Today .I made a too bad mistake

[clout]

Because Daniel decided mining is dead, and that's been the technological focus ever since.   Mining will eventually be phased out, but it should NEVER have replaced the core mission of delivering Bitshares (X), and it clearly did.

the mission of bitshares x is to create a profitable dac. profitability is hampered by mining. it is essential to discard it.

Thats like starting a car company, deciding that wheels are inefficient and we should be using hover-cars instead.  The founder of the company has a great idea to make hover-cars, so instead of making cars (as promised) they push towards the goal of hover-cars with blown deadlines as (gasp) turns out it's difficult to do something completely outside the box and everything is (gasp) untested.  Might have been easier to start with building cars with wheels, selling those and then developing the hover technology in the background so you've no pressure to release it until its ready.   

The analogy is quite apt because although mining may be obsolete and inefficient, it's still the best and most tested option we have available given our current needs. Hovering is much better than driving, but we're still driving.

You really don't have to believe me, I just don't want you to be miseducated.  So long as you know all the facts you're welcome to think I'm whatever type of terrible person you'd like.

No the analogy is not apt because it is hyperbole. In fact I think that mining is the hover car approach and bitshares consensus processes is like the wheel. The hover car is too costly and over complicates the product when it can be easily simplified. Everyone is so preoccupied with the hover car because it floats but they do not see how slow it moves when compared to a car with wheels. So to are people preoccupied with mining because it uses a mathmatical algorithm to distribute the "currency" instead of a central bank. Nevermind that is inflationary when people claim that is deflationary. Nevermind that it costly when there are system (nxt, ripple) that do not bear those cost. And never mind that those systems are all much more efficient transaction processors than btc.

Another reason why I say the dpos model is like the wheel is because we already use delegated governing system in the US. It is flawed because of the scope of the delegates responsibilities, but where it draws its strengths is its system of checks and balances and the decentralization of power. These are issues that we have already figured out for the purpose of optimally decentralized consensus. Mining is an over complicated reinvention of consensus technology.

[amencon]

sigh. 

I believe that mining would have served the purpose of enabling transactions in a reliable, proven way for Bitshares and that over time they could have moved to a Proof of Stake model if that is what is desirable.  They are doing this now with PTS so it's not like I'm inventing something that would never happen.

Daniel and I spoke extensively about a post-mining world in December, I am very much a proponant of this view - but I am also a pragmatic investor who supported a concept that did in fact involve mining and more importantly that would be distribution 90% of the total tokens through non-monetary means.  That is to say, people don't have to buy Bitshares to get bitshares, they just have to run their computer.  Remember this was also when the Invictus refrain was that Bitshares would be the coin EVERYBODY could mine and get vested in for just some of their time.

That was a whole three months ago so most people here have forgotten.   As I like to say, when you leave money on the table in an open source world you're inviting someone well suited to come along and build a business picking up that money - that 90% was important because it's the ultimate onboarding mechanism.  A taste for free, if they're believers the efficient thing to do is buy a bunch.

When Angelshares rolled out, I suggested it be 10% to match the 10% of PTS but rather than take a middle step, we went 100% to the other extreme.

It should also be noted we only launched Angelshares because Invictus didn't get many Protoshares, because they wanted EVERYTHING to be as fair as possible which meant not taking any of the tokens.   I suggested several times prior to launch taking 10-25% of the tokens since after all the Invictus company was the entity giving value to PTS.   They didn't want to do that because they were too extreme in the other direction, so Angelshares was an unfortunate 100% shift from TOTALLY INCLUSIVE to TOTALLY MONETARY.

This was sold as "a better deal" because it increased the share from 10% to 50% for PTS holders, but it's like 50% of a much much smaller pie.   My cries of "Don't change the deal" are attempts to explain this - When you make the deal better for ANY PARTY, you are making it worse for someone else.   When you take money that would otherwise be left on the table, you remove the opportunity for someone to build a business picking it up.   That's the Bitshares ecosystem in a nutshell, Invictus hoovered up all the money with Angelshares and now they're doing stuff we hope will work with zero accountability.

