BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: toast on October 01, 2014, 03:09:49 pm
-
I will switch to helping launch PTS on DPOS (doing the actual toolkit changes you need) when:
* There is a dedicated PTS2 repository
* We can reliably make a PTS snapshot at any time
* The GUI is reskinned for PTS
* Unmined PTS policy is decided (I suggest inflating for delegates according to mining schedule - use some for bounties required for transition)\
* ALL third-party services that use PTS are notified, especially:
* Exchanges
* Block explorers
* Mining Pools
* Clear PR guidelines
* What to do for upgrade process
Expect this list to grow as people get their hands dirty
-
Is it not technically feasible to add PTS as an asset on BitShares X and have individuals import their wallets to claim those PTS?
-
Is it not technically feasible to add PTS as an asset on BitShares X and have individuals import their wallets to claim those PTS?
Seriously. It makes far more sense to make it a user-issued asset with maxed out supply on the BitShares X blockchain (if technically possible).
And while your at it, mix in the AGS snapshot too to have a united AGS/PTS protoshare that future DACs can credit by at least 20%.
-
Is it not technically feasible to add PTS as an asset on BitShares X and have individuals import their wallets to claim those PTS?
Seriously. It makes far more sense to make it a user-issued asset with maxed out supply on the BitShares X blockchain (if technically possible).
Why does it make far more sense?
It is technically possible, anybody could do it at any time if they like. The symbol "PTS" is already reserved as a market-pegged though.
-
Why does it make far more sense?
- Less work
- No need for another executable to run.
- No need to manage a new set of delegates to vote for.
- Better DPOS security because of the higher market cap of BTSX.
-
I will switch to helping launch PTS on DPOS (doing the actual toolkit changes you need) when:
* There is a dedicated PTS2 repository
* We can reliably make a PTS snapshot at any time
* The GUI is reskinned for PTS
* Unmined PTS policy is decided (I suggest inflating for delegates according to mining schedule - use some for bounties required for transition)\
* ALL third-party services that use PTS are notified, especially:
* Exchanges
* Block explorers
* Mining Pools
* Clear PR guidelines
* What to do for upgrade process
Expect this list to grow as people get their hands dirty
As I tell before you can count me, I can take responsibility for things which I make as bold.
-
Why does it make far more sense?
- Less work
- No need for another executable to run.
- No need to manage a new set of delegates to vote for.
- Better DPOS security because of the higher market cap of BTSX.
Go for it then, the OP is telling the people who keep insisting it needs a DPOS upgrade how to get started.
Maybe you can beat them to it as a user issued asset, or duke it out in this thread.
-
Is it not technically feasible to add PTS as an asset on BitShares X and have individuals import their wallets to claim those PTS?
Seriously. It makes far more sense to make it a user-issued asset with maxed out supply on the BitShares X blockchain (if technically possible).
And while your at it, mix in the AGS snapshot too to have a united AGS/PTS protoshare that future DACs can credit by at least 20%.
Interesting ideas. That would be so cool. One system to rule them all....(sort of).
-
Go for it then, the OP is telling the people who keep insisting it needs a DPOS upgrade how to get started.
Maybe you can beat them to it as a user issued asset, or duke it out in this thread.
It would be really great to get all of the balances in the BitShares X blockchain at once though, say during one of the future hard forks. If that is not possible, then I guess people will have to donate some BTSX to pay for all the transaction fees necessary and quickly transfer all of the issued assets (I am going to name them PROTO in this post) to the appropriate addresses. Then trusted members of the community would have to look through the unspent transaction outputs to ensure they comply with the snapshots (or just have someone really trusted by the community, like toast or bytemaster, do the asset distribution in the first place). And only after the green light has been given by these trusted members would it be safe to start trading the PROTO assets on the BitShares X decentralized exchange. During this whole process from PTS snapshot until the green light has been given, all PTS trades everywhere would have to stop. After a successful transition PTS would become worthless (centralized exchanges can get rid of it, although the nice exchanges would credit people with PROTO IOUs just like they credited BTSX IOUs, and all PTS mining would stop for good).
