BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: alphaBar on November 09, 2014, 09:36:39 pm
-
A note regarding our work on the transition of PTS to a standalone DPOS chain:
PTS is alive and well and so is the social consensus. PTS will be the preferred sharedrop instrument of future 3rd party DACs. We have yet to decide whether to use the Nov. 5th snapshot (since a future snapshot may not be possible if mining stops completely), but rest assured that we have a functional testnet, new website and marketing in the works, and an active group of dedicated developers and marketers.
Stay tuned for more information...
-
erm.. why?.. Surely the point of the new DACs' interest in honoring anything, is having the wider community embrace it?
Surely it's better just to keep it simple and honor BTS, as that will be where the majority of people will be, both new and old?
-
erm.. why?.. Surely the point of the new DACs' interest in honoring anything, is having the wider community embrace it?
Surely it's better just to keep it simple and honor BTS, as that will be where the majority of people will be, both new and old?
But it's kind of cool to have a thing people can purchase to "buy into the idea of the DAC." That's part of why I liked PTS from the beginning. I support keeping PTS alive, and it confuses me when people argue against it. Some people seem to think that having PTS continue would somehow detract from the bitshares ecosystem... if anything, I believe it has the potential to make it even more dynamic.
-
erm.. why?.. Surely the point of the new DACs' interest in honoring anything, is having the wider community embrace it?
Surely it's better just to keep it simple and honor BTS, as that will be where the majority of people will be, both new and old?
But it's kind of cool to have a thing people can purchase to "buy into the idea of the DAC." That's part of why I liked PTS from the beginning. I support keeping PTS alive, and it confuses me when people argue against it. Some people seem to think that having PTS continue would somehow detract from the bitshares ecosystem... if anything, I believe it has the potential to make it even more dynamic.
Yeh. What this guy says
-
Why can't we just do 3rd party drops to BTS? PTS is pretty much dead as no miners are mining it anymore. It would also be nice because you would give the new blood coming in a chance instead of locking it to a small group of people. By dropping shares into BTS you will get wider distribution so more users. I really do not see the point in giving away shares to a defunct system that is owned largely by early adopters.
*Not trying to be disrespectful to the "early adopters" but I think we are all early adopters, and I think that by just sticking to BTS for share drops it will do 2 things
1) Bigger userbase and testers for your new 3rd party DAC which means less hoarding by just a few individuals.
2) Eliminates the confusion to new users and will give the new "early adopters" a chance to get in on the action.
Just my personal opinion :)
-
A note regarding our work on the transition of PTS to a standalone DPOS chain:
PTS is alive and well and so is the social consensus. PTS will be the preferred sharedrop instrument of future 3rd party DACs. We have yet to decide whether to use the Nov. 5th snapshot (since a future snapshot may not be possible if mining stops completely), but rest assured that we have a functional testnet, new website and marketing in the works, and an active group of dedicated developers and marketers.
Stay tuned for more information...
Think of it this way: somebody still owns every single PTS. For every seller, there was a buyer.
Who do you think a developer would want to honor more, the sellers or the buyers? Why?
If mining ever did pause, there would still be a last block mined to that point containing all the latest buyers.
Who can imagine honoring the people who sold to them instead?
-
Why can't we just do 3rd party drops to BTS? PTS is pretty much dead as no miners are mining it anymore. It would also be nice because you would give the new blood coming in a chance instead of locking it to a small group of people. By dropping shares into BTS you will get wider distribution so more users. I really do not see the point in giving away shares to a defunct system that is owned largely by early adopters.
*Not trying to be disrespectful to the "early adopters" but I think we are all early adopters, and I think that by just sticking to BTS for share drops it will do 2 things
1) Bigger userbase and testers for your new 3rd party DAC which means less hoarding by just a few individuals.
2) Eliminates the confusion to new users and will give the new "early adopters" a chance to get in on the action.
Just my personal opinion :)
U mean expand the number of shares for new snapshot on bts?
-
A note regarding our work on the transition of PTS to a standalone DPOS chain:
PTS is alive and well and so is the social consensus. PTS will be the preferred sharedrop instrument of future 3rd party DACs. We have yet to decide whether to use the Nov. 5th snapshot (since a future snapshot may not be possible if mining stops completely), but rest assured that we have a functional testnet, new website and marketing in the works, and an active group of dedicated developers and marketers.
Stay tuned for more information...
I hope we won't need to hear from you anymore here once you got your new website
-
A note regarding our work on the transition of PTS to a standalone DPOS chain:
PTS is alive and well and so is the social consensus. PTS will be the preferred sharedrop instrument of future 3rd party DACs. We have yet to decide whether to use the Nov. 5th snapshot (since a future snapshot may not be possible if mining stops completely), but rest assured that we have a functional testnet, new website and marketing in the works, and an active group of dedicated developers and marketers.
Stay tuned for more information...
Snapshot is possible at any block. Even if mining completely stops there will still be one last block. And that should be the snapshot.
As you cant be sure the mining will stop then a new snapshot should be announced.
That snapshot should be used instead of Nov 5th to start the new PTS DPOS chain.
-
I personally think PTS just needs to die gracefully. PTSers received shares in BTSX and have now DOUBLE dipped into BTS in exchange for their death. On top of this, PTS even now can sell to buy MORE BTSX. I think PTSers are being selfish in wanting to continue receiving shares in 3rd party DACs -- they've already been more than made whole through all the BTS dropped to them. Also, why would BTS want to compete against another chain that it just gifted a huge amount of shares to? Why can't BTS be the target of 3rd party snapshots, as that's where the entire ecosystem's value is and has now flowed into? How can you say that a 3rd party sharedrop to AGS/PTS now is showing support for the hard work of I3 and the team, when they no longer have any affiliation to these tokens whatsoever? In addition, the whole point of the merger was to make things less confusing; continuing PTS just continues to dilute the brand and blur the overall message.
Disclaimer: This is just my opinion; feel free to try and persuade me otherwise. But it truly feels like PTSers want to have their cake and eat it too, and that just doesn't sit right with me.
-
Why not using your time with something useful?
Maybe you could build a wallet only bts Client, iOS app, Promotion campaigns or anything related to BTS?
(https://i.imgflip.com/dz65g.jpg) (https://imgflip.com/i/dz65g)via Imgflip Meme Maker (https://imgflip.com/memegenerator)
PTS did its job very well. Don't keep it artificially alive like they do it with the zombiecoin MMC.
My Heart bleeds when I see you guys wasting (y)our time with this sh..
People who wants pts to die need to promise to never buy them again. People who dont should buy them. Fair. 3rd parties choose what they honor. Not us
-
PTS will be the preferred sharedrop instrument of future 3rd party DACs.
Really? Last time I looked, PTS and AGS were co-equal in that respect. And now most everyone is in BTS, so a sharedrop might start there for an updated list of community members.
Which 3rd party DACs are upcoming? X, Music, DNS, Vote, Play: all snapshotted.
If there are talented developers working on PTS, why aren't you working on making the existing DACs a big success? Or working on new DACs?
-
PTS will be the preferred sharedrop instrument of future 3rd party DACs.
Really? Last time I looked, PTS and AGS were co-equal in that respect. And now most everyone is in BTS, so a sharedrop might start there for an updated list of community members.
Which 3rd party DACs are upcoming? X, Music, DNS, Vote, Play: all snapshotted.
If there are talented developers working on PTS, why aren't you working on making the existing DACs a big success? Or working on new DACs?
Clones of dacs with better marketing or business models. Maybe competitors to bts. Or maybe any of the dacs that are still ideas.
-
DO NOT DO THIS!