Hmm interesting, thanks for the recap.  When I learned of Bitshares and I3 I think AGS was launched already (or it wasn't but was by the time I wrapped my head around what I3 was trying to do and how to invest in their plans).

Even if it feels to you like a total echo chamber on these forums at times, I hope you stick around and continue to voice your opinion on matters.  Reading through this thread I had no idea who "Adam B Levine" was but your complaints are well articulated and I think can bring out healthy discussion as I've learned a bit reading these last pages that I apparently missed over the last few months.

I'm a big fan of what I3 is doing here and in response to criticisms and problems I've appreciated the attitudes taken by BM, Stan and Toast.  I'm hopeful that the wait will materialize as a superior product(s) but am anxious to see something produced.

While I see the merits of Invictus pushing out a product sooner that can be forked later to a better consensus security mechanism, I also see why it would be attractive to work through the problems first to lay solid ground work for Bitshares X before releasing it to be used in the wild.

When you hear or read about "Bitcoin 2.0" technologies, Bitshares seem to rarely be mentioned in any appreciable ratio to Ethereum or Mastercoin or NXT.  As an investor of Bitshares this concerns me the same way it does for you, but I am hopeful that Dan's extra time spent will allow a truly unique and solid product to be release before too long.  A complete, working technology that can be marketed well without the confusion of coming future forks due it coming out half baked.

I don't think I had the same expectations you did when investing with I3, but can understand how the current state of affairs doesn't match with the original vision that was allegedly sold to you.

We will see how things turn out, I'm optimistic good things will happen soon, but I'm also diversified in my investments in case they don't.

[AdamBLevine]

Because Daniel decided mining is dead, and that's been the technological focus ever since.   Mining will eventually be phased out, but it should NEVER have replaced the core mission of delivering Bitshares (X), and it clearly did.

the mission of bitshares x is to create a profitable dac. profitability is hampered by mining. it is essential to discard it.

Thats like starting a car company, deciding that wheels are inefficient and we should be using hover-cars instead.  The founder of the company has a great idea to make hover-cars, so instead of making cars (as promised) they push towards the goal of hover-cars with blown deadlines as (gasp) turns out it's difficult to do something completely outside the box and everything is (gasp) untested.  Might have been easier to start with building cars with wheels, selling those and then developing the hover technology in the background so you've no pressure to release it until its ready.   

The analogy is quite apt because although mining may be obsolete and inefficient, it's still the best and most tested option we have available given our current needs. Hovering is much better than driving, but we're still driving.

You really don't have to believe me, I just don't want you to be miseducated.  So long as you know all the facts you're welcome to think I'm whatever type of terrible person you'd like.

[clout]

Because Daniel decided mining is dead, and that's been the technological focus ever since.   Mining will eventually be phased out, but it should NEVER have replaced the core mission of delivering Bitshares (X), and it clearly did.

the mission of bitshares x is to create a profitable dac. profitability is hampered by mining. it is essential to discard it.

[clout]

sigh. 

I believe that mining would have served the purpose of enabling transactions in a reliable, proven way for Bitshares and that over time they could have moved to a Proof of Stake model if that is what is desirable.  They are doing this now with PTS so it's not like I'm inventing something that would never happen.

Daniel and I spoke extensively about a post-mining world in December, I am very much a proponant of this view - but I am also a pragmatic investor who supported a concept that did in fact involve mining and more importantly that would be distribution 90% of the total tokens through non-monetary means.  That is to say, people don't have to buy Bitshares to get bitshares, they just have to run their computer.  Remember this was also when the Invictus refrain was that Bitshares would be the coin EVERYBODY could mine and get vested in for just some of their time.