So, who wants to help make this possible?
Edit: Also, PTS supply would be scaled up to 2 million in the snapshot for a total PROTO asset supply of 4 million (AGS + scaled PTS). Or rather, scale to something a tiny bit smaller than 2 million with the rest given to the PROTO asset issuer in order to repay the people who donated the BTSX to cover the fees of this process.
-
Why does it make far more sense?
- Less work
- No need for another executable to run.
- No need to manage a new set of delegates to vote for.
- Better DPOS security because of the higher market cap of BTSX.
it is a cool thing +5% +5%
-
Is it not technically feasible to add PTS as an asset on BitShares X and have individuals import their wallets to claim those PTS?
Seriously. It makes far more sense to make it a user-issued asset with maxed out supply on the BitShares X blockchain (if technically possible).
And while your at it, mix in the AGS snapshot too to have a united AGS/PTS protoshare that future DACs can credit by at least 20%.
I'm not against this and I see plenty of upside. However, one benefit of having PTS out on its own is that it theoretically reaches more people. It's another way in, an on-ramp to the BItShares ecosystem. Soon, with the way BTSX is going, that may not be a problem because people will be coming there first, not even knowing/caring about Bitcoin or coinmarketcap or exchanges. But having PTS out there now provides one more tentacle for this ecosystem to attract people. That would be the main reason to keep PTS out there in the world beyond BitShares X and also to showcase an example of a simpler DPoS coin. But again, I'm open to either possibility.
-
Here is another way to phrase what I am proposing.
You can think of BTSX as an altcoin that was allocated 50% to an AGS snapshot and 50% to a PTS snapshot. It changed the social consensus in that future forks of the BitShares X DAC are expected to snapshot BTSX rather than AGS/PTS (and that is perfectly acceptable to our community).
Similarly, you can think of PROTO as an altcoin that is allocated 50% to AGS, (50-x)% to a PTS snapshot, and x% to the creators of the coin. The value of x will likely be very small (x < 1%?) and just enough to cover the fees involved for this process. This coin is guaranteed to never have any inflation. PROTO, like BTSX, also changes the social consensus. Instead of crediting at least 10% to AGS and 10% to PTS to get the support of the BitShares community, now DAC creators need to credit at least 20% to PROTO holders to get the same support.
Just like how the snapshot of PTS for BTSX caused a massive drop in price of PTS, the PROTO snapshot will cause a massive drop in the price of PTS. PTS will still exist after the snapshot, but because of the severe change in the social consensus, we expect its price to drop 100% down to zero. This means it makes no sense anymore to keep mining it, and it makes no sense anymore for exchanges to list them for trading.
Just like any other DAC snapshot, we need to give everyone clear notice about when the snapshot will occur and make it clear to everyone that it means that the price of PTS will drop to zero after the snapshot. And of course, this all requires getting the broad support of the community in agreeing to this change in the social consensus. Also, to reduce trading downtime, we should choose the snapshot date to be at a point in time when we are actually ready to quickly transition over to the PROTO asset on the BitShares X blockchain.
-
Go for it then, the OP is telling the people who keep insisting it needs a DPOS upgrade how to get started.
Maybe you can beat them to it as a user issued asset, or duke it out in this thread.
It would be really great to get all of the balances in the BitShares X blockchain at once though, say during one of the future hard forks. If that is not possible, then I guess people will have to donate some BTSX to pay for all the transaction fees necessary and quickly transfer all of the issued assets (I am going to name them PROTO in this post) to the appropriate addresses. Then trusted members of the community would have to look through the unspent transaction outputs to ensure they comply with the snapshots (or just have someone really trusted by the community, like toast or bytemaster, do the asset distribution in the first place). And only after the green light has been given by these trusted members would it be safe to start trading the PROTO assets on the BitShares X decentralized exchange. During this whole process from PTS snapshot until the green light has been given, all PTS trades everywhere would have to stop. After a successful transition PTS would become worthless (centralized exchanges can get rid of it, although the nice exchanges would credit people with PROTO IOUs just like they credited BTSX IOUs, and all PTS mining would stop for good).
