Author Topic: Paid delegate to aid specifically on "bitshares toolkit" ?  (Read 4999 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile

So BitShares killed PTS/AGS by removing official support.  This means all talk of toolkit is pretty much gone.

The new official suggestion is to sharedrop to BTS.

You keep spreading this wrong information, despite Stan clarifying it repeatedly. The social consensus with AGS/PTS has not changed:

False.  PTS and AGS continue to represent the exact same demographics as always and developers have the same motivation to target them with air drops.   We continue to recommend that the community insist on that behavior from developers seeking their support.  And PTS and AGS holders also naturally benefit from all efforts to grow the value of BTS.

Offline vikram


I'm not sure if this is correct . My understanding is that the toolkit has the core technology in it, so you got DPOS, you got the market, the peg mechanism,Titan,etc. Now of course  you need to modify it if you want to make a different DAC. I.E Bithshare Music although it has a completely different business model is basically BithsareX with very few changes AlphaBar PTS same think. HackerFisher could confirm if PLAY it is using the toolkit to make the DAC.  So given the fact that  it is open source and already a few DACS are using it I think we can call it the DAC framework.

I'm not sure either.  Forking a program and modifying it isn't really what I'd call a toolkit, but understandably Dan couldn't have terribly accurate foresight when trying to come up with a plan in the early days.

Thats the problem though, the core technology is there and I don't think much will be added to aid the toolkit itself.  I'm not sure how much documentation was ever created to enable the use of the toolkit either. So what will the BTS DAC have done to help the toolkit ?  From any of my observations, it will have done nothing if not made it worse.

Anyway, these are just thoughts of mine.  I was fairly angry when a lot of this was announced but now is not the time to be divisive.  If I was pissed off enough I would have taken my stuff and went on down the road to life's next interest.

edit - AlphaBar-PTS  seems to be about as far along as RandPaulCoin which appears to be nothing so far.  Everything else you mentioned has had explicit i3 support on some level.

Majority of the code is features added on-the-fly to enhance BTS(X); most of it is irrelevant for a pure DPOS chain. Features cannot easily be added/subtracted--to call it a toolkit is misleading. As you said, there was not the luxury of extended experience and planning early on.

Offline caijchen

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
Toolkit has a clean impl without all the workaround hacks needed to address btsx hard forks.   

We took some shortcuts on toolkit design to get btsx out there, but our plan is to continue to refine and refactor the toolkit to make it easy for others to modify and for us to maintain.
+5% +5% +5% +5% +5%

Offline bytemaster

Toolkit has a clean impl without all the workaround hacks needed to address btsx hard forks.   

We took some shortcuts on toolkit design to get btsx out there, but our plan is to continue to refine and refactor the toolkit to make it easy for others to modify and for us to maintain. 
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline Pheonike

Having good documentation is important and should be paid for. Look at how much we have lost by not having clear information for contributors. This is an open source project right? The easier we make for future developers to get involved, the faster we can grow the entire project.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
I can't see myself ever voting for a delegate to work on the toolkit instead of BTS.  I'm always open to persuasion as there's quite often some reason I haven't understood, but I can't see how this would benefit BTS more than having them work on BTS.
from my understanding .. new features are first implemented in the toolkit .. then get tested in DevChain .. and then - after shareholders' agreement .. get hardforked in BTS ..
so financing the toolkit is financing new features ..

I could be totally wrong here though ..

Offline matt608

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile
I can't see myself ever voting for a delegate to work on the toolkit instead of BTS.  I'm always open to persuasion as there's quite often some reason I haven't understood, but I can't see how this would benefit BTS more than having them work on BTS.

Offline vegolino

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 450
  • Reality is Information
    • View Profile
I am only in favor of funds paid for by BTS dilution to go towards creating better documentation or reworking the codebase (the "toolkit") to make it more modular, easy-to-use, whatever if it helps improve the pace of development on the main BitShares DAC, for example by making the job of the existing devs easier or making the process of bringing in new devs to work on BitShares easier. The fact that this would likely have the side effect of making it easier for third-party devs to create forks is irrelevant to me.

However, I do not support paying via BTS dilution for any effort that just helps third-party devs work on forks but does not at all help devs working on the main BitShares DAC. I would like to focus all efforts paid for by BTS holders to first go towards maximizing the value of BTS and getting us the critical network effect we need to survive against existential threats before focusing on making it easier to decentralize this ecosystem even more than it already is by promoting the creation of many different competing DACs (the fact that the code is open source means it is already easy enough to achieve this level of decentralization as evidenced by various third-party DAC proposals that have been popping up such as alphaBar's DPOS-based PTS DAC and more recently the Rand Paul Coin fork of BitShares X).
  +5%

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile
I wouldn't pay for a delegate to do this. The action has shifted to BTS. There may be thousands of DACs in the future for AGS/PTS social consensus sharedropping, but there's also a really good chance that the low-hanging fruit has been picked. We've already seen how the economy of scale favors consolidation. So if there's a Video DAC, who is going to have the money, developers, and market power to push it? Probably PeerTracks. If there's a Stock Market DAC, it'll probably be in the BTS family of chains. (Those are just possible examples.) Those families have already been snapshotted, so PTS and AGS don't need to be touched again. There's only so much you can do on the blockchain before you open up the business end of the business to non-DAC operations: running a cafe, accounting firm, mattress store, etc. Most product and service businesses cannot be pure DACs. And even much of the stuff that can be transactional (e.g. insurance, real property) are heavily regulated and pose bigger issues than the stuff that's been done.

So I'm really glad if someone wants to work on the toolkit, just like I'm glad if someone wants to resurrect PTS (preferably without slandering BTS ). But it's low priority; I would not pay for a delegate to do it. When I got excited about BitShares, it was because of BTSX (now BTS) and Music. My opinion hasn't changed.

