Topic: [ANN][Blocknet] truly decentralized exchange | token ecosystem infrastructure - page 238. (Read 1103311 times)

Quote from: synechist on November 10, 2014, 07:11:15 PM

Quote from: g0re79 on November 10, 2014, 06:13:32 PM

Quote from: g0re79 on November 10, 2014, 06:05:39 PM

Quote from: synechist on November 10, 2014, 05:41:11 PM

Be empathetic Longenecker. You're pitting your interests against an entire community's, and saying yours win.

That's ridiculous.

That's the problem. From a potential investors viewpoint it looks like Dan is putting his own interests before XC's. XC receives no benefit to Dan's involvement with utilitycoin, in fact it reduces Dan's focus on XC. (Which blocknet is also doing). He's gone from overseeing one project to overseeing 3 projects in the space of a month. Can you not see why XC investors are concerned?

Furthermore they get enough cash via IPO to hire few code masterminds to take care of dying coins

That is NOT how ITO funds should be used... seriously?

AFAIK ITO was meant to be used to fund development, as Synechist reply to one of my questions "Fund first, code later". For what else it have to be spend?? There are just few lines of code yet..

No. The ITO is to be used to fund development of the Blocknet only. Development of any one participating coin does not aid development of blocknet so would be astounded if funds were spent this way.

Blocknet funds are not just going to be used to fund Util. Util's funding is for Util.

This is how part of the Blocknet's funds can go to coins:
- Coins can submit proposals to the Foundation for funding.
- Proposals are reviewed and voted upon by a panel of people from different coins.
- Proposals are for a specific piece of tech, and needs to be relevant/beneficial to the Blocknet.

My understanding was that funds were solely for the development of the Blocknet. This, to me, includes; development of the X-bridge protocol, and development of blocknet specific services like file storage, an exchange etc.

From what you're saying it sounds like participating coins will be entitled to funds to develop their own coins features. This to me doesn't sound right as the blocknet's success doesn't depend on any one coin so why should its funds be used this way? As I understand it, if a coin has innovative and legit features it can join the blocknet. If it doesn't, it can't. Why should coins be entitled to funds to develop these features? Has it already been mentioned that participating coins are potentially entitled to funds for their own development because I think I must've missed that?

Yes it has been mentioned, in the FAQ (see the link in the new OP), and on the wiki.

Ah, I stand corrected!

I still disagree that funds should be spent this way. I personally believe that the people behind the coin should fund their own project. I, as an XC investor, don't believe that XC should be entitled to the Blocknet's funds to fund their development. But alas, if it was in the terms of the ITO then it's my own fault. It's more important than ever that it is fully transparent how all the funds will be spent as I'm sure you know!

The intent isn't to have XC use blocknet funds for its own [non-blocknet-related] development, blocknet funding is for blocknet related tech/services/features

EvilDave

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 1001

Quote from: synechist on November 10, 2014, 07:32:02 PM

Thanks Ursay.

I think we're all just exhausted by FUD. At a certain point one reassesses one's relationship to the community and decides that being dependent on them is just too toxic.

Personally I've concluded that I'd enabled a sort of dependency relationship with the XC community that had me nannying people, which is not respectful to them, and exhausting to me.

What I hope for in the middle-term future is a more dispassionate attitude from the communities here. Some XC people are as likely to proclaim XC's wonders as they are to turn paranoid and spread FUD. It's way too fraught.

A solid community is essential for the success of any large project, particularly in crypto, and you are saying that being dependent on yours is toxic?

(just assume that I start screaming insults about your unbelievably arrogant, dictatorial and condescending attitude from here on in. Full-on Spoetnik mode engaged)

OK, you can ban me now.

synechist

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1000

To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market

Quote from: ib88 on November 10, 2014, 07:39:18 PM

Quote from: synechist on November 10, 2014, 07:33:18 PM

Quote from: synechist on November 10, 2014, 07:11:15 PM

Quote from: g0re79 on November 10, 2014, 06:13:32 PM

Quote from: g0re79 on November 10, 2014, 06:05:39 PM

Quote from: synechist on November 10, 2014, 05:41:11 PM

Be empathetic Longenecker. You're pitting your interests against an entire community's, and saying yours win.

