Topic: [ANN][XOM] Pre-Release|Coin and P2P Marketplace|Anon|Escrows|Reputation|and More - page 3. (Read 28422 times)

Its just a shitcoin copyclone of bitshares.. I doubt this is the ltc of bts...

Where is the github link? Funny you clone bitshares but not even provide your link in the op...

Doesnt seem like you get it about social consensus... You should read up a bit instead of being greedy...

So you will secretly keep copying bitshares stuff including the voting stuff which is a work in progress and hold it privatly yet you want money upfront from investors? Rolf

Why dont u just create a dac inside of bts and plan around turing complete scripts for trustless auctions/buy it now marketplaces? Oh wait social consensus again doh!

[SHRUG]  I'd say you have miscalculated but,
[SHRUG] time will tell............

This is a matter of compliance with securities law. The way we are offering our Private Placement REQUIRES that we accept investments only from "Accredited Investors". People who are not wealthy, but like what we are doing, can contribute on IndieGoGo, and get coins as perks.


Again, this is a matter of compliance with both US securities law and the rules of IndieGoGo. Normal people may at some point be able to invest via our offering at AngelList (https://angel.co/omnibazaar-inc), at such time as we have a lead investor who is willing to form what they call a "syndication".


[shrug] Where would you suggest I mention it? The IndieGoGo campaign is already too technical for most people who see it. It has already come up in this thread, and is completely out in the open. Does it really matter that much which coin we used as the base for OmniCoin? Every coin out there (except Bitcoin) is based on some other coin. "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery." We think BTSX is great. We're not hiding that, or any of the great features.


See my response to "biophil" above.


If you would like to help make it better, we could probably arrange to let you help. If you would like to express some specific constructive suggestions, PM me. I will be glad to hear what you have to say. But "look horribly designed" is not particularly helpful or constructive.

Best,
Rick
[/quote]

Well, I see I struck a nerve here...

First, I want to assure you that I would rather have your support than your animosity. I'm not trying to antagonize anyone here.

But, when I go to GitHub and look at the license file for the Bitshares project, here is what I see:


Now, I understand that the license is different from the Social Contract you are writing about. And if I were interested in creating an asset or a DAC under BTSX, and I needed technical help from Dan and the core developers, I would probably agree to that Social Contract. But, I'm not asking for any help, and I am adding new features to the code base.

It seems to me that 20% is a pretty steep price to pay for the approval of BTS and AGS investors -- especially when that approval is not accompanied by any financial support. I'm offering up to 20% of the company to investors in exchange for financial support that will help me get this project completed, launched and widely promoted. No offense, but I just can't see giving up another 20% just to make BTS and AGS investors feel good about me. I completely understand that, as a BTS/AGS investor, you want me to do what is in your financial best interest. But, if you were in my position, you would likely feel as I do.

I've been around these forums long enough to understand one thing: Even if I were Satoshi himself (which, of course, I am not), and I were promoting the greatest new idea since the release of Bitcoin itself, I would still have critics, nay-sayers and detractors.

Again, I would prefer to have your support. But, if I can't, I'm still going to build the coin and the marketplace.

I personally think the world needs it.

Best,
Rick

Thanks. That was helpful

I appreciate the input.

Rick

+5%

Right on !!! I really don't get why they chose to do it this way. Good luck with that but no thanks. I will never support this in any way for the reason mentioned above.

ah CLains, couldn't have said it better myself.

I will actively discourage anybody I ever talk to about the project for the above reasons.

as an AGS investor - i will never support your project.

taking our sourcecode is fine, but you should read the license agreements.

but maybe we can recycle some good ideas for our self.

Only allowing wealthy investors fund your project, -8 points.

Kickstarter such that normal people get NO equity in your business, -7 points.

Forking BitShares code without mentioning BitShares explicitly even once, -8 points.

Not honoring the BitShares consensus of 10/10 to PTS/AGS holders, -6 points.

Screen shots that look horribly designed, -7 points.

If you're forking BitShares, I don't know why you don't simply use BitUSD and other assets which provide stability for the end user instead of just getting a new coin, just because.

"OmniBazaar -- Removing Middlemen and Bankers from E-commerce"
... and replacing them by an unknown newbie... 

Rick,

I'm sure you know that's not how it works. If you don't give 10% of your coins to AGS and 10% to PTS or BTS, you'll incur the wrath and repudiation of the BitShares community. You can try to hide behind your idea that "BTSX will be able to benefit from our work"; but I guarantee you that no AGS donator will see it that way.

What you're doing is this: you're looking out at the pool of people who "get" crypto, and you're singling out a particular group (AGS donators) who really really get crypto and you're saying "we don't want you to be a part of this community. Everybody else, come and get it! But we're going to ensure that you AGS donators never have anything to do with our project."

If that sounds like a smart move, go for it - but know that you will certainly alienate one of your biggest potential client bases.

Here is one idea https://forum.nemcoin.com/index.php?topic=2620.msg8259#msg8259

There is probably not a completely reliable way to prevent this type of Sybil "attack", but there are several possible ways to make it more difficult. If I recall correctly, for example, I think Stellar tracks IP addresses, and limits the number of accounts that a "family" at one address can create. I think they also restrict creating new accounts through TOR (which makes sense).

We have not settled yet on exactly how to handle this issue, and would be glad to get community input on this. Anyone have any bright ideas they would like to share?

Good question. Thanks.

Rick

what does prevent "users" from creating multiple accounts to get more coins? One person can "join" many times..

I think I see what you are talking about, and the answer is yes. It is very easy for the sender to include in the transaction a message describing the purpose of the transaction, but this message will be visible only to the receiver. And the receiver of the transaction is anonymous to everyone but the sender. And, you can give people a simple name, like "Jane_Smith", as your receiving address (instead of an ugly string of numbers and letters).

I hope that helps.

Best,
Rick

I'm not the one to best explain the details of marking, since I'm only learning about it myself. So I can't give the easy "Explain Like I'm 5" (ELI5) version just yet ! My understanding is that you transfer coins to a person or identity with an attached reason for doing so. Example: "transfer 100 marks to John for successful transaction" or "for answering question" etc.

I'm not going to comment any further here in the thread about the name issue. I am in communication, outside this thread, with the lead developer.

Rick