Topic: Communist Bitshares Wealth Redistribution IS THEFT! - page 8. (Read 28375 times)

I wouldn't feel right taking money for my public service announcements.  I do this for the people and to protect the original ideology of Bitcoin.  Long live decentralization!

Actually, I think it is quite apropos.

Hey, I don't care.  Go ahead and buy up those Bitshares.  It's no skin off my back.  Lol


AND WE HAVE A WINNER!


I don't know Stan... I remember mining PTS on the first day (the moment it came out!) and I remember a significant amount of guys complaining about getting disconnected from the network.  I'm not going to lie... I find that a little suspicious.

I also find it hard to believe that I3 didn't just rent servers from AWS to mine PTS like everybody else.

bureaucracy |byo͝oˈräkrəsē| noun
1. A system of government in which most of the important decisions are made by state officials rather than by elected representatives.

This does not seem to describe the bitshares system very well.

This looks like a good one to clone. Just invent a bureaucracy and convince people to join The Party.

It's become clear in this long thread that a year of "Fibs and Fud" from people who have little personal honor have left many fair minded folks with deep misunderstandings about BitShares.  Rather than continuing to answer them piecemeal, I've decided to author a series of posts that explain everything from the beginning.  I hope some of you find this useful.



On Christmas Eve, 2013 we proposed a revolutionary companion to ProtoShares (PTS) called AngelShares (AGS).  Just like PTS, AGS would be good for free upgrades to all future DACs.  We wanted it to be a pure virtual mining pool that would work just like a black box PTS mining pool except instead of burning the money it would put the money into a development fund to grow the industry.  It didn't conflict with PTS because it was upgradable to receive a separate 10% slice of the BitShares free samples pie.


Sigh.  Nothing is ever easy.  While the concept of simulated, virtual, or "angel" mining had been easy to explain, its actual implementation was not.  Regulatory authorities are, as they say, happy to indict a ham sandwich.  The U.S. Supreme court ruled back in the world war era that you can't even sell somebody a row of orange trees if you also offer to maintain them and split the harvest.  Why, that would be creating an unlicensed security and we can't have that!

So, simply put, we couldn't implement something simple.  If you ever see us implement something that is not brain dead simple, it can only be for one of two reasons:  1) because regulations in over 250 jurisdictions around the world preclude doing anything simple, or 2) because we are hopeless geeks who inherently love complexity.

So, instead, we had to structure the Angel Shares as pure, no strings attached, donations to build the community.  We offered a proposed Social Consensus that suggested to developers of new DACs that it would be in their best interest to distribute their new shares to Angel Shares donors instead of Big Mining, but it had to be left entirely up to them.

After spending close to a hundred thousand dollars consulting several teams of crypto-space lawyers, here's how the deal turned out.   (In Stop the Crowd Sales! Bytemaster has since recommended against this approach as well as all forms of crowd sales because we've since found better ways. But at the time this was state of the art fund raising!)



Well, the donations came rolling in and over the entire year of 2014 the community spent them to develop the BitShares Toolkit and a whole family of DACs, including the BitShares Exchange, BitShares Music, BitShares Play, BitShares DNS and BitShares VOTE and several others.  An entire ecosystem has grown up that would never have existed without this innovation.

The Developers of each of these DACs did decide to follow the BitShares Social Consensus, and as a result owners of PTS and donors of AGS have received "share drops" of free samples from each of them.

We had done it!  We had eliminated the need for mining to get a fair initial distribution of tokens and had seen it used in all kinds of new block chains.  Now, instead of distributing your initial coins to the demographic of rich miners and technically savvy geeks, you could target any demographic you like.  Just like a mailing list to specialized zip codes.



You could target dog lovers or mars colonizers or permaculture enthusiasts if you wanted to.  We recommended that developers target the PTS and AGS mailing lists because those demographics already understood DACs.  You would get an instant fan club of people more likely to hold your shares than dump them.

So that was it.  We had accomplished our goal of eliminating the need for mining in fair share distribution.  Now we just had to figure out how get rid of the need for it in securing the block chain.

