Author Topic: MaidSafe IPO on Mastercoin  (Read 52818 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile
Re: MaidSafe IPO on Mastercoin
« Reply #285 on: May 16, 2014, 04:10:15 pm »

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 AdamBLevine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 492
    • View Profile
    • Let's Talk Bitcoin!
Re: MaidSafe IPO on Mastercoin
« Reply #286 on: May 16, 2014, 06:54:37 pm »

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 [email protected]

Offline Simeon II

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 355
    • View Profile
Re: MaidSafe IPO on Mastercoin
« Reply #287 on: May 16, 2014, 07:45:16 pm »
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 xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12915
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Re: MaidSafe IPO on Mastercoin
« Reply #288 on: May 16, 2014, 07:58:10 pm »
+plus .. releasing a blockchain is worth investigatin alot. I do not want a blockchain i.e. protocol to change after launch!!!!
Give BitShares a try! Use the http://testnet.bitshares.eu provided by http://bitshares.eu powered by ChainSquad GmbH

Offline bytemaster

Re: MaidSafe IPO on Mastercoin
« Reply #289 on: May 16, 2014, 09:58:18 pm »
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 liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani
Re: MaidSafe IPO on Mastercoin
« Reply #290 on: May 16, 2014, 10:39:09 pm »
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 AdamBLevine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 492
    • View Profile
    • Let's Talk Bitcoin!
Re: MaidSafe IPO on Mastercoin
« Reply #291 on: May 16, 2014, 10:52:41 pm »
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.

You're correct on the 10% vs. 20%, that was a mis-rememberence on my part.

Regarding the rest of it, wow Daniel, you really think I'm a greedy asshole, I had no idea.

In case anybody is wondering, I went by Lighthouse on the forums and was the first member providing escrow and large volume transaction at a time when Protoshares was not listed on any exchanges and had many scammers stealing bitcoin or PTS from new users.   

Taking this role, even under a completely reputation-less name led me to becoming a broker for a single large miner who contacted me on the forums (I openly bought from all miners and subsequently met a lot of them).  All of my trades happened before November 18th, so less than two weeks after launch and well before the move away from POW was discussed. 

I performed this service until it stopped being required, and then I stopped performing it because I was only doing it to provide the trust to enable the market.  Actually you Daniel were my last volume customer, and were my most frequent customer so really it seems like you would only have paid me if I was providing you a service.
Why would you have bought from me if I was exploitative, did I have a monopoly?  Was I even mining myself?  No.  Nobody even knew I have a show, which is why I didn't use my real name.  Later I switched to my real name because I wanted my concerns to be on the record because it was obvious Invictus was missing deadlines and not responding to gentle prodding.

So thanks for giving just enough information that I need to out myself in order to provide proper context to defend my reputation.   


Quote
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).
Having read my perspective, I hope that you correct this assessment.   I very much liked the idea of the Bitshares project as it was described which involved a minority of shares being designated for the PTS holders and most of them available to people through non-monetary means.      The goal was to make it so everyone could mine, remember?   I don't really get how mis-calibrating the first attempt means you throw out the entire notion and come up with something new.

Hell, I'm not even against coming up with something new - I just don't understand why it took precedence over developing the core Bitshares technology which is based around assets, betting etc.   Nothing to do with transactional lower level stuff.

I think I've made my case really clearly Daniel, you quoted one small section of my very long and detailed reply and then dismissed my entire perspective by dropping incomplete disclosure of previously non-public information .   Do you have any responses to the actual meat of it, or are we just throwing mud at this point? 

Also, are all off-the-record conversations now on-the-record?
« Last Edit: May 16, 2014, 11:05:38 pm by AdamBLevine »
Email me at [email protected]

Offline bytemaster

Re: MaidSafe IPO on Mastercoin
« Reply #292 on: May 16, 2014, 11:11:02 pm »
Adam,
   I don't think you are a greedy asshole and obviously your service was very much appreciated under that model.   My only point was that even in the middle of things where you had first hand knowledge of how mining was really distributing the PTS you still favor it as a distribution model.  To think that you could solve this by technical means is a testament to it not being your area of expertise.

   You had no need to out yourself to defend yourself.  When I mentioned you above, I was merely pointing out that you have performed that function and that if you don't perform it then someone else will (Cryptsy, Bter, etc).   

   I and others on this forum have a very hard time understanding you and your motivations because you say you support BTS and want us to be successful and then show up as the most controversial member on the forum.  I know it isn't me because everyone else is confused about your stance. 

