 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 »
|
|
Yes, please proceed to the other thread to see Solomon continue to awkwardly attach himself to every decent response from the community as if he came up with it himself, and yet somehow still not provide any answers to the questions I posed at the outset.
|
|
|
|
Middle men and red tape of transacting absolutely destroy the US Dollar's use on this platform as a medium for exchange Don't you understand that by taking a 20% cut out of content creators you are positioning yourself as just another middle man? My examples were not to illustrate the who but rather the how. Louis CK's celebrity status is not relevant. The point is content creators already have the option of hosting their own products and selling them directly without a big media middle man (just payment and hosting service middle men). Soon, through services like Ujo Music, content creators will likely have the option of selling with no middle men whatsoever. You are positioning yourself as a middle man but I can't figure out what you are offering for your middle man fees. Again, what do producers get from you in return for the 20% cut? (It's crazy how many times I've already asked this without getting a straight answer.) (Edit: @backupp - I appreciate you trying to play mediator here. Keep asking difficult questions. At least Solomon seems inclined to respond to you directly, even if the responses are not that helpful.) PenguinsDancing you and I have a difference of vision/execution when it comes to what is possible in Hollywood and its disruption. You don't see the opportunity. That is fine. Move on. If you believe in Ujo Music or other platforms go there. There is no discussion to be had here between you and I. I don't know you and you are not a backer of this project. What I have wanted to express to you I already have. People can take what they want from it. You are also welcomed to follow the project but this will be my final response to you. Best regards. Hmm, I think this is more than just a "difference of opinion". What I was really hoping for from the beginning was for you to elaborate in a serious way on your "vision" (if it actually existed). I hope that current and future readers of this thread recognize the danger of investing in a project led by a developer who can't answer fairly basic and straightforward questions about their plans for the money collected. |
|
|
|
Middle men and red tape of transacting absolutely destroy the US Dollar's use on this platform as a medium for exchange Don't you understand that by taking a 20% cut out of content creators you are positioning yourself as just another middle man? My examples were not to illustrate the who but rather the how. Louis CK's celebrity status is not relevant. The point is content creators already have the option of hosting their own products and selling them directly without a big media middle man (just payment and hosting service middle men). Soon, through services like Ujo Music, content creators will likely have the option of selling with no middle men whatsoever. You are positioning yourself as a middle man but I can't figure out what you are offering for your middle man fees. Again, what do producers get from you in return for the 20% cut? (It's crazy how many times I've already asked this without getting a straight answer.) (Edit: @backupp - I appreciate you trying to play mediator here. Keep asking difficult questions. At least Solomon seems inclined to respond to you directly, even if the responses are not that helpful.) |
|
|
|
Disappointed.
Beware of "developers" that do not answer serious questions posed to them about their projects. Even an answer of "I don't know but I am working on it" is better than a continual stream of promotional material (a second sign of a questionable project). Compared to other projects that I have been following recently such as Digix, Slock.it/TheDAO and Augur, New Money seems very poorly organized and managed. The developers for these projects have much larger communities and have no problem putting out clear project goals and responding directly to community questions and criticisms.
As I see it right now, either Solomon is out of his depth but doesn't want to admit it; or he is actually just hoping to take your money and give you nothing back. In the end, there is not much difference between either scenario.
Before anyone shouts FUD again, please look back at my post history. I am not involved with competing projects, I am not a new member sock puppet, I have no history of trolling. I'm not very active on these forums, but when I am it is usually because I genuinely want to engage with people about the issues they face in their projects.