That's ridiculous.

That's the problem. From a potential investors viewpoint it looks like Dan is putting his own interests before XC's. XC receives no benefit to Dan's involvement with utilitycoin, in fact it reduces Dan's focus on XC. (Which blocknet is also doing). He's gone from overseeing one project to overseeing 3 projects in the space of a month. Can you not see why XC investors are concerned?

Furthermore they get enough cash via IPO to hire few code masterminds to take care of dying coins

That is NOT how ITO funds should be used... seriously?

AFAIK ITO was meant to be used to fund development, as Synechist reply to one of my questions "Fund first, code later". For what else it have to be spend?? There are just few lines of code yet..

No. The ITO is to be used to fund development of the Blocknet only. Development of any one participating coin does not aid development of blocknet so would be astounded if funds were spent this way.

Blocknet funds are not just going to be used to fund Util. Util's funding is for Util.

This is how part of the Blocknet's funds can go to coins:
- Coins can submit proposals to the Foundation for funding.
- Proposals are reviewed and voted upon by a panel of people from different coins.
- Proposals are for a specific piece of tech, and needs to be relevant/beneficial to the Blocknet.

My understanding was that funds were solely for the development of the Blocknet. This, to me, includes; development of the X-bridge protocol, and development of blocknet specific services like file storage, an exchange etc.

From what you're saying it sounds like participating coins will be entitled to funds to develop their own coins features. This to me doesn't sound right as the blocknet's success doesn't depend on any one coin so why should its funds be used this way? As I understand it, if a coin has innovative and legit features it can join the blocknet. If it doesn't, it can't. Why should coins be entitled to funds to develop these features? Has it already been mentioned that participating coins are potentially entitled to funds for their own development because I think I must've missed that?

Yes it has been mentioned, in the FAQ (see the link in the new OP), and on the wiki.

Ah, I stand corrected!

I still disagree that funds should be spent this way. I personally believe that the people behind the coin should fund their own project. I, as an XC investor, don't believe that XC should be entitled to the Blocknet's funds to fund their development. But alas, if it was in the terms of the ITO then it's my own fault. It's more important than ever that it is fully transparent how all the funds will be spent as I'm sure you know!

Basically, it's imperative that the Blocknet acquires a full set of valuable services early on.

Since coins provide services, it makes every bit of sense to incentivise them to develop services that are valuable to the Blocknet.

Hence we fund coins on a per-proposal basis.

ib88

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Quote from: synechist on November 10, 2014, 07:33:18 PM

Quote from: synechist on November 10, 2014, 07:11:15 PM

Quote from: g0re79 on November 10, 2014, 06:13:32 PM

Quote from: g0re79 on November 10, 2014, 06:05:39 PM

Quote from: synechist on November 10, 2014, 05:41:11 PM

Be empathetic Longenecker. You're pitting your interests against an entire community's, and saying yours win.

That's ridiculous.

That's the problem. From a potential investors viewpoint it looks like Dan is putting his own interests before XC's. XC receives no benefit to Dan's involvement with utilitycoin, in fact it reduces Dan's focus on XC. (Which blocknet is also doing). He's gone from overseeing one project to overseeing 3 projects in the space of a month. Can you not see why XC investors are concerned?

Furthermore they get enough cash via IPO to hire few code masterminds to take care of dying coins

That is NOT how ITO funds should be used... seriously?

AFAIK ITO was meant to be used to fund development, as Synechist reply to one of my questions "Fund first, code later". For what else it have to be spend?? There are just few lines of code yet..

No. The ITO is to be used to fund development of the Blocknet only. Development of any one participating coin does not aid development of blocknet so would be astounded if funds were spent this way.

Blocknet funds are not just going to be used to fund Util. Util's funding is for Util.

