Where are those Bitshares' Shills?

[DecentralizeEconomics]

Where are those Bitshills?  I haven't seen Stan or any other Bitshares' cheerleader post for a while.  Have they been told to be quiet and are finally listening?  I doubt it.  My best guess is that they have been bound and gagged to prevent further blunders or kidnapped by their Chinese Communist co-conspirators.  Maybe, they are too busy dumping their Bitshares(TM) shares on the market to post.  I don't know.  Stan where are you?

[bitcreditscc]

Where are those Bitshills?  I haven't seen Stan or any other Bitshares' cheerleader post for a while.  Have they been told to be quiet and are finally listening?  I doubt it.  My best guess is that they have been bound and gagged to prevent further blunders or kidnapped by their Chinese Communist co-conspirators.  Maybe, they are too busy dumping their Bitshares(TM) shares on the market to post.  I don't know.  Stan where are you?

Heard there were plans for a new sca.. ah, i mean new asset. Much combining and printing of new coins to happen real soon

[StanLarimer]

I have just been pondering how to answer your last question:

You need to think BIGGER, Pinky!

Stan, maybe you could answer a question for me that I've been having trouble with...  Between you and Dan, which one of you is supposed to be "The Brain"?  Hahaha

I even wrote it up in a little rhyme so you'll be able to remember it:

No matter how brilliant
Dan has proven to be,
he is still just Pinky
in a photo with me.

(Of course, in the featured quote, I was addressing you.)  

[jehst]

Learn to use apostrophe marks

[brekyrself]

Where are those Bitshills?  I haven't seen Stan or any other Bitshares' cheerleader post for a while.  Have they been told to be quiet and are finally listening?  I doubt it.  My best guess is that they have been bound and gagged to prevent further blunders or kidnapped by their Chinese Communist co-conspirators.  Maybe, they are too busy dumping their Bitshares(TM) shares on the market to post.  I don't know.  Stan where are you?

DecentralizeEconomics

I have read some of your posts about BitShares however can you explain why BitShares does not work technically?

[nomoreheroes7]

Where are those Bitshills?  I haven't seen Stan or any other Bitshares' cheerleader post for a while.  Have they been told to be quiet and are finally listening?  I doubt it.  My best guess is that they have been bound and gagged to prevent further blunders or kidnapped by their Chinese Communist co-conspirators.  Maybe, they are too busy dumping their Bitshares(TM) shares on the market to post.  I don't know.  Stan where are you?

DecentralizeEconomics

I have read some of your posts about BitShares however can you explain why BitShares does not work technically?

I'd like to know your thoughts on this as well. Where's the serious discourse? Your rambling posts just make you look desperate to drag a competitor through the mud.

How can Stan (or anyone else) defend BTS if you can't hold a serious conversation?

[Cryptoipad]

Learn to use apostrophe marks

Learn to use periods, or maybe you are on one right now?

[jehst]

Learn to use apostrophe marks

Learn to use periods, or maybe you are on one right now?

You got me there

[DecentralizeEconomics]

Learn to use apostrophe marks

BItshares(TM), the company, owns everything including their shills.  It's possessive moron.

I have just been pondering how to answer your last question

Glad you're still around Stan.  I was worried that I was going to have to find a new form of entertainment.

I have read some of your posts about BitShares however can you explain why BitShares does not work technically?

I'd like to know your thoughts on this as well. Where's the serious discourse? Your rambling posts just make you look desperate to drag a competitor through the mud.

How can Stan (or anyone else) defend BTS if you can't hold a serious conversation?

I've stated numerous times that attempting to peg a virtual, non-redeemable derivatives contract to the price of a physical asset is doomed to fail because the "bitAsset", as you like to call your derivatives contracts, have none of the attributes (aka intrinsic value) of the real asset.  I also think it is highly unethical to advertise your BTS derivatives contracts as "assets" and claim that they're "Safer than a Swiss Bank Account".  Imo, this whole BTS garbage is a blatant money grabbing attempt by I3 directed towards those who don't have a firm grasp of economics.  Mark my words, the pegs will fail and the people who will lose money will be those who can least afford to lose it.

