Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - alphaBar

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22
286
中文 (Chinese) / Re: PTS何去何从，中文社区的赶紧来投票，需要你的声音。
« on: August 20, 2014, 01:58:10 am »
Quote from: sudo on August 20, 2014, 01:21:29 am
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=6333.15

Quote from: bytemaster on July 29, 2014, 10:19:38 pm
Invictus only produces software. Pts is maintained by testz.   Btsx by dacs unlimited

Invictus will not issue any crypto currency or shares. 

If the pts community organizes a well accepted upgrade that would be good for everyone. 

My opinion is that someone should create a user issued asset on btsx. based on an official snapshot. 

It will not be invictus, but I would support moving the social consensus to such an asset if executed well. 

Those that want it to happen should organize to make it happen. I think most would rather see it on btsx than not.   Exchanges are already integrated with it too. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

PTS would literally die if we did this. Did you know that some of the smartest minds in crypto, including Vitalik, are skeptical about BTSX market-pegged assets? If those features fail, BTSX can crash hard and severely taint all of its user-issued assets along with it.

Even if everything about BTSX is an absolute success, ask yourself this question: do you think Ethereum would want to allocate 10% of their shares to a user-issued asset in BTSX (a direct competitor)?

In my opinion, this is the strongest argument in favor of an independent DPOS blockchain for PTS. PTS must remain neutral and independent if it is to reach its full potential and to reach the widest adoption by new DACS - some of which will be directly competing with BTSX.

287
BitShares PTS / Re: Bitshares PTS upgrade proposal
« on: August 19, 2014, 10:43:00 pm »
Quote from: sudo on August 19, 2014, 05:52:32 pm
Quote from: alphaBar on August 19, 2014, 03:48:20 pm
Quote from: sudo on August 19, 2014, 03:37:42 pm
Quote from: alphaBar on August 19, 2014, 03:12:13 pm
Quote from: sudo on August 19, 2014, 12:18:06 pm
pow just like a Blood drawing machine

It's a pitty BTS vote  can't be used right now for all PTS holder to choose the future.


why not do this
1.snapshot aug21
2.embedded pts into bitshares x as a Bitasset
3.give back the rest pts to the ags donater(use pts) & pts keeper  by the shares percent
4.let people get pts in bitshares x  through the private key

then  we can trede  directly   pts-cny    pts-btsx     in  bitsharesx  instead of  btc38 or bter


PTS as a bitasset  in bitsharesx
we can trade pts-bts  pts-cny  in low fees   instead of  btc38  0.1%fee
direct  pts-bts   not  pts-cny  cny-bts  in btc38  with  fee 0.2%

pts  is just a liquid  stock rights ,why not  chang into a bitasset  in Bitsharesx market?

if PTS(dpos) a new client  there will be  101+ new  delegate   & payment  is a waste

pts  as a asset in bitshares X with 2m total num is equal to AGS
but if  pts is a single  dpos ,  when it burns after few years, maybe  pts1.5m, AGS sitll 2m, it's not fair, that's a Naked plunder to agser

PTS as a user issued asset in BTSX is a mistake. PTS was intended to be an agnostic vehicle for distribution, and there are many aspects of BTSX that would taint that objective. See here for the discussion: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=6522.0

We need to do what Bytemaster suggested and what the community agreed to: use the August 21st snapshot to migrate to an independent DPOS chain. I still haven't heard from testz about a migration plan, milestone dates, required resources, or anything other than "ok, we'll do it later". Well, this is what happens when you kick the can... I also blame I3 for not giving this the tiny amount of resources that would be required to take the reference client and rebrand it. Really just a shame what is happening here.
the discussion: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=6522.0

i never see this before
and  onebody  mention it  in Chinese community (i think  chinese are Big shareholders)

are you sure   this  vote stand for  all the pts holder's thought?