1. PTS was given shares in BTS. If it still lives we all just lost value in BTS for no reason
2. To reach a wide audience, as many our saying, new projects can still sharedrop on BTS
3. If people want stake in a specific new DAC they can either get it through a sharedrop on BTS or by investing in whatever the earliest mechanism the devs allow (e.g., fundraiser, etherium-style, placeholder coin, etc.) It will still be effectively the same concept because everyone will have the investment opportunity at the same time. If the devs don't allow for "early adopters" it will be because they did not want to. If they want to allow an early adopter mechanism, they still can.
4. This will confuse everyone even further. Just let it go, keep the ecosystem simple. PLEASE. You are going to hurt BTS if you do this.
I hope people either support me on this or give a good reason why I'm wrong.
-
Alphabar, I really think you should do a poll and see what percentage of the community supports you doing this and using the name PTS.
-
DO NOT DO THIS!
1. PTS was given shares in BTS. If it still lives we all just lost value in BTS for no reason
2. To reach a wide audience, as many our saying, new projects can still sharedrop on BTS
3. If people want stake in a specific new DAC they can either get it through a sharedrop on BTS or by investing in whatever the earliest mechanism the devs allow (e.g., fundraiser, etherium-style, placeholder coin, etc.) It will still be effectively the same concept because everyone will have the investment opportunity at the same time. If the devs don't allow for "early adopters" it will be because they did not want to. If they want to allow an early adopter mechanism, they still can.
4. This will confuse everyone even further. Just let it go, keep the ecosystem simple. PLEASE. You are going to hurt BTS if you do this.
I hope people either support me on this or give a good reason why I'm wrong.
AlphaBar knows what he is doing, and he knows that this hurts BTS. My guess is that he wants to make money on buying cheap PTS and making people that were unhappy with the merger come back toward his new PTS.
This is clearly hurting the community, but who really believes he has some real developers able to maintain and upgrade PTS... this story will be over soon, we shall just ignore him.
-
DO NOT DO THIS!
1. PTS was given shares in BTS. If it still lives we all just lost value in BTS for no reason
2. To reach a wide audience, as many our saying, new projects can still sharedrop on BTS
3. If people want stake in a specific new DAC they can either get it through a sharedrop on BTS or by investing in whatever the earliest mechanism the devs allow (e.g., fundraiser, etherium-style, placeholder coin, etc.) It will still be effectively the same concept because everyone will have the investment opportunity at the same time. If the devs don't allow for "early adopters" it will be because they did not want to. If they want to allow an early adopter mechanism, they still can.
4. This will confuse everyone even further. Just let it go, keep the ecosystem simple. PLEASE. You are going to hurt BTS if you do this.
I hope people either support me on this or give a good reason why I'm wrong.
AlphaBar knows what he is doing, and he knows that this hurts BTS. My guess is that he wants to make money on buying cheap PTS and making people that were unhappy with the merger come back toward his new PTS.
This is clearly hurting the community, but who really believes he has some real developers able to maintain and upgrade PTS... this story will be over soon, we shall just ignore him.
＋5%
-
Personally, I don't agree with this. PTS are now part of BTS. This just seems to be done out of a whim, with hopes to perpetuate something whose fate is already decided. It's way more simple to use BTS than trying to "revive" PTS and use them for snapshots, you're just wasting potential resources. As I see, it something being done out of a whim. It seems egoistical to say the least.
On top of that, it will make this discussion continue. It's done, it's solved. Let it be.
Don't fix what doesn't need to be fixed.
-
PTS 8)
Crazy thing...its almost like a honey badger.
-
It annoys me that people are still trying to give more free things to PTS, when I feel that BTS has 'bought out' that value of PTS and that BTS should be sharedropped instead if 3rd party devs want to do things like this.
Of course, I cannot control what developers want to do.
Also, it isnt really that big of a deal to me, I would much rather just see all the confusion end, and for us to promote a clear and unified vision of Bitshares to the world, so that everyone can understand Bitshares again and get behind it again.
-
The existence of PTS does not hurt BTS. PTS is a DAC-agnostic implementation of the core DPOS Toolkit. It does not compete with BTS on features (how could it?) and it is not intended to "generate revenue" in the manner that BTS does. PTS will differ from BTS in the following ways:
* non-inflationary
* no application-specific features
* a jumping off point for 3rd party developers (extensible core DPOS Toolkit)
The anti-diversity crowd who wants to kill PTS is missing the point entirely. Very soon, 3rd party implementations of DPOS will become as common as Bitcoin clones. BTS is a feature-rich DAC with tons of advanced functionality (Pegged-assets, user assets, exchange, Vote, DNS, etc). 3rd party developers who intend to create a competing Vote DAC or a competing exchange DAC will never sharedrop to BTS (although an agnostic PTS would be a great choice). PTS will provide a hedge to investors who care about the Bitshares ecosystem to ensure that this community is vested in the protocol that we helped to fund, rather than just a single application of that protocol. We all hope that BTS succeeds, but the fact is that competition will exist whether we want it to or not. Why not vest yourself in the protocol by owning an agnostic, open-source, and non-competitive sharedrop instrument (PTS) as well as the killer app (BTS)?
-
The existence of PTS does not hurt BTS. PTS is a DAC-agnostic implementation of the core DPOS Toolkit. It does not compete with BTS on features (how could it?) and it is not intended to "generate revenue" in the manner that BTS does. PTS will differ from BTS in the following ways:
* non-inflationary
* no application-specific features
* a jumping off point for 3rd party developers (extensible core DPOS Toolkit)
The anti-diversity crowd who wants to kill PTS is missing the point entirely. Very soon, 3rd party implementations of DPOS will become as common as Bitcoin clones. BTS is a feature-rich DAC with tons of advanced functionality (Pegged-assets, user assets, exchange, Vote, DNS, etc). 3rd party developers who intend to create a competing Vote DAC or a competing exchange DAC will never sharedrop to BTS (although an agnostic PTS would be a great choice). PTS will provide a hedge to investors who care about the Bitshares ecosystem to ensure that this community is vested in the protocol that we helped to fund, rather than just a single application of that protocol. We all hope that BTS succeeds, but the fact is that competition will exist whether we want it to or not. Why not vest yourself in the protocol by owning an agnostic, open-source, and non-competitive sharedrop instrument (PTS) as well as the killer app (BTS)?
With things like omnibazar refusing to honor social consensus we need as many successful pts/ags honoring clones as possible or just watch as everyone forks everything to directly compete with more resources and no concern for anybody who made this possible.
-
DO NOT DO THIS!
1. PTS was given shares in BTS. If it still lives we all just lost value in BTS for no reason
2. To reach a wide audience, as many our saying, new projects can still sharedrop on BTS
3. If people want stake in a specific new DAC they can either get it through a sharedrop on BTS or by investing in whatever the earliest mechanism the devs allow (e.g., fundraiser, etherium-style, placeholder coin, etc.) It will still be effectively the same concept because everyone will have the investment opportunity at the same time. If the devs don't allow for "early adopters" it will be because they did not want to. If they want to allow an early adopter mechanism, they still can.
4. This will confuse everyone even further. Just let it go, keep the ecosystem simple. PLEASE. You are going to hurt BTS if you do this.
I hope people either support me on this or give a good reason why I'm wrong.
1)PTS lost immeasurable value if it is dropped going forward. If BTS investors feel the need to invest in alternative PTS's then they are welcome.
2) You might as well sharedrop to BTC for a even wider audience.
3) It is not even known if this is legal. You can't expect devs to go around selling things and adding all sorts of elements just so that some coin with a vague interest in 3rd party dacs appears.
4) Dan is dedicated to BTS and so are the developers. These PTS style coins (whether AlphaPTS or UIA-PTS) have little to do with BTS after BTS bought out their donations/capital and the developers. I think it is fair to rename it.
Any developer who can actually create a third party DAC will understand all of this fairly. They can also choose BTS if they think it is a better thing for them. If it isn't, then they probably won't. You call others greedy but lol at the thinking behind that.
