Explanation for PTS/AGS Holders goes here!

[Empirical1.1]

I didn't betray anyone... I have many friends and family that are AGS holders post Feb 28... I am a large ags holder Post Feb 28.   

AGS was a gift... no strings attached.  Anyone who has AGS and is complaining has no one they can blame but themselves for setting wrong expectations. 

We said we would recommend AGS/PTS get 10% each of *FUTURE* DACs built using the toolkit.   Congrats, you got 10% of *PAST* dacs as well. 

wrong!

BTSX was in your own vision never supposed to be this "SuperDAC".

So all AGS Supportes after Feb. 28 will loose the most because, no one will create new DACs and allocate shares to them. You can call it a merger, but it is clearly a broken promise. Maybe not in legal sense, but it should be clear what I3 and you self promised and what you will do now?

Do you think this is the original promise? Do you really think AGS donors after Feb. 28 are rewarded with a ok shareallocation? I don't think so.

Why not start from scratch allocate 74% BTSX 10% AGS 10% PTS 3 % DNS 3% Vote ? Would be saving much of critics, because with this allocation you will only to be dealing with value for DNS and Vote, but not with not honoring your own promises many times stated in this forum.

Do you really want to risk to support this late AGS supporters?

I am not going to complain about the current allocation but imho the distribution of 74/10/10/3/3 would have avoided much of all these complains.

I really think all these problems could have been avoided by BTSX keeping 100%. BTSX shareholders could make deals to DNS & Vote. BTSX has already honoured the social consensus.

[liondani]

Seriously people complaining about the allocation are either out of their minds or seriously super greedy. We are talking about receiving  BTS for f..sake. We are where bitcoin was in 2009 for the rest of the people outside cryptocurrencies. The world is not 5mil bitcoin users...So be thankful that BM is such a great leader and not a scamer like half of the shit coins devs out there, accept his gift and show your support. Please stop complaining and get over it...

My assumption is that many newbies (the majority)  are not trusting bm yet and that's definitely ok/normal .
The most of the crypto community members are victims of many scams, me included (shitcoins, neo&bee, mtgox etc) , so it's more than expected not to trust so easy devs when getting involved in new crypto projects. The first months I had  my experience with the bitshares team I had not so much trust also... But guess what? They have won my trust !  I am sure all of us will be very happy
with bm decisions at the end because of the results we will all witnessing !  Of course he could decide a more optimal allocation but I am sure we would complaining again... Humans are not perfect and don't make always perfect decisions, and Daniel is a human, he is not only a bytemaster, don't forget that! (and he is not a scammer, that's for sure)
 Time will tell us very soon if he was right or not. Until now he was right (result oriented). Don't forget what he has already accomplished ! The most of us have already multiplied our initial investment, don't we? Many have expected we will be already in number one spot      Many think they are loosing because they didn't sold at $100 million market cap    Please be patient, cause the next 1 year will blow our minds... Next year the majority of our members will complaining because they... sold at $200 million market cap 

[mf-tzo]

I didn't betray anyone... I have many friends and family that are AGS holders post Feb 28... I am a large ags holder Post Feb 28.   

AGS was a gift... no strings attached.  Anyone who has AGS and is complaining has no one they can blame but themselves for setting wrong expectations. 

We said we would recommend AGS/PTS get 10% each of *FUTURE* DACs built using the toolkit.   Congrats, you got 10% of *PAST* dacs as well. 

wrong!

BTSX was in your own vision never supposed to be this "SuperDAC".

So all AGS Supportes after Feb. 28 will loose the most because, no one will create new DACs and allocate shares to them. You can call it a merger, but it is clearly a broken promise. Maybe not in legal sense, but it should be clear what I3 and you self promised and what you will do now?

Do you think this is the original promise? Do you really think AGS donors after Feb. 28 are rewarded with a ok shareallocation? I don't think so.

Why not start from scratch allocate 74% BTSX 10% AGS 10% PTS 3 % DNS 3% Vote ? Would be saving much of critics, because with this allocation you will only to be dealing with value for DNS and Vote, but not with not honoring your own promises many times stated in this forum.

Do you really want to risk to support this late AGS supporters?

I am not going to complain about the current allocation but imho the distribution of 74/10/10/3/3 would have avoided much of all these complains.

[joele]

BM,
I'm also a pre AGS investor and what I know is that I made 11x of my investment and some bonus DACs shares, so thank you.

[freebit]

I didn't betray anyone... I have many friends and family that are AGS holders post Feb 28... I am a large ags holder Post Feb 28.   

AGS was a gift... no strings attached.  Anyone who has AGS and is complaining has no one they can blame but themselves for setting wrong expectations. 

We said we would recommend AGS/PTS get 10% each of *FUTURE* DACs built using the toolkit.   Congrats, you got 10% of *PAST* dacs as well.

so  why delete the "draft license"? Shy?

Did we have a announcement which announced that it was a draft license？
If somebody saw it before and wanted support 3i to be a long long-term investments, then went to sleep long time, when he wake up, he finds he is naked.

Yes it's his fault, it's ourself's responsibilities to invest in something, even something(who is something?funny) is always so changeable.
Social Consensus is not Sincerity, i got it.

PS, bm, is bt & b in your list?

Like this? PTS -> AGS -> btsx -> bts -> bt -> b -> ？
 

[yoo]

I didn't betray anyone... I have many friends and family that are AGS holders post Feb 28... I am a large ags holder Post Feb 28.   

AGS was a gift... no strings attached.  Anyone who has AGS and is complaining has no one they can blame but themselves for setting wrong expectations. 

