A Possible Future with DPoS, etc.
-
+1 exactly, thats why I called this parasitic behavior
tiny chance to success, huge possibility to drag both chains to death.
@Dave - even fuzzy rightly pointed out that even if BC2 survive than BC1 will probably slowly vanish to oblivion.
So if BC2 fails = BC1 is just a joke
If BC2 succed = BC1 end probably even worst than in first case
Now we have well recognized BC1 with valuable name. The hell it is one of the first coins.
You are still talking about adding value to FTC brand.
In fact it is nothing else than brand theft.
Make your own blockchain, forget about FTC.
As is usual, you’re a [removed personal attack]
You’ve used the size of your own [removed personal attack] understanding to measure our chance of success, and arrived at the conclusion that it’s tiny.
You then presented this completely uninformed opinion as fact without stopping to understand what the actual ‘failure’ scenarios in the model look like.
You then went on to extrapolate that because an ICO fails, people stop mining a blockchain for ROI. Of course this isn’t true.
You said if BC2 fails, that means that the technical merits of the first blockchain are bad. [removed personal attack] Miners mine a blockchain for ROI, not because a new blockchain which they CAN’T mine comes along.
You said if BC2 succeeds, that means the first block chain ends even worst than the first. Now you’re a BIGGER idiot. We’ve described over and over how the new BC adds complimentary services that add additional value.
Quit with the trolling.
-
Mirrax, I’m trying to understand you here. What are you conditions before you’ll support this. That BC1 dies and is replaced with BC2 and people get to swap coins for shares? That seems a lot more destructive than anything else proposed so far.
-
Mirrax, I’m trying to understand you here. What are you conditions before you’ll support this. That BC1 dies and is replaced with BC2 and people get to swap coins for shares? That seems a lot more destructive than anything else proposed so far.
It’s not only destructive, it’s doomed to failure. You can’t gain mass market adoption going that route. You’re just dooming your entire community and blockchain to the same stagnation problem it currently faces.
That’s part of why this is so frustrating. We’ve spent a LOT of time coming up with a well reasoned solution and all the right arguments for that solution. Then [removed insult] who have repeatedly expressed a complete inability to understand the solution start making changes to it without addressing any of the reasons the solution was structured like that in the first place, and suddenly we’re no longer discussing a solution, we’re explaining to idiots why a non-solution won’t work.
It’s not productive. It’s just trolling.
This ISN’T a productive way to solve this problem. It could be, but we have to ignore the [removed insult] that would keep dragging it off topic.
-
The only way this conversation moves foward is if we stop lending credence to lies.
It’s a lie that one BC dictates the technical merits of another BC.
It’s a lie that miners would stop mining one blockchain when a new one which they can’t mine arrives.
It’s a lie that the fate of any two blockchains is tied together by a brand, and that one technology failing means all technology from that brand is doomed to failure.
It’s a lie that the chance of an ICO being successful is tiny.
[removed personal attack]
Please, I beg of you. Don’t give any more air time to lies. From here on out, rather than include those lies in the conversation, just ignore them.
-
This may come across as salty - but it’s my thoughts.
Kevlar, I listened to your webcast yesterday, and I’ll be honest that it didn’t actually really “say” anything. Here’s what I think a lot of people are curious to know:
What are the new changes/ideas proposed, how they will be implemented, and WHY they are being implemented as such? In detail, concisely, clearly with no [removed profanity] historical allegories.
So for example, the ICO - you gave four very abstract reasons for it that, personally, sound very scammy. I want to know the who, what, why, how and where. What will the funds be allocated for? I don’t see a business plan at all - it’s just, throw your money at us for these here new tokens that are going to ‘provide services in competition with Bitcoin’ etc. etc.
I want to know what the motives are.
I mean, it doesn’t add up - why adopt a well known, albeit stagnating brand [FTC], for an essentially new coin, with an ICO? Why not just start from scratch and finally launch KevlarCoin? I see absolutely no good reasons to do so other than to potentially scam people out of money. I’m sorry - but that’s just how it feels and sounds to me. What will the ICO funds be used for? Who will be in charge? Why should we trust it?
Finally, I don’t want to sound negative, but I think it’s time we look at the reality of the situation - and that is, in the large spectrum of the crypto-currency ecosystem, FTC is essentially a dead technology. And I really, honestly don’t understand what the “new” changes/ideas are aiming to provide to the large ecosystem that isn’t already there. How will FTC 2.0 innovate? Do you, Kevlar, have the will to see the changes through? And can those that support the ICO trust you?