[gaba]

They are busy to change their 'social contract' again.

[bitcreditscc]

They are busy to change their 'social contract' again.

Link?

[chryspano]

I've stated numerous times that attempting to peg a virtual, non-redeemable derivatives contract to the price of a physical asset is doomed to fail because the "bitAsset", as you like to call your derivatives contracts, have none of the attributes (aka intrinsic value) of the real asset.  I also think it is highly unethical to advertise your BTS derivatives contracts as "assets" and claim that they're "Safer than a Swiss Bank Account".  Imo, this whole BTS garbage is a blatant money grabbing attempt by I3 directed towards those who don't have a firm grasp of economics.  Mark my words, the pegs will fail and the people who will lose money will be those who can least afford to lose it.

Why you give just an "opinion"(imo) and not an honest opinion(imho)? It seems that you try to retain some of your honesty by not giving a honest opinion. In any way, it seems that lots of people disagree with you...



"....BitSharesX introduces the concept of “BitAssets.” BitSharesX is significant because nobody has tried to implement such a system before. This system is a high speed, easily accessible Forex/Stock/Commodities/etc market. BTSX could become one of the most exciting developments in cryptographic history.

BitShares is one of the numerous technologies claiming to be “bitcoin 2.0” or “finance 2.0.” In essence, this “Bitcoin 2.0” movement represents a movement to leverage the power of globally decentralized consensus and decision making networks as birthed by bitcoin. The notion behind “bitcoin 2.0” technologies is that the idea of bitcoin can be expanded upon and applied to various sectors of the global economy and, particularly, finance. In short, “consensus technology has the power to do for economics what the internet did for information.” Theoretically, one such network could arbitrage the combined power of all human computing power on Earth in order to harmonize real-time knowledge discovery and aggregation all done in a trustless, decentralized manner.

Bitcoin is the first autonomous system to use this technology towards a distributed consensus technology that functions as a reliable global payment network. The blockchain is at the core of bitcoin. This cryptographically secured public ledger of the bitcoin network and the associated accounts facilitates the transfer of value between accounts. For the first time in the history of the internet, financial transactions do not need a middle man.

This is what people love about bitcoin. But this technology, as many of bitcoin’s futurists point out, can be expanded. This is what BitShares looks to do with the blockchain. No industry relying on the internet will go untouched by technologies like bitcoin and BitShares. Banking, stock exchanges, lotteries, voting, music, auctions and many other industries will be forever changed by a digital public ledger that makes the creation of so-called “distributed autonomous corporations” (DACs) possible. This system, according to advocates of “bitcoin 2.0”, will provide better services at a fraction of the cost incurred by traditional and centralized corporations....."


http://www.maxkeiser.com/2014/11/this-little-known-crypto-asset-might-disrupt-the-current-financial-order/#OkJ6mXxICkEL4AaO.99

[brekyrself]

Learn to use apostrophe marks

BItshares(TM), the company, owns everything including their shills.  It's possessive moron.

I have just been pondering how to answer your last question

Glad you're still around Stan.  I was worried that I was going to have to find a new form of entertainment.

I have read some of your posts about BitShares however can you explain why BitShares does not work technically?

I'd like to know your thoughts on this as well. Where's the serious discourse? Your rambling posts just make you look desperate to drag a competitor through the mud.

How can Stan (or anyone else) defend BTS if you can't hold a serious conversation?

I've stated numerous times that attempting to peg a virtual, non-redeemable derivatives contract to the price of a physical asset is doomed to fail because the "bitAsset", as you like to call your derivatives contracts, have none of the attributes (aka intrinsic value) of the real asset.  I also think it is highly unethical to advertise your BTS derivatives contracts as "assets" and claim that they're "Safer than a Swiss Bank Account".  Imo, this whole BTS garbage is a blatant money grabbing attempt by I3 directed towards those who don't have a firm grasp of economics.  Mark my words, the pegs will fail and the people who will lose money will be those who can least afford to lose it.

