Author Topic: MaidSafe IPO on Mastercoin  (Read 100548 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Troglodactyl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 960
    • View Profile

I must be the guy with the worst decisions here.
Kept PTS instead of AGS pre snapshot ==> Less BTS X
Donated PTS after snapshot ==> PTS the screaming deal of the century..


I think he is referring to PTS and AGS as a whole.  You did fine to donate for AGS.  They don't like to tell people to do one or the other as far as PTS/AGS but you can look at agsexplorer and decide for yourself.

Indeed, personally I think AGS and PTS are both good opportunities right now.  I learned about this mid November, so I missed the beginning, but I've been around for most of it.

Offline Agent86

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 471
  • BTSX: agent86
    • View Profile

I must be the guy with the worst decisions here.
Kept PTS instead of AGS pre snapshot ==> Less BTS X
Donated PTS after snapshot ==> PTS the screaming deal of the century..


I think he is referring to PTS and AGS as a whole.  You did fine to donate for AGS.  They don't like to tell people to do one or the other as far as PTS/AGS but you can look at agsexplorer and decide for yourself.

Offline mf-tzo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1725
    • View Profile
Quote
I agree 100% with the goal of a fair distribution. But mining can not help to realize this! The only thing that helps is that many people know it! In reference to your statement about the early mining of Bitcoin: Super little people know about it --> Super uneven distribution of Bitcoin today. That has nothing to do with technology. Many people know about it like today -> Increase in demand for Bitcoin -> arms race -> economies of scale (like you said) and super high barriers for entry which is horrible for gives big money an advantage.

 +5% +5% +5% to the above

Quote
PTS has long been planned for an upgrade to 2.0.  The time for that is early summer.  Meanwhile all the DACs in the pipeline make PTS the screaming deal of the century.

Why PTS which is produced by mining is the screaming deal of the century and not AGS which is helping for the development of these DACs is not the screaming deal of the century? If that is the case, a more clear direction would be nice  because I am starting to feel like an idiot having donated all my pre 28th snapshot expensive PTS for AGS recently.

I must be the guy with the worst decisions here.
Kept PTS instead of AGS pre snapshot ==> Less BTS X
Donated PTS after snapshot ==> PTS the screaming deal of the century..


 

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
What criteria you use to judge invictus is of course your own decision, but I would have rather seen steady, incremental releases built on proven tech while having alternate teams (you know, what we're supposed to have given them funds for Angelshares to make happen) work on the revolutionary game changing tech.    It is *not* difficult to migrate from one blockchain to another, a blockchain is a giant ledger.  Proof of burn (or "token swap") makes this process easy, and frankly Invictus has already said they'll be doing something exactly like this when they move Protoshares onto the new technology so we're arguing about the volume, not the tune.


Getting stuff out the door ASAP is beneficial to everyone obviously. However, I disagree with your using Protoshares changing from POW as an example of how easily it is done.  The devil is in the details with this stuff.  When people write DACs on a different underlying technology, they're not going to be too happy having to possibly rearchitect parts later on.   Migrating a coin in isolation is not the same as changing the blockchain technology for already existing DACs.  It might turn out to be roughly equivalent, but it really depends on the nature of the DAC. 

The rest of your post was pretty interesting though.  I'm glad to see the perspective of someone who has been around since the beginning.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
If PTS failed and became part of the antiquated mining method you so truly despise, why did you decide to up their stake in BTS from 10% to 50%?   Was this not counterproductive to your stated goals?  Essentially you said, "damn, PTS didn't stay true to the CPU only and the GPU farms have started taking over mining.  Why don't we just give these GPU miners 50% instead of a measly 10% of the BTS-X shares and then sell the other 50%?"   I can only imagine this conflict of ideas was overlooked so Invictus could put money in their pocket.

Your altruistic attempt to save the user from the "large farms" that have taken over other coins and the systematic waste of energy is misguided and doesn't fall in line with your past behavior. You have merely switched the "large farm" for "big money" and taken away the "little guys" ability to determine their own opportunity cost.  You also continue to let PTS chug along forcing your Investors to waste $8 million since I first posted on PTS difficulty problems March 3rd. This $8 million is based on this; https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1397.msg14794#msg14794 .

