Thank you!

Thanks
By google around and read a bit, it seems like bitstamp is the best option for europeans, so will buy bitcoins there and transfer them to cryptso.com or Bter.com.
 Can suggest which one is the best for me as a european out of these 2?

Download the pts wallet, tried that and get down a file but dont know what to do with it.

Encrypt your wallet and make a backup, how do I do this?

Transfer my PTS to my wallet how do I do that?

Once the above is done what else do I have to keep track over getting bonus coins etc, new launches

After the BTC exchange, it's the American wild west. You should never keep coins in the exchanges. I liked Bter and have not used cryptsy yet, but others here have. Beware, there is or was a crypt.sy site that I almost signed up for.

The PTS client is very easy to use--after you get it working that is. When I did it, I had to add nodes to it. I don't know if you have to do this anymore. The first thing you do is find the encrypt wallet in the menu. Enter a password, don't forget it. Then, there's a backup wallet button too. You can do this many times. Put your encrypted wallet in the cloud or on a memory stick or both.

Transfer PTS to your wallet using an address under the receive button.

Quote from: que23 on December 23, 2013, 03:50:58 am

Quote from: phoenix on December 23, 2013, 12:24:37 am

Quote from: que23 on December 22, 2013, 04:25:02 am

Quote from: phoenix on December 21, 2013, 03:21:01 pm

Quote from: que23 on December 21, 2013, 04:01:37 am

A key ingredient in a DAC is the dividend. Bitcoin doesn't have dividends it has tariffs. In this way a DAC is more company like. It should be distributed so that anyone can use its services and so it doesn't have a single point of failure.

Dividends may not be necessary. There are many brick-and-mortar corporations that don't pay dividends to shareholders but simply rely on an increase in share value to reward investors. Blockchains will probably be necessary to keep track of transactions. As for miners, POS seems to be replacing POW, but ideally a DAC would have some kind of mining that uses computing power to help the DAC in more ways than securing the network. If the DAC offers some kind of service, mining should be based on miners performing that service

With bitcoin, the transaction fee is given to the miners. I think of this as a tariff. I think this may actually be bitcoin's true Achilles' heel. The  bottom of the bitcoin market is made up of true believers and people who think demand will go up. But mostly, people are incentivised to trade BTC like you would trade any commodity on an exchange. I had early warning on the news coming out of china, so I sold my BTC and bought back in at 450. This is risky. I'd rather just sit on my coins and enjoy demand going up. But what would be better is if I also received a dividend. If bitcoin had dividends, it could have a stabilising effect on the market. Risk averse people could just sit on their shares and collect dividends. To be a DAC, is to have a dividend. It gives a DAC life. The service creates value. Bitcoin is not a DAC. Its service is useful but not value producing. (I would argue that its efficiency is creating value for society, but that has to do with the technology.)

I'd love some feedback on this idea. Everyone feel free to shoot me down.

Dividends are one service that a DAC can provide, but DACs are also capable of offering so many other services as well. I'm not saying that dividends are bad, just that most good companies are able to re-invest in themselves, making their services better. A good DAC should do this too, perhaps through bounties for developers.

Ok, this is good. So a DAC can generate profits and direct those profits into investments rather than to investors. This was what I was looking for. There are some interesting things you might be able to do with that.

So, is Bitcoin a DAC? Might we say Bitcoin is a DAC that makes bad investments? And what about my stabilization argument? Does that hold water?

I'm not sure if Bitcoin is technically a DAC, but if it is, it does make poor investment choices. To be fair though, it wasn't designed to be any kind of corporation, it was designed to be a currency. As for your stabilization argument, dividends would stabilize the value of Bitcoin, but they would also increase the price beyond what it should be as a currency, since more people would hold their Bitcoins, which would reduce the effective supply

If it's true that BTC would stabilize, then this would be a good thing. If you wanted to use Bitcoin as a bank, you could. If you wanted to use Bitcoin as a currency, then you could. With a more stabilized price, BTC could act more like prepaid debit cards--money in, money out--and you wanted have to worry so much about keeping BTC for over time.

