sportscliche
Newbie
 Offline
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
|
 |
September 03, 2014, 08:26:07 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No Gods or Kings. Only Bitcoin
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sidhujag
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2044
Merit: 1005
|
|
September 07, 2014, 03:12:54 PM |
|
Also want to highlight this post by Vitalik Buterin, in which he discusses the double-edged sword of self-referencing price pegs (i.e. no explicit link to the real world) as BitsharesX is doing: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=324830.msg3581512#msg3581512I don't know enough about DPOS and whether it can implement the POS voting that Vitalik mentions or if it addresses cunicula's criticisms. There is talk of adding market adjusted interest rates to avoid the binary outcome of an expected price target. It reduces the binary outcome to a floating price with incentive to float at a price target of $1usd per bitUSD. The lower or higher the more the incentive. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
CoinHoarder
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1484
Merit: 1026
In Cryptocoins I Trust
|
|
September 08, 2014, 07:28:09 PM
Last edit: September 08, 2014, 07:39:45 PM by CoinHoarder |
|
BitUSD and other bitassets will start generating variable interest (like a savings account at a bank) starting Wednesday: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=8520.0BTSX up 20% today.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
nomoreheroes7
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 326
Merit: 250
King of all the land
|
|
October 21, 2014, 07:49:01 PM |
|
BitShares isn't a currency, it's a company. The price has risen today based on near-finalization of the merger plans, so I don't think your FUD attempt will work... |
|
|
|
|
|
inBitweTrust
|
|
October 21, 2014, 07:56:56 PM |
|
BitShares isn't a currency, it's a company.
I understand Bitshares is a DAC and never claimed otherwise(You are combining 2 sentences). I was referring to the fact that I was told multiple times that BTSX is the first true deflationary currency as the IPO willed into existence an initial 1,999,883,512 tokens that would never be increased unlike with the allocation of other crypto-currencies. It now appears that there are plans to increase these tokens to 2.5 Billion shares or coins or whatever you wish to call them for the sake of clarity, marketing , and cash infusion for devs. The price has risen today based on near-finalization of the merger plans, so I don't think your FUD attempt will work...
There are good things and bad things about this maneuver. I do believe that clarification is certainly a good thing for bitshares as the whole AGS/PTS/BTSX/BitUSD and all the assets was entirely overly complicated mess.... but there are bad things as well. What do you think about the negatives? |
|
|
|
|
|
nomoreheroes7
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 326
Merit: 250
King of all the land
|
|
October 21, 2014, 08:15:36 PM |
|
Yes, because people give a damn what bluemeanie of all people has to say on the subject... There are good things and bad things about this maneuver. I do believe that clarification is certainly a good thing for bitshares as the whole AGS/PTS/BTSX/BitUSD and all the assets was entirely overly complicated mess.... but there are bad things as well. What do you think about the negatives?
I honestly don't see any of the negatives. The merger is a great way to keep developer focus on one DAC (instead of competing DAC's that would likely cannibalize each other) while tremendously streamlining the confusing naming system that was going on. In regards to dilution, I feel it is necessary to a certain extent in order to keep BitShares growing -- all dilution is up to the shareholders to vote on, and no one will vote for dilution if it doesn't increase the DAC's profitability. It is important to step out of the mindset of just being another "currency", and look at it like a company, as companies issue new shares all the time to increase profitability for the shareholders. This is a much more transparent/decentralized form of that. And comparing to Bitcoin -- the profits for the BitShares DAC go directly back to the shareholders in the form of burn or are used to continue building the DAC. Bitcoin bleeds millions through the mining process, and none of that money is ever put back into the BTC ecosystem. That is why I have so much faith in BitShares' future -- the economics are sound. |
|
|
|
|
sidhujag
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2044
Merit: 1005
|
|
October 21, 2014, 08:23:43 PM |
|
BitShares isn't a currency, it's a company. The price has risen today based on near-finalization of the merger plans, so I don't think your FUD attempt will work... bitshares is not a currency nor a company.. if it were a company it would fall into legal battles with SEC and the likes... it is a toolkit. It's important to draw this distinction because it can't be shutdown like bitcoin. If it were a company it could get shutdown... Invictus could get shutdown but bitshares would live on. |
|
|
|
|
sidhujag
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2044
Merit: 1005
|
|
October 21, 2014, 08:27:21 PM |
|
BitShares isn't a currency, it's a company.
I understand Bitshares is a DAC and never claimed otherwise(You are combining 2 sentences). I was referring to the fact that I was told multiple times that BTSX is the first true deflationary currency as the IPO willed into existence an initial 1,999,883,512 tokens that would never be increased unlike with the allocation of other crypto-currencies. It now appears that there are plans to increase these tokens to 2.5 Billion shares or coins or whatever you wish to call them for the sake of clarity, marketing , and cash infusion for devs. The price has risen today based on near-finalization of the merger plans, so I don't think your FUD attempt will work...