We said we would recommend AGS/PTS get 10% each of *FUTURE* DACs built using the toolkit.   Congrats, you got 10% of *PAST* dacs as well.

so  why delete the "draft license"? Shy?

Did we have a announcement which announced that it was a draft license？
If somebody saw it before and wanted support 3i to be a long long-term investments, then went to sleep long time, when he wake up, he finds he is naked.

Yes it's his fault, it's ourself's responsibilities to invest in something, even something(who is something?funny) is always so changeable.
Social Consensus is not Sincerity, i got it.

PS, bm, is bt & b in your list?

[Shentist]

I didn't betray anyone... I have many friends and family that are AGS holders post Feb 28... I am a large ags holder Post Feb 28.   

AGS was a gift... no strings attached.  Anyone who has AGS and is complaining has no one they can blame but themselves for setting wrong expectations. 

We said we would recommend AGS/PTS get 10% each of *FUTURE* DACs built using the toolkit.   Congrats, you got 10% of *PAST* dacs as well. 

wrong!

BTSX was in your own vision never supposed to be this "SuperDAC".

So all AGS Supportes after Feb. 28 will loose the most because, no one will create new DACs and allocate shares to them. You can call it a merger, but it is clearly a broken promise. Maybe not in legal sense, but it should be clear what I3 and you self promised and what you will do now?

Do you think this is the original promise? Do you really think AGS donors after Feb. 28 are rewarded with a ok shareallocation? I don't think so.

Why not start from scratch allocate 74% BTSX 10% AGS 10% PTS 3 % DNS 3% Vote ? Would be saving much of critics, because with this allocation you will only to be dealing with value for DNS and Vote, but not with not honoring your own promises many times stated in this forum.

Do you really want to risk to support this late AGS supporters?

[Stan]

Stan’s Handy Handbook of Abused English Phrases

He’s Lying.

He deliberately asserted something he knew to be false.

He Promised.

He committed himself to acting in a certain way at certain times under certain conditions.

He’s out of his Quixotic mind.

He attempted to negotiate a consensus on honorable behavior in a brand new industry for all developers under all, often mutually exclusive, conditions for all time.

 

[xeroc]

I prefer someone to have the guts to alter the deal if he thinks it will be for something better and make it more profitable rather than just wait and watch it die. Since the majority agrees this is a good thing to do, then I do not care if any original deal was violated. We definitely need VOTE urgently to avoid these discussions in the future

Kudos to BM!

[mf-tzo]

I prefer someone to have the guts to alter the deal if he thinks it will be for something better and make it more profitable rather than just wait and watch it die. Since the majority agrees this is a good thing to do, then I do not care if any original deal was violated. We definitely need VOTE urgently to avoid these discussions in the future

[mf-tzo]

Seriously people complaining about the allocation are either out of their minds or seriously super greedy. We are talking about receiving  BTS for f..sake. We are where bitcoin was in 2009 for the rest of the people outside cryptocurrencies. The world is not 5mil bitcoin users...So be thankful that BM is such a great leader and not a scamer like half of the shit coins devs out there, accept his gift and show your support. Please stop complaining and get over it...

[emski]

I didn't betray anyone... I have many friends and family that are AGS holders post Feb 28... I am a large ags holder Post Feb 28.   

AGS was a gift... no strings attached.  Anyone who has AGS and is complaining has no one they can blame but themselves for setting wrong expectations. 

We said we would recommend AGS/PTS get 10% each of *FUTURE* DACs built using the toolkit.   Congrats, you got 10% of *PAST* dacs as well.

@Bytemaster betrayal is a strong word. Your mistake is in the initial social contract. You put a lot of effort in it and it was completed. Even if it wasnt technically included in the BitsharesX it attracted significant amount of investors. It was well written and very appealing. Your mistake that you still cant acknowledge is that you did nothing to explain to the investors that this contract doesn't apply to BitsharesX. Many investors believed in it and it was the sole reason for investing. Even if your proposal might be fair and even possibly a deal for PTS/AGS it doesn't change the fact that the contract was violated (or it will be in the future DACs). There were numerous examples where this was clearly stated in this forum and III did nothing to inform the community about these rules. I think this is your mistake.
Do you agree?

[BitshatKing]

First I saw bm's proposal I thought ptser were all fucked, but looks like the agser after 228 were fucked more seriously....
bm, have you ever considered who were they? They're your true believer who supported you during your darkest days!!
I'm a pts holder and a agser pre-228... I make this post just want to tell you and everyone in this forum that a lier won't get 2nd chance!  You betrayed your believer once,  you will certainly do it again.... Be careful

来自我的 HUAWEI HN3-U01 上的 Tapatalk

So BYTEMASTER LIE TO PEOPLE.  BIG DEAL U LOOSE!   THIS IS FOR BETTER BITSHARES!

[clayop]

We said we would recommend AGS/PTS get 10% each of *FUTURE* DACs built using the toolkit.   Congrats, you got 10% of *PAST* dacs as well.

Sounds like a plan.

[donkeypong]

We said we would recommend AGS/PTS get 10% each of *FUTURE* DACs built using the toolkit.   Congrats, you got 10% of *PAST* dacs as well.

Give 'em an inch, they want a mile! When BTS takes off, all this talk will be long forgotten. Except by those who were dumb enough to sell.

[bytemaster]

I didn't betray anyone... I have many friends and family that are AGS holders post Feb 28... I am a large ags holder Post Feb 28.   

AGS was a gift... no strings attached.  Anyone who has AGS and is complaining has no one they can blame but themselves for setting wrong expectations. 

