing against BitShares 2.0, battling it out. Creator VS Created.
I'm sure that will merely be a story for a fanfic novel written in the future

Is it public knowledge whether Dan is still a large BTS 2.0 shareholder or not?


====
Stan may be right, in that the best path will be to get BitShares 2.0 onto EOS via a direct 1:1 sharedrop from BitShares 2.0 shares >>> into EOS-BTS-shares.
To prevent somebody else doing it first.

But this doesn't necessarily mean that BTS 2.0 would die.
BTS 2.0 shareholders could/should buy the 'real estate' on EOS so that nobody else could set up shop there.
Then business as usual could continue on both platforms (although likely detached and unlinked except by community).

Setting up BTS 2.0 to run on EOS, and then sharedrop 1:1 to BTS 2.0 shareholders, is likely to require coding effort. The coder would then (correct me?) have to be trusted to perform the sharedrop properly.
Who can the BTS 2.0 reserve pool hire to perform this job?
Is loyalty to BTS 2.0 required?

How could this process remain trustless?

I am unfamiliar with the process of a new coin sharedropping on an existing chain. Is the sharedrop in the genesis block or something?

Regardless of whether these questions are invalid or have been answered before on these forums; I think it prudent to have answers to them here specifically in this thread.

EOS will become a busy subject of discussion on this forum once more information comes out, and the sooner noob-questions can be answered the sooner everyone is on a good level of understanding and can direct the discussion most efficiently to achieve consensus fastest.



What could an "unmerged" BTS 2.0 offer a customer of EOS?
That will be the question, and the answer may depend on the success of EOS.

Dan doesn't work for the BTS 2.0 shareholders anymore. His announcements and big-reveal may not necessarily address this community.
If EOS is a big new product, he and his partners will be looking to sell it to the wider cryptoworld and the mainstream investor.
Although I suppose BTS 2.0 is a $100MM company to target for investment now...

All those are good questions, but we did it before for BTS 0.9.3c to BTS 2.0.  It's called a "Pitch Fork"



Of course, that time the delegates voluntarily shut down the old network.  Nothing says that would happen this time, so there could be two - Just like Ethereum classic.  This doesn't appear to be a bad thing.

That doesn't really address any of permie's concerns (concerns that I also share), though. I'd like to believe Dan is willing to look out for the best interests of all his creations, but...I have my doubts at this point.
 

[Stan]

It may be that the future of BTS 3.0 is on a parallel EOS chain just like Peerplays is on a parallel Graphene chain.

Peerplays performs functions that the bts token can not.
I hope that EOS tokens cannot possibly be used as collateral in a CFD.
This is a key selling point of BitShares, if EOS tokens can back trades/contracts of this kind then I think Dan will have a lot of explaining to do.



The security of BTS 2.0 is sole responsibility of the BTS 2.0 shareholders.
If an EOS token is required to secure the BTS 3.0 chain, then some control would be lost. Maybe so negligible that it most would say it "doesn't matter." But.

The 'slippery slope' phenomenon regarding citizens across the world losing their legal freedoms and legal privacy has been gradually chip chip chipped away.
Ever so slowly over decades so as for it to go unnoticed or ignored.

I don't want to see the 'merger' with EOS to be the first chip, the first slip, down a slippery slope.
My concerns might all be invalidated when the full story is released, but I want to say something now in the hopes that other shareholders will hold similar scepticism when they read/discuss the full details later.

BitShares Maximalism.

What a story it would be if Dan's EOS ended up directly competing against BitShares 2.0, battling it out. Creator VS Created.
I'm sure that will merely be a story for a fanfic novel written in the future

Is it public knowledge whether Dan is still a large BTS 2.0 shareholder or not?


====
Stan may be right, in that the best path will be to get BitShares 2.0 onto EOS via a direct 1:1 sharedrop from BitShares 2.0 shares >>> into EOS-BTS-shares.
To prevent somebody else doing it first.

But this doesn't necessarily mean that BTS 2.0 would die.
BTS 2.0 shareholders could/should buy the 'real estate' on EOS so that nobody else could set up shop there.
Then business as usual could continue on both platforms (although likely detached and unlinked except by community).

Setting up BTS 2.0 to run on EOS, and then sharedrop 1:1 to BTS 2.0 shareholders, is likely to require coding effort. The coder would then (correct me?) have to be trusted to perform the sharedrop properly.
Who can the BTS 2.0 reserve pool hire to perform this job?
Is loyalty to BTS 2.0 required?

How could this process remain trustless?

I am unfamiliar with the process of a new coin sharedropping on an existing chain. Is the sharedrop in the genesis block or something?

Regardless of whether these questions are invalid or have been answered before on these forums; I think it prudent to have answers to them here specifically in this thread.

EOS will become a busy subject of discussion on this forum once more information comes out, and the sooner noob-questions can be answered the sooner everyone is on a good level of understanding and can direct the discussion most efficiently to achieve consensus fastest.



What could an "unmerged" BTS 2.0 offer a customer of EOS?
That will be the question, and the answer may depend on the success of EOS.

Dan doesn't work for the BTS 2.0 shareholders anymore. His announcements and big-reveal may not necessarily address this community.
If EOS is a big new product, he and his partners will be looking to sell it to the wider cryptoworld and the mainstream investor.
Although I suppose BTS 2.0 is a $100MM company to target for investment now...

