More Bitshares Greed

[ruletheworld]

I think the best antidote for people spreading false information is to post a little useful information and at least give fair minded newcomers a fighting chance at hearing the truth.

I recommend Max Wright's deeply educational video interviews with Bytemaster for this purpose:  you get to look into Dan's eyes and see the integrity and passion there.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjgfpSQFJTLqbgHm8mkgPdD-ma7t0bRhK

... or, if you like stimulating your thinking, visit Bytemaster's blog at bytemaster.bitshares.org.

Scammers seldom take the time (or have the ability) to publish that much thoughtful content.

Then decide who you think is more credible - the OP or Bytemaster himself?

If I am not mistaken, the OP is complaining about greed, not scam.

I too would recommend Bytemaster's blog for anyone interested in the idea of Bitshares. It has some very good posts (it's a good read even if you don't agree with the more 'philosophical' posts).
Link: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/

[1715644065]

1715644065

[1715644065]

1715644065

[1715644065]

1715644065

[StanLarimer]

If I am not mistaken, the OP is complaining about greed, not scam.

True, the two are some of the commonly used bombs tossed about indiscriminately in the hands of people seeking to harm the efforts of a competing community.

In this case, the entire OP is criticizing a project leader's attempt to discuss a potential way to ensure his developers get a token salary of a little over $2K a month.  Awful greedy.

[troglodactyl]

For those not following the thread at bitsharestalk, Bytemaster just said that given the level of controversy, this isn't going to be attempted.

It was just a suggestion to make it faster for the other developers to get their delegates in.  The person proposing this already has his delegate in, so it's hard to call it greed on his part when he's just trying to get other people working on the project paid.

So please people, if you're a serious stakeholder, pay at least enough attention to vote intelligently so blockchain development can self fund properly.

[EvilDave]

This is very obviously just a proposal for the community to discuss the pros and cons. OP is spreading FUD for whatever his reasons are.

Pretty transparent to me what his reasons might be. I don't have to spell it out, anybody who has spent a decent amount of time here can see through it.

TL:DR version: the BTS core devs have proposed to hardcode themselves into the BTS client for delegate voting purposes.
Most of the replies on the BTS thread itself are 'do not want', so the BTS community seems to be against it.
If the devs do push this through, it'll be another red flag for BTS status as 'probably not a scam', IMHO.

Oh look, its that NXT developer again trying to undermine again in the guise of 'IMHO'.

IMHO is all we have to go on in the magical world of crypto, and we've seen more than enough dodgy shit pulled over the last year to excuse my cynicism.
For the record, I still believe that BTS is probably not a scam, or at least not a deliberate attempt to defraud, but I don't have a lot of faith in its long term future. That's not an attempt to FUD on BTS, just my opinion.

The opinion of the BTS community on this proposal seems, btw, to tie in with mine, that any attempt to vote in delegates by default (no matter how trusted they may be) would be a bad idea.

And lastly....I'm not a Nxt dev, check my post history: I'm just a very talkative guy.

Edit for typo.....

[Newmine]

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.

[StanLarimer]

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.


 

[merockstar]

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.

It is supposed to be more decentralized than bitcoin.

101 delegates (who can be voted out at anytime) signing blocks instead of... how many mining pools with a monopoly on hashpower?

Bytemaster is transparent, and really cares about how the community feels. He had this idea, posted it, wanted people's feedback on it. He does this all the time because the community can often times come up with improvements to ideas he has, or explain better why an idea is terrible (like this). The idea was not to guarantee him and his devs a delegate spot, just to make their spots more secure by making them the default votes which could be changed.

Everybody told him that it's a bad idea. He said "got it. skip that then."

And this is an example of why the bitshares community is awesome. Everybody has a voice that will get heard if they want it to be.

[Newmine]

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.

[merockstar]

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 don't think DNS, VOTE, and PLAY were ever viewed as "competitors." They all serve different purposes.
BM just realized that if they all use different blockchains, then we may end up with 4 different versions of bitUSD.

pretty sure the plan was for all the devs to work on all these projects all along. I don't think that constitutes "threatening to bail and develop a competitor."