It's become clear in this long thread that a year of "Fibs and Fud" from people who have little personal honor have left many fair minded folks with deep misunderstandings about BitShares.  Rather than continuing to answer them piecemeal, I've decided to author a series of posts that explain everything from the beginning.  I hope some of you find this useful.



The biggest challenge for us was convincing our brand new ProtoShares-centric community that we needed to change the plan.  (We would become famous for this.)

Here's the argument I made to the BitSharesTalk.org community just six weeks after PTS was launched.  (You guys think you're a tough crowd?  Not even close!)  But we forged ahead anyway.  When you are out to change the world, you can't let yourselves be constrained by little things like how stupid you were last month!  Here's the case as presented:


This, and other such posts, set our forum on fire.  This fire would blaze for two solid weeks (an eternity for a forum fire).  We listened and debated and reinvented.  


The wise and resilient supporters who survived the resulting forum fire (and several others that would follow) are the ones the shamelessly envious now place with disdain among the "wealthiest stakeholders".  Some of them have a significant fraction of 1% of the stake.  Believe me, they earned it!

It's become clear in this long thread that a year of "Fibs and Fud" from people who have little personal honor have left many fair minded folks with deep misunderstandings about BitShares.  Rather than continuing to answer them piecemeal, I've decided to author a series of posts that explain everything from the beginning.  I hope some of you find this useful.



In Bitcoin lore, there are two leading rationales for mining:
1.  To secure the network.
2.  To provide a "fair" initial distribution of coins.

We had just proven that mining was no longer able to provide a fair distribution.  Big Mining was lurking out there with their vacuum cleaners, just waiting for another coin to be announced so that they could suck it all up.    The days where everyone with a PC got a sip at the mining spigot were over.  Big Mining was always there, ready to gulp the spigot dry.  Chug-a-lug!

And even those miners didn't get all that much benefit from their advantage.  They were obligated to spend most of it on electricity and hardware doing barely useful work.  We knew that if we were going to develop profitable companies, we had to start by ruthlessly cutting costs.  The money the miners were obligated to burn should be going to grow the bitcoin ecosystem.  But, first, we had to overcome the self-defeating lessons that all newcomers to Bitcoin were being taught.  With almost religious zeal, it was considered heresy not to burn the industry's seed corn.  Why, Satoshi said we have to, don't you know?

This is tough.  Remember how Copernicus and Galileo had the same kind of trouble convincing the scientific community about the earth revolving around the sun?  Yeah, it was like that.

We resorted to humor:


We had to let that soak in for a while while we worked on a better way to replace those two failing miner functions.

And which pockets do you think deserve money?

Maybe dozens but their skill varies 

Reading this, I thought you started to understand ... having everyone finance proportionally and avoids group trap

... but it isn't about understanding, it is about spreading nonsensical analogies and speaking falsehoods.




NXT needs to stop being so defensive.  Instead of trying to tear down their strongest competitor they should look at what BitShares has to offer and copy it.  Last I remember once Bitshares came out, NXT had dozens and dozens of developers interviewing....

i think trying to predict that is a bad idea. the average connection gets better and better as well as storage.

Your BS move with AGS still stings. DPoS is a good idea in some cases but let's not try to make people believe it is better than other solutions. You just picked a way to skin the cat that puts money in some select pockets.

I'll be watching...

Depends upon which costs you are referring to. 

If you own the hardware and have unlimited power and bandwidth then costs are effectively 0.

If you own no hardware and must rent a VPS with 4 GB of ram then you are talking $50 per month + labor.

What scale are you talking:  today's scale with less than 1 TPS or the future with 1000 TPS? 

Too many variables to estimate the cost.

Here is where I think it will ultimately end up for all crypto projects that grow to be the size of Twitter, Facebook, and Google.... bandwidth costs will dominate followed closely with storage costs.   I don't think the average home user will want to consume a large fraction of their bandwidth (at the expense of games, TV, and web browsing).    My home internet costs me $100 per month and would not be sufficient at 1000 TPS and it is really good internet.

So if you ever want crypto to be more than a hobby then you need plans to scale.