I did not invest in bitshares when they proposed momentum mining algorithm. Even then I did not see value in mining. I think it is important to understand the big picture. Mining was supposed to be a means or distributing shares, however it is one that lends itself to centralization and the momentum algorithm could not prevent that. Instead I3 implemented the ags donation system allows for smaller investors to acquire more equity then they otherwise would have given mining. I understand why you would think mining ostensibly provides a fair distribution of shares, but it does not. Satoshi first conceived of pow as one-cpu one-vote consensus mechanism but it has since strayed from that vision

That was a whole three months ago so most people here have forgotten.   As I like to say, when you leave money on the table in an open source world you're inviting someone well suited to come along and build a business picking up that money - that 90% was important because it's the ultimate onboarding mechanism.  A taste for free, if they're believers the efficient thing to do is buy a bunch.

I would liken this approach to the viral marketing approach of the dot-com era. The mindset was to expand (or at least attempt to) the customer base as quickly as possible even if it meant producing large losses. Relying on mining to achieve this expansion of the community is a more costly approach than ags funding. When it comes down to it, the fundamentals just do not support mining

When Angelshares rolled out, I suggested it be 10% to match the 10% of PTS but rather than take a middle step, we went 100% to the other extreme.

This is better for the investors and promotes the community around DAC development. This helped you as an investor. I find it very hard to agree with your disappointment with it

It should also be noted we only launched Angelshares because Invictus didn't get many Protoshares, because they wanted EVERYTHING to be as fair as possible which meant not taking any of the tokens.   I suggested several times prior to launch taking 10-25% of the tokens since after all the Invictus company was the entity giving value to PTS.   They didn't want to do that because they were too extreme in the other direction, so Angelshares was an unfortunate 100% shift from TOTALLY INCLUSIVE to TOTALLY MONETARY.

How is pts totally inclusive? I can't mine any. I'd be better off purchasing them from an exchange. The notion that mining is inclusive is a fallacy

This was sold as "a better deal" because it increased the share from 10% to 50% for PTS holders, but it's like 50% of a much much smaller pie.

This just doesnt make sense. You get more shares of xts and those shares are never devalued. It is better in all respects. There is no down side

My cries of "Don't change the deal" are attempts to explain this - When you make the deal better for ANY PARTY, you are making it worse for someone else.

In this case it makes it worse for those that would disproportionately benefit from the inherent centralization of mining. So what if they fired the miners because a more efficient system can do there job better and less costly. Do you advocate reinstating ppl in positions that were made irrelevant by technological unemployment? No because that is not sound economics, and the free markets do not support it.

When you take money that would otherwise be left on the table, you remove the opportunity for someone to build a business picking it up.   

How is any money left on the table? When Dan launched pts he couldn't even accumulate enough to finance his own project so how could mining possible help build dac business more than ags. There is no money left on the table, only money left in the miners hands, and those individuals are focused on one thing mining, not development of dac businesses.

That's the Bitshares ecosystem in a nutshell, Invictus hoovered up all the money with Angelshares and now they're doing stuff we hope will work with zero accountability.

You're just not that convincing...

[tonyk]

I do not know if he has pro-mining ones but the one I resently quated have nothing to do with it.

Actually Adam is:
Somebody that puts my thoughts in better English than I could ever do.
Sometimes I wish I could send him my thoughts so he can mix them with his (or not) and post them on this forum…
He is the ‘important minority’ that tries to keep you all going overboard with love and exuberant expectations.

Here is a great post of his that I sign after:
 I wish Daniel had focused on delivering Bitshares as envisioned and then created subsequent versions or products that incorporate these elements.  That is what I signed on for, not "whatever daniel larimer thinks is a good idea this week".    The delays have been because the focus and method has constantly pivoted to be "the best possible" when in reality not having launched the product we don't even know what is best and if these "improvements" are making things better or worse, since we've never had an opportunity to see a product to compare against.