-
Alphabar, yes it does hurt BTS. We just bought out people who had PTS with the assumption that BTS would take on it's responsibilities. If you make this new PTS they'll sell their BTS and buy that, which is TAKING MONEY FROM BTS.
At the very least don't call it PTS. You are making a new product which is not the original PTS. Call it AlphaShares maybe.
-
The purpose pts was for pow miners who didn't want to buy into btsx with btc. If pts is dpos then ppl will just buy pts. If you gonna buy somehing then just buy bts.
-
Alphabar, yes it does hurt BTS. We just bought out people who had PTS with the assumption that BTS would take on it's responsibilities. If you make this new PTS they'll sell their BTS and buy that, which is TAKING MONEY FROM BTS.
At the very least don't call it PTS. You are making a new product which is not the original PTS. Call it AlphaShares maybe.
It is not a new DAC, it is an upgrade to PTS. Your example of selling one to buy another is completely unfounded because it assumes that the two products are interchangable when they are actually completely different. Why would somebody who values profitability and features see any value in PTS??? See the differences I explained above. You are wrong for the same reason that protectionism and isolationism is wrong. We are not taking from others' share of the pie - WE ARE GROWING THE PIE. ;)
-
Man I wish there was a way to just burn all the PTS/DNS in this merger...ridiculously unfair that BTSers have to get diluted and deal with these nonsensical, resource-sapping coin reboots as competition...
PTSers have been made whole. Why can't they keep up their end of the bargain and bow out with dignity? Just hurting the entire ecosystem is all you're doing...
For the love of God, as teenagecheese said, at the very least change the name -- this new PTS should have nothing to do with the BitShares of old (unless you want to continue hearing questions of confusion from new investors -- "I want in on BitShares, but do I buy BTS or PTS??? What's the difference??" etc)
-
People seem to have a strangely obsessive desire to control what someone spends their time on. Though I think it's more likely everyone sold their shares in
ProtoBtyemaster ProtoShares when Btyemaster decided to focus on a single DAC.
In a true free market, which we're all supposedly here to build, anyone is welcome to pick up the mantel of PTS and do with it what they want. If the market doesn't want it it will fail. If someone can make a go of it in the spirit with which is was intended, regardless of the underlying tech, I say have at it.
Mostly I think it's people have completely divested in PTS and now only own BTS and don't want new money coming in and taking some of their cake.
I don't think it was ever discussed that a DAC would become the new snap shot source when Bytemaster decides to work on it. Developers are welcome to do that of course. They can do whatever they want.
Crypto currencies are by design hard to kill by any that attack it. Sometimes that works for you and sometimes it doesn't. This is the best test of one I've seen so far. People are under the notion that since BTS air dropped some BTS(X) on them, twice, that they were some how "bought out". This wasn't a merger.
If you really want PTS to die the only way to do it is to get together as a group and buy all the PTS and burn them. Of course that would just create a new market for PTS and miners would come online again.
The free market; such a fickle beast :) .
-
This is getting loopy.
I invested heavily into PTS when we were told that PTS would be receiving snapshots of all new upcoming DAC's only to find out later that PTS was going to be put to rest. I sold them back into BTSX, suffered a huge loss but did not complain.
Then DNS came along and so I bought a substantial amount on the back of all the hoopla only to find out later that DNS was to be consolidated into BTSX. I sold them into BTSX, suffered another huge loss but still, I did not complain.
Now your telling me that DNS and PTS are going to survive. ???
OMG! make up your freaky minds. I feel like a yoyo >:(
Still love BTS :-*
-
If the new tokens would have no features other than potential snapshot allocation, then why on earth does it need its own DPOS chain?
If you want to continue this experiment, fine, but would it not be much easier to issue a PTS user asset on BTS?
I know this question has already been asked, but respectfully alphaBar, could you explain the reason for PTS needing its own chain?
What will be the incentive for delegates to run nodes? Only transaction fees? Surely not shareholder dilution......?
-
-100%
-
Alphabar, yes it does hurt BTS. We just bought out people who had PTS with the assumption that BTS would take on it's responsibilities. If you make this new PTS they'll sell their BTS and buy that, which is TAKING MONEY FROM BTS.
At the very least don't call it PTS. You are making a new product which is not the original PTS. Call it AlphaShares maybe.
It is not a new DAC, it is an upgrade to PTS. Your example of selling one to buy another is completely unfounded because it assumes that the two products are interchangable when they are actually completely different. Why would somebody who values profitability and features see any value in PTS??? See the differences I explained above. You are wrong for the same reason that protectionism and isolationism is wrong. We are not taking from others' share of the pie - WE ARE GROWING THE PIE. ;)
Okay I think I see the reason to have a coin for people to sharedrop to, but if someone is going to sharedrop something that works with bitshares (not a competitior) than it should be sharedroped to BTS because BTS bought out PTS and now holds that value.
If, like you say, someone want a place to sharedrop to bitshares competitors, then maybe your coin has value. BUT, you need to change the name. You need to make this clear. Taking the PTS name will probably actually not only confuse people and hurt BTS, but also hurt your coin's image because of all the original PTS media still on the web. It will be hard to shed that.
Part of the reason I didn't like this so much is that I didn't understand precisely because you called it PTS. You're making a whole new entity with a NEW function. Call it something else.
-
It would be cool if you sharedropped to a new token that honored PTS+AGS 50/50, with the intention that this token should be the new sharedrop token for new DACs.
I agree that sharedropping to BTS doesn't really make much sense.
-
I think there is a place for PTS to be the litecoin/liteshares of the dpos world. A simple dpos implementation without all the bells and whistles of bitshares. The new merged bitshares is hugely ambitious and complex. There is a place for a simple dpos asset that has had a fair distribution and has a recognized brand. PTS holders might as well capture this value rather than some other altcoin.
-
If you are going to do this I am curious about how it would be able to support it own delegates on its own chain. I guess there could be less and they could be only part time (low pay)? Maybe just make it regular POS?
-
If you are going to do this I am curious about how it would be able to support it own delegates on its own chain. I guess there could be less and they could be only part time (low pay)? Maybe just make it regular POS?
Running a delegate on a low volume chain takes very little resources. I suspect PTS as a DPoS coin would only see any significant volume when a promising snapshot was pending.
-
People who complain about this fail to take into account the developer's interest. BTS is just not necessarily an enticing entity to sharedrop towards. There will a be a lot of overlap with PTS, but there will also be a lot of people who are strictly for BTS and therefore detrimental to the DAC.
Ultimately it will be up to the developer to decide what they want to do. If they want to sharedrop on BTS then nothing is stopping them. They will take the better option though.
Personally I think a user defined asset on BTS would be best and lets not have I3 divest and keep it all in one address so developers can scale the PTS balance accordingly if desired. All the talk of wanting I3 to divest proves nothing and I'm not sure we're any better off. If you can't trust Dan to do the right thing, then you can't trust him to divest either. It is much better to have the addresses known.
-
People who complain about this fail to take into account the developer's interest. BTS is just not necessarily an enticing entity to sharedrop towards. There will a be a lot of overlap with PTS, but there will also be a lot of people who are strictly for BTS and therefore detrimental to the DAC.
Ultimately it will be up to the developer to decide what they want to do. If they want to sharedrop on BTS then nothing is stopping them. They will take the better option though.
Personally I think a user defined asset on BTS would be best and lets not have I3 divest and keep it all in one address so developers can scale the PTS balance accordingly if desired. All the talk of wanting I3 to divest proves nothing and I'm not sure we're any better off. If you can't trust Dan to do the right thing, then you can't trust him to divest either. It is much better to have the addresses known.
+5%
-
DO NOT DO THIS!