Stan posted something like 6 different threads over the past few months about the same thing. All of the discussions converged on the same conclusion - a standalone DPOS chain for PTS with no dilution. There is no other way forward. If we dilute the currency we will kill all confidence in the coin and the Bitshares ecosystem.

Stan'post  discussed the rest pts's distribution&change into DPOS  when btsx has not come out.

i post a vote in chinese community
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=7105.0

i think  PTS  migrated to a user-issued asset in BTSX  is the simplest&easy way

X-post: PTS was intended to be a distribution mechanism for future DACs. Making it a user-issued asset in the very first DAC violates the intent of PTS. There are very ambitious features of the BTSX DAC that could fail spectacularly, independent of DPOS (pegged assets, for example). PTS should not be subject to the volatility and risk introduced by these features or future features that may be implemented by BTSX. PTS should be independent, both in price, volatility, and features from the DACs that are born from it. It should be the Switzerland of DACs, agnostic and separate from even the market perceptions of a DAC and its features. This way it ends up representing a more distributed and non-biased segment of investors who are not for or against any particular feature of any particular DAC, but who believe in the underlying protocol as a foundation (DPOS). Even the marketing and perceptions of a particular DAC (today or in the future) has the potential to taint PTS and dissuade future DACs from using PTS.

288
中文 (Chinese) / Re: PTS何去何从，中文社区的赶紧来投票，需要你的声音。
« on: August 19, 2014, 10:41:29 pm »
I said this in the prior thread but I will paste it here for the benefit of English speakers. For the rest, I would appreciate if someone can translate:

PTS was intended to be a distribution mechanism for future DACs. Making it a user-issued asset in the very first DAC violates the intent of PTS. There are very ambitious features of the BTSX DAC that could fail spectacularly, independent of DPOS (pegged assets, for example). PTS should not be subject to the volatility and risk introduced by these features or future features that may be implemented by BTSX. PTS should be independent, both in price, volatility, and features from the DACs that are born from it. It should be the Switzerland of DACs, agnostic and separate from even the market perceptions of a DAC and its features. This way it ends up representing a more distributed and non-biased segment of investors who are not for or against any particular feature of any particular DAC, but who believe in the underlying protocol as a foundation (DPOS). Even the marketing and perceptions of a particular DAC (today or in the future) has the potential to taint PTS and dissuade future DACs from using PTS.

289
BitShares PTS / Re: Bitshares PTS upgrade proposal
« on: August 19, 2014, 06:40:48 pm »
Quote from: pc on August 19, 2014, 04:37:02 pm
b) this is not rushed. I think it would be premature at this time.

If you have a reason to wait please share. I can tell you many reasons why waiting can hurt shareholders. The protocol is inefficient, insecure, unscalable, and has a broken diff. algorithm. What we have now is a leaky bucket (more like a bucket cracked down the middle), pouring thousands of dollars of our wealth into the hands of a few centralized miners in exchange for literally NOTHING.

And I don't buy the myth that some people are peddling here. The core DPOS functionality is absolutely functional and market-ready. BTSX is undeniable evidence of this fact. At this time it has a $21M market cap and is the 5th largest cryptocurrency on earth. If you consider that to be "premature" but feel comfortable with the broken status quo then your priorities are in a different place.

290
BitShares PTS / Re: Bitshares PTS upgrade proposal
« on: August 19, 2014, 03:48:20 pm »
Quote from: sudo on August 19, 2014, 03:37:42 pm
Quote from: alphaBar on August 19, 2014, 03:12:13 pm
Quote from: sudo on August 19, 2014, 12:18:06 pm
pow just like a Blood drawing machine

It's a pitty BTS vote  can't be used right now for all PTS holder to choose the future.


why not do this
1.snapshot aug21
2.embedded pts into bitshares x as a Bitasset
3.give back the rest pts to the ags donater(use pts) & pts keeper  by the shares percent
4.let people get pts in bitshares x  through the private key

then  we can trede  directly   pts-cny    pts-btsx     in  bitsharesx  instead of  btc38 or bter