At a high level BitShares themselves are the value place holder are they not?  BitShares, just like Bitcoin holds value while being a complete virtual object.

How far down the rabbit hole do you want to go?
http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2015/01/15/Is-Fractional-Reserve-Banking-a-Ponzi-Scheme/

[jones_]

Learn to use apostrophe marks

BItshares(TM), the company, owns everything including their shills.  It's possessive moron.

I have just been pondering how to answer your last question

Glad you're still around Stan.  I was worried that I was going to have to find a new form of entertainment.

I have read some of your posts about BitShares however can you explain why BitShares does not work technically?

I'd like to know your thoughts on this as well. Where's the serious discourse? Your rambling posts just make you look desperate to drag a competitor through the mud.

How can Stan (or anyone else) defend BTS if you can't hold a serious conversation?

I've stated numerous times that attempting to peg a virtual, non-redeemable derivatives contract to the price of a physical asset is doomed to fail because the "bitAsset", as you like to call your derivatives contracts, have none of the attributes (aka intrinsic value) of the real asset.  I also think it is highly unethical to advertise your BTS derivatives contracts as "assets" and claim that they're "Safer than a Swiss Bank Account".  Imo, this whole BTS garbage is a blatant money grabbing attempt by I3 directed towards those who don't have a firm grasp of economics.  Mark my words, the pegs will fail and the people who will lose money will be those who can least afford to lose it.

At a high level BitShares themselves are the value place holder are they not?  BitShares, just like Bitcoin holds value while being a complete virtual object.

How far down the rabbit hole do you want to go?
http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2015/01/15/Is-Fractional-Reserve-Banking-a-Ponzi-Scheme/

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=298677.140

Remember that fun time when an economics professor, cunicula, showed us quite a bit of evidence that bitshares was a long con ponzi scheme.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

Why you give just an "opinion"(imo) and not an honest opinion(imho)? It seems that you try to retain some of your honesty by not giving a honest opinion. In any way, it seems that lots of people disagree with you...

I usually don't differentiate between "imo" and "imho" because I'm truthful all of the time.

http://www.maxkeiser.com/2014/11/this-little-known-crypto-asset-might-disrupt-the-current-financial-order/#OkJ6mXxICkEL4AaO.99

Obviously, Keiser doesn't know the WHOLE STORY.

I've stated numerous times that attempting to peg a virtual, non-redeemable derivatives contract to the price of a physical asset is doomed to fail because the "bitAsset", as you like to call your derivatives contracts, have none of the attributes (aka intrinsic value) of the real asset.  I also think it is highly unethical to advertise your BTS derivatives contracts as "assets" and claim that they're "Safer than a Swiss Bank Account".  Imo, this whole BTS garbage is a blatant money grabbing attempt by I3 directed towards those who don't have a firm grasp of economics.  Mark my words, the pegs will fail and the people who will lose money will be those who can least afford to lose it.

At a high level BitShares themselves are the value place holder are they not?  BitShares, just like Bitcoin holds value while being a complete virtual object.

BTC was initially designed as a decentralized PoW "store of value".  People use it as such because it has scarcity, only 21 million (This value was never changed), and it was resistant to external actors influencing depositors money.

NXT was designed as a decentralized PoS "transactional currency".  A "transactional currency" is a "store of value" and a "transactional token".  It is a "store of value" because it has scarcity, only 1 billion NXT (This value was never changed), and it is resistant to external actors influencing depositors money.  It also derives part of its value because it has utility.  All transaction fees on the NXT platform must be paid in NXT.