1. PTS was given shares in BTS. If it still lives we all just lost value in BTS for no reason
2. To reach a wide audience, as many our saying, new projects can still sharedrop on BTS
3. If people want stake in a specific new DAC they can either get it through a sharedrop on BTS or by investing in whatever the earliest mechanism the devs allow (e.g., fundraiser, etherium-style, placeholder coin, etc.) It will still be effectively the same concept because everyone will have the investment opportunity at the same time. If the devs don't allow for "early adopters" it will be because they did not want to. If they want to allow an early adopter mechanism, they still can.
4. This will confuse everyone even further. Just let it go, keep the ecosystem simple. PLEASE. You are going to hurt BTS if you do this.
I hope people either support me on this or give a good reason why I'm wrong.
AlphaBar knows what he is doing, and he knows that this hurts BTS. My guess is that he wants to make money on buying cheap PTS and making people that were unhappy with the merger come back toward his new PTS.
This is clearly hurting the community, but who really believes he has some real developers able to maintain and upgrade PTS... this story will be over soon, we shall just ignore him.
^^^ This is what is happening, imo.
You can chose to believe in his wind mills...Or listen to Stan's proclamations that PTS has a great future, being the greatest airdrop target for any future developer(s).. .yes it is, if you bought your PTS for less then 1/1millionth of a BTC, but you will be better off spending your money else ware, if you paid more than that.
Proceed based on your own judgment.
-
I vote for ending PTS, unless there is a decent motive behind to continue which I don't see any in the near future.
-
DO NOT DO THIS!
1. PTS was given shares in BTS. If it still lives we all just lost value in BTS for no reason
2. To reach a wide audience, as many our saying, new projects can still sharedrop on BTS
3. If people want stake in a specific new DAC they can either get it through a sharedrop on BTS or by investing in whatever the earliest mechanism the devs allow (e.g., fundraiser, etherium-style, placeholder coin, etc.) It will still be effectively the same concept because everyone will have the investment opportunity at the same time. If the devs don't allow for "early adopters" it will be because they did not want to. If they want to allow an early adopter mechanism, they still can.
4. This will confuse everyone even further. Just let it go, keep the ecosystem simple. PLEASE. You are going to hurt BTS if you do this.
I hope people either support me on this or give a good reason why I'm wrong.
AlphaBar knows what he is doing, and he knows that this hurts BTS. My guess is that he wants to make money on buying cheap PTS and making people that were unhappy with the merger come back toward his new PTS.
This is clearly hurting the community, but who really believes he has some real developers able to maintain and upgrade PTS... this story will be over soon, we shall just ignore him.
^^^ This is what is happening, imo.
You can chose to believe in his wind mills...Or listen to Stan's proclamations that PTS has a great future, being the greatest airdrop target for any future developer(s).. .yes it is, if you bought your PTS for less then 1/1millionth of a BTC, but you will be better off spending your money else ware, if you paid more than that.
Proceed based on your own judgment.
Agreed. This is the most likely possibility. PTS is basically valueless at this point. Anyone hanging onto it is doing so for the fragment of a chance that there's another profitable DAC coming in the near future and that its developers will honor the former PTS, ignoring its final snapshot in the BTS merger. At the moment, these chances are so low that the only value proposition is to leave it. And if another DAC does come along and PTS is still kicking, then buy some then.
If this is turning into a pump and dump, then it's shameful that BitShares' name is associated with PTS in any way. Just dump it.
BitShares developers, how about informing exchanges that this coin is no longer supported?
-
This thread reminds me a lot of the beating BM took when proposing his early ideas on BitcoinTalk. It's useless. It's a scam. It's just a pump and dump.
What are you all so afraid of?
-
This thread reminds me a lot of the beating BM took when proposing his early ideas on BitcoinTalk. It's useless. It's a scam. It's just a pump and dump.
What are you all so afraid of?
The ONLY thing I'm afraid of, R., is that this P & D will tarnish the BitShares image. It's still there on coinmarketcap and on the exchanges, "Bitshares PTS". Major problem? No. Poor publicity and a few more headwinds as we gear up to promote BTS? Yup.
-
This thread reminds me a lot of the beating BM took when proposing his early ideas on BitcoinTalk. It's useless. It's a scam. It's just a pump and dump.
What are you all so afraid of?
Me personally of nothing. Just giving some advise to those that have not spent so much time thinking about stuff, and/or still emotionally attached to PTS.
... asides from me trying to give Stan one more reason, why his pitching the future of PTS is one of the most waistful ;D, ways to spend his time.
-
A note regarding our work on the transition of PTS to a standalone DPOS chain:
PTS is alive and well and so is the social consensus. PTS will be the preferred sharedrop instrument of future 3rd party DACs. We have yet to decide whether to use the Nov. 5th snapshot (since a future snapshot may not be possible if mining stops completely), but rest assured that we have a functional testnet, new website and marketing in the works, and an active group of dedicated developers and marketers.
Stay tuned for more information...
Nothing to say ,just Support. Well done !
+10%
+10%
+10%
+10%
-
The holders and buyers of Protoshares still perceive that they have value. What is wrong with them attempting to regrow some value? There are some compelling reasons to do so....
Other DAC's may be built using the barest version of the Bitshares Toolkit like DPOS Protoshares
Holders of Protoshares represent an interesting demographic for future Bitshares Toolkit snapshot consideration to engage their support
The Bitshares super DAC may well incorporate innovations that come from the barest of Bitshares Toolkit versions that test experimental niche functionality
The market can decide.
Disclosure - i have a couple of thousand PTS, am very happy with merger and all snapshots to date
-
So here's a question I'm curious about because I think it strikes at the core of this issue.
Let's say Dan et al (toast, Vikram, Nathan, etc.) decide that Bitshares DAC is good enough to grow on its own so they find some new devs for it and move on to, say, Lending DAC.
1) What would your allocation expectation be for Lending DAC?
2) Once Lending DAC is done and they move on to Insurance DAC should Lending DAC get an allocation?
I guess my question really is: did you like the concept of a ProtoShare or just want a piece of whatever Dan and team is currently working on? There is no wrong answer to this. I've always tried to invest in people and not products.
-
The holders and buyers of Protoshares still perceive that they have value. What is wrong with them attempting to regrow some value? There are some compelling reasons to do so....
Other DAC's may be built using the barest version of the Bitshares Toolkit like DPOS Protoshares
Holders of Protoshares represent an interesting demographic for future Bitshares Toolkit snapshot consideration to engage their support
The Bitshares super DAC may well incorporate innovations that come from the barest of Bitshares Toolkit versions that test experimental niche functionality
The market can decide.
Disclosure - i have a couple of thousand PTS, am very happy with merger and all snapshots to date
Anti competition makes us less money in the long run and makes the system more prone to corruption in the distant future. Let the market decide is correct imho. If people dont like it they should provide positive press for bts and ignore pts exists.
-
So here's a question I'm curious about because I think it strikes at the core of this issue.
Let's say Dan et al (toast, Vikram, Nathan, etc.) decide that Bitshares DAC is good enough to grow on its own so they find some new devs for it and move on to, say, Lending DAC.
1) What would your allocation expectation be for Lending DAC?
2) Once Lending DAC is done and they move on to Insurance DAC should Lending DAC get an allocation?
I guess my question really is: did you like the concept of a ProtoShare or just want a piece of whatever Dan and team is currently working on? There is no wrong answer to this. I've always tried to invest in people and not products.
That's a good question..... But why would there be a Lending DAC? Surely Dan et al would simply develop and integrate the code directly into the super DAC. There would be no need to snapshot. The same for Insurance DAC.
The interesting point is a third party developer may wish to take the barest implementation of the Bitshares Toolkit and take the technology in a totally new direction. The Protoshares community may harbor a different kind of support more conducive to supporting more experimental, riskier tech.....i'm not saying that is the case but could be.
Some successful innovations may be incorporated into the super DAC but maybe not if it's niche or specialized enough.....who knows?
I love the ideology, competency and depth of this growing community.....i'm already happy with my piece so my arguments are more for the health and development of the ecosystem which is evolving so some calls are difficult.... I'd rather support Alphabar in his efforts than shoot it down, whatever happens.
