$5000 per coin will never happen if PoW mining is allowed to continue

[kokojie]

Bitcoin checkpointing does not have anything to do with avoiding hard forks.

Whatever they are used for, it's manually hardcoded by developers, YES? case closed, thank you

Um no. The point is specifically about Distributed Consensus, which has to do with hard forks. Because of the Nothing-at-Stake problem, PoS always runs the risk of hard forking. I'm not particularly comfortable with that.

Bitcoin has had no accidental hardfork? don't be ridiculous. As I explained before, NAS is fictional. Actually, when I think about it, I haven't seen any accidental hardfork in a PoS system. It must be due to the non-existent NAS problem. lol

[inBitweTrust]

I still don't understand what are you saying, are you saying VOTE's 3% is entirely paid to the dev team? because that's certainly not the case. You'll need to show me where are the "extra pay" to dev team coming from. Not just regurgitating things that I already know.

The information is already available for you to figure out. You are very frustrating to talk to because you are resisting every step of the way and I have to keep re-explaining it and providing more and more evidence. I don't think you are stupid but certainly have some sort of psychological block on negative information concerning Bitshares and thus have an inability to think critically about this topic.

I will help you a bit more:
Take BTSX,PTS,AGS, DNS current market caps /divided by the amount of shares and log that into account.

Investors should than determine the current value of their assets before the merger.

Now take the total market cap of BTSX,PTS,AGS, DNS and divide it by 2.5 billion to determine the new value of all these tokens post merger. Using your own values :

The merger is very clear,
80% existing BTSX
7% PTS
7% AGS
3% DNS
3% VOTE

Determine the current valuation of everones stake.

The bottom line is the developers and invictus have designed the ratio distribution in relation to inflating the monetary supply where their current holdings will increase in value and others will lose value.

You don't need me to do the basic math for you too, do you?

[DumbFruit]

Bitcoin has had no accidental hardfork? don't be ridiculous. As I explained before, NAS is fictional. Actually, when I think about it, I haven't seen any accidental hardfork in a PoS system. It must be due to the non-existent NAS problem. lol

Sure, but in principle there's no reason Bitcoin should ever hard fork as long as there is no 51% attack. In principle, PoS will always struggle with consensus.

If PoS developers aren't willing to address the Nothing-at-Stake problem and pretend it isn't a problem until it is, that's their problem, and anyone that's decided to jump on the bandwagon.

I wonder if there's a good psychological term for this condition where people will try to invent a really complicated system to prop up their idea without recognizing that the underlying idea is fundamentally flawed?

It's reminiscent of the Ptolemaic system.

Edit: To be fair, the Ptolemaic system actually works in it's own strange way.

[kokojie]

I still don't understand what are you saying, are you saying VOTE's 3% is entirely paid to the dev team? because that's certainly not the case. You'll need to show me where are the "extra pay" to dev team coming from. Not just regurgitating things that I already know.

The information is already available for you to figure out. You are very frustrating to talk to because you are resisting every step of the way and I have to keep re-explaining it and proving more and more evidence. I don't think you are stupid but certainly have some sort of psychological block on negative information concerning Bitshares and thus have an inability to think critically about this topic.

I will help you a bit more:
Take BTSX,PTS,AGS, DNS current market caps /divided by the amount of shares and log that into account.

Investors should than determine the current value of their assets before the merger.

Now take the total market cap of BTSX,PTS,AGS, DNS and divide it by 2.5 billion to determine the new value of all these tokens post merger. Using your own values :

The merger is very clear,
80% existing BTSX
7% PTS
7% AGS
3% DNS
3% VOTE

Determine the current valuation of everones stake.

The bottom line is the developers and invictus has designed the ratio distribution in relation to inflating the monetary supply where their current holdings will increase in value and others will lose value.

You don't need me to do the basic math for you too, do you?

That's ridiculous. You are using some small inefficiencies in the valuation of the merger, to manufacture a rumor that the dev team is somehow "paying extra" to themselves? well first you'll have to prove that what are their "current holdings"? it's BTSX or AGS or PTS or what? the dev team have a stake in all of them.