We said we would recommend AGS/PTS get 10% each of *FUTURE* DACs built using the toolkit.   Congrats, you got 10% of *PAST* dacs as well. 

[springlh]

You got at least 10% each if you count DNS and VOTE, since only the parts allocated to AGS and PTS will be honored. So 7+7+3+3 becomes 10+10.

Not that this isn't a total clusterfuck, but I don't feel like AGS or PTS are the ones who got the bad deal.

what i mean is 3rd Party DACs in the future.

according  BM's reply, for example  3rd DACs  honor new BTSX 20%  instead of  AGS&PTS
then  AGS before feb.28 get 20%*49.4%=9.88%
 AGS after feb.28 get 20%*9.4%=1.88%  much less than 10%

Code: [Select]

new BTSX     btsx 80% ags7% pts7% dns3% vote3%
so AGS before feb.28 get =80%*50%(btsx)+7%*100%(ags)+3%*50%(dns)+3%*30%(vote)=49.4%

AGS after feb.28 get =7%*100%(ags)+3%*50%(dns)+3%*30%(vote)=9.4%

Yes, that is my opinion also... the party that got the short side of the deal are the After 28th AGS donors [and people that donated more after than before 28th].
I am not complaining, I also understand why it was done [long form explanation in previous post of mine], but in short to make as much as possible # of people happy BM cut the stakes for himself and I3...If you have similar position as his, you get a slightly 'unfair' distribution, but unfair only compared to other positions, not unfair in general.

0.02BTSX

i said it in differnt places too. this merger is in total favor of BTSX donors or before Feb. 28.
this is the reason why i am feeling i get robbed in blank daylight

no one seems to consider that BTSX is allocated from Feb. 28 Snapshot. This Snapshot will get 80% of the new merged chain. I don't understand it. This is toally wrong. If you want not change the allocation you should exclude AGS donors from this 7% and grand all the new shares to donors after the snapshot. Should be more fair. But it seems most of the people are fine to loose the promise.

This is a problem who will need fixes. In PTS you accepted smaller share allocation for the benefit of liquidity, but now AGS is much more fucked then PTS owners, if they donated after Feb. 28

Thanks to say it in better words.

First I saw bm's proposal I thought ptser were all fucked, but looks like the agser after 228 were fucked more seriously....
bm, have you ever considered who were they? They're your true believer who supported you during your darkest days!!
I'm a pts holder and a agser pre-228... I make this post just want to tell you and everyone in this forum that a lier won't get 2nd chance!  You betrayed your believer once,  you will certainly do it again.... Be careful

来自我的 HUAWEI HN3-U01 上的 Tapatalk

[sudo]

This is just my opinion, but in the future because of competition for features, BitAssets, network effect & developer attention, BitShares DACs already in existence & future third parties would be better off becoming part of a SuperDAC. This is why BTSX holders are doing a merger deal for Vote, DNS & maybe even BitShares Music in the future.

Features of Vote DAC may allow identification of unique individuals and information by consent, while still remaining private. This means that if a third party did want a to start a separate DAC, they can share-drop using that. Think for a moment about which you would choose if you had a business.

So PTS & AGS can keep the original model but they are just extremely uncompetitive in this rapidly evolving DAC space. PTS & AGS have also already been honoured in the BTSX snapshot.

This deal gives PTS & AGS something that is close to 10% again in BTSX.  The benefit to BTSX is the marketing clarity of one BitShares and keeping as much of the great community together as possible.

However I think BTSX can compete without the deal, just like VOTE DAC + dilution + Bytemaster focus could have competed against BTSX without a deal. So even though I own equal % AGS to BTSX. (Nearly all AGS post 28th Feb) I think PTS & AGS are the ones being over-valued the most in this deal. Though at this stage, it's clearly in my and everyone's interest imo to move forward and compete because... "Time waits for no DAC."

then AGS fund will help who？

Fund helps AGS if no deal I assume.

Do you think AGS can compete if Bytemaster focus elsewhere?

I don't even think BTSX can compete if Bytemaster focus on Vote DAC with its other features. That is only my opinion though.

in your mind, developing cost of DPOS &BTSX &BTS toolkit  provided  by  AGS fund or  I3's assets?

[Tuck Fheman]

My personal opinion is that the Social Consensus is not a suicide pact.

lulz 

[Empirical1.1]

This is just my opinion, but in the future because of competition for features, BitAssets, network effect & developer attention, BitShares DACs already in existence & future third parties would be better off becoming part of a SuperDAC. This is why BTSX holders are doing a merger deal for Vote, DNS & maybe even BitShares Music in the future.

Features of Vote DAC may allow identification of unique individuals and information by consent, while still remaining private. This means that if a third party did want a to start a separate DAC, they can share-drop using that. Think for a moment about which you would choose if you had a business.

So PTS & AGS can keep the original model but they are just extremely uncompetitive in this rapidly evolving DAC space. PTS & AGS have also already been honoured in the BTSX snapshot.

This deal gives PTS & AGS something that is close to 10% again in BTSX.  The benefit to BTSX is the marketing clarity of one BitShares and keeping as much of the great community together as possible.

However I think BTSX can compete without the deal, just like VOTE DAC + dilution + Bytemaster focus could have competed against BTSX without a deal. So even though I own equal % AGS to BTSX. (Nearly all AGS post 28th Feb) I think PTS & AGS are the ones being over-valued the most in this deal. Though at this stage, it's clearly in my and everyone's interest imo to move forward and compete because... "Time waits for no DAC."

then AGS fund will help who？

Fund helps AGS if no deal I assume.

Do you think AGS can compete if Bytemaster focus elsewhere?

