You are asking us to give up our two most powerful competitive edges. 1. BitShares is a self-funding start-up. It pays its workers in equity, like most start-ups. Its supply increases much slower than Bitcoin. 2. BitShares is innovative. It will keep changing and improving to be competitive. Choose who you prefer to invest in: Tessla or Coke.  "self funding" didn't come about until a month or two previous. Your crowd fund was supposed to carry you through development, but couldn't manage so bytemaster threatens to bail and develop a competitor if the community didn't agree. |
|
|
|
I know it's not really supposed to be fully decentralised and all but this is pretty ridiculous. I was warming up a lot to BTS recently but seeing this is kind of weird. This is the type of thing that people will always post a link to whenever someone brings up or recommends BTS.
I have been there since the beginning and these little tweaks are constantly happening. As I have always stated, the core idea and original BitShares X is awesome. But, They diluted the shares adding 500 million more BTS so Bytemaster wouldn't leave to create a competing BitShares. Well uh, he's the guy that started BitShares. Why would he even think about leaving his project after collecting millions of dollars in BTC, PTS and subsequently BTS by way of PTS? Because he wanted more money. The shares he received from the Donations weren't enough. Now that dilution happened because no one wanted Bytemaster to jump ship, they decided to further dilute by way of inflation and giving special delegates, the Devs, 50 BTS per block which is around 4277 per day, equal to 130K per month, equal to 1.56 million BTS per year per delegate all because the Devs wanted more money. The statement about Bytemaster being greedy is complete bullshit. He didn't reserve himself any rights he did not reserve others. He get the same compensation as the other Devs. Developers have to be compensated somehow and paying them by newly issued shares (only max 6% per year; at the moment it is less then 1% dilution per year to pay for development!!). Please present facts in perspective. The problem I have with how you present things is that it is entirely one sided, sometimes misleading (like in this thread) and I not once heard you say how to resolve trade off issues. The development funding challenge for example: You complain about dilution to fund development all day (keep in mind it is ~ 1% dilution atm only) but never make a proposal how you would approach the problem. Would you suggest that all 10 highly qualified developers should work for free? On the merger you mentioned (500m new BTS): You should look more closely and present things as they are: There where two types of AGS donations: (1) AGS donations before Feb 28th (2) AGS donations after Feb. 28th (BTS Snapshot). Group (1) donators got BTS. Group (2) should have gotten all other DACs (a Domain name DAC for example) Bytemaster was planning. Bytemaster realized that those different DACs might end up competing with each other and divide his loyalty. Therefore there was a merger of group (1) and group (2) AGSers so that AGS, PTS, the VOTE DAC and the DNS DAC got the new BTS (20% dilution). In return DNS and VOTE were integrated into BTS and Bytemaster is only working on one project now as opposed to many as planned initially. That all made BTS more valuable but was not communicated well. You are a funny guy but you seem hate driven. Here is a few proposals: Don't dilute! Pretty simple. No inflation. Quit altering the project! See something through for once. Every huge change lately has been because bytemaster and the others want more money. Tell me how I am wrong there. |
|
|
|
I know it's not really supposed to be fully decentralised and all but this is pretty ridiculous. I was warming up a lot to BTS recently but seeing this is kind of weird. This is the type of thing that people will always post a link to whenever someone brings up or recommends BTS.
I have been there since the beginning and these little tweaks are constantly happening. As I have always stated, the core idea and original BitShares X is awesome. But, They diluted the shares adding 500 million more BTS so Bytemaster wouldn't leave to create a competing BitShares. Well uh, he's the guy that started BitShares. Why would he even think about leaving his project after collecting millions of dollars in BTC, PTS and subsequently BTS by way of PTS? Because he wanted more money. The shares he received from the Donations weren't enough. Now that dilution happened because no one wanted Bytemaster to jump ship, they decided to further dilute by way of inflation and giving special delegates, the Devs, 50 BTS per block which is around 4277 per day, equal to 130K per month, equal to 1.56 million BTS per year per delegate all because the Devs wanted more money. |
|
|
|
It was just a discussion proposal! And one that was just intended as temporary anyway until the client is out of alpha stage and voting is more convenient.
Newmine is posting nonconstructive stuff all day on the bitshares forum.
Pretty sure I stated in the OP that it's a proposal. Trying reading it through. And yes, my .78 posts per day for over year constitutes as "nonconstructive stuff all day". I merely point out the things you can't see as you are drowning in the Bitshares grape Koolaid. |
|
|
|
As if the millions of dollars in "donations" and 100's of millions in BTS they own weren't enough, the BitShares Dev's are proposing a hard code in the client that will automatically vote/approve all the Devs for Delegate positions who receive 50 BTS per produced block 85 times a day.