Also the fact that the dev team has offered to pay DNS holders extra, out of dev funds, has basically proved your theory is wrong. Why would they do that if their aim is to pay themselves?

[inBitweTrust]

That's ridiculous. You are using some small inefficiencies in the valuation of the merger, to manufacture a rumor that the dev team is somehow "paying extra" to themselves? well first you'll have to prove that what are their "current holdings"? it's BTSX or AGS or PTS or what? the dev team have a stake in all of them.

Also the fact that the dev team has offered to pay DNS holders extra, out of dev funds, has basically proved your theory is wrong. Why would they do that if their aim is to pay themselves?

You understand that the VOTE DAC doesn't exist pre merger and that development by Daniel is being paid for by 3% of 2.5 Billion shares of the total market cap of BTSX,PTS,AGS, DNS. So yes, the DNS holders can get a speck paid back out of the large capital infusion.

Its not as if VOTE has its own IPO where people can buy into it with BTC, it is automatically getting a share distribution.

What is so complicated about this?

You don't have to go by my word, why don't you ask the question to other delegates and moderators within this thread if you assume that I and they are wrong:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10214.0

The proposed solution:

To resolve this conflict, Bytemaster proposed merging BTSX, PTS, and AGS back together into a new entity called Bitshares (BTS).  The new entity would be able to create new shares to be sold to new investors for a capital infusion, by shareholder vote, for purposes of funding the marketing campaign. Proposal was made in this thread:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10148.msg132495#msg132495
This is the thread you will want to read closely and think about the implications of such as written by Daniel himself.

You have so much faith in Bitshares that you don't even trust the hard facts explained by developers, moderators , and the creator in their very own forum.

[hozer]

You keep saying PoW mining transfers value out of the ecosystem.  I don’t think that is the appropriate way to view it.  I see it as more helpful to look at all of the mining hardware as an investment the community is making in its own security system.  How much do we invest in such a system?  The current incentives suggest the investment be equal to the expected value of all the un-mined coins + expected transaction fees.  I will agree that this incentive could be leading us astray, that we could be over-investing in ASIC hardware and electricity costs.  So the question is, what should we be investing in instead?  Perhaps more code development?  More legal work?  More bitcoin education?  What if we, as a community, could figure out a way to steer 20% of mining revenues towards other goals?  That would be $100,000,000 per year at current prices.  It wouldn’t appreciably change the investment in hash power (okay, it would reduce it by 20%), but we would be expanding by 30-fold the amount invested in software development and etc.

I think the way this would be most likely to happen would be someone presenting a plan to all the mining pools, and getting them all to agree to turn over some percentage of mined coins to some representative body that would transparently reinvest the coins into aspects of the ecosystem other than hashing data centers.  The miners could like this proposal because they could realize that through collective effort, and “giving up” a fraction of their proceeds, they could actually boost the value of bitcoin by far more in the long run.

If people think PoW is a 'tax' on bitcoin, then use an altcoin that already has PoW. There is no need to 'save' bitcoin from those evil PoW taxing miners. If you don't like it, take your money and your time somewhere else.

There are those of us that feel the investment in hash power has built a basis for a distributed trading economy that is far beyond the value of Bitcoin itself. And I have not yet seen a credible proof-of-stake system that solves this issue: https://bitbucket.org/JeanLucPicard/nxt/issue/117/front-running-on-the-nxt-ae-by-trading. If you find a solution, then it might be worth talking about forking Bitcoin into Stakecoin, and you can keep your balance in both chains, and let the market sort out the winner.

Now, what I do find very compelling is the argument that block rewards should support more than just miners. As a farmer, I want everyone to be able to have enough income to buy good food, because I'll get more money if we have a guaranteed minimum income. This has convinced we need to have a cryptographic currency that distributes part of the block reward not to a foundation, but directly to people, and I attempted to (poorly) lay out a framework to do this at http://minco.me. And since there are many things about mining and farming that are the same (including that mining bitcoin and growing soybeans are both below the cost of production right now), I think it's in my best rational profit-motivated interest to promote a currency that reallocates money from the rich and elite and gives it to everyone so everyone can buy my food.

