10% --> 50%? are you serious? I do NOT think the rule should ever been changed though i hold over 3,000 PTS .

P1.Rules are rules .  You cant issue an order in the morning and rescind it in the evening , how can i trust the PLAN in the near future?

P2." PTS holders will get 50% stake in BitShares, a 5x gain from existing Social Contract" and what about the new comer in the future , like a new  alternate cryptocurrency has been 50% premined? honestly i hate such coins if i were the new fish.

Merry christmas any way

I completely agree with this post and am really glad someone else recognizes that changing the deal even for the better is wrong because we signed on to a specific plan.  My expectation was that it would be 10% protoshares holders and 90% mined, the fact that 90% would be mined is actually a good thing.  Taking away mining removes a main avenue for non-monetary investment into the thing

Welcome Brian, glad to see some marketing talent coming to bear.

Anybody want to buy some Memorycoins? 

I think KryptoKit is a much more serious competitor.

Quote from: Lighthouse on December 16, 2013, 05:31:54 am

Quote from: que23 on December 16, 2013, 05:28:48 am

Quote from: Pocket Sand on December 16, 2013, 05:22:57 am

Quote from: que23 on December 16, 2013, 05:20:16 am

Quote from: Pocket Sand on December 16, 2013, 05:15:30 am

Quote from: Lighthouse on December 16, 2013, 05:04:02 am

Quote from: que23 on December 16, 2013, 05:02:10 am

I still don't see any need for having miners in the future. If Invictus is moving towards a more Mastercoin like approach, then you have to work for BTC and Angel Shares by doing the bounties, a real service that will benefit the DACs. After PTS, which will always get 10%, there is no more use for mining.

You could just as easily replace mining with educational giveaways and I'd be happy.  The point is a non-monetary way to get invested in the success of the project.

Educational giveaways would be difficult to agree on collectively among the members of the community as to who would deserve more coins and to who.

Also with that, mining provides equal opportunity for everyone. Transactions need to be secured and mining provides a method for doing this. Lucky's idea provides 1.) Fulfillment of the PTS social contract 2.) Funds Invictus 3.) Provides an incentive for new people without their own large pool of money to participate in Bitshares.

In my opinion it's the best option out there, but as of right now I am extremely against 90% of the bitshares being distributed to "Angel Investors" that pay off Invictus.

Mining used to be necessary. There is no longer a need for it anymore. Read: Transactions as Proof-of-Stake & The End of Mining https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1138.0
You're asking to pay for work that doesn't need to be done and giving money to the electric company.

Regardless, it still provides a decentralized method that supports equal opportunity distribution. This should be one of the most important ideas to keep in mind, less we'd like to be the next quark coin.

But Bitshares isn't a currency. It's more a cross between a share and a commodity. There is always a limited amount of commodity to go around. The PTS community will get their 10%. The only reason to add more shares is if it brings value. That value is the real work that can be paid for with funds. The reason to use BitsharesDAC is for its service. Many people think that service is very valuable.

And if that was what they said from the beginning we wouldn't be having the argument, but guess what - they did say that you'd be able to get invested without needing to make a monetary investment directly to Invictus.   Just because they made a bad decision doesn't mean they get to rewrite the rules, or they can rewrite the rules whenever they feel its necessary and the rules are as good as worthless.

Do you really not understand that?

Actually, I've tried to piece together the original commitment, but it is very difficult to understand. I'm going off what bytemaster thinks, which is he's not breaking the social contract. Now, some people have been trying to tell invictus what to do with the other 90%. I think this is really their business. When they thought giving that 90% away to miners for performing the service of maintaining the blockchain, they said only that that was what they were thinking of doing. I think they can do whatever they want with it.

If you agree that the social contract is what makes Protoshares valuable, than anything that suggests that Invictus can change the social contract when the need strikes them means the value is dependent on their continued good will to the way the deal is now but that could change in the future.

Isn't that a problem?

Quote from: Lighthouse on December 16, 2013, 05:04:02 am

Quote from: que23 on December 16, 2013, 05:02:10 am

I still don't see any need for having miners in the future. If Invictus is moving towards a more Mastercoin like approach, then you have to work for BTC and Angel Shares by doing the bounties, a real service that will benefit the DACs. After PTS, which will always get 10%, there is no more use for mining.

You could just as easily replace mining with educational giveaways and I'd be happy.  The point is a non-monetary way to get invested in the success of the project.

How about a pool that people could contribute to, to support educational activities. We could throw a coding contest for middle schoolers. But giving shares away without shareholder consent is a little iffy. I don't have all that many skills either. And I'm not loaded. My only hope now is that we can bring in some real money to grow the project which will greatly benefit my investment and the development of DACs.

If "giving something away for nothing is iffy" than why was the plan to let 90% of Bitshares be mined using a CPU bias algorithm that favored people who used their normal hardware?

That was the expectation, so to deviate from that is to violate it.

I really liked Luckybit's suggestion of capping bitshares at 6 million and offering 2 million to Protoshares owners, 2 million to Angel share investors to fund Invictus, and 2 million for hybrid mining. It's a fair way of going about distribution, honors the social contract, and allows for equal opportunity distribution for everyone.

Is there anyone who is specifically against this?

While I do not like the precedent of changing the numerical distribution, I don't have a specific problem with this proposal as it fulfills all the needs.

Quote from: Gekko on December 15, 2013, 09:58:56 pm

Keeping PTS "1.0" as they are is necessary and good. Even if mining doesn't pay at current rates / difficulty, but no one knows where PTS will be in 2014.

As for Angelshares/coins I'm not sure how they could be evenly/fair divided. Angelshares without mining would mean already rich people will get even richer by being able to invest more BTC into Angelshares right from the beginning. By mining poorer people would be able to get a good amount of "coins" while difficulty is low. - If Invictus wants to avoid mining they should think about mechanisms to give poorer investors a chance of getting lots of Angel"coins" by being fast/early/whatever. Just being rich shouldn't give anybody such a huge advantage at the start of a new "investment round".

Well yes with Angelshares people that are reach will get even richer, but at list the founds coming from them  we'll be used in developing new DAC's and everybody that it is putting money in, they will want that all Invictus project succeed as opposed with protoshared where most of the powerful once(bot nets, supercomputer)they don't give a shit about the long term or the project.

Rich people will get even richer it is happening right now with protoshare rich people could buy a lot more protoshares so they are getting richer without much benefit for the Invictus community.
Not sure there is a way to geting around "rich people will get even richer" and in some way we need reach people to be involved I guess.

Ultimately rich investors will fund these companys one way or another, and frankly that's better than true venture capital.  I have no problem with Invictus raising funds through something like Angelshares to allow individuals to give them development funds without having to sell equity in the Invictus company itself, that makes a ton of sense to me. 

So don't turn it into an anti-rich thing, it's an anti-stupid thing.  We need to be inclusive of everyone, not only the rich to the exclusion of everyone else but not only anyone else to the exclusion of the "rich" either.