Topic: More Bitshares Greed - page 9. (Read 12233 times)

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."

"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.

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.

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.


 

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.

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.....

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.

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.

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/

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?

http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/update/2014/12/18/What-is-BitShares/

funny strange.

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.

@Newmine

Given that you spend so much time faffing around on BitShares forum, it's a wonder that you can talk so confused. More likely you are just being deliberately disingenuous.. a lite NXT troll perhaps but you are in your own way doing BitShares a favour because for all your trying, anyone worthwhile will see straight through it and recognise that BitShares is stronger than NXT; PPC and other weaker offerings.

You should retitle the thread as Newmine's greed.

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.

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.


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

Its yet another shining example how bad they are at PR. Dan is an honest and visionary bloke, but he and his team are less than useless in figuring out how things may go down badly in public. They seem to lurch from one fully avoidable PR disaster to another.

Regarding this proposal itself, it was sounded out to the community to get feedback, its nothing to do with greed. The last thing any shareholder now would want is that voter apathy, and inability to vote easily may end up accidentally firing one of the core team. There some better suggestions already proposed in the thread, and I like the recommended slate one.

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.

Talking about Bitshares is always good 

The proposal is just a proposal to discuss, but it seems to some people it is not possible to discuss ideas in public?

And i am against it!

Here's the text:

Many of the core developers are critical to the success of BTS and they are implicitly trusted by everyone who downloads the wallet.

For this reason I would like to suggest that the next release of the BTS wallet set the "default" approval for the following core developers:

Me, Toast, Nathan, Vikram, Valentine, James, Ben, Dan N., Eric F.   

Each of these guys is implicitly trusted and contributing directly to the github source.    This would really help the core team to get and keep the votes necessary without having to worry much about their salary.   Users could always "unvote" them.  

Thoughts? 

********************************************************************

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.