lol
Hope you aren't serious.
lol
Hope you aren't serious.
Why? He is not wrong, is he?
My point is - fuck you BTS suckers! - it is all for the greatest of all - PTS! The BEEEEEStest of all share drop target - read my lips 'ME'.
We will do what it takes to send them PTS to the moon - BTS is just a tools to do it!
PTS the the best gold pupping coin in the world!
...and BTS is just a tool for our greatness!
I am a big fan of PTS!
I invested 0.75 cent of electricity....
This is a sarcastic attempt at saying PTS is still getting unfair rewards after they diluted BTS 25%.
I fully agree, PTS and AGS should not exist anymore. We paid millions of dollars for their features to be rolled into BTS. Its simply not fair that they continue to get sharedrops, unless we also take the diluted 25% back.
This is a sarcastic attempt at saying PTS is still getting unfair rewards after they diluted BTS 25%.
I fully agree, PTS and AGS should not exist anymore. We paid millions of dollars for their features to be rolled into BTS. Its simply not fair that they continue to get sharedrops, unless we also take the diluted 25% back.
But isn't that exactly the beauty of a free market solution? Third parties are free to allocate in a way that they feel brings the most value for their system. And if that includes AGS/PTS then great, so be it. Why don't you go ahead and invest in PTS then?
And if BTS brings more advantages as an airdrop target than PTS, then free market will figure it out either ways.
This is a sarcastic attempt at saying PTS is still getting unfair rewards after they diluted BTS 25%.
I fully agree, PTS and AGS should not exist anymore. We paid millions of dollars for their features to be rolled into BTS. Its simply not fair that they continue to get sharedrops, unless we also take the diluted 25% back.
But isn't that exactly the beauty of a free market solution? Third parties are free to allocate in a way that they feel brings the most value for their system. And if that includes AGS/PTS then great, so be it. Why don't you go ahead and invest in PTS then?
And if BTS brings more advantages as an airdrop target than PTS, then free market will figure it out either ways.
My problem is that dan, stan and others who have a fiduciary duty to BTS holders are promoting them, and that this board still has a PTS subforum. In the eyes of BTS holders, PTS should no longer exist. We paid explicitly to buy them out, and they should not get any support from the BTS community. If they still want to be the official bitshares sharedrop DAC, then the 25% dilution of our money that they received should be revoked.
This is a sarcastic attempt at saying PTS is still getting unfair rewards after they diluted BTS 25%.
I fully agree, PTS and AGS should not exist anymore. We paid millions of dollars for their features to be rolled into BTS. Its simply not fair that they continue to get sharedrops, unless we also take the diluted 25% back.
But isn't that exactly the beauty of a free market solution? Third parties are free to allocate in a way that they feel brings the most value for their system. And if that includes AGS/PTS then great, so be it. Why don't you go ahead and invest in PTS then?
And if BTS brings more advantages as an airdrop target than PTS, then free market will figure it out either ways.
My problem is that dan, stan and others who have a fiduciary duty to BTS holders are promoting them, and that this board still has a PTS subforum. In the eyes of BTS holders, PTS should no longer exist. We paid explicitly to buy them out, and they should not get any support from the BTS community. If they still want to be the official bitshares sharedrop DAC, then the 25% dilution of our money that they received should be revoked.
This is a sarcastic attempt at saying PTS is still getting unfair rewards after they diluted BTS 25%.
I fully agree, PTS and AGS should not exist anymore. We paid millions of dollars for their features to be rolled into BTS. Its simply not fair that they continue to get sharedrops, unless we also take the diluted 25% back.
But isn't that exactly the beauty of a free market solution? Third parties are free to allocate in a way that they feel brings the most value for their system. And if that includes AGS/PTS then great, so be it. Why don't you go ahead and invest in PTS then?
And if BTS brings more advantages as an airdrop target than PTS, then free market will figure it out either ways.
My problem is that dan, stan and others who have a fiduciary duty to BTS holders are promoting them, and that this board still has a PTS subforum. In the eyes of BTS holders, PTS should no longer exist. We paid explicitly to buy them out, and they should not get any support from the BTS community. If they still want to be the official bitshares sharedrop DAC, then the 25% dilution of our money that they received should be revoked.
Stan's losing his touch, I was expecting center aligned sentences, a few quotes and some choice memes.
PTS is an independent product from an independent developer.
I still have doubts that third parties will be so willing to sharedrop on either BTS or PTS
I still have doubts that third parties will be so willing to sharedrop on either BTS or PTS
Well, Devshares just got 33%
I still have doubts that third parties will be so willing to sharedrop on either BTS or PTS
Well, Devshares just got 33%
Yea, that's also pretty ridiculous. Why exactly did BTS buy out PTS and AGS if it's going to continue giving them pieces of the BitShares pie? Makes no goddamn sense.
I still have doubts that third parties will be so willing to sharedrop on either BTS or PTS
Well, Devshares just got 33%
Yea, that's also pretty ridiculous. Why exactly did BTS buy out PTS and AGS if it's going to continue giving them pieces of the BitShares pie? Makes no goddamn sense.
+5% I agree. It is crazy. In the real world when a company gets bought out that is it, the new company owns it! Everyone holding PTS was more then fairly compensated for their investment. Now it is time to just do a 100% sharedrop on BTS as we are all in this together now because of the merger.
Haha
hahaha
That's why I love you BTSers! You think you gave us just a piece of the pie, when we rob you blind from YOUR test network!
Let me put it in numbers for you!
For 1BTC you could have bought 'dead PTS' easily at 0.0008BTC/PTS. or 1250 PTS for each BTC.
@567 DEVshares/PTS this would have netted you, like it did for me, 708,750 DevShares.
If you were stupid enough you could have bought 22,222 BTS for same 1BTC at 0.000045 BTC/BTS;
or 22,222 BTS for 1 BTC. This would have given you 8,889 DevShares...
If us PTS holders are getting 80 times more Devshares than BTS per 1 BTC invested, tell me who owns your precious test network? You thought you bought us? Keep dreaming. It seems like we owe you and you keep delivering your annual and monthly gifts to the king! The king of PTS!
On a side note, I get the same ratios from Sparkle compared to you BTSers!!! And if I so desire I can even sell my undead PTS for what I paid for them after ripping those 2 benefits, and buy BTS! And you say we PTS are not the greatest?
I still have doubts that third parties will be so willing to sharedrop on either BTS or PTS
Well, Devshares just got 33%
Yea, that's also pretty ridiculous. Why exactly did BTS buy out PTS and AGS if it's going to continue giving them pieces of the BitShares pie? Makes no goddamn sense.
+5% I agree. It is crazy. In the real world when a company gets bought out that is it, the new company owns it! Everyone holding PTS was more then fairly compensated for their investment. Now it is time to just do a 100% sharedrop on BTS as we are all in this together now because of the merger.
Haha
hahaha
That's why I love you BTSers! You think you gave us just a piece of the pie, when we rob you blind from YOUR test network!
Let me put it in numbers for you!
For 1BTC you could have bought 'dead PTS' easily at 0.0008BTC/PTS. or 1250 PTS for each BTC.
@567 DEVshares/PTS this would have netted you, like it did for me, 708,750 DevShares.
If you were stupid enough you could have bought 22,222 BTS for same 1BTC at 0.000045 BTC/BTS;
or 22,222 BTS for 1 BTC. This would have given you 8,889 DevShares...