The rich and elite can then continue to whine about taxes in their ivory towns and private islands while the rest of us get on with building the crypto-economy 2.0 if we are no longer forced to use fiat currencies.

[kokojie]

That's ridiculous. You are using some small inefficiencies in the valuation of the merger, to manufacture a rumor that the dev team is somehow "paying extra" to themselves? well first you'll have to prove that what are their "current holdings"? it's BTSX or AGS or PTS or what? the dev team have a stake in all of them.

Also the fact that the dev team has offered to pay DNS holders extra, out of dev funds, has basically proved your theory is wrong. Why would they do that if their aim is to pay themselves?

You understand that the VOTE DAC doesn't exist pre merger and that development by Daniel is being paid for by 3% of 2.5 Billion shares of the total market cap of BTSX,PTS,AGS, DNS. So yes, the DNS holders can get a speck paid back out of the large capital infusion.

Its not as if VOTE has its own IPO where people can buy into it with BTC, it is automatically getting a share distribution.

What is so complicated about this?

You don't have to go by my word, why don't you ask the question to other delegates and moderators within this thread if you assume that I and they are wrong:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10214.0

The proposed solution:

To resolve this conflict, Bytemaster proposed merging BTSX, PTS, and AGS back together into a new entity called Bitshares (BTS).  The new entity would be able to create new shares to be sold to new investors for a capital infusion, by shareholder vote, for purposes of funding the marketing campaign. Proposal was made in this thread:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10148.msg132495#msg132495
This is the thread you will want to read closely and think about the implications of such as written by Daniel himself.

You have so much faith in Bitshares that you don't even trust the hard facts explained by developers, moderators , and the creator in their very own forum.

No, I don't trust your vivid imagination and manufactured rumors. You are dead wrong that the 3% VOTE is entirely paid to the dev team, I hold a stake in VOTE snapshot, I'd be pretty unhappy if I don't get that stake as part of the 3%. I'm not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that 3% VOTE is entirely paid to the dev team.

There's no mention of 3% VOTE are entirely paid to the dev team in any of your linked thread, if there is, then link to that specific post, instead of linking entire threads and expect me to find proof for you.

[inBitweTrust]

There is no need to 'save' bitcoin from those evil PoW taxing miners. If you don't like it, take your money and your time somewhere else.

The reason why they don't do it is because secretly or subconsciously they believe in Bitcoin long term and merely want to simultaneously pump their alt they invested into and/or get Bitcoin to mutate into behaving like their alt so they win either way. They also may fear that they can make a quick buck on their early IPO investment with some initial mommentum but ultimately it is a very risky bet because of Bitcoins network effect and thus are keeping most or a portion of holdings in bitcoin.

Their fears are correct, and ultimately it is likely they will be crushed by Bitcoin.

[kokojie]

There is no need to 'save' bitcoin from those evil PoW taxing miners. If you don't like it, take your money and your time somewhere else.

The reason why they don't do it is because secretly or subconsciously they believe in Bitcoin long term and merely want to simultaneously pump their alt they invested into and/or get Bitcoin to mutate into behaving like their alt so they win either way. They also may fear that they can make a quick buck on their early IPO investment with some initial mommentum but ultimately it is a very risky bet because of Bitcoins network effect and thus are keeping most or a portion of holdings in bitcoin.

Their fears are correct, and ultimately it is likely they will be crushed by Bitcoin.

Love your imagination, but most people just prefer not to cut off their whole leg to remove a leech, that's all.

[kokojie]

It appears all you know about Bitcoin is from staying too much in the altcoin section too long. You definitely do not know the economics, finance, legal issues and mining facts involved with Bitcoin. Posts like yours reminds us all how far we have made it in this Revolution. You should really learn some basic facts about what's really going on here and you may finally get it.