So, who wants to help make this possible?
Edit: Also, PTS supply would be scaled up to 2 million in the snapshot for a total PROTO asset supply of 4 million (AGS + scaled PTS). Or rather, scale to something a tiny bit smaller than 2 million with the rest given to the PROTO asset issuer in order to repay the people who donated the BTSX to cover the fees of this process.
I think transfer pts to btsx inside market as an user defined assets makes more sense to me too. Besides development efficiency, another more important rationale to me is that it could bring more liquidity for btsx inside market, so it will be helpful to peg and health of btsx inside market, which is real important for the ecosystem now. In the other hand, as arhag indicated it's really viable.
-
This is an interesting discussion.
Just realize that if you make it into an asset, then there will never be a top 10 PTS crypto-coin. It will always be an asset from here on out.
Also, it now relies on people to download and become involved with BTSX first, when BTSX was the product of PTS. In some ways this could be good, but overall not so much.
I'm ambivalent about the whole thing in general.
-
It seems that how to implementation the no-mining PTS is still very controversy, why don't we start a poll?
Personally, I prefer integrating PTS inside of BTSX. It will be the first valuable user issued asset, and will add value to BTSX wallet too, because at least there are more needs to open your wallet.
The reason that I don't like DPOS PTS is: 1\The value of PTS will be lower and lower as more snapshots of interesting DACs are conducted, and eventually will approach zero, if there is no new DAC for a period of time. It's not wise to invest on such stuff, even the cost of DPOS is not high; 2\ No PTS shareholder like their shares being diluted when only delegates benefit from it.
-
Here is a variation of my previous proposal. What if I3 did the work to release the PROTO user-issued asset on BitShares X (and covered all necessary fees to make that possible)? And in return, the community accepts scaling the PTS snapshot to 1.8 million shares (still a better deal than wasting all remaining 0.27 million shares to POW miners), leaving the other 0.2 million shares as a gift to I3 to compensate them for their effort and as extra funds to help their continued efforts in supporting the BitShares ecosystem. If the community were to accept this proposal, would I3 accept the offer?
-
could we elaborate what happens to the price of BTSX when there is a snapshot in PTS (if it was a user-issued asset)?
-
This is an interesting discussion.
Just realize that if you make it into an asset, then there will never be a top 10 PTS crypto-coin. It will always be an asset from here on out.
Also, it now relies on people to download and become involved with BTSX first, when BTSX was the product of PTS. In some ways this could be good, but overall not so much.
I'm ambivalent about the whole thing in general.
I'm ambivalent on this as well. I'm not really comfortable with the idea that the intermediary for all DACs will become locked into this single DAC-experiment. To me it feels a bit like making the free-market less free. I'd rather not see PTS be a subsidiary of one single DAC. I'd like a more modular solution, where even bitsharesx could fail, but not take down the entire ecosystem.
-
Here is a variation of my previous proposal. What if I3 did the work to release the PROTO user-issued asset on BitShares X (and covered all necessary fees to make that possible)? And in return, the community accepts scaling the PTS snapshot to 1.8 million shares (still a better deal than wasting all remaining 0.27 million shares to POW miners), leaving the other 0.2 million shares as a gift to I3 to compensate them for their effort and as extra funds to help their continued efforts in supporting the BitShares ecosystem. If the community were to accept this proposal, would I3 accept the offer?
Sounds good to me.
-
Here is a variation of my previous proposal. What if I3 did the work to release the PROTO user-issued asset on BitShares X (and covered all necessary fees to make that possible)? And in return, the community accepts scaling the PTS snapshot to 1.8 million shares (still a better deal than wasting all remaining 0.27 million shares to POW miners), leaving the other 0.2 million shares as a gift to I3 to compensate them for their effort and as extra funds to help their continued efforts in supporting the BitShares ecosystem. If the community were to accept this proposal, would I3 accept the offer?