If us PTS holders are getting 80 times more Devshares than BTS per 1 BTC invested, tell me who owns your precious test network? You thought you bought us? Keep dreaming. It seems like we owe you and you keep delivering your annual and monthly gifts to the king! The king of PTS!
On a side note, I get the same ratios from Sparkle compared to you BTSers!!! And if I so desire I can even sell my undead PTS for what I paid for them after ripping those 2 benefits, and buy BTS! And you say we PTS are not the greatest?
+5%
Do we have any volunteer devs to re-start DVS with a new fork with 100% drop on BTS? That would make it the official BitShares test chain because BTS is BitShares and would have the full support of the BitShares community.
It's a complete fallacy to say that dropping on all 3 is best for DevShares. Why do we want what is best for DevShares? If it's not 100% snapshot its a competitor for capital. It's in the same crypto speculation market. Some people will buy fewer BitShares to buy DevShares too, or just DevShares. If Devshare's value to BitShares is divided by 3, then the sharedropping of it over PTS + AGS has to bring a minimum of 3x the value to DevShares that dropping on BitShares alone would do. Are devs telling me that dropping on PTS + AGS will make DVS 3x more valuable than if it was on just BTS?
I don't think anyone believes that.
The sharedrop on PTS + AGS equates to giving BTS away. Giving BTS away, is not something the voters have agreed to pay you to do.
Summary: Reducing BTS stake in DevShares means PTS + AGS must bring more value to BTS holders than the reduction, which they don't. Unless the devs aren't working for BTS, and are "freelancers" who work for whatever chain they like, in which case, there's a conflict of interest at the top of BitShares leadership, which I thought we resolved.
This is a sarcastic attempt at saying PTS is still getting unfair rewards after they diluted BTS 25%.
I fully agree, PTS and AGS should not exist anymore. We paid millions of dollars for their features to be rolled into BTS. Its simply not fair that they continue to get sharedrops, unless we also take the diluted 25% back.
But isn't that exactly the beauty of a free market solution? Third parties are free to allocate in a way that they feel brings the most value for their system. And if that includes AGS/PTS then great, so be it. Why don't you go ahead and invest in PTS then?
And if BTS brings more advantages as an airdrop target than PTS, then free market will figure it out either ways.
My problem is that dan, stan and others who have a fiduciary duty to BTS holders are promoting them, and that this board still has a PTS subforum. In the eyes of BTS holders, PTS should no longer exist. We paid explicitly to buy them out, and they should not get any support from the BTS community. If they still want to be the official bitshares sharedrop DAC, then the 25% dilution of our money that they received should be revoked.
This forum has been very entertaining lately.
And in the Christmas Spirit, I'll be giving away 10 * 5 BITUSD in the next couple of days.
Congratulations jshow5555 you're the first winner. PM me your BTSAccount and I'll send you your price. (If you have one)
We decided to kill PTS and integrate the value of PTS into BTS, and now you told us that you support the reborn PTS just as you support PLAY and MUSIC? Funny...
You just hit on maybe the Very Best Reason (that is, if I had actually been the one to think of it. :) )I don't know if I'm following this new "sharedrop theory" Stan. I think the "advertisement" from a jump in PTS price is short-lived and devs are allowed to give themselves stake if they want, rather than buying into PTS and then sharedropping on PTS.
Every time a sharedrop on PTS happens it jumps significantly higher on coinmarketcap.
Big assets with lots of market cap inertia can't do that.
It's like running up a flag on the CMC front page that something has been announced.
Free advertising - everyone on CMC checks to see what new DAC is being born.
And the developer who made the announcement has a chance to invest early and benefit from the bounce as a small vote of confidence - if she has a good case.
There is no better way in the world for her to get such an effect.
And that is probably why smart developers will consider PTS as a useful tool for a long time to come.
Disclaimer: This is not a promotion of PTS. This is me contributing to further development of BitShares Sharedrop Theory. Gotta call it like I see it.
Reviewing sharedrop theory:I also have to disagree about "Allocations are not selected to be "fair""
Allocations are not selected to be "fair", they are selected to attract the greatest amount of interest possible to a new offering.
You get share-dropped on in proportion to the perceived value of the demographic your coin represents. It's the developer's choice. It would be just as legitimate to do 10/10/10/10/10/10...10 and attract 10 diverse demographics, seven of which "deserve" nothing.
The simplest logic is to treat all three groups the same because they overlap anyway. This minimizes (obviously it does not eliminate) arguments about percentages. All three groups get more than they "deserve". :)
If you still want to argue, argue why your favorite demographic would give a bigger boost to the new DAC if its share of that DAC was somehow just a bit bigger.
keep thing simple ,investor does not like complicated thing with so many changeWe decided to kill PTS and integrate the value of PTS into BTS, and now you told us that you support the reborn PTS just as you support PLAY and MUSIC? Funny...
Please post a link to where we decided any such thing.
The concept of merging PTS and AGS was brought up as a proposal for discussion but the idea of such a merger did not reach consensus. The whole discussion lasted but a few days and the idea was abandoned, as many are after strongly opposing community input. Several other ideas were vigorously discussed.
After another week of consideration, the final official decision was to do a slightly unusual sharedrop on PTS/AGS as described in the October newsletter which documented that decision and explained our reasoning. We indicated at that time that PTS and AGS would remain unchanged by us and might have utility for third party developers. Our exact words were:"They also remain compelling demographics for third party developers to target in their share drops."
The net affect was that BM would henceforth be free to meet his duty to produce value for holders of PTS and AGS by focusing on growing BTS. That was the reason for honoring the PTS and AGS demographics who had acquired their positions with expectations of participating in all future BM efforts.
Meanwhile, BM has indicated a desire to make DevShares a test bed useful for a wide cross-section of DPOS developers. Hence, we chose to honor the wider group of demographics to maximize the number of people with a stake in its success.
This is the main essential purpose of a share drop. "Fairness" ends when a group gets their 10%. After that, it's all about maximizing the union of all relevant demographics.
:)
To give an example of how negative it is for our community that PTS continues existing, the chinese translation of the official newsletter has decided to completely censor this because they know how terrible PR it is that circumstances once again are going to change.
The new PTS is a competitor to the bitshares community itself. It's not like PLAY or MUSIC, it is like NXT. It should not gain any official recognition or support by bitshares delegates, just like NXT doesn't get this.
There's no evidence that PTS gives good PR to BTS. On the contrary it's pretty clear that it's a sore thumb that pisses off a lot of people in this community, and once again, shouldn't be recognized the same way NXT recognized.
Sharedropping DVS to PTS/AGS post-buyout was just a terrible idea that was obviously bad for bitshares and i wish the bitshares delegates in charge of that decision will assure the community bad decisions like that won't happen again.
Well said rune. It's pretty shocking to me that the devs still haven't realized just how bad of an idea sharedropping DVS to them really was. What can you do except vote against it I guess, but I doubt that'll have an impact at this point.
Sometimes it truly does feel like the devs don't have the full interests of BTS in mind...as matt608 put it, they're freelancing to help competitor chains -- PTS in this instance.
What a joke.
Anyway there's no reason to panic about this. PTS isn't a big deal, and I personally don't believe in the idea that separate DACS have any advantage (beyond DVS), so sharedrops will likely not mean much in the future. I guess the fact that DVS is the only viable separate DAC is why it's actually pretty damn annoying that PTS and AGS got DVS sharedropped.
Maybe we should demand that our delegates only use a new 100% BTS sharedropped testnet for testing. They do work for us after all. 3rd party devs are free to use whichever testnet they prefer then, the current PTS/AGS testnet already exists and won't go away.