Since this is probably really all about altcoins, here's the speech:(2nd times a charm)

Bitcoin itself had in the past been vulnerable to very similar things that you said happened and now see happen with altcoins these days, but fortunately THAT WINDOW IS NOW CLOSED.

Part of the definition of the bitcoin protocol includes the checking of the proof of work put into various block chains, and then choosing the one with the most work. Bitcoin has more proof-of-work in its blockchain than any other competing cryptocurrency, and so by definition it must be the one chosen, and all others ignored.

Altcoins are all very similar to Bitcoin: there is a block chain to store transactions, a consensus mechanism to build the block chain, and a cryptographic protocol to register transactions. Some prominent examples are PPCoin, Primecoin, Litecoin, and Freicoin.

Some altcoins incorporate interesting new ideas, but there is an essential feature of Bitcoin which they all lack. It is not a matter of its technology, but rather of history and community. Quite simply, a medium of exchange that is more widely accepted on the market is more useful than one which is not. This is known as the network effect. An initial imbalance between two nearly equal media of exchange will benefit whichever is more widely accepted until a single one overwhelms the rest. There is no limit to this effect: ultimately one would always expect a single currency to overcome all its competitors.

Because it was started earlier and has had a greater opportunity to grow and attract users, Bitcoin has a market larger by a wide margin than all the markets of all the altcoins put together, and this makes it vastly more useful as a currency. To defeat Bitcoin, an altcoin would require not just superior technology, but such vastly superior technology as to be an advance over Bitcoin comparable to the advance Bitcoin represents over fiat currency. Furthermore, a truly great innovation would much better serve people by being incorporated into future versions of Bitcoin rather than by requiring them to switch to something else. Indeed, the people who have proposed new ideas that are actually good, such as Zerocoin and mini-blockchain, did not develop their own currencies around them, but have simply described their usefulness as features.

The Bitcoin community is not just overwhelmingly larger but of overwhelmingly better quality as well. Bitcoin is surrounded by real entrepreneurs working hard to create new and useful services for Bitcoin. Altcoins are surrounded by loud-mouthed pretenders with irrational hopes of duplicating Nakamoto's success. This does not mean that there is anything intrinsically wrong with altcoins: the problem is simply that once Bitcoin exists, then there is no additional value, from a monetary standpoint, of creating knock-offs. Can anyone really expect to create something of value by rereleasing Bitcoin under a new name and with a few tiny changes to its source code? What makes Bitcoin great cannot easily be duplicated. Thus, while the Bitcoin community matures and grows as more and more entrepreneurs are attracted to its potential, the altcoin communities can only whine for attention.

For a new currency to take bitcoins place it would have to represent a significant improvement over bitcoin, or bitcoin would have to first FAIL before this could happen. So the question is not will bitcoin become obsolete, but will (your proposed new coin) overtake bitcoin? I don’t see any reason to believe that Altcoins represents a fundamental new innovation with meaningful improved functionality.

In physics, we learn about the concept of entropy. Entropy is often described as “chaos”, “randomness”, or “disorder”. To simplify quantum mechanics as much as possible, imagine a basket with a line drawn down the middle, and throw some balls into the basket. If all the balls are on one side of the line, that is an ordered state and has low entropy. If the balls are spread across both sides then it has higher entropy.

Now, let us take the concept of entropy and apply it to cryptocurrencies. We can imagine each cryptocurrency created has a possibility that some value can be placed within it. If all possible value is placed in bitcoin, and none in litecoin or altcoin, then this is a low entropy state. The laws of thermodynamics dictate that entropy in a system should always increase. So we should expect the total cryptocurrency value to be spread among all the possible altcoins.

Going back to our example of balls in a basket, one can easily get all the balls onto one side of the line simply by tilting the basket. This represents the concept of enthalpy, or energy within the system. Just as gravity pulls the balls onto one side of the basket, enthalpy can pull things into a higher entropic state. The most proof-of-work has been put into bitcoin, and so it takes higher energy to put any value into an altcoin.

From an entropy standpoint, there will always be alternate currencies, and the value assigned to them will always be greater than zero. But from an enthalpy standpoint, bitcoin is favored over altcoins, so the total value of each altcoin will remain very low compared to bitcoins.