   I am a firm believer in not making assumptions about peoples motives and to the extent that I do that I apologize.   In these forums most of what we see is projection from ourself onto what others are saying.  Learning to recognize that it applies to yourself and others could help keep things civil and productive in conversations.

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 bytemaster

Re: MaidSafe IPO on Mastercoin
« Reply #293 on: May 16, 2014, 11:33:54 pm »
Quote
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).

Yeah, that was a cheap shot... and actually doesn't reflect what I really think because I know you better.   But if I were an independent onlooker it is the conclusion I would draw if I wanted to make assumptions about your motivations.   Nothing else makes sense and that is why I am so confused by you.   

I know you intend well and have good motives and are an honorable man but for the life of me the things you say on this forum confuse me.
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 AdamBLevine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 492
    • View Profile
    • Let's Talk Bitcoin!
Re: MaidSafe IPO on Mastercoin
« Reply #294 on: May 16, 2014, 11:40:24 pm »
Adam,
   I don't think you are a greedy asshole and obviously your service was very much appreciated under that model.   My only point was that even in the middle of things where you had first hand knowledge of how mining was really distributing the PTS you still favor it as a distribution model.  To think that you could solve this by technical means is a testament to it not being your area of expertise.

   You had no need to out yourself to defend yourself.  When I mentioned you above, I was merely pointing out that you have performed that function and that if you don't perform it then someone else will (Cryptsy, Bter, etc).   

   I and others on this forum have a very hard time understanding you and your motivations because you say you support BTS and want us to be successful and then show up as the most controversial member on the forum.  I know it isn't me because everyone else is confused about your stance. 

   I am a firm believer in not making assumptions about peoples motives and to the extent that I do that I apologize.   In these forums most of what we see is projection from ourself onto what others are saying.  Learning to recognize that it applies to yourself and others could help keep things civil and productive in conversations.

A big part of the Bitshares project was to make mining so that a person with a normal computer could do it.  I thought PTS was the first experiment in this, not the only one.  When it failed, 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.  Do I remember that wrong? 

I am the most controversial member of this forum (if you say so) because this forum is very hostile to users who do not think you know absolutely what you're doing.  Look through old posts, you'll find them and note that they all left.   Most people pick a project, maybe two and stick with it.  I pick all the projects, invest in them all and try to help them all when they are doing the wrong thing.  Look at NXT or Counterparty's forums and you'll see the same thing.  I don't currently comment on Ethereum because they're doing just fine. 

I'm sorry I don't think you're doing a great job with Invictus, I really really don't.  This project is by far in last place when compared against the serious players in the space and impugning my motives just further pushes away one of your biggest supporters.

Quote
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).

Yeah, that was a cheap shot... and actually doesn't reflect what I really think because I know you better.   But if I were an independent onlooker it is the conclusion I would draw if I wanted to make assumptions about your motivations.   Nothing else makes sense and that is why I am so confused by you.   

I know you intend well and have good motives and are an honorable man but for the life of me the things you say on this forum confuse me.

My motives are simple, I disagree with the direction and think people have lost sight of the original vision because all the critical observers like myself have left since they have other options of projects to spend their time on.   

I appreciate the clarification, I was pretty shocked that you would think that about me.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2014, 11:42:15 pm by AdamBLevine »
Email me at [email protected]

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile
Re: MaidSafe IPO on Mastercoin
« Reply #295 on: May 16, 2014, 11:43:26 pm »

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
Re: MaidSafe IPO on Mastercoin
« Reply #296 on: May 16, 2014, 11:49:02 pm »
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.

You're correct on the 10% vs. 20%, that was a mis-rememberence on my part.

Regarding the rest of it, wow Daniel, you really think I'm a greedy asshole, I had no idea.

In case anybody is wondering, I went by Lighthouse on the forums and was the first member providing escrow and large volume transaction at a time when Protoshares was not listed on any exchanges and had many scammers stealing bitcoin or PTS from new users.   

Taking this role, even under a completely reputation-less name led me to becoming a broker for a single large miner who contacted me on the forums (I openly bought from all miners and subsequently met a lot of them).  All of my trades happened before November 18th, so less than two weeks after launch and well before the move away from POW was discussed. 

I performed this service until it stopped being required, and then I stopped performing it because I was only doing it to provide the trust to enable the market.  Actually you Daniel were my last volume customer, and were my most frequent customer so really it seems like you would only have paid me if I was providing you a service.
Why would you have bought from me if I was exploitative, did I have a monopoly?  Was I even mining myself?  No.  Nobody even knew I have a show, which is why I didn't use my real name.  Later I switched to my real name because I wanted my concerns to be on the record because it was obvious Invictus was missing deadlines and not responding to gentle prodding.