Anyway there's no reason to panic about this. PTS isn't a big deal, and I personally don't believe in the idea that separate DACS have any advantage (beyond DVS), so sharedrops will likely not mean much in the future. I guess the fact that DVS is the only viable separate DAC is why it's actually pretty damn annoying that PTS and AGS got DVS sharedropped.
Maybe we should demand that our delegates only use a new 100% BTS sharedropped testnet for testing. They do work for us after all. 3rd party devs are free to use whichever testnet they prefer then, the current PTS/AGS testnet already exists and won't go away.
For the sake of the community , let's hope that devshares will not worth much .
Otherwise , I would expect worse heat from BTSer than the OP .
What a joke.
Anyway there's no reason to panic about this. PTS isn't a big deal, and I personally don't believe in the idea that separate DACS have any advantage (beyond DVS), so sharedrops will likely not mean much in the future. I guess the fact that DVS is the only viable separate DAC is why it's actually pretty damn annoying that PTS and AGS got DVS sharedropped.
Maybe we should demand that our delegates only use a new 100% BTS sharedropped testnet for testing. They do work for us after all. 3rd party devs are free to use whichever testnet they prefer then, the current PTS/AGS testnet already exists and won't go away.
For the sake of the community , let's hope that devshares will not worth much .
Otherwise , I would expect worse heat from BTSer than the OP .
Put the heat now and get the DVS allocated to BTS only. The network is not live yet, it hasn't been listed anywhere so a new genesis block can be created.
I strongly support dropping DVS on PTS, and I will downvote any delegate that rejects the PTS sharedrop.
Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2
If you are going to announce a DAC distribution for something you think the market will give a reasonable value, then you can be reasonably confident that a <$5 million DAC will respond positively to the news vs. a large DAC who's overall value may not move noticeably.
Devs can also acquire a larger % long term stake for less by share dropping on a lower stake coin.
Therefore it's very likely some developers will continue to sharedrop on DAC supportive lower CAP coins too. PTS will be the market leader in that price range as it has proven to be a market acceptable sharedrop token.
Maybe we should demand that our delegates only use a new 100% BTS sharedropped testnet for testing. They do work for us after all. 3rd party devs are free to use whichever testnet they prefer then, the current PTS/AGS testnet already exists and won't go away.
As I stated before the so called DPOS PTS snapshot , this blurry attitude from I3 towards PTS post 11.05 would turn into a PR problem . I just didn't see this problem come from the western side first . ( Hate to say I told you so , guys , but I did . )
And I've so busy with the network problem these few weeks , so I didn't really have time to keep track of the snapshot news for Devshares and missed the whole allocation issue .
As I stated before the so called DPOS PTS snapshot , this blurry attitude from I3 towards PTS post 11.05 would turn into a PR problem . I just didn't see this problem come from the western side first . ( Hate to say I told you so , guys , but I did . )
And I've so busy with the network problem these few weeks , so I didn't really have time to keep track of the snapshot news for Devshares and missed the whole allocation issue .
Is the chinese community also upset with PTS being included in the snapshots?
As I stated before the so called DPOS PTS snapshot , this blurry attitude from I3 towards PTS post 11.05 would turn into a PR problem . I just didn't see this problem come from the western side first . ( Hate to say I told you so , guys , but I did . )
And I've so busy with the network problem these few weeks , so I didn't really have time to keep track of the snapshot news for Devshares and missed the whole allocation issue .
Is the chinese community also upset with PTS being included in the snapshots?
of course , nearly everyone thought the 11.05 snapshot was the final one for all I3 related snapshots . (devshares is a I3 related snapshot by another name) .
I don't know what you guys think , maybe we're poor at English , but we did understanded 11.05 as the final snapshot for PTS , and there will be
no another day for that . Maybe you guys read the 11.05 and "final" differently in English ?
We're already late for 1.0 protocol and the "big thing" , and we're still wasting valuable time and peace for a PTS that was supposed to be dead .
If PTS is so good , why kill it in the first place ?
If I3 is really done with PTS , then why its people keep dancing around it ?
What's going on , guys ? Something I'm missing here ?
Well said rune. It's pretty shocking to me that the devs still haven't realized just how bad of an idea sharedropping DVS to them really was. What can you do except vote against it I guess, but I doubt that'll have an impact at this point.
Sometimes it truly does feel like the devs don't have the full interests of BTS in mind...as matt608 put it, they're freelancing to help competitor chains -- PTS in this instance.
What a joke.
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 :P
We're already late for 1.0 protocol and the "big thing" , and we're still wasting valuable time and peace for a PTS that was supposed to be dead .
If PTS is so good , why kill it in the first place ?
If I3 is really done with PTS , then why its people keep dancing around it ?
What's going on , guys ? Something I'm missing here ?
Calm down... :p
1.0 protocol (i.e. No more hardforks for 6 months) is hopefully on track to be ready by late jan/feb. At that point we can begin gateway integration, which we have many leads for and the marketers are ready to push. Advertising will begin in January with plans both for banner ads on TOR, reddit, CMC, coingecko and maybe some btc news sites. There's also plans for bitcointalk signature ads. There's also people working on finally making bitshares.org ready for new users.
This entire PTS/DVS issue I think is just a misguided attempt at damage control (since there was so much backlash when the merger first happened). I think I3 assumed the way it currently is would cause the least drama, but obviously they're wrong since BTS holders already paid to become the primary bitshares DAC. The DPOS PTS is not under the control of I3, they cannot possibly prevent it, so all we should focus on is to make sure it gets no official support. We as stakeholders can make enough noise about it and make sure it gets fixed, it's nothing to worry about in the long term.
Things are honestly looking pretty good for bitshares. With the recent addition of the faucet it is now finally easy to sign new users up, so after the holidays our marketers can begin to get the ball rolling. We're already seeing progress, in fact right now a bitshares post is on the frontpage of /r/bitcoin.
@arhag, they're rebranding to drop the BitShares at least, and changing the name possibly to protons but still keeping the PTS ticker.
http://pts.cubeconnex.com/index.php?topic=109.0
Bitsapphire runs the forum. alphabar PTS is here either due to to the majority being in favour of it or Bitsapphire being unaware of the new situation. Tell them to remove that subsection and see what happens; this is one topic for which BM can't be faulted for.
If you are going to announce a DAC distribution for something you think the market will give a reasonable value, then you can be reasonably confident that a <$5 million DAC will respond positively to the news vs. a large DAC who's overall value may not move noticeably.
Devs can also acquire a larger % long term stake for less by share dropping on a lower stake coin.
Therefore it's very likely some developers will continue to sharedrop on DAC supportive lower CAP coins too. PTS will be the market leader in that price range as it has proven to be a market acceptable sharedrop token.
This is true. But it's basically arguing that because PTS is easily manipulated, it's a good sharedrop target becasue Devs can sneak in a higher allocation to themselves using the insider info about the drop. If the investor population was educated about this, dropping on PTS would be seen as blatent manipulation and a dishonest move. As you say BTS price is less effected by sharedrop announcements so it forces dev honesty in terms of how much they will get themselves.
The bigger the market cap, the less important the insider info is. In future drops devs wont be able to get away with low market cap drops without having to undergo the scrutiny of why they chose to drop on a coin so easily manipulated.Maybe we should demand that our delegates only use a new 100% BTS sharedropped testnet for testing. They do work for us after all. 3rd party devs are free to use whichever testnet they prefer then, the current PTS/AGS testnet already exists and won't go away.