What if the rest of it was added to the pot to give BitAssets a more attractive yield?
-
This is an interesting discussion.
Just realize that if you make it into an asset, then there will never be a top 10 PTS crypto-coin. It will always be an asset from here on out.
Also, it now relies on people to download and become involved with BTSX first, when BTSX was the product of PTS. In some ways this could be good, but overall not so much.
I'm ambivalent about the whole thing in general.
I'm ambivalent on this as well. I'm not really comfortable with the idea that the intermediary for all DACs will become locked into this single DAC-experiment. To me it feels a bit like making the free-market less free. I'd rather not see PTS be a subsidiary of one single DAC. I'd like a more modular solution, where even bitsharesx could fail, but not take down the entire ecosystem.
+5%
-
Here is a variation of my previous proposal. What if I3 did the work to release the PROTO user-issued asset on BitShares X (and covered all necessary fees to make that possible)? And in return, the community accepts scaling the PTS snapshot to 1.8 million shares (still a better deal than wasting all remaining 0.27 million shares to POW miners), leaving the other 0.2 million shares as a gift to I3 to compensate them for their effort and as extra funds to help their continued efforts in supporting the BitShares ecosystem. If the community were to accept this proposal, would I3 accept the offer?
What if the rest of it was added to the pot to give BitAssets a more attractive yield?
I'd much rather give the PTS to I3. Putting the PTS into a fund to help people currently isn't really a good longterm tactic. We need the toolkit continually improved until is quite feature full.
edit - although i suspect it might be declined because it is no longer a mined currency that is being allocated. It is probably just best to destroy the remaining unmined PTS.
-
I'm ambivalent on this as well. I'm not really comfortable with the idea that the intermediary for all DACs will become locked into this single DAC-experiment. To me it feels a bit like making the free-market less free. I'd rather not see PTS be a subsidiary of one single DAC. I'd like a more modular solution, where even bitsharesx could fail, but not take down the entire ecosystem.
PTS and AGS aren't really DACs but more just the ledger itself. In the worst case scenario if something bad happened to BitShares X (which would be horrible for the entire BitShares ecosystem by the way), PTS/AGS just become temporarily frozen (much like AGS is currently) until we took a snapshot of their latest state from the failed BitShares X blockchain and put it into its own DAC.
Furthermore, there are good reasons to not put it on its own separate DPOS chain: its low market cap, especially as further snapshots erodes its value further, can hurt the security of DPOS against 51% stake attacks; it becomes more difficult (requires atomic cross-chain trading) to trade it against BTSX and the BitUSD most people will want to use (the one on the BitShares X DAC). And we all know that it makes no sense to let it continue as a POW coin.
-
What if the rest of it was added to the pot to give BitAssets a more attractive yield?
Nothing would prevent I3 from selling it for other tokens to use for whatever purpose makes sense. They could trade the PROTO they receive for BitUSD and then burn the BitUSD (effectively increasing the BitUSD yield). Or just use that money for more development and marketing. Whatever makes the most sense.
-
PTS and AGS aren't really DACs but more just the ledger itself. In the worst case scenario if something bad happened to BitShares X (which would be horrible for the entire BitShares ecosystem by the way), PTS/AGS just become temporarily frozen (much like AGS is currently) until we took a snapshot of their latest state from the failed BitShares X blockchain and put it into its own DAC.
Furthermore, there are good reasons to not put it on its own separate DPOS chain: its low market cap, especially as further snapshots erodes its value further, can hurt the security of DPOS against 51% stake attacks; it becomes more difficult (requires atomic cross-chain trading) to trade it against BTSX and the BitUSD most people will want to use (the one on the BitShares X DAC). And we all know that it makes no sense to let it continue as a POW coin.
