So, basically, this is an "Input Thread" where only inputs that are not against Stan's stance will be accepted and taken into consideration.
Watch and see!
I've been watching you guys since day 1, made huge investments all along. I understand that I shouldn't spit out some dirty words in this forum, but they pretty much expressed my anger, and I don't think I'm alone on this matter. And I take back those F words I've said. But, honestly, I don't think you, Stan, is a proper PR guy for this project, and it's best for you to step down from your throne and hire someone else who's more open and professional.
Here's my thoughts on the PTS upgrade:
- The real issue with PTS is the slow block rate, which can be easily solved with a hard fork that adapts faster diff adjustment.
- If 3I is so determined to get away with PoW and go for the unverified DPOS, I'm okay with that. But the unmined PTS should not be under 3I's control in any form (reverseangel fund, etc).
- Please don't let PTS1 and PTS2 co-exist. You have no idea what that means. [\li]
I was going to reveal my true identity to get your attention, but I don't think it's necessary anymore.
Boy, that would sure be great if we had someone to take over my job here on the fuzzy boundary between management, marketing, and magic. Until then, I'll try to do my best.
I think I agree with your point about a quick hard fork being best. Like ripping off a bandage. Be quick and get it over with. The point of the soft fork discussion was to show that there are viable voting methods based on market forces. Having looked at perfect fairness (and what it would cost to explain and implement), I expect that people will be more willing to accept the "autocratic" or "arrogant" appearance of a hard fork - especially after everyone has had a chance to have a say in the pre-fork planning.
Of course, even with a hard fork, all we can do is advocate the switch. There is always the option of being overruled if more people keep using the old version anyway. Ask Coca-Cola and Microsoft.
I agree there are negative optics to putting the distribution under I3 control. The problem we have is finding an acceptable alternative. It should be an entity who is trustworthy and can be counted on to use good judgement based on a sound understanding of the technology and the vision we are trying to achieve.
Stakeholder voting makes sense for decisions that do not require specialized knowledge or full-time study, or optimization of multiple trade-offs. But I wouldn't want to be on a plane where each passenger had their own cockpit and the plane did what the majority commanded.
There are also two separate roles:
Who decides what will be done vs.
Who executes that decision. What I had hoped to do was come to a consensus/compromise here on the forum and then presumably we could be trusted to faithfully execute the team plan.
As for revealing true identities, you should take comfort in the fact that everyone at Invictus has already done that. We are all out there and our life-time reputations are on the line.