Quote from: inBitweTrust on October 21, 2014, 09:53:13 PM

Quote from: sidhujag on October 21, 2014, 09:33:05 PM

Well alot of economists say the perfect currency is one that ties supply equilibrium to that of real growth (GDP). This tries to do that in a democratic way. It's not to say that votes can't be delegated to someone making it for you, but the ability as a shareholder to vote on these things is what seperates it from our system today...

Aren't most Fiat currencies inflationary DPoS currencies as well? Citizens vote for "representatives" who than delegate officials to set monetary policy on an inflationary currency that isn't tied to anything like electricity or hashing power.

Quote from: sidhujag on October 21, 2014, 09:33:05 PM

It can't grow supply and thus people will only spend when they have to... its very deflationary... if we change our economic framework to model it after bitcoin sure... if we want to adapt both ways without turning the world upside down I think both can work in unison... bitcoin functions as gold/currency and shares for exchanging things...

Transaction volume actually increases when a deflationary bubble occurs in Bitcoin as proven by bitpay. Why do we need to change our economic framework when we can allow inflationary and deflationary currencies to coexist and compete in the marketplace?

Quote from: sidhujag on October 21, 2014, 09:33:05 PM

I don't know how you think bitcoin raises funds to be able to comment on what the differences are between raising funds in bitshares vs bitcoin.... The major difference I see is that funds are raised by consensus and not by individuals in power.

Within Bitcoin development is done by:
1) Volunteers (The open source ecosystem is large enough for a critical mass of developers to be interested in working on it for free)
2) For profit Companies paying for development. some of which is for their own products and some of which is given away to support the ecosystem.
3) Donations to non-profits that pay for donors

With Bitshares almost all of the development is done by a group of developers being paid by an initial IPO, and now this further dilution.

Both Bitshares and Bitcoin are also funding development by the vested interests of early stakeholders supporting the ecosystem to further increase the value of their investments. Within Bitcoin there never was an IPO or change in the protocol for capital infusion. This is a critical difference as the rewards for development with Bitcoin are only tied directly to the success of the ecosystem and a failure in the development or ecosystem penalizes all their work. With Bitshares Invictus wins if bitshares fails, more if it succeeds, and even more it it succeeds and they can convince the investors to pay by decreasing their stake along the way.

Yes it is like the system today where people may vote or delegate their vote.. however you can't vote for specific issues anymore.. your delegate has that power and actually has incentive to manipulate the vote for themselves.. if I could have voted against QE and I was a US citizen I would have... the only way is to vote out the leader and have a new leader, but we got a new leader and he did the same thing.. it is to enticing to print some money and cover it up in the books, some go offshore, some go to your friends at JPM Chase. That's conspiracy but its possible. With this every share holder has ability to vote.. ofcourse they can delegate or sell their votes but the idea is that would QE have happened if all shareholders voted? I think a high turnout would have happened because of the context and I think QE wouldn't have happened and we would have reset then and there instead of dragging the economy in another fake bubble.

We won't change our framework overnight (only certain currencies are allowed to exist, those that they can pay taxes with and are tracked)... many currencies with different properties won't fly IMO.. and I doubt we will change it so drastically based on what a bitcoin society will be like in the near future.. however we use USD (and other fiat currencies) so a transition period using bitUSD is certainly something we can work with in the current model.. and later on transition into a more deflationary society because bitcoin is in demand as a safe haven and bts is controlled supply based on consensus.

Ok so volunteers helped bitcoin get to where it is.. however to grow as a ecosystem effectively you need talent from outside the crypto pool who's motivation is to earn money.. after all you have to put food on the table. I doubt many volunteers were in dire needs of these coins to go up in value so they can sell to put food on the table.. An environment giving professionals the ability to develop and earn funds through a democratic mechanism is greatly desired and effective to assist in creating tomorrows technologies.

Essentially for profit companies raising funds would be replaced by "capital infusion" by the power of the people. Thus it's not liable to regulation which tends to stunt growth and its open to the imagination of everyone combined.. instead of the select people in the company raising the funds.