Author Topic: What are the arguments for not testing DPOS as Litecoin 2.0?  (Read 5329 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
...practically we only have so many shots with snapshoting oher coins...

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
The prize ideas are good. I think I'll let someone smarter than me think those through. As far as choosing some principal players from other communities and working on recruiting them, if it is something we want to do, then I will volunteer to help. If anyone else is interested in working on this, then please PM me and we'll get a committee together. We'd be looking to identify the right people elsewhere and provide incentives to bring them in. Timing would be important.

First we need some DACs released. I don't think there will be a shortage of marketing once we have some DACs to act as a proof of concept.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile
The prize ideas are good. I think I'll let someone smarter than me think those through. As far as choosing some principal players from other communities and working on recruiting them, if it is something we want to do, then I will volunteer to help. If anyone else is interested in working on this, then please PM me and we'll get a committee together. We'd be looking to identify the right people elsewhere and provide incentives to bring them in. Timing would be important.

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit

The only thing I ask is that we at least focus in on communities which have something in common with us. We can always approach PoW communities later once they figure out that PoS is the future.

Yes, we should think about communities that have something in common, such as the PoS coins. Peercoin and Blackcoin for sure, though most NXT folks are kind of in their own separate universe. Also we should think about who complements us the best. I'm not willing to drop on some junk coin community that will dump their rewards, but I do think we should consider our weak areas and consider 'recruiting' some folks who can help bolster us there. 'Recruiting' may mean a sharedrop or it may mean other activities -- maybe choosing a few principal players from other communities (maybe even good people who are having to jump ship from dying coins?) and giving them some regular sharedrops (bribes at regular intervals) for their help with sharing the message and recruiting from their warm markets.

Marketing is all about attention. Games are all about attention. So it's all about encouraging community participation. Sharedrops should encourage this.

You just stumbled on something great. But how do we identify good people? I think by their level of participation and random surprises so that it's fair.

For example you have the Nobel prize and other awards that artists get. Why don't we have any awards? The problem is most awards are very rigged, but if we could figure out a way to do it without it being rigged that would be cool. When reputation is easier to track and eventually it will be then we will know who is what and can easily sharedrop to the right people.

And in other cases just give to people who have proven themselves by acts of previous generosity. We could wait until people start donating to some cause and then in an act of double generosity we sharedrop to the patrons. Surprises like that would attract some media attention and even if it doesn't it could encourage future acts generosity. Think of it like the gift economy on steroids.

The "easter eggs" could be hidden anywhere. A surprise sharedrop could be a response to anything. This diversity would encourage a dramatic increase in participation and reward people who show they care in some way. Remember how in certain video games there would be secret levels or hidden surprises?

I believe there was an idea to have a charity already but that really isn't cool if the charity is just going to pay out in BitUSD. If the charity pays out in shares that would be a new twist which could make headlines.

After Bitshares is released we should have a wiki with all sorts of possible distribution models which have been tested and graded. I think the "easter egg" model hasn't really been tested at all really but it's exactly that kind of model which can allow hyper targeting while also keeping it interest/participation based. If you're not paying attention you could miss the sharedrop.

« Last Edit: June 18, 2014, 05:43:38 pm by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile

The only thing I ask is that we at least focus in on communities which have something in common with us. We can always approach PoW communities later once they figure out that PoS is the future.

Yes, we should think about communities that have something in common, such as the PoS coins. Peercoin and Blackcoin for sure, though most NXT folks are kind of in their own separate universe. Also we should think about who complements us the best. I'm not willing to drop on some junk coin community that will dump their rewards, but I do think we should consider our weak areas and consider 'recruiting' some folks who can help bolster us there. 'Recruiting' may mean a sharedrop or it may mean other activities -- maybe choosing a few principal players from other communities (maybe even good people who are having to jump ship from dying coins?) and giving them some regular sharedrops (bribes at regular intervals) for their help with sharing the message and recruiting from their warm markets.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2014, 05:21:58 pm by donkeypong »

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
Step 1)  Prove DPOS is a viable means of securing the blockchain.  There has been incredible progress on this front in the last week.

