Author Topic: Litecoin Sharedrop Fork  (Read 11739 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

charleshoskinson

  • Guest
No that's not what I said and if you don't understand then I don't have time to explain it I'm sorry. This has nothing to do with creating a coin as an end goal. I've created too many coins already.

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
So you're looking for the best coin to sharedrop to so you can cash some loot ?  I'm seriously lost after reading below.  You've been enamored with making yet another coin since you started posting on here.  I mean of all the worthless things one can do with their time...  I understand it is fun creating your own coin and maybe making some money,  but I just fail to see how you can value such an enterprise then be dismissive of other Bitshares projects which have unique functionality.  It is puzzling to me to say the least.

Always interesting to read your thoughts.

Quote
What I am confused is why Charles said we have "IPO in a Box" and therefore to not pursue Music/DNS aka "low hanging fruit".  Yet he loves the idea of yet another coin.  Charles, any way to clarify for us what you see in creating yet another coin that has same functionality of an existing coin ?

Lot of straw man in your paragraph soup here. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding in what I'm asking so let me try again. After the recent spike in Bitshares price, I started thinking about what market cap really is measuring considering there are so many factors unique to this space in the price of a token like BTS or BTC. Mastercoin is worth several million as a network, but has roughly 500-1000 dollars in trading volume effectively meaning the tokens can never really be sold. So price and liquidity are both required.

In reality, what I'm looking for is the notion of incumbency value of the entire network, which probably is best measured as the sum of nodes in the network given each node has at least the following characteristics:
1) Network resources contributed for a given time interval
2) Virality of the node
3) Some measure of the cost to move the node to a new network (its stickiness)
4) The overall wealth of the node's controller
5) The willingness of the node to contribute resources from his wealth to the network or to enhance network functionality

I am certain there are more factors to identify, but in any event, what I'm looking for is a metric to appraise how valuable a particular coin is given its node set as well as the cost of moving the node set to a new network. Then we could more accurately price the value of a coin without referencing a meaningless fiat benchmark that ripple can manipulate at any time for example. Also you can price the cost of node acquisition (and no it's not the market price of the tokens they hold because you want people not tokens, tokens can be conjured at any time with a fork click).

Litecoin seems to me to be the perfect testbed for experimentation as the network is poorly maintained, has a large population, and there is a lot of potential incumbency value there. As for using the code base of Bitshares, there is no way I'd ever attempt to maintain a full C++ codebase. It's like asking to take care of an 800 pound bull with diabetes and anger management issues.

Finally, I'll mention cryptoequities. They are completely different from cryptocurrencies in that they are attached to a real entity directly or indirectly. If I want to have an IPO, then I currently have to go to Goldman Sachs and kiss the golden ring. With an IPO toolkit, you could have a custom sale connected to any terms and conditions and enforce them in the real world via Unidroit and also all the exchange mechanisms necessary to avoid having to use a traditional stock market. AGS honoring in exchange for maintenance and support of the custom chains would potentially a very profitable model. You just have to worry about fungibility of the Bitassets between chains (google's BitUSD needs to be worth as much as overstock's) or at the very least there needs to be a bridge mechanism for market makers to even prices via arbitrage strategies (ripple is using this approach for gateway IOUs).

Quote
Think strategically people! This is a business that will DEPEND on strategic partnerships and forking code to increase our brand recognition, portfolio diversification, positive marketing by forcing altcoin value to be based off of valuable dev-driven innovation--hard to beat bitshares here!--is the only way to move forward.  Why do you think Ethereum is trying to get all platforms to work under their common umbrella?
 

I think people here have more fun labeling me a jaded scientist that should be avoided at all costs. You are correct in the umbrella strategy. There needs to be effective heterogeneity in the cryptoscape.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline fuzzy

I think people here have more fun labeling me a jaded scientist that should be avoided at all costs. You are correct in the umbrella strategy. There needs to be effective heterogeneity in the cryptoscape.

I definitely don't label you as that (what are your scientific credentials again?).  You have a great many connections and it just makes one wonder how an individual gets so many high up connections.  I mean, I never saw you before crypto--but it sure was easy for you to get onto mainstream media (and we all know who owns mainstream media).  LOTS of questions for people to ponder but I refuse to keep going there--I have my opinion and nothing (yet) has changed it. 

As far as some of your points--they are in my opinion all valid.  We need to really ask ourselves if we want BitShares to be a Ubiquitous, massively adopted technology (which will make all of us filthy rich--ethically) or if we want to be playing poker on our own little island, pretending we will always be the only game in town.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2014, 10:26:14 pm by fuznuts »
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

charleshoskinson

  • Guest
Quote
What I am confused is why Charles said we have "IPO in a Box" and therefore to not pursue Music/DNS aka "low hanging fruit".  Yet he loves the idea of yet another coin.  Charles, any way to clarify for us what you see in creating yet another coin that has same functionality of an existing coin ?

Lot of straw man in your paragraph soup here. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding in what I'm asking so let me try again. After the recent spike in Bitshares price, I started thinking about what market cap really is measuring considering there are so many factors unique to this space in the price of a token like BTS or BTC. Mastercoin is worth several million as a network, but has roughly 500-1000 dollars in trading volume effectively meaning the tokens can never really be sold. So price and liquidity are both required.

In reality, what I'm looking for is the notion of incumbency value of the entire network, which probably is best measured as the sum of nodes in the network given each node has at least the following characteristics:
1) Network resources contributed for a given time interval
2) Virality of the node
3) Some measure of the cost to move the node to a new network (its stickiness)
4) The overall wealth of the node's controller
5) The willingness of the node to contribute resources from his wealth to the network or to enhance network functionality

I am certain there are more factors to identify, but in any event, what I'm looking for is a metric to appraise how valuable a particular coin is given its node set as well as the cost of moving the node set to a new network. Then we could more accurately price the value of a coin without referencing a meaningless fiat benchmark that ripple can manipulate at any time for example. Also you can price the cost of node acquisition (and no it's not the market price of the tokens they hold because you want people not tokens, tokens can be conjured at any time with a fork click).

Litecoin seems to me to be the perfect testbed for experimentation as the network is poorly maintained, has a large population, and there is a lot of potential incumbency value there. As for using the code base of Bitshares, there is no way I'd ever attempt to maintain a full C++ codebase. It's like asking to take care of an 800 pound bull with diabetes and anger management issues.

Finally, I'll mention cryptoequities. They are completely different from cryptocurrencies in that they are attached to a real entity directly or indirectly. If I want to have an IPO, then I currently have to go to Goldman Sachs and kiss the golden ring. With an IPO toolkit, you could have a custom sale connected to any terms and conditions and enforce them in the real world via Unidroit and also all the exchange mechanisms necessary to avoid having to use a traditional stock market. AGS honoring in exchange for maintenance and support of the custom chains would potentially a very profitable model. You just have to worry about fungibility of the Bitassets between chains (google's BitUSD needs to be worth as much as overstock's) or at the very least there needs to be a bridge mechanism for market makers to even prices via arbitrage strategies (ripple is using this approach for gateway IOUs).

Quote
Think strategically people! This is a business that will DEPEND on strategic partnerships and forking code to increase our brand recognition, portfolio diversification, positive marketing by forcing altcoin value to be based off of valuable dev-driven innovation--hard to beat bitshares here!--is the only way to move forward.  Why do you think Ethereum is trying to get all platforms to work under their common umbrella?
 

I think people here have more fun labeling me a jaded scientist that should be avoided at all costs. You are correct in the umbrella strategy. There needs to be effective heterogeneity in the cryptoscape.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2014, 09:38:01 pm by charleshoskinson »

Offline Gentso1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 931
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: gentso
Don't get involved with the actual forking, if they do it let them do it on their own. IF they do it and IF they honor the social contract (the higher the percent the more incentive of course) then we should support it.

The toolkit is free so why not get something out of it.

I find it odd that many crypto types don't look at other crypto's for what they are: Competitors : someone who is trying to win or do better than all others especially in business or sports : someone who is competing : b :  one selling or buying goods or services in the same market as another

We are all in the same market. Many of us have the same broad goals. No one wanted to make friends or partner with us in any meaningful way until we made a splash. We should make strategic alliances and help dev's of coins that help us other then that....... I say lets bleed the market cap of every non-innovative coin out their. Its a crypto war so let the best technology win.

“Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.”


― H.L. Mencken, Prejudices: First Series
   

Offline fuzzy


Couldn't agree more (except I see room for 1000's of valuable "coins" when coupled with a BitShares Toolkit-built infrastructure).  Invictus should have NO place in ever forking any of their code.  They should only be available to give feedback to devs wanting to do so themselves (and only if they have guaranteed to sufficiently honor PTS/AGS).

The problem is these 1000s of coins don't serve unique services or value anymore if they're just more forks muddying up the ecosystem.

agreed...which goes back to innovation--so we are actually not in disagreement.  If 1000's of coins use the BitShares toolkit to build truly innovative infrastructure (that accepts the native coin), then 1000's of coins could easily coexist.  If not, then you are 100% correct.
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile

Couldn't agree more (except I see room for 1000's of valuable "coins" when coupled with a BitShares Toolkit-built infrastructure).  Invictus should have NO place in ever forking any of their code.  They should only be available to give feedback to devs wanting to do so themselves (and only if they have guaranteed to sufficiently honor PTS/AGS).

The problem is these 1000s of coins don't serve unique services or value anymore if they're just more forks muddying up the ecosystem.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline fuzzy

持有LTC的人得到你给的Litecoinshares之后抛售欲望会非常强烈,毕竟是赠送的0成本的,他们想的更多的可能是在发布前多买些LTC,这样有助于LTC的涨价。这个跟PTS/AGS持有者不一样,大多数的持有者都是对BTSX或者其他DACS都有兴趣积极参与测试和社区讨论。“社会共识”就是需要参与者真正参与进来,而不是简单的买卖。再者,FORK之后是自主创新呢还是跟着I3的技术走,如果是一直跟着走,将会非常被动。产值也会非常低效。
不过还是很欢迎你这么做,这样可以推广DPOS,顺便让更多人参与DACS的建设。

Thank you google translate: 

"LTC holders who get after you give Litecoinshares very strong desire to sell , after all, is a gift 0 cost , they want more likely to buy more before posting LTC, which helps LTC price increases . This with PTS / AGS holders are not the same , most of the owners are right BTSX or other DACS are interested in actively participating in testing and community discussions . " Social consensus " is the true needs of the participants involved, rather than simply trading . Furthermore, after FORK independent innovation it or go along with I3 technology , if it is always to follow , will be very passive . Output will be very inefficient.
But still very welcome to do so , so you can promote DPOS, the way to allow more people to participate in the construction of DACS ."



Just so it is clear.  I don't care if a third party does this.  It will happen eventually almost guaranteed.  I do object to I3 spending any significant resources supporting this outside of basic developer support/bugs.

If you go out and you talk to bitcoin people, you hear scam coin ! just a way to get money ! a scam !  blah blah.  And you know what?  They're partially correct.  There are a ton of guys making coins out there that really do very little if anything innovative.  The innovation itself is spread so thin that few if any of the coins stand out.  (Anyone know which ones?)

There will not be many coins that live on.  There just isn't much need for them and they all damage each other's adoption.  So only a few coins will survive and have real use outside of niche crypto-markets.  I don't see why I3 needs to lower itself to that game.  Let someone else do it and don't have the Bitshares name tarnished as another money grabber scammer by being directly involved in creating more coins just because they can.

Couldn't agree more (except I see room for 1000's of valuable "coins" when coupled with a BitShares Toolkit-built infrastructure).  Invictus should have NO place in ever forking any of their code.  They should only be available to give feedback to devs wanting to do so themselves (and only if they have guaranteed to sufficiently honor PTS/AGS).
« Last Edit: August 28, 2014, 06:52:35 pm by fuznuts »
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile

Just so it is clear.  I don't care if a third party does this.  It will happen eventually almost guaranteed.  I do object to I3 spending any significant resources supporting this outside of basic developer support/bugs.

If you go out and you talk to bitcoin people, you hear scam coin ! just a way to get money ! a scam !  blah blah.  And you know what?  They're partially correct.  There are a ton of guys making coins out there that really do very little if anything innovative.  The innovation itself is spread so thin that few if any of the coins stand out.  (Anyone know which ones?)

There will not be many coins that live on.  There just isn't much need for them and they all damage each other's adoption.  So only a few coins will survive and have real use outside of niche crypto-markets.  I don't see why I3 needs to lower itself to that game.  Let someone else do it and don't have the Bitshares name tarnished as another money grabber scammer by being directly involved in creating more coins just because they can.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline fuzzy

Anyone who knows me knows I would be the first to jump on the hoskinson-spanking party. But I dont see this as divisive at all. Potentially risky? Yes. Potentially hugely profitable? Definitely.

Sure--We are tying to start a new business, but this isn't your mom and pops proprietary business.  This is a company making decentralized services from completely forkable code.  One of the MOST important things we can do in this community is use sharedrops for strategic purposes. One of the biggest reasons? Setting a precedent for all future forked chains to maximally honor PTS AGS, BTSX holders. Why?  Because if this project is successful and our community doesn't establish this precedent....good luck getting diversified into other chains as they are forked (and they will be). 

Honoring pts /ags is to my undrstanding, in no way legally enforceable, so giving value by forking btsx oursleves under the social consensus...while dictating the circumstances under which it occurs and in such a way that it builds connections with other essential parts of the equation (think Stellar/Ripple gateways people!) in the end could serve us very well in quickly gaining access to costly infrastructure.

Why fork it ourselves to set the precedent? We will be seen as the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of the "greedy bitcoin community" who is largely opposed to competition and collaboration outside of bitcoin ecosystem (that is first). Secondly, many pow lovers dont even know about bitshares and its potential...but sit there crying about the lack of ltc development.  This sets them up to watch the bitshares product improve while theirs stays stagnant.  Quickly we see a measuring stick emerge by which all other altcoins will likely be judged, then let the subsequent screams about "no development" from the ltc community to get louder...and louder.  How do you think that negative advertising (from litecoins own community nonetheless) will effect the professionally maintained one (btsx)?  I'll leave this point at that. 

