Question. What is keeping us from "forking" ourselves and going down two separate paths at the same time? We might not even need a vote for something like this because the holders get a stake in BOTH paths...
We have that power as a community do we not? This will create competition in the space and each side will compete to see which is best, only this way we get to ACTUALLY SEE which one will work best.
This conversation, imho, is based on a fallacy that we need to vote for really good ideas like these to avoid clones popping up and competing that do not honor the original investors...but at the same time, we can effectively clone the tech right now and honor old stakeholders along with whatever other communities would like an air drop. Then let them compete along side the original community to bring value to the original stakeholders.
This would, in the end, make POS most likely gravitate toward implementation of DPOS as they fight amongst eachother to create the best version...and would effectively expand the user base by also giving a stake in all others. It would also crowdsource much of the alpha and beta-testing as Bytemaster could follow the trends and change the original chain to fix issues other chains find first. It ALSO has the side effect of increasing the attack surface for this tech on the whole.
Create bitShares-BC, bitShares-Doge and whatever the hell coin has a community we believe deserves a chance in the fight instead of letting those communities start deciding to adopt the model without honoring bitShares-PTS and AGS holders. Or better yet, give altcoins a template to become part of the competition without our say (its going to happen whether we like it or not, anyway).
Our community needs others to compete directly with it or else we will simply think we can sit back and let Invictus do all the leg work. One of the KEY points to their business model DEPENDS on strong community, so let other communities fight to contribute to the value of this tech. I can't think of a way that this would cause problems...but I am interested in hearing opinions. But as an Investor I would love to have my stake in all these projects given to me in addition to the original because it highly increases the chances of success for any one of them. Of course, there is nothing saying any of these coins will use the template to honor original stakeholders, but this has been a beautiful experiment from the beginning...we all knew the risks and the risks don't go away by just ignoring future threats.
This is a quick write-up as I am pretty busy today, so forgive me if some of this is not quite crystal clear, but let us think together, and think outside the box!
Now you are seeing the strategy I'm promoting. Blackshares can easily be a Bitshares chain with different commodities in it and which honors AGS and PTS stakeholders with 50% and Blackcoin holders the other 50%.
In fact that is exactly how a merger of this sort could work and what I was trying to get at so thanks for using far better words than I could have.
We wouldn't lose anything. We would have 50% in an alt Bitshares chain and the Blackcoin community would have 50%. This would make it so the Blackcoin community would have no reason to use a fork (fork resistance achieved). It would also give us a chain with new types of commodities which aren't in the default chain.
Win/win for both communities and an economic alliance would be sealed. But I think that is perhaps a major step which the Bitshares community isn't prepared to take which is why I am saying we should brainstorm first. There are some smaller steps we could take first to send the necessary market signal to the Blackcoin community to hold on to their
"shares".
I think Dogeshares and the other Proof of Work coins should be avoided for now as we should focus on true Proof of Stake currencies with a track record of success.We are a Proof of Stake community and any coin which has inflation is not supporting our values. Additionally their marketing tactics wont really help us any because they are a different species. In time we will be able to use this merger process with Proof of Work coins as well though and I suggest we consider doing it only when it's for a strategic gain.
Dogeshares makes a lot of sense in the future but not based on the Bitshares chain unless the Dogeshares community votes for it.
The one thing that the Bitshares community has is innovative code, crypto-equity, and a priceless community of minds. Other communities are better at marketing than us and we should not be afraid to admit that the Blackcoin and Dogecoin community are better at it.
But we have something they all want and that is state of the art next generation technology with the combined ability to understand how to use it. Anyone can make a fork but they will not be able to actually upgrade the code in any useful way. Anyone can have the same code but not be able to think about DACs in the right metaphor to make use of it.
I'm advocating that we turn BlackCOINS into BlackSHARES with the tacit support of the Blackcoin and Bitshares community. If necessary it could be done without a vote and without support but I believe we should be fair and at least get a general consensus.
At this point in time the general consensus has sided in favor of the idea so it's much more likely to happen. Now we need to get the Blackcoin developers and community manager to agree to sit down with Dan and work out a plan to implement the fork. The timing of something that ambitious would have to be right so the hybrid multipool idea would be where to start the alliance so that the Blackcoin community can be introduced to the Bitshares community without a sudden shock. I also think the Bitshares initial chain needs some time for testing so the multipool could be in testing at the same time while the Blackshares fork could be prepared for launch.