Step 2)  Approach other communities, and showcase the benefits of DPOS.  Point to specific examples of productivity and security. 

Step 3)  Explain that while the devs of the community are free to fork solo, for the one time fee of a 20% dilution they can get not only 3I dev support, but community support as well.  This will help them get up and running, as well as help secure their network in the interim. 

Ultimately as early investors, we bear the cost of exclusion.  Going with the open source model means that rather than withholding things from those that don't support us, we should focus on what value we can add to those that do.

That is the plan but I would do it 50/50.

The reason is we don't really have to be friendly and offer them 50% but as an act of fairness we should. The goal is to be as fair as possible to both communities so both communities use the chain and are equally excited about the release of it.

If we own 50% and they own 50%, both our communities will be equally interested. In the 50/50 case it would be a crypto-merger which would make headlines in itself for both communities. Think of Bitshares XT as a parent, Blackcoin for example as a parent, if both have offspring they produce Blackshares.

Overall though you understand the big picture. Forks are going to happen to whichever technology is the best but an unofficial fork will not be supported by our community, might not have the sort of customized or hidden features for people to test out. So imagine each official fork actually has some genuinely new features which is to be tested for the first time ever?

« Last Edit: June 18, 2014, 06:53:30 am by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline puppies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1659
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: puppies
Step 1)  Prove DPOS is a viable means of securing the blockchain.  There has been incredible progress on this front in the last week.

Step 2)  Approach other communities, and showcase the benefits of DPOS.  Point to specific examples of productivity and security. 

Step 3)  Explain that while the devs of the community are free to fork solo, for the one time fee of a 20% dilution they can get not only 3I dev support, but community support as well.  This will help them get up and running, as well as help secure their network in the interim. 

Ultimately as early investors, we bear the cost of exclusion.  Going with the open source model means that rather than withholding things from those that don't support us, we should focus on what value we can add to those that do.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
I may try to give more detailed comments in a few days, but, in brief, we need to consider the costs to such a strategy and also better articulate exactly what would be the benefits of such a move.
It costs literally nothing. New chains can be split 50/50 at 0 cost to us. So I don't understand what you mean by cost.
Offering such deals to different communities, in my opinion, would be a big mistake. The problem is that if deals are not offered to every community, or even to every POS-related community, that would create ill will and jealousy.

Business decisions aren't personal. If it's not in our strategic or economic interests what difference does it make if other communities get jealous? Maybe they'll compete with us and that would be great. It's not really possible to launch 100 chains at the same time and market them all so we have to set priorities which means some will be winners and some losers.

When exchanges decide which altcoins to accept do other altcoin communities get jealous? Of course they do. But are we obligated to accept everything at once? Of course not. That doesn't mean they'll never be selected.

In any case the forks are going to happen so it's better if they are official forks. Every technology gets forked a lot when it's a big breakthrough.

This is just human nature: people want to belong and be accepted. The haves will be looked upon with resentment by the have-nots.
In business priorities have to be set. Which community actually wants the technology the most and would care about it?

Litecoin isn't that community. If they wanted Proof of Stake they'd have had it. They don't need us to build it for them with the kind of funding and size they have. It's clear their culture is all about mining and until they specifically change their culture to a culture that cares more about technological progress then why should we give them what they don't care about and expect anything other than a dump?

If they feel like they lost or like have nots then we can give them ways to get in on the action but it should not be a snapshot because they are a mining culture, and it should not be a priority to help PoW.

Also, this move may cheapen the bitshares image forever. It wouldn't build true loyalty of the beneficiaries of the deal, who might just dump the shares and continue with what they had before.
When you're talking about recklessly making a snapshot to Litecoin I agree with you entirely. It would be considered a scam probably by our community and theirs. No one would want it and it would likely be dumped.
Then you have a much bigger supply of DPOS trading units floating around, and a stagnant share price. Finally, Bitshares would be seen as trying too hard to colonize other cryptocurrencies. People might wonder, why does bitshares have to try so hard to win approval? Is there something wrong with it? 
Here is a quote from Bytemaster
Will it be possible to use Bitshares to trade on stocks as well? That asset enum has only 16 values at the moment, but will it eventually be extended to include popular stocks such as Apple, Google etc?