It seems these guys are all about sucking money out of the system instead of trying to grow what they already have.
How many full time Devs does this thing need?
No words for this.Greedy as hell. Do you have a link? |
|
|
|
|
As if the millions of dollars in "donations" and 100's of millions in BTS they own weren't enough, the BitShares Dev's are proposing a hard code in the client that will automatically vote/approve all the Devs for Delegate positions who receive 50 BTS per produced block 85 times a day.
It seems these guys are all about sucking money out of the system instead of trying to grow what they already have.
How many full time Devs does this thing need?
|
|
|
|
|
BitShares is a delegated proof of stake. This means they have 101 delegates/block producers who are "elected" in by votes proportional to the stake of the voter.
Right now, near 2 billion BTS have been claimed from the genesis.
Only about 17% of the 2billion shares participate in voting. A majority of these votes are from I3 and the Dev team.
The least voted for delegate is currently voted in with 7% voting for that person to produce blocks.
I3, the development group collectively have ~70 million BTS.
The core Dev individually controls "probably" 100 million or near shares if not more.
The other Devs probably have 50 million BTS more.
The core Devs and some others (marketing groups) are diluting the shares by taxing the block chain as a delegate who takes 50 BTS per block produced. This means the Dev's AKA, the largest share holders are getting more shares to the tune of 100,000 plus per month.
Even if shares were more evenly distributed, voter/share participation would drop to minuscule levels where one big whale could come in and take control of the network at these price levels.
This just seems way too centralized. I love the BitShares idea of the exchange and collateralized assets, but this scares me as an investor. Greed has become an open requirement in order for some of the Dev's to maintain the network and stay on board which caused dilution and this new blockchain tax that they call "blockchain for hire" even though they collected millions of dollars in crowd funding a year ago.
|
|
|
|
no they can't replace it because the Bitshare stuff is trust based so not good to sink large amounts of money into it.
-traders and speculators will not use it if it's not volatile and that's currently 80% to 90% of the money in bitcoin
- the high volatility comes from the high inflation.
Decentralised low inflation coins (with reduced volatility) which are trustless stand a chance to get a shot imo - not the bitshares-crap though.
What aspect of bitshares do you feel requires too much trust? The market pegged assets like bitUSD don't require trust to trade (no counterparty risk) like an IOU asset, just trust in the feed producers (delegates) that they aren't colluding to manipulate the feeds. Because of the difficulty in getting an active delegate position and the fact that shareholders can vote out malicious or colluding delegates if their actions are made public, I don't see this as an issue. It is also a best practice to have each delegate run by individuals / companies instead of one user in control of multiple delegates. A steady coin could be of benefit as the fluctuations could or can be a problem, but what's to stop people paying more or less for these fiat-pegged coins?
Both BitUSD and Nubits use highly complex systems to keep the price roughly in line with their fiat equivalent(s). The peg usually isn't exact, but it's close enough. I don't know how it works and trying to understand it gives me a headache but I suspect there is some degree of centralization going on behind the scenes. From what I understand about NuBits, they have custodian users maintaining buy and sell walls at $1 to keep a NuBit at that price. They use a variable interest rate to incentivize holders to "park" their NuBits and earn interest. bitUSD and other market pegged assets on the other hand only require 2 voluntary traders willing to take opposite positions (long and short) on the bitshares internal market, the collateral of which is held by the blockchain itself. More reading for those that are interested how it actually works: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2014/12/18/What-are-BitShares-Market-Pegged-Assets/Edit: to answer the OPs question, I think that stable assets will find a home alongside volatile assets like BTC and BTS for their utility, but we must not forget that assets tracking the value of a currency that is strong today will also fall with that currency in the future when it collapses. So stable assets have good use in the short to medium term but in the long term a fixed supply cryptocurrency will probably be ideal (after the volatility settles down) for a global and manipulation resistant currency. BM just wrote up a good post talking about that issue: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2015/01/01/How-to-create-a-stable-decentralized-crypto-currency/With BitShares you were/are required to trust Bytemaster. With the current structure you now have to trust Bytemaster and the other Devs who have enormous amounts of shares and are now getting bigger chunks of near 130,100 shares per month each. Between Bytemaster and I3, I suspect they hold near 10% of all the shares. I3 still has 67 million shares and I suspect Bytemaster and Stan have more than 100 million share already if not way more. Since the network security is based on stake voting for block producers and vote participation is about 16%, it is hugely centralized around Bytemaster. This is why if you are nice to Bytemaster and PM him to vote you in as a delegate, you will all of a sudden be a delegate. Bitshares is highly centralized right now. The crappy thing about it is that in order for it to become less centralized, Bytemaster and I3 have to divest. And with their amount of holdings, it will depress the price for long time. |
|
|
|
|
POW was great in the beginning when anyone could mine with a CPU. POW has now been consolidated to directing your hashing power towards one of a handful of mining pools. These few pools now can control the network if they collude. What the incentive is may be less known and more damaging if they do, but nonetheless, the network can be controlled buy an elite few.