So thanks for giving just enough information that I need to out myself in order to provide proper context to defend my reputation.   


Quote
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).
Having read my perspective, I hope that you correct this assessment.   I very much liked the idea of the Bitshares project as it was described which involved a minority of shares being designated for the PTS holders and most of them available to people through non-monetary means.      The goal was to make it so everyone could mine, remember?   I don't really get how mis-calibrating the first attempt means you throw out the entire notion and come up with something new.

Hell, I'm not even against coming up with something new - I just don't understand why it took precedence over developing the core Bitshares technology which is based around assets, betting etc.   Nothing to do with transactional lower level stuff.

I think I've made my case really clearly Daniel, you quoted one small section of my very long and detailed reply and then dismissed my entire perspective by dropping incomplete disclosure of previously non-public information .   Do you have any responses to the actual meat of it, or are we just throwing mud at this point? 

Also, are all off-the-record conversations now on-the-record?

you have done a lot for BTS and your approach to media with your LTB model is great but this
Quote
available to people through non-monetary means. The goal was to make it so everyone could mine, remember?
doesn't make any sense. And you keep on insisting on that...
Mining has NOTHING to do with non-monetary means and even less with equality. Mining just raises the barrier of entry (because profitable mining equipment is expensive these days) and it adds a cost to the overall (distribution and transaction) system.

The goal of PTS was CPU mining. As far as I know you need a good GPU now. I don't have one and I guess most would have to buy one as well. That doesnt even matter though. Even if it was profitable with a CPU, money-means are just sent through another arbitrary loop this way. You can just buy thousands of CPUs put them in a data center if you have a lot of money and get shares in return for your money. The only difference is that the money that is paid to burn fossil fuels, the margin of the electricity companies and a little margin for the miner because of the barrier for entry to mining could be used for developing the ecosystem and to profit the shareholders.

You also say that "asking for cash" is bad. I don't see why. This is capitalism at it's core. You invest in order to grow a vision effectively. If anyone has reason not to trust the entity that is asking for money to develope a product just don't invest. 

See my reply to one of your earlier posts here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4292.msg54258#msg54258
Quote
But is mining getting rid of the need to have money to buy in? If mining would give it al the the average guy I would be all for mining. But in the end mining gives the coins just to those that can afford mining equipement that is efficient enough to be run economically. In the end miners are professionals that invest in equipment that bring coins into existence and then sell those coins for a price above electricity costs. If you can not afford this mining equipment you have to buy the coins from the professional miners for the market value of there was no mining + the electricity costs of the miner + a small margin. In the end you can not avoid to distribute the coins based on peoples buying power (money) but making an IPO in addition gives you capital so you can speed up the development process (I am sure dev. would be far back if it would be just Dan coding) and promote the idea to get a wider supporter base....
 

What is the empirical basis for that?
Quote
I'm sorry I don't think you're doing a great job with Invictus, I really really don't.  This project is by far in last place when compared against the serious players in the space and impugning my motives just further pushes away one of your biggest supporters.

Could you summarize your critique points?
« Last Edit: May 16, 2014, 11:58:30 pm by delulo »

Offline bytemaster

Re: MaidSafe IPO on Mastercoin
« Reply #297 on: May 16, 2014, 11:58:31 pm »


LOL... exactly how I feel.   

Quote
lost sight of the original vision

Mining and POW was just a means to my end (decentralization) which is different than your end (some kind of non-monetary way to get involved).    One day you will realize that money is an illusion and that everything is barter, charity, destruction, or theft.    POW is a terrible combination of  barter for destruction in exchange for giveaways.  At the time all I understood was POW for security and POS was some unproven thing that I didn't fully understand.  Peercoin was hybrid so I thought it didn't really solve the mining problem.


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 AdamBLevine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 492
    • View Profile
    • Let's Talk Bitcoin!
Re: MaidSafe IPO on Mastercoin
« Reply #298 on: May 17, 2014, 12:04:02 am »
A big part of the vision was the democratization of mining, so by "non-monetary" I mean you don't have to get out your credit card, you just have to run your personal computer just like early Bitcoin mining except the goal was to design a system that would not have the scaling arms race we've seen with everything else.

