A Call to the Truthcoin Prediction Market

[AsymmetricInformation]

I think it would help if you could summarize how it works. Probably not many people know about the details which matter. Any constructive discussion is appreciated.
I would suggest to summarize truthcoin so as many people as possible can understand it and then have a public discussion with BM on the mumble server.
I guess the crucial question is how truthcoin determines who wins and who loses the bet.

Ah, but that is the whole point of the project! There is a whitepaper and FAQ about just that. It was also the subject of my LTB interview.

[carpet ride]

I just thought I would update everyone:

(1)  Although toast has expressed a desire to bang out a working version of this, he has been severely distracted by BtsX. The tentative arrangement we discussed did involve (at least) 20% of the Vote-ownership (not coin ownership, please see my presentation draft to learn more about this) going to AGS/PTS holders.

(2)  I am still working on Truthcoin in my spare time, and I may hire one or two freelancers to help. If so, I will feel less inclined to give away the ownership at all (as no one has been helping), or I may airdrop to Bitcoin for the superior network effects. In other words, it remains possible that AGS/PTS owners may "miss out" on their chance to own Truthcoin.

(3)  My feeling is that my project would be much simpler and faster to implement than BtsX (my understanding is that toast agrees). My personal opinion is also that it would be more successful. I would probably be happy if Bitsharestalk made a bunch of noise and diverted some developer talent here (or made some noise at Bitcointalk or something). As the project-owner, I unfortunately am in a bad position to make noise, as it appears selfish.

(4)  In general, I'm hoping that the devs at BTS will learn a lot from their BtsX experience and use that for my project.

AI, I hope I get to participate in some kind of sharedrop that you do; whether that's through PTS/AGS or BTC. I seriously doubt there's any chance you'll get the bitshares/invictus folks to divert energy from BTSX in the forseeable future. I mean, clearly, BTSX is bitshares/invictus. It's the first project idea they had, the reason they founded the company, and the only one (of their ideas) that people are terribly interested in.

I certainly hope you don't take it as a rebuff or an affront that they won't take time away from BTSX to work on your project, since BTSX is simply the thing that makes them what they are. It is my sincere hope that before too long you'll be able to get some bitshares devs working on your project. If you can't wait that long, then I wish you well and I'll keep an eye on truthcoin wherever it ends up.

A successful BTSX would fund this project.

[biophil]

I just thought I would update everyone:

(1)  Although toast has expressed a desire to bang out a working version of this, he has been severely distracted by BtsX. The tentative arrangement we discussed did involve (at least) 20% of the Vote-ownership (not coin ownership, please see my presentation draft to learn more about this) going to AGS/PTS holders.

(2)  I am still working on Truthcoin in my spare time, and I may hire one or two freelancers to help. If so, I will feel less inclined to give away the ownership at all (as no one has been helping), or I may airdrop to Bitcoin for the superior network effects. In other words, it remains possible that AGS/PTS owners may "miss out" on their chance to own Truthcoin.

(3)  My feeling is that my project would be much simpler and faster to implement than BtsX (my understanding is that toast agrees). My personal opinion is also that it would be more successful. I would probably be happy if Bitsharestalk made a bunch of noise and diverted some developer talent here (or made some noise at Bitcointalk or something). As the project-owner, I unfortunately am in a bad position to make noise, as it appears selfish.

(4)  In general, I'm hoping that the devs at BTS will learn a lot from their BtsX experience and use that for my project.

AI, I hope I get to participate in some kind of sharedrop that you do; whether that's through PTS/AGS or BTC. I seriously doubt there's any chance you'll get the bitshares/invictus folks to divert energy from BTSX in the forseeable future. I mean, clearly, BTSX is bitshares/invictus. It's the first project idea they had, the reason they founded the company, and the only one (of their ideas) that people are terribly interested in.

I certainly hope you don't take it as a rebuff or an affront that they won't take time away from BTSX to work on your project, since BTSX is simply the thing that makes them what they are. It is my sincere hope that before too long you'll be able to get some bitshares devs working on your project. If you can't wait that long, then I wish you well and I'll keep an eye on truthcoin wherever it ends up.

