Author Topic: MaidSafe IPO on Mastercoin  (Read 100539 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani
Quote
So when Angelshares came into play, that ratio went from mostly vesting stakeholders for "work" to vesting stakeholders for paying Invictus.   Because that "for your work" segment is no longer available, having been sold by Invictus, it means anybody coming into Bitshares now will have to buy them for real money up front instead of being able to just participate and be compensated at a minimal level as was promised.

Adam it appears you are blind to the mining farms that control things these days.   Doing worthless work and paying for it destroys value and produces nothing.  Apparently you feel people should pay electric companies rather than giving the money to us.   Either way it is charity.    Everyone already had to buy them for real with money up front... also, PTS mining is still available for people that think like you.

Lastly we only ever said 10% and never the 20% number you mentioned.   

Bottom line:  mining difficulty would increase with the value of our idea and thus consume 100% of the millions of dollars contributed to this idea allowing those who operate large mining farms (like you did early on) to profit.    You told me you made more money from PTS in 2 weeks than you did with LTB in any month.  You were working with large mining operations acquiring and reselling to major players in the market a very large percentage of the PTS being mined every day.  In fact, I would venture to say that you may have made more from PTS than I did.   

So from where I sit, it seems you very much liked the idea of profiting from being the middle man between the mass-production miners and the average guy on the street who has to buy from you because mining is way to slow or difficult to purchase more than a token amount (equal to perhaps 3x your power bill).

So we cut out the middle man (you) and those doing worthless work (mass miners) and 'sold' direct to consumers which then gives us money that is is being spent to increase the value of what they received where as the money they gave you and the mass miners did nothing to help their investment succeed.

make sense   +5%
« Last Edit: May 16, 2014, 10:49:42 pm by liondani »

Offline bytemaster

Quote
So when Angelshares came into play, that ratio went from mostly vesting stakeholders for "work" to vesting stakeholders for paying Invictus.   Because that "for your work" segment is no longer available, having been sold by Invictus, it means anybody coming into Bitshares now will have to buy them for real money up front instead of being able to just participate and be compensated at a minimal level as was promised.

Adam it appears you are blind to the mining farms that control things these days.   Doing worthless work and paying for it destroys value and produces nothing.  Apparently you feel people should pay electric companies rather than giving the money to us.   Either way it is charity.    Everyone already had to buy them for real with money up front... also, PTS mining is still available for people that think like you.

Lastly we only ever said 10% and never the 20% number you mentioned.   

Bottom line:  mining difficulty would increase with the value of our idea and thus consume 100% of the millions of dollars contributed to this idea allowing those who operate large mining farms (like you did early on) to profit.    You told me you made more money from PTS in 2 weeks than you did with LTB in any month.  You were working with large mining operations acquiring and reselling to major players in the market a very large percentage of the PTS being mined every day.  In fact, I would venture to say that you may have made more from PTS than I did.   

So from where I sit, it seems you very much liked the idea of profiting from being the middle man between the mass-production miners and the average guy on the street who has to buy from you because mining is way to slow or difficult to purchase more than a token amount (equal to perhaps 3x your power bill).

So we cut out the middle man (you) and those doing worthless work (mass miners) and 'sold' direct to consumers which then gives us money that is is being spent to increase the value of what they received where as the money they gave you and the mass miners did nothing to help their investment succeed.   
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
+plus .. releasing a blockchain is worth investigatin alot. I do not want a blockchain i.e. protocol to change after launch!!!!

Offline Simeon II

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 355
    • View Profile
Come on Adam, give them a break, their flagship product is proving that people would   bet their money in attempt to appreciate, a piece of paper stating it is $1 virtual dollar, at $1. It will be a great success if they succeed no matter how much time/designing iterations /money/bullshit-ing  in the forums it takes.

Offline AdamBLevine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 492
    • View Profile
    • Let's Talk Bitcoin!

JoeyD:
I'm not a native English speaker and was neither offended nor addressing you personally, which I think is impossible to do via forums anyway. It seems I completely failed in trying to communicate what I was trying to say, so I'll try again and add some specific examples, even-though I still think it would have been better to do so in a separate thread, instead of in response to a completely unrelated topic.

Adam:
Ok

In your comments you assume too much and that is the very definition of arrogance (google translate assumption -> latin) and it gets in the way of some of the valid points you make and in the discussion afterwards.