PTS has long been planned for an upgrade to 2.0.  The time for that is early summer.  Meanwhile all the DACs in the pipeline make PTS the screaming deal of the century.
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline NewMine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 552
    • View Profile
If PTS failed and became part of the antiquated mining method you so truly despise, why did you decide to up their stake in BTS from 10% to 50%?   Was this not counterproductive to your stated goals?  Essentially you said, "damn, PTS didn't stay true to the CPU only and the GPU farms have started taking over mining.  Why don't we just give these GPU miners 50% instead of a measly 10% of the BTS-X shares and then sell the other 50%?"   I can only imagine this conflict of ideas was overlooked so Invictus could put money in their pocket.

Your altruistic attempt to save the user from the "large farms" that have taken over other coins and the systematic waste of energy is misguided and doesn't fall in line with your past behavior. You have merely switched the "large farm" for "big money" and taken away the "little guys" ability to determine their own opportunity cost.  You also continue to let PTS chug along forcing your Investors to waste $8 million since I first posted on PTS difficulty problems March 3rd. This $8 million is based on this; https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1397.msg14794#msg14794 .

Offline Agent86

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 471
  • BTSX: agent86
    • View Profile
Yes, and the least-risky gamble, given what we have learned along the way.   :)

Part of the issue is that real money has to be at stake to get a valid test of how market behaviors drive the fundamental theory of operation.  Since real money is at stake, we must be vewy, vewy, careful. 

The other options have known unacceptable flaws. 
We can't responsibly release real money applications with known unacceptable flaws.
+5%

I think invictus has a good grasp of what is at stake (and it is a lot).  I'm much happier with DPOS than with mining.

If you can't figure out that mining to get shares will cost you money just like donating, I don't know what to say, it's not hard to understand.

We all want it done yesterday, and there is plenty of competition and plenty of tough decisions but I feel bitshares has a very compelling vision.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2014, 03:14:10 pm by Agent86 »

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
This whole debate is getting a bit confusing with long replies from Adam, Stan and Dan. Here's my cliff notes version of it (based on Adam's points):
1. Protoshares acting as token (10% ) for Bitshares being changed to 50-50 Angleshares aka proof of burn like Mastercoin: As Stan put it; this has been done and decided. Maybe only by I3 decided on it by themselves or there was a forum consensus but given AGS is already in play; there is no way to give PTS/BTC back. So Adam can we just lay this to rest?

2. Delivery of the bitshares product and the Proof system: The initial structure was to allow people to mine it via CPU (aka PTS) which failed. The TaPoS implementation of it failed. Now we have gone to DPos.
The issue Adam seeming to be pointing out is that I3 should have focused more on releasing Bitshares (as alpha). It would allow people to play around on Testnet and with I3 working on a proof system at the background. His understanding of cryptocurrency protocol is that transaction system are more detach/attach kind and can be changed later. I am not technically inclined so if true, I have to agree with Adam.

If we had a working testnet for BTS, we could have played around with it and seen how things actually work out - mining, TaPos, DPOS etc at once. Now with the actual final product surely having DPoS, we are betting huge on it. With all due respect to Dan this is just a gamble.

Yes, and the least-risky gamble, given what we have learned along the way.   :)

Part of the issue is that real money has to be at stake to get a valid test of how market behaviors drive the fundamental theory of operation.  Since real money is at stake, we must be vewy, vewy, careful. 

The other options have known unacceptable flaws. 
We can't responsibly release real money applications with known unacceptable flaws.

Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Bitshares XT is not the final product .. you can see it as a testnet for testing dpos and snapahots for the first final bitsharesX chain

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
TaPos did not really "fail" afair ..

Offline neotheone

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
This whole debate is getting a bit confusing with long replies from Adam, Stan and Dan. Here's my cliff notes version of it (based on Adam's points):
1. Protoshares acting as token (10% ) for Bitshares being changed to 50-50 Angleshares aka proof of burn like Mastercoin: As Stan put it; this has been done and decided. Maybe only by I3 decided on it by themselves or there was a forum consensus but given AGS is already in play; there is no way to give PTS/BTC back. So Adam can we just lay this to rest?