[santaclause102]

I just thought I would update everyone:

(1)  Although toast has expressed a desire to bang out a working version of this, he has been severely distracted by BtsX. The tentative arrangement we discussed did involve (at least) 20% of the Vote-ownership (not coin ownership, please see my presentation draft to learn more about this) going to AGS/PTS holders.

(2)  I am still working on Truthcoin in my spare time, and I may hire one or two freelancers to help. If so, I will feel less inclined to give away the ownership at all (as no one has been helping), or I may airdrop to Bitcoin for the superior network effects. In other words, it remains possible that AGS/PTS owners may "miss out" on their chance to own Truthcoin.

(3)  My feeling is that my project would be much simpler and faster to implement than BtsX (my understanding is that toast agrees). My personal opinion is also that it would be more successful. I would probably be happy if Bitsharestalk made a bunch of noise and diverted some developer talent here (or made some noise at Bitcointalk or something). As the project-owner, I unfortunately am in a bad position to make noise, as it appears selfish.

(4)  In general, I'm hoping that the devs at BTS will learn a lot from their BtsX experience and use that for my project.

I think it would help if you could summarize how it works. Probably not many people know about the details which matter. Any constructive discussion is appreciated.
I would suggest to summarize truthcoin so as many people as possible can understand it and then have a public discussion with BM on the mumble server.
I guess the crucial question is how truthcoin determines who wins and who loses the bet.

[bitbro]

I just thought I would update everyone:

(1)  Although toast has expressed a desire to bang out a working version of this, he has been severely distracted by BtsX. The tentative arrangement we discussed did involve (at least) 20% of the Vote-ownership (not coin ownership, please see my presentation draft to learn more about this) going to AGS/PTS holders.

(2)  I am still working on Truthcoin in my spare time, and I may hire one or two freelancers to help. If so, I will feel less inclined to give away the ownership at all (as no one has been helping), or I may airdrop to Bitcoin for the superior network effects. In other words, it remains possible that AGS/PTS owners may "miss out" on their chance to own Truthcoin.

(3)  My feeling is that my project would be much simpler and faster to implement than BtsX (my understanding is that toast agrees). My personal opinion is also that it would be more successful. I would probably be happy if Bitsharestalk made a bunch of noise and diverted some developer talent here (or made some noise at Bitcointalk or something). As the project-owner, I unfortunately am in a bad position to make noise, as it appears selfish.

(4)  In general, I'm hoping that the devs at BTS will learn a lot from their BtsX experience and use that for my project.

I hope we stick with point 4.  See the post on BitShares Vegas.  How much more rudimentary is that concept compared to Truthcoin? BM and hackfisher expressed interest in it. I think in general there is a great deal of interest in Truthcoin or something like Truthcoin.  tl;dr In general, I want to be included in the share allocation, but I am also deeply interested in the idea


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tonyk]

....
(3)  My feeling is that my project would be much simpler and faster to implement than BtsX (my understanding is that toast agrees). My personal opinion is also that it [Truthcoin] would be more successful. [than BTS X] ...

I do not know whether to laugh or to cry at such statements...


[EDIT]
 I know it is hard for big brain like yours (according to your measuring stick) to comprehend it but let me try:

If BTS X  happens to be a  success, it will be worth more than anything in the crypto space for now and for the foreseeable future.

If it fails, it will be worth less than the  time you put to come up with the above non-sense … so not a great project to beat,  in that case.

[AsymmetricInformation]

I just thought I would update everyone:

(1)  Although toast has expressed a desire to bang out a working version of this, he has been severely distracted by BtsX. The tentative arrangement we discussed did involve (at least) 20% of the Vote-ownership (not coin ownership, please see my presentation draft to learn more about this) going to AGS/PTS holders.

(2)  I am still working on Truthcoin in my spare time, and I may hire one or two freelancers to help. If so, I will feel less inclined to give away the ownership at all (as no one has been helping), or I may airdrop to Bitcoin for the superior network effects. In other words, it remains possible that AGS/PTS owners may "miss out" on their chance to own Truthcoin.

(3)  My feeling is that my project would be much simpler and faster to implement than BtsX (my understanding is that toast agrees). My personal opinion is also that it would be more successful. I would probably be happy if Bitsharestalk made a bunch of noise and diverted some developer talent here (or made some noise at Bitcointalk or something). As the project-owner, I unfortunately am in a bad position to make noise, as it appears selfish.