It seems a bit limiting to have a fixed enum for assets - wouldnt it be possible to allow the bitshare holders to vote new assets into existence?

 The issue isn't the number of assets, but the volume of transactions.  Unlike bitcoin, a market blockchain would have many more transactions.  Too many markets on a single chain will result in high transaction fees.

  This is why we have many competing BitShares chains and why owning AGS / PTS is important because it will get you a cut in EVERY chain not just the first.

The whole point is to "colonize" as you say when Bitshares by design is to be multiple highly customized chains. It was never designed to be "one blockchain to rule them all" or "one hierarchy to rule them all". It was designed specifically to be sharedropped which is why you have a Bitshares toolkit and a limited amount of BitAssets per chain.

This limited amount of BitAssets per chain means we absolutely must do crypto-mergers. How else will we test out new assets? I don't think we should go to the Litecoin community and ask them because they don't seem to care about DPoS at all. I don't see one representative from the Litecoin community on this forum.

But I did get a rep from Blackcoin to post here. The Blackcoin community is at least interested which means if given Blackshares they would likely use it. I think the Peercoin community may be interested too because SunnyKing and Dan have communicated. Finally you have other PoS coins out there which may be obscure but which may be interested as well.


If you don't believe this, just imagine what you'd think if you heard that NXT was trying to openly or secretly broker 50/50 deals to convert Peercoin, Blackcoin, Monero, to their technology, but NOT bitshares. And what if you heard that they converted these coins anyways despite the objections of the BlackCoin community. How would that affect your perception of nxt?

Good. That is exactly what I hope happens. This would cause a technological arms race between the Bitshares and NXT community which would result in more innovation from both communities. Competition to innovate is a good thing and I think it should be encouraged but at the same time collaboration should also be encouraged.

If you don't have any friends, alliances, or user base, you lose. The only way to get a userbase is to do 50/50 deals otherwise you're asking people to pay their way in and if they don't then there is slower growth/less volume.

If NXT starts doing 50/50 deals as well then how would that be a bad situation for people who own Peercoin? Blackcoin? Monero? That would make the price of all their coins shoot up and everyone would have a vast technological upgrade. I don't know why you wouldn't want the best technology possible to be used.

Unfortunately NXT cannot do this because it's not design to be forked and to benefit from forks. Bitshares is designed to be forked from the start and with the official forks there would be nothing to gain by doing a hostile fork.

I think if marketing and brand awareness are the goal, then the best strategies would include a combination of the following: (1) Building a great product with continual high-quality development and support, leading to a consistently-rising share price; (2) More presence on Bitcointalk forum, with some knowledgeable posters to evangelize and answer questions (this is a gaping hole at the moment--the awareness of Bitshares on the bitcoin forum is very weak). (3) Targeted drops by the individual DACs, pre-loaded wallets, viral distribution strategies, etc. But these must be targeted drops and not 50/50 deals that try to "colonize" existing coins to the DPOS protocol;
You give no real reason why the userbase of coins with inferior technology wouldn't want a free upgrade. Why wouldn't you want a free upgrade to DPoS if you're on some outdated PoS technology? If you're talking a PoW technology then I could see your point. PoW communities don't have the same philosophy but PoS communities share the same philosophy.

Blackcoin exists specifically because it's based on another technology. It was basically colonized already if you want to think of it like that. Technologies spread exactly that way in general in this space. You have Litecoin which was a tweaked Bitcoin. You have Feathercoin and Dogecoin which came from the Litecoin family.

Peercoin was the first PoS hybrid. From it you had Novacoin.

You had Freicoin which was the first coin with Demurage.

And you have pure PoS coins like Blackcoin which at first were hybrids but got instamined.

Communities that believe in PoS should want the most advanced technology possible and I see no point in not doing a 50/50 split. If you wait they'll eventually copy DPoS anyway so there is nothing to gain by waiting. If you do it for them then they don't have to wait and we don't get a hostile fork.

(4) Buzz in the media, nice websites, great conferences, etc. But (1) is the key, as it makes all the others more effective. If Bitshares can get anywhere close to the investor interest that Bitcoin has, it will have succeeded.