2. Delivery of the bitshares product and the Proof system: The initial structure was to allow people to mine it via CPU (aka PTS) which failed. The TaPoS implementation of it failed. Now we have gone to DPos.
The issue Adam seeming to be pointing out is that I3 should have focused more on releasing Bitshares (as alpha). It would allow people to play around on Testnet and with I3 working on a proof system at the background. His understanding of cryptocurrency protocol is that transaction system are more detach/attach kind and can be changed later. I am not technically inclined so if true, I have to agree with Adam.

If we had a working testnet for BTS, we could have played around with it and seen how things actually work out - mining, TaPos, DPOS etc at once. Now with the actual final product surely having DPoS, we are betting huge on it. With all due respect to Dan this is just a gamble.

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
Quote

Quote from: AdamBLevine on Today at 12:50:57 AM

Of course there is cost, but it is not additional and explicit cost as when you have to actually buy something. There is cost in making a comment on a blog too, but people don't think about it like that because it is not a meaningful cost relative to the percieved value you gain.   You had to read the content then sit there and think about it until you have something to say, then you have to say it.  You had to do that to the exclusion of doing something else with your time, that is valuable.  Your contribution (whatever it is) is ranked not against some absolute standard but against all other participants doing the same type of incentivized action within the system.

This is a great point!  Everyone's time has value.  Usually, their daily occupation is the most valuable use of their time (or they would be doing something else for a living!)  So the most efficient way to acquire a crypto currency is to do whatever earns you the most money for your time and then spend some of that money to buy the crypto currency.  Isn't that exactly what blackcoin and others are doing when they use their resources to "mine the most profitable altcoin" and then use the proceeds (money) to buy their own coin?

At last!  A Fundamental Economic Truth!  Time is Money!

Why advocate inefficient make-work when everybody already has their own optimum way to do something useful that contributes the world's wealth while converting their time to money?

(And if you do advocate inefficient make-work, are you seriously asking that we deliberately spend our supporters' hard-earned and painfully-sacrificed resources inefficiently to accomplish some auxiliary social agenda?)


« Last Edit: May 17, 2014, 01:37:43 pm by Stan »
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
I expected you to figure out another way to give people stake in Bitshares without asking them for cash money because it seemed like that was an important part of the strategy that was being wholly discarded because you improperly anticipated demand. 

For those of you who hung out on one of the recent Mumble / Beyond Bitcoin calls I discussed a give away strategy that I believe would make everyone from all camps happy.  I am also keeping that strategy a secret to be revealed when we launch so that other coins cannot copy it.

It is sure to generate a ton of buzz.   


Not to mention that 50% of BitShares XT did get BSC-allocated to PTS owners via the old zero%-efficient burn-your-seed-corn-or-buy-from-the-bot-barons mining model.  The other 50% got BSC-allocated via 100%-efficient AGS "virtual mining" which works exactly the same way when viewed as a "black box"*.

  ;)

*black box = same inputs yield same outputs regardless of what's inside the box.
**BSC = BitShares Social Consensus
« Last Edit: May 17, 2014, 01:33:47 pm by Stan »
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
And that's the difference

[...see below...]

It's not shocking you agree with Daniel's position, I'd be more surprised if you didn't.

Quote
And that's the difference, I believe that "mining" as a metaphor (you'll notice my LTBCOIN project features Proof of Tipping and Proof of Commenting and Proof of Publishing, all non-monetary actions that vest participants who add value to the system.  Whatever the system.   I don't care about computational mining, and I never talk about it in those terms.  I am talking about non-monetary distribution, and the metaphor we use for that to this point is Mining with your computer!

Of course there is cost, but it is not additional and explicit cost as when you have to actually buy something. There is cost in making a comment on a blog too, but people don't think about it like that because it is not a meaningful cost relative to the percieved value you gain.   You had to read the content then sit there and think about it until you have something to say, then you have to say it.  You had to do that to the exclusion of doing something else with your time, that is valuable.  Your contribution (whatever it is) is ranked not against some absolute standard but against all other participants doing the same type of incentivized action within the system.
 