So basically, your entire point is since Bitcoin is the biggest currently, therefore Bitcoin can do no wrong, and what's existing must be good. Or Bitcoin holders can just wait until a "vastly superior" altcoin come along to obliterate them.

That's your choice, but as a Bitcoin holder myself, I prefer to adopt any proven superior system, instead of waiting for them to obliterate the value of my Bitcoin.

[inBitweTrust]

No, I don't trust your vivid imagination and manufactured rumors. You are dead wrong that the 3% VOTE is entirely paid to the dev team, I hold a stake in VOTE snapshot, I'd be pretty unhappy if I don't get that stake as part of the 3%. I'm not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that 3% VOTE is entirely paid to the dev team.

I'm providing the proof with all the links. If you don't trust me and think that other delegates, Daniel, and moderators are lying in the links I provided just post a question and ask them directly or are you too scared to get clarification on what is clearly written.

[kokojie]

No, I don't trust your vivid imagination and manufactured rumors. You are dead wrong that the 3% VOTE is entirely paid to the dev team, I hold a stake in VOTE snapshot, I'd be pretty unhappy if I don't get that stake as part of the 3%. I'm not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that 3% VOTE is entirely paid to the dev team.

I'm providing the proof with all the links. If you don't trust me and think that other delegates, Daniel, and moderators are lying in the links I provided just post a question and ask them directly or are you too scared to get clarification on what is clearly written.

You just linked entire threads, you expecting me to find proof for you in those thread, there's nothing specifically mentioning 3% VOTE is all paid to the dev team. If this is true, then link to the post that specifically states that this is true, and I will definitely be very unhappy and post my disagreement. I see no such post by the dev team so far, so please do link that post for me.

[Velkro]

Simple answer to author of this topic. Coins mined ale halved every 5 (?) years. So price must go up simply because of that. Secondly, in 2021 which is not far from now, mining new coins will stop. With your theory price will skyrocket then.
Simple as that.

[inBitweTrust]

You just linked entire threads, you expecting me to find proof for you in those thread, there's nothing specifically mentioning 3% VOTE is all paid to the dev team. If this is true, then link to the post that specifically states that this is true, and I will definitely be very unhappy and post my disagreement. I see no such post by the dev team so far, so please do link that post for me.

Who do you think is going to get paid for these marketing and development projects in the future as well?

If it was just a merger, why do the ratios get adjusted and the quantity of tokens change? Why couldn't  consolidation happen keeping 2 billion and take a snapshot of everyone's ratio?

All you have to do is read the Initial post that I already linked to in the thread.You have great fears about reading documentation from the bitshares forum for some odd reason. Here I will copy it over for you:

There are many problems we need to resolve as a community:

1) We don't want to compete with ourselves and divide our network effect.
2) We don't want to confuse users with a million brands.
3) We want to have 1 BitUSD for everything rather than many different BitUSDs
4) We need to recognize those who have helped fund development after Feb 28th so they don't compete with us.
5) I don't want to have divided loyalties... I cannot serve two masters.
6) We need to provide for long term funding and growth.
7) We need to resolve the consensus problem once and for all.

As a community effort we are stronger if we can agree on changes using proof of stake and we should agree once and for all that the majority will rule here.   Those that want a stable money will use BitGold or BitSilver because those are not subject to change, only supply and demand.    If you cannot trust the community of stakeholders to act wisely then create a rigid system with no rule changes and attempt to compete.

My Proposal:

1) Drop all other BitShares brands.... rename BitShares X to just BitShares
2) End PTS...  BitShares will evolve to incorporate every possible feature that stakeholders vote on.
3) If there is a clone then it should start out with stakeholders it thinks are best... because BitShares holders are uniting.
4) Add stake holder approved dilution without limit to BitShares X.
5) Bring in all AGS holders and given them a stake in BitShares X that cannot be moved for 6 months... the ratio that this stake should be given should be equal to PTS market cap... so $5 million or 10% dilution of BTSX allocated to these individuals.    This is effectively BTSX buying out our competition.
6) Bring in one last PTS snapshot also valued at $5 million for another 10% dilution of BTSX... 6 months until funds could be spent... buy out this competition and end PTS.
7) Our team will focus on no other DACs other than BitShares in general and work to make it the most robust and *FLEXIBLE* DAC out there.