PTS as a bitasset  in bitsharesx
we can trade pts-bts  pts-cny  in low fees   instead of  btc38  0.1%fee
direct  pts-bts   not  pts-cny  cny-bts  in btc38  with  fee 0.2%

pts  is just a liquid  stock rights ,why not  chang into a bitasset  in Bitsharesx market?

if PTS(dpos) a new client  there will be  101+ new  delegate   & payment  is a waste

pts  as a asset in bitshares X with 2m total num is equal to AGS
but if  pts is a single  dpos ,  when it burns after few years, maybe  pts1.5m, AGS sitll 2m, it's not fair, that's a Naked plunder to agser

PTS as a user issued asset in BTSX is a mistake. PTS was intended to be an agnostic vehicle for distribution, and there are many aspects of BTSX that would taint that objective. See here for the discussion: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=6522.0

We need to do what Bytemaster suggested and what the community agreed to: use the August 21st snapshot to migrate to an independent DPOS chain. I still haven't heard from testz about a migration plan, milestone dates, required resources, or anything other than "ok, we'll do it later". Well, this is what happens when you kick the can... I also blame I3 for not giving this the tiny amount of resources that would be required to take the reference client and rebrand it. Really just a shame what is happening here.
the discussion: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=6522.0

i never see this before
and  onebody  mention it  in Chinese community (i think  chinese are Big shareholders)

are you sure   this  vote stand for  all the pts holder's thought?

Stan posted something like 6 different threads over the past few months about the same thing. All of the discussions converged on the same conclusion - a standalone DPOS chain for PTS with no dilution. There is no other way forward. If we dilute the currency we will kill all confidence in the coin and the Bitshares ecosystem.

291
BitShares PTS / Re: Bitshares PTS upgrade proposal
« on: August 19, 2014, 03:23:43 pm »
Quote from: tbkmcjl on August 19, 2014, 03:06:36 pm
Quote from: testz on August 19, 2014, 02:41:11 pm
Quote from: tbkmcjl on August 19, 2014, 01:26:47 pm

You right I'm not economic expert, but for my opinion you write things which opposite one to another. Except whole economics around PTS and BitShares can you explain economics point in few words about why it's was bad when network works slow and miners dump small amount of PTS and when diffs retarget and miners dump huge amount of PTS, if in total for 4 month network produce planed amount of PTS.

It's all about sustainability.
In four month , I3's market plan will get more buyer for PTS , it will afford the dump over time without affecting the price or the confident in the market,which will lead to more buyers and more funds. It's like putting a bottle of water in a river.

But in a  hard time like this ,  dumping tons of PTS at one time will kill the market's confidence in PTS because it'll cause a chain reaction for withdrawing buy orders.  All the LTC holder that could've been attracted to PTS due to its stable price would bail .
It's like putting a bottle of water into a overflow fish tank.

You don't seem to understand the bigger picture.Let me do a simple one :

Will you give your land lord 1 year rent at once ? Why ? ( if you are a average income guy  )
If you are a company ,will you pay your supplier 1 year money at once instead of  divided into 12 months ?

You wouldn't ,would you ?

Tell me you think this dump is harmless when you decided you 're so kind to pay your landlord your 1 year rent tomorrow . It's all the same total amount ,really ,why not pay your landlord .

The analogy is flawed. When you pay your landlord you receive something in return. Paying the miners for an insecure, outdated, and inefficient algorithm is even WORSE than throwing the money in the garbage when DPOS is available. The arguments that the pro-mining crowd come up with, even here in the Bitshares community, are a reminder of the perverse incentives that PoW creates. At best they are misinformed. At worst they care more about the ROI on their mining hardware than the products and services we are helping to create.