This is how part of the Blocknet's funds can go to coins:
- Coins can submit proposals to the Foundation for funding.
- Proposals are reviewed and voted upon by a panel of people from different coins.
- Proposals are for a specific piece of tech, and needs to be relevant/beneficial to the Blocknet.

My understanding was that funds were solely for the development of the Blocknet. This, to me, includes; development of the X-bridge protocol, and development of blocknet specific services like file storage, an exchange etc.

From what you're saying it sounds like participating coins will be entitled to funds to develop their own coins features. This to me doesn't sound right as the blocknet's success doesn't depend on any one coin so why should its funds be used this way? As I understand it, if a coin has innovative and legit features it can join the blocknet. If it doesn't, it can't. Why should coins be entitled to funds to develop these features? Has it already been mentioned that participating coins are potentially entitled to funds for their own development because I think I must've missed that?

Yes it has been mentioned, in the FAQ (see the link in the new OP), and on the wiki.

Ah, I stand corrected!

I still disagree that funds should be spent this way. I personally believe that the people behind the coin should fund their own project. I, as an XC investor, don't believe that XC should be entitled to the Blocknet's funds to fund their development. But alas, if it was in the terms of the ITO then it's my own fault. It's more important than ever that it is fully transparent how all the funds will be spent as I'm sure you know!

atcsecure

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 500

Quote from: synechist on November 10, 2014, 07:11:15 PM

Quote from: g0re79 on November 10, 2014, 06:13:32 PM

Quote from: g0re79 on November 10, 2014, 06:05:39 PM

Quote from: synechist on November 10, 2014, 05:41:11 PM

Be empathetic Longenecker. You're pitting your interests against an entire community's, and saying yours win.

That's ridiculous.

That's the problem. From a potential investors viewpoint it looks like Dan is putting his own interests before XC's. XC receives no benefit to Dan's involvement with utilitycoin, in fact it reduces Dan's focus on XC. (Which blocknet is also doing). He's gone from overseeing one project to overseeing 3 projects in the space of a month. Can you not see why XC investors are concerned?

Furthermore they get enough cash via IPO to hire few code masterminds to take care of dying coins

That is NOT how ITO funds should be used... seriously?

AFAIK ITO was meant to be used to fund development, as Synechist reply to one of my questions "Fund first, code later". For what else it have to be spend?? There are just few lines of code yet..

No. The ITO is to be used to fund development of the Blocknet only. Development of any one participating coin does not aid development of blocknet so would be astounded if funds were spent this way.

Blocknet funds are not just going to be used to fund Util. Util's funding is for Util.

This is how part of the Blocknet's funds can go to coins:
- Coins can submit proposals to the Foundation for funding.
- Proposals are reviewed and voted upon by a panel of people from different coins.
- Proposals are for a specific piece of tech, and needs to be relevant/beneficial to the Blocknet.

My understanding was that funds were solely for the development of the Blocknet. This, to me, includes; development of the X-bridge protocol, and development of blocknet specific services like file storage, an exchange etc.

From what you're saying it sounds like participating coins will be entitled to funds to develop their own coins features. This to me doesn't sound right as the blocknet's success doesn't depend on any one coin so why should its funds be used this way? As I understand it, if a coin has innovative and legit features it can join the blocknet. If it doesn't, it can't. Why should coins be entitled to funds to develop these features? Has it already been mentioned that participating coins are potentially entitled to funds for their own development because I think I must've missed that?

Only approved projects get funded, approval is required from the board, and the intention is to fund blocknet related services/projects/tech

synechist

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1000

To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market

Quote from: synechist on November 10, 2014, 07:11:15 PM

Quote from: g0re79 on November 10, 2014, 06:13:32 PM

Quote from: g0re79 on November 10, 2014, 06:05:39 PM

Quote from: synechist on November 10, 2014, 05:41:11 PM

Be empathetic Longenecker. You're pitting your interests against an entire community's, and saying yours win.

That's ridiculous.