There will still be other DACs based upon our toolkit  (Music, Gaming, DNS, etc) but those clones will not be dividing my loyalty because they have their own teams and are already known and operating independently of us.  Those who have joined those DACs can attempt to grow them how they see fit and BitShares will be competing with them where we can.

Our goal will be to scale BitShares to handle the transaction volume and users... to solve the scaling problem while still remaining decentralized and allowing 0 barriers to entry for competition except our network effect.

At the risk of calling BitShares one DAC to rule them all... I think we can worry about that after we have achieved critical mass, until then someone else may come along and build one DAC to rule them all and we don't want them to get there if we can get there first.

[kokojie]

Simple answer to author of this topic. Coins mined ale halved every 5 (?) years. So price must go up simply because of that. Secondly, in 2021 which is not far from now, mining new coins will stop. With your theory price will skyrocket then.
Simple as that.

Every 4 years, and price does go up after halving, as we observed after the 1st halving (price went up to $1200). But mining expense quickly catch up with the price, and the PoW mining expense quickly brings the price down if there are not enough new money coming into the eco-system.

This is why I'm saying it'll never reach $5000, because whenever price goes up a bit, mining expense will bring it down quickly. Unless there's a absolutely huge amount of new money coming in, then it might overwelm mining expense, temporarily.

[inBitweTrust]

I see no such post by the dev team so far, so please do link that post for me.

Why do you fear posting a question of clarification on your own forum? Do you fear the answer will back up what I'm saying?

1) We don't want to compete with ourselves and divide our network effect.
5) I don't want to have divided loyalties... I cannot serve two masters.

This is pure gold! It was Daniel that created VOTE to compete with BTSX when investors paid him to maintain BTSX! He is literally talking about competing with himself!

4) Add stake holder approved dilution without limit to BitShares X.

Mechanism to keep diluting supply continuously!

7) Our team will focus on no other DACs other than BitShares in general and work to make it the most robust and *FLEXIBLE* DAC out there.

So here he is reassuring investors that he won't pull this stunt again by creating a competing DAC.

[kokojie]

You just linked entire threads, you expecting me to find proof for you in those thread, there's nothing specifically mentioning 3% VOTE is all paid to the dev team. If this is true, then link to the post that specifically states that this is true, and I will definitely be very unhappy and post my disagreement. I see no such post by the dev team so far, so please do link that post for me.

Who do you think is going to get paid for these marketing and development projects in the future as well?

If it was just a merger, why do the ratios get adjusted and the quantity of tokens change? Why couldn't  consolidation happen keeping 2 billion and take a snapshot of everyone's ratio?

All you have to do is read the Initial post that I already linked to in the thread.You have great fears about reading documentation from the bitshares forum for some odd reason. Here I will copy it over for you:

There are many problems we need to resolve as a community:

1) We don't want to compete with ourselves and divide our network effect.
2) We don't want to confuse users with a million brands.
3) We want to have 1 BitUSD for everything rather than many different BitUSDs
4) We need to recognize those who have helped fund development after Feb 28th so they don't compete with us.
5) I don't want to have divided loyalties... I cannot serve two masters.
6) We need to provide for long term funding and growth.
7) We need to resolve the consensus problem once and for all.

As a community effort we are stronger if we can agree on changes using proof of stake and we should agree once and for all that the majority will rule here.   Those that want a stable money will use BitGold or BitSilver because those are not subject to change, only supply and demand.    If you cannot trust the community of stakeholders to act wisely then create a rigid system with no rule changes and attempt to compete.

