..
* 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.
Agreed:
* It is a misrepresentation of a proposal, not even the final consensus. In fact Stan and others have made it crystal clear, **repeatedly**, that the social consensus remains unchanged.
* This isn't even about a real sharedrop, it is about Devshares which is a worthless testnet.
* Worst of all, we're only hurting ourselves. PTS is not a competitor to Bitshares - it is an opportunity to own the entirety of the market for DPoS (including 3rd party DACs, competitors, etc). Just baffling that anyone would argue against this... My post from BTT on the matter:
... 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.