(4)  In general, I'm hoping that the devs at BTS will learn a lot from their BtsX experience and use that for my project.

[liondani]

In my opinion, this is the source of much of today's economic failure (huge firms with none of the owners knowing or caring about what's going on)."

 

[CLains]

Said he had some funds on his own, and seems to want to do a special kind of BTC airdrop, because "its about plugging into the best network."

Aside from the "coins" there are "votecoins" which he wants to distribute to "developers/funders/contributors/etc. But its hardly a settled issue."
"the Votecoins are not "free", one must do the work of Voting (for which you are paid)."

The idea behind seems to be this: "In the ancient past, shareholders did a lot of work, monitoring their corporation and electing its Board and Executive Managers. Today, people just kick back and do nothing. In my opinion, this is the source of much of today's economic failure (huge firms with none of the owners knowing or caring about what's going on)."

http://forum.truthcoin.info/index.php/topic,6.0.html

[Gentso1]

How come? – the AGS account shows huge balances and very little expenses. If you have already dedicated most of the funds you better have a way to show them on the open books. If you have dedicated say 100 K PTS already and you gonna show them only after spending them (sending out the funds) those open books do little to no good.

I will not talk about how those AGS funds could have been much bigger - I have posted long enough posts on the topic before…

Good point, right now the AGS funds are being documented on a cash basis rather than accrual.   The funds have been mostly reserved to keep a development
team going for 1 year with some margin for Bitcoin price falling further.

680 $/BTC seams a reasonable price to lock/sale ,  like 1/3 of the BTC in the AGS fund, so you feel more secure/not have reasons to not provide funding for very well looking projects. ( I do understand the thought process that funds kept in PTS/BTC are more open to ‘community control’ and you cannot post the $ acc. # you have the funds from the sale, like you can do with BTC or PTS, but it is mostly technicality)

So with the btc price increase III can keep there reserves and we should be able to give this guy some funding unless there is another issue that has popped up?

[tonyk]

How come? – the AGS account shows huge balances and very little expenses. If you have already dedicated most of the funds you better have a way to show them on the open books. If you have dedicated say 100 K PTS already and you gonna show them only after spending them (sending out the funds) those open books do little to no good.

I will not talk about how those AGS funds could have been much bigger - I have posted long enough posts on the topic before…

Good point, right now the AGS funds are being documented on a cash basis rather than accrual.   The funds have been mostly reserved to keep a development team going for 1 year with some margin for Bitcoin price falling further.

680 $/BTC seams a reasonable price to lock/sale ,  like 1/3 of the BTC in the AGS fund, so you feel more secure/not have reasons to not provide funding for very well looking projects. ( I do understand the thought process that funds kept in PTS/BTC are more open to ‘community control’ and you cannot post the $ acc. # you have the funds from the sale, like you can do with BTC or PTS, but it is mostly technicality)

[Bitcoinfan]

^ truthcoin has already submitted once to hacker news

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Do you know who that is? Because neither Paul or I submitted that to ycombinator.   

[bytemaster]

How come? – the AGS account shows huge balances and very little expenses. If you have already dedicated most of the funds you better have a way to show them on the open books. If you have dedicated say 100 K PTS already and you gonna show them only after spending them (sending out the funds) those open books do little to no good.

I will not talk about how those AGS funds could have been much bigger - I have posted long enough posts on the topic before…

Good point, right now the AGS funds are being documented on a cash basis rather than accrual.   The funds have been mostly reserved to keep a development team going for 1 year with some margin for Bitcoin price falling further.   

[santaclause102]

We have some design disagreements... but I am OK with that.   With BTC price drop we cannot fund everyone until after our core products are out.

Has this been communicated actively?
I appreciate the perspective that it is ok to deviate a bit from one's approach in order to get the synergies of collaboration.
There is value in such a collaboration in itself. It gives credit to Invictus (assym.info. has an acedemic background) and proofs that the social consensus model works which would be a great signal.

[tonyk]

How come? – the AGS account shows huge balances and very little expenses. If you have already dedicated most of the funds you better have a way to show them on the open books. If you have dedicated say 100 K PTS already and you gonna show them only after spending them (sending out the funds) those open books do little to no good.

I will not talk about how those AGS funds could have been much bigger - I have posted long enough posts on the topic before…