Could Protoshares be like Junior miners?
-
Ethereum will probably clone bts and showed interest in honoring AGS/PTS with new versions...
SuperDACs can be cloned too...
-
What a shit idea, makes BTS price down!!!
-
Ethereum will probably clone bts and showed interest in honoring AGS/PTS with new versions...
SuperDACs can be cloned too...
Super DAC's can be cloned but why would you unless you were doing something significant, in which case you would want to snapshot significantly to the original.....
-
You can clone the code, but must build your own network effect.
I say we let those who wish to continue PTS do so and wish them well. I think it is a positive initiative.
-
You can clone the code, but must build your own network effect.
I say we let those who wish to continue PTS do so and wish them well. I think it is a positive initiative.
Me too. Do you think it might be advantageous though to rename it? Perhaps snapshot PTS/AGS 50/50 and create "AlphaShares" or something like that? Heck maybe even snapshot BTS/PTS/AGS 33.3/33.3/33.3?
-
You can clone the code, but must build your own network effect.
I say we let those who wish to continue PTS do so and wish them well. I think it is a positive initiative.
+5%
-
I support keeping PTS alive 100%. I picture in the near future new DACs coming out almost every week, much like the alt coins. So there will be much more people wanting in well after BTS has been established. PTS would be the easiest way for new investors to climb aboard. This would give even more validity & value to BTS. BTS would represent the blue-chip DAC much like bitcoin is to the alts. Plus, it would give liquidity to BTS to use it's hoard of PTS for future dev work.
-
You can clone the code, but must build your own network effect.
I say we let those who wish to continue PTS do so and wish them well. I think it is a positive initiative.
Thanks for not being crazy, BM! It always makes me happy when you share my opinion :)
To all the anti-PTS people out there: it seems like the biggest argument against PTS is that somehow it will compete against BTS. This assumes that crypto is a zero-sum game, that the amount of wealth in crypto is fixed, that one coin's gain must come out of another coin's loss. Since when has the Bitshares community ever been so small-minded, so unambitious?
Everybody here should see the fallacy in the above thinking: if bitshares is the world-changing tech we all think it is, it will bring in more wealth than all other cryptos combined and PTS will be a tiny drop in the bucket in comparison. Do you really think that BTS is so fragile that its success will be threatened by a simple featureless DPOS chain?
Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2
-
You can clone the code, but must build your own network effect.
I say we let those who wish to continue PTS do so and wish them well. I think it is a positive initiative.
Thanks for not being crazy, BM! It always makes me happy when you share my opinion :)
To all the anti-PTS people out there: it seems like the biggest argument against PTS is that somehow it will compete against BTS. This assumes that crypto is a zero-sum game, that the amount of wealth in crypto is fixed, that one coin's gain must come out of another coin's loss. Since when has the Bitshares community ever been so small-minded, so unambitious?
Everybody here should see the fallacy in the above thinking: if bitshares is the world-changing tech we all think it is, it will bring in more wealth than all other cryptos combined and PTS will be a tiny drop in the bucket in comparison. Do you really think that BTS is so fragile that its success will be threatened by a simple featureless DPOS chain?
Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2
Hehe...smart guy with vision. Can tell you are probably here from the beginning!
-
PTS still alive = more confusion and less people focused on a single product. That's not good for marketing.
I don't really care about PTS being kept alive, AlphaBar can do what he wants to, but by doing so it's obvious to me that he goes against the interests of BTS holders. PTS has nothing of value to offer now : 1) it doesn't represent the founders anymore (since so many people sold them), and 2) it has no useful functionality. If I am wrong on these 2 points, I'd be happy to reconsider. But if PTS don't represent people that helped build the ecosystem anymore, then they don't mean anything, and should be worthless.
In my point of view, the only reason alphaBar tries to keep PTS alive is an investment bet : he wants to earn some more money with his PTS and the one he probably bought at low price - money that, in my point of view, he doesn't deserve, as the BTS allocation already made PTS holders whole. I cannot see how maintaining a useless coin can generate any value for the community.
And I haven't even sold my PTS, assuming they would have no value after november 5th. I'll be happy to sell them if the price comes back up.
-
PTS still alive = more confusion and less people focused on a single product. That's not good for marketing.
I don't really care about PTS being kept alive, AlphaBar can do what he wants to, but by doing so it's obvious to me that he goes against the interests of BTS holders. PTS has nothing of value to offer now : 1) it doesn't represent the founders anymore (since so many people sold them), and 2) it has no useful functionality. If I am wrong on these 2 points, I'd be happy to reconsider. But if PTS don't represent people that helped build the ecosystem anymore, then they don't mean anything, and should be worthless.
+1 As a newbie myself it took me a few hours to figure it all out. Its extremely confusing and if 3rd parties start releasing share drops to PTS then it would hurt BTS in the long run.
-
Isn't this what Dan and Stan said would happen back in November of last year? Back on the old www.invictus-innovations.com website.
I remember them saying that DACs are resilient to death. If DACs were ever abandoned by their devs, large stakeholders would have incentive to keep that DAC going, since the code is open source.
I think this is just nature running its course, and should not be resisted.
-
Sure, let people do what they want. It's a partly-free country ( :( )...but keeping the same name would be dishonest IMHO because it is not the same "coin" and doesn't represent the same value proposition.
-
Sure, let people do what they want. It's a partly-free country ( :( )...but keeping the same name would be dishonest IMHO because it is not the same "coin" and doesn't represent the same value proposition.
What's different about the value proposition? It grants holders a 10% stake in new DACs. How is that different from the old PTS?
Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2
-
Sure, let people do what they want. It's a partly-free country ( :( )...but keeping the same name would be dishonest IMHO because it is not the same "coin" and doesn't represent the same value proposition.
What's different about the value proposition? It grants holders a 10% stake in new DACs. How is that different from the old PTS?
Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2
It's not backed by the development nor funding of the AGS fund.
-
I have a feeling they will not be continuing from NOV5 on the release chain. :( I hope I'm wrong but I am guessing we will see a song and dance about why they had to go with a later snapshot. I would not be surprised if this act doesn't drive someone to make a pts user issued asset as the overhead will be minimal.
-
+1 As a newbie myself it took me a few hours to figure it all out. Its extremely confusing and if 3rd parties start releasing share drops to PTS then it would hurt BTS in the long run.
Try to put yourself in the shoes of 3rd party DAC.
Would you do share drop percentage of your business to low value coin with small community or would you shared drop to high value coin with big community? For me answer is very simple from business point of view. Big community with a lot of developers will always be priority for any 3rd party DAC.
-
Isn't this what Dan and Stan said would happen back in November of last year? Back on the old www.invictus-innovations.com website.
I remember them saying that DACs are resilient to death. If DACs were ever abandoned by their devs, large stakeholders would have incentive to keep that DAC going, since the code is open source.
I think this is just nature running its course, and should not be resisted.
Third Law of DAC Robotics: A DAC should protect its own existence, except when it conflicts with the first two Laws.
-
Sure, let people do what they want. It's a partly-free country ( :( )...but keeping the same name would be dishonest IMHO because it is not the same "coin" and doesn't represent the same value proposition.
What's different about the value proposition? It grants holders a 10% stake in new DACs. How is that different from the old PTS?
Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2
It's not backed by the development nor funding of the AGS fund.
Yeah, mainly doesn't convey the promise of future BM/I3 DAC sharedrops.
-
+5% As a newbie myself it took me a few hours to figure it all out. Its extremely confusing and if 3rd parties start releasing share drops to PTS then it would hurt BTS in the long run.
Try to put yourself in the shoes of 3rd party DAC.
Would you do share drop percentage of your business to low value coin with small community or would you shared drop to high value coin with big community? For me answer is very simple from business point of view. Big community with a lot of developers will always be priority for any 3rd party DAC.
