Negative Post about Bitshares

[AdamBLevine]

continue to think your major innovative contribution is Protoshares which was the first token that gave people another token.   

I don't know whether I should be offended by that or not    Given TITAN + DPOS + RoboHash + BitAssets...

Apparently Adam thinks PTS is more innovative than TITAN or DPOS 

Its not intended to be an insult, TITAN DPOS are both reinventions of a wheel that already exists.  TITAN is Bitcoin Privacy made simple, DPOS is a mix of POS and the ripple consensus style with a quasi-democracy layer on it.  They might accomplish the same thing differently, but they are a better wheel, not one that didn't previously exist.

Giving someone a token that will later give them another token that has value for another reason was a genuine first.  Real progress where the rest is optimization, I talk about the difference between these two things here

I don't know what RoboHashes are, and as I've mentioned I don't really understand why Bitassets will work.

[BldSwtTrs]

I am really looking forward to see BitAssets running. If it works it will be huge, maybe the most important invention for human kind since Bitcoin. But honestly I am skeptical.

[tonyk]

I'm pretty sure he thinks he understands it. Did you not get that impression?

Operative word 'thinks'(as in believes), which apparently gives him the right to put his inner anger in semi-decent piece of writing.

And No, I do not find any value in reputing every word somebody decides to put out there, especially if the main focus of the author is to show us how great he is in proving his own statements.

Do you understand Bitassets?

Mainly.
I am  as tech-not-savi as you are. Sorry, not meant as an insult, if you have hi esteem in your abilities in that field.

[gamey]

Wow.  After reading this I bothered to actually read the referenced post.  I couldn't get past point 3-4 because the author already lost me because it is so amateurish.

It is quite caustic and obviously not written to engage anyone in a sincere discussion.    Reply to it ?  Really???

There was a blog post that was well written in its criticisms of DPOS/Bitshares and I remember Toast actually praising it.  The suggestion that this one thread is indicative of the whole community... I do not know where to begin.

There is the whole "don't lower yourself to their level" idea.

If Adam is a sincere person he'll point out specifically what points are of interest to him, and not suggest the whole thing seems authentic in some way. 

We'll see.... 

[AdamBLevine]

I'm pretty sure he thinks he understands it. Did you not get that impression?

Operative word 'thinks'(as in believes), which apparently gives him the right to put his inner anger in semi-decent piece of writing.

And No, I do not find any value in reputing every word somebody decides to put out there, especially if the main focus of the author is to show us how great he is in proving his own statements.

Do you understand Bitassets?

[yellowecho]

continue to think your major innovative contribution is Protoshares which was the first token that gave people another token.   

I don't know whether I should be offended by that or not    Given TITAN + DPOS + RoboHash + BitAssets...

Apparently Adam thinks PTS is more innovative than TITAN or DPOS 

[tonyk]

I'm pretty sure he thinks he understands it. Did you not get that impression?

Operative word 'thinks'(as in believes), which apparently gives him the right to put his inner anger in semi-decent piece of writing.

And No, I do not find any value in reputing every word somebody decides to put out there, especially if the main focus of the author is to show us how great he is in proving his own statements.

[EDIT]
I am not connected to III in any way shape or form, so I promise everybody who comes here and asked to get the truthful answer to the best of my ability and understanding. And this includes which part of the system are indeed tests of certain theories. And why they are believe/hoped/expected to work.

[bytemaster]

continue to think your major innovative contribution is Protoshares which was the first token that gave people another token.   

I don't know whether I should be offended by that or not    Given TITAN + DPOS + RoboHash + BitAssets...

Lets watch this week as it goes live and people can experience it.

[AdamBLevine]

Read this thread (including that article) from the perspective of someone new to Bitshares and you'll see a community that spends way more time making fun of or insulting the author but either doesn't know or can't make a single refutation of... anything... except by bytemaster saying that he makes different assumptions. 

His concerns may very well be uninformed, but if that's the case it seems all the more urgent to explain why he is wrong both for his knowledge and the betterment of the communities understanding of the highly complicated mechanisms at work behind market created bitassets.  Some humility and due-dilligence might also be in order given the tech he's questioning and you're defending are still totally unproven to work even as we assume they will.

Do you find it a good practice to first write an article and then ask for input on things you do not understand?

Given he extensively cited Bytemaster, linked to the bitshares whitepaper and seemed to have a better understanding of Bitassets than about 99% of people I know in Bitcoin, I'm pretty sure he thinks he understands it. Did you not get that impression?