Ok, you think I'm arrogant.


I agree with most of your points about Invictus dropping the ball in regards to marketing, stimulating community involvement, attracting investment etcetera. However at the same time you completely destroy those points by stating as facts some of your personal assumptions that are dubious to say the least.

Okay, so you agree with all of my arguements except the ones you don't and the ones you don't agree with invalidate all the things you think I'm right about.


For example the statement that everything would have worked out fine if Invictus would have stuck to the plan. This is however not corroborated by any facts. Plans fail the moment you execute them and you are supposed to adapt after that. What you most definitely should not do, is stick to the plan after it failed. While you might have missed the statements Dan Larimer made regarding this and I agree that Invictus could and should have done a better job at communicating the reasons for the change of plans, your alternate, oversimplified and personal version of the situation does more harm then good at clearing things up.

I am not claiming everything will work out to the letter, I am saying it is much less risky and speculative to attack the problems Bitshares intended (hedging, asset issuance, DNS registration, etc.)   Here's a talk given by Daniel and Charles revealing the project, see how many times they talk about the need to replace mining as the transactional processing layer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKfzA4Y36kk.  It's not there, because that wasn't the point of the project until it became the entire focus, making it a dramatically different project.

Your proposed solution of going with some multi-staged, patch-work, unmaintainable, easily attacked and guaranteed to fail pow-blockchain and then migrating to a new POS-system, sounds completely ludicrous. If Invictus had gone that Dr. Frankenstein route I would have had no faith in their abilities and walked away laughing. Talk about waste of time, effort and resources and suicidal pr move.

My proposal was to solve the problems the Bitshares project and Invictus said they were trying to solve while doing this research into new experimental types of transaction processing.   I'm not saying it's bad no matter what happens, just over and over again that it's an unneccesary risk to take when there are options that can suffice through the alpha period.   This is EXACTLY what Ethereum has done, they have not decided on their proof of work because that's a hard question to answer so they are using I think SHA while developing several alternative solutions.  They're on their fourth public, networked alpha because of this decision.  If they had waited until the ultimate mining solution they're going to use was released, they would be months behind in terms of external development... Sorta like Bitshares... 

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.

 


Also I don't get what your beef with the AGS fundraiser is, especially seeing how PTS is still there. I have yet to see a better solution for a public fundraiser anywhere else. I have not seen any evidence as of yet of Invictus being particularly frugal or irresponsible with those funds, but I'd be more than happy to be enlightened if you have some information we mere forum-dwellers do not.

When I invested in PTS, the deal was PTS got 20% and people with normal computers would mine the other 80%.  Heavily featured in the original marketing was the fact that Protoshares was an investment you could acquire through non-monetary means, which is to say you could run it on your computer and earn your shares instead of needing to buy them. 

That 80% was important to me, because I thought that Mastercoin had run into a fundamental problem in pre-selling ALL of the tokens which meant lots of people didn't like the project because they wern't invested in it and hadn't bothered to understand it.

Invictus's solution allowed them to raise funds and pre-price the Bitshares ecosystem investment through Protoshares which would then make it easier for them to raise money since their not-even-released product had a good market valuation.  Daniel, feel free to correct me on anything I'm wrong about here.

So when Angelshares came into play, that ratio went from mostly vesting stakeholders for "work" to vesting stakeholders for paying Invictus.   Because that "for your work" segment is no longer available, having been sold by Invictus, it means anybody coming into Bitshares now will have to buy them for real money up front instead of being able to just participate and be compensated at a minimal level as was promised.

Do you understand why Angelshares was bad for marketing when looking at it through my perspective?

Angelshares has been bad for the community for reason I've already described in detail - You said you agree with my stance about community involvement above but here you've said you don't know what my beef with Angelshares is.   Do you now understand?
   

Again I'd rather have the discussion about the past, present and future failings of Invictus in a dedicated thread with all information easily accessible, instead of having to tell people to read someones entire post history, expect them to wade to an unholy amount of incoherent and irrelevant rubbish and then suggest to enlighten them should they prove to be too stupid to know what I mean. Your posts should stand on their own and not need to be unlocked by your own personal "expertise", because as you say your person should be completely irrelevant to the discussion.


The reason I know so much about Bitshares and frankly all the other projects interesting to me is because I spend much of my time absorbing all the information, discussions, ideas and activity around all of them.  You are free to ignore me, I have not spoken to you once when you have not initiated.   