+5%
And agreed with politeness + not being pitch forky.
Disagreements must be encouraged to be shared and discussed, in order to prevent centralisation in thinking. We are the roots of the BitShares tree, we must extend out far in different directions to build a firm foundation for healthy growth, dependency on any leaders is a weakness. Diversity within an ecosystem is strength. We don't want to create competing DACs, but we do want ideas to compete within BTS.
The jury is also still out on whether people want an all bells and whistles blockchain to store value or just a robust BitAsset focused, limited changes blockchain backed by a no inflation crypto-currency. In which case PTS may mainly just need to add BitAssets in the future.
The jury is also still out on whether people want an all bells and whistles blockchain to store value or just a robust BitAsset focused, limited changes blockchain backed by a no inflation crypto-currency. In which case PTS may mainly just need to add BitAssets in the future.
Well look at that. First, DPOS PTS is just an update to the POW PTS, nothing more. Then we are just interested in it because it is a non-inflationary store of value (but still gets to benefit off the technological development of BitShares paid for by dilution of BTS). And, now there is talks of perhaps adding BitAssets as well?
Your post perfectly shows what happens when we fork the community into a different token. No matter what people claim, human greed will always cause us to compete with one another. It is inevitable. People need to realize this and not just assume that PTS will aspire to nothing more than a small non-threatening sharedrop token that provides advertising for BitShares. Same goes for Sparkle by the way.
The jury is also still out on whether people want an all bells and whistles blockchain to store value or just a robust BitAsset focused, limited changes blockchain backed by a no inflation crypto-currency. In which case PTS may mainly just need to add BitAssets in the future.
Well look at that. First, DPOS PTS is just an update to the POW PTS, nothing more. Then we are just interested in it because it is a non-inflationary store of value (but still gets to benefit off the technological development of BitShares paid for by dilution of BTS). And, now there is talks of perhaps adding BitAssets as well?
Your post perfectly shows what happens when we fork the community into a different token. No matter what people claim, human greed will always cause us to compete with one another. It is inevitable. People need to realize this and not just assume that PTS will aspire to nothing more than a small non-threatening sharedrop token that provides advertising for BitShares. Same goes for Sparkle by the way.
This is getting nuts. I am starting to doubt my investment.
Bitshares has already cornered the bitasset market. We have 1 million bitUSD and decent liquidity. There is zero chance PTS will be able to threaten us in this area.
Would be funny, aye?
1) Inflate BTS and give PTS free shares
2) Let them use the toolkit for free (even though it was AGS funds which paid for it)
3) Give them space on the forum so that they can attract the new users who have heard of BTS
4) Include them in the newsletter and give them further publicity
5) Award them 33% of Devshares, which may suck some value out of BTS
6) Dilute BTS for R&D and let PTS enjoy the results for free
This is getting nuts. I am starting to doubt my investment.
Bitshares has already cornered the bitasset market. We have 1 million bitUSD and decent liquidity. There is zero chance PTS will be able to threaten us in this area. Their lack inflation means they have no means to advertise the products to real users, and they will only ever appeal to investors who think there's a bigger chance it will get sharedropped on than BTS (which admittedly our own developers have now set a really bad precedent for - but we will be able to fix that easily).
Once we start getting gateways after 1.0 you'll see there's no chance they will catch up as a trading DAC.
QuoteThis is getting nuts. I am starting to doubt my investment.
You are not the only one...This community used to be united...We used to have one goal and now we start dividing and competing... We have lost many early supporters and we create confusions all the time to new and old investors...
We better do something about that quickly or else we WILL become like the rest of the shitcoins out there and once we go down that road and get stigmatised like another coin that got pumped for 1 week after 1 year of waiting and dumped thereafter, then there is no coming back no matter how great BTS could have been...
Now this is the time to start building confidence again people...
Then we make a thread demanding that bitshares delegates only test on a BTS-sharedrop-only testnet.
We can also ask for the official newsletter not to mention PTS (like the Chinese already did) and ask for the PTS forum to be removed.
+5%QuoteThis is getting nuts. I am starting to doubt my investment.
You are not the only one...This community used to be united...We used to have one goal and now we start dividing and competing... We have lost many early supporters and we create confusions all the time to new and old investors...
We better do something about that quickly or else we WILL become like the rest of the shitcoins out there and once we go down that road and get stigmatised like another coin that got pumped for 1 week after 1 year of waiting and dumped thereafter, then there is no coming back no matter how great BTS could have been...
Now this is the time to start building confidence again people...
Just wait 2-3 days and let the developers take some time off from the heat. Then we make a thread demanding that bitshares delegates only test on a BTS-sharedrop-only testnet. We can also ask for the official newsletter not to mention PTS (like the Chinese already did) and ask for the PTS forum to be removed. This situation can easily be fixed and isn't a big deal, there's no need to panic.
I think the underlying reason why people are freaking out in this thread has nothing to do with PTS, but is caused by frustration with the lack of marketing and low market cap.
The situation with PTS can easily be solved. The developers will listen to us, their stakeholders, just like they have always done.
Marketing will start in January, and it's gonna be good. EUR and USD Gateways will be coming too.
Don't panic.
Then we make a thread demanding that bitshares delegates only test on a BTS-sharedrop-only testnet.
Thats not going to help unless BM indicates any intention of moving to the BTS only testnet. If he wants he can simply create a new genesis block for DVS right now.We can also ask for the official newsletter not to mention PTS (like the Chinese already did) and ask for the PTS forum to be removed.
Newsletter is Stan's and so far he has been singing paeans for alphabar PTS. Of course, he will change his stance as soon as we can convince BM, so that should be our priority.
Removal from the forum should be the easiest as its run by Bitsapphire. Everybody message them, or get a thread in Meta.
+5%QuoteThis is getting nuts. I am starting to doubt my investment.
You are not the only one...This community used to be united...We used to have one goal and now we start dividing and competing... We have lost many early supporters and we create confusions all the time to new and old investors...
We better do something about that quickly or else we WILL become like the rest of the shitcoins out there and once we go down that road and get stigmatised like another coin that got pumped for 1 week after 1 year of waiting and dumped thereafter, then there is no coming back no matter how great BTS could have been...
Now this is the time to start building confidence again people...
Just wait 2-3 days and let the developers take some time off from the heat. Then we make a thread demanding that bitshares delegates only test on a BTS-sharedrop-only testnet. We can also ask for the official newsletter not to mention PTS (like the Chinese already did) and ask for the PTS forum to be removed. This situation can easily be fixed and isn't a big deal, there's no need to panic.
I think the underlying reason why people are freaking out in this thread has nothing to do with PTS, but is caused by frustration with the lack of marketing and low market cap.
The situation with PTS can easily be solved. The developers will listen to us, their stakeholders, just like they have always done.
Marketing will start in January, and it's gonna be good. EUR and USD Gateways will be coming too.
Don't panic.
However I do hope that decisions like PTS censorship will be voted for on the blockchain. And not just by the guys who are active on this forum.
I seriously don't understand what all the fuzz is about. PTS is the first (crypto) share drop token (created by III) and pretty damn effective at it. If anything the PTS succes, should be a motivation for BTS holders.
@arhag, they're rebranding to drop the BitShares at least, and changing the name possibly to protons but still keeping the PTS ticker.
http://pts.cubeconnex.com/index.php?topic=109.0
That's good. I will give them credit for that. And they have their own forum too.Bitsapphire runs the forum. alphabar PTS is here either due to to the majority being in favour of it or Bitsapphire being unaware of the new situation. Tell them to remove that subsection and see what happens; this is one topic for which BM can't be faulted for.
