Author Topic: No DPOS upgrade for Bitshares PTS???  (Read 6406 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
956 to be exact!
and is in the top 10 thread starters with 71 threads.
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile
Pts is maintained by testz.   

What is "testz" (an organization?), who are the members of testz, how do we contact those people, and where can we get additional information on the organization and people?

Anyone here have any idea who "testz" is? It has literally never been mentioned in a single thread in this forum except this one.

Testz is an old hand. When you conduct a search of the threads, you have to go to the main home page first, then search. Otherwise, you are just searching the thread you are in. Testz has 900+ posts.

https://184.154.208.204/index.php?action=profile;u=183

Offline sudo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2255
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: ags
Invictus only produces software. Pts is maintained by testz.   Btsx by dacs unlimited

Invictus will not issue any crypto currency or shares. 

If the pts community organizes a well accepted upgrade that would be good for everyone. 

My opinion is that someone should create a user issued asset on btsx. based on an official snapshot. 

It will not be invictus, but I would support moving the social consensus to such an asset if executed well. 

Those that want it to happen should organize to make it happen. I think most would rather see it on btsx than not.   Exchanges are already integrated with it too. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


My opinion is that someone should create a user issued asset on btsx. based on an official snapshot.   +5% +5%

pts embedded in btsx is the best choice

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
He is online as of now. Check users online...

nope here is the link. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=183
« Last Edit: August 01, 2014, 05:29:44 am by tonyk »
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile
Pts is maintained by testz.   

What is "testz" (an organization?), who are the members of testz, how do we contact those people, and where can we get additional information on the organization and people?

Anyone here have any idea who "testz" is? It has literally never been mentioned in a single thread in this forum except this one.

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile
Pts is maintained by testz.   

What is "testz" (an organization?), who are the members of testz, how do we contact those people, and where can we get additional information on the organization and people?

With respect to the question of listing PTS within BTSX vs an independent blockchain, I am wondering whether it makes sense for PTS to be encompassed by what is essentially the first DAC. In other words, there are very ambitious features of the BTSX DAC that could fail spectacularly, independent of DPOS (pegged assets, for example). I am leaning towards PTS not being subject to the volatility introduced by these features. In fact, I would argue that the original "eggs in one basket" concern about the security of DPOS actually applies more clearly to BTSX than DPOS. PTS should be independent, both in price, volatility, and features from the DACs that are born from it. This way it ends up representing a more distributed and non-biased segment of investors who are not for or against any particular feature of any particular DAC, but who believe in the underlying protocol as a foundation (DPOS).

Offline biophil

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 880
  • Professor of Computer Science
    • View Profile
    • My Academic Website
  • BitShares: biophil
I strongly support moving PTS to btsx as soon as we have a GUI for user-created asset trading.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

Support our research efforts to improve BitAsset price-pegging! Vote for worker 1.14.204 "201907-uccs-research-project."

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani
Invictus only produces software. Pts is maintained by testz.   Btsx by dacs unlimited

Invictus will not issue any crypto currency or shares. 

If the pts community organizes a well accepted upgrade that would be good for everyone. 

My opinion is that someone should create a user issued asset on btsx. based on an official snapshot. 

It will not be invictus, but I would support moving the social consensus to such an asset if executed well. 

Those that want it to happen should organize to make it happen. I think most would rather see it on btsx than not.   Exchanges are already integrated with it too. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


so let's start from which of us want it  happen?


 +5% from me!


PS  would it better to start a new poll thread with bytemaster's idea/proposal?

Offline bytemaster

Invictus only produces software. Pts is maintained by testz.   Btsx by dacs unlimited

Invictus will not issue any crypto currency or shares. 

If the pts community organizes a well accepted upgrade that would be good for everyone. 

My opinion is that someone should create a user issued asset on btsx. based on an official snapshot. 

It will not be invictus, but I would support moving the social consensus to such an asset if executed well. 

Those that want it to happen should organize to make it happen. I think most would rather see it on btsx than not.   Exchanges are already integrated with it too. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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 gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
They take input from community, but they act themselves.  The phrase implies they are doing something underhanded amongst themselves to benefit themselves.

Wrong. The phrase implies that there is a lack of transparency coupled with an apparent reversal of their (I3's) position. Stan was seemingly on board with "Proposal 3" which I link to above (it was HIS OWN proposal), and so was almost everyone who commented. He said: "This is, in my opinion, not the best we can do as a community,  but this seems to be the closest thing to a consensus we have at this point.  Not unanimous consensus by any means, but perhaps the only way to move forward."

Think about this: the marketing director proposes something which the community discusses at length and agrees to. Then, after a private meeting he goes 180 degrees in the opposite direction with no further feedback or explanation. That is called "backdoor decision making".

Here is a list of issues switching over
Resources to test from POW/momentum -> DPOS = large.
DPOS's wallet isn't even finished yet.
Several major exchanges would have to stop supporting PTS if the change happened this instant.
PTS would be in chaos with 2 forks going forward.  Unlike most forks where the old fork is obviously dead, that won't be the case here.
All the support resources that would be taken away by this.
As I alluded to previously, there is a distinction.  With PTS/POW it was all mined into existence.  All they did was release software.  Now you are asking them to allocate PTS.  Think of this in terms of how laws might be applied in some country somewhere.  Having it mined into existence is a lot better position to be in.