Is that why BTSX share dropped to BTC? ;D
Kidding aside I think BTS is so huge, complex, and world changing that PTS won't be a blip on its radar. The marketing of BTS will be completely different than that of PTS. Once BTS gains critical mass I'd bet that less than 10% of the users know anything about PTS, AGS, alt coins, etc.
I agree that PTS does not hold any value for BTS now that the snapshot is over. That's true of ANY DAC after the snapshot. Why was no one campaigning to kill PTS on Feb 28th, 2014? Did I miss those threads? Or was it that there were DACs that you knew about coming down the pike you wanted a piece of? If some new DACs announced PTS snapshots would we be back in the mindset of just after Feb 28th snapshot?
What I'm reading here is:
1) PTS had one mission - Fund BTS. DNS, Vote, Music, PLAY, LOTTO, etc. were just nice bonuses. Now that BTS is here PTS is useless.
2) Since Dan et al won't be involved in 3rd part DACs and won't be pushing the PTS sales pitch like this time last year it is doomed to failure.
3) Third party DACs should just snapshot BTS because that's what we all own now and we want to have all the benefits of PTS without having to split our investment dollars.
-
+1 As a newbie myself it took me a few hours to figure it all out. Its extremely confusing and if 3rd parties start releasing share drops to PTS then it would hurt BTS in the long run.
Try to put yourself in the shoes of 3rd party DAC.
Would you do share drop percentage of your business to low value coin with small community or would you shared drop to high value coin with big community? For me answer is very simple from business point of view. Big community with a lot of developers will always be priority for any 3rd party DAC.
You're saying that you'd sharedrop to BTS? Your #1 competitor? The chain that's most likely to spurn your sharedrop, sell the dropped shares, buy more shares of their own DAC, and then integrate your technology into their own chain? That seems like an odd choice.
If it were me, I'd sharedrop to a coin that's owned 100% by people who want to be early adopters of promising new technology.
-
+1 As a newbie myself it took me a few hours to figure it all out. Its extremely confusing and if 3rd parties start releasing share drops to PTS then it would hurt BTS in the long run.
Try to put yourself in the shoes of 3rd party DAC.
Would you do share drop percentage of your business to low value coin with small community or would you shared drop to high value coin with big community? For me answer is very simple from business point of view. Big community with a lot of developers will always be priority for any 3rd party DAC.
You're saying that you'd sharedrop to BTS? Your #1 competitor? The chain that's most likely to spurn your sharedrop, sell the dropped shares, buy more shares of their own DAC, and then integrate your technology into their own chain? That seems like an odd choice.
If it were me, I'd sharedrop to a coin that's owned 100% by people who want to be early adopters of promising new technology.
What's wrong with share-dropping on a competitor?
You are presumably interested in attracting all the universe of people who believe in that competitor's business model.
Where else are you going to find them?
-
If I had an idea for DAC my first choice would be BitShares platform and all support from bytemaster and the crew (developing, marketing etc.)
Price for this is 20% min share drop to BitShares community.
If I didn't want anything to do with BitShares than I certainly would not drop 10% to PTS as some of this guys if not all are still BitShares holders.
My logic may be wrong, but time will show :)
-
Sharedropping on your competitor combined with vesting would be smart if you're going that route.
-
+1 As a newbie myself it took me a few hours to figure it all out. Its extremely confusing and if 3rd parties start releasing share drops to PTS then it would hurt BTS in the long run.
Try to put yourself in the shoes of 3rd party DAC.
Would you do share drop percentage of your business to low value coin with small community or would you shared drop to high value coin with big community? For me answer is very simple from business point of view. Big community with a lot of developers will always be priority for any 3rd party DAC.
This makes sense until one realizes there are potentially thousands of chains with alight variations and that some chains may be chosen by a superDAC while others are not. Then it becomes apparent that sharedropping on different communities at the same time is a far better strategy than sharedropping everything on a huge superDAC like BTS alone.
-
So are we doing anything with the PTS we have any longer, or what is the plan for now. Went through the thread and more confused than before.
Is there a use for it any longer?
-
It depends if you have interest in what it is for and the idea of multiple DACs etc. It is all third parties now, so there are no definite answers. Obviously there are people still buying it, so sell it if you want, or keep it. shrug
-
I still keep some PTS in wallet, and will keep them forever
-
So are we doing anything with the PTS we have any longer, or what is the plan for now. Went through the thread and more confused than before.
Is there a use for it any longer?
PTS hasn't changed. Just 3I' s promotion of it and involvement in 3rd party DACs.
The perception of the community is that without 3I's on going endorsement it is worthless.
My feeling is that the ProtoShare is just starting to come into its own. As BTS grows and becomes successful more and more 3rd party DACs will want in on the action. The promise, or selling point, of PTS was always, "Get a piece of every DAC that honors the social contract". So far there has been a handful of DACs that have honored it and everyone is ready to call it, "Mission accomplished".
Anyway, there is a project going on to convert PTS to a DPoS coin here: http://pts.cubeconnex.com/index.php?topic=13.0
Since this is the Bitshares forum, and not a forum for DACs or ProtoShares in general, I suspect the PTS crew will get run off sooner than later.
-
PTS is dead. It makes no sense to sharedrop on an outdated prototype system that people still have large hoards of. PTS holders have been given a sharedrop and a snapshot on the 5th for BTS distribution.
If I was a 3rd party developer I would want my application to be used by as many people as possible so I would distribute it on BTS as it has a larger userbase and my shares would not be held by just a few individuals who have hoards of PTS.
-
So are we doing anything with the PTS we have any longer, or what is the plan for now. Went through the thread and more confused than before.
Is there a use for it any longer?
PTS hasn't changed. Just 3I' s promotion of it and involvement in 3rd party DACs.
The perception of the community is that without 3I's on going endorsement it is worthless.
My feeling is that the ProtoShare is just starting to come into its own. As BTS grows and becomes successful more and more 3rd party DACs will want in on the action. The promise, or selling point, of PTS was always, "Get a piece of every DAC that honors the social contract". So far there has been a handful of DACs that have honored it and everyone is ready to call it, "Mission accomplished".
Anyway, there is a project going on to convert PTS to a DPoS coin here: http://pts.cubeconnex.com/index.php?topic=13.0
Since this is the Bitshares forum, and not a forum for DACs or ProtoShares in general, I suspect the PTS crew will get run off sooner than later.
If PTS still perfectly represent the early donations and the social contract, then PTS holders shouldn't have received any diluted BTS during the merger... And many were sold at very low prices with the expectation that they don't have value anymore, so it is quite absurd to say that it still represents the same thing.
-
PTS is dead. It makes no sense to sharedrop on an outdated prototype system that people still have large hoards of. PTS holders have been given a sharedrop and a snapshot on the 5th for BTS distribution.
If I was a 3rd party developer I would want my application to be used by as many people as possible so I would distribute it on BTS as it has a larger userbase and my shares would not be held by just a few individuals who have hoards of PTS.
There once was a time when everyone who was involved in bitshares had PTS and/or AGS, and to sharedrop to them was to sharedrop to the whole bitshares community.
Now, much of the community still has PTS/AGS, but there are many newcomers as well who are mostly in BTS.
In the future as bitshares grow, this later category will grow, and more and more will just have BTS.
It is up to developers to chosoe their target group correctly. Do they want to try to get buyin of the whole bitshares community, by sharedropping BTS? Or do they want to specifically target early adopters, by sharedropping PTS/AGS?
This is a decision they must make, and depending on the project, I think either one could be the correct decision. If you are looking to get the widespread community to start using your product, you might sharedrop BTS. If you are just looking for a small group to start building your technology, you could go with PTS and try to get more core supporters.
(Or you could also sharedrop both!)