You have faith in Daniel, the people who remain on these forums clearly do which is why it's an echo chamber and people with dissenting views find themselves shouted down by the people who are passionate about the bitshares vision instead of pragmatic about the reality.      I'm using these 2.0 products every day (projects on Mastercoin, Counterparty, I'm working with the NXT and Ethereum communities), this is not a hypothetical situation.   

Bitshares was in first, and now they're in last - Even Ethereum has highly functional test code out for interested parties to build contracts on, why are we reinventing the transaction processing wheel?   

Because Daniel decided mining is dead, and that's been the technological focus ever since.   Mining will eventually be phased out, but it should NEVER have replaced the core mission of delivering Bitshares, and it clearly did.

Bitshares was in first, and now they're in last - Even Ethereum has highly functional test code out for interested parties to build contracts on, while are we ...Improving our non-existent code (building up on something that so far exists only in BM’s head)

Because Daniel decided mining is dead, and that's been the technological focus ever since.   Mining will eventually be phased out, but it should NEVER have replaced the core mission of delivering Bitshares (X), and it clearly did.

[tonyk]

Hey tonyk, brief response to those posts:

#1: it seems like all of your points depend on a scheme which is critically vulnerable to sybil attacks...

The solution I suggest is based on the following premises: 95% of all wallets are honest actors. Those are people that just download the standard wallet and start using it – making no modification to any aspect of the way such wallet is supposed to behave (among other things is not trying to gain the system).
Additionally the system by design makes the transactions with the oldest balance holders the most likely to be awarded the right to make a block. What this achieves is one of the most important features of this suggestion. – It strongly de–incentivizes cheating players! Who will make changes to the software and then wait to be having very old balance to have a chance at cheating?

#2... XT snapshot will not change, get over it. I've read 5-10 posts where Stan outlines all the reasoning for this decision in great detail and addresses a superset of the complaints you presented.


To be honest I am surprised and satisfied that these are the most valuable neglected posts you could find.

#1 Thanks that is finally an answer !!!
I do disagree with the assessment though: Even if one presents itself with multiple identities, then s(he) has to do what? Wait for 6-9 months, for the benefit of not including a transaction in the current block???

#2 The statement I expect from BM is :  1. Even though our decision to go with 02/28 snapshot resulted in increase of our shares by 50% this was not the purpose of choosing this early date. 2. The money generated allowed me to pursue bigger/better ideas in the long run, as well  as to think about  improving the product, instead of working hard coding to provide the promised (even inferior) product as fast as possible.

[AdamBLevine]

sigh. 

I believe that mining would have served the purpose of enabling transactions in a reliable, proven way for Bitshares and that over time they could have moved to a Proof of Stake model if that is what is desirable.  They are doing this now with PTS so it's not like I'm inventing something that would never happen.

Daniel and I spoke extensively about a post-mining world in December, I am very much a proponant of this view - but I am also a pragmatic investor who supported a concept that did in fact involve mining and more importantly that would be distribution 90% of the total tokens through non-monetary means.  That is to say, people don't have to buy Bitshares to get bitshares, they just have to run their computer.  Remember this was also when the Invictus refrain was that Bitshares would be the coin EVERYBODY could mine and get vested in for just some of their time.

That was a whole three months ago so most people here have forgotten.   As I like to say, when you leave money on the table in an open source world you're inviting someone well suited to come along and build a business picking up that money - that 90% was important because it's the ultimate onboarding mechanism.  A taste for free, if they're believers the efficient thing to do is buy a bunch.

When Angelshares rolled out, I suggested it be 10% to match the 10% of PTS but rather than take a middle step, we went 100% to the other extreme.

It should also be noted we only launched Angelshares because Invictus didn't get many Protoshares, because they wanted EVERYTHING to be as fair as possible which meant not taking any of the tokens.   I suggested several times prior to launch taking 10-25% of the tokens since after all the Invictus company was the entity giving value to PTS.   They didn't want to do that because they were too extreme in the other direction, so Angelshares was an unfortunate 100% shift from TOTALLY INCLUSIVE to TOTALLY MONETARY.