I feel like the proposed changes are just experimentation that will most likely end up with more people getting burned. And to be frank, Kevlar, I don’t like the way you go about pushing your ideology. You shout the loudest and the angriest. It smells.
-
This may come across as salty - but it’s my thoughts.
Kevlar, I listened to your webcast yesterday, and I’ll be honest that it didn’t actually really “say” anything. Here’s what I think a lot of people are curious to know:
What are the new changes/ideas proposed, how they will be implemented, and WHY they are being implemented as such? In detail, concisely, clearly with no bullshit historical allegories.
So for example, the ICO - you gave four very abstract reasons for it that, personally, sound very scammy. I want to know the who, what, why, how and where. What will the funds be allocated for? I don’t see a business plan at all - it’s just, throw your money at us for these here new tokens that are going to ‘provide services in competition with Bitcoin’ etc. etc.
I want to know what the motives are.
I mean, it doesn’t add up - why adopt a well known, albeit stagnating brand [FTC], for an essentially new coin, with an ICO? Why not just start from scratch and finally launch KevlarCoin? I see absolutely no good reasons to do so other than to potentially scam people out of money. I’m sorry - but that’s just how it feels and sounds to me. What will the ICO funds be used for? Who will be in charge? Why should we trust it?
Finally, I don’t want to sound negative, but I think it’s time we look at the reality of the situation - and that is, in the large spectrum of the crypto-currency ecosystem, FTC is essentially a dead technology. And I really, honestly don’t understand what the “new” changes/ideas are aiming to provide to the large ecosystem that isn’t already there. How will FTC 2.0 innovate? Do you, Kevlar, have the will to see the changes through? And can those that support the ICO trust you?
I feel like the proposed changes are just experimentation that will most likely end up with more people getting burned. And to be frank, Kevlar, I don’t like the way you go about pushing your ideology. You shout the loudest and the angriest. It smells.
I can tell you didn’t listen to it. In it I did ‘say’ what technologies are available for addressing these problems. That was the entire point.
I see you’ve not read any of the conversation leading up to this. Please go back and read it. These questions and many others have been asked and answered repeatedly.
If you feel like the ‘proposed changes’ are just experiments, then you’ve been listening to the wrong people entirely since I’ve not proposed any changes. Please go back and read that, I’ve said it over and over.
These things have been proven in the market and are presently competing for the top of the market cap list. Please try and understand that: You can’t dismiss something as theoretical or experimental if it’s competing for market cap with Bitcoin. That moves it firmly into the realm of ‘real’, ‘practical’, and ‘proven’.
If you think I’ve pushed idelogy, then you’re failed to understand a single thing I’ve said, since nothing I’ve spoken of is ideological in nature, it’s purely practical.
And if you see no good reason, then you’ve not read anything we’ve said here, because we’ve listed tons.
I have no idea why the reasons companies do IPO’s would sound scamy to you. Was the Intel IPO a scam?
-
…
-
Kevlar, I just read over the thread - still missing key information. I want to see a business plan, or something akin to it. Essentially - you’re really great at inflating your role in this “project”, its greatness, but don’t really show any real empirical or concise reasons for why that is.
Finally, comparing an Intel IPO to a fucking alt-currency ICO is just really desperate muddling of reality. They are not to be even considered to be similar. And you should know that.
-
Kevlar, I just read over the thread - still missing key information. I want to see a business plan, or something akin to it. Essentially - you’re really great at inflating your role in this “project”, its greatness, but don’t really show any real empirical or concise reasons for why that is.
Finally, comparing an Intel IPO to a fucking alt-currency ICO is just really desperate muddling of reality. They are not to be even considered to be similar. And you should know that.
I am calling for real plan and detailed information all the way. Yet I am beiing repeatedly tagged as idiot who dont listen and also as pathologic liar…
-
I am calling for real plan and detailed information all the way. Yet I am beiing repeatedly tagged as idiot who dont listen and also as pathologic liar…
Hence my curt attitude. So far, all I’ve really seen is what an ICO can do - four reasons - without an actual plan, and a bunch of fairly forceful language on how the proposed ideas are the right direction to move in without the actual reasoning behind it being clearly and concisely explained. So far my attempts at getting an actual detailed answer to my questions is answered with insulting calls for me to read the same unclear reasoning. There’s no need to insult my intelligence, or reading comprehension. Maybe it’s time to re-think the way in which things are talked about, and maybe see that the explanations given thus far aren’t explanations at all.