Bitshares supposedly gets its value proposition from the fact that you need Bitshares to trade or hold "bitAssets" which are supposed to be "Safer than a Swiss Bank Account".  The problem here is that "bitAssets" are not really assets.  They are derivatives and derivatives are not "Safer than a Swiss Bank Account".  This means Bitshares has ZERO utility value in the context of creating crypto assets.  If the entire asset class does not have full convertibility, there can never be parity and therefore, the peg is doomed to fail.  Bitshares also cannot seriously be taken as simply a digital "store of value" when it has "Dilution Without Limit" (aka inflation) and the amount of outstanding Bitshares is constantly being adjusted by Bitshares(TM), the company, which according to Stan doesn't exist.  It is also not decentralized when a very small number of large stakeholders can manipulate the delegate elections to their favor via approval voting.

[chryspano]

...I'm truthful all of the time.

Right.... there are no liars and no dishonest people in this world we live, especially in the crypto forums...

Obviously, Keiser doesn't know the WHOLE STORY.

Please inform/educate him!

NXT was designed as a decentralized PoS "transactional currency".  A "transactional currency" is a "store of value" and a "transactional token".  It is a "store of value" because it has scarcity, only 1 billion NXT (This value was never changed), and it is resistant to external actors influencing depositors money.  It also derives part of its value because it has utility.  All transaction fees on the NXT platform must be paid in NXT.

Noone gives a %@$& about NXT, it was created to quick make rich 73 people, period. Wasn't NEM created to solve this initial distribution problem?

Bitshares supposedly gets its value proposition from the fact that you need Bitshares to trade or hold "bitAssets" which are supposed to be "Safer than a Swiss Bank Account".  The problem here is that "bitAssets" are not really assets.  They are derivatives and derivatives are not "Safer than a Swiss Bank Account".  This means Bitshares has ZERO utility value in the context of creating crypto assets.  If the entire asset class does not have full convertibility, there can never be parity and therefore, the peg is doomed to fail.  Bitshares also cannot seriously be taken as simply a digital "store of value" when it has "Dilution Without Limit" (aka inflation) and the amount of outstanding Bitshares is constantly being adjusted by Bitshares(TM), the company, which according to Stan doesn't exist.  It is also not decentralized when a very small number of large stakeholders can manipulate the delegate elections to their favor via approval voting.

I'm still waiting for the first coin that will be a fork of Bitshares and will "solve" any of those "problems" you mention above, but I can see that there are no coin forks so far because as it seems everything in Bitshares works OK and in a way that you can't compete with it, as a sidenote wallet is in 0.6.2 version and there is still room for improvement.

Put your money where your mouth is and please fork Bitshares and offer "solutions" to the "problems" you think you see like NEM did with NXT.

[brekyrself]

I've stated numerous times that attempting to peg a virtual, non-redeemable derivatives contract to the price of a physical asset is doomed to fail because the "bitAsset", as you like to call your derivatives contracts, have none of the attributes (aka intrinsic value) of the real asset.  I also think it is highly unethical to advertise your BTS derivatives contracts as "assets" and claim that they're "Safer than a Swiss Bank Account".  Imo, this whole BTS garbage is a blatant money grabbing attempt by I3 directed towards those who don't have a firm grasp of economics.  Mark my words, the pegs will fail and the people who will lose money will be those who can least afford to lose it.

At a high level BitShares themselves are the value place holder are they not?  BitShares, just like Bitcoin holds value while being a complete virtual object.

BTC was initially designed as a decentralized PoW "store of value".  People use it as such because it has scarcity, only 21 million (This value was never changed), and it was resistant to external actors influencing depositors money.

NXT was designed as a decentralized PoS "transactional currency".  A "transactional currency" is a "store of value" and a "transactional token".  It is a "store of value" because it has scarcity, only 1 billion NXT (This value was never changed), and it is resistant to external actors influencing depositors money.  It also derives part of its value because it has utility.  All transaction fees on the NXT platform must be paid in NXT.