I don't even think BTSX can compete if Bytemaster focus on Vote DAC with its other features. That is only my opinion though.

[sudo]

This is just my opinion, but in the future because of competition for features, BitAssets, network effect & developer attention, BitShares DACs already in existence & future third parties would be better off becoming part of a SuperDAC. This is why BTSX holders are doing a merger deal for Vote, DNS & maybe even BitShares Music in the future.

Features of Vote DAC may allow identification of unique individuals and information by consent, while still remaining private. This means that if a third party did want a to start a separate DAC, they can share-drop using that. Think for a moment about which you would choose if you had a business.

So PTS & AGS can keep the original model but they are just extremely uncompetitive in this rapidly evolving DAC space. PTS & AGS have also already been honoured in the BTSX snapshot.

This deal gives PTS & AGS something that is close to 10% again in BTSX.  The benefit to BTSX is the marketing clarity of one BitShares and keeping as much of the great community together as possible.

However I think BTSX can compete without the deal, just like VOTE DAC + dilution + Bytemaster focus could have competed against BTSX without a deal. So even though I own equal % AGS to BTSX. (Nearly all AGS post 28th Feb) I think PTS & AGS are the ones being over-valued the most in this deal. Though at this stage, it's clearly in my and everyone's interest imo to move forward and compete because... "Time waits for no DAC."

then  AGS fund will help who？

[Empirical1.1]

This is just my opinion, but in the future because of competition for features, BitAssets, network effect & developer attention, BitShares DACs already in existence & future third parties would be better off becoming part of a SuperDAC. This is why BTSX holders are doing a merger deal for Vote, DNS & maybe even BitShares Music in the future.

Features of Vote DAC may allow identification of unique individuals and information by consent, while still remaining private. This means that if a third party did want a to start a separate DAC, they can share-drop using that. Think for a moment about which you would choose if you had a business.

So PTS & AGS can keep the original model but they are just extremely uncompetitive in this rapidly evolving DAC space. PTS & AGS have also already been honoured in the BTSX snapshot.

This deal gives PTS & AGS something that is close to 10% again in BTSX.  The benefit to BTSX is the marketing clarity of one BitShares and keeping as much of the great community together as possible.

However I think BTSX can compete without the deal, just like VOTE DAC + dilution + Bytemaster focus could have competed against BTSX without a deal. So even though I own equal % AGS to BTSX. (Nearly all AGS post 28th Feb) I think PTS & AGS are the ones being over-valued the most in this deal. Though at this stage, it's clearly in my and everyone's interest imo to move forward and compete because... "Time waits for no DAC."

[sudo]

the wiki  on  http://wiki.bitshares.org/  is still valid?
especially  Social_Consensus_Software_License
http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/Social_Consensus_Software_License

Oh .. that one is AFAIK obsolete ...

The whole wiki needs a rewrite

If the public  was told from the start, the promise of at least 10% shares， someday in the future  will cut a lot, because of the social contract abandoned and changed.  how much people would donate for ags or  holding PTS ?

[xeroc]

the wiki  on  http://wiki.bitshares.org/  is still valid?
especially  Social_Consensus_Software_License
http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/Social_Consensus_Software_License

Oh .. that one is AFAIK obsolete ...

The whole wiki needs a rewrite

[sudo]

This thread is a good place for III to provide factual explanation to PTS/AGS holders!
I'm for the merge. I think BTS will continue to grow despite current disputes.
However I think a promise is a promise and it should be kept.
I think integrity is important and I believe most people will understand the following written "document" as I understood it the first time I saw it.
Any AGS/PTS investor believed in it and it was backed by @Bytemast, @Stan and III.

Thanks to sudo for pointing this out:

Don't forget the beginner's mind

https://github.com/InvictusInnovations/BitShares/blob/master/LICENSE.md

Social Consensus Software License - Version 1.0 - August 10, 2013
Copyright (c) 2013 Invictus Innovations, Inc. All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in the source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following condititons are met:
1.Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2.Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
3.Neither the name of Invictus Innovations, Inc nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
4.The genesis block of any blockchain must allocate 10% of the total lifetime shares ever allocated by the blockchain to the holders of BitShares PTS proportional to the percentage of total BitShares PTS held. Additionally 10% of the total lifetime shares ever allcoated by the blockchain to the holders of BitShares AGS must be allocated in the genesis block.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS OR ANYONE DISTRIBUTING THE SOFTWARE BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

Now III can explain how is this non-binding promise fulfilled.

That is a draft license not in the BitShares repo...  look at the actual toolkit license: 

Code: [Select]

dlarimer@frodo ~]$ cat ~/projects/bitshares_toolkit/LICENSE.md
This is free and unencumbered software released into the public domain.

Anyone is free to copy, modify, publish, use, compile, sell, or
distribute this software, either in source code form or as a compiled
binary, for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and by any
means.

In jurisdictions that recognize copyright laws, the author or authors
of this software dedicate any and all copyright interest in the
software to the public domain. We make this dedication for the benefit
of the public at large and to the detriment of our heirs and
successors. We intend this dedication to be an overt act of
relinquishment in perpetuity of all present and future rights to this
software under copyright law.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT.
IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR
OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE,
ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR
OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

For more information, please refer to <http://unlicense.org/>


i have some questions

bts toolkit's  developing  cost  from AGS fund or I3 company?
what  expecting  make people to donate  AGS (after feb 28)?

the wiki  on  http://wiki.bitshares.org/  is still valid?
especially  Social_Consensus_Software_License
http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/Social_Consensus_Software_License

[sudo]

You got at least 10% each if you count DNS and VOTE, since only the parts allocated to AGS and PTS will be honored. So 7+7+3+3 becomes 10+10.