In the end, it is new project developers that will decide what to do with their projects. I hope that these developers will make intelligent decisions based on the goals they want to achieve with the sharedrop.
-
There once was a time when everyone who was involved in bitshares had PTS and/or AGS, and to sharedrop to them was to sharedrop to the whole bitshares community.
Now, much of the community still has PTS/AGS, but there are many newcomers as well who are mostly in BTS.
In the future as bitshares grow, this later category will grow, and more and more will just have BTS.
It is up to developers to chosoe their target group correctly. Do they want to try to get buyin of the whole bitshares community, by sharedropping BTS? Or do they want to specifically target early adopters, by sharedropping PTS/AGS?
This is a decision they must make, and depending on the project, I think either one could be the correct decision. If you are looking to get the widespread community to start using your product, you might sharedrop BTS. If you are just looking for a small group to start building your technology, you could go with PTS and try to get more core supporters.
In the end, it is new project developers that will decide what to do with their projects. I hope that these developers will make intelligent decisions based on the goals they want to achieve with the sharedrop.
I'd say this is one of the better responses I've read so far and I tend to agree with it.
It's very possible that PTS will not survive this. The idea behind PTS was that when you give an allocation to PTS hodlers you get a strong community supporting you right out of the gate. That was true then, and could have been true now, but the community just jumped ship at the first shinny bobble to snapshot PTS a couple of times.
Perhaps I'll come around eventually but right now I'm just floored by how quickly this community turned on a dime. From supporting PTS and all that it represented to pushing for it to be shut down for the betterment of one DAC. It's like I woke up in the Twilight Zone.
-
If PTS still perfectly represent the early donations and the social contract, then PTS holders shouldn't have received any diluted BTS during the merger...
I agree with this.
I am a bit frustrated that PTSers want to have their cake and eat it too. That is, they want to both get shares in BTS AND they want to still be the target of future sharedrops by 3rd party developers.
It should have been one way or the other. Either PTS is merged into BTS, and now BTS is what you sharedrop to. OR, PTS doesnt change at all, but doesnt get extra BTS. (After all, PTSers back in February already got BTSX which turned into BTS).
That said, it seems the PTSers have won, mostly thanks to alphaBar's campaigning. They managed to get BTS and they are managing to survive and convince people that they should get sharedrops in the future, not BTS. Grats to PTSers, you won the merger and managed to get a slightly bigger share of the pie than everyone else!
But is all of this a big deal? Probably not, unless you are a developer of 3rd party DACs. Honestly, I think that the vast majority of the value of the bitshares ecosystem is in BTS, and it always will be.
If in the future, a 3rd party develoepr sharedrops to PTS, I personally will ignore their project. PTSers will be interested. If they decide to sharedop to BTS, I will support the project.
I do think it makes a lot of sense for developers to pick who to sharedrop too based on the needs of their project. For some, BTS might be better, for others, PTS. I think it dependso n what you need: do you need lots of users (sharedrop BTS). Or do you need a small core of developers (sharedrop PTS).
-
PTS is dead. It makes no sense to sharedrop on an outdated prototype system that people still have large hoards of. PTS holders have been given a sharedrop and a snapshot on the 5th for BTS distribution.
If I was a 3rd party developer I would want my application to be used by as many people as possible so I would distribute it on BTS as it has a larger userbase and my shares would not be held by just a few individuals who have hoards of PTS.
There once was a time when everyone who was involved in bitshares had PTS and/or AGS, and to sharedrop to them was to sharedrop to the whole bitshares community.
Now, much of the community still has PTS/AGS, but there are many newcomers as well who are mostly in BTS.
In the future as bitshares grow, this later category will grow, and more and more will just have BTS.
It is up to developers to chosoe their target group correctly. Do they want to try to get buyin of the whole bitshares community, by sharedropping BTS? Or do they want to specifically target early adopters, by sharedropping PTS/AGS?
This is a decision they must make, and depending on the project, I think either one could be the correct decision. If you are looking to get the widespread community to start using your product, you might sharedrop BTS. If you are just looking for a small group to start building your technology, you could go with PTS and try to get more core supporters.
(Or you could also sharedrop both!)
In the end, it is new project developers that will decide what to do with their projects. I hope that these developers will make intelligent decisions based on the goals they want to achieve with the sharedrop.
Partly true, however we can make it even more precise!
-What you said about BTS - i.e. if they want the whole bitshares community.
-If they want early adopters only - they drop on AGS and PTS holders as of 5th of November.
-If they want to drop to some but not all early adopters and primarely on alphabar and company - i.e. people who bought PTS for extra cheap from early adopters after 5th. of November, they drop on his Alpha-ProtoShares.
-
I propose that we use the MUSIC snapshot for all future PTS snapshot sharedrops.
Because I bought a bunch of it prior to the music runup, and sold afterwards.
If I campaign really hard for this and create <Insert name of libertarian leaning politician here> coin, using this snapshot, do you think I can make it work?
:D :P
-
I propose that we use the MUSIC snapshot for all future PTS snapshot sharedrops.
Actually share dropping to MUSIC DAC would make a lot of sense for a developer of a 3rd party DAC project that was looking to serve the music community/industry. Especially if they waited for the dust to settle a bit so that MUSIC had largely stabilized and the short term speculators had moved on to other things. What you'd be left with is a core of people that truly supported the music on a blockchain ethos.
-
I didnt sell any PTS post-merger (didnt have any, sold earlier).
I dont think the new PTS coin is a scam either.
I just think that it would be nice if developers thought about what was the best allocation for their project, and sharedrop based on that. That might be PTS/AGS, it might be BTS, or it might be both.
-
I just think that it would be nice if developers thought about what was the best allocation for their project, and sharedrop based on that. That might be PTS/AGS, it might be BTS, or it might be both.
I agree. Sorry, my quote about your music suggestion got rolled into my ongoing rant about PTS. I didn't mean the connection; should have been two posts.
-
Note: This was split out from my earlier post about music. Since that post also read like an accusation towards Ander I split it into a new post.
On another note (no pun intended...ok, maybe a bit :D )
Those of you who sold your PTS because you felt it had been bought out in the merger and was now worthless, and are accusing the new PTS project of being a scam: Who did you think you were selling your PTS to and why? You knowingly sold something you feel you'd already been paid for and also felt was worthless. They should have been burned rather than knowingly unloaded on the next sucker. You effectively sold them twice. So, you know, be careful throwing stones in glass houses.
For the record I haven't bought or sold PTS since mid October and PTS accounts for less than 2% of my crypto portfolio and BTS about 96%
-
...
Those of you who sold your PTS because you felt it had been bought out in the merger and was now worthless, and are accusing the new PTS project of being a scam: Who did you think you were selling your PTS to and why? You knowingly sold something you feel you'd already been paid for and also felt was worthless. They should have been burned rather than knowingly unloaded on the next sucker. You effectively sold them twice. So, you know, be careful throwing stones in glass houses.
...
I'm glad you made this point.
-
...
Those of you who sold your PTS because you felt it had been bought out in the merger and was now worthless, and are accusing the new PTS project of being a scam: Who did you think you were selling your PTS to and why? You knowingly sold something you feel you'd already been paid for and also felt was worthless. They should have been burned rather than knowingly unloaded on the next sucker. You effectively sold them twice. So, you know, be careful throwing stones in glass houses.
...
I'm glad you made this point.
Exactly.
-
I propose that we use the MUSIC snapshot for all future PTS snapshot sharedrops.
Because I bought a bunch of it prior to the music runup, and sold afterwards.
If I campaign really hard for this and create <Insert name of libertarian leaning politician here> coin, using this snapshot, do you think I can make it work?
:D :P
If you are working on developing a coin and feel that snapshotting on bitshares music holders will get you the most preferable user base for your project, then yes. And I will not judge you for it because it is your work and risk...and thus your decision. I personally would be interested in having on record the reasoning that went into your decision and would like to organize the sharedropped community to ask you questions about your reasons...or just to hear them say thanks for the consideration. That is why you are a third party developer...and that is why snapshotting to build your userbase is powerful.