292
BitShares PTS / Re: Bitshares PTS upgrade proposal
« on: August 19, 2014, 03:12:13 pm »
Quote from: sudo on August 19, 2014, 12:18:06 pm
pow just like a Blood drawing machine

It's a pitty BTS vote  can't be used right now for all PTS holder to choose the future.


why not do this
1.snapshot aug21
2.embedded pts into bitshares x as a Bitasset
3.give back the rest pts to the ags donater(use pts) & pts keeper  by the shares percent
4.let people get pts in bitshares x  through the private key

then  we can trede  directly   pts-cny    pts-btsx     in  bitsharesx  instead of  btc38 or bter


PTS as a bitasset  in bitsharesx
we can trade pts-bts  pts-cny  in low fees   instead of  btc38  0.1%fee
direct  pts-bts   not  pts-cny  cny-bts  in btc38  with  fee 0.2%

pts  is just a liquid  stock rights ,why not  chang into a bitasset  in Bitsharesx market?

if PTS(dpos) a new client  there will be  101+ new  delegate   & payment  is a waste

pts  as a asset in bitshares X with 2m total num is equal to AGS
but if  pts is a single  dpos ,  when it burns after few years, maybe  pts1.5m, AGS sitll 2m, it's not fair, that's a Naked plunder to agser

PTS as a user issued asset in BTSX is a mistake. PTS was intended to be an agnostic vehicle for distribution, and there are many aspects of BTSX that would taint that objective. See here for the discussion: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=6522.0

We need to do what Bytemaster suggested and what the community agreed to: use the August 21st snapshot to migrate to an independent DPOS chain. I still haven't heard from testz about a migration plan, milestone dates, required resources, or anything other than "ok, we'll do it later". Well, this is what happens when you kick the can... I also blame I3 for not giving this the tiny amount of resources that would be required to take the reference client and rebrand it. Really just a shame what is happening here.

293
BitShares PTS / Re: Bitshares PTS upgrade proposal
« on: August 18, 2014, 03:21:47 am »
Quote from: toast on August 17, 2014, 05:28:38 am
I recommend announcing a migration snapshot after testz successfully launches a test network from pts snapshot w/ a rebranded client

 +5% Testz - can you propose a timeline?

294
BitShares PTS / Re: PTS upgrade poll
« on: August 16, 2014, 11:11:33 pm »
Quote from: pc on August 15, 2014, 10:40:41 am
I'm not a fan of PoW, but IMO PTS should stay on PoW for now, with a modified diff adjustment algorithm.

Apart from being a PITA to build, the current reference implementation of DPOS is still much too unstable. At least that's what my experiments with BTS-X indicate so far, see https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=6975.msg92769#msg92769 .

DPOS is not unstable. Stability issues in an old version of the Ubuntu client do not mean it is unstable. BTSX already has 3 times the market cap of PTS and includes a host of functionality (and thus potential vulnerabilities) that would not be present in the PTS upgrade chain. Should we then argue that BTSX should be rolled back to a PoW chain as well, since DPOS is so unstable? I agree that we need binaries, but that would require pruning and then branding the reference client - no additional functionality whatsoever.

Testz is the custodian of Bitshares PTS and is tasked with carrying out the consensus decision of the community. I believe he is more than competent enough for a rebrand of an existing reference client.

295
BitShares PTS / Re: Bitshares PTS upgrade proposal
« on: August 16, 2014, 11:00:55 pm »
testz - it appears the community has spoken. What do we need to make the upgrade happen?

296
BitShares PTS / Re: Bitshares PTS upgrade proposal
« on: August 07, 2014, 12:14:42 am »
Quote from: bytemaster on August 06, 2014, 05:43:22 pm
I would use the snapshot date for VOTE and DNS if it were me... keep things simple.
+5%

Quote from: bytemaster on August 06, 2014, 06:07:04 pm
I agree... I think a quick email to the exchanges on that date would let them know to suspend withdraws.   I also think all miners will STOP mining (shut down the mining pools).

