[ANN] BitShares PTS Mandatory Upgrade & Snapshot Announcement

[donkeypong]

There are currently ~1,763,472 PTS in existence. To scale these up to 1 billion we multiply each balance in the snapshot with a factor of ~567. IOW your 100 old PTS will become about 56,700 new PTS.

What won't change is your relative possession of the total existing PTS. I. e. if you own 1% of the total existing PTS before the upgrade you'll also own 1% of the total after the upgrade.

God knows I have about 750 pointless posts...but this one rivals them gooooooooood.

You mean suddenly you'll have a billion nothings? That are worth nothing as soon as everyone dumps the rest of them? Because there are a billion nothing DACs on the horizon? Any of which, if they do exist, might just honor BTS' "Final" snapshot or a current BTS snapshot rather than PTS?

[zerosum]

There are currently ~1,763,472 PTS in existence. To scale these up to 1 billion we multiply each balance in the snapshot with a factor of ~567. IOW your 100 old PTS will become about 56,700 new PTS.

What won't change is your relative possession of the total existing PTS. I. e. if you own 1% of the total existing PTS before the upgrade you'll also own 1% of the total after the upgrade.

God knows I have about 750 pointless posts...but this one rivals them gooooooooood.

[Empirical1.1]

Thanks to svk for getting the block explorer up and running (currently pointed to dry run#1): http://pts.bitsharesblocks.com/

+5% Thanks. Looking good.

Less than 20 BTC PTS for sale below $2 million CAP.

PTS is also being given a 1/3 of Sparkle's initial supply so I think it's a great way to get exposure to two contenders for the no.2 DPOS.

I've noticed the PTS/BTC demand is a lot stronger than PTS/CNY which was historically the reverse. The PTS/BTC buy wall is looking pretty strong too.

It made me wonder whether the Chinese forum actually know about the PTS and Sparkles snapshot?

This is the only thread I've seen but they seem to be talking about BitPTS...
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11913.0

[alphaBar]

Thanks to svk for getting the block explorer up and running (currently pointed to dry run#1): http://pts.bitsharesblocks.com/

[pc]

There are currently ~1,763,472 PTS in existence. To scale these up to 1 billion we multiply each balance in the snapshot with a factor of ~567. IOW your 100 old PTS will become about 56,700 new PTS.

What won't change is your relative possession of the total existing PTS. I. e. if you own 1% of the total existing PTS before the upgrade you'll also own 1% of the total after the upgrade.

[TanFan]

So if I have 100 PTS before the snapshot, how many will I have afterward?  I read of the 1:1 but then saw a post stating the total outstanding will be 1 billion and that ones % of the total PTS SHARES won't change, but as I understand it, the number of shares will increase.  Is that right?  If so, 100 shares pre snapshot will equal how many post snapshot?  Thanks in advance.

[fuzzy]

 +5%
bump

[alphaBar]

Dry Run #1 is announced with new trustless genesis claim feature: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11980

This is also a call for testers and "initial" delegates (details in the thread).

[Empirical1.1]

Coinmarketcap is updated: http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitshares-pts/

Devs are working hard on to prepare the launch of Dry Run #1.

+5% Great

[alphaBar]

Coinmarketcap is updated: http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitshares-pts/

Devs are working hard on to prepare the launch of Dry Run #1.

[fuzzy]

I don't consider it a tangeant.  It just demonstrates how hard it is to kill a blockchain and is integral to the consensus on this discussion. 

Ultimately anyone else can try to create a different PTS chain and get it honored.  But it takes a great deal of acceptance for it to be a worthwhile effort.  For istance, there is little stopping someone from going out there and making another bitcoin.  They can call it the same thing and change the algorithm.  Heck, they might be able to get a few people to buy it and make the chain worth 1 million dollars...but it still will not be the real bitcoin and I sincerely doubt it would last in the long term. 

[alphaBar]

Having a discussion with someone privately about why proof-of-burn is incompatible with a hard fork upgrade and I thought I would share:

Proof of burn for an upgrade is fundamentally unfair. What if you owned the coin and were not checking in on the forums for a couple of months? Then you would not receive your stake in the upgraded chain? That would be so wrong! And if the "burn" was only to vote for or against consensus then nobody would do it because then there would be a chance that the vote fails in which case you just burned all your stake (!). As you can see, proof-of-burn is not a substitute for blockchain voting, is fundamentally unfair for hard forking, and does not work for proving or achieving consensus on a community decision. It is useful as a distribution mechanism for a new asset, but not for this purpose.

Just a tangent really, but I think it may lay to rest some issues for those who brought it up.

[pc]

Actually, in a DPOS chain this is decidable. A majority of shareholders could vote 101 delegates in who purposefully do not sign blocks. That would bring the old chain to a standstill.

Not exactly though. What would likely happen in that scenario is that the minority that did not vote for the top 101 (or even just 51 is enough) delegates that stopped producing blocks would take a snapshot of the stake and purge all stake that is voting for the non-block-producing delegates. Then the minority (who are now again a majority) would continue the old chain with a new set of delegates.

Strictly speaking, that would be *another* hardfork. So then you have 3 chains, one dead and two competing for being "the real thing". :-)

[Riverhead]

Kind of sad. Blockchains don't die they just become irrelevant. Like an old sick dog no one wants to adopt :'(

Sent from my Timex Sinclair.

[arhag]

Let's say for example Dan decided to introduce a new feature in BTS that required DPoS to be abandoned in favor of his new uberer consensus model to end all consensus models. It would require a Fork. Does he have the right to do this? Would there then be two BTS chains where some delegates refused upgrade their client? The delegates that don't upgrade can't be voted out because the voting of those that upgraded is taking place on a different chain. So at that point who says which BTS is the real BTS?

Actually, in a DPOS chain this is decidable. A majority of shareholders could vote 101 delegates in who purposefully do not sign blocks. That would bring the old chain to a standstill.

Not exactly though. What would likely happen in that scenario is that the minority that did not vote for the top 101 (or even just 51 is enough) delegates that stopped producing blocks would take a snapshot of the stake and purge all stake that is voting for the non-block-producing delegates. Then the minority (who are now again a majority) would continue the old chain with a new set of delegates.

The only way to kill a blockchain is for its value in the open market to drop so low that virtually no one in the world cares about it anymore.