Thanks for the very interesting conversations and day together bitshares team. It was definitely very useful in our thinking on native extensibility strategies; I was glad to see how similar some of our thoughts and some of our problems have been, and I hope my ideas on ring signatures for secret ballots and bitusd interest rates helped

(I'm still not convinced of bitusd's long-term viability without introducing schellingcoin or delegate price feeds + dynamic interest rates, but it's a very exciting experiment and I'll be glad to be wrong if it succeeds!)

I have no particular love for PoW; the ASIC-resistant PoW algo that Vlad is working on with a few others right now is looking great, but I have a few worries in the back of my mind about its long-term viability. I think that most chains which try to have both PoW and finite supply may be living on borrowed time, as we have seen with dogecoin once it very quickly got close to its maximum it had too little hashpower to maintain itself. Gav agrees that moving beyond PoW is optimal; we're currently looking at hybrid transactions-as-PoS, and I like many aspects of DPOS and I really respect the long amount of effort and thought that led to it, although I can also see how it comes from a somewhat different philosophy than the one we're used to.

interesting. i also read that vitalik also had talks with arthur britto of ripple labs.

News flash: the core teams of most of the so-called "competing" 2.0 projects are actually on pretty good terms with each other. We all want to be complementary. I think Ripple is doing great work on setting up bridges between crypto and fiat and Codius is interesting technology and could be quite nicely integrated into ethereum. There are a couple bad actors that are quite hostile to anything that does not entrench BTC as the one cryptotoken to rule them all™, but we've had open communication with most of the major groups; Bitshares is the one we haven't yet and I am glad that we have started to break the ice there.

That's great, now you need to talk to the person actually in charge of Ethereum- Dr. Wood.

Gav isn't "actually in charge" more so than myself, but any major protocol change does indeed require consensus among myself, Gav and Jeff and of course the community. I only speak for myself.

Effectively my goal is to make both projects better and to secure AGS/PTS holders a stake in Ether

Just to make this absolutely clear, as Dan said later on in the thread, we have not formally discussed allocations. Speaking generally, no formal commitments at this point have been made by anyone about anything; the things that Dan listed as topics we discussed are just topics we discussed. I as an individual could see something being reasonable if it substitutes a portion of the mining allocation so our annual issuance never exceeds 0.26x the genesis quantity, and is a finite one-time allocation and not a permanent annual dividend, but I strongly respect the feelings of the community, other developers on the project and potential legal issues.

If we are going for a paradigm where developers can extend ethereum in exchange for ether allocation, it would be ideal to follow our philosophy of generalization and not just special-case one team but explicitly say "this is the social contract: anyone can release a version of ethereum N.0 for N>1 by making their own additions and giving 0.26x minus mining fees since N-1.0 to their own communities as they deem fit, and if the community deems any implementation technically bad or unfair they can reject it and keep building on the previous instead kinda like a blockchain".