Quote from: clout on July 26, 2014, 05:23:24 PM

Quote from: r0ach on July 26, 2014, 01:07:15 PM

Quote from: Mercator on July 26, 2014, 10:59:06 AM

-insert fake quote of r0ach here-

It was a nice shilling attempt, but my real quote is below:

Quote from: AnonyMint on July 26, 2014, 09:05:06 AM

Quote from: r0ach on July 26, 2014, 06:45:26 AM

Bitshares did it in an extremely poorly designed way by having an IPO where it's possible for the dev to to create thousands of mule accounts, send BTC in with all of them, get infinite premine + all his money back, then have plutocratic voting to determine delegates based on who owns the most coins afterwards. The entire thing is a train wreck. You can't get rid of mining for distribution, amongst numerous other changes they would have to do for how their system works to make it not a blatant scam.

I publicly (on this forum) warned bytemaster about that while he was designing it. I stopped following his work last year. He did present at least one good idea I adopted as optimumselect the block solution with the lowest value over some interval to mitigate the orphan issue.

But why would any of the devs do that if they are producing open source software...? Reputation is everything, which is why Dan and the rest of Invictus Innovation had to handle the process with the utmost transparency and fairness. If you can prove that the devs were unfair in their allocation of equity, then perhaps your clone can succeed.

It doesn't matter if the developer didn't do it, all that matters is that IPO offers a backdoor of letting the developer get an infinite premine since all BTC sent for the IPO go back to himself anyway. Even if he didn't do it, he can't prove that he didn't do it, and there's no reason for anyone to take his word for it. This is why ALL IPOs are inherently doomed to fail. Even if you did an escrow, how do we know the dev and escrower aren't colluding? Everything about the IPO is a scam ridden concept.