Are there any plans on adding NOTES to exchanges yet?

CN provide an additional layer of anonymity. TITAN is just stealth addresses. Neither are "truly anonymous" and network analysis is still a huge problem for both.

Thanks toast. Are there any plans in the future to integrate more privacy features into BTS?

This whole situation should be brought up in tomorrow's meeting at 10am EST.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=12672.0

we fully understand DVS .
We just don't understand why people keep saying "we never said 11.05 was supposed to snapshot for devshares " .
Because , they did said it .

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10608.0

read the bottom of the OP , then you'll know what kind of issue we're talking about here .

 

Toast, its not that we think DevShares will become super valuable, its the fact that you and Dan said that the merger was the last official snapshot for PTS. It is a violation of your promise to the shareholders. People can't trust the developers of Bitshares if they don't keep their word to the shareholders.

Merry Christmas everyone! Have a happy holiday

This is getting nuts. I am starting to doubt my investment.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2qai70/how_to_short_or_leverage_up_on_bitcoin_or_even/
is also on the first page of Reddit.

I agree with what people in this thread are saying.

This whole PTS thing is being handled poorly in my opinion.

The sharedrop to AGS/PTS/VOTE/DNS was so that we could keep bytemaster directing his attention to BTSX (now BTS). I just want to be clear about this. If we didn't need bytemaster, we didn't really need to do the sharedrop. AGS/PTS/VOTE/DNS were all so small in market cap that BTSX could have easily poached their devs (toast) and FMV using diluted delegate pay and easily out-competed them without having to inflate 25% of the supply. Even if some early compensation was needed to get key talent on board, it would have cost us much much less than a 25% dilution. While it would be nice to have AGS/PTS/VOTE/DNS holders join our community rather than have to compete with them, as we have all seen with the new PTS, it isn't even possible to avoid competition even after donating a generous sharedrop to them.

Bytemaster needed the sharedrop to occur to be a good honorable person to the people (AGS/PTS/VOTE/DNS holders) that he made his promises to (not legally binding of course). These holders acquired their positions because they provided (or fairly acquired it from people who provided) the AGS funds that made (and is still helping make) this project possible. Since bytemaster is worth so much to this community and that was his condition for directing his complete attention to BTS, the BTSX community accepted this compromise.

But now a lot of the actions that bytemaster seems to be supportive of seem to be going against the deal we made. The reason this particular version (33%/33%/33% to AGS/PTS/BTS) of DevShares would have any significant value is because it has the support of the core devs (including bytemaster). If he refused to work on that version (if he shunned it) and instead worked on a version of DevShares that allocated 100% to BTS, this community would likely not care that some third-party dev was doing their own DevShares with whatever allocation they choose. There may be a lot of reasons given for why the allocation of DevShares makes sense according to the not-yet-well-developed sharedrop theory. But the most important reason that seems to be ignored by bytemaster and Stan is that by allocating anything at all to AGS and/or PTS, they are giving these tokens credibility when the BTS community (whose interest they need to be looking after according to the Nov 5 sharedrop deal) clearly does not want these tokens to continue taking attention away from BTS. By the way, I should clarify that I am not actually concerned about DevShares in particular having a significant market cap and taking investment away from BTS, but from the perspective of principles, it is still inappropriate in my opinion for the BTS community to allocate anything any longer to AGS/PTS.

PTS is particularly troubling. It has been upgraded to DPOS, trading on exchanges, and it is still calling itself BitShares PTS on coinmarketcap and our forum. This is just going to confuse new investors. How would we feel if some new coin (ALT) cloned the BitShares technology didn't allocate anything to AGS/PTS/BTS, and called itself BitShares ALT on coinmarketcap? I think that would be deserving of shunning by this community. I certainly don't think we should have prominent members of the BTS community discussing how ALT was a great sharedrop token, or how they recommended that a project created within the BitShares ecosystem should allocate anything to ALT, or even give them a subsection in our forum advertising their existence to people visiting our forum after just learning about BitShares.

It doesn't matter what the history of PTS was. It doesn't matter if it helped give us the BitShares toolkit (although I don't really understand how it did by the way). As of the November 5 sharedrop, PTS should be treated no differently than ALT by the BTS community. The sharedrop should have brought over the community members we want and who are interested in the success of BitShares. Anyone left holding PTS after that is just wildly speculating for future profits no differently than how people speculate on any other random altcoin. They are absolutely free to do so, but the BTS community shouldn't be helping them out by giving this new PTS (which should have nothing to do with the BitShares ecosystem anymore) any credibility. Same too goes for AGS (even though those holders actually did help fund the BitShares toolkit), because they also already got their fair share from the November 5 sharedrop.

/rant and Merry Christmas