I don't want this to be about me, so I don't want to start a post.  I have articulated all of my concerns to Daniel, Stan and Invictus broadly since november when I told Daniel it was not necessary for Protoshares to be 100% open mining for it to be "fair" since the thing giving it value in the first place was his company.  I've tried it before being both helpful and critical and it never helps.  So now I post to educate people because they clearly do not understand the long term context of this project.   If you got excited about Bitshares because of DPOS, this is your project now for better or worse.



The worst part about all of this is, there's no more margin for error.  DPOS MUST work because so much time has been invested in this pivot after the previous pivot, TAPOS, ran into unforeseen, intractable problems.    Right or wrong, Invictus took this risk for all of us.
Email me at adam@letstalkbitcoin.com

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile

Do you think it is maybe a good idea to release a slightly flawed product and work out the bugs on the fly?  The point I am trying to make is that if you wait too long and there are other products out there that do basically the same thing. That consumer's get used to using they will just stick with what they have been using even though there  may be a better alternative.
I am a long term PTS holder and I believe in the company but I think not releasing a product when others in the same market are is a slippery slope. Look at gaming consoles, They are always released roughly around the same time of each other. If one company beats another to the market then that gives company a. traction with consumers. Now it does not always mean company a. will be better then company b. it just means they have a advantage that increases ever day.

But when one company comes up with a truly better mousetrap, or video game, it can trounce the competition and reform the industry. I think it is a good idea to let people do their jobs without a lot of interference. Because they know their jobs better than I do.

Offline JoeyD

I don't really care if you value my comments or not, I'm putting my complaints and suggestions on the record.   You can read my entire posting history and see all the context of my current irritation with Invictus.   If you have specific questions I'm happy to educate.

Nice.

For the record I did try asking nicely with sugar on top and this is your response. Sorry if I'm not part of your little club, but why in hell should I be bothered wasting my time researching each and every posts from someone who can't be bothered to explain his current comments or respond in a normal way. So if you don't care if your points come across, you consequently can't blame people for ignoring what you write.

Why would I want to be "educated" by you anyway, are you some computer science super genius or Nobel-price winner for economics? The whole reason I wanted to discus things with you is because I think you made some factual errors and that there are some actual real technical reasons why things can't work the way you want them to. I'm not particularly interested in a lesson in arrogance, I had my fair share of that in university.

It seems like you're taking things really personally, what exactly did I say that offended you?  I assumed you didn't want to take the time to get the full picture, which is why I offered to answer any specific questions you might have had.  Answering your question about stuff that I've taken the time to learn about and you haven't sure seems like education to me and yet you bristle at the term.   

Did you actually have any question, or do you just like complaining about me?
I'm not a native English speaker and was neither offended nor addressing you personally, which I think is impossible to do via forums anyway. It seems I completely failed in trying to communicate what I was trying to say, so I'll try again and add some specific examples, even-though I still think it would have been better to do so in a separate thread, instead of in response to a completely unrelated topic.

In your comments you assume too much and that is the very definition of arrogance (google translate assumption -> latin) and it gets in the way of some of the valid points you make and in the discussion afterwards.

I agree with most of your points about Invictus dropping the ball in regards to marketing, stimulating community involvement, attracting investment etcetera. However at the same time you completely destroy those points by stating as facts some of your personal assumptions that are dubious to say the least.

For example the statement that everything would have worked out fine if Invictus would have stuck to the plan. This is however not corroborated by any facts. Plans fail the moment you execute them and you are supposed to adapt after that. What you most definitely should not do, is stick to the plan after it failed. While you might have missed the statements Dan Larimer made regarding this and I agree that Invictus could and should have done a better job at communicating the reasons for the change of plans, your alternate, oversimplified and personal version of the situation does more harm then good at clearing things up.

Your proposed solution of going with some multi-staged, patch-work, unmaintainable, easily attacked and guaranteed to fail pow-blockchain and then migrating to a new POS-system, sounds completely ludicrous. If Invictus had gone that Dr. Frankenstein route I would have had no faith in their abilities and walked away laughing. Talk about waste of time, effort and resources and suicidal pr move.