That's fair. I don't blame bytemaster for that part. And since they have their own forum, I think it would be appropriate for us to put the the BitShares PTS subsection into the graveyard (with an "(Obsolete)" next to it), post a sticky post pointing them to the new forum, and lock down that subsection.
Would be funny, aye?
1) Inflate BTS and give PTS free shares
2) Let them use the toolkit for free (even though it was AGS funds which paid for it)
3) Give them space on the forum so that they can attract the new users who have heard of BTS
4) Include them in the newsletter and give them further publicity
5) Award them 33% of Devshares, which may suck some value out of BTS
6) Dilute BTS for R&D and let PTS enjoy the results for free
One of the worst things is that with Bitshares 1.0 release coming out, there will be a big marketing and advertising push for the first time. People will be searching for Bitshare related news and info and one of the thing that will be showing up is Bitshares PTS, a DAC that has nothing to do with Bitshares! They'll be getting free exposure by continuing to use fraudulently use the Bitshares name!
Stan makes the statement "The concept of merging PTS and AGS was brought up as a proposal for discussion but the idea of such a merger did not reach consensus. The whole discussion lasted but a few days and the idea was abandoned, as many are after strongly opposing community input." so maybe he can show me where the community consented to having Alphabar...
1) Use the existing Bitshares PTS brand for a project of his own unrelated undertaking?
2) Claim the right to DAC (created from Bitshares toolkit no less) sharedrops from BTS?
3) Be GIVEN %33 DEVSHARES SHAREDROP, further legitimizing his claim of being the preferred sharedrop instrument for all future DAC's?
All of this leaves a very bad taste in my and many others mouths, the fact that the Chinese redacted it from the latest newsletter says that they fear their readers would not react well to it either. I wholeheartedly endorse any effort to start voting out delegates who don't switch to a %100 BTS sharedropped Devshares fork.
One of the worst things is that with Bitshares 1.0 release coming out, there will be a big marketing and advertising push for the first time. People will be searching for Bitshare related news and info and one of the thing that will be showing up is Bitshares PTS, a DAC that has nothing to do with Bitshares! They'll be getting free exposure by continuing to use fraudulently use the Bitshares name!
Stan makes the statement "The concept of merging PTS and AGS was brought up as a proposal for discussion but the idea of such a merger did not reach consensus. The whole discussion lasted but a few days and the idea was abandoned, as many are after strongly opposing community input." so maybe he can show me where the community consented to having Alphabar...
1) Use the existing Bitshares PTS brand for a project of his own unrelated undertaking?
2) Claim the right to DAC (created from Bitshares toolkit no less) sharedrops from BTS?
3) Be GIVEN %33 DEVSHARES SHAREDROP, further legitimizing his claim of being the preferred sharedrop instrument for all future DAC's?
All of this leaves a very bad taste in my and many others mouths, the fact that the Chinese redacted it from the latest newsletter says that they fear their readers would not react well to it either. I wholeheartedly endorse any effort to start voting out delegates who don't switch to a %100 BTS sharedropped Devshares fork.
+5%QuoteThis is getting nuts. I am starting to doubt my investment.
You are not the only one...This community used to be united...We used to have one goal and now we start dividing and competing... We have lost many early supporters and we create confusions all the time to new and old investors...
We better do something about that quickly or else we WILL become like the rest of the shitcoins out there and once we go down that road and get stigmatised like another coin that got pumped for 1 week after 1 year of waiting and dumped thereafter, then there is no coming back no matter how great BTS could have been...
Now this is the time to start building confidence again people...
Just wait 2-3 days and let the developers take some time off from the heat. Then we make a thread demanding that bitshares delegates only test on a BTS-sharedrop-only testnet. We can also ask for the official newsletter not to mention PTS (like the Chinese already did) and ask for the PTS forum to be removed. This situation can easily be fixed and isn't a big deal, there's no need to panic.
I think the underlying reason why people are freaking out in this thread has nothing to do with PTS, but is caused by frustration with the lack of marketing and low market cap.
The situation with PTS can easily be solved. The developers will listen to us, their stakeholders, just like they have always done.
Marketing will start in January, and it's gonna be good. EUR and USD Gateways will be coming too.
Don't panic.
However I do hope that decisions like PTS censorship will be voted for on the blockchain. And not just by the guys who are active on this forum.
I seriously don't understand what all the fuzz is about. PTS is the first (crypto) share drop token (created by III) and pretty damn effective at it. If anything the PTS succes, should be a motivation for BTS holders.
+5% for deciding things on the blockchain not just loud forum voices.
Actually the devshares sharedrop was computed from the old PTS.
We literally didn't even think about alphabar's PTS. So that's that. IDK if it should be "fixed"?
One of the worst things is that with Bitshares 1.0 release coming out, there will be a big marketing and advertising push for the first time. People will be searching for Bitshare related news and info and one of the thing that will be showing up is Bitshares PTS, a DAC that has nothing to do with Bitshares! They'll be getting free exposure by continuing to use fraudulently use the Bitshares name!
Stan makes the statement "The concept of merging PTS and AGS was brought up as a proposal for discussion but the idea of such a merger did not reach consensus. The whole discussion lasted but a few days and the idea was abandoned, as many are after strongly opposing community input." so maybe he can show me where the community consented to having Alphabar...
1) Use the existing Bitshares PTS brand for a project of his own unrelated undertaking?
2) Claim the right to DAC (created from Bitshares toolkit no less) sharedrops from BTS?
3) Be GIVEN %33 DEVSHARES SHAREDROP, further legitimizing his claim of being the preferred sharedrop instrument for all future DAC's?
All of this leaves a very bad taste in my and many others mouths, the fact that the Chinese redacted it from the latest newsletter says that they fear their readers would not react well to it either. I wholeheartedly endorse any effort to start voting out delegates who don't switch to a %100 BTS sharedropped Devshares fork.
Actually the devshares sharedrop was computed from the old PTS.
We literally didn't even think about alphabar's PTS. So that's that. IDK if it should be "fixed"?
For all practical purposes those 'old' PTS are the same as the new alphabar's PTS, as this is the exact time of alphabar's PTS genesis block as well. Meaning it would have made now difference if you used their genesis block.
...I don't care and I think it's stupid.
...I don't care and I think it's stupid.
Great, so a core BTS dev thinks the concerns of its shareholders are stupid. Good to know.
...I don't care and I think it's stupid.
Great, so a core BTS dev thinks the concerns of its shareholders are stupid. Good to know.
...I don't care and I think it's stupid.
Great, so a core BTS dev thinks the concerns of its shareholders are stupid. Good to know.
I care about BTS, not about PTS. None of the core devs read discussions about PTS anymore, isn't that what you'd expect once are incentives are folded into BTS?
...I don't care and I think it's stupid.
Great, so a core BTS dev thinks the concerns of its shareholders are stupid. Good to know.
I care about BTS, not about PTS. None of the core devs read discussions about PTS anymore, isn't that what you'd expect once are incentives are folded into BTS?
You don't care about PTS, yet you sharedropped 33% of DVS on alphabar PTS?
Toast, for some reason I feel that your argument for 100% Dan allocation is rhetorical, as in you're trying to prove a point by saying that. I'm not sure what the point is, however. Obviously having a test net controlled by a single user is not useful.