I’m not pro or con any specific thing until I get an idea of what exactly it is that’s being proposed and **WHY - HOW - WHEN. **Until we get something that resembles and actual plan of action, especially the ICO, none of the insults being thrown around are worth their weight. And I’m not speaking of you. I am clearly speaking about anyone who insults intelligence on here and calls people liars and bad actors when they themselves have failed to provide the right information.
I’m really sad to see where this community has gone to.
-
Kevlar, I just read over the thread - still missing key information. I want to see a business plan, or something akin to it. Essentially - you’re really great at inflating your role in this “project”, its greatness, but don’t really show any real empirical or concise reasons for why that is.
Obviously you didn’t. It’s written out for you plain as day.
Calem said it here: https://forum.feathercoin.com/index.php?/topic/9026-the-future-of-feathercoin-ftc-v2-ft2/?p=74741
I reiterated it here: https://forum.feathercoin.com/index.php?/topic/9026-the-future-of-feathercoin-ftc-v2-ft2/?p=74744
And again here: https://forum.feathercoin.com/index.php?/topic/9026-the-future-of-feathercoin-ftc-v2-ft2/?p=74750
In fact, I believe I said it first here: https://forum.feathercoin.com/index.php?/topic/9026-the-future-of-feathercoin-ftc-v2-ft2/?p=74722
And about 90 other times prior to that in Slack, and on the forum.
Why won’t you just read what we’ve said over and over?
Finally, comparing an Intel IPO to a fucking alt-currency ICO is just really desperate muddling of reality. They are not to be even considered to be similar. And you should know that.
No… as someone who has MUCH experience fund raising for startups with both angel and instutional investors, who has raised millions of dollars for his own start ups and other peoples, who has been involved on both the giving and the receiving end of many crowdfunding campaigns, and as a great enthusiast of crypto-currencies and rabid follower of developments within this space, I know only that you are surely trolling me right now.
ICOs may have gotten a bad name from scammers. That does not by any stretch of the imagination invalidate the crowdfunding model, and there are MANY VERY RELEVANT EXAMPLES of recent IPOs which have propelled a new service provider into a rapidly expanding market cap.
Finally, you must have missed the point of the solution entirely… another sign you’ve not actually read anything we’ve said, since you just compared what we’re talking about to an alt-currency. You’re right, what we’re discussing and alt-currencies aren’t even considered to be remotely similar.
You see, I addressed that in this post, here: https://forum.feathercoin.com/index.php?/topic/9026-the-future-of-feathercoin-ftc-v2-ft2/?p=74728
Which… I’m guessing you didn’t read.
-
LOL
Dude, are you serious? You link to posts literally saying nothing other than that it’s been said, when it hasn’t. NOT ONLY THAT, your last link is for a post you made where you essentially claim no changes to FTC are being thought of [which is partially true, but semantical in nature] and that you believe the community isn’t important. I want you to scroll up on this page and take a look at the TOPIC TITLE and then tell me again what it is we’re discussing.
I’m really glad you gave me that amazing breakdown of your qualifications for an ICO - but an IPO, and ICO are two VERY different things. Kickstarter/IndieGoGo is not the same as an IPO or an ICO. Why? Well, the reason is because donors do not gain share in any of the crowdfunding projects. This is how Kickstarter and similar sites can continue to function outside of regulatory framework [for now]. ICO’s are different than IPO’s primarily because they are not regulated, and hence often end up falling into a legal grey area. The “shares” are also not clearly defined, but I can see regulators seeing tokens/coins/shares of currency as essentially being the same as traditional shares. This is a new concept that hasn’t been clarified yet - but for heaven’s sake Kevlar, don’t [removed profanity] belittle me with your bullshit.
Finally, you must have missed the point of the plan entirely.
There is no plan. Please stop with the trolling.
Which is it dude? Is there a plan? Is there no plan? What the hell are we even talking about?!