That's the problem. From a potential investors viewpoint it looks like Dan is putting his own interests before XC's. XC receives no benefit to Dan's involvement with utilitycoin, in fact it reduces Dan's focus on XC. (Which blocknet is also doing). He's gone from overseeing one project to overseeing 3 projects in the space of a month. Can you not see why XC investors are concerned?

Furthermore they get enough cash via IPO to hire few code masterminds to take care of dying coins

That is NOT how ITO funds should be used... seriously?

AFAIK ITO was meant to be used to fund development, as Synechist reply to one of my questions "Fund first, code later". For what else it have to be spend?? There are just few lines of code yet..

No. The ITO is to be used to fund development of the Blocknet only. Development of any one participating coin does not aid development of blocknet so would be astounded if funds were spent this way.

Blocknet funds are not just going to be used to fund Util. Util's funding is for Util.

This is how part of the Blocknet's funds can go to coins:
- Coins can submit proposals to the Foundation for funding.
- Proposals are reviewed and voted upon by a panel of people from different coins.
- Proposals are for a specific piece of tech, and needs to be relevant/beneficial to the Blocknet.

My understanding was that funds were solely for the development of the Blocknet. This, to me, includes; development of the X-bridge protocol, and development of blocknet specific services like file storage, an exchange etc.

From what you're saying it sounds like participating coins will be entitled to funds to develop their own coins features. This to me doesn't sound right as the blocknet's success doesn't depend on any one coin so why should its funds be used this way? As I understand it, if a coin has innovative and legit features it can join the blocknet. If it doesn't, it can't. Why should coins be entitled to funds to develop these features? Has it already been mentioned that participating coins are potentially entitled to funds for their own development because I think I must've missed that?

Yes it has been mentioned, in the FAQ (see the link in the new OP), and on the wiki.

synechist

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1000

To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market

Thanks Ursay.

I think we're all just exhausted by FUD. At a certain point one reassesses one's relationship to the community and decides that being dependent on them is just too toxic.

Personally I've concluded that I'd enabled a sort of dependency relationship with the XC community that had me nannying people, which is not respectful to them, and exhausting to me.

What I hope for in the middle-term future is a more dispassionate attitude from the communities here. Some XC people are as likely to proclaim XC's wonders as they are to turn paranoid and spread FUD. It's way too fraught.

ib88

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Quote from: synechist on November 10, 2014, 07:11:15 PM

Quote from: g0re79 on November 10, 2014, 06:13:32 PM

Quote from: g0re79 on November 10, 2014, 06:05:39 PM

Quote from: synechist on November 10, 2014, 05:41:11 PM

Be empathetic Longenecker. You're pitting your interests against an entire community's, and saying yours win.

That's ridiculous.

That's the problem. From a potential investors viewpoint it looks like Dan is putting his own interests before XC's. XC receives no benefit to Dan's involvement with utilitycoin, in fact it reduces Dan's focus on XC. (Which blocknet is also doing). He's gone from overseeing one project to overseeing 3 projects in the space of a month. Can you not see why XC investors are concerned?

Furthermore they get enough cash via IPO to hire few code masterminds to take care of dying coins

That is NOT how ITO funds should be used... seriously?

AFAIK ITO was meant to be used to fund development, as Synechist reply to one of my questions "Fund first, code later". For what else it have to be spend?? There are just few lines of code yet..

No. The ITO is to be used to fund development of the Blocknet only. Development of any one participating coin does not aid development of blocknet so would be astounded if funds were spent this way.

Blocknet funds are not just going to be used to fund Util. Util's funding is for Util.

This is how part of the Blocknet's funds can go to coins:
- Coins can submit proposals to the Foundation for funding.
- Proposals are reviewed and voted upon by a panel of people from different coins.
- Proposals are for a specific piece of tech, and needs to be relevant/beneficial to the Blocknet.

My understanding was that funds were solely for the development of the Blocknet. This, to me, includes; development of the X-bridge protocol, and development of blocknet specific services like file storage, an exchange etc.