On the whole, I'm disappointed with the direction that DevShares is being taken. Namely, the "no rules" premise behind DevShares amputates its value proposition, and is at odds with the intention for it to have a non-zero value. It will be an interesting experiment for sure. I think engineering a real backbone to its value should not be too difficult, but this does not seem to be the intention of any of the Devs besides theoritical (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=12402.0).
I think a choice has to be made: Is DevShares a DAC, or is it a test-net?
Why would anyone want to purchase DevShares?
Namely, the "no rules" premise behind DevShares amputates its value propositionGood!
and is at odds with the intention for it to have a non-zero value.No it's not, the only requirement for this is that an exchange lists it and that there is more than 1 order on each side of the book.
It's dangerous and irresponsible for us to make people feel like their DVS is worth holding on to.
Why would anyone want to purchase DevShares?
It's dangerous and irresponsible for us to make people feel like their DVS is worth holding on to.Why would anyone want to purchase DevShares?
It may be useful for DevShares to limit the total supply to something very low like 5000, to avoid facing the impossibility of trading at sub-satoshi levels.
Why would anyone want to purchase DevShares?
It's dangerous and irresponsible for us to make people feel like their DVS is worth holding on to.Why would anyone want to purchase DevShares?
It may be useful for DevShares to limit the total supply to something very low like 5000, to avoid facing the impossibility of trading at sub-satoshi levels.
What you're really saying is precision needs to be higher (we weren't close to the limit even at 2bn). Unfortunately we already launched, maybe we will need to reset or maybe there will just be a price floor at ~$10k market cap =P
DVS has to be relaunched with a 100% sharedrop to BTS anyway, unless you want to see our market cap evaporate from the torrents of FUD the current distribution will generate in the Chinese community once they find out.
Anyway it's a natural right for a stakeholder in a DAC to demand that delegates they fund use only a testnet that was sharedropped to them, without any donations to third parties. If it becomes apparent that our delegates do not serve the stakeholders then our community will lose all credibility.
DVS has to be relaunched with a 100% sharedrop to BTS anyway, unless you want to see our market cap evaporate from the torrents of FUD the current distribution will generate in the Chinese community once they find out.
Anyway it's a natural right for a stakeholder in a DAC to demand that delegates they fund use only a testnet that was sharedropped to them, without any donations to third parties. If it becomes apparent that our delegates do not serve the stakeholders then our community will lose all credibility.
The Chinese community is informed and well aware of the Devshares distribution but they are not creating FUD.
There is much to learn from this thread. When one does not get what he/she wants, the recipe to turn things into their favour is:
1) create lots of noise - claiming 'unfair, 'suffered', 'wronged'
2) create fear - not many are following the events, they are easy targets
3) create uncertainties - not many are following the events, they are easy targets
4) create sourness and actively make sure it spreads
5) rally those influenced to go against the established
6) create more noise
7) repeat step 1 to 7
8_) still not getting what you want? - make a demand
9) make a stronger demand
10) rally more people (get those influenced to go against the established)
11) repeat step 9 to 10
12) still not getting what you want? - create a threat
13) make a stronger threat
14) make a even stronger threatening threat
15) rally more people (get those influenced to go against the established)
16) repeat step 12 to 15
17) more to be discovered.. stay tuned
18) repeat recipe until BM and/or Stan and/or the devs give in
BM wants to use bitshares as a tool to free people from politics. An admirable goal but I am not sure how that can be achieved.
12) still not getting what you want? - create a threat
I strongly support dropping DVS on PTS, and I will downvote any delegate that rejects the PTS sharedrop.
Why would anyone want to purchase DevShares?
actually , many Chinese thought devshares snapshot is based on 11.05 snapshot , including me and many other people who are good at finding information . Many of them are still confused . We can't see a reaction now because many of them still don't know . And I'm not even sure what I
should tell them , because 11.05 was the final one , that was the cold hard social consensus when BTC38 delisted PTS .
It's like a no brainer , when BM say AGS/PTS/BTS snapshot at 12.14 , people will automatically come to the conclusion :
AGS uses 7.18 snapshot , BTS uses 12.14 snapshot , PTS uses 11.05 snapshot .
Why would people think DEV used 11.05 snapshot for PTS ? I don't think you need to ask that question after BTC38 delisted PTS after 11.05 , right ? I don't think you need to ask that question when people sold PTS at 2 CNY right after 11.05 , right ?
Are we all mistaken what's the true meaning of 11.05 snapshot ? Maybe , but if people like me are mistaken , how would you expect from the common users who know nothing about what's going behind the scene ? Will we in the future see more statements like "I didn't mean that , you are mistaken ? "
How many times can we endure to do changes after the facts like this ? 11.05 snapshot was the final one , at least before Alphabar made his case and changed the whole dynamic . But that doesn't mean the 11.05 was not intended to be the final one , because , let's face it , it did .
Personally , I don't really care the value of devshares , I don't think many people do . I don't really have an opinion what the dev's should do . I'm just telling you what people are gonna say .
actually , many Chinese thought devshares snapshot is based on 11.05 snapshot , including me and many other people who are good at finding information . Many of them are still confused . We can't see a reaction now because many of them still don't know . And I'm not even sure what I
should tell them , because 11.05 was the final one , that was the cold hard social consensus when BTC38 delisted PTS .
It's like a no brainer , when BM say AGS/PTS/BTS snapshot at 12.14 , people will automatically come to the conclusion :
AGS uses 7.18 snapshot , BTS uses 12.14 snapshot , PTS uses 11.05 snapshot .
Why would people think DEV used 11.05 snapshot for PTS ? I don't think you need to ask that question after BTC38 delisted PTS after 11.05 , right ? I don't think you need to ask that question when people sold PTS at 2 CNY right after 11.05 , right ?
Are we all mistaken what's the true meaning of 11.05 snapshot ? Maybe , but if people like me are mistaken , how would you expect from the common users who know nothing about what's going behind the scene ? Will we in the future see more statements like "I didn't mean that , you are mistaken ? "
How many times can we endure to do changes after the facts like this ? 11.05 snapshot was the final one , at least before Alphabar made his case and changed the whole dynamic . But that doesn't mean the 11.05 was not intended to be the final one , because , let's face it , it did .
Personally , I don't really care the value of devshares , I don't think many people do . I don't really have an opinion what the dev's should do . I'm just telling you what people are gonna say .
Why would anyone want to purchase DevShares?
I answered this. It's to run tests, that's it. That's the stated function.
When any developer considers whether she should sharedrop on PTS, she must naturally ask who best represents the PTS demographic - the people who dumped them or the people who bought them up? If PTS represents the "Hold On for Dear Life" (HODL) demographic, then all dumpers have clearly and voluntarily resigned from that category. On the other hand, those who bought under such uncertainty are a truly special demographic. Why would any developer choose to honor old dumpers rather than new HODLers?
A divided community will not last.
Stan .......
I hate to break this to you .
But in this case , there was no misunderstanding .
If you bother to spend 3 minutes like I just did to look for stuff , you'll see I'm right at 100% . (send me a PM if you can't see that in a day )
I was actually starting to doubt my understanding skills and language skills , then , I found that .
I can live with changes , I can live with hard choices , but this wasn't that hard to begin with , just a neglect .
You guys simply forgot what you've said on record before making the allocation for devshares . That's OK , just own your mistakes . People will understand . But they can't understand that you turn this into their own problem and accuse them being not seeing the truth .
Stan .......
I hate to break this to you .