Bitshares supposedly gets its value proposition from the fact that you need Bitshares to trade or hold "bitAssets" which are supposed to be "Safer than a Swiss Bank Account".  The problem here is that "bitAssets" are not really assets.  They are derivatives and derivatives are not "Safer than a Swiss Bank Account".  This means Bitshares has ZERO utility value in the context of creating crypto assets.  If the entire asset class does not have full convertibility, there can never be parity and therefore, the peg is doomed to fail.  Bitshares also cannot seriously be taken as simply a digital "store of value" when it has "Dilution Without Limit" (aka inflation) and the amount of outstanding Bitshares is constantly being adjusted by Bitshares(TM), the company, which according to Stan doesn't exist.  It is also not decentralized when a very small number of large stakeholders can manipulate the delegate elections to their favor via approval voting.

If you took away the "BitAseets," not the user issued assets, what is your opinion of the underlying DPOS system?

[StanLarimer]

BitShares dilutes along the same reduction curve as BitCoin, toward a hard limit that it will never reach because profits keep burning down supply growth and only about one third of the delegates get full pay (thus, the current dilution rate is 1/3 of the max authorized rate and just ~2% compared to Bitcoin's ~10%).  And instead of fueling global warming, BitShares is getting a lot of useful work done for those funds , as the March Newsletter makes beautifully clear.  You might call this newsletter "Proof of Useful Work" (POuW).

Arguments about whether BitAssets have utility and whether BitShares have value are so... last year.

There's a track record.  There's a market price.  There are pegs that have held through the Long Bitcoin Winter.  They grow stronger as market depth grows.

No, this year is the year of the BitShares ecosystem.

New businesses are cropping up everywhere to build out every service imaginable.  (A flare-lit tip-off for investors seeking opportunity.)  This wouldn't be happening if DE's nose-erecting fibrications had anything to them.

If you don't believe me, read what all the independent businesses in the completely decentralized BitShares Ecosystem have going this month:

March Newsletter.

This newsletter was written by all those independent business owners themselves
as a report to the Bitshareholders.

[HalFinneysBrain]

Bitshares supposedly gets its value proposition from the fact that you need Bitshares to trade or hold "bitAssets" which are supposed to be "Safer than a Swiss Bank Account".  The problem here is that "bitAssets" are not really assets.  They are derivatives and derivatives are not "Safer than a Swiss Bank Account".  This means Bitshares has ZERO utility value in the context of creating crypto assets.  If the entire asset class does not have full convertibility, there can never be parity and therefore, the peg is doomed to fail.

I finally understand why you spend all your time attacking Bitshares.  It is because you do not understand it.
In the rest of finance, 'derivatives' usually means highly leveraged.  BitAssets are backed by 200-300% collateral to ensure that they have value, and margin calls are issued automatically by the blockchain to protect this.   

Bitshares has an ~8 month track record now of creating bitAssets and successfully pegging them to fiat currencies and gold.  The peg has worked really well, even though BTS value has dropped by like 80% during those 8 months, including a couple crashes like Jan 13.  If it can work in that environment it should be pretty good to survive almost anything.

Bitshares also cannot seriously be taken as simply a digital "store of value" when it has "Dilution Without Limit" (aka inflation)

This is utterly false, and BTS has an inflation schedule similar to, and lower than, bitcoin.  It has a hard cap at ~3.7 billion BTS, but it will probably end up at a number much lower than that.

Every 4 years the payout is halved like in bitcoin.  There is a fixed maximum supply.
BTS is therefore just as good a digital store of value as Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies.  Its value depends on its network effect.

It is also not decentralized when a very small number of large stakeholders can manipulate the delegate elections to their favor via approval voting.

A half dozen Bitshares mining pools can manipulate Bitcoin just as much or more.  Its true that DPoS is not as decentralized as bitcoin was when it was run on thousands of individual CPUs, but this is a tradeoff.  I think NXT is more decentralized, at least in theory if the supply were more evenly distributed, because it has more than 100 block producers, but the 100 block producers of Bitshares is more than we see in Bitcoin right now.



Your entire premise is based on three different lies about Bitshares.  You claim that it is infinitely inflationary, centralized, and that the bitAsset peg does not work.  None of those three things are true!  The only one that is maybe a little true is centralization, but that was a tradeoff made by the developers to have only 100 block producers instead of more, for cost reasons. 