The whole REASON for protoshares was to make as many people stakeholders in what Invictus was doing as possible, because that represented a huge distribution base they could then use to extract the terms in the Social Contract from others who wanted to use their audience.   it was going to be the system that was most fairly and broadly distributed and so have instant network effect for new coins who work with it.

You don't remember this because it was abandoned with little fanfare and now there is no concept of an individual doing anything besides buying on an exchange to get vested.   Despite you not knowing about it, at one point not too long ago it was a major part of Invictus's entire market outlook, and one I think was not incorrect.  Someone is more interested in a crypto-token if they can get some for "free" and then learn about it after they have it than learn about it first then spend money to buy it. 

Anyhow, If you have specific questions I'll answer them but I really think I've explained my train of thought many times.   Do you still not see why this was a reactionary deviation from the plan?
Email me at [email protected]

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
Re: MaidSafe IPO on Mastercoin
« Reply #299 on: May 17, 2014, 12:31:52 am »
A big part of the vision was the democratization of mining, so by "non-monetary" I mean you don't have to get out your credit card, you just have to run your personal computer just like early Bitcoin mining except the goal was to design a system that would not have the scaling arms race we've seen with everything else.

The whole REASON for protoshares was to make as many people stakeholders in what Invictus was doing as possible, because that represented a huge distribution base they could then use to extract the terms in the Social Contract from others who wanted to use their audience.   it was going to be the system that was most fairly and broadly distributed and so have instant network effect for new coins who work with it.

You don't remember this because it was abandoned with little fanfare and now there is no concept of an individual doing anything besides buying on an exchange to get vested. Despite you not knowing about it, at one point not too long ago it was a major part of Invictus's entire market outlook, and one I think was not incorrect.  Someone is more interested in a crypto-token if they can get some for "free" and then learn about it after they have it than learn about it first then spend money to buy it. 

Anyhow, If you have specific questions I'll answer them but I really think I've explained my train of thought many times. Do you still not see why this was a reactionary deviation from the plan?

Quote
A big part of the vision was the democratization of mining, so by "non-monetary" I mean you don't have to get out your credit card, you just have to run your personal computer just like early Bitcoin mining except the goal was to design a system that would not have the scaling arms race we've seen with everything else.
I believe this is not possible at all. What we know is that many tried it over time (Litecoin, Protoshares, who else?) and failed miserably. Economies of scale and ever ongoing techn. developement plays against us there.

Quote
The whole REASON for protoshares was to make as many people stakeholders in what Invictus was doing as possible, because that represented a huge distribution base they could then use to extract the terms in the Social Contract from others who wanted to use their audience.   it was going to be the system that was most fairly and broadly distributed and so have instant network effect for new coins who work with it.
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.
 

Quote
You don't remember this because it was abandoned with little fanfare and now there is no concept of an individual doing anything besides buying on an exchange to get vested. Despite you not knowing about it, at one point not too long ago it was a major part of Invictus's entire market outlook, and one I think was not incorrect.  Someone is more interested in a crypto-token if they can get some for "free" and then learn about it after they have it than learn about it first then spend money to buy it. 
You mean it was Invictus' market outlook to get a fair distribution?
A agree with the last sentence in the quote above in so far there is some (irrational) gamification involved in mining. But you still call it getting something "for free". Mined tokens are not free! Please feel free to contend the above on a rational basis. The costs of mined tokens are: Initial investment for mining equipement + electricity costs. There are professionals that do this today - and home users can not compete while not making a loss - who sell the mined tokens with a little margin. They seem free under one circumstance though: When very little people know about it compared to their value / potential value increase. But that has nothing to do with mining / POW vs. POS. When no one knew about NXT (POS) is was also cheap as hell as Bitcoin (POW) was...

Quote
Anyhow, If you have specific questions I'll answer them but I really think I've explained my train of thought many times.   Do you still not see why this was a reactionary deviation from the plan?
I did recognize your arguments. I replied to the two I could identify (mining helps for fair distribution or can help to achieve that goal; taking money is a bad thing). Are there more (tbh I am interested my self because I like to be critical towards everything too)?  I don't think it is a deviation from the original plan if you can abstract from the very specific announcements that were made and see it more in abstract terms like: Decentralization and control of ownership, building DACS, a working decentralized Bank and Exchange. With any complex project there is a need to adapt over time as problems are solved over time. It's the NATURE of it. I agree with you that a fair/even distribution can not only be seen as a means but an end. But like I said above, mining is surely not a solution there. 
« Last Edit: May 17, 2014, 12:43:01 am by delulo »