We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.
     --Benjamin Franklin

Everyone holding ProtoShares is part of a movement to decentralize the web. If you haven't considered the ramifications of decentralizing the web, do so now. DACs know no boarders and yield to no authority. DACs will bring people from all over the world with similar interests,especially financial, together--true globalization. The decentralized web will deliver what the internet revolution promised to deliver but has yet to fulfill--true freedom. Until  now, we've all been traveling the web as ghosts, disembodied joyriders with no substance. Keyhotee promises to animate us, to make us whole. We will have a name, a reputation, a wallet and our wits. We will be solid. However, this is just the start. Although Keyhotee will make us three  dimensional, we will still be floating in cyberspace with no ground beneath our feet and no home. We need DACs.

The life blood of the DAC project is ProtoShares. It's the campfire everyone who believes in the movement can gather around. ProtoShares is also a honeypot. It attracts likeminded people and hopefully likeminded developers.

Invictus will go down in history for their contributions to the movement,no doubt, and they still have an important role, but currently it might be better if we started to think of them as any other DAC team. Our goal, as PTS holders, is to see to it that DACs are built. There are a lot of really good DAC ideas on the forum. But we have to ask ourselves, how are we going to help get these projects off the ground? Is it enough to just say to DAC builders, "We are community, join us!" or should we be trying to make ourselves look more attractive. How can we show new teams that we are a group of people who can help a project succeed and that we are indeed building the future of the web.

Like some of you, I am considering putting together a DAC team. And once you start looking through the eyes of a DAC team, you start to ask yourself, how is this community going to help me?

One way we can help, is to lay down a good plan for building DACs.

The strategies below are all ideas that new teams might or might not want to do. Note, I'm not asking the community if these ideas are good ideas or about legal considerations, I'm asking if we will support DAC builders who want to use these ideas. All the ideas below include the social promise of honoring the original ProtoShares.

New ProtoShares--Attracting miners
If a new team wants to release their own ProtoShares, good for either all their projects or for each DAC, will we support this? Will we support this if they wanted 90% of all shares of their DAC to be distributed in this way?


AngelShares--Funding Engine
DAC builders need to eat. Their families need to eat too. Will we support a team that wants to have AngelShares? Will we support them if they want 90% of their shares to come from AngelShares?

OurShares--Developer Rewards
It seems odd to tell the parents of a DAC that if they want a stake, they will need to use their food money to buy PTS or AngelShares. PTS holders and AngelShare holders should be happy that the team believes in what they are doing and do what they do for their own benefit as well as others. Will we support a team who wants to have OurShares? Will we support a team who wants to distribute their DAC's shares with 90% OurShares.

GiveawayShares--Marketing
If a team wants to attract people outside the crypto community by giving away shares, will we support this?

BountyShares--Work/Community Building/Early Adopter Rewards
Will we support a team who distributes shares for work done on the project?

LotteryShares--Fun/Marketing
Will we support a team who sets up a way to randomly distribute shares in a DAC?


Post Release Mining
Will we support a team that wants their DAC shares to be mined after its release? Would we support a team who wanted to distribute 90% of the shares in this way?

Quote from: que23 on December 21, 2013, 04:01:37 am

A key ingredient in a DAC is the dividend. Bitcoin doesn't have dividends it has tariffs. In this way a DAC is more company like. It should be distributed so that anyone can use its services and so it doesn't have a single point of failure.

Dividends may not be necessary. There are many brick-and-mortar corporations that don't pay dividends to shareholders but simply rely on an increase in share value to reward investors. Blockchains will probably be necessary to keep track of transactions. As for miners, POS seems to be replacing POW, but ideally a DAC would have some kind of mining that uses computing power to help the DAC in more ways than securing the network. If the DAC offers some kind of service, mining should be based on miners performing that service

With bitcoin, the transaction fee is given to the miners. I think of this as a tariff. I think this may actually be bitcoin's true Achilles' heel. The  bottom of the bitcoin market is made up of true believers and people who think demand will go up. But mostly, people are incentivised to trade BTC like you would trade any commodity on an exchange. I had early warning on the news coming out of china, so I sold my BTC and bought back in at 450. This is risky. I'd rather just sit on my coins and enjoy demand going up. But what would be better is if I also received a dividend. If bitcoin had dividends, it could have a stabilising effect on the market. Risk averse people could just sit on their shares and collect dividends. To be a DAC, is to have a dividend. It gives a DAC life. The service creates value. Bitcoin is not a DAC. Its service is useful but not value producing. (I would argue that its efficiency is creating value for society, but that has to do with the technology.)