[DecentralizeEconomics]

...I'm truthful all of the time.

Right.... there are no liars and no dishonest people in this world we live, especially in the crypto forums...

Now, I never said that.  I said I was always honest.

NXT was designed as a decentralized PoS "transactional currency".  A "transactional currency" is a "store of value" and a "transactional token".  It is a "store of value" because it has scarcity, only 1 billion NXT (This value was never changed), and it is resistant to external actors influencing depositors money.  It also derives part of its value because it has utility.  All transaction fees on the NXT platform must be paid in NXT.

Noone gives a %@$& about NXT, it was created to quick make rich 73 people, period. Wasn't NEM created to solve this initial distribution problem?

What "initial distribution problem"?  NEM is a Communist joke started by a bunch of greedy individuals who decided to associate themselves with a liar, cheater and thief named UtopianFuture.

If you took away the "BitAseets," not the user issued assets, what is your opinion of the underlying DPOS system?

I think it is unnecessary to centralize forging around a limited number of individuals.  I think implementing DPoS with "approval voting" allows for a very small minority of large stakeholders to effectively rig all the delegate elections.  Imo, this design is fundamentally opposed to everything crypto is supposed to represent.

Bitshares supposedly gets its value proposition from the fact that you need Bitshares to trade or hold "bitAssets" which are supposed to be "Safer than a Swiss Bank Account".  The problem here is that "bitAssets" are not really assets.  They are derivatives and derivatives are not "Safer than a Swiss Bank Account".  This means Bitshares has ZERO utility value in the context of creating crypto assets.  If the entire asset class does not have full convertibility, there can never be parity and therefore, the peg is doomed to fail.

I finally understand why you spend all your time attacking Bitshares.  It is because you do not understand it.
In the rest of finance, 'derivatives' usually means highly leveraged.  BitAssets are backed by 200-300% collateral to ensure that they have value, and margin calls are issued automatically by the blockchain to protect this.   

Bitshares has an ~8 month track record now of creating bitAssets and successfully pegging them to fiat currencies and gold.  The peg has worked really well, even though BTS value has dropped by like 80% during those 8 months, including a couple crashes like Jan 13.  If it can work in that environment it should be pretty good to survive almost anything.

I understand Bitshares perfectly.  Just because something isn't "highly leveraged" (which is a subjective term) doesn't mean it isn't a derivative.  All pegs work "really well" until they don't.

Bitshares also cannot seriously be taken as simply a digital "store of value" when it has "Dilution Without Limit" (aka inflation)

This is utterly false, and BTS has an inflation schedule similar to, and lower than, bitcoin.  It has a hard cap at ~3.7 billion BTS, but it will probably end up at a number much lower than that.

I doubt that.  The cap on BTS was already raised once.  What makes you so sure Bitshares(TM), the company, won't do it again?  BTS is currently falling in value and the delegates, who are supposed to be developing, aren't making enough money right now to support themselves.  For the "Bitshares(TM)'s Master Plan" to be fulfilled, either BTS is going to have to dramatically increase in value or they are going to have to increase taxation on the stakeholders.

I think NXT is more decentralized, at least in theory if the supply were more evenly distributed, because it has more than 100 block producers, but the 100 block producers of Bitshares is more than we see in Bitcoin right now.

Your entire premise is based on three different lies about Bitshares.  You claim that it is infinitely inflationary, centralized, and that the bitAsset peg does not work.  None of those three things are true!  The only one that is maybe a little true is centralization, but that was a tradeoff made by the developers to have only 100 block producers instead of more, for cost reasons. 

They aren't "lies".  When Bitshares(TM), the company, violates the social contract with everyone, it's not unreasonable to assume they will do it again and increase the supply.  Even, you agree that "in theory" NXT is more decentralized.  As the NXT userbase grows so will its decentralization.  Bitshares' block producers are always going to be capped at a certain number.  As I said earlier, the peg is doomed to fail because anything that doesn't have full convertibility can't have parity.