From what you're saying it sounds like participating coins will be entitled to funds to develop their own coins features. This to me doesn't sound right as the blocknet's success doesn't depend on any one coin so why should its funds be used this way? As I understand it, if a coin has innovative and legit features it can join the blocknet. If it doesn't, it can't. Why should coins be entitled to funds to develop these features? Has it already been mentioned that participating coins are potentially entitled to funds for their own development because I think I must've missed that?

URSAY

legendary

Activity: 1974

Merit: 1010

Quote from: synechist on November 10, 2014, 07:00:32 PM

Longenecker, your posts were deleted.

Here's why:

It is incorrect to think that you have some sort of say over what we do.

You don't.

Your complaining about the decisions of a professional developer is completely inappropriate. You are *not* entitled.

We are developing XC and the Blocknet. We have the funds, the team, and the time to do so.

How we do it is up to us. You don't get a say.

Buy, sell, and converse constructively. *Do not* bitch and complain here, ever.

You really do have a way with words and PR. Wink

synechist

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1000

To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market

Quote from: g0re79 on November 10, 2014, 06:13:32 PM

Quote from: g0re79 on November 10, 2014, 06:05:39 PM

Quote from: synechist on November 10, 2014, 05:41:11 PM

Be empathetic Longenecker. You're pitting your interests against an entire community's, and saying yours win.

That's ridiculous.

That's the problem. From a potential investors viewpoint it looks like Dan is putting his own interests before XC's. XC receives no benefit to Dan's involvement with utilitycoin, in fact it reduces Dan's focus on XC. (Which blocknet is also doing). He's gone from overseeing one project to overseeing 3 projects in the space of a month. Can you not see why XC investors are concerned?

Furthermore they get enough cash via IPO to hire few code masterminds to take care of dying coins

That is NOT how ITO funds should be used... seriously?

AFAIK ITO was meant to be used to fund development, as Synechist reply to one of my questions "Fund first, code later". For what else it have to be spend?? There are just few lines of code yet..

No. The ITO is to be used to fund development of the Blocknet only. Development of any one participating coin does not aid development of blocknet so would be astounded if funds were spent this way.

Blocknet funds are not just going to be used to fund Util. Util's funding is for Util.

This is how part of the Blocknet's funds can go to coins:
- Coins can submit proposals to the Foundation for funding.
- Proposals are reviewed and voted upon by a panel of people from different coins.
- Proposals are for a specific piece of tech, and needs to be relevant/beneficial to the Blocknet.

ib88

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Quote from: g0re79 on November 10, 2014, 06:13:32 PM

Quote from: g0re79 on November 10, 2014, 06:05:39 PM

Quote from: synechist on November 10, 2014, 05:41:11 PM

Be empathetic Longenecker. You're pitting your interests against an entire community's, and saying yours win.

That's ridiculous.

That's the problem. From a potential investors viewpoint it looks like Dan is putting his own interests before XC's. XC receives no benefit to Dan's involvement with utilitycoin, in fact it reduces Dan's focus on XC. (Which blocknet is also doing). He's gone from overseeing one project to overseeing 3 projects in the space of a month. Can you not see why XC investors are concerned?

Furthermore they get enough cash via IPO to hire few code masterminds to take care of dying coins

That is NOT how ITO funds should be used... seriously?

AFAIK ITO was meant to be used to fund development, as Synechist reply to one of my questions "Fund first, code later". For what else it have to be spend?? There are just few lines of code yet..

No. The ITO is to be used to fund development of the Blocknet only. Development of any one participating coin does not aid development of blocknet so would be astounded if funds were spent this way.

synechist

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1000

To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market

Longenecker, your posts were deleted.

Here's why:

It is incorrect to think that you have some sort of say over what we do.

You don't.

Your complaining about the decisions of a professional developer is completely inappropriate. You are *not* entitled.

We are developing XC and the Blocknet. We have the funds, the team, and the time to do so.

How we do it is up to us. You don't get a say.

