Today .I made a too bad mistake

[tonyk]

These conversations are frustrating because Invictus only responds on issues they're willing to respond on, and then they stop talking except to do damage control when they feel it is more damaging not to post.   If they were the only people on the forums that would be enough to shut me up because I wouldn't have anyone to talk to, but the echo-chamber always jumps in to defend invictus based on trust or belief, so then I wind up arguing fundamentals with people who do not care about the fundamentals.

it's very frustrating, but the reason it keeps happening is because Invictus simply does not want to address topics they're not willing to.

I am a newb to this forum. What do they not respond to ? 

IMO, there are basically 2 areas.

1)technical aspects of product
2)investment aspects.

Dan has always responded to #1.  For #2, decisions are made and it really is not productive to rehash them.  If you think made decisions are that poor, then I suppose the solution is to go around and spread the word of these bad decisions.

However, instead of saying they lied!,  tell me what exactly they reneged on and why you think it is a bad decision.

Changing your mind over an agreement does automatically equate to being a malevolent entity.  I would much rather have someone making changes to optimize chances for success over someone who blindly follows what they thought to best previously in some attempt to grab meager/temporary market share.

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.
"

[gamey]

These conversations are frustrating because Invictus only responds on issues they're willing to respond on, and then they stop talking except to do damage control when they feel it is more damaging not to post.   If they were the only people on the forums that would be enough to shut me up because I wouldn't have anyone to talk to, but the echo-chamber always jumps in to defend invictus based on trust or belief, so then I wind up arguing fundamentals with people who do not care about the fundamentals.

it's very frustrating, but the reason it keeps happening is because Invictus simply does not want to address topics they're not willing to.

I am a newb to this forum. What do they not respond to ? 

IMO, there are basically 2 areas.

1)technical aspects of product
2)investment aspects.

Dan has always responded to #1.  For #2, decisions are made and it really is not productive to rehash them.  If you think made decisions are that poor, then I suppose the solution is to go around and spread the word of these bad decisions.

However, instead of saying they lied!,  tell me what exactly they reneged on and why you think it is a bad decision.

Changing your mind over an agreement does automatically equate to being a malevolent entity.  I would much rather have someone making changes to optimize chances for success over someone who blindly follows what they thought to be best previously in some attempt to grab meager/temporary market share.

[AdamBLevine]

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.

[tonyk]

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.

This is also so true:

These conversations are frustrating because Invictus only responds on issues they're willing to respond on, and then they stop talking except to do damage control when they feel it is more damaging not to post.   If they were the only people on the forums that would be enough to shut me up because I wouldn't have anyone to talk to, but the echo-chamber always jumps in to defend invictus based on trust or belief, so then I wind up arguing fundamentals with people who do not care about the fundamentals.

it's very frustrating, but the reason it keeps happening is because Invictus simply does not want to address topics they're not willing to.

[gamey]

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.

The problem is creating a blockchain then deciding to switch the consensus algorithm is UGLY.

Let me take a bit of liberty here, but you are valuing market dominance where I am patient for technological dominance which eventually leads to a strong market position.  I'm sure we could both sit here and argue the merits of both views ?

Dan is trying to make something that works and will not be overtaken.  That has upsides, but the downside is release date.

I don't disagree with your "pragmatic reality" nor do I believe I am "shouting it down".   I just see my investment as longterm or "binary".

I believe this tech will be around as long as the net.  I started the internet on SLIP and Gopher.. so I've seen a few changes.

To me the questions are more like... 'Does it make more sense to release a run of the mill POW currency or the next generation gold standard POS currency ?" 

Dan has opened himself to the market of ideas.  No doubt he has an ego, but he is publicly seeking the best solutions which is something I very very much respect given the suspected "binary" outcome.

[AdamBLevine]

These conversations are frustrating because Invictus only responds on issues they're willing to respond on, and then they stop talking except to do damage control when they feel it is more damaging not to post.   If they were the only people on the forums that would be enough to shut me up because I wouldn't have anyone to talk to, but the echo-chamber always jumps in to defend invictus based on trust or belief, so then I wind up arguing fundamentals with people who do not care about the fundamentals.

it's very frustrating, but the reason it keeps happening is because Invictus simply does not want to address topics they're not willing to.

[AdamBLevine]

I do not claim to be a coder, I do not set timelines, I am a user and a prototypical one which should be more concerning.   Many times I suggested that Bitshares not set timeframes it might be unable to keep but it took many public instances of failure for that message to be driven home to the Bitshares team.