There are good things and bad things about this maneuver. I do believe that clarification is certainly a good thing for bitshares as the whole AGS/PTS/BTSX/BitUSD and all the assets was entirely overly complicated mess.... but there are bad things as well. What do you think about the negatives? The capital infusion is based on consensus vote so majority of shareholders would have to agree that the new DAC would be profitable and thus it would get funded... so the idea is that many new ideas would only be implemented if profitable as consensus and thus supply is controlled by ongoing series of votes for profitable features/technologies.... which bitcoin doesn't have... it falls within the current mindset of the economy that you raise funds to pay for new ideas... and it is scalable.. something other coins with fixed supply can't do. In the end the extra supply would be justified by profits. Many antogonists of bitcoin used as a currency have a problem with the supply... and they say the perfect currency is one which ties supply to growth or gdp... and this would essentially be the best solution to that problem IMO... we vote for something that would help us grow, and supply would scale automatically to that growth. |
|
|
|
|
|
inBitweTrust
|
|
October 21, 2014, 08:53:35 PM |
|
I honestly don't see any of the negatives. ....That is why I have so much faith in BitShares' future -- the economics are sound.
These comments are truly telling. I can and do discuss many negative aspects about Bitcoin despite my investments. If you cannot see any negatives of a dev leveraging his time with a competing DAC and thus undermining the previous investors to create a "capital infusion" than you really do have a lot of faith. |
|
|
|
sidhujag
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2044
Merit: 1005
|
|
October 21, 2014, 08:58:49 PM |
|
I honestly don't see any of the negatives. ....That is why I have so much faith in BitShares' future -- the economics are sound.
These comments are truly telling. I can and do discuss many negative aspects about Bitcoin despite my investments. If you cannot see any negatives of a dev leveraging his time with a competing DAC and thus undermining the previous investors to create a "capital infusion" than you really do have a lot of faith. It is a one time infusion to avoid spending time on many DACs and create one to create one big rocket ship for outer space instead of smaller ships trying to get there... capital infusion is meant to be a feature for new DACs rolling fwd to tie supply to real growth (and funding for new technologies) as a consensus over time... thus it is unlike anything else out there today... |
|
|
|
|
|
inBitweTrust
|
|
October 21, 2014, 08:59:20 PM |
|
The capital infusion is based on consensus vote so majority of shareholders would have to agree that the new DAC would be profitable and thus it would get funded... so the idea is that many new ideas would only be implemented if profitable as consensus and thus supply is controlled by ongoing series of votes for profitable features/technologies.... which bitcoin doesn't have... it falls within the current mindset of the economy that you raise funds to pay for new ideas... and it is scalable.. something other coins with fixed supply can't do. In the end the extra supply would be justified by profits.
Many antogonists of bitcoin used as a currency have a problem with the supply... and they say the perfect currency is one which ties supply to growth or gdp... and this would essentially be the best solution to that problem IMO... we vote for something that would help us grow, and supply would scale automatically to that growth.
I have no problem as to delegates switching from a deflationary currency to an inflationary one. I expected as much because of DPOS, but am shocked it is happening this quickly. Some people would suggest this is an inherent problem with DPoS as early investors investments are being diluted, what do you think? What do you think about the differences of how Bitcoin vs Bitshares raises funds for development? |
|
|
|
sidhujag
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2044
Merit: 1005
|
|
October 21, 2014, 09:03:37 PM |
|
The capital infusion is based on consensus vote so majority of shareholders would have to agree that the new DAC would be profitable and thus it would get funded... so the idea is that many new ideas would only be implemented if profitable as consensus and thus supply is controlled by ongoing series of votes for profitable features/technologies.... which bitcoin doesn't have... it falls within the current mindset of the economy that you raise funds to pay for new ideas... and it is scalable.. something other coins with fixed supply can't do. In the end the extra supply would be justified by profits.
Many antogonists of bitcoin used as a currency have a problem with the supply... and they say the perfect currency is one which ties supply to growth or gdp... and this would essentially be the best solution to that problem IMO... we vote for something that would help us grow, and supply would scale automatically to that growth.