PenguinGenius thank you for your input but I believe you are being unfair in your analysis. Just because we are working hard in the background to complete some important tasks does not mean that nothing is getting done. Again people can believe what they need to but this project is geared towards a mainstream audience which you are not apart of and I know how to reach. No other crypto project has so no one can claim to be an expert in that. I've proposed a different route. An Apple-like route. We are gearing up to begin a campaign to reach them with what has been donated. Have you ever run a KickStarter before? Or a crowdfunder that did serious numbers? I have and posted one of my clients where our agreement for my services to them could be public. And that is what we are preparing to do again. And it does not take much. As long as you have a product people want. Now think about all that we raised going towards that... Our goal for the crowdfunder is NOT to build some new blockchain. That is unnecessary and irrelevant. It is also why we have Bitshares. What our goal is is to take advantage of the American trend of cord-cutting and introduce what may very well be the "final nail" in Cable TV. That does not take blockchain. It takes $ense. Some agree with that and some dont. But lets focus. All answers of what is important and why we will use the route of a crowdfunder has been answered since the very beginning: https://medium.com/@sollarsandsense/new-money-faqs-2d5e8e730caf#.os8ely7qdA crowdfunder is still the immediate goal for this project and it will be taken up as the ICO completes. We are getting ready to shoot our content for the next phase. Thank you to all who donated. A super detailed roadmap will be released as things go on for the KickStarter phase. But right now I am focused on putting more important things together. Regards. So, you're telling me that right now you are raising money so that you can raise more money from other people. . . and that this is the most important element of your project right now? That is basically a pyramid scheme. I (quite reasonably) want to know what the ultimate pool funds will go towards. To say that my questions have been answered is disingenuous and the kind of answer you get from a developer who has no answers because they have no project. Let's take these questions one by one, so it's not as overwhelming. We should start with the simplest and maybe most important question. If you don't have an answer to this, you don't have any way to provide a return to your backers. Why should anyone give you/your organization 10-20% of the earnings from their films when this whole payment process could easily be entirely decentralized? What is that fee for and why should it not go to the content creators? In short, why do content creators need you at all?I'll give you two examples to illustrate the problem: 1) Louis CK has a series online called Horace and Pete available for sale through PayPal or Bitcoin. This is a centralized model for selling content that exists right now without Sollywood. What can you offer him in return for the 10-20% fee you propose to take? Why would he, as content creator, provide his content through you? 2) Ujo Music is a decentralized service (a work in progress) that allows direct payments and content distribution between artists and customers without the need for centralized hosting or payment architectures. It will hopefully lead to a sophisticated micropayment system that works behind the scenes, so to speak, so that customers are charged only for the content they consume but without the burden of actively purchasing every piece of content themselves. This will most likely lead to services for other forms of media. THIS is the real "new apple" route that you keep trying to align yourself with. So, again, why would anyone use a service that takes a 10-20% fee when they have this option? |
|
|
|
|
Disappointed.
Beware of "developers" that do not answer serious questions posed to them about their projects. Even an answer of "I don't know but I am working on it" is better than a continual stream of promotional material (a second sign of a questionable project). Compared to other projects that I have been following recently such as Digix, Slock.it/TheDAO and Augur, New Money seems very poorly organized and managed. The developers for these projects have much larger communities and have no problem putting out clear project goals and responding directly to community questions and criticisms.
As I see it right now, either Solomon is out of his depth but doesn't want to admit it; or he is actually just hoping to take your money and give you nothing back. In the end, there is not much difference between either scenario.
Before anyone shouts FUD again, please look back at my post history. I am not involved with competing projects, I am not a new member sock puppet, I have no history of trolling. I'm not very active on these forums, but when I am it is usually because I genuinely want to engage with people about the issues they face in their projects.
|
|
|
|
This project seems like an overly complicated take on micropayments to which the new currency, Sollars, adds very little.
Good answers to a few questions would help ameliorate my skepticism:
1) You seem to have no experience with any kind of tech startup or blockchain project. Do you bring anything other than marketing to this project?
2) Why should anyone give you/your organization 10-20% of the earnings from their films when this whole payment process could easily be entirely decentralized? What is that fee for and why should it not go to the content creators? In short, why do content creators need you at all?
3) You seem to be using terms "DAC" and "blockchain" as equivalents, which is not how I understand them. Could you clarify what you mean by DAC and how a DAC fits into your long term plan?
4) Your analogy to Uber is problematic. Anyone with a car can be a taxi driver via Uber. Not just anyone can create high quality media content. Making blockbuster TV shows and films takes massive teams of people and large upfront investments. It seems to me that the success of your project depends crucially on convincing wealthy producers that your system will make them more money than the system already in place. How will you do this?
Ahem, I'm still hoping you respond to these questions. I'm not ready to scream "scam!" at the top of my lungs yet. My gut tells me that you are possibly sincere but perhaps out of your depth on the development side of things. Honestly, if you stick to just a "marketing" answer to all of the concerns raised around this project, you might make some money off optimistic speculators, but your project will ultimately fail - because it has nothing but promises backing it. In fact, there are not coders lining up around the block hoping for you to offer them a job. That is naive. A competent developer is more likely to simply copy your project (and improve on it as it is now) than work for you. |
|
|
|
|
This project seems like an overly complicated take on micropayments to which the new currency, Sollars, adds very little.
Good answers to a few questions would help ameliorate my skepticism:
1) You seem to have no experience with any kind of tech startup or blockchain project. Do you bring anything other than marketing to this project?
2) Why should anyone give you/your organization 10-20% of the earnings from their films when this whole payment process could easily be entirely decentralized? What is that fee for and why should it not go to the content creators? In short, why do content creators need you at all?