How should I be easier on Bitshares?  I am open to suggestions if you think that is best.

Why do you think there is a 100% chance of Daniel delivering?  I am very much concerned the way money was raised is going to cause major problems which would put a giant stop on the whole endeavor.

I'm saying timelines are very difficult.  Even when you understand the problem. We/they are still working at the solution for some of the most basic problems.  Dan has decided to move beyond POW.  I find that a positive goal yet I also wish it was instantaneous.

I said he will deliver on a NEAT product.  I have no evidence his tech will overtake the world, but a bit of gambler's faith.  It seems plausible, but to me it seems more interesting than anything.

I can not comment on your podcast's take on Bitshares.  I've listened to some episodes and they're very high quality. (obv)  I'm not some random hater.

I can comment on you showing up here and just harassing on time frames.  This is a valid thing to do !  However, please understand that software dev is one of those  jobs where people with no clue (not you) think they can do better. 

It is much like trying to understand what sort of person you'll be 5 years from now.  Nearly impossible.  If you could foresee it all, you'd already be there.  This is the same thing with software dev.

Where will it settle within the scope of humanity?  I dunno.. but thats what I am here for because I have nothing else that interests me as much.

Cheers!

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.

[gamey]

Adam is a smart guy.  I try not to be insulting, but I see him only attack what is currently my passion.  So I respond. 

That is exactly the problem.   Stop seeing what you want to be true and look at the situation as it is.

THis is fair, except I'm pretty sure you are too busy to be aware of my criticisms.  TBH, I am no entirely sure of your criticisms.  I heard about PTS and started collecting months ago.  I've only recently started to read specifically about approaches.  I am not so worried about my investment as seeing Dan make the right decision and give us a foundation to develop on that is second to none.

[bitbro]

Dude, I said I'm scratching my own itch.  I don't claim to speak for anyone else, I said that a lot of people tend to agree with me because I'm not special just early.

Personally I think the Bitbro thing is really getting old, you seem obsessed with me why can't you just post about the topic at hand?

Eh, I don't mean to hurt your feelings as a person, but since the beginning I have seen the persona, the weight of it, its incongruous opinions, and the inflated sense of power and influence as a threat to the open nature of the forum and the progress of BitShares. Like you said, squeaky wheel.  I'd just rather be the wd40.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

and for the record, if you want to be the WD-40, you should try solving the problem rather than just jumping immediately to personal attacks.

If you're going to be a squeaky wheel, you should thank me for the wd40


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gamey]

I do not claim to be a coder, I do not set timelines, I am a user and a prototypical one which should be more concerning.   Many times I suggested that Bitshares not set timeframes it might be unable to keep but it took many public instances of failure for that message to be driven home to the Bitshares team.

How should I be easier on Bitshares?  I am open to suggestions if you think that is best.

Why do you think there is a 100% chance of Daniel delivering?  I am very much concerned the way money was raised is going to cause major problems which would put a giant stop on the whole endeavor.

I'm saying timelines are very difficult.  Even when you understand the problem. We/they are still working at the solution for some of the most basic problems.  Dan has decided to move beyond POW.  I find that a positive goal yet I also wish it was instantaneous.

I said he will deliver on a NEAT product.  I have no evidence his tech will overtake the world, but a bit of gambler's faith.  It seems plausible, but to me it seems more interesting than anything.

I can not comment on your podcast's take on Bitshares.  I've listened to some episodes and they're very high quality. (obv)  I'm not some random hater.

I can comment on you showing up here and just harassing on time frames.  This is a valid thing to do !  However, please understand that software dev is one of those  jobs where people with no clue (not you) think they can do better. 

It is much like trying to understand what sort of person you'll be 5 years from now.  Nearly impossible.  If you could foresee it all, you'd already be there.  This is the same thing with software dev.

Where will it settle within the scope of humanity?  I dunno.. but thats what I am here for because I have nothing else that interests me as much.

Cheers!

[bitbro]

Dude, I said I'm scratching my own itch.  I don't claim to speak for anyone else, I said that a lot of people tend to agree with me because I'm not special just early.

Personally I think the Bitbro thing is really getting old, you seem obsessed with me why can't you just post about the topic at hand?

Eh, I don't mean to hurt your feelings as a person, but since the beginning I have seen the persona, the weight of it, its incongruous opinions, and the inflated sense of power and influence as a threat to the open nature of the forum and the progress of BitShares. Like you said, squeaky wheel.  I'd just rather be the wd40.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posting on the internet under your real name gives you thick skin, but I appreciate your concern.  Seems like you think pretty highly of my ability to implement my will on other people against their own, man I'm powerful you better get your horse and lance to save the townfolk of the forum.