I have no problem as to delegates switching from a deflationary currency to an inflationary one. I expected as much because of DPOS, but am shocked it is happening this quickly. Some people would suggest this is an inherent problem with DPoS as early investors investments are being diluted, what do you think? What do you think about the differences of how Bitcoin vs Bitshares raises funds for development? The only real difference is that bitshares added the voting capability thus tying in consensus... and its only as inflationary as it needs to be... if new technology justifies the funding it funds it... otherwise it doesn't... not like today where we have technologies that don't hold their own weight... thats as far as I can tell, the rest we will have to look in hindsight... but I believe in the decisions so far. |
|
|
|
|
|
inBitweTrust
|
|
October 21, 2014, 09:09:25 PM |
|
It is a one time infusion to avoid spending time on many DACs and create one to create one big rocket ship for outer space instead of smaller ships trying to get there... capital infusion is meant to be a feature for new DACs rolling fwd to tie supply to real growth (and funding for new technologies) as a consensus over time... thus it is unlike anything else out there today...
One time, huh? What do you think the differences between a consensus being reached within PoW Bitcoin increasing the 21 million limit and BTSX further diluting shares? The only real difference is that bitshares added the voting capability thus tying in consensus... and its only as inflationary as it needs to be... if new technology justifies the funding it funds it... otherwise it doesn't... not like today where we have technologies that don't hold their own weight... thats as far as I can tell, the rest we will have to look in hindsight... but I believe in the decisions so far.
Hmmm.....that's not exactly answering the question..... What do you think about the differences of how Bitcoin vs Bitshares raises funds for development?
Or are you suggesting there are no differences? |
|
|
|
|
TaunSew
|
|
October 21, 2014, 09:21:17 PM |
|
We can argue over definition but anything centralized like BitsharesX and Ethereum is a scam waiting to happen. Bankers put the entire world into a mess and solution isn't replacing the current set of bankers with a newer set of bankers like BitSharesX.
|
There ain't no Revolution like a NEMolution. The only solution is Bitcoin's dissolution! NEM!
|
|
|
|
inBitweTrust
|
|
October 21, 2014, 09:31:26 PM |
|
We can argue over definition but anything centralized like BitsharesX and Ethereum is a scam waiting to happen. Bankers put the entire world into a mess and solution isn't replacing the current set of bankers with a newer set of bankers like BitSharesX.
I was promised this couldn't happen and that Bitshares was more secure and decentralized with their delegates than Bitcoin. Meanwhile in the course of a month : Bugs in the code inflate monetary supply: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=809378.0and its interesting how one developer can leverage another DAC to influence all the delegates with such ease. Some would consider this a form of theft from early investors. I know that I would consider any change in the 21million dollar cap of bitcoin theft. Bitcoin is far from perfect but Bitshares advocates need a serious dose of reality. |
|
|
|
sidhujag
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2044
Merit: 1005
|
|
October 21, 2014, 09:33:05 PM |
|
It is a one time infusion to avoid spending time on many DACs and create one to create one big rocket ship for outer space instead of smaller ships trying to get there... capital infusion is meant to be a feature for new DACs rolling fwd to tie supply to real growth (and funding for new technologies) as a consensus over time... thus it is unlike anything else out there today...
One time, huh? What do you think the differences between a consensus being reached within PoW Bitcoin increasing the 21 million limit and BTSX further diluting shares? The only real difference is that bitshares added the voting capability thus tying in consensus... and its only as inflationary as it needs to be... if new technology justifies the funding it funds it... otherwise it doesn't... not like today where we have technologies that don't hold their own weight... thats as far as I can tell, the rest we will have to look in hindsight... but I believe in the decisions so far.
Hmmm.....that's not exactly answering the question..... What do you think about the differences of how Bitcoin vs Bitshares raises funds for development?
Or are you suggesting there are no differences? Well alot of economists say the perfect currency is one that ties supply equilibrium to that of real growth (GDP). This tries to do that in a democratic way. It's not to say that votes can't be delegated to someone making it for you, but the ability as a shareholder to vote on these things is what seperates it from our system today... otherwise it ties as a nice upgrade to our current framework.. I quite like the idea... how is it different than bitcoin? Bitcoin serves as a commodity IMO not as a currency. It can't grow supply and thus people will only spend when they have to... its very deflationary... if we change our economic framework to model it after bitcoin sure... if we want to adapt both ways without turning the world upside down I think both can work in unison... bitcoin functions as gold/currency and shares for exchanging things... I don't know how you think bitcoin raises funds to be able to comment on what the differences are between raising funds in bitshares vs bitcoin.... The major difference I see is that funds are raised by consensus and not by individuals in power. Is bitshares the one? Maybe maybe not.. all I said was the decisions being made I like so far... its personal opinion so shouldn't mean to buy it because I said its good unless you trust my judgement. The rest time will tell. BTW the supply went 187k above the limit.. its been burned... so it's not a big thing. |
|
|
|
|
|
