PTS - the insane gift that keeps on giving!

[Rune]

We're already late for 1.0 protocol and the "big thing" , and we're still wasting valuable time and peace for a PTS that was supposed to be dead .

If PTS is so good , why kill it in the first place ?
If I3 is really done with PTS , then why its people keep dancing around it ?

What's going on , guys ? Something I'm missing here ?

Calm down... :p

1.0 protocol (i.e. No more hardforks for 6 months) is hopefully on track to be ready by late jan/feb. At that point we can begin gateway integration, which we have many leads for and the marketers are ready to push. Advertising will begin in January with plans both for banner ads on TOR, reddit, CMC, coingecko and maybe some btc news sites. There's also plans for bitcointalk signature ads. There's also people working on finally making bitshares.org ready for new users.

This entire PTS/DVS issue I think is just a misguided attempt at damage control (since there was so much backlash when the merger first happened). I think I3 assumed the way it currently is would cause the least drama, but obviously they're wrong since BTS holders already paid to become the primary bitshares DAC. The DPOS PTS is not under the control of I3, they cannot possibly prevent it, so all we should focus on is to make sure it gets no official support. We as stakeholders can make enough noise about it and make sure it gets fixed, it's nothing to worry about in the long term.

Things are honestly looking pretty good for bitshares. With the recent addition of the faucet it is now finally easy to sign new users up, so after the holidays our marketers can  begin to get the ball rolling. We're already seeing progress, in fact right now a bitshares post is on the frontpage of /r/bitcoin.

[James212]

As I stated before the so called DPOS PTS snapshot , this blurry attitude from I3 towards PTS post 11.05 would turn into a PR problem  . I just didn't see this problem come from the western side first . ( Hate to say I told you so , guys , but I did . )

And I've so busy with the network problem these few weeks , so I didn't really have time to keep track of the snapshot news for Devshares and missed the whole allocation issue .

Is the chinese community also upset with PTS being included in the snapshots?

of course , nearly everyone thought the 11.05 snapshot was the final one for all I3 related snapshots . (devshares is a I3 related snapshot by another name) .

I don't know what you guys think , maybe we're poor at English , but we did understanded 11.05 as the final snapshot for PTS , and there will be
no another day for that . Maybe you guys read the 11.05 and "final" differently in English ?

    No.  I read it the same as you wildpig.   The 11/5 snap shot was supposed to be used to roll the current/future value AGS and PTS in to BTS.  After that the relationship between BTS(X) and PTS/AGS would be dissolved.    The was supposedly done to clean up the confusion in the market relating to the multiple ways to access BTS(x) value.  Now we have PTS still hanging around, associating it self with BTS and even calling itself BITSHARES PTS.  The result:  We took a huge value hit in November relating to the market uncertainty for cleaning all this up and have a clear structure that the broader market can easily understand.   Those involved in BTS(X) paid in multiple ways to dissolve the relationship with PTS, and now its back!! ??    Maybe there is something someone needs to explain. 

[btswildpig]

We're already late for 1.0 protocol and the "big thing" , and we're still wasting valuable time and peace for a PTS that was supposed to be dead .

If PTS is so good , why kill it in the first place ?
If I3 is really done with PTS , then why its people keep dancing around it ?

What's going on , guys ? Something I'm missing here ?

[btswildpig]

As I stated before the so called DPOS PTS snapshot , this blurry attitude from I3 towards PTS post 11.05 would turn into a PR problem  . I just didn't see this problem come from the western side first . ( Hate to say I told you so , guys , but I did . )

And I've so busy with the network problem these few weeks , so I didn't really have time to keep track of the snapshot news for Devshares and missed the whole allocation issue .

Is the chinese community also upset with PTS being included in the snapshots?

of course , nearly everyone thought the 11.05 snapshot was the final one for all I3 related snapshots . (devshares is a I3 related snapshot by another name) .

I don't know what you guys think , maybe we're poor at English , but we did understanded 11.05 as the final snapshot for PTS , and there will be
no another day for that . Maybe you guys read the 11.05 and "final" differently in English ?

[islandking]

As I stated before the so called DPOS PTS snapshot , this blurry attitude from I3 towards PTS post 11.05 would turn into a PR problem  . I just didn't see this problem come from the western side first . ( Hate to say I told you so , guys , but I did . )

And I've so busy with the network problem these few weeks , so I didn't really have time to keep track of the snapshot news for Devshares and missed the whole allocation issue .

Is the chinese community also upset with PTS being included in the snapshots?

[btswildpig]

As I stated before the so called DPOS PTS snapshot , this blurry attitude from I3 towards PTS post 11.05 would turn into a PR problem  . I just didn't see this problem come from the western side first . ( Hate to say I told you so , guys , but I did . )

And I've so busy with the network problem these few weeks , so I didn't really have time to keep track of the snapshot news for Devshares and missed the whole allocation issue .

[sumantso]

BM is here, what does he say about this?

matt posted his reservations in the relevant thread a few days back, but he didn't receive any response.

[matt608]

If you are going to announce a DAC distribution for something you think the market will give a reasonable value, then you can be reasonably confident that a <$5 million DAC will respond positively to the news vs. a large DAC who's overall value may not move noticeably.

Devs can also acquire a larger % long term stake for less by share dropping on a lower stake coin.

Therefore it's very likely some developers will continue to sharedrop on DAC supportive lower CAP coins too. PTS will be the market leader in that price range as it has proven to be a market acceptable sharedrop token.