Some of his quotes were not cited and are wrong (or out of context).   It is true that education needs to be improved.

Can someone on your team who isn't you take the time to respond to the article explaining why he's wrong?   As you know, I've always been confused by Bitassets for basically the same reasons he is, and continue to think your major innovative contribution is Protoshares which was the first token that gave people another token.   

I'm sure my understanding as well as his would benefit from a meaningful and point by point response to this article.

[bytemaster]

Read this thread (including that article) from the perspective of someone new to Bitshares and you'll see a community that spends way more time making fun of or insulting the author but either doesn't know or can't make a single refutation of... anything... except by bytemaster saying that he makes different assumptions. 

His concerns may very well be uninformed, but if that's the case it seems all the more urgent to explain why he is wrong both for his knowledge and the betterment of the communities understanding of the highly complicated mechanisms at work behind market created bitassets.  Some humility and due-dilligence might also be in order given the tech he's questioning and you're defending are still totally unproven to work even as we assume they will.

Do you find it a good practice to first write an article and then ask for input on things you do not understand?

Given he extensively cited Bytemaster, linked to the bitshares whitepaper and seemed to have a better understanding of Bitassets than about 99% of people I know in Bitcoin, I'm pretty sure he thinks he understands it. Did you not get that impression?

Some of his quotes were not cited and are wrong (or out of context).   It is true that education needs to be improved.

[AdamBLevine]

Read this thread (including that article) from the perspective of someone new to Bitshares and you'll see a community that spends way more time making fun of or insulting the author but either doesn't know or can't make a single refutation of... anything... except by bytemaster saying that he makes different assumptions. 

His concerns may very well be uninformed, but if that's the case it seems all the more urgent to explain why he is wrong both for his knowledge and the betterment of the communities understanding of the highly complicated mechanisms at work behind market created bitassets.  Some humility and due-dilligence might also be in order given the tech he's questioning and you're defending are still totally unproven to work even as we assume they will.

Do you find it a good practice to first write an article and then ask for input on things you do not understand?

Given he extensively cited Bytemaster, linked to the bitshares whitepaper and seemed to have a better understanding of Bitassets than about 99% of people I know in Bitcoin, I'm pretty sure he thinks he understands it. Did you not get that impression?

[tonyk]

Read this thread (including that article) from the perspective of someone new to Bitshares and you'll see a community that spends way more time making fun of or insulting the author but either doesn't know or can't make a single refutation of... anything... except by bytemaster saying that he makes different assumptions. 

His concerns may very well be uninformed, but if that's the case it seems all the more urgent to explain why he is wrong both for his knowledge and the betterment of the communities understanding of the highly complicated mechanisms at work behind market created bitassets.  Some humility and due-dilligence might also be in order given the tech he's questioning and you're defending are still totally unproven to work even as we assume they will.

Do you find it a good practice to first write an article and then ask for input on things you do not understand?

[AdamBLevine]

Read this thread (including that article) from the perspective of someone new to Bitshares and you'll see a community that spends way more time making fun of or insulting the author but either doesn't know or can't make a single refutation of... anything... except by bytemaster saying that he makes different assumptions. 

His concerns may very well be uninformed, but if that's the case it seems all the more urgent to explain why he is wrong both for his knowledge and the betterment of the communities understanding of the highly complicated mechanisms at work behind market created bitassets.  Some humility and due-dilligence might also be in order given the tech he's questioning and you're defending are still totally unproven to work even as we assume they will.

[thisisausername]

The blog post was not very informed of course.
But I think it is provoked by too steep claims (With an effective yield on BitUSD of 20% per year you must compare it against other USD investments, such as lending it to the bank at 3% per year).
People find things suspicious that are too good to be true. And that is a healthy reaction in almost all cases. 
We can learn something from it too.

This!  This!!

The linked blog post is a case-study in how we're not getting through to everyone we could be.

[luckybit]

ttp://prestonbyrne.com/2014/08/17/dont-walk-away-run/

Perhaps  some food for thought.  I'll leave it up to you guys to read and begin the conversation though---school time for me

That is more than negative, it's an assault on the foundation of Bitshares. They are attacking the most fundamental part of the design.

In my opinion it shouldn't be given a response. You'll only make the blog more popular by responding to it. Just counter it with a good blog which has positive things to say and then win the SEO battle.