All those are good questions, but we did it before for BTS 0.9.3c to BTS 2.0.  It's called a "Pitch Fork"



Of course, that time the delegates voluntarily shut down the old network.  Nothing says that would happen this time, so there could be two - Just like Ethereum classic.  This doesn't appear to be a bad thing.

[Permie]

It may be that the future of BTS 3.0 is on a parallel EOS chain just like Peerplays is on a parallel Graphene chain.

Peerplays performs functions that the bts token can not.
I hope that EOS tokens cannot possibly be used as collateral in a CFD.
This is a key selling point of BitShares, if EOS tokens can back trades/contracts of this kind then I think Dan will have a lot of explaining to do.



The security of BTS 2.0 is sole responsibility of the BTS 2.0 shareholders.
If an EOS token is required to secure the BTS 3.0 chain, then some control would be lost. Maybe so negligible that it most would say it "doesn't matter." But.

The 'slippery slope' phenomenon regarding citizens across the world losing their legal freedoms and legal privacy has been gradually chip chip chipped away.
Ever so slowly over decades so as for it to go unnoticed or ignored.

I don't want to see the 'merger' with EOS to be the first chip, the first slip, down a slippery slope.
My concerns might all be invalidated when the full story is released, but I want to say something now in the hopes that other shareholders will hold similar scepticism when they read/discuss the full details later.

BitShares Maximalism.

What a story it would be if Dan's EOS ended up directly competing against BitShares 2.0, battling it out. Creator VS Created.
I'm sure that will merely be a story for a fanfic novel written in the future

Is it public knowledge whether Dan is still a large BTS 2.0 shareholder or not?


====
Stan may be right, in that the best path will be to get BitShares 2.0 onto EOS via a direct 1:1 sharedrop from BitShares 2.0 shares >>> into EOS-BTS-shares.
To prevent somebody else doing it first.

But this doesn't necessarily mean that BTS 2.0 would die.
BTS 2.0 shareholders could/should buy the 'real estate' on EOS so that nobody else could set up shop there.
Then business as usual could continue on both platforms (although likely detached and unlinked except by community).

Setting up BTS 2.0 to run on EOS, and then sharedrop 1:1 to BTS 2.0 shareholders, is likely to require coding effort. The coder would then (correct me?) have to be trusted to perform the sharedrop properly.
Who can the BTS 2.0 reserve pool hire to perform this job?
Is loyalty to BTS 2.0 required?

How could this process remain trustless?

I am unfamiliar with the process of a new coin sharedropping on an existing chain. Is the sharedrop in the genesis block or something?

Regardless of whether these questions are invalid or have been answered before on these forums; I think it prudent to have answers to them here specifically in this thread.

EOS will become a busy subject of discussion on this forum once more information comes out, and the sooner noob-questions can be answered the sooner everyone is on a good level of understanding and can direct the discussion most efficiently to achieve consensus fastest.



What could an "unmerged" BTS 2.0 offer a customer of EOS?
That will be the question, and the answer may depend on the success of EOS.

Dan doesn't work for the BTS 2.0 shareholders anymore. His announcements and big-reveal may not necessarily address this community.
If EOS is a big new product, he and his partners will be looking to sell it to the wider cryptoworld and the mainstream investor.
Although I suppose BTS 2.0 is a $100MM company to target for investment now...

[Stan]

It's like moving our store from inside our own house to the shopping mall of someone else to operate under their new rules and not ours.
Today BitShares shareholders do have 100% control over the application, the blockchain itself and its settings. That's power we would probably lose running on EOS.
It's like moving a centralized exchange to BitShares ^^
Not saying it does not come with benefits but also not without risks.

I've known this to be true for years but right now is the first time I truly appreciate 100% shareholder control.
Are we the first company in history to be able to say that with 100% confidence?

Shareholders of traditional companies enforce their control with laws, correct?
But what if the state/lawmakers turn against the shareholders in favour of a bad-actor?
Is there historical precedent of this kind of thing happening during wartime or some such?
The state 'confiscating' shareholder control of corporations, therefore stealing the wealth and 'sovereign' power of the shareholders?

BitShares 2.0's 100% guaranteed shareholder control is a landmark event in history.


I like BitShares for the decentralized control of the network; a network that produces a highly desirable product, at the rock bottom possible price to the consumer. BitShares can morph to fill the shape in the market as it evolves. To remain the absolute most competitive platform for financial products, bar none. It can also morph to most incentivize cooperation instead of competition.

To reward those who join BitShares and start running services upon it so enormously that it makes it impossible for anyone with 'fiduciary duty' to declare that there is more money in trying to compete with BitShares.
This means razor thin profit margins for the BitShares Corporation, in which shareholders have stake.
BitShares' profit model is to enable and capture the online trades performed by every single person in the world.
High volume, low price, gigantic target audience.

=========

Currently the BTS 2.0 shareholders have 100% control of this system.

I do not think it should be given up lightly.

We'll presumably know more after the plan is made public next week.

However, keep in mind that the path to 3.0 does not necessarily mean giving up control. 
It may be that the future of BTS 3.0 is on a parallel EOS chain just like Peerplays is on a parallel Graphene chain.

At any rate, something will probably be built by somebody on or with EOS, so it might as well be Bitsharesholders.