POS has the same problems as anyone with enough funds can buy their way into controlling the blocks.
DPOS has a similar problem as POS as you use your stake to "vote" block signers into position. I think, but could be wrong that DPOS doesn't allow you to use your stake to vote for a majority of signers. You would have to have multiple large stake holders colluding to overrun the system. Please correct if I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like someone got burned.
Did you buy high and sell low?
Or
Did you give up your coins to a scammer?
|
|
|
|
|
$150 trillion divided by 21 million BTC equals $7.14million/BTC.
|
|
|
|
|
Since the Sacramento Kings were the first professional sports Team to accept Bitcoin, maybe you should start there.
|
|
|
|
buttcoin.com is owned by BFL now. There was some buttcoin drama a few weeks back stating that the owner of the domain who I believe is a mod on /r/buttcoin was duped into selling it. He noticed when a bunch of anti-BFL articles were changed to praising BFL. Just FYI. |
|
|
|
Just bought MRO. All other coins are worthless and doomed. You should buy MRO too. So the price will rise. This post is in no way bias. FTFY OP. What a crock of shit. Had you just spouted off about how good MRO is, I would have taken your advice to heart. But because you decided to bash every Alt except the one you hold, I think you are no more than a propaganda artist with the incentive to make sure you make money regardless of truths. |
|
|
|
|
That was not a summary. Just write a 4 sentence paragraph for fucks sake. Your message is so fucking convoluted that you sound like John Nash, Ted Kazcynski, Alex Jones, Geraldo and Six Lemure all smashed into the head of a teenage girl with a knack for posting memes.
TL:DR this shit.
TBF is shit and I want to know what the gist of your rumblings are without having to take notes and draw a fucking map of how snap crackle and pop are in cahoots with Hilary Clinton to take over bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
|
Satoshi was diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's disease. He knew he would no longer be able to maintain the fake online identity without help from others. So he abandoned it and created a real identity. This real identity registered here 2 weeks before Satoshi's last post and the person later came forward as being the first person to receive a bitcoin that was not mined. This happened the first week of bitcoins existence. Before bitcoin, Satoshi created a proof-of-work called RPOW which is arguably the precursor to bitcoins POW. Satoshi's real identity also admitted being involved with BTC in the beginning and the conveniently walked away from BTC only to return at the very same time Satoshi disappears.
Nobody just walks away from something like this. Satoshi literally didn't and can't. He is still here, reading not posting.
|
|
|
|
|
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!
If you really spent $100k to join the foundation to continue your attack, then you are fucking crazy stupid.
Good luck. You need it pissing away money like that.
|
|
|
|
|
Can we get a tl;dr? This is way too much shit to sift through because a douche bag (Pierce) joined another group of douche bags (The Bitcoin Foundation). Is there some underlying statement you are trying to make other that he is linked to a "supposed" child molester who paid his way out of court?
If in all this information is some elaborate crime ring, don't fucking post it here! Go to the authorities! You could be giving them (the bad people) a clue that someone is on to them and now they can begin covering their tracks!
|
|
|
|
Thank you for story! You are an incredibly strong person. I admire the your spirit's strength.
PS. You used a paper wallet to store BTC in your safe deposit box or other wallet?
Total newbie asking Hal where and how exactly he stored his Bitcoins. Hahahaaa. Crypto Scammers know no bounds. I am guessing he thought the thread was started today since replies bump the post to the top. Nah, he deleted his post after I confronted him. He's a scammer for sure looking to rob helpless people. I really really dislike scammers. Like the ZET devs whom are now clearly known to have lied and scammed people for some 2 months. I tried to warn everyone but nobody believed me. It's really sad cause lots of inexperienced people come in and they believe these scammers and they get taken for everything they got and then Cryptos get a bad rap on top of it. We need some oversight, some enforcement of the rule of law in CryptoLand. But until then I need to launch CoinTruth .com to educate people and make a list of all the known scammers out there. A website you can trust and which may end up saving you a lot of money by redlining scammers and ScamCoins. That's a good idea! If you get it up and running, I'd be the first to donate something. Make sure you add user FreeTrade for his 2 Memorycoin scams. You should, or someone should have it tiered by known scammers, huge premine, suspected scams, up front donation/investment requests etc..... You could have a site that is really informative and widely traveled! |
|
|
|
Can anyone quote what is decentralized about bitcoin in this thread yet?
The code/protocol and rate of generation is decentralized. Nothing else. Transaction into the ledger can be controlled, exchanging and trading are beholden to your Government. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