Not that this isn't a total clusterfuck, but I don't feel like AGS or PTS are the ones who got the bad deal.

what i mean is 3rd Party DACs in the future.

according  BM's reply, for example  3rd DACs  honor new BTSX 20%  instead of  AGS&PTS
then  AGS before feb.28 get 20%*49.4%=9.88%
 AGS after feb.28 get 20%*9.4%=1.88%  much less than 10%

Code: [Select]

new BTSX     btsx 80% ags7% pts7% dns3% vote3%
so AGS before feb.28 get =80%*50%(btsx)+7%*100%(ags)+3%*50%(dns)+3%*30%(vote)=49.4%

AGS after feb.28 get =7%*100%(ags)+3%*50%(dns)+3%*30%(vote)=9.4%

ok, so I think future DACs should honor ags/pts, not BTS

 

[tonyk]

You got at least 10% each if you count DNS and VOTE, since only the parts allocated to AGS and PTS will be honored. So 7+7+3+3 becomes 10+10.

Not that this isn't a total clusterfuck, but I don't feel like AGS or PTS are the ones who got the bad deal.

what i mean is 3rd Party DACs in the future.

according  BM's reply, for example  3rd DACs  honor new BTSX 20%  instead of  AGS&PTS
then  AGS before feb.28 get 20%*49.4%=9.88%
 AGS after feb.28 get 20%*9.4%=1.88%  much less than 10%

Code: [Select]

new BTSX     btsx 80% ags7% pts7% dns3% vote3%
so AGS before feb.28 get =80%*50%(btsx)+7%*100%(ags)+3%*50%(dns)+3%*30%(vote)=49.4%

AGS after feb.28 get =7%*100%(ags)+3%*50%(dns)+3%*30%(vote)=9.4%

Yes, that is my opinion also... the party that got the short side of the deal are the After 28th AGS donors [and people that donated more after than before 28th].
I am not complaining, I also understand why it was done [long form explanation in previous post of mine], but in short to make as much as possible # of people happy BM cut the stakes for himself and I3...If you have similar position as his, you get a slightly 'unfair' distribution, but unfair only compared to other positions, not unfair in general.

0.02BTSX

i said it in differnt places too. this merger is in total favor of BTSX donors or before Feb. 28.
this is the reason why i am feeling i get robbed in blank daylight

no one seems to consider that BTSX is allocated from Feb. 28 Snapshot. This Snapshot will get 80% of the new merged chain. I don't understand it. This is toally wrong. If you want not change the allocation you should exclude AGS donors from this 7% and grand all the new shares to donors after the snapshot. Should be more fair. But it seems most of the people are fine to loose the promise.

This is a problem who will need fixes. In PTS you accepted smaller share allocation for the benefit of liquidity, but now AGS is much more fucked then PTS owners, if they donated after Feb. 28

Thanks to say it in better words.

Well, I tried to fight this fight more than 6 mo. ago... I was shut up and I understood their point [well kind of]. The point being it was promised to them and changing it will hurt their feelings expectations...

Now was (yes funny statement) the time to fix it, but I get why it was not done... even more pissed-off 'investors'.

My advice - take your unrealized gains and make the best out of it!

99.9999% of the earth still have no clue, but will some day know, what incredible opportunity you had and they did not.....

[sudo]

This thread is a good place for III to provide factual explanation to PTS/AGS holders!
I'm for the merge. I think BTS will continue to grow despite current disputes.
However I think a promise is a promise and it should be kept.
I think integrity is important and I believe most people will understand the following written "document" as I understood it the first time I saw it.
Any AGS/PTS investor believed in it and it was backed by @Bytemast, @Stan and III.

Thanks to sudo for pointing this out:

Don't forget the beginner's mind

https://github.com/InvictusInnovations/BitShares/blob/master/LICENSE.md

Social Consensus Software License - Version 1.0 - August 10, 2013
Copyright (c) 2013 Invictus Innovations, Inc. All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in the source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following condititons are met:
1.Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2.Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
3.Neither the name of Invictus Innovations, Inc nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
4.The genesis block of any blockchain must allocate 10% of the total lifetime shares ever allocated by the blockchain to the holders of BitShares PTS proportional to the percentage of total BitShares PTS held. Additionally 10% of the total lifetime shares ever allcoated by the blockchain to the holders of BitShares AGS must be allocated in the genesis block.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS OR ANYONE DISTRIBUTING THE SOFTWARE BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

Now III can explain how is this non-binding promise fulfilled.

It is up to developers to interpret this and the community to decide whether they have honored it satisfactorily or not.  Our job is to provide well-considered recommendations and opinions to this community.

My personal opinion is that the Social Consensus is not a suicide pact.

SuperDACs will out-compete our original DACs and SuperDACs can only promise what happens at genesis.  After that, its under control of how shareholders vote.

Code: [Select]

My personal opinion is that the Social Consensus is not a suicide pact.
我个人的观点是,社会共识不是自杀协定。
The initial 10% PTS, ags 10% later, not rob pts10 %, then a new BTS directly rob the AGS and PTS 's 20%.

pts10% ags10% & new bts10% for  licensing fees of bts toolkit   may acceptable

[Shentist]

You got at least 10% each if you count DNS and VOTE, since only the parts allocated to AGS and PTS will be honored. So 7+7+3+3 becomes 10+10.

