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.
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.
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!
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?
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.
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.
Topic: MaidSafe IPO on Mastercoin (Read 148722 times)