I would actually imagine that your project would substantially benefit from having an army of musicians writing tunes about your project.
-
ToonCoin.
-
I know you mentioned snapshotting (is that going to become a verb like Googling?) MUSIC in jest but I think it's a core piece of the ecosystem that's evolving. As DACs get more and more specialized it will increasingly make more sense for other DACs that live in the same space (Music, Finance, Gaming, Insurance, Voting, etc.) to snapshot to a much more focused community.
-
A note regarding our work on the transition of PTS to a standalone DPOS chain:
PTS is alive and well and so is the social consensus. PTS will be the preferred sharedrop instrument of future 3rd party DACs. We have yet to decide whether to use the Nov. 5th snapshot (since a future snapshot may not be possible if mining stops completely), but rest assured that we have a functional testnet, new website and marketing in the works, and an active group of dedicated developers and marketers.
Stay tuned for more information...
@alphBar
How does the "Invictus Innovations to Return PTS Donations" announcement [1] , thereby diluting the existing PTS chain, play into your consideration for use of the 5 November snapshot? How is the social consensus for PTS(DPOS) impacted by their announcement?
Regards,
Fox
[1] https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11289.75 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11289.75)
-
Good question :)
-
Sure, let people do what they want. It's a partly-free country ( :( )...but keeping the same name would be dishonest IMHO because it is not the same "coin" and doesn't represent the same value proposition.
That's a pretty good, solid and quantifiable reason to change the name of PTS to AlphaShares.
+5%
-
A note regarding our work on the transition of PTS to a standalone DPOS chain:
PTS is alive and well and so is the social consensus. PTS will be the preferred sharedrop instrument of future 3rd party DACs. We have yet to decide whether to use the Nov. 5th snapshot (since a future snapshot may not be possible if mining stops completely), but rest assured that we have a functional testnet, new website and marketing in the works, and an active group of dedicated developers and marketers.
Stay tuned for more information...
@alphBar
How does the "Invictus Innovations to Return PTS Donations" announcement [1] , thereby diluting the existing PTS chain, play into your consideration for use of the 5 November snapshot? How is the social consensus for PTS(DPOS) impacted by their announcement?
Regards,
Fox
[1] https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11289.75 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11289.75)
I initially proposed the November 5th snapshot date because I was unsure whether we would be able to produce any blocks post-November 5th. Of course with the new announcement I would prefer to include the transactions returning PTS donor's funds.
-
Sure, let people do what they want. It's a partly-free country ( :( )...but keeping the same name would be dishonest IMHO because it is not the same "coin" and doesn't represent the same value proposition.
That's a pretty good, solid and quantifiable reason to change the name of PTS to AlphaShares.
+5%
There will be no change to the social consensus, the allocation, or anything other than the protocol. This is simply a badly needed upgrade to PTS, which is now barely producing blocks. After the upgrade, if the community agrees we can discuss a rebrand, but not because this is a "new coin" (which it isn't).
-
There will be no change to the social consensus, the allocation, or anything other than the protocol.
One change you have been advocating is a change to the terminal inflation rate of 1% which was built into PTS PoW to subsidize transaction processors. I think it is wise to keep this too to keep a healthy pool of delegates.
Some are arguing that a 0% is a great marketing feature . . . while this is maybe true and seems very appealing, my view is that it is planting the seed of eventual failure.
-
Some are arguing that a 0% is a great marketing feature . . . while this is maybe true and seems very appealing, my view is that it is planting the seed of eventual failure.
I agree ... I do not expect enough transactions to pay for the delegates .. not in the short term .. nor in the long term .. PTS is an investment vehicle and not a crypto currency (IMHO)
-
We're already discussing the inflation subject in our forum at http://pts.cubeconnex.com/ - I'd prefer if we'd keep this in one place, so if you want to participate in a form you're welcome to join us over there!
-
I do think it makes a lot of sense for developers to pick who to sharedrop too based on the needs of their project. For some, BTS might be better, for others, PTS. I think it dependso n what you need: do you need lots of users (sharedrop BTS). Or do you need a small core of developers (sharedrop PTS).
Would it be safe to assume this might be worth reading between the lines??
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Some are arguing that a 0% is a great marketing feature . . . while this is maybe true and seems very appealing, my view is that it is planting the seed of eventual failure.
I agree ... I do not expect enough transactions to pay for the delegates .. not in the short term .. nor in the long term .. PTS is an investment vehicle and not a crypto currency (IMHO)
Agreed. Rand Paul Coin (Deflationary)---aka RPCD will fit into that spot well as it will have slightly increased tx fees and only 13 delegates. Keep PTS at the 1% annual inflation rate or it is a new coin...
-
So it will use 5th november snapshot or not?
If it uses 5th november, I3 gets 400k PTS snapshot, if it uses a later snapshot everyone who donated PTS to the angelfund gets in on it instead.
-
So it will use 5th november snapshot or not?
If it uses 5th november, I3 gets 400k PTS snapshot, if it uses a later snapshot everyone who donated PTS to the angelfund gets in on it instead.
And if 5 Nov is used, everyone who dumped PTS after 5 Nov would be rewarded with new shares to dump and everyone who bought them would be screwed.
-
The snapshot must be post November 5th, and post return of PTS from AGS fund...
(http://i.imgur.com/ZaA2aX7.jpg)
Will people soon be dumping them?
I'd like to see people keep them.
I did buy some yesterday though!...
-
The snapshot must be post November 5th, and post return of PTS from AGS fund...
(http://i.imgur.com/ZaA2aX7.jpg)
Will people soon be dumping them?
I'd like to see people keep them.
I did buy some yesterday though!...
I disagree. Invictus' workers deserves to be able to eat stake every damn day and still have money left over for beer. Let these guys afford steak and beer and then just watch the cool stuff they build!
-
I think that alphabar and his dev team need to review this thread and realize that they are actually going to hurt the BTS ecosystem. Marketing will hopefully be starting soon and this PTS vs BTS mantra needs to end. Newbies will be really confused about it and it will create a major turn off for adoption.
I would like to hear some good arguments from alphabar on this :)
-
I think that alphabar and his dev team need to review this thread and realize that they are actually going to hurt the BTS ecosystem. Marketing will hopefully be starting soon and this PTS vs BTS mantra needs to end. Newbies will be really confused about it and it will create a major turn off for adoption.
I would like to hear some good arguments from alphabar on this :)
I really do not see how this hurts BTS. BTS is a SuperDAC that can (and will) take any technology it thinks will give it the advantage. It is complex and has many moving parts...however. This means it is difficult for me to sell to the everyday person. It is also now becoming a more centralizing force.
PTS, on the other hand is simple. The value proposition is simple and elegant and it works more as an investment in future bitshares-based chains. I think people are thinking more in terms of bitcoin when they look at what they want bitshares to be. To many (especially those here first), Bitshares is an entire ecosystem that competes with itself to make the best of the best solutions...and the SuperDACs that employ the best of these solutions will become the strongest.
I am glad to see people expressing their opinions, but I am holding far more BTS than PTS/AGS and still want to see PTS/AGS exist far into the future. Otherwise we are not diversifying risk. We are restricting our investment vehicles in the bitshares ecosystem to 1 single point of failure...and that is a terrible terrible idea. Why is this value proposition lost?
-
I am glad to see people expressing their opinions, but I am holding far more BTS than PTS/AGS and still want to see PTS/AGS exist far into the future. Otherwise we are not diversifying risk. We are restricting our investment vehicles in the bitshares ecosystem to 1 single point of failure...and that is a terrible terrible idea. Why is this value proposition lost?
I agree - I think PTS will be a good DPOS backup in the event one of the more complex BTS features fails in some catastrophic way.