Guess I'm a bit of a Don Quixote ...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CryptoPrometheus]

The Outpouring of sentiment and willingness to assist this fellow is admirable and commendable. Whilst we endeavor to assemble our ideal trustless platforms, it appears many of us remember that empathy and willingness to trust are still (and will always be) central to our humanity. If I had made such a blunder, I would be grateful and humbled by this show of support. I believe that mr. bytemaster (and tonyk) have proposed a possibility that does not dishonor, dilute, or compromise the integrity of the social contract. An honorable action, if implemented.

Fear, uncertainty, and doubt will be cast and sewn, as it has been for time immemorial. I have discovered, however, that these three concepts (FU&D) actually serve a noble purpose, one that is indeed vital for our evolution and growth. What better way to uncover the hidden eddys and backcurrants of our own uncertainty? How should we sharpen the blade of our convictions but upon the the most well thought out arguments against our plans?

We all prefer different things, we all have different styles. We might discover that motives can be pure or impure, well thought or whimsical, firm or reactionary, etc., but we can never expect to truly comprehend the motivations of another human being. We often like to fool ourselves into believing we can.....

"But all this FUD is hurting our cause"

In some ways, it would be great if nothing ever pushed our buttons, right? But here in reality, can we honestly justify worrying about the effect someone's opinion might have on others? Can we not at least have faith that those others in the community - AKA ones whom we are learning to trust (ironically, by building trustless platforms together) -  possess their own level of integrity in their convictions and faith in the process of what we are trying to achieve together that they can transmute this elusive "FUD" in their own way?

We, with Invictus at the helm, have attracted a number of individuals who are brilliant at presenting masterful counter arguments to our strategies and plans for implementation. How is this anything but a great honor? if an idea is not truly revolutionary, would it attract such highly skilled dissent?

Guys, I know I haven't written much, but I am a long time observer and supporter. I purchased the Lions share of my personal AGS the week after the Feb. snapshot. I know potential when I see it. And it is openly apparent in all observable aspects of this operation. Keep it up. No doubt.

[AdamBLevine]

Dude, I said I'm scratching my own itch.  I don't claim to speak for anyone else, I said that a lot of people tend to agree with me because I'm not special just early.

Personally I think the Bitbro thing is really getting old, you seem obsessed with me why can't you just post about the topic at hand?

Eh, I don't mean to hurt your feelings as a person, but since the beginning I have seen the persona, the weight of it, its incongruous opinions, and the inflated sense of power and influence as a threat to the open nature of the forum and the progress of BitShares. Like you said, squeaky wheel.  I'd just rather be the wd40.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posting on the internet under your real name gives you thick skin, but I appreciate your concern.  Seems like you think pretty highly of my ability to implement my will on other people against their own, man I'm powerful you better get your horse and lance to save the townfolk of the forum.

and for the record, if you want to be the WD-40, you should try solving the problem rather than just jumping immediately to personal attacks.

[jwiz168]

Man, this is really getting out of hand . Paging moderators. It is really true that forums are made to voice out opinions that matter importantly to the subject. Adam Levine made some of his because he thought that some of the posts here are not quite accurate. So as far as I know, he has the right to do so. Let him speak and criticize constructively as he is very influential in the world of crypto currency.

Adam has very legitimate criticisms.  So do some people who criticize his beliefs.  That is how adults who are trying to find the best solution interact. 

Adam is a smart guy.  I try not to be insulting, but I see him only attack what is currently my passion.  So I respond. 

I think we both keep it within the realm of constructive.

I am just some random dude and do not in any way represent I3.

 

And come to think of it, this is a good form of marketing. Make some noise and Adam Levine has the media and conduits to let Bitshare products be heard .  Continue to challenge I3 for innovative programs such as DPOS and crypto equities that are being lined up.

[bitbro]

Dude, I said I'm scratching my own itch.  I don't claim to speak for anyone else, I said that a lot of people tend to agree with me because I'm not special just early.

Personally I think the Bitbro thing is really getting old, you seem obsessed with me why can't you just post about the topic at hand?

Eh, I don't mean to hurt your feelings as a person, but since the beginning I have seen the persona, the weight of it, its incongruous opinions, and the inflated sense of power and influence as a threat to the open nature of the forum and the progress of BitShares. Like you said, squeaky wheel.  I'd just rather be the wd40.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk