|
Why can't we do it in the same spirit as the first contest? Objectives laid out, prize is there, and developers are allowed to form coalitions as they liked. I like to think that coin distribution within the one partnership that the contest had (I forgot who) worked out fairly, as well as to the full body of the contestants. Let's let the contestants decide what's more important, their day job or a fixed bounty that rises day by day for creating a truly awesome life changing tech? It works because it's a race to claim the greater piece of the pie!
Discussion please!
Edit: tl;dr I think that for most objectives, core development wise, it is better to pay upon satisfactory completion vs paying up front.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm less than 1% fiat fwiw, and living without much change from life before crypto.
It's nice. Big impulse purchases I'm prone to have to stand the test of 2-3 days' mulling before coinbase releases my dollars.
Bitcoin is a real savings account if I say so myself.
|
|
|
|
that suggestion was turned down i believe
great to know Can someone from the board confirm that JR's proposed buy back was turned down? Indeed it was. From a practical standpoint, too much monetary friction (like you said with the developers cashing out), among other things. Thank you. Was this decision published somewhere? The fact that there is any ambiguity regarding the result of such a major decision is a bad thing. I suggest that the board think of a way to publish important decisions that is hard to miss. I don't believe so. The board didn't approve of the actual proposal of the buyback in the first place to even declare that a decision was made. |
|
|
|
that suggestion was turned down i believe
great to know Can someone from the board confirm that JR's proposed buy back was turned down? Indeed it was. From a practical standpoint, too much monetary friction (like you said with the developers cashing out), among other things. |
|
|
|
Every time some idiot takes a huge risk on bitcoin it seems to make him rich.
If you are able to carry a loan comfortably and get enough sleep while your bitcoins are down 50%, then yes, you might get rich this way.
It is still a terrible idea.
+1 |
|
|
|
i've paid ~100+% APR for the chance to take loans and buy bitcoins. TAKE THE DAMN 5% LOAN disclaimer: I bought during a long flat period starting this June and went in the red for a bit. DO NOT GET SHAKEN OUT, just convince yourself of your convictions. Do you really believe in Bitcoin? btw keep your coins cold  |
|
|
|
|
time to go dumpster diving
|
|
|
|
both, lol, just looking at the silver chart here, if you had asked me a year ago if we would have ever seen 19 again I would have laughed in your face...now I'm holding out for 17
It's tempting to make a connection between bitcoin boom and metal bust, but the market sizes are too different. The $ flowing into XBT is negligible compared to the $ exiting the metals, right? I think it's plain old "manipulation" of gold & silver? maybe not too much now but there will be a time where capital flight to crypto is a lot more substantial |
|
|
|
loans
Best way. And then use the BTC go gamble -> max profit. I don't know if you took my answer sarcastically but my answer was a serious one. Credit has been cheaper than ever. OK, I don't get it though - I've never borrowed or lent coins. So you borrow BTC and gamble them. If you win, great, you can repay. If you lose, you can't repay. So you lose your collateral? Which was worth what your BTC was worth. So what's the point? borrow fiat. I left a large margin to make sure I could pay the interest no matter what happens within x amount of time. |
|
|
|
^unbelievable respect to you coders. I've always known it but maybe just this morning I came to appreciate it: you fellas can literally do anything logically imagineable, and the effects of that even extend outside the Matrix  |
|
|
|
Since one can't predict which copy wins out in the end large holders must continuously diversify into new coins. This is OT and obviously implies greater bitcoin growth for this to even become an issue.
Shows absolutely no understanding of large holders. I, for one, am boycotting altcoins, despite the gains that might be achievable. Central banks and their cronies are boycotting all cryptos. People in the position of power do not need to diversify for reasons of security or gain, they only diversify to retain their power. ...which may be Bitcoin's(crypto's) greatest strength that possibly the CB:s were in boycott mode for too long. I, for one, see it as a market fork. Why join the smaller market if the underlying protocol is not practically different? It means altcoins are less useful. I think this tendency with networking effects and first mover advantage will win out in the long run. |
|
|
|
I don't think we have to worry about an alt getting within an order of magnitude of Bitcoin.
I know we're all a little confused and surprised at LTC/USD $20+ and NMC at $6+ and heck even FTC doing pretty well. But then again, BTC is just under $1000 so it was only a matter of time before folks remembered that altcoins were fun to play around with using their spare half a bitcoin that they left on BTC-e and forgot about for a year.
As for their technological distinctions, I agree, not much, there is NMC's domain thingy which I think is pretty cool. In general they just act as less-than-useful extentions of BTC with more volatile exchange rates, and as was mentioned, makes things more annoying for regulators. It also may help developers explore different technologies and options. Having multiple fully functioning altcoins with large market caps is a little different than running a few computers on a testnet. Altcoins can help experiment with client features that BTC devs would wait another 2 releases to try with bitcoin. For example, I have a feeling that coin control will be released with litcoin-qt before bitcoin-qt. Feel free to disagree with me here, I don't intend to overstate the effect or usefulness of alt-coins. I just think they aren't as annoying and potentially BTC-disrupting as many folks think.
Disclaimer: I mainly like them because of the mad profitz I've experienced by buying and holding a select few. Color me greedy! What can I say, they are speculative instruments and I speculated correctly.
crazy what power one can have simply by holding a decent percentage of a desired finite resource |
|
|
|
|
For the marketplace ("Distributed E-Commerce") feature down the line, how does metadata like pictures and such descriptive info get stored? Reference to somewhere off the blockchain?
|
|
|
|
you'd have to convince the benevolent holders of MSC to vote somehow or else it'd be a bother and participation would drop off
perhaps have a quorum function as well
The voters would all hold mastercoins and therefore have an incentive to vote to addjust the fees in the overall interest of the mastercoin network to keep all the services competitive,spam free and profitable (create demand for mastercoins). Only rational self interest is required from the voters. You say that after 5, 10, 20 years having to vote every x interval of time. Too long, you forget about it. Too short and you get sick of it. |
|
|
|
Implementation outline suggestion for mastercoin fee-voting system
Each mastercoin service have one or more unique addresses that sets/defines the initial fee(s) and where fee-addjustment-votes are cast to. The initial fee of a mastercoin-service is the amount of MSC in that particular address to begin with.
People who want to vote transfers one willet (0.00000001 MSC) to the addresse with a message up or down. The system then looks at the amount of MSC each of the sending addresses have and adds up the voting “power”. X MSC = X votes. Addresses with less then 1 whole MSC has no voting power.
If 100% of the votes are up. The fee is doubled.
If 100% of the votes are down. The fee is halved.
anything in between is adjusted according to the ratio of up and down voting power.
Every vote cast are alive untill the next fee adjustment milestone. You can cast your vote at any time (or change it). The system then looks at the number of “living” votes at any given voting milestone to calculate the minimum fee required to use that particular service. based on the previous calculated fee size and the voting ratio. The new fees are calculated each week (or month).
Please let me know what you think.
mughat
you'd have to convince the benevolent holders of MSC to vote somehow or else it'd be a bother and participation would drop off perhaps have a quorum function as well |
|
|
|
|
with their access to leverage they better!
|
|
|
|
so explain to all of us why they let gold rise from $250 to $1921 from 2000 to 2011.
don't say they manipulated it up as that wouldn't explain why Gordon Brown sold the UK's gold reserves at the bottom of 2000.
They thought that because of their successful manipulation, gold was cheap in 2000, so they would like to buy some from UK and other signatories. It was not needed to actively manipulate it up, it would rise quite naturally after so long suppression. Gold's market cap had become minuscule compared to their derivative machinations so buying up more and more gold was not a sacrifice for them. In 2000 they thought that gold would be useful. but they, in this context, implicates central banksters/bullion dealers and thus the Dark Side. Gordon Brown and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are part of them. there's an inconsistency in your logic. Even if you tin-foil-hatters imagine that there is a "they", a new world order, a conspiracy of some kind to do something, it would be foolish to consider that "they" are some kind of autocratic Dr. Evil top-down organization. It would instead be a loose confederation of competing individuals who have some agreements that benefit themselves to the detriment of the rest of the world. Think of a "survivor" alliance or one made while playing "risk" -- all know that in the end there can be only one. Should one member choose or be induced to sell gold at the bottom, the others would simply take advantage. would it not be more effective/competitive against everyone else if they actually did collude? |
|
|
|
In the main mastercoin thread, I had brought up the idea of charging a small fee for certain Mastercoin services (such as creating a smart property). Before submitting any proposed spec changes (as I said I’d try to do), I’d like to bring this up as a separate topic and get people’s opinions of it, as it is a very important and major part of Mastercoin that can hugely affect Mastercoin adoption (or the lack of adoption). Given this, let’s have a discussion on: - the pros and cons of fees
- what fees should be charged for
- how fees should be sized (e.g. constant, like with Peercoin, or variable)
- how fees should be paid (e.g. destroy the MSC, send to Exodus)
- and more…
As some background for this thread, here's relevant parts from my initial post (taken from https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=265488.msg3645360#msg3645360): From the spec, it looks like the unique factor used to differentiate one property from another is the Property Name, in which one may put up to 21 characters, correct?
What’s to stop people from spamming new smart properties? This could be like the domain name system, without any pricing required to reserve a name. Someone could reserve a smart property like “dog”, or “House Deed”, in perpetuity. Is any MSC required to be consumed to create a property, or is it just the BTC transaction costs to send the transaction?
[..] If MSC is required (or you are considering this), you could have two options here: pay to the Exodus address (further enriching that, although I don’t know how necessary that is), or destroy the funds, similar to Peercoin transactions.
edit to the above: as I understand this more, I think I confused this string name with a currency ID. Am I right in saying that the currency ID (not the 21 byte string name), is what will need to be allocated and unique?? Whichever one it is, we still have necessary allocations among a finite resource, which is where a fee would make sense to prevent clutterJR’s response to this was: Adding some sort of cost to reduce spam is a great idea. Thanks for bringing that up.
To which I responded: Having a fee is about much more than just reducing system abuse. If done right, it can also be about encouraging the growth of MSC, by requiring people to trade and vest into MSC before using the features of the systems. Doing this I believe will have a huge impact on enlisting long term support of Mastercoin, because it makes anyone that wants to use Mastercoin features have to be vested into the system to some extent, even if it's only a bit, in order to consume finite platform resources (e.g. smart property namespace and currency IDs in this case). It's also an area where I wonder how Mastercoin clones (such as Mastercoin2, where no Exodus-style funding and no inherent coin worth) will handle. To deter namespace spamming, requiring something beyond the minimal BTC transaction value to be spent on a valuable service with finite addressing resources makes logical and economic sense, to me at least, and keeps the system un-bloated and useful. And it is also something to consider from a systems perspective...i.e. if Tachikoma or someone needs to implement a smart properties feature to the site, parsing out and caching each smart property for quick look-up takes time and memory space.
So that all being said, I agree with you on some kind of fee (which I think should be reasonable, able to adjust/change possibly, and made with the foremost intention of reducing spam while preserving usability and desirability of the feature-set). Also agree that it should not go to the Exodus address. It should be done in a way that doesn't bias one participant over another. However, the problem if we did that alone, is that Mastercoin would become a deflationary currency, possibly even more than bitcoin is (where supply slowly reduces due to constant max and people losing wallets, etc, but transaction fees do not destroy BTC). Not inherently a deal killer, but it would reduce the supply over time. Not entirely sure about what the exact consequences of this are, as the annualized deflation rate could become significant, depending on the exact fee structure and service use volume.
JR’s response to this, favored the deflationary approach: Mastercoin has a fixed supply, and I'll gladly destroy them as an anti-spam feature. You'll notice that distributed e-commerce destroys MSC to avoid gaming the feedback system. I think it makes sense to destroy MSC to avoid spam feedback, and spam property creation, and spam anything else. Deflationary = Good Investment = Bigger Mastercoin Community = Faster progress = Even better investment
For instance, as a starting point, say we charged the following fees on the following services: - Simple send, guardian address, rate limiting: No fee
- DEx operations: No fee
- Selling/buying MSC for other MSC currencies: No fee
- Registering a data stream: no fee
- Offering a bet: no fee
- Accepting a bet: 0.0025 MSC
- Creating a smart property: 0.01 MSC
- Paying dividends on a smart property: 0.0025 MSC
- Listing something for sale: 0.001 MSC
- Initiating a purchase, accepting a buyer, leaving feedback: No fee
- Creating a new escrow-backed currency (is this different than creating a smart property?): 1 MSC
Is this absurd, or does it make sense? What does everyone think of these ideas, and these fees themselves? (Being constant, these fees above could be a problem if the value of MSC went up by a ton, or was very volatile... but say in Peercoins case, it has constant fees, but reserves the right to adjust the spec in the future to adjust the fee if needed.) Too high a barrier of entry imho..even 0.001MSC is a nontrivial amount of dollars. I want to be able to empower those in developing nations to be able to list things for sale too. I can't give you any numbers I think would be better though. If MSC is always increasing in value, it would not make sense to use fixed fees. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