Not that this isn't a total clusterfuck, but I don't feel like AGS or PTS are the ones who got the bad deal.

what i mean is 3rd Party DACs in the future.

according  BM's reply, for example  3rd DACs  honor new BTSX 20%  instead of  AGS&PTS
then  AGS before feb.28 get 20%*49.4%=9.88%
 AGS after feb.28 get 20%*9.4%=1.88%  much less than 10%

Code: [Select]

new BTSX     btsx 80% ags7% pts7% dns3% vote3%
so AGS before feb.28 get =80%*50%(btsx)+7%*100%(ags)+3%*50%(dns)+3%*30%(vote)=49.4%

AGS after feb.28 get =7%*100%(ags)+3%*50%(dns)+3%*30%(vote)=9.4%

Yes, that is my opinion also... the party that got the short side of the deal are the After 28th AGS donors [and people that donated more after than before 28th].
I am not complaining, I also understand why it was done [long form explanation in previous post of mine], but in short to make as much as possible # of people happy BM cut the stakes for himself and I3...If you have similar position as his, you get a slightly 'unfair' distribution, but unfair only compared to other positions, not unfair in general.

0.02BTSX

i said it in differnt places too. this merger is in total favor of BTSX donors or before Feb. 28.
this is the reason why i am feeling i get robbed in blank daylight

no one seems to consider that BTSX is allocated from Feb. 28 Snapshot. This Snapshot will get 80% of the new merged chain. I don't understand it. This is toally wrong. If you want not change the allocation you should exclude AGS donors from this 7% and grand all the new shares to donors after the snapshot. Should be more fair. But it seems most of the people are fine to loose the promise.

This is a problem who will need fixes. In PTS you accepted smaller share allocation for the benefit of liquidity, but now AGS is much more fucked then PTS owners, if they donated after Feb. 28

Thanks to say it in better words.

[sudo]

http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/BitShares_AGS


Reasons for Creating BitShares AGS
Each and every day over $100,000 is being spent on mining PTS in the form of electricity or cloud computing costs. This adds up to over $3 million per month. In recent posts we have made the following observations:

Mining based upon resource consumption results in centralization.
Mining based security is more expensive than proof-of-stake based security and thus less profitable for a DAC and therefore the DAC would be less competitive.
DACs require money to be developed
Money is another kind of Proof-of-Work... right now we just prove that we burned it, what if we could use it to build the DAC?
The ideal mining pool would allow anyone to pay for 'servers' and receive a payout equal to their capital investment without any fees.
In light of these facts we would like to introduce a new model where you mine with your money rather than mine by burning your money. Invictus would launch ProtoShares 2.0 that would honor all existing PTS and then mine 100K PTS per week. To mine, you would send Bitcoin to the Angel address. The 100K PTS would then be divided among those who contributed proportional to their investment. The proof-of-work would be switched to the signature of our private key and we would set up a server to produce one block every 2 minutes. As a result mining will still be proportional to work as measured by the money invested. The more people the contribute the more difficulty mining becomes.

This model has raised money for Invictus which is used to build out the half dozen DACs that will honor all PTS holders. Instead of PTS holders getting 10% of new genesis blocks, they would get 100% of the genesis block. We could implement this as a hard fork that would give everyone time to upgrade their wallets and it would be otherwise entirely transparent to holders of PTS.

Existing PTS holders benefit because instead of being diluted by miners burning money, they get diluted by miners funding the development of DACs.

Considering the number of people at Vegas looking to throw money our way, the most successful way to do so would be by capturing money currently being waisted at Amazon, DO, and your electric company.

[Helikopterben]

As I have said before, the lifetime allocation assumed separate chains for each new DAC.  That model did not work because chains were competing against one another, resulting in chains being consolidated and effectively rendering future allocations of PTS and AGS uncertain at best.

You were investing in an experiment and part of that experiment failed.  Take what you can get, which is generous, and decide whether or not to invest in the newly restructured model.

[tonyk]

You got at least 10% each if you count DNS and VOTE, since only the parts allocated to AGS and PTS will be honored. So 7+7+3+3 becomes 10+10.

Not that this isn't a total clusterfuck, but I don't feel like AGS or PTS are the ones who got the bad deal.

what i mean is 3rd Party DACs in the future.

according  BM's reply, for example  3rd DACs  honor new BTSX 20%  instead of  AGS&PTS
then  AGS before feb.28 get 20%*49.4%=9.88%
 AGS after feb.28 get 20%*9.4%=1.88%  much less than 10%

Code: [Select]

new BTSX     btsx 80% ags7% pts7% dns3% vote3%
so AGS before feb.28 get =80%*50%(btsx)+7%*100%(ags)+3%*50%(dns)+3%*30%(vote)=49.4%

AGS after feb.28 get =7%*100%(ags)+3%*50%(dns)+3%*30%(vote)=9.4%

Yes, that is my opinion also... the party that got the short side of the deal are the After 28th AGS donors [and people that donated more after than before 28th].
I am not complaining, I also understand why it was done [long form explanation in previous post of mine], but in short to make as much as possible # of people happy BM cut the stakes for himself and I3...If you have similar position as his, you get a slightly 'unfair' distribution, but unfair only compared to other positions, not unfair in general.

0.02BTSX

[toast]

You got at least 10% each if you count DNS and VOTE, since only the parts allocated to AGS and PTS will be honored. So 7+7+3+3 becomes 10+10.