You have no idea what you are talking about. 

1. ProtoShares wasn't "premined" and was announced weeks prior and the first block wasn't even mined by a Dev.  It was mined by Super3
2. The plan was for ProtoShares to allow people to start mining BTS while BTS was under development.... BitShares were not created because it was "mined out". 

So does Bytemaster still defend his calculated costs of running a node?

In response those on this forum who speak with forked tongues (the oldest kind of fork in human history), I present for your edification and entertainment:


ProtoShares (PTS) began mining on Guy Fawkes Day, Nov 5, 2013.


It was created by an independent developer known as FreeTrade as a mineable clone of Bitcoin in response to a bounty offered by Invictus.  The first block was mined by Super3 of Storj fame - who also had no affiliation with Invictus. There was no pre-mine.

ProtoShares was unique in that it was designed to be a prototype coin, a "protocoin" - something to allow supporters to begin mining before the much more complex BitShares Decentralized Exchange software was complete.  ProtoShares were conceived as coins that would be good for a free upgrade when BitShares was ready.

The initial deal was that ProtoShares holders would be honored with the first 10% of BitShares, giving that 10% the same "fair" mining distribution as the remaining 90% which, at the time, were planned to be mined in the same way.  A week later, Invictus sweetened the deal - ProtoShares would be good for free upgrades to all future Invictus products.

During the next few weeks, all the people who had been following Invictus Innovations since its birth on the Fourth of July, 2013 got a decent chance to mine Protoshares.  A classic mining lottery.  It was the best of times.  It was the worst of times.


Somewhere in the dark Land of Mordor (where the shadows lie) an all-seeing eye awoke.  It turned its evil gaze toward ProtoShares and directed its awful mining power into the competition.  All the ProtoShares miners saw the lights on their hobby rigs flicker and brown out.  Analysis showed that big professional mining rigs and pools were vacuuming up most of  the intended "fair" distribution and dumping them on the market.  The little guys, including Invictus, could still get ProtoShares, but they now had to buy them with bitcoins.  

Invictus quit mining ProtoShares a few weeks later, before much of its ordered mining equipment had even arrived.  It had become unprofitable to mine them with ordinary CPUs.

Instead of raising development funds from the sale of fairly mined ProtoShares, Invictus was forced to buy its own ProtoShares from the market.  All the bitcoins that were flooding to buy ProtoShares were now being burned in the fiery cracks of Mount Doom instead of funding development and marketing of BitShares.  

It was clear that the old bitcoin mining paradigm was completely broken.  What was intended as a fair lottery, had become a give away to Big Mining.  Mining had become centralized, wasteful, and unfair.  

Bytemaster announced that mining was dead and set out to invent a replacement.  This took him on a six month detour.  The dark forces of Mordor had no idea what was coming after them.

No one likes a smart ass. 

This is hilarious given my very public stance in favor of non-violence, voluntary association, Non Aggression, and the Silver Rule.   *If* there was any threat of violence or *mandatory* adoption then I would be 100% against it.  

1) Everything is Opt-In, if you don't like it go get robbed by some miners.
2) Shareholder's can fire delegates without consequence, any delegate that pulled out a gun would get fired

Everyone has to take some "stance" and as soon as you take a stance then you are subject to attack.   Those who are attacking BitShares and taking the time to produce this hilarious propaganda art need to adopt a stance.

1) Pro Bitcoin?  
2) Pro Nxt?
3) Pro Ripple?

From where I sit, all three get the job done and produce a trustworthy irreversible public record.  
From where I sit, BitShares makes better use of its dilution than Bitcoin and both systems have the same long-term taper toward 0% inflation.
From where I sit, BitShares is the most efficient (speed, cost) at producing an irreversible public record.

Take a stance, then lets apply the logic of your arguments against your own position.  If you can do so without contradicting yourself I would be very impressed.

By the time BitShares is big enough as a top 10 national currency you can believe that the dilution rate will be far less than the rate of economic growth which means it will be a price-deflationary currency.  

LOL 
I could not even imagine that word 'communism' can do with people. Now I know!