[ruletheworld]

If I am not mistaken, the OP is complaining about greed, not scam.

True, the two are some of the commonly used bombs tossed about indiscriminately in the hands of people seeking to harm the efforts of a competing community.

In this case, the entire OP is criticizing a project leader's attempt to discuss a potential way to ensure his developers get a token salary of a little over $2K a month.  Awful greedy.

Well, this isn't going to be implemented (as said by Bytemaster) so there's that. Hopefully the devs can be voted in without making it a default.

[Newmine]

I'll go ahead and predict that within a few months some "phantom" delegates will get voted in at 100% pay. Either controlled by the devs or by someone attempting to tax the blockchain without actually working for it.

[merockstar]

I'll go ahead and predict that within a few months some "phantom" delegates will get voted in at 100% pay. Either controlled by the devs or by someone attempting to tax the blockchain without actually working for it.

I don't have a lot of money, and I'm normally not a betting man.

But man. I want to take this wager.

how about 30 bitUSD?

[balu2]

coins avoiding this forum normally have a reason to do so ...

[troglodactyl]

coins avoiding this forum normally have a reason to do so ...

No doubt.  Personally I avoid this forum most of the time because the spam/scam density is so high, but that's just because it's the biggest target around at the moment.

[merockstar]

coins avoiding this forum normally have a reason to do so ...

bitshares could certainly spam the altcoin section alot more.

in fact there was a thread about that very topic once acknowledging that not as much information is shared here as could be.

but there's so much activity I think bitshares really does justify having its own forum. it's not like all the information isn't freely available.

I personally don't come around here much any more because I kind of feel like these forums have been overrun with assholes. not to mention all the scams. but that's just my opinion.

[balu2]

there are people here that are critical and call a scam a scam - it's for these people you come here.

Bitshares now spamming the forum won't help a lot. It didn't ann here - i won't buy it.

Coins exclusively using the own forum is a good way to control the conversation. I really save myself the headache. 

[merockstar]

there are people here that are critical and call a scam a scam - it's for these people you come here.

Bitshares now spamming the forum won't help a lot. It didn't ann here - i won't buy it.

Coins exclusively using the own forum is a good way to control the conversation. I really save myself the headache. 

it didn't ann here but protoshares/bitshare-pts has been on coinmarketcap forever.

this thread pointed out the existence of the plans to make bitsharesx: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=313873.0

there have been plenty of other thread talking about it during that time too.

even some threads desperately trying to point out that AGS donation was coming to a close.

here's a post mentioning the february 28th snapshot https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=476312.0

anybody interested in alt-coins had PLENTY of time to learn about the ideas behind bitshares, and plenty of time to invest by buying PTS. more time than any other alt. you're right, there was no formal ANN. do you really need a formal ANN to recognize a good idea when you see it?

[DecentralizeEconomics]

I'll go ahead and predict that within a few months some "phantom" delegates will get voted in at 100% pay. Either controlled by the devs or by someone attempting to tax the blockchain without actually working for it.

I'm not going to bet against you! 

How CENTRALIZED can you get?

[Este Nuno]

I think the best antidote for people spreading false information is to post a little useful information and at least give fair minded newcomers a fighting chance at hearing the truth.

I recommend Max Wright's deeply educational video interviews with Bytemaster for this purpose:  you get to look into Dan's eyes and see the integrity and passion there.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjgfpSQFJTLqbgHm8mkgPdD-ma7t0bRhK

... or, if you like stimulating your thinking, visit Bytemaster's blog at bytemaster.bitshares.org.

Scammers seldom take the time (or have the ability) to publish that much thoughtful content.

Then decide who you think is more credible - the OP or Bytemaster himself?

I don't think anyone really thinks that he's a scammer.

[Luckybit]

This thread is ridiculous.  Under the proposed default dev pay positions voters can vote them out with a click.  Hardly greedy to put your salary in the hands of the users of your product.  

The proposed change just allows the devs to stay focused on dev work instead of having to campaign to be elected.

Not very democratic to programmatically elect yourself as delegate. Its better to go with the will of the community of voters. As you would expect I'm against the proposal.