Buy, sell, and converse constructively. *Do not* bitch and complain here, ever.

friendfromnobody

hero member

Activity: 593

Merit: 500

Quote from: Edraket31 on November 10, 2014, 05:58:25 PM

It's funny how few supporters actually post in this thread. It says a lot...

yeah and because of them the devs cannot work ,
only talk here and delete posts

tempus

legendary

Activity: 1960

Merit: 1128

Quote from: Edraket31 on November 10, 2014, 05:43:21 PM

@longnecker: you sound like somebody who perfectly knows how to set up a coin or an equivalent of blocknet......why don't you go and create your own toy instead of trying to explain here what needs to be done?

How much Util do you hold? Posting history reveals a lot, you shill.

Anyone with a mind that can reason will be sympathetic towards my concerns.

It doesn't matter if I hold util or not.....my point is that you should stop screaming what somebody else should do. You start crying without knowing the real reasons why Dan Metcalf decided to support util, you don't know how/what he is going to do, how many hours he will spend on that and what might be the advantage for XC or Blocknet.....no, you immediately start crying and supposing a lot.....

Nobody has the right to tell somebody what he should do. Dan is a free man and he is free to earn some money for his work he does for other projects or helping them without getting paid or whatever reasons he could have. I won't know them for sure. But I sold my XC weeks ago because of his work for others. It's nothing personal because I'm serious with what I'm saying above. He is free to do it.

But... out of the Investor-perspective and knowing how much work it is to develop "just" one project I won't stay in any project if the Dev splits his time and energy. I'm watching XC and Blocknet closely, thought about to buy back in XC and maybe Blocknet as well, but... No.
And that's the right of every Investor. Everybody makes his own decisions. The market will reflect it in one way or the other. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't like to play roulette. And if it's FUD to point out the own perspective... there is something very wrong in Crypto.

infinitechaos

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 250

Quote from: The-C-Word on November 10, 2014, 06:12:01 PM

So, just trying to confirm what Dan has stated in the new XC thread, he won't be developing for UTIL but finding a fitting lead dev for that project?

I bet the "fitting" lead dev will be anonymous... aka, Dan Metcalf.

Seriously guys? Prom said in the skype logs that UtilityCoin was Dan's project. Prom has admitted that that conversation was real. And Dan has admitted that he has a relationship with Prom.

DO THE MATH.

First of all, there is no math involved in what you're speaking about.

Second, in order for the BlockNET to work as envisioned, the features need to be spread out amongst different blockchains/coins.

There is thus an incentive for the BlockNET to keep UTIL's features in development.

Dan is already overseeing BlockNET. What is wrong with him overseeing UTIL?

This is about collective success. No coin left behind.

If you take the hype, fear, and paranoia, out of your argument, you have none.

WhiteNotWright

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Fibre Knight

Quote from: synechist on November 10, 2014, 05:37:14 PM

Seriously, please find your exit node. This forum needs to focus on the Blocknet, not your conspiracy theories and FUD starters.
You are now borderline annoying and this is your last warning for me.

ib88

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Quote from: Longenecker on November 10, 2014, 05:31:38 PM

Quote from: synechist on November 10, 2014, 05:27:48 PM

SynEbonics: another abusive post and you're out.

Longenecker: I will now request permission to prove what I've just stated.

No-one can stop you getting out, but that wouldn't make it less based on the facts.

Arlyn, you don't need permission to defend or prove anything. But like I said, there is no rational defense for this decision.

I don't think you're in a position to tell what the most rational decisions are here. You'd need to be on the inside for that.

But maybe I can help.
- It would be awful for the community around the coin for it to be abandoned. We get that. Projects matter in their own right. It's clearly the right thing to do to step in and save a coin.
- The Blocknet has a lot of resources. We can help in ways that aren't normally possible.

Synechist, can you elaborate on all the resources that blocknet has? Dan will be coding the main infrastructure of the Blocknet, and Dan will be managing utility coin. I'm only hearing about Dan when it comes to Blocknet's resources. If another blocknet coin is in dire straits will SuperDan come to the rescue? At what point does it stop becoming Dan's responsibility to help out other coins?

g0re79

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

I´ve got a picture! Haha!

Quote from: g0re79 on November 10, 2014, 06:05:39 PM