But in this case , there was no misunderstanding .
If you bother to spend 3 minutes like I just did to look for stuff , you'll see I'm right at 100% . (send me a PM if you can't see that in a day )
I was actually starting to doubt my understanding skills and language skills , then , I found that .
I can live with changes , I can live with hard choices , but this wasn't that hard to begin with , just a neglect .
You guys simply forgot what you've said on record before making the allocation for devshares . That's OK , just own your mistakes . People will understand . But they can't understand that you turn this into their own problem and accuse them being not seeing the truth .
I appreciate your efforts.
Please post links to what you are talking about.
Lets see if we can get to the source of what is causing this misunderstanding.
:)
Stan .......
I hate to break this to you .
But in this case , there was no misunderstanding .
If you bother to spend 3 minutes like I just did to look for stuff , you'll see I'm right at 100% . (send me a PM if you can't see that in a day )
I was actually starting to doubt my understanding skills and language skills , then , I found that .
I can live with changes , I can live with hard choices , but this wasn't that hard to begin with , just a neglect .
You guys simply forgot what you've said on record before making the allocation for devshares . That's OK , just own your mistakes . People will understand . But they can't understand that you turn this into their own problem and accuse them being not seeing the truth .
I appreciate your efforts.
Please post links to what you are talking about.
Lets see if we can get to the source of what is causing this misunderstanding.
:)
Finally.Stan .......
I hate to break this to you .
But in this case , there was no misunderstanding .
If you bother to spend 3 minutes like I just did to look for stuff , you'll see I'm right at 100% . (send me a PM if you can't see that in a day )
I was actually starting to doubt my understanding skills and language skills , then , I found that .
I can live with changes , I can live with hard choices , but this wasn't that hard to begin with , just a neglect .
You guys simply forgot what you've said on record before making the allocation for devshares . That's OK , just own your mistakes . People will understand . But they can't understand that you turn this into their own problem and accuse them being not seeing the truth .
I appreciate your efforts.
Please post links to what you are talking about.
Lets see if we can get to the source of what is causing this misunderstanding.
:)
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10608.0 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10608.0)
The bottom section of the OP , specifically talked about the significance of 11.05 snapshot for devshares .
of course , since the title is with the word "draft" , and this issue of devshares and I3 related snapshots never brought up in the newsletter later , you can claim that thread is just random mumbling ....
properly, properly
Totally, worth it forgetting the promise to care about BTS interests only and the fact that you will no longer honor PTS.
properly, properly
properly, properly
Totally, worth it forgetting the promise to care about BTS interests only and the fact that you will no longer honor PTS.
properly, properly
Please post links to the promises you seem to remember and we'll analyze them together.
I know of no promise not to honor PTS when it is useful to do so. We could just as easily decide one day to honor ethereum or doge if that helped achieve some strategic objective.
With the BTS sharedrop, BM wanted to make sure that all holders of AGS and PTS were treated fairly if he focused his energies on building that product. That does not preclude reaching out to form strategic alliances with other groups. It does not preclude doing things that continue to build up the ecosystem in which BTS lives. We have always taken a very broad and generous view of letting a thousand roses bloom in the BitShares ecosystem. We have indicated an intention to aggressively engage in friendly competition but that does not imply we will not cooperate with other developers as well. Cooperation is actually preferable, when possible.
With the DevShares sharedrop, BM wants a widely used test network that will attract others to experiment and infuse technologies into BTS. Therefore a wide distribution of free samples to draw in new developers is consistent with his interest in growing the value of BTS, which benefits from having DevShares widely used. Cross promotions with other chains is also consistent with that focus.
We arent mad about this because of the value ofthe sharedrop.
We are mad because of the PRECEDENT it demonstrates, in regards to future sharedrops, which WILL have value.
This sharedrop should be 100% BTS, no fucking shares at all to PTS or AGS because we bought them out.
Any other allocation and I am upset.
We arent mad about this because of the value ofthe sharedrop.
We are mad because of the PRECEDENT it demonstrates, in regards to future sharedrops, which WILL have value.
This sharedrop should be 100% BTS, no fucking shares at all to PTS or AGS because we bought them out.
Any other allocation and I am upset.
We arent mad about this because of the value ofthe sharedrop.
We are mad because of the PRECEDENT it demonstrates, in regards to future sharedrops, which WILL have value.
This sharedrop should be 100% BTS, no fucking shares at all to PTS or AGS because we bought them out.
Any other allocation and I am upset.
Actually IIRC the purpose of the merger was to buy *BM* out, not AGS/PTS. Also, it seems like PLAY, RPC, etc are all deciding to honor AGS/PTS anyway despite what BM said.
What you're saying is that I3 *failed to kill the old social consensus*. How is that their fault?
..
* The reason that 11/05 was going to be the last "official" (non-3rd party) snapshot is because there will be no future "official" snapshots. Neither Dan or Stan ever
..
We arent mad about this because of the value ofthe sharedrop.
We are mad because of the PRECEDENT it demonstrates, in regards to future sharedrops, which WILL have value.
This sharedrop should be 100% BTS, no fucking shares at all to PTS or AGS because we bought them out.
Any other allocation and I am upset.
Actually IIRC the purpose of the merger was to buy *BM* out, not AGS/PTS. Also, it seems like PLAY, RPC, etc are all deciding to honor AGS/PTS anyway despite what BM said.
What you're saying is that I3 *failed to kill the old social consensus*. How is that their fault?
The bold is what has pissed me off more than anything and nobody mentions this:
BM basically held BTSX hostage. Apparently the shit load of money he/they raised through AGS and the money they have subsequently earned through BTSX wasn't enough to keep BM on board and see the project through. Satoshi gave 2 years before walking and he never took a fucking cent. So I suppose it was quite acceptable to believe we, the shareholders, would get a similar effort and output for the money they "donated".
I suspect that BM is friends with the VOTE guys from before BitShares was ever branded. Either that or he was duped by another salesman a la Brian Page. In the beginning VOTE was just another DAC that would develop on its own using what BM already developed, the BitShares Toolkit. VOTE chose their share allocation and were quite greedy in the amounts they would keep for themselves versus what PTS/AGS would get. No one really cared because VOTE really never had or has any real potential to be a monster DAC. Over beers one night BM was sold on all the shit FMV is doing and that they have their reach so far into California that the sky is the limit. With AGS funds gone, BM bought into their hype and decided he should be working for FMV's VOTE because they will pay him more in the future, and it's a guarantee that FMV can deliver California. BM struggling over whether or not he should pull a FreeTrade and jump ship and get a bigger future payday, or to continue working for the people who's funds he took and which have been all sucked dry, he came up with the hype that merging the two and diluting is the best scenario for all. No one seemed to question why it would be ok for him to abandon "His" (don't give me some DACsun bullshit either) project to make a better competitor? That would be like Google hiring you to develop a program that could risk asses housing insurance through google maps and satellite and public databases then half way through the project you decide to take everything you were paid by Google to do, over to Microsoft and finish building. Now obviously in the real world their are non-compete and non-disclosure agreements, but we don't have that. Remember: this is all speculation and I have no clue if it is true. I only suspect because we still have no real picture of what the killer monster DAC that only could be achieved through VOTE is or will be. We have also discovered that FMV doesn't answer questions and that FMV is a small fish that just leapt into a Pacific Ocean they thought was a backyard kiddie pool. FMV is a warm fuzzy good idea with no real world way to pierce through to the people and to the levels it needs to reach. The lack of feedback from their recent trip and the nonchalant attitude towards VoteCal (wasn't what was going on in CA part of the big hype for VOTE?) confirms this in my mind.
