Another paid article about BitShares?

Not surprisingly not a single word about peershares, nubits nor nushares.

They even claim to have coined the term DAC :smiley:

Me, Cybnate and Thireus were talking about something similar last night on Peercointalk chat. Somebody posted an article where Peercoin/Nu/Peershares were not mentioned like usual. I don’t like the idea of paid articles, but it seems as if all these crypto publications continue to completely ignore anything we do while covering everyone else. It’s like we don’t exist. What can we do about it? @tomjoad?

Sentinelrv: I grow tired of this crap. Nobody ever talks about us. We’re almost non-existant.

Sentinelrv: It’s always Bitshares, Ethereum, NXT, blah blah blah, never Nu, never peershares, nothing.

Cybnate: Know what you mean, I’m getting that Betamax feel sometimes if you know what I mean. I’ve a few thousand NBT to spend on advertising for NuBits in June. Hope that makes a bit of a dent

Cybnate: Part of the Android grant

Sentinelrv: Yeah, I imagine you’re going to run some banners on Coinmarketcap like Neucoin is doing?

Cybnate: Most likely, supported by the website

Cybnate: Unless someone has a better idea

Sentinelrv: Have you talked with Tomjoad about it?

Cybnate: Yes, he motivated me

Thireus: Senti, nobody talks about us because we don’t pay anyone to talk about us

Thireus: other coins have marketing teams to make sure we talk about them

Sentinelrv: So that’s the answer? Bribe Coindesk and other places?

Sentinelrv: I don’t like it

Thireus: I don’t want that neither

Thireus: Paycoin --> copycat peercoin, Neucoin --> copycat peercoin. Guess what they are all trying to do: they know peercoin has one of the best techno, but has a weakness that can be exploited to make profit. That weakness is that our coin is not popular because nobody is paid to talk about us and make our coin mainstream. All these coins are trying to do is (with a peercoin copycat) to make it mainstream and profit.

  • I believe Larimer came up with the terminology of DAC back in September 2013
  • I am wondering about the mechanism to elect 101 delegates in BitShares; how do you vote for a delegate?
  • Why is it that they never talk about NuShares?

I feel that the only advertising possible for NuShares is outputting stunning results.

That would require getting our volume back up to the previous high levels, plus B&C succeeding. That would be earned press, which is much better than paid press. But I wonder if they would even cover us then.

When the volume reached 2m daily a few months ago, there was no coverage what so ever as far as I know.
Is it because of PoS-based consensus mechanism?
I think so.
PoS undermines the competitiveness of PoW…

Then why cover Bitshares? They use proof-of-stake too.

Good point and NXT too.
Well my guess is that truly revolutionary products are unwelcome at the beginning.
They tend to disrupt the status quo and the happy few at the top.
Bitshares has a delegate PoS, which means that only a handful of people effectively vote, own the network.
In case of NXT, I feel most holders do not have a say in the network.
My point is that only Nu and Peershares so far have a topology that enables a decentralized ownership via voting and this is that very feature that is disruptive.

I even think that the first killer app of the blockchain is decentralized voting.

As for peercoin, well to me, most of its value is in having given birth to Nu and Peershares.

This is only my opinion.

I was asked to make a statement today on the Peercoin book by Tyke. This was my last paragraph in the statement. It’s about Peershares…


I am neutral on paid articles. To me paid articles are just advertisement. I feel positive on paid articles with a disclosure clause.


I think it is true that we need much more aggressive marketing. When I think about it, the “let us talk bitcoin” done by @Ben had a nice impact. So after all, spreading the word really counts. @crypto_coiner ?

The idea has existed for a lot longer than that. Dan Larimer may claim to have invented the concept, but I suspect that is only true if you include the context of “on a blockchain”.

For example, from 2001:

Indeed. Tks for the pointer.

Sentinelrv, do you still believe PoS could maintain scarcity without FIAT in its system?

I don’t believe PPC any more, just a new version of “Xerox Lab”, replaced by MS/Apple.

With regard to Nu, where is the link of decentralized pool? Wanna read the whitepaper.

If you’re referring to my realization here of your scarcity argument, I still believe that reputation plays a very large part in the equation and Sunny’s almost 3 year reputation is hard to compete with. A Neucoin could possibly surpass Peercoin with lots of money. We’ll just have to wait and see.

Reputation of a single man. I am really sad that we are not so decentralized.

BTW, the decentralized fund pool of Nu, do custodians provide their own fund and get reward of providing liquidity? The separation of NSR holders and liquid providers is dangerous.

I dare not buy any PPC and Nubits.

Yes. Everyone can provide liquidity from his/her own exchange account, and get reward every 10 seconds or so. Try it. It’s quite simple to use. There is no white paper. You have to go through the discussion thread.

PPC is very secure because it is well distributed, it is not just the reputation of Sunny King. NSR distribution may be more arguable, but I think the auctions have been fair. Separating NBT pegging operations from NSR shareholders is an important staple in the Nu philosophy. People that use NBT do not necessarily need a stake in the system.

Liquidity comes in many shapes and sizes, but decentralized pools based on all sorts of crypto enthusiasts, not just NSR share holders, are a valuable tool and you are doing yourself a disservice by overlooking them.

The pool operators should be shareholders and this is also the case so far. Random people are able to provide liquidity in this pool, but are always in charge of their funds and cannot fake orders. Its the exchange verification API which allows all this, let me know if you want further details.

So the custodians don’t provide their own funds (at least they don’t have to) but they are the trust person between the shareholders and the liquidity providers and cryptography is the trust entity between pool operator and customer.

So random people give out their money to some trusted/reliable persons(custodians, also as NSR holders) to run this pool.

Those custodians are anonymous, that’s the key. Can you imagine the public trust these anonymous custodians for good reward(how much?)?

They don’t give out money to anyone. Everyone maintains full control of their own funds. There are two types of pools. I’m talking about the trustless liquidity pool here.