My Proposal:

1) Drop all other BitShares brands.... rename BitShares X to just BitShares
2) End PTS...  BitShares will evolve to incorporate every possible feature that stakeholders vote on.
3) If there is a clone then it should start out with stakeholders it thinks are best... because BitShares holders are uniting.
4) Add stake holder approved dilution without limit to BitShares X.
5) Bring in all AGS holders and given them a stake in BitShares X that cannot be moved for 6 months... the ratio that this stake should be given should be equal to PTS market cap... so $5 million or 10% dilution of BTSX allocated to these individuals.    This is effectively BTSX buying out our competition.
6) Bring in one last PTS snapshot also valued at $5 million for another 10% dilution of BTSX... 6 months until funds could be spent... buy out this competition and end PTS.
7) Our team will focus on no other DACs other than BitShares in general and work to make it the most robust and *FLEXIBLE* DAC out there.

There will still be other DACs based upon our toolkit  (Music, Gaming, DNS, etc) but those clones will not be dividing my loyalty because they have their own teams and are already known and operating independently of us.  Those who have joined those DACs can attempt to grow them how they see fit and BitShares will be competing with them where we can.

Our goal will be to scale BitShares to handle the transaction volume and users... to solve the scaling problem while still remaining decentralized and allowing 0 barriers to entry for competition except our network effect.

At the risk of calling BitShares one DAC to rule them all... I think we can worry about that after we have achieved critical mass, until then someone else may come along and build one DAC to rule them all and we don't want them to get there if we can get there first.

Again, you are just regurgitating what I already know, and avoiding answering the question, where the hell does it mention 3% VOTE is entirely going to the dev team? Where's the proof of your claim? Please don't confuse your own imagination from reality.

Also, I have no problem with sensible ongoing funding to the dev team, Bitcoin is paying $500 million each year to miners/pools/hardware vendor/electric company. Why would I object funding the Bitshare dev team? I could tell you right now, it's costs way less than $500 million for sure.

But I don't like you spreading rumors such as all 3% VOTE going to the dev team, this is simply not true. Or else you would have provided me with a specific proof post by now, I have asked you about 10 times already.

[kokojie]

I see no such post by the dev team so far, so please do link that post for me.

Why do you fear posting a question of clarification on your own forum? Do you fear the answer will back up what I'm saying?

1) We don't want to compete with ourselves and divide our network effect.
5) I don't want to have divided loyalties... I cannot serve two masters.

This is pure gold! It was Daniel that created VOTE to compete with BTSX when investors paid him to maintain BTSX! He is literally talking about competing with himself!

4) Add stake holder approved dilution without limit to BitShares X.

Mechanism to keep diluting supply continuously!

7) Our team will focus on no other DACs other than BitShares in general and work to make it the most robust and *FLEXIBLE* DAC out there.

So here he is reassuring investors that he won't pull this stunt again by creating a competing DAC.

What kind of fool would post a new topic on the forum every time they hear a unproven rumor from you? my post count at bitshares forum would be over a thousand by now if I did that.

Show me the proof that 3% VOTE will entirely pay to the dev team as you claimed, or shut the hell up.

[Lauda]

Well this is ridiculous. It's not like we can just push a hardfork tomorrow and force everyone to adopt it. Removing PoW mining right now is virtually impossible. Attempting to remove it in a year or two will be impossible!
This is what coin halving is all about. Why are you so impatient? Do we need Year 1 5000$, year 2 10 000$, year 3 100 000$??

[kokojie]

Well this is ridiculous. It's not like we can just push a hardfork tomorrow and force everyone to adopt it. Removing PoW mining right now is virtually impossible. Attempting to remove it in a year or two will be impossible!
This is what coin halving is all about. Why are you so impatient? Do we need Year 1 5000$, year 2 10 000$, year 3 100 000$??

Halving does nothing to the PoW expense, I have explained the PoW expense is a function of Bitcoin marketcap.

After the 1st halving, the PoW expense actually increased significantly. Therefore, your theory is invalid.

I don't want any crazy Bitcoin price, but I legitimately think without PoW, we would be most likely close to $5000 per coin now. We have spent a lot of money on PoW in the past 5 years.