It is a minefield and I3 doesn't have infinite resources.

I really really wish PTS wasn't so screwed up either.  I just don't know why you would want them to change it over right now.  It should probably have a hard fork fixing the difficulty issue sooner than later if nothing else.

Obviously the developers and Stan disagree with you on this new "resource limitation" argument since they were the ones who proposed the change in the first place! But then again, maybe you know better than even the developers about what can and cannot be done. /s

The fact is that it takes very little additional resource FROM I3 to do the fork. The exchanges will need to implement a wallet on their end, but they will have to do that for BTSX anyway. There is minimal overhead for PTS support, or any other DAC for that matter (once they support the first DPOS coin).

Very little resource but out of how much?  It has to be thoroughly tested.  You make your points as if they're all facts and DPOS is great - game over.  They're still working on the voting in case you haven't noticed.

I wish something would be done about PTS, but I don't think there is any "backdoor decision making".  You keep framing it like that.  What else can they do ? Take a forum poll and then make every decision based on that ?  Forum polls/dicussions are binding or else we will always have "backdoor decision making".  That is the position you are taking ?

I'm was just telling you reasons I would guess their change in direction.  Sorry if you don't like that.  You don't have to go all jr. high sarcastic on me. I apologized for lol'ing at you originally. 

There are just a ton of things to do.  Do you really think 5-6 million USD goes that far when you are trying to do what they're doing ?   You have obviously true points, but your phrasing is doing nothing but promoting FUD.  A lot of people would like to see PTS moved over to DPOS, but DPOS has barely been out for starters.

You want them to give a hard date/decisions on something that they can't even currently do, which all it does is create an endless cycle of threads like this. 

Obviously you don't want a discussion on it.  You just want to vent, so I will bow out of replying further.

BTW Dan discussed this on the last beyondbitcoinshow that was posted from the weekend before if anyone wants to hear his view on it.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani
The fact is that it takes very little additional resource FROM I3 to do the fork. The exchanges will need to implement a wallet on their end, but they will have to do that for BTSX anyway. There is minimal overhead for PTS support, or any other DAC for that matter (once they support the first DPOS coin).

make sense

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile
They take input from community, but they act themselves.  The phrase implies they are doing something underhanded amongst themselves to benefit themselves.

Wrong. The phrase implies that there is a lack of transparency coupled with an apparent reversal of their (I3's) position. Stan was seemingly on board with "Proposal 3" which I link to above (it was HIS OWN proposal), and so was almost everyone who commented. He said: "This is, in my opinion, not the best we can do as a community,  but this seems to be the closest thing to a consensus we have at this point.  Not unanimous consensus by any means, but perhaps the only way to move forward."

Think about this: the marketing director proposes something which the community discusses at length and agrees to. Then, after a private meeting he goes 180 degrees in the opposite direction with no further feedback or explanation. That is called "backdoor decision making".

Here is a list of issues switching over
Resources to test from POW/momentum -> DPOS = large.
DPOS's wallet isn't even finished yet.
Several major exchanges would have to stop supporting PTS if the change happened this instant.
PTS would be in chaos with 2 forks going forward.  Unlike most forks where the old fork is obviously dead, that won't be the case here.
All the support resources that would be taken away by this.
As I alluded to previously, there is a distinction.  With PTS/POW it was all mined into existence.  All they did was release software.  Now you are asking them to allocate PTS.  Think of this in terms of how laws might be applied in some country somewhere.  Having it mined into existence is a lot better position to be in.

It is a minefield and I3 doesn't have infinite resources.

I really really wish PTS wasn't so screwed up either.  I just don't know why you would want them to change it over right now.  It should probably have a hard fork fixing the difficulty issue sooner than later if nothing else.

Obviously the developers and Stan disagree with you on this new "resource limitation" argument since they were the ones who proposed the change in the first place! But then again, maybe you know better than even the developers about what can and cannot be done. /s

The fact is that it takes very little additional resource FROM I3 to do the fork. The exchanges will need to implement a wallet on their end, but they will have to do that for BTSX anyway. There is minimal overhead for PTS support, or any other DAC for that matter (once they support the first DPOS coin).

Online Brekyrself

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 512
    • View Profile
Another issue is pool and miner support.  www.beeeeer.org is taking it's pts pool offline August 7th.

Offline onceuponatime

I support the Invictus decision-making process. The only way to make coherent decisions is to listen to the stakeholders, take everything into account, and then act decisively. They can't submit all their decisions to the whims of polls and voting and squeaky wheels; if they did, it would be chaos and nothing important would get done.

That said, I agree with the opinion that PTS badly needs an upgrade and I join you in calling for one as soon as possible. DPOS sounds like a good improvement. I say throw it on there. PLEEEASE, folks, fix PTS, and not just with a band-aid patch.

So says this squeaky wheel (and stakeholder).

Agree +5%

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile
I support the Invictus decision-making process. The only way to make coherent decisions is to listen to the stakeholders, take everything into account, and then act decisively. They can't submit all their decisions to the whims of polls and voting and squeaky wheels; if they did, it would be chaos and nothing important would get done.

That said, I agree with the opinion that PTS badly needs an upgrade and I join you in calling for one as soon as possible. DPOS sounds like a good improvement. I say throw it on there. PLEEEASE, folks, fix PTS, and not just with a band-aid patch.

So says this squeaky wheel (and stakeholder).