Bitshares versus Counterparty?

[fuzzy]

Acting like Lizard Men (from some other dimension?) are the dictatorial hand pushing these agendas is purely naive.  I assure you cartels and "secret" societies are a distinctly natural phenomenon.

The government as a whole is a cartel conspiracy

 

now lets get back to productive conversations about counterparty?

XCP guys seem to be rather hardcore. They're finally hiring someone for PR and decide to just pay it out of their own pocket rather than explicitly asking for community funding.

Asking for community funding and giving the community opportunity are two sides of the same coin.  Suppose I created bitshares entirely from my own funds and then kept one hundred percent of the money supply for myself Or sold it After it was on the market.  I could just imagine the accusations I would get then. 

This business of demonizing people who fund raise And at the same time demonizing people to do 100% premine is ludicrous.  You can't have it both ways everyone wants something for nothing.   

Even if you could fund it by yourself giving others an opportunity to get involved is a great way to build a community.   

Ripple didn't do any community fundraising and look where got them. 

Double standards and unreasonable expectations abound.

Everyone wants the creator to take 100% of the risk and get none of the profit. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That isn't exactly a fair characterization.  I know of a group of people right now in the marketing section under a post called "Team Viral" where people are actually donating their time and efforts to helping our community...to my knowledge none of them are on payroll and all could sit back and hope others act. 

I can tell you for 100% certain that I am not part of it because of monetary gain (though it would be a nice ancillary benefit).  Instead, I am here because you guys thus far have earned my trust (probably the same with many others)...watch what happens if it is lost--though pretty confident it won't  

[blackbeard]

Acting like Lizard Men (from some other dimension?) are the dictatorial hand pushing these agendas is purely naive.  I assure you cartels and "secret" societies are a distinctly natural phenomenon.

The government as a whole is a cartel conspiracy

[fuzzy]

3) proof-of-burn is idiotic

Sure not one of your best statements...

100% agreed, yet don't we all act like fools at times?

Bytemaster takes a LOT of shit from people. I sit here and watch it over, and over, and over...which is fine, but if someone who gets poked and prodded often enough, I tend to think its ok for them to occasionally make misstatement.

Invictus and Bytemaster are pretty friggin selfless people.  I mean Keyhotee is going to be FREE for anyone who mines their ID?  Some people *cough cough* would like to monetize such beautiful tech, and push a majority of the world's population into a place where economic circumstances govern their right to privacy.  Not Bytemaster and crew...once again lets just let this ridiculousness rest and give them credit where it is due, and a couple mulligans here and there.  I'm sure if you posted 40,000 posts a day you'd eventually say something in a manner construed as dickish

And Satoshi show us that funding is not mandatory to make great things!

Satoshi was funded by the NSA

Yeah... and the NSA is controled by the Illuminatis who are actually a bunch of Annunakis.

LOL...you see, you had to throw aliens in there.  Otherwise, to say "secret" societies do not exist to ensure the consolidation and/or protection of their own power is to have a fundamental lack of understanding with regard to human nature.  People Conspire for personal gain on low levels from getting a pay-raise at work to high-level-- international drug cartels (CIA controls the poppy supply in afghanistan for instance and uses "Operation Enduring Freedom" not to liberate the people, but to give no option but for them to participate or be the enemy).

Conspiracies, throughout history are the rule...not the exception.  And "Illuminati" is just as good a name as "NSA", "CIA", "Sinaloa Cartel", "Anonymous", "Bilderberg"...etc.  Groups of people collectively tend to label the networks to which they belong...and all groups tend to push collectively to have their perceived agenda fulfilled but not all agendas are intended to uplift the rest of humanity along with them. 

Acting like Lizard Men (from some other dimension?) are the only possible dictatorial hand pushing these agendas is purely naive.  I assure you cartels and "secret" societies are a distinctly natural phenomenon...though the internet has largely destroyed the "secret" part of their societies.

[BldSwtTrs]

And Satoshi show us that funding is not mandatory to make great things!

Satoshi was funded by the NSA

Yeah... and the NSA is controled by the Illuminatis who are actually a bunch of Annunakis.