Not that this isn't a total clusterfuck, but I don't feel like AGS or PTS are the ones who got the bad deal.

what i mean is 3rd Party DACs in the future.

according  BM's reply, for example  3rd DACs  honor new BTSX 20%  instead of  AGS&PTS
then  AGS before feb.28 get 20%*49.4%=9.88%
 AGS after feb.28 get 20%*9.4%=1.88%  much less than 10%

Code: [Select]

new BTSX     btsx 80% ags7% pts7% dns3% vote3%
so AGS before feb.28 get =80%*50%(btsx)+7%*100%(ags)+3%*50%(dns)+3%*30%(vote)=49.4%

AGS after feb.28 get =7%*100%(ags)+3%*50%(dns)+3%*30%(vote)=9.4%

ok, so I think future DACs should honor ags/pts, not BTS

[sudo]

You got at least 10% each if you count DNS and VOTE, since only the parts allocated to AGS and PTS will be honored. So 7+7+3+3 becomes 10+10.

Not that this isn't a total clusterfuck, but I don't feel like AGS or PTS are the ones who got the bad deal.

what i mean is 3rd Party DACs in the future.

according  BM's reply, for example  3rd DACs  honor new BTSX 20%  instead of  AGS&PTS
then  AGS before feb.28 get 20%*49.4%=9.88%
 AGS after feb.28 get 20%*9.4%=1.88%  much less than 10%

Code: [Select]

new BTSX     btsx 80% ags7% pts7% dns3% vote3%
so AGS before feb.28 get =80%*50%(btsx)+7%*100%(ags)+3%*50%(dns)+3%*30%(vote)=49.4%

AGS after feb.28 get =7%*100%(ags)+3%*50%(dns)+3%*30%(vote)=9.4%

[toast]

You got at least 10% each if you count DNS and VOTE, since only the parts allocated to AGS and PTS will be honored. So 7+7+3+3 becomes 10+10.

Not that this isn't a total clusterfuck, but I don't feel like AGS or PTS are the ones who got the bad deal.

[sudo]

https://github.com/InvictusInnovations/BitShares/blob/master/LICENSE.md
after i post  it
someone  delete the "BitShares" item on github

[sudo]

PTS at least 10% of DACs shares
then AGS at least 10%  not harm  PTS's 10%

now  new BTS rob the 20% shares of AGS&PTS

[Pheonike]

If a new DACs chooses to honor PTS/AGS then 10% to each is right. If they choose to honor BTS (the new DAC) then 20% of BTS is amount. Choosing BTS gives you full support of community. It must be noted that (AGS/PTS) and BTS communities are no longer the same people(there is a large overlap) so honoring (PTS/AGS) does not automatically include support BTS aka BM.

[yoo]

I was and I'm still mostly concerned about the bolded text:

4.The genesis block of any blockchain must allocate 10% of the total lifetime shares ever allocated by the blockchain to the holders of BitShares PTS proportional to the percentage of total BitShares PTS held. Additionally 10% of the total lifetime shares ever allcoated by the blockchain to the holders of BitShares AGS must be allocated in the genesis block.

I was trying to explain this in so many posts that you might think I'm a spammer. I'm not that concerned about BTS ownership of PTS/AGS. I'm concerned about the failure to fulfill that non-binding promise-like thingy. I think post feb28 AGS/PTS holders have the right to feel lied to and whine about that.

Actually I've said too much already given the fact my stake is really tiny. I'll not make this specific topic any harder for you.

agree with you, pts/ags is just a joke? no 10% promise, my god, i just a blind investor.

[donkeypong]

Actually I've said too much already given the fact my stake is really tiny. I'll not make this specific topic any harder for you.

Your opinion matters. How much you own does not.

[emski]

I was and I'm still mostly concerned about the bolded text:

4.The genesis block of any blockchain must allocate 10% of the total lifetime shares ever allocated by the blockchain to the holders of BitShares PTS proportional to the percentage of total BitShares PTS held. Additionally 10% of the total lifetime shares ever allcoated by the blockchain to the holders of BitShares AGS must be allocated in the genesis block.

I was trying to explain this in so many posts that you might think I'm a spammer. I'm not that concerned about BTS ownership of PTS/AGS. I'm concerned about the failure to fulfill that non-binding promise-like thingy. I think post feb28 AGS/PTS holders have the right to feel lied to and whine about that.

Actually I've said too much already given the fact my stake is really tiny. I'll not make this specific topic any harder for you.

[Stan]

I don't think the social consensus applies to absorption/mergers.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10214.msg135831#msg135831

However, any future DAC's who wish to, it will be difficult because pre/post feb28 AGS/PTS now have different percentage stakes in its replacement.

Honoring 20% to BTS holders would honor the contract for pre 2/28 holders but not post 2/28 holders.

I think its established at this point that there is no way to make it perfect. This may be most fair though.  I don't have any better suggestions that don't tip the scale in some other unfair way.

for future DAC, I suggest we should keep the social consensus - at least 10% to AGSer and at least 10% to PTSer.

That makes perfect sense and is completely possible.

If you want to get storefront property in the BTS DAC-OS Shopping Mall, you negotiate a deal with the BTS shareholders (mall owners).

If you want to standoff and be independent, you choose the mailing list(s) for the demographics you think will best help your DAC succeed.

[wallace]

I don't think the social consensus applies to absorption/mergers.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10214.msg135831#msg135831

However, any future DAC's who wish to, it will be difficult because pre/post feb28 AGS/PTS now have different percentage stakes in its replacement.

Honoring 20% to BTS holders would honor the contract for pre 2/28 holders but not post 2/28 holders.

I think its established at this point that there is no way to make it perfect. This may be most fair though.  I don't have any better suggestions that don't tip the scale in some other unfair way.

for future DAC, I suggest we should keep the social consensus - at least 10% to AGSer and at least 10% to PTSer.

[Xeldal]

I don't think the social consensus applies to absorption/mergers.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10214.msg135831#msg135831

However, any future DAC's who wish to, it will be difficult because pre/post feb28 AGS/PTS now have different percentage stakes in its replacement.

