Long live the social consensus, long live PTS! (Stay tuned)

[Riverhead]

If you are going to do this I am curious about how it would be able to support it own delegates on its own chain. I guess there could be less and they could be only part time (low pay)? Maybe just make it regular POS?

Running a delegate on a low volume chain takes very little resources. I suspect PTS as a DPoS coin would only see any significant volume when a promising snapshot was pending.

[teenagecheese]

If you are going to do this I am curious about how it would be able to support it own delegates on its own chain. I guess there could be less and they could be only part time (low pay)? Maybe just make it regular POS?

[FreeTrade]

I think there is a place for PTS to be the litecoin/liteshares of the dpos world. A simple dpos implementation without all the bells and whistles of bitshares. The new merged bitshares is hugely ambitious and complex. There is a place for a simple dpos asset that has had a fair distribution and has a recognized brand. PTS holders might as well capture this value rather than some other altcoin.

[fluxer555]

It would be cool if you sharedropped to a new token that honored PTS+AGS 50/50, with the intention that this token should be the new sharedrop token for new DACs.

I agree that sharedropping to BTS doesn't really make much sense.

[teenagecheese]

Alphabar, yes it does hurt BTS. We just bought out people who had PTS with the assumption that BTS would take on it's responsibilities. If you make this new PTS they'll sell their BTS and buy that, which is TAKING MONEY FROM BTS.

At the very least don't call it PTS. You are making a new product which is not the original PTS. Call it AlphaShares maybe.

It is not a new DAC, it is an upgrade to PTS. Your example of selling one to buy another is completely unfounded because it assumes that the two products are interchangable when they are actually completely different. Why would somebody who values profitability and features see any value in PTS??? See the differences I explained above. You are wrong for the same reason that protectionism and isolationism is wrong. We are not taking from others' share of the pie - WE ARE GROWING THE PIE.

Okay I think I see the reason to have a coin for people to sharedrop to, but if someone is going to sharedrop something that works with bitshares (not a competitior) than it should be sharedroped to BTS because BTS bought out PTS and now holds that value.

If, like you say, someone want a place to sharedrop to bitshares competitors, then maybe your coin has value. BUT, you need to change the name. You need to make this clear. Taking the PTS name will probably actually not only confuse people and hurt BTS, but also hurt your coin's image because of all the original PTS media still on the web. It will be hard to shed that.

Part of the reason I didn't like this so much is that I didn't understand precisely because you called it PTS. You're making a whole new entity with a NEW function. Call it something else.

[天籁]

-100%

[CryptoPrometheus]

If the new tokens would have no features other than potential snapshot allocation, then why on earth does it need its own DPOS chain?
If you want to continue this experiment, fine, but would it not be much easier to issue a PTS user asset on BTS?
I know this question has already been asked, but respectfully alphaBar, could you explain the reason for PTS needing its own chain?
What will be the incentive for delegates to run nodes? Only transaction fees? Surely not shareholder dilution......?

[House]

This is getting loopy.

I invested heavily into PTS when we were told that PTS would be receiving snapshots of all new upcoming DAC's only to find out later that PTS was going to be put to rest. I sold them back into BTSX, suffered a huge loss but did not complain.

Then DNS came along and so I bought a substantial amount  on the back of all the hoopla only to find out later that DNS was to be consolidated into BTSX. I sold them into BTSX, suffered another huge loss but still, I did not complain.

Now your telling me that DNS and PTS are going to survive.

OMG! make up your freaky minds. I feel like a yoyo

Still love BTS 

[Riverhead]

People seem to have a strangely obsessive desire to control what someone spends their time on. Though I think it's more likely everyone sold their shares in ProtoBtyemaster ProtoShares when Btyemaster decided to focus on a single DAC.

In a true free market, which we're all supposedly here to build, anyone is welcome to pick up the mantel of PTS and do with it what they want. If the market doesn't want it it will fail. If someone can make a go of it in the spirit with which is was intended, regardless of the underlying tech, I say have at it.

Mostly I think it's people have completely divested in PTS and now only own BTS and don't want new money coming in and taking some of their cake.

I don't think it was ever discussed that a DAC would become the new snap shot source when Bytemaster decides to work on it. Developers are welcome to do that of course. They can do whatever they want.

Crypto currencies are by design hard to kill by any that attack it. Sometimes that works for you and sometimes it doesn't. This is the best test of one I've seen so far. People are under the notion that since BTS air dropped some BTS(X) on them, twice, that they were some how "bought out". This wasn't a merger.

If you really want PTS to die the only way to do it is to get together as a group and buy all the PTS and burn them. Of course that would just create a new market for PTS and miners would come online again.

The free market; such a fickle beast .

