Quote from: alphaBar on October 21, 2014, 12:12:14 am

Quote from: Ander on October 20, 2014, 07:16:03 pm

Based on the market action, it seems that most of those who would be opposed to this have simply dumped all their BTSX already, and that those who held are generally in favor.

Ridiculous assumption.

Okay.  Some of those that were opposed dumped.

Only a half truth. People who support any one of the competing proposals could say the same, ie, "anyone who doesn't agree has probably divested".

Based on the market action, it seems that most of those who would be opposed to this have simply dumped all their BTSX already, and that those who held are generally in favor.

Ridiculous assumption.

Quote from: MeTHoDx on October 20, 2014, 04:04:40 pm

Quote from: alphaBar on October 20, 2014, 03:59:36 pm

I have a counterproposal: fork all of the other DACs (except AGS) and create a system for "merge mining" them with BTSX. This way they stay on their own blockchains but use the single set of delegates from BTSX. We'd have to resolve the burn rate issued and they can be given the option to vote away from merged mining at any time. This solution keeps the allocations and blockchains the same (no complaints from anyone about "fairness") but consolidates delegates.

Is it even possible to "merge mine" a DPOS blockchain?

Yes, it is possible, though different than merged mining in the PoW sense. One potential solution for determining burn rate is to allow each user to vote for the following options:

1) merged mining with BTSX with a preferred burn rate
2) non-merged mining (regular voting for delegates)

The system then takes the preferred burn rates of ALL merged mining votes and calculates an average burn rate, which is paid to all BTSX delegates who choose to merge mine the DAC. It is true that bandwidth constraints would limit each delegate to merge mining a limited number of DACs, but that will sustain the Bitshares ecosystem until separate chains are justified (we will probably not have more than a handful viable DACs for near term).

I should clarify that "merged mining" is far less efficient than using user-issued assets, but may allow for an easier transition to non-merged mining (ie, without a hard fork / protocol change). I haven't thought through all of the implications but I was thinking of sort of a compromise between full consolidation and being completely disjoint.

Wow, I haven't checked on the forums in a while and... what a train wreck. Here are the main issues with this proposal:

1) There is no fair method of consolidating multiple blockchains. At best, 50% will lose and 50% will gain.
2) Further to #1, emski is right about this: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10189.0
3) AGS received a much larger allocation of DACs per dollar invested precisely because they are "locked" into the Bitshares ecosystem. Making them liquid after the fact is unfair. It essentially gives AGS holders all of the benefits of PTS without any of the downside. Here is the "company" analogy we like to use so much: The Bitshares Corporation gives investors a choice between buying one of two corporate bonds, A and B. Bond A is perpetual and bond B is convertible. For this reason, A has a much higher yield than B. After the bonds are issued, the company turns around and says "just kidding," A is now also a convertible bond, though it keeps the higher yield. Just something to think about.

I have a counterproposal: fork all of the other DACs (except AGS) and create a system for "merge mining" them with BTSX. This way they stay on their own blockchains but use the single set of delegates from BTSX. We'd have to resolve the burn rate issued and they can be given the option to vote away from merged mining at any time. This solution keeps the allocations and blockchains the same (no complaints from anyone about "fairness") but consolidates delegates.

I do not want to be too harsh here, but tactics like this are not even close to what is seen as bad business practices... Don't you receive Credit cards offers to get $150-$500, just for signing up and spending $500-$1500, in 3 -6 mo. period? (something that you already do, anyway)
Do you feel offended to get such offers? I know, I am not. The only thing I'm sorry is that I can only sign for one of them at a time....

I have two objections to this and you only addressed one of them. My first point is that giving away money to users is probably ineffective and gimmicky. My second point is that hard forking the protocol to increase supply for something as speculative as direct marketing may lead to a short term bump in users, but will spook serious investors and big money (ie, the Overstocks of the world). Really you have to ask yourself what type of users and what type of money you want to attract. Protocol changes and money supply are sacred ground to many people.

* Any type of direct payment for user adoption will generate very bad PR and possibly some serious "troll fodder" (ie, comparisons to pyramid schemes, etc).
* It just sounds gimmicky.
* ANY inflationary change to the protocol will create serious backlash. Do you think Overstock or Reddit would consider an IPO on the Bitshares platform if they see us changing the protocol “on a whim” and for extremely speculative purposes?

The best way to grow user adoption is to integrate as seamlessly as possible with OTHER cryptos. Trustless and easy exchange of BTSX-BTC, BTSX-DOGE, BTSX-LTC, BTSX-NXT, and other cryptos IN THE CLIENT is the first step. Bitassets solve a different problem, though there could be a conversion of BTC-BitBTC involved. We should think about using trustless multisig transactions for Bitassets that represent other currencies (instead of "lending them" into existence). The lending method is only necessary for non-crypto assets and is actually a step backward for other cryptos. But ultimately, as long as users of other cryptos can use our client without the friction of going through an exchange, we win.

If we could enable users to keep their BTC and to utilize our network and features, we win. I imagine a scenario where you can send and receive Bitcoin seamlessly between the BTSX and Bitcoinqt client. The pitch is that if you like Bitcoin you can keep it, but at the same time you can take advantage of our 10 second transactions and trading features.

Quote from: alphaBar on September 23, 2014, 11:58:12 pm

Any word on whether anyone has forked a generic BTS Toolkit? I assume this is relatively simple to do, and I would think the DNS and Vote DACs had to do this already. I'm really suspicious about why this is taking so long...

As you probably remember... https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=7097.msg94912#msg94912

testz - I guess I assumed this would be your primary responsibility. Are you working on this, or will you be waiting until toast or some other DAC developer does it? Invictus already stated they will not be doing this. Not much guidance on who is responsible for this, other than "wait and see."

Maybe I missed it, but is there any reason why this isn't published in github release notes (or elsewhere)?