I mostly agree. That are interesting ideas! Can you show how that would practically work? Someone that publishes something about Bitshares (marketing) is getting shares for that? Makes sense, we should do that. For every quality (how do you assure the quality?) post on BTT 5 PTS, for every post on coindesk 50 PTS etc. But distributing ALL Bit"shares" like this? This model has been used with many NXT clones like this one https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=440185.0 Problems where: Quality of contribution; over time you just have enough marketing. But overall I like the model. Proof of tipping would work how in our case to distribute shares? Publicity leads to an even distribution, therefore conferences are important, which have to be paid. So I am not unhappy with the fundraising because it increases the value of the outcoming products, at least better than throwing your money at electricity companies. But we agree that more community involvement would be important. But I would say that it would not be good to distribute all shares via community contribution. We can still do the community involvement with PTS bounties.

Quote
So with that understood, does "We have abandoned non-monetary means of getting involved in the Bitshares project" make more sense?  This is why I mention bounties, because that's a way that lets people work towards community or invictus set goals with the idea that if they achieve it best and first they've got a clear reward that will vest them in the ecosystem they have just contributed to.
I mostly agree. I am open to bounties and would also like to see more community involvement. What we would need is that Brian Page gets more involved in the community and leads the community and its involvement in terms of marketing!

Quote
Daniel just overcompensated, went from 100% selfless (you can't buy it from us, just the market or mine it by contributing to the network) to 100% capture.   I think there was a middle ground but the whole concept of mining, computational or not was in the crosshairs and it seems we only deal in black or white.
I mostly disagree. You meant "Daniel is just overcompensated"? Invictus clearly stated that all the BTC and PTS that are donated via AGS are used to grow the ecosystem and nothing of it is Invictus' profit. The I3 team only gets paid (probably underpaid compared to the industry standard) monthly loans. If Daniel/I3 took 25% of the donations for themselves (as profit) like Ethereum does (correct me if I am wrong on that; can be sold after a year), one could speak of overcompensation. "Could" because if you don't like the Ethereum founders' monetization model just don't invest into it and don't blme anyone. But are you measuring with the same criteria here? 

Quote
Invictus thought the Bitcoin distribution was also unfair, which is why they didn't want to sell tokens because it allowed that unfairness to continue in the new system. It seems like you want to abandon the idea of equitable, non-monetary distribution because Protoshares failed to achieve that goal and others have failed before.  I think that was one of the primary draws for Bitshares, that it would have everybody vested in it.  It might be naive to assume that, but I was explicitly told this by Invictus at the time they were appealing to my audience for participation and just because Daniel abandoned the idea doesn't mean it was the right choice.   
I partly agree. Like I said before I agree 100% with the goal. but it is difficult to realize. Let's not give up though. Bounties are great for some things like marketing. It can still be done by giving out PTS. For other things, like creating a website, coding bounties, bounties partly turned out to be inappropriate. Employing someone gives him the security of getting paid and decreases the effort to supervise the bounty. It all has ad- and disadvantages.

Quote
It's not shocking you agree with Daniel's position, I'd be more surprised if you didn't.
I mostly disagree. I disagree with Daniel on many things here and express that explicitly https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=2943.msg57257#msg57257 https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4059.msg50857#msg50857  And I agree with you that more community involvement would be necessary and also there should be more Bitcointalk marketing to get more supporters involved. It is not all black to me and not all white. It is more white to me me than black. It seems like it is just black to you.

There is a great effort by Clains https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?board=57.0 Let's all step back a bit from what we hold to be true and be constructive about the sucess of Bitshares. 

PS: the underlining was not meant to emphasize the importance of my opinion :) but to show that painting it all black seems not justified to me.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2014, 01:30:20 pm by delulo »

Tuck Fheman

  • Guest
But even if the value will not be the expected one, it has nothing to do with what you wanted to "promote" with your posted graph's. Hope "you" understand the real picture now...

I hope you understand that I'm quite happy with the direction of both. Actually, I don't think I could be any happier about the situation here right now.

Adam's valid points + the echo's of "vaporware" heard all around are serving me quite well when it comes to Bitshares.  ;)

I'm not promoting anything (in the way you appear to be describing it), but I am noticing the trend in both due to (what appears to be) the constant infighting here versus the exact opposite over there. 

I love 'em both (hell I love all Cryptocurrencies)!

I'm loaded up on NXT, pre-snapshot PTS and loading up on more post-snapshot Bitshares (thanks to Darkcoin) ... and to keep this post on topic, I have plenty of IPO Safecoin as well.