This was sold as "a better deal" because it increased the share from 10% to 50% for PTS holders, but it's like 50% of a much much smaller pie.   My cries of "Don't change the deal" are attempts to explain this - When you make the deal better for ANY PARTY, you are making it worse for someone else.   When you take money that would otherwise be left on the table, you remove the opportunity for someone to build a business picking it up.   That's the Bitshares ecosystem in a nutshell, Invictus hoovered up all the money with Angelshares and now they're doing stuff we hope will work with zero accountability.

[clout]

I do not know if he has pro-mining ones but the one I resently quated have nothing to do with it.

Actually Adam is:
Somebody that puts my thoughts in better English than I could ever do.
Sometimes I wish I could send him my thoughts so he can mix them with his (or not) and post them on this forum…
He is the ‘important minority’ that tries to keep you all going overboard with love and exuberant expectations.

Here is a great post of his that I sign after:
 I wish Daniel had focused on delivering Bitshares as envisioned and then created subsequent versions or products that incorporate these elements.  That is what I signed on for, not "whatever daniel larimer thinks is a good idea this week".    The delays have been because the focus and method has constantly pivoted to be "the best possible" when in reality not having launched the product we don't even know what is best and if these "improvements" are making things better or worse, since we've never had an opportunity to see a product to compare against.

You have faith in Daniel, the people who remain on these forums clearly do which is why it's an echo chamber and people with dissenting views find themselves shouted down by the people who are passionate about the bitshares vision instead of pragmatic about the reality.      I'm using these 2.0 products every day (projects on Mastercoin, Counterparty, I'm working with the NXT and Ethereum communities), this is not a hypothetical situation.   

Bitshares was in first, and now they're in last - Even Ethereum has highly functional test code out for interested parties to build contracts on, why are we reinventing the transaction processing wheel?   

Because Daniel decided mining is dead, and that's been the technological focus ever since.   Mining will eventually be phased out, but it should NEVER have replaced the core mission of delivering Bitshares, and it clearly did.

[当年很厉害]

We appreciate BM's understanding and response.

[tonyk]

tonyk, they stop responding to you when you stop making sense. your arguments have often strayed from logic.
I
 know that my logic is hard to follow but it does not mean there is not one.  Said logic is also the correct one – I was accused of circular logic i.e. accusing 3i of achieving sharp increase in donations at one point and not getting all that they can get in the long run – I explained this (and can do it again for those willing to listen). I also accused 3i of not so much getting undeserved share of BTS X but pretending to offer 50/50 for BTS and AGS and using manipulations to gain advantage i.e. bigger share (provable by everyone who checks but left by no comment by BM)
As for Addam he might have an agenda but most of his post bare truth and wisdom. Although repetitively smashed by the ‘all knowing’, ’all trusting majority’, his post are indeed helpful, I might say needed for a healthy BisShares society. I do not know if he has pro-mining ones but the one I resently quated have nothing to do with it.

[gamey]

Looking at the players on the field, I don't think Bitshares is even making a play for technological dominance.    They're focused on profitable businesses, but the irony is they're building the platform and shouldn't be concerned about profitable businesses.  People will build profitable businesses on top of what Invictus builds, which is why attracting an early entrepreneurial community was supposed to be really important.

the problem is you are arguing from belief, I can't help you with that because I'm arguing from what I see and the picture is bigger than Invictus.   How can I argue with your faith?  I can't, and even if I could you're not the person I wish I could influence.

You are using a bit of a strawman here.  I have many of my own criticisms about I3/Bitshares.  Many which overlap your own.  I like Dan's approach, but I agree they are losing some key aspects.  However, I don't think those losing aspects are about "changing the rules".  Which is what I always hear from you.

I have no idea if Dan's approach is correct because he is still working on it.  Is that bad?  Not necessarily.