..
* The reason that 11/05 was going to be the last "official" (non-3rd party) snapshot is because there will be no future "official" snapshots. Neither Dan or Stan ever
..
To be precise, and to avoid further miscommunication,
"The reason that 11/05 was suggested/proposed/drafted going to be .. snapshot ...". I3 (or ex-I3) eventually decided to go with Dec-14 snapshot for Devshare.
... BTSX is now rebranded as just 'Bitshares' (BTS) and Invictus (the "company" that created the Bitshares software) is now disbanded. The original core developers are still working hard on BTS, but are now employed by the blockchain rather than a centralized corporate entity (this was done for obvious reasons). The new Bitshares uses an inflationary protocol that enables delegates to be paid for supporting the network in ways other that just block production. This new funding model enables the currency to incentivize rapid development and innovation. So, we are left with both BTS and PTS. These two tokens are not direct competitors, and are rather symbiotic for at least the following reasons:
* Both tokens promote DPoS as the most secure, innovative, and efficient consensus algorithm in the world.
* BTSX was sharedropped 50% to PTS and thus represents a largely overlapping demographic.
* They use slightly different implementations of DPoS. BTS uses targeted inflation to raise funds for development/etc, while PTS is deflationary. In PTS, a delegate with a 100% pay rate receives 100% of the fees in the blocks that they produce. A 0% pay rate would simply burn those fees, thus reducing the supply and increasing the value of everyone else's shares.
* BTS is a true 'DAC' (distributed autonomous corporation), and is designed to rapidly evolve and to disrupt a variety of industries (DNS, Vote, Banking/Exchange, etc). BTS is the Ferrari of crypto-currencies and has cutting edge features found in no other coin.
* PTS is a stable 'currency-DAC' and sharedrop token. It is designed primarily to provide a stable unit of account with fair distribution, and to be a launching pad for feature-specific DACs (some of which may compete directly or indirectly with BTS). PTS is a reference implementation of DPoS and is the original and preferred sharedrop token. It cannot and will not compete with BTS on specific features or within specific industries. Rather, PTS is an investment in the protocol and the ecosystem of future BitShares DACs.
I think at this point most people realize that the crypto wars will not result in a single consolidated token used by every person and for every application. Rather, as Andreas puts it, there will likely be a few or a handful of tokens that take a majority of the marketshare. The rest will make up a long tail of tokens directed towards increasingly niche applications. If you believe this to be true, then it stands that both BTS and PTS can be enormously successful without competing directly for market share.
Why would anyone want to purchase DevShares?
I answered this. It's to run tests, that's it. That's the stated function.
The people who will buy DVS to run tests will be BTS delegates, using diluted funds paid by BTS holders ONLY. Unless DVS is sharedropped only to BTS holders, it will have a secondary function as a wealth transfer from BTS owners to AGS/PTS owners for absolutely no logical reason. Even if the price ends up being vanishingly small it's an issue of respect that will stay with the community.
I'm pretty sure most in the Chinese community haven't realized DVS will have real value and be listed on exchanges yet. Once it's listed and gets a market cap, the amount of the involuntary donation from BTS to PTS/AGS will be observable as 66% of that market cap. I think it's a situation we should avoid if we want to ensure the community doesn't get even more disillusioned before we even have a chance to begin marketing.
The people who will buy DVS to run tests will be BTS delegates, using diluted funds paid by BTS holders ONLY. Unless DVS is sharedropped only to BTS holders, it will have a secondary function as a wealth transfer from BTS owners to AGS/PTS owners for absolutely no logical reason. Even if the price ends up being vanishingly small it's an issue of respect that will stay with the community.
We arent mad about this because of the value ofthe sharedrop.
We are mad because of the PRECEDENT it demonstrates, in regards to future sharedrops, which WILL have value.
This sharedrop should be 100% BTS, no fucking shares at all to PTS or AGS because we bought them out.
Any other allocation and I am upset.
Actually IIRC the purpose of the merger was to buy *BM* out, not AGS/PTS. Also, it seems like PLAY, RPC, etc are all deciding to honor AGS/PTS anyway despite what BM said.
What you're saying is that I3 *failed to kill the old social consensus*. How is that their fault?
We arent mad about this because of the value ofthe sharedrop.
We are mad because of the PRECEDENT it demonstrates, in regards to future sharedrops, which WILL have value.
This sharedrop should be 100% BTS, no fucking shares at all to PTS or AGS because we bought them out.
Any other allocation and I am upset.
Agreed. PTS and AGS were gone. It is a questionable precedent. After this one, let's all get together and hammer out a new social consensus.
We arent mad about this because of the value ofthe sharedrop.
We are mad because of the PRECEDENT it demonstrates, in regards to future sharedrops, which WILL have value.
This sharedrop should be 100% BTS, no fucking shares at all to PTS or AGS because we bought them out.
Any other allocation and I am upset.
Actually IIRC the purpose of the merger was to buy *BM* out, not AGS/PTS. Also, it seems like PLAY, RPC, etc are all deciding to honor AGS/PTS anyway despite what BM said.
What you're saying is that I3 *failed to kill the old social consensus*. How is that their fault?
I disagree. The purpose of the merger was two fold:
1) to focus our project efforts by buying out DNS and Vote.
2) to streamline (and to make less confusing ) our business and market image by consolodatin the multiple investment vehicals for future BTS(X) products -(BTSX/AGS/PTS) into just one... BTS. Therefore the share inflation that was used to pay AGS/PTS represented the present value of all future investment gains. This is how we liquidated our responsibility to the two original/ privaleged investment groups -(AGS/PTS). As of 11/5 there is no more social consensus requirement to drop to AGS/PTS. However the share inflation paid to PTS & AGS created a new social consensus to do 100% of future drops to BTS.
We arent mad about this because of the value ofthe sharedrop.
We are mad because of the PRECEDENT it demonstrates, in regards to future sharedrops, which WILL have value.
This sharedrop should be 100% BTS, no fucking shares at all to PTS or AGS because we bought them out.
Any other allocation and I am upset.
Agreed. PTS and AGS were gone. It is a questionable precedent. After this one, let's all get together and hammer out a new social consensus.
There was merger of BTSX+AGS+PTS+DNS+VOTE into a single DAC called BTS .
The biggest news is that we will be combining BitShares X, DNS, and VOTE into a single powerful product to be known simply as BitShares (BTS).
The social consensus continues to exist for 3rd party DACs.
Any dev can sharedrop on any coin. Being prick to those who prefer to honor dpos coins will just push them to honor communities who they feel will be more thankful. What are you going to do when they start doing this? Sue them?
Either work to make your chosen dpos coin shine above all others, invest in all of them and be lazy knowing one of them will pay future dividends or stop whining. Those are the options. Literally.
We arent mad about this because of the value ofthe sharedrop.
We are mad because of the PRECEDENT it demonstrates, in regards to future sharedrops, which WILL have value.
This sharedrop should be 100% BTS, no fucking shares at all to PTS or AGS because we bought them out.
Any other allocation and I am upset.
Agreed. PTS and AGS were gone. It is a questionable precedent. After this one, let's all get together and hammer out a new social consensus.
I invested real BTC (price was over 700USD) in AGS after BTSX snapshot because I believed in DAC concept. I didn't received any BTS. Without those investment there will be no BTS. So basically you want to push me out or I don't understand something?