3) You seem to be using terms "DAC" and "blockchain" as equivalents, which is not how I understand them. Could you clarify what you mean by DAC and how a DAC fits into your long term plan?
4) Your analogy to Uber is problematic. Anyone with a car can be a taxi driver via Uber. Not just anyone can create high quality media content. Making blockbuster TV shows and films takes massive teams of people and large upfront investments. It seems to me that the success of your project depends crucially on convincing wealthy producers that your system will make them more money than the system already in place. How will you do this?
|
|
|
|
The way the system is set up, what is good for the currency will trump any few individuals' will to power. I'm sorry but I can't agree. This is not something you can guarantee now and certainly not in the future. I'm not making guarantees, I'm extrapolating using game theory/self-interest. Given that: - all budgets are public - budget abuse would erode public perception, and - the value of the currency is determined by public perception why would a large shareholder be movitated to damage the value of their holdings? Just to separate things: 1) Immediate concern - Misleading proposals pushed through with limited follow-up, essentially leading to large holders paying themselves for doing nothing. I don't agree that budget abuse will necessarily erode public perception faster than hypothetical large holders make money. (Again, not saying this is happening, just suggesting that it is a discussion worth looking into carefully.) 2) Long-term (and more significant) concern - There may be ways for Dash holders to reduce the risk in their holdings while retaining voting rights. They could vote Dash into the ground while making money. I would be in over my head if I tried to explain derivatives and empty voting in relation to DACs because I am still trying to wrap my head around the key concepts. However, I think we should be very careful about relying heavily on the "self-interest" argument. Ownership of assets does not necessarily equal proportional economic self-interest in the current corporate world and there's no reason to expect such a simple relationship in the DAC world either. In fact, I believe that anonymity compounds this issue significantly and is a problem worth discussing seriously. |
|
|
|
Evan you are not transparent enough. Having just read that you alone control the budget system and can pass all budgets with 10% of the vote bothers me. I'm sure you are a busy man but for this system to work and gain momentum you need to stop creating situations where you unfairly control portions of the system.
Otoh, I respect your right to make investments however the size of your investment in DASH gives you a lot of power. This is something I believe is holding potential investors back. I'll add my lurker's two cents to this as well because I think emitkirby raises some important concerns. The key point for me is not so much that large shareholders have more power, it's that voting is not public and we don't necessarily even know who the large shareholders are. It is less than ideal to have potentially large (possibly anonymous) holders or holder "cartels" shaping and passing initiatives in the name of public consent without that consent being completely observable. - Firstly, (and I think this point as been raised, albeit inarticulately and in poor form, by resident trolls) people are likely going to be uncomfortable with the possibility of those holders directing funds to themselves through fake or misrepresented initiatives. - Secondly, and to me the maybe the larger concern for true believers in Dash, is the possibility of large-holders actually voting against Dash's best interests in the future because they have an even larger hedge against it. So-called "empty voting" is a legitimate concern in the corporate world and should be a significant concern here. Well, if that's what you want, you'll have to find it elsewhere because this is a privacy centric coin and any kind of exposure like that not only invades the holder's privacy, but may endanger them, depending on what country they live in. . . This whole Distributed Virtual Corporation is very balanced, very tight. I don't "want" anything in particular but I think it is important to have a discussion about the unique challenges presented by a decentralized autonomous corporation and private shareholder voting. At the moment, I'm not convinced the two goals of a functioning DAC and anonymous digital cash are satisfactorily reconcilable in the same system. This whole Distributed Virtual Corporation is very balanced, very tight.
The way the system is set up, what is good for the currency will trump any few individuals' will to power. I'm sorry but I can't agree. This is not something you can guarantee now and certainly not in the future. |
|
|
|
Evan you are not transparent enough. Having just read that you alone control the budget system and can pass all budgets with 10% of the vote bothers me. I'm sure you are a busy man but for this system to work and gain momentum you need to stop creating situations where you unfairly control portions of the system.
Otoh, I respect your right to make investments however the size of your investment in DASH gives you a lot of power. This is something I believe is holding potential investors back. I'll add my lurker's two cents to this as well because I think emitkirby raises some important concerns. The key point for me is not so much that large shareholders have more power, it's that voting is not public and we don't necessarily even know who the large shareholders are. It is less than ideal to have potentially large (possibly anonymous) holders or holder "cartels" shaping and passing initiatives in the name of public consent without that consent being completely observable. - Firstly, (and I think this point as been raised, albeit inarticulately and in poor form, by resident trolls) people are likely going to be uncomfortable with the possibility of those holders directing funds to themselves through fake or misrepresented initiatives. - Secondly, and to me the maybe the larger concern for true believers in Dash, is the possibility of large-holders actually voting against Dash's best interests in the future because they have an even larger hedge against it. So-called "empty voting" is a legitimate concern in the corporate world and should be a significant concern here. |
|
|
|
|
Android app is not accepting my PIN. I get a 404 error message with an image of a grandma wielding a rolling pin (intentional pun?).