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile


Part of the reason I posted this thread was to see how the regulars would respond.  It is basically as I figured.  You can't expect third party devs to sharedrop on BTS with these views, but I don't care to continue arguing that.

I'm not sure many DACs would compete with BitsharesX.  No BTC forks competed seriously with  Bitcoin.  I don't think any NXT clones compete with NXT.  The toolkit to me was always about innovative industries that need decentralization as a tactic and it sounds to me like no one who is a big BTS supporter has any desire to support them, but then they expect a sharedrop to BTS. 

I dunno..  nothing more to say without repeating myself.  Maybe the daytime crowd will have a more varied view.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
I am only in favor of funds paid for by BTS dilution to go towards creating better documentation or reworking the codebase (the "toolkit") to make it more modular, easy-to-use, whatever if it helps improve the pace of development on the main BitShares DAC, for example by making the job of the existing devs easier or making the process of bringing in new devs to work on BitShares easier. The fact that this would likely have the side effect of making it easier for third-party devs to create forks is irrelevant to me.

However, I do not support paying via BTS dilution for any effort that just helps third-party devs work on forks but does not at all help devs working on the main BitShares DAC. I would like to focus all efforts paid for by BTS holders to first go towards maximizing the value of BTS and getting us the critical network effect we need to survive against existential threats before focusing on making it easier to decentralize this ecosystem even more than it already is by promoting the creation of many different competing DACs (the fact that the code is open source means it is already easy enough to achieve this level of decentralization as evidenced by various third-party DAC proposals that have been popping up such as alphaBar's DPOS-based PTS DAC and more recently the Rand Paul Coin fork of BitShares X).
« Last Edit: November 06, 2014, 05:27:59 am by arhag »

Offline toast

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nikolai
To say bitshares_toolkit aka btsx is extensible or a good platform to buikd on would be incorrect.

We have good ideas for how to actually enable mass developers but that has to take a temporary back seat

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline oco101

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 586
    • View Profile

I'm not sure if this is correct . My understanding is that the toolkit has the core technology in it, so you got DPOS, you got the market, the peg mechanism,Titan,etc. Now of course  you need to modify it if you want to make a different DAC. I.E Bithshare Music although it has a completely different business model is basically BithsareX with very few changes AlphaBar PTS same think. HackerFisher could confirm if PLAY it is using the toolkit to make the DAC.  So given the fact that  it is open source and already a few DACS are using it I think we can call it the DAC framework.

I'm not sure either.  Forking a program and modifying it isn't really what I'd call a toolkit, but understandably Dan couldn't have terribly accurate foresight when trying to come up with a plan in the early days.

Thats the problem though, the core technology is there and I don't think much will be added to aid the toolkit itself.  I'm not sure how much documentation was ever created to enable the use of the toolkit either. So what will the BTS DAC have done to help the toolkit ?  From any of my observations, it will have done nothing if not made it worse.

Anyway, these are just thoughts of mine.  I was fairly angry when a lot of this was announced but now is not the time to be divisive.  If I was pissed off enough I would have taken my stuff and went on down the road to life's next interest.

edit - AlphaBar-PTS  seems to be about as far along as RandPaulCoin which appears to be nothing so far.  Everything else you mentioned has had explicit i3 support on some level.

Maybe "toolkit"  it is not the right word and the original idea was to0 ambitious , I see it more like linux kernel, you have the core of the technology then you are free to adapt it as you want.

I agree about the documentation, big problem there, but given the fact this is still very early development, this might change if the technology is proving itself witch I think it does. The problem is adoption as long as nobody knows about it could be the best idea and stay idle forever.  It is a Catch 22 situation right now  I3 don't have the resource to do documentation,tutorial, examples etc  so therefore they need more 3 party DAC developers but for now not many could use it because not enough documentation...

True AlphaBar-PTS and  RandPaulCoin are nothing yet but the good news the intention is there. I see talking of DPOS more and more outside this forum like Zennet supercomputer they are thinking about DPOS too, so I’m hopping those are signs that the word take notice and this will help the toolkit tremendously.

Offline roadscape

bitsharesx merged with bitshares_toolkit to create bitshares

As it stands right now, BitShares is both the DAC and the toolkit.

E.g. KeyID, forked from 'BitShares'
http://cryptofresh.com  |  witness: roadscape

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile

I'm not sure if this is correct . My understanding is that the toolkit has the core technology in it, so you got DPOS, you got the market, the peg mechanism,Titan,etc. Now of course  you need to modify it if you want to make a different DAC. I.E Bithshare Music although it has a completely different business model is basically BithsareX with very few changes AlphaBar PTS same think. HackerFisher could confirm if PLAY it is using the toolkit to make the DAC.  So given the fact that  it is open source and already a few DACS are using it I think we can call it the DAC framework.

I'm not sure either.  Forking a program and modifying it isn't really what I'd call a toolkit, but understandably Dan couldn't have terribly accurate foresight when trying to come up with a plan in the early days.

Thats the problem though, the core technology is there and I don't think much will be added to aid the toolkit itself.  I'm not sure how much documentation was ever created to enable the use of the toolkit either. So what will the BTS DAC have done to help the toolkit ?  From any of my observations, it will have done nothing if not made it worse.

Anyway, these are just thoughts of mine.  I was fairly angry when a lot of this was announced but now is not the time to be divisive.  If I was pissed off enough I would have taken my stuff and went on down the road to life's next interest.

edit - AlphaBar-PTS  seems to be about as far along as RandPaulCoin which appears to be nothing so far.  Everything else you mentioned has had explicit i3 support on some level. 
« Last Edit: November 06, 2014, 04:33:02 am by gamey »
I speak for myself and only myself.