[onceuponatime]

And Satoshi show us that funding is not mandatory to make great things!

Satoshi was funded by the NSA

That is a very affirmative statement.
Your source?

[blackbeard]

And Satoshi show us that funding is not mandatory to make great things!

Satoshi was funded by the NSA

[CWEvans]

You can't have it both ways everyone wants something for nothing.   

Oddly, this seems to drive many individuals' fascination with mining.

[liondani]

3) proof-of-burn is idiotic

Sure not one of your best statements...

[Mrrr]

XCP guys seem to be rather hardcore. They're finally hiring someone for PR and decide to just pay it out of their own pocket rather than explicitly asking for community funding.

Asking for community funding and giving the community opportunity are two sides of the same coin.  Suppose I created bitshares entirely from my own funds and then kept one hundred percent of the money supply for myself Or sold it After it was on the market.  I could just imagine the accusations I would get then. 

This business of demonizing people who fund raise And at the same time demonizing people to do 100% premine is ludicrous.  You can't have it both ways everyone wants something for nothing.   

Even if you could fund it by yourself giving others an opportunity to get involved is a great way to build a community.   

Ripple didn't do any community fundraising and look where got them. 

Double standards and unreasonable expectations abound.

Everyone wants the creator to take 100% of the risk and get none of the profit. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

With all do respect. XCP gave the community opportunity without asking for a dime. I burned a day's worth of work. Now I fundraised your shiny metal ass with a couple of greenbacks because I honestly believe you got ideas that are of benefit to humanity. I'm not demonizing anyone. I want honesty. III is honest. XCP is honest, gospodjice Buterin is not.

[bitcool]

XCP guys seem to be rather hardcore. They're finally hiring someone for PR and decide to just pay it out of their own pocket rather than explicitly asking for community funding.

Among hundreds of altcoins , IMO, they definitely are among the most trustworthy and respectable. 

For a good team, financial incentive is only part of it; there are other invisible benefits, such as experience, reputation, community trust, personal satisfaction, enjoyment from success ... these are priceless.
 

[bytemaster]

XCP guys seem to be rather hardcore. They're finally hiring someone for PR and decide to just pay it out of their own pocket rather than explicitly asking for community funding.

Asking for community funding and giving the community opportunity are two sides of the same coin.  Suppose I created bitshares entirely from my own funds and then kept one hundred percent of the money supply for myself Or sold it After it was on the market.  I could just imagine the accusations I would get then. 

This business of demonizing people who fund raise And at the same time demonizing people to do 100% premine is ludicrous.  You can't have it both ways everyone wants something for nothing.   

Even if you could fund it by yourself giving others an opportunity to get involved is a great way to build a community.   

Ripple didn't do any community fundraising and look where got them. 

Double standards and unreasonable expectations abound.

Everyone wants the creator to take 100% of the risk and get none of the profit. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mrrr]

XCP guys seem to be rather hardcore. They're finally hiring someone for PR and decide to just pay it out of their own pocket rather than explicitly asking for community funding.

[Empirical1]

I like proof of burn.

There's always a lot of concern in the crypto-community about fairness. If something is perceived as pre-mined, or unfairly distributed it can really have problems. (Memorycoin, NXT, Mastercoin etc.)

The XCP guys didn't get any benefit from the funds, the only way they can make money is if they burn their own BTC and develop and deliver a product that is actually useful. XCP will always have the moral high ground now. This is very valuable.

In the medium term there's a big argument in favour of not wasting those initial funds and putting them towards maintaining and developing something. 

Personally I think Bitshares is likely to deliver the best product, when I view this forum I'm consistently impressed by Bytemasters responses and views, like others have said, don't know where he finds the time. 
I also prefer Proof of Stake and something independent of Bitcoin. Exciting few months ahead!

[520Bit]

Take a look at the wiki: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_burn

And the discussion on December 17, 2012, 12:32:56 AM: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=131139.msg1404195#msg1404195

The market may choose whatever.

[cubicdissection]

And Satoshi show us that funding is not mandatory to make great things!

Since XCP rides on the BTC blockchain, I believe in this case it was actually necessary.  I could be wrong though.