Good luck with that. The market is saturated. The only advantage of Bitshares will be it's technology DPoS. If DPoS doesn't become the standard then Bitshares could fail.

What I mean is that from the beginning when Bitshares was talked about they said something like 16(32?) BitAssets per chain. So how can we have 256 BitAssets this year? It means we need at between 8 and 16 chains.

So all along the idea was to fork. How else do you create all these Bitshares chains and test them? Do you think our little community would be big enough to test 8 chains at once? On the other hand if you release a new chain every month then you can test a bunch of custom chains during the year.

It's either do this or somehow you believe forks wont happen if we don't fork it ourselves. I believe the forks are going to come regardless so why not have official forks of higher quality than the ugly hostile forks? 50/50 split in exchange for an official fork.

The list of 16 BitAssets

Code: [Select]
struct asset
  {
      enum type
      {
          bts      = 0,  // 1 BitShare (smallest storable unit)
          btc      = 1,
          gld      = 2,
          slv      = 3,
          usd      = 4,  // $0.001 = 1 BitUSD
          count, // TODO: move this to the end, for now this will shorten print statements
          cny      = 5,
          gbp      = 6,
          eur      = 7,
          jpy      = 8,  // Japan Yen
          chf      = 9,  // Swiss Frank #5 world currency
          aud      = 10, // Austrialia
          cad      = 11, // Canada
          sek      = 12, // Sweedish Krona
          hkd      = 13, // Hong Kong
          wti      = 14, // Light Sweet Crude Oil
          iii      = 15, // value of 1 of 1 billion shares in Invictus Innovations, Inc
      };
   }

Below is an example list of 32 BitAssets
Quote
Currencies:
AUD (Australia)
BDT (Bangladesh)
BRL (Brazil)
CAD (Canada)
CNY (China)
EUR (Europe)
GBP (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)
IDR (Indonesia)
INR (India)
JPY (Japan)
KRW (South Korea)
MXN (Mexico)
NGN (Nigeria)
PHP (Philippines)
PKR (Pakistan)
RUR (Russia)
USD (United States of America)
VND (Vietnam)

Crypto
Bitcoin
Litecoin
Peercoin

Stock Indices
Global (MSCI World)
China (SSE Composite Index)
India (BSE)
Europe (Eurostoxx 50)
USA (DJIA)
Indonesia (IHSG)
Brasil (Ibovespa)

Commodities
Copper
Gold
Silver
Crude Oil

When we offer a 50/50 split to various communities this list of BitAssets can change significantly. This would create value for both communities to use the customized Bitshares chain. So Blackshares could have whatever BitAssets the Blackcoin community chooses.

Tell me one reason why this would be bad? How else would we get tens of thousands of people to test it overnight?
And it would be profitable for both communities so I cannot see how it would make a Blackcoin holder upset to suddenly be able to trade commodities and stocks chosen by the Blackcoin community.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2014, 11:06:25 pm by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline amatoB

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 62
    • View Profile
But I do think we should reward genuine pioneers, risk takers, and people who show real interest in PoS. People who just want to mine but who don't care about whether or not it's centralizing, or whether or not it's promoting technological progress, why reward that?
+NXT -- innovative / new blockchain tech / decentralized asset exchange
+Monero -- innovative / new bc / new signature scheme
+Peercoin -- innovative / first pos altough still minable :(
+Blackcoin -- first(?) PoS-only (not so much innovation)

Maybe we should build a compilation of pro/cons for each coin



Just approach each community with the same 50/50 split deal. The communities which accept our conditions of a 50/50 equity split would be given priority. If they don't accept then we'd do it anyway and let them respond.

Immediately when Bitshares is released we should systematically approach or  re-approach certain communities with the offer. In the background do it anyway and then try our best to get support of the community because marketing requires it. I'm not with the idea of rewarding previous winners unless those winners continue to have a lot of shares in innovative technological blockchains. Just as science doesn't doesn't give prizes over and over again to the same idea neither should we.


I may try to give more detailed comments in a few days, but, in brief, we need to consider the costs to such a strategy and also better articulate exactly what would be the benefits of such a move.