What should I do?
|
|
|
|
check http://blockscan.com/, put in the txs ID from the exchange. Sometimes it takes awhile with the counterparty blockchain. What's a while? Bitcoin blocks are about every 10 minutes. Also, I don't know how many confirms GetGems is expecting before they show it in your balance.
Do you have the bitcoin tx number from the exchange you can look on the block chain to see if it has been confirmed yet?
Thanks, everything is in order, they arrived a few minutes after I posted. For future reference, I'd say it takes around 10 to 12 confirmations for them to appear. I guess I've just gotten used to faster transaction times over the past year. |
|
|
|
|
I sent myself a few GEMZ from an exchange to my Android wallet address. The exchange says the withdrawal is complete and I've waited for a while but nothing has arrived to the app on my phone. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Toknormal's description of how Cryptonote works or what is required for money to work was not legitimate. Please explain. With his pictures, he seemed to even imply that central bankers are needed for money to function at all.
No, I think he is saying that they are required specifically when "money" is backed by debt. If money = gold (and only gold), then no central bankers are needed.
This article helped me understand how that works. However, that raises a few other question for me. Monero (or other related coins) is not based on debt; it has a blockchain. Why does making transactions invisible lead to a lack of confidence that it is actually "money" based on something rather than just a ledger? Here is an abridged version of toknormal's answer to this question from the thread he linked earlier:  You just can’t go from a fully uncensored blockchain to a censored one and make it look the least bit attractive because the alternative is the electronic equivalent of a swiss bank account for rich people except without the "trusted third party auditor” (which in bitcoin is the eyes of the world - not an algo) and therefore a breeding ground for scams, heists, deceptions. . . Firstly, if people are using Monero, or something similar, to buy things in the real world, doesn't that make it visible in the sense of the picture above? The important thing for people to know is that it can and is being used by people in the real world to purchase things. (Or are you saying that we will never get to that point? If so, why?) The only part missing is the claim that value is maximized when "money" is fully auditable, but why is that a requirement? Secondly, it's not clear to me how scams, heists and deceptions suddenly arise out of hiding which addresses are responsible for transactions. |
|
|
|
I'm interested in the discussion about what makes money money. Two questions: Obscurity - A Bookkeeping Concept
In the case of cryptocurrency, there is no intermediate counterparty holding records on your behalf. (If there was, a system like cryptonote might still be of some use). Cryptocurrency therefore re-orders the priorities of monetary transparency and record keeping privacy such that latter becomes the domain of the holder and not the monetary media itself. This is what allows bitcoin to be defined as base money as opposed to a mere record keeping system. I'm not sure I understood the point here and I think that is making it more difficult to get the rest of your discussion. Can you elaborate a bit? You can't just take a cryptographic banking system, throw away the bank and call it money. (You can fool some of the people...).
What specific problems result from obscuring the blockchain? Why does hiding transactions make something less like money? (and for the Monero people here, is this actually what Monero does? If not, please explain why so that someone with limited familiarity with Monero or cryptography could understand.) |
|
|
|
Thanks for the update but it is crashing for me. It opens and then says "loading blockchain" and then stops there with an "application not responding" issue. I'm on OSX 10.9.5. Any suggestions? Nevermind. Got it working after starting from scratch. Guess I have to re-download the blockchain? As per the release notes going from previous version to 1.3.2.2 does component upgrades that can take anywhere from 5-30mins depending on your PC... You should have just been a little patient .. never mind you are up now anyway  Yup, thanks, not patient enough. . .I tried again with the original files. It sat for about 5-10 minutes then crashed, but after I opened it a second time and it worked no problem. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the update but it is crashing for me. It opens and then says "loading blockchain" and then stops there with an "application not responding" issue. I'm on OSX 10.9.5. Any suggestions? Nevermind. Got it working after starting from scratch. Guess I have to re-download the blockchain? |
|
|
|
Thanks for the update but it is crashing for me. It opens and then says "loading blockchain" and then stops there with an "application not responding" issue. I'm on OSX 10.9.5. Any suggestions? |
|
|
|
|
Is there a mac update in the works?
|
|
|
|
|
