Quote from: bytemaster on January 21, 2014, 06:53:30 am

There exists a bounty on how to do this but I think it amounts to creating a single 'spend to may' transaction in the genesis block.

Doesn't this mean 10% of all coins/shares/whatever need to be "pre-mined?"  Or, if not pre-mined, just declared to be in existence by the genesis block?  That seems a little harsh of a requirement, since premining is often frowned upon.

It's not a premine per say, and yes you are stating that those coins are already in existence. I ay that it is not a premine because this is not the run of the mill crypto, these are more like shares in ventures and as a result the "pre-mine" notion is not applicable. Consider it IPO , and like every company, the parent company keeps a % of shares for it'self and employees then the rest is transferable.

on a side note, i used to be on the anti-pre-mine bandwagon, but now i see the light.

Freetrade could make this process easy by sharing the full details of how he made his version. I have come up with some clues from his code. I am thinking of a different method however, but i'll need to consult some gurus.

Quote from: barwizi on January 20, 2014, 06:22:25 pm

I have some questions and concerns. The code has been out for a while, so many forks in existence, all released under the MIT license. If a dev wants to get around the consensus they can easily use one of them. For example, the two on my git do not have a license and should we put this on PTS code it will only affect those who fork after the fact. Once this gains interest, more people will want to fork, and word will spread that there are versions without this license but under the MIT one. The wording of that license allows them to completely circumvent this one.

How do we deal with this?

Also i note that the license we are currently mulling on has lack of protection for a typical user in a situation where a dev abides the license in the beginning and decides to violate it later on after maybe seeing profits. The typical user includes some who would have claimed their share of the DAC via PTS and this license is meant to protect all PTS holders through and since we are claiming a portion "carry-over" in all modified versions we need to structure controls for such eventualities.

Locks are to keep honest people honest.
Licenses are to keep honorable people honorable.

With a proper definition of what is honorable, it is always possible to clone an honorable version from one that is not honorable.  Then it is up to market forces to decide whether honor matters.  We think PTS and AGS holders will represent very powerful market forces!   

When money is involved, people tend to not be honourable. If that is the answer then i guess we wont be acting on that.

I have some questions and concerns. The code has been out for a while, so many forks in existence, all released under the MIT license. If a dev wants to get around the consensus they can easily use one of them. For example, the two on my git do not have a license and should we put this on PTS code it will only affect those who fork after the fact. Once this gains interest, more people will want to fork, and word will spread that there are versions without this license but under the MIT one. The wording of that license allows them to completely circumvent this one.

How do we deal with this?

Also i note that the license we are currently mulling on has lack of protection for a typical user in a situation where a dev abides the license in the beginning and decides to violate it later on after maybe seeing profits. The typical user includes some who would have claimed their share of the DAC via PTS and this license is meant to protect all PTS holders through and since we are claiming a portion "carry-over" in all modified versions we need to structure controls for such eventualities.

Quote from: barwizi on January 19, 2014, 07:53:48 pm

OK, PTS has a max of 2 mill so every DAC forked from it can have a max of 20 miliion units. that is the maximum, no inflation nothing but a theoretical max of 20 million. so you cannot have your billion value block because it is in violation of the consensus, which clearly states that with a 1:1 mapping PTS should account for at least 10% of the total value supply.

The very calculations for your DAC are based on PTS so any use that does not follow that is in violation of the license.

(again, i'm not trying to be difficult, just pointing out language and how it can be interpreted. I'm not arguing the merits of the social consensus, I'm trying to craft language which actually enforces social consensus without weird loopholes. I know what it is, I know how this is supposed to work, I know how the community works - I'm putting on my "red team" hat as a hostile business or developer looking for exploits)

So the important thing is the 10% of total value supply, not the 1:1 mapping. If that is true, as Stan suggested, we shouldn't use the 1:1 mapping term since it is ambiguous. Even though my example is in violation of the spirit of the consensus (again, I know what the consensus is - I'm trying to break it on purpose), it was not in violation of the license since I would claim that I did do 1:1 mapping by giving every 1 DAC share for every 1 pts. Ambiguity in licenses, in general, gets to the interpreted by the party that did not write the license. I would say, where did the whole "I'm limited to 20 million shares" thing come from, that's not in the license - the license just says I have to give one DAC share for each PTS share.

It's important that the license stands on its own, and not through the filter of prior knowledge and interpretation of what the community thinks social consensus is. All that matters is what is written in the license. I'm just trying to make sure what's written in the license reflects the intentions of the community and can't be exploited.

lol, i know you are tring to help, just failing to see how it could be misunderstood or misinterpreted, maybe i'm just too used to thinking of it that way. fresh yes and ideas are always needed.

it was not in violation of the license since I would claim that I did do 1:1 mapping by giving every 1 DAC share for every 1 pts.

it was, remember the 1:1 mapping is equivalent to 10%, or was until it changed.

if we use the 10% perhaps we may want to add a stipulation that the cap cannot be raised later on even if it gets a new dev maintaining it.

perhaps you can weigh in bytemaster, should i change ?

Quote from: Geneko on January 19, 2014, 09:59:32 pm

Quote from: barwizi on January 19, 2014, 09:04:13 pm

there is a single customer who had default trust. but you are correct, if this bounty is going to be an example, let us see how it will affect others, yes lets keep this thread open.

This is the whole point of this Document - Trust. I suggest everybody interested check:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igyxxYShXYo

Great Video!   It is exactly the point about moving to a no-contract society which becomes a trust-based society.  Things get much more efficient.   Attempts at defining these bounty rules demonstrate a lower level of trust and thus efficiency is lost. 

Should we be trusted?  We try our best to be honorable in everything we do and to be fair and generous.  Do we make mistakes?  Yes.