Offering such deals to different communities, in my opinion, would be a big mistake. The problem is that if deals are not offered to every community, or even to every POS-related community, that would create ill will and jealousy. This is just human nature: people want to belong and be accepted. The haves will be looked upon with resentment by the have-nots. Also, this move may cheapen the bitshares image forever. It wouldn't build true loyalty of the beneficiaries of the deal, who might just dump the shares and continue with what they had before. Then you have a much bigger supply of DPOS trading units floating around, and a stagnant share price. Finally, Bitshares would be seen as trying too hard to colonize other cryptocurrencies. People might wonder, why does bitshares have to try so hard to win approval? Is there something wrong with it?

If you don't believe this, just imagine what you'd think if you heard that NXT was trying to openly or secretly broker 50/50 deals to convert Peercoin, Blackcoin, Monero, to their technology, but NOT bitshares. And what if you heard that they converted these coins anyways despite the objections of the BlackCoin community. How would that affect your perception of nxt?

I think if marketing and brand awareness are the goal, then the best strategies would include a combination of the following: (1) Building a great product with continual high-quality development and support, leading to a consistently-rising share price; (2) More presence on Bitcointalk forum, with some knowledgeable posters to evangelize and answer questions (this is a gaping hole at the moment--the awareness of Bitshares on the bitcoin forum is very weak). (3) Targeted drops by the individual DACs, pre-loaded wallets, viral distribution strategies, etc. But these must be targeted drops and not 50/50 deals that try to "colonize" existing coins to the DPOS protocol; (4) Buzz in the media, nice websites, great conferences, etc. But (1) is the key, as it makes all the others more effective. If Bitshares can get anywhere close to the investor interest that Bitcoin has, it will have succeeded.


Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
But I do think we should reward genuine pioneers, risk takers, and people who show real interest in PoS. People who just want to mine but who don't care about whether or not it's centralizing, or whether or not it's promoting technological progress, why reward that?
+NXT -- innovative / new blockchain tech / decentralized asset exchange
+Monero -- innovative / new bc / new signature scheme
+Peercoin -- innovative / first pos altough still minable :(
+Blackcoin -- first(?) PoS-only (not so much innovation)

Maybe we should build a compilation of pro/cons for each coin

My opinion is all of the above are innovative in different ways. Some need us more than others though. I don't think NXT needs DPoS. I don't know enough about Monero but when I looked at it, it was very different and it's CPU mined right?  Peercoin started it all so of course we should try to join forces with them and recognize their contributions but would they accept a 50/50 split when they have SunnyKing who is as good of a developer as Bytemaster?

So there is Blackcoin. Blackcoin has a good developer, they are innovative, but they innovate in a different area. They were the first community to make PoS mineable and that was an advance which can be extended upon by our community. Until Blackcoin everyone thought the only way to get a PoS coin was to buy it with cash.

Just approach each community with the same 50/50 split deal. The communities which accept our conditions of a 50/50 equity split would be given priority. If they don't accept then we'd do it anyway and let them respond.

The only thing I ask is that we at least focus in on communities which have something in common with us. We can always approach PoW communities later once they figure out that PoS is the future. Also it's very important that each chain be customized and how would you customize a Litecoin PoW chain? Are we going to find a way to decentralize it or make it more easily mined? Blackcoin is already doing that so I don't see a reason.

I see Litecoin either going toward NXT, Blackcoin, or CPoS. It's very likely to be CPoS if they go with the switch to PoS.

Right now they don't think PoS is proven enough so let's prove PoS and negotiate from another position than the position of weakness/inferiority. I don't understand giving gifts to Litecoin mining elites at all especially when it's beginning to centralize. Are they going to accept a 50/50 deal and completely change their philosophy overnight? I doubt it, at least not until the centralization reaches a point where mining isn't profitable for the vast majority of GPU miners (but they'll just switch to Blackcoin or Bitshares if we make it mineable).

Immediately when Bitshares is released we should systematically approach or  re-approach certain communities with the offer. In the background do it anyway and then try our best to get support of the community because marketing requires it. I'm not with the idea of rewarding previous winners unless those winners continue to have a lot of shares in innovative technological blockchains. Just as science doesn't doesn't give prizes over and over again to the same idea neither should we.