[nomoreheroes7]

Man I wish there was a way to just burn all the PTS/DNS in this merger...ridiculously unfair that BTSers have to get diluted and deal with these nonsensical, resource-sapping coin reboots as competition...

PTSers have been made whole. Why can't they keep up their end of the bargain and bow out with dignity? Just hurting the entire ecosystem is all you're doing...

For the love of God, as teenagecheese said, at the very least change the name -- this new PTS should have nothing to do with the BitShares of old (unless you want to continue hearing questions of confusion from new investors -- "I want in on BitShares, but do I buy BTS or PTS??? What's the difference??" etc)

[alphaBar]

Alphabar, yes it does hurt BTS. We just bought out people who had PTS with the assumption that BTS would take on it's responsibilities. If you make this new PTS they'll sell their BTS and buy that, which is TAKING MONEY FROM BTS.

At the very least don't call it PTS. You are making a new product which is not the original PTS. Call it AlphaShares maybe.

It is not a new DAC, it is an upgrade to PTS. Your example of selling one to buy another is completely unfounded because it assumes that the two products are interchangable when they are actually completely different. Why would somebody who values profitability and features see any value in PTS??? See the differences I explained above. You are wrong for the same reason that protectionism and isolationism is wrong. We are not taking from others' share of the pie - WE ARE GROWING THE PIE.

[Pheonike]

The purpose pts was for pow miners who didn't want to buy into btsx with btc. If pts is dpos then ppl will just buy pts. If you gonna buy somehing then just buy bts.

[teenagecheese]

Alphabar, yes it does hurt BTS. We just bought out people who had PTS with the assumption that BTS would take on it's responsibilities. If you make this new PTS they'll sell their BTS and buy that, which is TAKING MONEY FROM BTS.

At the very least don't call it PTS. You are making a new product which is not the original PTS. Call it AlphaShares maybe.

[gamey]

DO NOT DO THIS!

1. PTS was given shares in BTS. If it still lives we all just lost value in BTS for no reason
2. To reach a wide audience, as many our saying, new projects can still sharedrop on BTS
3. If people want stake in a specific new DAC they can either get it through a sharedrop on BTS or by investing in whatever the earliest mechanism the devs allow (e.g., fundraiser, etherium-style, placeholder coin, etc.) It will still be effectively the same concept because everyone will have the investment opportunity at the same time. If the devs don't allow for "early adopters" it will be because they did not want to. If they want to allow an early adopter mechanism, they still can.
4. This will confuse everyone even further. Just let it go, keep the ecosystem simple. PLEASE. You are going to hurt BTS if you do this.

I hope people either support me on this or give a good reason why I'm wrong.

1)PTS lost immeasurable value if it is dropped going forward.  If BTS investors feel the need to invest in alternative PTS's then they are welcome.
2) You might as well sharedrop to BTC for a even wider audience.
3) It is not even known if this is legal.  You can't expect devs to go around selling things and adding all sorts of elements just so that some coin with a vague interest in 3rd party dacs appears.
4) Dan is dedicated to BTS and so are the developers.  These PTS style coins (whether AlphaPTS or UIA-PTS) have little to do with BTS after BTS bought out their donations/capital and the developers. I think it is fair to rename it.

Any developer who can actually create a third party DAC will understand all of this fairly.  They can also choose BTS if they think it is a better thing for them.  If it isn't, then they probably won't.  You call others greedy but lol at the thinking behind that.

[ticklebiscuit]

The existence of PTS does not hurt BTS. PTS is a DAC-agnostic implementation of the core DPOS Toolkit. It does not compete with BTS on features (how could it?) and it is not intended to "generate revenue" in the manner that BTS does. PTS will differ from BTS in the following ways:

* non-inflationary
* no application-specific features
* a jumping off point for 3rd party developers (extensible core DPOS Toolkit)

The anti-diversity crowd who wants to kill PTS is missing the point entirely. Very soon, 3rd party implementations of DPOS will become as common as Bitcoin clones. BTS is a feature-rich DAC with tons of advanced functionality (Pegged-assets, user assets, exchange, Vote, DNS, etc). 3rd party developers who intend to create a competing Vote DAC or a competing exchange DAC will never sharedrop to BTS (although an agnostic PTS would be a great choice). PTS will provide a hedge to investors who care about the Bitshares ecosystem to ensure that this community is vested in the protocol that we helped to fund, rather than just a single application of that protocol. We all hope that BTS succeeds, but the fact is that competition will exist whether we want it to or not. Why not vest yourself in the protocol by owning an agnostic, open-source, and non-competitive sharedrop instrument (PTS) as well as the killer app (BTS)?

With things like omnibazar refusing to honor social consensus we need as many successful pts/ags honoring clones as possible or just watch as everyone forks everything to directly compete with more resources and no concern for anybody who made this possible.