I'd love some feedback on this idea. Everyone feel free to shoot me down.

I'm not sure how to actually do this in the time frame, open to pointers.

I want to get the 10pts to put em in for keyhotee, or I would go for opening a cryptsy account.
the wire transfer to fund it makes that a problem.
I live in a rural area, the closest place with active meet up is over an hour away, and I don't even own a car.

so any tips how to get this done would be great.

PanseyBard

Wow, Xmas is already upon us. Well, being a founder is nice, but you will be able to mine any name for free after the release.

Only buying from respected forum members or with Escrow service. Price fixed until December 18th then I'll reconsider the bid. Thanks

Just curious, but why don't you find a BTC meetup and buy BTC? Then you could trade at an exchange.

This is an interesting question and to extend on it.

When equity crowd funding goes into effect in the USA will these angelshares in these DACs be convertible to real life legally backed shares?
http://www.sec.gov/News/PressRelease/Detail/PressRelease/1370540017677
http://www.forbes.com/sites/northwesternmutual/2013/12/05/the-next-big-thing-where-crowdfunding-and-investing-meet/
It seems it is only a matter of time before the SEC issues its new ruling on crowd funding. If each DAC team becomes a legal company, with all the legal ramifications, could the community get the legal benefits as well? It begs the question about whether equity crowd funding makes sense. Right now it's in a grey area but once the SEC puts crowd funding in full effect in 2014 why not just use that too?

If it doesn't fit into the regulatory framework then it becomes obvious to push for regulatory reform as necessary.

Well right off the bat, it said the limits were 1 million dollars a year for companies, which is crazy low. Thanks for this. I'll have to read it tomorrow. I wonder that with still no guidance on the nature of altcoins, if any of this stuff even applies.

http://www.coindesk.com/china-bans-payment-companies-working-bitcoin-exchanges-sources-claim/

Sources close to China’s Central Bank today reported that the institution has banned third-party payment companies from doing business with bitcoin exchanges.

A reputable source told CoinDesk that the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) met with most of the top third-party payment companies this morning.

The source said the meeting topic was unrelated to bitcoin, but digital currency became an important part of the discussion.

“PBOC, in no uncertain terms, directed third-party payment companies not to do business with bitcoin exchanges in China,” they explained.

At the moment, these claims are still rumours, as neither the PBOC nor any payment company has issued a statement to confirm what was discussed and what the outcome was. However, our source revealed they got their information from various channels, including those people who were at the meeting.

“The writing’s on the wall,” said our source, adding:

Quote

“Going forward, from this day, third-party payment companies will most likely sever their ties with bitcoin exchanges.”

They went on to say that if and when this happens, people will still be able to withdraw their money from Chinese exchanges, they just won’t be able to deposit new funds.

“There’s no need to panic and do a run on the bank. People will still be able to sell their bitcoins for local currency and then withdraw that currency,” they concluded.

Back on 5th December, the PBOC issued a statement saying that bitcoin was not a currency and, therefore, banks and other financial institutions were not allowed to deal with the digital currency.

The PBOC also said that merchants could no longer price their goods and services in bitcoin and couldn’t exchange their wares for bitcoin.

The statement did, however, leave a few doors open for bitcoin. It essentially said bitcoin exchanges are legal, people have the right to buy and sell bitcoins, and bitcoin companies should register with the ministry of information and industrial technology.

This was good news for bitcoin exchanges in China as they were not only given some degree of legitimacy, but they were exclusively allowed to deal with digital currency while banks and financial institutions weren’t allowed to touch them.

Unfortunately, this didn’t last long.

On a potentially related note, several Chinese bitcoin exchanges, including BTC China, have just reintroduced trading commissions. A statement on BTC China’s site reads:

Quote

Dear BTC China valued customer: To stabilize the recent turbulent Bitcoin market and minimize potential market manipulation, BTC China will end the 0% trading fee promotion, effective immediately, and revert to the 0.3% trading fee. We deeply apologize for the sudden change. BTC China, December 16, 2013

CoinDesk has contacted PBOC and Chinese payment service provider Tenpay for comment, but no responses had been received at the time of publication.

Thank you for this, you made me money! This was really early warning. I can't believe how slow the markets react. Please keep me in the loop, good or bad news.