« Last Edit: June 17, 2014, 10:16:34 am by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
But I do think we should reward genuine pioneers, risk takers, and people who show real interest in PoS. People who just want to mine but who don't care about whether or not it's centralizing, or whether or not it's promoting technological progress, why reward that?
+NXT -- innovative / new blockchain tech / decentralized asset exchange
+Monero -- innovative / new bc / new signature scheme
+Peercoin -- innovative / first pos altough still minable :(
+Blackcoin -- first(?) PoS-only (not so much innovation)

Maybe we should build a compilation of pro/cons for each coin

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
Now that DPOS is pretty close to being ready, why not test it as 90% airdrop on LTC (90/5/5 LTC/PTS/AGS)?


-One should not be concerned even with massive dump – it is not some core DAC that needs to preserve value;
- Much bigger test base (as number of transactions/participants etc.)
-The non-inflation feature of DPOS vs POW combined with the very low dilution of LTS might just work and bring significant benefits from something that we planned for just as a DPOS test run.

[Edit] The name is not important at all. You can call it DPOS Coin...

I think this would be a "hostile takeover" attempt and I'm against it.

Litecoin does not want to convert to DPoS because they want to mine. So there is no point in trying to force our principles on them. If we did that all it would result in is LTS being dumped, bad press, and it would turn the LTC community hostile toward us.

I will go into what I think should be done in more detail after Bitshares is finally released buy I've put my marketing strategy into the right hands and onto the forum.

The principle behind it all is to reward innovation, and to not make it easy for the winners of one blockchain to transfer their power to another blockchain risk free. So if you've got a lot of Litecoins because you've got some ASIC farm or a lot of Bitcoins because you've invented some chip to mine with I don't believe you should be rewarded for centralizing the hashing power. So I don't agree with gifting mining pools, chip makers, the electric company or any of that.

But I do think we should reward genuine pioneers, risk takers, and people who show real interest in PoS. People who just want to mine but who don't care about whether or not it's centralizing, or whether or not it's promoting technological progress, why reward that?

https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
I will feel uncomfortable if someone comes from Litecoin community and say hey, we made bitshares 2.0. It is minable with your GPU and giving 90% to bitshares holder and 10% to Litecoin holders.

True! But true for any airdrop..(OK maybe not every airdrop but how about DNS on namecoin?)  And I will allow myself to use Stan’s response to that – 'What if you present it as a gift?'
« Last Edit: June 16, 2014, 09:41:11 pm by tonyk »
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline Amazon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 830
    • View Profile
    • Bitshares Forum
I will feel uncomfortable if someone comes from Litecoin community and say hey, we made bitshares 2.0. It is minable with your GPU and giving 90% to bitshares holder and 10% to Litecoin holders.
Forum Donation: PforumPLfVQXTi4QpQqKwoChXHkoHcxGuA

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
I also cant see so much pros ...

Converting pts to dpos 100% soon makes more sense too me than just another altcoi.


-It will test the concept on much larger scale – DPOS will be handling ‘hopefully’ thousand transaction / min and the PTS is having what 100-200 per day?
- I am probably a minority on that but I’m not a big fan of –let’s make BTS XT just to test DPOS. Initial problems with it might lead to low prices, that will lead to cheap way in for the real product  -BTS X…


Do you think it would be a bad image if you have a product that does not create a demand for itself?

[EDIT] Even if it is meant to test  a technology to be used in 100 products that do create demand for themselves

well XT doesn't, but it's at least a proto-DAC for X which does (XT -> X association). Litecoin doesn't and neither would litecoin 2.0 (Litecoin association).

Plus XT is more about the snapshot than about testing. We would not launch either one until we're "sure" it works, as both are intended for real transactions

Read  the second part of my response to xeroc, please.
Plus, I feel XT is quite counter snapshot – i.e. if anything it provides possibility for people to buy in X  much later  than 2/28 and I think that the price can be lower than what it was in February.

« Last Edit: June 16, 2014, 09:28:36 pm by tonyk »
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.