Oh I agree about POW mining needing to stop, I could do without the noise of these fans here. I also understand full well what kind of shock a failure of bitsharesX would bring, but on the other hand I really hope the ecosystem grows way beyond bitsharesX. So as the investment channel for future projects, I'm not too sure of PTS going down to nothing, it is also the only freehaven for competition which means that even the rise of competition could give pts some value, but I think all your other points are valid.
Still I can't get rid of this feeling of wanting PTS to be a separate entity. However I can't find the arguments to counterbalance your points at the moment, so I guess I'll have to sleep on it for now.
-
I just put more thoughts about to transfer PTS into BTSX system. I believe the best way to do that is BTSX core devleopment team to upgrade BTSX code.
1. Use certain time PTS blockchain snapshot information as "genius block" informatiom for generating PTS in BTSX system.
2. Remove "BitPTS" in BTSX system since it's worthless in this scenario
3. Set "PTS" as an BTSX asset, not BitAssets, more similar to user defined asset except for the initial generating method
4. Upgrade BTSX version(enforced).
5. PTS owners (at snapshot time) to claim their PTS in BTSX system w/ current PTS private keys after the BTSX version upgraded completed.
6. PTS runs in BTSX system.
Of course, meanwhile the public communication is also very important to make sure i.g. centerilzed exchanges also honor current PTS owners w/ this new PTS since they could get the new PTS w/ current PTS private keys anyway.
-
PTS and AGS have given birth to BTSX and many more children hopefully :).
Now prodigal child is inviting parents to move in, rent is much cheeper specially electricity :), but my advise would be to keep same family doctor I3 :)
That is just the way I see it :)
-
Is it not possible that PTS could gain value as the Bitshares DAC economy grows? I don't believe in the theory that we will run out of innovative DACs and that PTS will terminaly decline in value. I think it's possible that once several Bitshares DACs have proven their utility and value in the market, PTS could be perceived as harbouring significant value due to the social consensus. They are finite after all.
As long as the dynamics of PTS's role in the social consensus does't change, launching it as an asset within BitsharesX makes sense.
Allowing I3 to retain a percentage of the unmined PTS also make sense to me......burn the rest.
-
It seems that how to implementation the no-mining PTS is still very controversy, why don't we start a poll?
Personally, I prefer integrating PTS inside of BTSX. It will be the first valuable user issued asset, and will add value to BTSX wallet too, because at least there are more needs to open your wallet.
The reason that I don't like DPOS PTS is: 1\The value of PTS will be lower and lower as more snapshots of interesting DACs are conducted, and eventually will approach zero, if there is no new DAC for a period of time. It's not wise to invest on such stuff, even the cost of DPOS is not high; 2\ No PTS shareholder like their shares being diluted when only delegates benefit from it.
This is a very BTSX centric view. Not everyone came to Bitshares over bitshares X. The value of PTS won't necessarily be lower. You guys keep saying this and I understand the thinking but you are running off assumptions that may not be true. I mean, it is true that PTS will approach 0, but no more true than claiming all stocks go to 0. I don't even understand why PTS shareholders will be diluted with DPOS. The tiny transaction fees ?
I mean I don't care that much if it is made a user-issued asset. However, it is still a top 10 crypto-currency. All that goes away and now protoshares is BTSX asset. If the developer says it is too hard I could understand, but I suspect it is no harder for someone like Toast to fork a DPOS coin than it is to do all the coding to issue it on an exchange. Yea, sure we can back out of it using a future snapshot, but meh. Thats the same argument you can use for anything.
-
I do not like this idea...
I've watched PTS since it was a baby and it deserves to be its own chain.
First, if you list it as an asset, it now becomes a kind of "afterthought" on coinmarketcap. Lost somewhere in the Asset market...
This demeans PTS and will make the price drop as it is now dependent on another chain instead of being diversified from risk by being its own separate chain. Please do not do this.
-
I think it should be it's own separate dpos block chain. What's the point of an on ramp to a freeway you are already driving on?
-
I think it should be it's own separate dpos block chain. What's the point of an on ramp to a freeway you are already driving on?