Honoring 20% to BTS holders would honor the contract for pre 2/28 holders but not post 2/28 holders.

I think its established at this point that there is no way to make it perfect. This may be most fair though.  I don't have any better suggestions that don't tip the scale in some other unfair way.

[wallace]

Stan, what we're talking about is not about this merger, it's about the future 3rd Party DAC

[Stan]

This thread is a good place for III to provide factual explanation to PTS/AGS holders!
I'm for the merge. I think BTS will continue to grow despite current disputes.
However I think a promise is a promise and it should be kept.
I think integrity is important and I believe most people will understand the following written "document" as I understood it the first time I saw it.
Any AGS/PTS investor believed in it and it was backed by @Bytemast, @Stan and III.

Thanks to sudo for pointing this out:

Don't forget the beginner's mind

https://github.com/InvictusInnovations/BitShares/blob/master/LICENSE.md

Social Consensus Software License - Version 1.0 - August 10, 2013
Copyright (c) 2013 Invictus Innovations, Inc. All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in the source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following condititons are met:
1.Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2.Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
3.Neither the name of Invictus Innovations, Inc nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
4.The genesis block of any blockchain must allocate 10% of the total lifetime shares ever allocated by the blockchain to the holders of BitShares PTS proportional to the percentage of total BitShares PTS held. Additionally 10% of the total lifetime shares ever allcoated by the blockchain to the holders of BitShares AGS must be allocated in the genesis block.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS OR ANYONE DISTRIBUTING THE SOFTWARE BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

Now III can explain how is this non-binding promise fulfilled.

It is up to developers to interpret this and the community to decide whether they have honored it satisfactorily or not.  Our job is to provide well-considered recommendations and opinions to this community.

My personal opinion is that the Social Consensus is not a suicide pact.

SuperDACs will out-compete our original DACs and SuperDACs can only promise what happens at genesis.  After that, its under control of how shareholders vote.

[emski]

That is a draft license not in the BitShares repo...  look at the actual toolkit license: 

And no-one can find reference of you/Stan/III stating that the license in OP is inplace?
And no-one can find a reference of the license in OP is invalid?

Then we are good to go... No written documents exists and there weren't any promises.

[bitmeat]

Don't you wish there was a smart contract controlling this? And then amendments would need to be voted on the blockchain. Ah... Too bad we are not there yet

[bytemaster]

This thread is a good place for III to provide factual explanation to PTS/AGS holders!
I'm for the merge. I think BTS will continue to grow despite current disputes.
However I think a promise is a promise and it should be kept.
I think integrity is important and I believe most people will understand the following written "document" as I understood it the first time I saw it.
Any AGS/PTS investor believed in it and it was backed by @Bytemast, @Stan and III.

Thanks to sudo for pointing this out:

Don't forget the beginner's mind

https://github.com/InvictusInnovations/BitShares/blob/master/LICENSE.md

Social Consensus Software License - Version 1.0 - August 10, 2013
Copyright (c) 2013 Invictus Innovations, Inc. All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in the source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following condititons are met:
1.Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2.Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
3.Neither the name of Invictus Innovations, Inc nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
4.The genesis block of any blockchain must allocate 10% of the total lifetime shares ever allocated by the blockchain to the holders of BitShares PTS proportional to the percentage of total BitShares PTS held. Additionally 10% of the total lifetime shares ever allcoated by the blockchain to the holders of BitShares AGS must be allocated in the genesis block.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS OR ANYONE DISTRIBUTING THE SOFTWARE BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

Now III can explain how is this non-binding promise fulfilled.

That is a draft license not in the BitShares repo...  look at the actual toolkit license: 

Code: [Select]

dlarimer@frodo ~]$ cat ~/projects/bitshares_toolkit/LICENSE.md
This is free and unencumbered software released into the public domain.

Anyone is free to copy, modify, publish, use, compile, sell, or
distribute this software, either in source code form or as a compiled
binary, for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and by any
means.

In jurisdictions that recognize copyright laws, the author or authors
of this software dedicate any and all copyright interest in the
software to the public domain. We make this dedication for the benefit
of the public at large and to the detriment of our heirs and
successors. We intend this dedication to be an overt act of
relinquishment in perpetuity of all present and future rights to this
software under copyright law.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT.
IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR
OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE,
ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR
OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

For more information, please refer to <http://unlicense.org/>


[emski]

This thread is a good place for III to provide factual explanation to PTS/AGS holders!
I'm for the merge. I think BTS will continue to grow despite current disputes.
However I think a promise is a promise and it should be kept.
I think integrity is important and I believe most people will understand the following written "document" as I understood it the first time I saw it.
Any AGS/PTS investor believed in it and it was backed by @Bytemast, @Stan and III.

Thanks to sudo for pointing this out:

Don't forget the beginner's mind

https://github.com/InvictusInnovations/BitShares/blob/master/LICENSE.md

Social Consensus Software License - Version 1.0 - August 10, 2013
Copyright (c) 2013 Invictus Innovations, Inc. All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in the source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following condititons are met:
1.Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2.Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
3.Neither the name of Invictus Innovations, Inc nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
4.The genesis block of any blockchain must allocate 10% of the total lifetime shares ever allocated by the blockchain to the holders of BitShares PTS proportional to the percentage of total BitShares PTS held. Additionally 10% of the total lifetime shares ever allcoated by the blockchain to the holders of BitShares AGS must be allocated in the genesis block.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS OR ANYONE DISTRIBUTING THE SOFTWARE BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

Now III can explain how is this non-binding promise fulfilled.