-
Kevlar, you’re editing your posts to add new information after I’ve replied. Which makes things confusing. The final link you provided is a good start at basic explanations but still doesn’t really explain what exactly it is you guys are planning. I know it’s really clear in your head, and sometimes it’s hard to get it out - but you’re just going to have to listen to me when I say that I actually, honestly, really still don’t know what exactly it is you guys are thinking. I don’t think it’s a me problem - I think it’s a you problem.
-
I’m not pro or con any specific thing until I get an idea of what exactly it is that’s being proposed and **WHY - HOW - WHEN. **Until we get something that resembles and actual plan of action, especially the ICO, none of the insults being thrown around are worth their weight. And I’m not speaking of you. I am clearly speaking about anyone who insults intelligence on here and calls people liars and bad actors when they themselves have failed to provide the right information.
Kevlar, you’re editing your posts to add new information after I’ve replied. Which makes things confusing, the final link you provided is a good start at basic explanations but still doesn’t really explain what exactly it is you guys are planning. I know it’s really clear in your head, and sometimes it’s hard to get it out - but you’re just going to have to listen to me when I say that I actually, honestly, really still don’t know what exactly it is you guys are thinking. I don’t think it’s a me problem - I think it’s a you problem.
Ah, I see where the misunderstanding stems from.
Let me clarify once and for all: We’re NOT PLANNING ANYTHING.
We REALLY don’t care at all if your pro or con anything in this discussion. Your personal feelings only detract from the conversation we’re trying to have. We’re not looking for your acceptance, we’re not asking your permission, and we’re not trying to convince you of anything. We’re not interested in the slightest if you hate one idea and love another, that’s on you to figure out for yourself.
We are here discussing the merits and shortcomings of a specific solution. We can do that free of opinions, and rely entirely on facts. We can point at the numbers, and draw relevant conclusions from them free from anyone’s feelings getting involved. We can construct models and debate their merits all without anyone’s approval or disapproval. We can compare conclusions and reach new ones all without resorting to relying on anyone’s personal feelings about anything. We can answer any questions you may have about the solutions being proposed without anyone derailing the conversation to make it about how they feel.
And when it comes time to actually make a plan? I still won’t be including you in the decision making process. Design by committee is death to a project. We don’t need your approval, and we don’t need you to sign off on anything we do.
There is no need for you to demand anything of us. We’re simply the messengers of a new idea, and all this discussion was ever supposed to be was a questions and answers opportunity for that idea.
-
LOL
Dude, are you serious? You link to posts literally saying nothing other than that it’s been said, when it hasn’t. NOT ONLY THAT, your last link is for a post you made where you essentially claim no changes to FTC are being thought of [which is partially true, but semantical in nature] and that you believe the community isn’t important. I want you to scroll up on this page and take a look at the TOPIC TITLE and then tell me again what it is we’re discussing.
I’m really glad you gave me that amazing breakdown of your qualifications for an ICO - but an IPO, and ICO are two VERY different things. Kickstarter/IndieGoGo is not the same as an IPO or an ICO. Why? Well, the reason is because donors do not gain share in any of the crowdfunding projects. This is how Kickstarter and similar sites can continue to function outside of regulatory framework [for now]. ICO’s are different than IPO’s primarily because they are not regulated, and hence often end up falling into a legal grey area. The “shares” are also not clearly defined, but I can see regulators seeing tokens/coins/shares of currency as essentially being the same as traditional shares. This is a new concept that hasn’t been clarified yet - but for heaven’s sake Kevlar, don’t fucking belittle me with your bullshit.
We’re discussing an idea for the future of Feathercoin. Nothing more. Please stop trying to make it out into more than that.
Yes, of course I believe the community isn’t important in the decision making process. It NEVER has been. Never in the history of FTC has anything ever gotten done because the community agreed upon it. The only time anything EVER got done is when one person wrote the damn code and the market chose to adopt it, or didn’t. That’s how this works. It doesn’t work by a bunch of non-coders all trying to reach a consensus on a forum, and failing.
No, an ICO and an IPO are not two very different things, they’re exactly the same thing. They are the initial sale of shares in a corporation which enable you with voting rights within that corporations decision making process. This is a well tested and well established way to fund the development of a corporation. They do not fall into a legal gray area, DAC’s are intentionally unregulated which makes it PERFECTLY CLEAR which side of the law the fall on (the perfectly legal side). The ‘shares’ are VERY clearly defined in a proper IPO. There’s been no [profanity] here. Just your lack of understanding.