Better yet, if development somehow increases and ltc becomes the coin it should be--with devs actually caring about infusing their ecosystem with more value..., we are all diversified across another btsx chain and the ltc community will know about the power of the bitshares toolkit.  This means a couple things:
1) now your investment must be attacked on multiple fronts (multiple chains will reinforce the market pegs)
2) altcoin devs who are now in a race to prove themselves can either do so from scratch...or use the toolkit (to gain an speed of development advantage) and honor PTS/AGS holders with stake in their DACs.

Think strategically people! This is a business that will DEPEND on strategic partnerships and forking code to increase our brand recognition, portfolio diversification, positive marketing by forcing altcoin value to be based off of valuable dev-driven innovation--hard to beat bitshares here!--is the only way to move forward.  Why do you think Ethereum is trying to get all platforms to work under their common umbrella? 

P.S.
For anyone who thinks our community will have enough say (in its infancy) to command other altcoins honor social consensus is, to me, a grand dream.  The social consensus derives value from what WE give it.  If we have no gateways, a small (but slowly growing user base) and few people using the decentralized exchange, we are far weaker than if we introduce the value into the system by sharedropping in ways that get us what we establish as necessities for our future success.  Sure some people have honored Bitcoin holders with airdrops on their users' holdings...but mostly there are thousands of altcoins that just get pumped and dumped.  If bitshares is going to be THE Standard...we have to think about this from a slightly different angle. 

« Last Edit: August 28, 2014, 06:47:47 pm by fuznuts »
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline ssjpts

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 538
    • View Profile
    • 中国BTC
  • BitShares: coolman
持有LTC的人得到你给的Litecoinshares之后抛售欲望会非常强烈,毕竟是赠送的0成本的,他们想的更多的可能是在发布前多买些LTC,这样有助于LTC的涨价。这个跟PTS/AGS持有者不一样,大多数的持有者都是对BTSX或者其他DACS都有兴趣积极参与测试和社区讨论。“社会共识”就是需要参与者真正参与进来,而不是简单的买卖。再者,FORK之后是自主创新呢还是跟着I3的技术走,如果是一直跟着走,将会非常被动。产值也会非常低效。
不过还是很欢迎你这么做,这样可以推广DPOS,顺便让更多人参与DACS的建设。
新浪微博:剑指未来BTS
BTC:1Bc7gRGotktBmnNFr3BUUM22HFXCCTyxor
BTSX ID:loves,集大众之爱,待到BTS 500刀,10%回退给捐赠者,10%用于运营,剩余80%用于爱心事业和BTS宣传推广。

Offline vegolino

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 450
  • Reality is Information
    • View Profile
I'm not sure I see the point. Sure, we may get some new fans (Litecoin users), but wouldn't this just make competition for BitsharesX, and give Litecoin users a half stake in that competition for doing absolutely nothing? I don't think it would be fair to snapshot participants, or even people whom have bought since then.

Forking BitsharesX at this point before the user base is mature seems like shooting yourself in the foot, and would reduce liquidity on both centralized exchanges and in the bitasset marketplace.

On top of that, all of the Litecoin users could just dump on the market and it would be a risky investment for anyone that isn't a AGS/Protoshare/Litecoin investor. As it is now with BitsharesX, everyone has invested something to get their stake. Whether it be investing BTC/PTS in AGS, providing CPU processing power for (or investing in) PTS, or purchasing their BTSX on the free market, this all provides incentive for people not to dump BTSX on the market for less than what they put in and upholds the price. If you make a fork and give 50% of the money supply away for free, this incentive would not be as strong for the 50% who got it for free.

BitsharesX is too small right now to try to fork the the community IMO.
+5%

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
All these coins are going to fail.  Bitshares being involved directly with any other coin besides BTSX and Bitshares ME is not a good idea.  There will be only a handful of coins that retain any meaningful value.   Why dilute the brand at this point just to see something go up and back down.

What I am confused is why Charles said we have "IPO in a Box" and therefore to not pursue Music/DNS aka "low hanging fruit".  Yet he loves the idea of yet another coin.  Charles, any way to clarify for us what you see in creating yet another coin that has same functionality of an existing coin ?
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline Fox

I'm really asking about notion of transfer of incumbency value.
@charleshoskinson
In what direction do you see the incumbency value transferring between PTS/AGS <--> LTC at a specific ratio?  Perhaps three: 50/50, higher and lower.  Bistshares is the incumbent for DPOS technology and LTC is incumbent for altcoin.

How does a given sharedrop scenario benefit PTS/AGS holders more than a direct value transfer of LTC into BTSX through the open market?
Witness: fox

Offline Agent86

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 471
  • BTSX: agent86
    • View Profile
This is a business and creating competition for BitsharesX and giving a group of people equity for free is not a good idea at this time.
+5%