Also I don't get what your beef with the AGS fundraiser is, especially seeing how PTS is still there. I have yet to see a better solution for a public fundraiser anywhere else. I have not seen any evidence as of yet of Invictus being particularly frugal or irresponsible with those funds, but I'd be more than happy to be enlightened if you have some information we mere forum-dwellers do not.

Again I'd rather have the discussion about the past, present and future failings of Invictus in a dedicated thread with all information easily accessible, instead of having to tell people to read someones entire post history, expect them to wade to an unholy amount of incoherent and irrelevant rubbish and then suggest to enlighten them should they prove to be too stupid to know what I mean. Your posts should stand on their own and not need to be unlocked by your own personal "expertise", because as you say your person should be completely irrelevant to the discussion.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2014, 01:20:02 pm by JoeyD »

Offline jwiz168

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 409
    • View Profile
IMO, a product with flaws must be corrected before launch. It will define the utmost stability and integrity of a product or service. Bytemaster is doing a great job so as the rest of the team. Focusing on one product though is a top priority to launch and it is a must.  Building the confidence of investors would in effect be a momentum boost for PTS and AGS.

Offline Gentso1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 931
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: gentso

At what point do the dev's look at each other in the room and say, geez guys we have missed all of our deadlines and other competing companies are releasing products and gaining market traction.  You can have the most revolutionary piece of tech  but if you show up to the party after everyone leaves well you are just standing in a room by yourself saying, "hey everyone look at my great product".

OK, they're late, I get it. But the other 2.0's you mention have all been flawed. If Bitshares gets this right, it will trounce the "competition". I'd rather they get it right than hurry something that has to keep rebooting/retooling/remarketing itself each time it upgrades. The real party has not yet begun.

Do you think it is maybe a good idea to release a slightly flawed product and work out the bugs on the fly?  The point I am trying to make is that if you wait too long and there are other products out there that do basically the same thing. That consumer's get used to using they will just stick with what they have been using even though there  may be a better alternative.
I am a long term PTS holder and I believe in the company but I think not releasing a product when others in the same market are is a slippery slope. Look at gaming consoles, They are always released roughly around the same time of each other. If one company beats another to the market then that gives company a. traction with consumers. Now it does not always mean company a. will be better then company b. it just means they have a advantage that increases ever day.

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani
DPOS is where I would like BTS to exist, at least if it works as planned.  If not, I'm sure they will try something else to attempt to achieve a similar effect.  Should be an interesting run of things though...

 +5% +5% +5%

Offline davidpbrown

I think this is like the old stock market where people curse at each other across the floor along with placing bids and sell orders

Perhaps, though it's possible not everyone has capability - there might be a third group that feels excluded. It's more likely that group will include the young frustrated, that we might hope would become more engaged in future. Tolerate the memes then ;D
฿://1CBxm54Ah5hiYxiUtD7JGYRXykT5Z6ZuMc

Offline fuzzy

I don't really care if you value my comments or not, I'm putting my complaints and suggestions on the record.   You can read my entire posting history and see all the context of my current irritation with Invictus.   If you have specific questions I'm happy to educate.

Nice.

For the record I did try asking nicely with sugar on top and this is your response. Sorry if I'm not part of your little club, but why in hell should I be bothered wasting my time researching each and every posts from someone who can't be bothered to explain his current comments or respond in a normal way. So if you don't care if your points come across, you consequently can't blame people for ignoring what you write.

Why would I want to be "educated" by you anyway, are you some computer science super genius or Nobel-price winner for economics? The whole reason I wanted to discus things with you is because I think you made some factual errors and that there are some actual real technical reasons why things can't work the way you want them to. I'm not particularly interested in a lesson in arrogance, I had my fair share of that in university.

It seems like you're taking things really personally, what exactly did I say that offended you?  I assumed you didn't want to take the time to get the full picture, which is why I offered to answer any specific questions you might have had.  Answering your question about stuff that I've taken the time to learn about and you haven't sure seems like education to me and yet you bristle at the term.   

Did you actually have any question, or do you just like complaining about me?

Adam is his own echo chamber

It sometimes feels that way.