 I think you are right in a lot of ways.  Perhaps if I ever implement a DAC it won't be with Bitshares..   Options just continue to increase as time goes on.

I do feel like I have a stronger influence as a dev here, over other organizations.

If you have no interest in influencing me then why are you stating such?  I am not sure why you respond to me if thats the case...

IMO, your arguments are increasingly without direction.  I am not trying to be rude, but you say echo chamber, arguing from beliefs vs your "big picture", etc. I feel an ugly turn in this conversation, and it is not where I intended to go.   I wish I knew more about all the alternatives, but it takes time. 

Perhaps I should listen more to your podcast !?

GL with your shows and investments.  I am just a fanboy of Bitshares and irrelevant.

 gnight!

[toast]

Hey tonyk, brief response to those posts:

#1: it seems like all of your points depend on a scheme which is critically vulnerable to sybil attacks...

The solution I suggest is based on the following premises: 95% of all wallets are honest actors. Those are people that just download the standard wallet and start using it – making no modification to any aspect of the way such wallet is supposed to behave (among other things is not trying to gain the system).
Additionally the system by design makes the transactions with the oldest balance holders the most likely to be awarded the right to make a block. What this achieves is one of the most important features of this suggestion. – It strongly de–incentivizes cheating players! Who will make changes to the software and then wait to be having very old balance to have a chance at cheating?

#2... XT snapshot will not change, get over it. I've read 5-10 posts where Stan outlines all the reasoning for this decision in great detail and addresses a superset of the complaints you presented.


To be honest I am surprised and satisfied that these are the most valuable neglected posts you could find.

[bytemaster]

Wow there has been much discussion tonight.

I take exception to the idea that we selectively respond to issues.   I answer just about everything on these forums and of that there can be no doubt. 

If you feel that we don't respond to you concerns Adam it is almost always predictable that a major issue pops up while we are traveling. 

So lets focus on productive items rather than the past.  Lets move forward together rather than bicker like a stubborn married couple. 

We have some solid plans, our team is finally getting organized and we have a design that scales in a flexible  manner. 

Ags is what it is, a financial blessing and a regulatory challenge.  We should take every effort to move forward to secure the future we want for our families and society.   This means we must be careful. 

I am terribly flawed at many things. But what I am good at is getting to the first principles of ideas and inventing solutions. We all contribute what we can.   

I generally welcome open and uncensored posting.  But I think some rules of engagement in the discussion should be laid down and enforced.

We need to practice non-violent communication and teach others to use it.  If we can master that then our community will be stronger than ever.   We all get emotional at times. Lets work to listen to what is really beneath the complaints, attacks, insecurities and solve those problems.   







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[clout]

no response to this: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4247.msg53486#msg53486
and this: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1890.msg53277#msg53277
to name a few in the last few days...
also this is a significant issue:
" I wish Daniel had focused on delivering Bitshares as envisioned and then created subsequent versions or products that incorporate these elements.  That is what I signed on for, not "whatever daniel larimer thinks is a good idea this week".    The delays have been because the focus and method has constantly pivoted to be "the best possible" when in reality not having launched the product we don't even know what is best and if these "improvements" are making things better or worse, since we've never had an opportunity to see a product to compare against.
"

tonyk, they stop responding to you when you stop making sense. your arguments have often strayed from logic. as far as adams comment. he clearly believes in mining which is inherently antithetical to idea of dacs being profitable since there are alternatives that do not dilute share holder equity and do not have hardware cost. as an investor i signed up for the best blockchain consensus product and you do not get that with mining. this is indisputable and i will not argue it because i have looked at the economics of it. additionally tapos is still being implement with the trustee model in the test chain and there will be a hard for when implementing the dpos chain, and then consequently a launch of bts me, and then a launch of bts x and then a launch of subsequent dacs. how is that not the iterative processes that you adam is suggesting. there have been delays in production because the underlying consensus mechanism for the blockchain have been revised and made more efficient.