This is true.  But it's basically arguing that because PTS is easily manipulated, it's a good sharedrop target becasue Devs can sneak in a higher allocation to themselves using the insider info about the drop.  If the investor population was educated about this, dropping on PTS would be seen as blatent manipulation and a dishonest move.  As you say BTS price is less effected by sharedrop announcements so it forces dev honesty in terms of how much they will get themselves. 

The bigger the market cap, the less important the insider info is.  In future drops devs wont be able to get away with low market cap drops without having to undergo the scrutiny of why they chose to drop on a coin so easily manipulated.

Maybe we should demand that our delegates only use a new 100% BTS sharedropped testnet for testing. They do work for us after all. 3rd party devs are free to use whichever testnet they prefer then, the current PTS/AGS testnet already exists and won't go away.

  

And agreed with politeness + not being pitch forky. 

Disagreements must be encouraged to be shared and discussed, in order to prevent centralisation in thinking.  We are the roots of the BitShares tree, we must extend out far in different directions to build a firm foundation for healthy growth, dependency on any leaders is a weakness.  Diversity within an ecosystem is strength.  We don't want to create competing DACs, but we do want ideas to compete within BTS.

[islandking]

I strongly support dropping DVS on PTS, and I will downvote any delegate that rejects the PTS sharedrop.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

PTS should technically have died. We bought them out by giving them shares in BTS during the merger. That should have been the end.

[biophil]

I strongly support dropping DVS on PTS, and I will downvote any delegate that rejects the PTS sharedrop.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

[Rune]

Anyway there's no reason to panic about this. PTS isn't a big deal, and I personally don't believe in the idea that separate DACS have any advantage (beyond DVS), so sharedrops will likely not mean much in the future. I guess the fact that DVS is the only viable separate DAC is why it's actually pretty damn annoying that PTS and AGS got DVS sharedropped.

Maybe we should demand that our delegates only use a new 100% BTS sharedropped testnet for testing. They do work for us after all. 3rd party devs are free to use whichever testnet they prefer then, the current PTS/AGS testnet already exists and won't go away.

For the sake of the community , let's hope that devshares will not worth much .
Otherwise , I would expect worse heat from BTSer than the OP .

Put the heat now and get the DVS allocated to BTS only. The network is not live yet, it hasn't been listed anywhere so a new genesis block can be created.

Agreed. At first I thought this whole issue wasn't a big deal, but it is actually an excellent opportunity to showcase the power of our decentralized community at improving itself and fixing its own mistakes. As stakeholders we can fix this really easily by simply demanding that our delegates only test on a BTS-only testnet. I'm assuming that our developers are already coming to the conclusion themselves that this is the best option for avoiding further drama, and DVS will simply be relaunched. If not then let's wait until the holidays are over and then propose it to the wider community. Christmas isn't the right time for internet drama, so for now we should really just keep cool and hope for the best, IMO. This thread is already getting too pitch-forky for my taste.

[Rune]

What a joke.

Lets not get angry and blame them for less than optimal business decisions as if they are done with malicious intent. Our developers are amazing at what they do - developing, and they have proven again and again that they are loyal to the community above everything else. We can't expect them to be genius PR and business people at the same time, and until we have a proper framework for our DAC to make business decisions in a decentralized manner we have to expect and accept that many mistakes like this will be made.

If we are vocal enough about our concerns they will listen to us, just like they eventually did with Brian page. In fact, ensuring good governance is our purpose as stakeholders, and we should always be calm and respectful when voicing our concerns and criticism, or we might as well give up on our quest to become a business-on-a-blockchain. This particular issue isn't even really a big problem, it's just an annoyance that admittedly hits a really sore spot (PTS), and it can easily be fixed with a new testnet that is 100% sharedropped to BTS.

[sumantso]

Anyway there's no reason to panic about this. PTS isn't a big deal, and I personally don't believe in the idea that separate DACS have any advantage (beyond DVS), so sharedrops will likely not mean much in the future. I guess the fact that DVS is the only viable separate DAC is why it's actually pretty damn annoying that PTS and AGS got DVS sharedropped.

Maybe we should demand that our delegates only use a new 100% BTS sharedropped testnet for testing. They do work for us after all. 3rd party devs are free to use whichever testnet they prefer then, the current PTS/AGS testnet already exists and won't go away.

For the sake of the community , let's hope that devshares will not worth much .
Otherwise , I would expect worse heat from BTSer than the OP .

Put the heat now and get the DVS allocated to BTS only. The network is not live yet, it hasn't been listed anywhere so a new genesis block can be created.

[btswildpig]

Anyway there's no reason to panic about this. PTS isn't a big deal, and I personally don't believe in the idea that separate DACS have any advantage (beyond DVS), so sharedrops will likely not mean much in the future. I guess the fact that DVS is the only viable separate DAC is why it's actually pretty damn annoying that PTS and AGS got DVS sharedropped.

Maybe we should demand that our delegates only use a new 100% BTS sharedropped testnet for testing. They do work for us after all. 3rd party devs are free to use whichever testnet they prefer then, the current PTS/AGS testnet already exists and won't go away.

For the sake of the community , let's hope that devshares will not worth much .
Otherwise , I would expect worse heat from BTSer than the OP .

[btswildpig]

Well said rune. It's pretty shocking to me that the devs still haven't realized just how bad of an idea sharedropping DVS to them really was. What can you do except vote against it I guess, but I doubt that'll have an impact at this point.

Sometimes it truly does feel like the devs don't have the full interests of BTS in mind...as matt608 put it, they're freelancing to help competitor chains -- PTS in this instance.

What a joke.