-
I’d love to hear your solution - and I also want to hear what you think the problems are. That’s all. No need to wrangle my words to try and make it seem like I’ve any weight on this issue in any way, because I think it’s apparent that that isn’t the case.
I’m also curious to know your plan for the ICO. What will the corporation be called? What state/country are you thinking of registering it? Who will sit on its board? Would love a prospectus too. Do you guys have underwriters retained? Legal counsel?
Yup - ICO = IPO.
-
You link to posts literally saying nothing other than that it’s been said, when it hasn’t.
No, I didn’t.
I linked you to posts where we explained that under no uncertain terms should this be considered a ‘plan’. I guess you didn’t read the posts I linked you to?
-
We’re discussing an idea for the future of Feathercoin.
Just wanted to add - because of what you are discussing - I, and everyone else on this forum, has the right to give their opinion on it. Which basically means - just so we’re clear - that as long as FTC is attached to your ideas in any way, shape or form, I do have say. As for what those ideas are outside of an FTC bubble - my opinions don’t matter - as you said. You are free to fork the coin and start KevlarCoin, have a KevlarCoin ICO, and try to build it from the ground up. And don’t worry - I won’t be part of the decision making process because I have no interest in it.
But as long as the FTC “brand” is attached to it, I can say whatever I want on here. And elsewhere. Because you will still need a consensus on the changes/new blockchain. And that’s an uphill battle you will have to take.
-
I’d love to hear your solution - and I also want to hear what you think the problems are. That’s all. No need to wrangle my words to try and make it seem like I’ve any weight on this issue in any way, because I think it’s apparent that that isn’t the case.
I’m also curious to know your plan for the ICO. What will the corporation be called? What state/country are you thinking of registering it? Who will sit on its board? Would love a prospectus too. Do you guys have underwriters retained? Legal counsel?
Yup - ICO = IPO.
We’ve been discussing it. What questions do you have about it?
We don’t have a plan for the ICO. The DAC hasn’t yet been named. DACs are borderless and regionless. The board is elected by the shareholders in real time. A prospectus will be provided with the ICO. Underwriters are not required in the model we’re considering. DAC’s have built in protection from those who would seek to regulate it so do not require legal council.
ICO is to IPO, as DAC is to LLC.
-
Just wanted to add - because of what you are discussing - I, and everyone else on this forum, has the right to give their opinion on it. Which basically means - just so we’re clear - that as long as FTC is attached to your ideas in any way, shape or form, I do have say. As for what those ideas are outside of an FTC bubble - my opinions don’t matter - as you said. You are free to fork the coin and start KevlarCoin, have a KevlarCoin ICO, and try to build it from the ground up. And don’t worry - I won’t be part of the decision making process because I have no interest in it.
But as long as the FTC “brand” is attached to it, I can say whatever I want on here. And elsewhere. Because you will still need a consensus on the changes/new blockchain. And that’s an uphill battle you will have to take.
Yes, you absolutely do have the right to give your opinion on it.
Your opinion does not entitle you to any specific rights, or powers. You do not, for instance, get to dictate to me or anyone else what code we write, what projects we peruse, or what solutions we explore.
You are drastically mistaken if you believe we need a consensus to do anything with the brand: We don’t. Anyone can launch a new wallet and call it Feathercoin. The market will decide on if that’s Feathercoin or not. We don’t need a consensus to do an ICO, we don’t need a consensus to launch a new blockchain, and we don’t’ need consensus of the community to make changes to the existing one either.
And if you don’t believe me, I’d ask you, kindly and respectfully, to demonstrate why I’m wrong without resorting to personal attacks. I’d ask that you demonstrate that you can stop me from doing anything at all, writing whatever code I want, calling it whatever I want, and that you can then stop the market from adopting that code and force them to not run it. I’d like you to demonstrate that the community has any power over the code I write, and the code the market runs and buys into. I would submit to you that while they may have a voice, they do not make decisions for the market, and that the market of millions that we’re expecting to reach with the service offering will be much louder and more vocal than anything anyone on these forums can muster. And at that point, the market will call it what it wants to, and you’re whole argument will have been made entirely pointless.
And once you’ve realized that what I’m saying is entirely true, I’d like to to go back and carefully re-read the part where I’ve stated over and over and over that I personally am not interested in doing ANY OF IT. Of all the possibilities I’ve just listed? I’m exploring exactly ZERO of them.