I think this is like the old stock market where people curse at each other across the floor along with placing bids and sell orders

This is what I think...things are going fine, but most people are not that patient when used to seeing pump and dump coins coming up a dime a dozen and holding solid market caps despite little attempt at true innovation in the space. 
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3812.msg58018#msg58018  is an update on progress.  DPOS is where I would like BTS to exist, at least if it works as planned.  If not, I'm sure they will try something else to attempt to achieve a similar effect.  Should be an interesting run of things though...
« Last Edit: May 15, 2014, 09:15:48 am by fuznuts »
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline AdamBLevine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 492
    • View Profile
    • Let's Talk Bitcoin!
I don't really care if you value my comments or not, I'm putting my complaints and suggestions on the record.   You can read my entire posting history and see all the context of my current irritation with Invictus.   If you have specific questions I'm happy to educate.

Nice.

For the record I did try asking nicely with sugar on top and this is your response. Sorry if I'm not part of your little club, but why in hell should I be bothered wasting my time researching each and every posts from someone who can't be bothered to explain his current comments or respond in a normal way. So if you don't care if your points come across, you consequently can't blame people for ignoring what you write.

Why would I want to be "educated" by you anyway, are you some computer science super genius or Nobel-price winner for economics? The whole reason I wanted to discus things with you is because I think you made some factual errors and that there are some actual real technical reasons why things can't work the way you want them to. I'm not particularly interested in a lesson in arrogance, I had my fair share of that in university.

It seems like you're taking things really personally, what exactly did I say that offended you?  I assumed you didn't want to take the time to get the full picture, which is why I offered to answer any specific questions you might have had.  Answering your question about stuff that I've taken the time to learn about and you haven't sure seems like education to me and yet you bristle at the term.   

Did you actually have any question, or do you just like complaining about me?

Adam is his own echo chamber

It sometimes feels that way.
Email me at adam@letstalkbitcoin.com

Offline carpet ride

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 544
    • View Profile
I don't really care if you value my comments or not, I'm putting my complaints and suggestions on the record.   You can read my entire posting history and see all the context of my current irritation with Invictus.   If you have specific questions I'm happy to educate.

Nice.

For the record I did try asking nicely with sugar on top and this is your response. Sorry if I'm not part of your little club, but why in hell should I be bothered wasting my time researching each and every posts from someone who can't be bothered to explain his current comments or respond in a normal way. So if you don't care if your points come across, you consequently can't blame people for ignoring what you write.

Why would I want to be "educated" by you anyway, are you some computer science super genius or Nobel-price winner for economics? The whole reason I wanted to discus things with you is because I think you made some factual errors and that there are some actual real technical reasons why things can't work the way you want them to. I'm not particularly interested in a lesson in arrogance, I had my fair share of that in university.

It seems like you're taking things really personally, what exactly did I say that offended you?  I assumed you didn't want to take the time to get the full picture, which is why I offered to answer any specific questions you might have had.  Answering your question about stuff that I've taken the time to learn about and you haven't sure seems like education to me and yet you bristle at the term.   

Did you actually have any question, or do you just like complaining about me?

Adam is his own echo chamber
All opinions are my own. Anything said on this forum does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation between myself and anyone else.
Check out my blog: http://CertainAssets.com
Buy the ticket, take the ride.

Offline AdamBLevine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 492
    • View Profile
    • Let's Talk Bitcoin!
I don't really care if you value my comments or not, I'm putting my complaints and suggestions on the record.   You can read my entire posting history and see all the context of my current irritation with Invictus.   If you have specific questions I'm happy to educate.

Nice.

For the record I did try asking nicely with sugar on top and this is your response. Sorry if I'm not part of your little club, but why in hell should I be bothered wasting my time researching each and every posts from someone who can't be bothered to explain his current comments or respond in a normal way. So if you don't care if your points come across, you consequently can't blame people for ignoring what you write.

Why would I want to be "educated" by you anyway, are you some computer science super genius or Nobel-price winner for economics? The whole reason I wanted to discus things with you is because I think you made some factual errors and that there are some actual real technical reasons why things can't work the way you want them to. I'm not particularly interested in a lesson in arrogance, I had my fair share of that in university.

It seems like you're taking things really personally, what exactly did I say that offended you?  I assumed you didn't want to take the time to get the full picture, which is why I offered to answer any specific questions you might have had.  Answering your question about stuff that I've taken the time to learn about and you haven't sure seems like education to me and yet you bristle at the term.   

Did you actually have any question, or do you just like complaining about me?
« Last Edit: May 14, 2014, 10:36:26 pm by AdamBLevine »
Email me at adam@letstalkbitcoin.com