Issuing a patch to PTS will not help because people could still be running old clients.
+5%

297
BitShares PTS / Bitshares PTS upgrade proposal
« on: August 06, 2014, 04:27:05 pm »
As a follow up to this thread - https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=6522.0 - the current PTS chain is insecure and inefficient due to a low hashrate, high inflation, and other problems (low block production due to difficulty). Based on the poll, it appears that the community overwhelmingly supports upgrading PTS to a standalone DPOS blockchain. I propose performing the upgrade on Wednesday, September 3, 2014 (I believe performing the snapshot at block 68387 would fall on this date, please confirm). Here are the reasons why I believe this is a good date:

* Two snapshots are occurring on August 21 and this will postdate those snapshots.
* This gives plenty of time for exchanges and partners to perform the upgrade.
* The date falls in the middle of the week and on no major Chinese or US holiday.

This would also obviate the need to implement a difficulty patch in the current client. In addition to support from the user “testz” (who has been tasked with maintenance of PTS), we will need the following:

1) At least one developer who can fork and rebrand the DPOS client for PTS.
2) Stan or others who can reach out to communicate with exchanges and partners (mainly bter and cryptsy).

I firmly believe that we need to set a date for the upgrade now, or it will never happen. We can already see the perverse incentives and consequences of mining creeping in. I believe Dan and the Invictus team should support the community consensus on this issue and cooperate to make this happen. I'm afraid that anything else would be a failure for PTS, and would reflect very poorly upon Invictus and the I3 community as a whole.

298
BitShares PTS / Re: PTS upgrade poll
« on: August 03, 2014, 12:51:41 am »
Quote from: testz on August 02, 2014, 08:58:57 pm
Quote from: twitter on August 02, 2014, 08:45:24 pm
As  a high school student , most of my friends only learn about pow mining with GPU. we can join mining once we feel tired of our game  or we can just run the miner while we are not in the game.  it is a good to keep pow mining and all of my friends like it.  I consider pow mining is a good feature of bitshares products since we can experience pow and pos all together with one product and can easy to find out how sucks pow mining is .

 :) :) :)

In BitShares you can be more productive, instead playing game you can propose yourself as delegate and use delegate rewards to do something useful for community, and then you feel tired, run miner, mine some profitable coins and sell it for BTSX.
 :) :) :)

Mining SHA256 with a GPU? No reason anyone would do this with all the other GPU-friendly algos out there. Also, for all of the votes in favor of proof of work, not single valid argument has been presented in its favor.

299
BitShares PTS / Re: PTS upgrade poll
« on: August 02, 2014, 09:27:13 pm »
Quote
Isn't it an option to disperse the remaining shares to the existing shareholders relative to their current holdings?

Agreed, this is the best way forward. We could also scale it up to 2 billion units. Doesn't matter as long as the proportions are maintained.

Quote from: bobmaloney on August 02, 2014, 09:19:55 pm
Quote from: toast on August 02, 2014, 08:36:12 pm
I agree it's a bad PR move (actually the whole DPOS upgrade is any way you approach it), I'm just saying it doesn't go to the devs and it isn't instant.

In one respect.

However, transitioning to DPoS is also a sign that the PTS community has rejected mining as wasteful and unproductive AND adopts DPoS as a sign of "skin-in-the-game" support for Invictus-developed blockchain technology.

If there is anybody out there that still believes that mining allows for fair distribution - they should be ignored, because they haven't been paying attention.

We should make the transition and look forward to the incoming criticism as a good opportunity to spotlight the PoW/PoS debate.

 +5%

300
BitShares PTS / Re: PTS upgrade poll
« on: August 02, 2014, 08:28:23 pm »
Quote from: toast on August 02, 2014, 08:23:17 pm
The release schedule can be the same as before, it doesn't have to be "overnight"

That's more of a net present value argument. Equivalent to saying "it's ok because it is actually only 10% of the coin supply that we are post-mining to a central entity." On principle there is a huge difference between giving away coins to the devs and paying a distributed network of miners to provide security. If we do this there is no amount of marketing that will dig us out of the hole we put ourselves in.

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22

Page created in 0.173 seconds with 20 queries.