Fine for you and me. But #10 on coinmarketcap is going to get some other peoples' attention and serve as an on-ramp for outsiders. It's one heck of an advertisement that would just disappear, ensuring that the only people who find out about it are those who know about BitShares X, trust it, and are willing to participate in it.
-
Putting PTS on BTSX will subject BTSX to PTS's snapshot announcment/commencment volatility... Not a good idea imo.
-
It seems a lot of people are concerned that this plan will take PTS away from the prime real estate of the main coinmarketcap page and put it in the shadowy corners of the asset tab. This is a valid marketing concern. Personally, I think the arbitrary separation between core blockchain assets and other assets on the blockchain is kind of silly from the perspective of a site like coinmarketcap. In my view, coinmarketcap can have all the different categorizations and tabs it wants, but the main page should be ALL unique cryptoassets (meaning nonfungible with one another) sorted in order of marketcap. Basically, the home page of coinmarketcap.com should go to what is currently http://coinmarketcap.com/all/. Do you think we could convince coinmarketcap to implement this change? If we could, would many of people's hesitations with this proposal go away?
This demeans PTS and will make the price drop as it is now dependent on another chain instead of being diversified from risk by being its own separate chain.
Is diversifying converting its risk from the BTSX chain into risk from its own chain a good thing? If PTS is the core asset on its own chain, then it will be exposed to huge volatility because of how the snapshot system works. It will likely break BitAssets on the chain because of the flash crashes caused right after snapshots. Without BitAssets, cross-chain trading becomes even more of a hassle. If we use another asset as the core asset and simply make PTS a user-issued asset on top, we are now left with the question of what provides value to the core asset. Are the transactions fees of trading PTS back and forth going to be enough to give the core asset value to protect the chain against stake attacks? Even if the core asset was PTS, or if we let the user-issued PTS tokens on the chain also vote for delegates, it would still (very likely) have less security than BTSX.
I am not saying PTS value will go to zero. I am just saying that after snapshots and with no new projects on the horizon, PTS value will likely be hovering at a fairly low value since the only thing that gives it value is expectation that some awesome but currently unknown new project will come around in the future and promise to allocate shares to a snapshot of PTS, which by the way after some point becomes less and less probable over time as more and more projects are created, snapshot PTS, and from then on forks of that kind of project only credit that chain's current stake rather than PTS. Meanwhile, if BitShares X is meant to be vessel holding the BitCurrencies we want the whole world to adopt, it is likely to grow in value over time and become more and more secure (I am fairly confident that it will always have greater market cap, and thus security, than a PTS only chain from this point forward).
Putting PTS on BTSX will subject BTSX to PTS's snapshot announcment/commencment volatility... Not a good idea imo.
The change in price of PTS on the BitShares X chain should have absolutely no effect on the price of BTSX. It is user-issued asset that in no way contributes to the market cap of BTSX (unless you count the transaction and market fees from trading the assets back and forth).
-
- putting PTS into BTSX has the disadvantages mentioned by fuzz
- having a separate DPOS chain would mean lot's of delegate overhead that is not really necessary .. PTS is an investment vehicle .. not a currency
- having it on a separate chain is IMHO the way to go
and I thing it should stick with the satoshi-kind chain .. but we should consider yet again to switch to POS as this is the main message Dan will present in Vegas: "POW sux"
-
I think it should be it's own separate dpos block chain. What's the point of an on ramp to a freeway you are already driving on?
Fine for you and me. But #10 on coinmarketcap is going to get some other peoples' attention and serve as an on-ramp for outsiders. It's one heck of an advertisement that would just disappear, ensuring that the only people who find out about it are those who know about BitShares X, trust it, and are willing to participate in it.
+5% Absolutely CMC main page listing is crucial in terms of an advertising platform.
I think they should have been making better use of the marketing opportunity when PTS is snapshot hot but that didn't get much momentum. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=6712.0
I've been discussing the importance with regard to BitAssets too. NuBits (ponzi) gets immediate pegged asset exposure while BTSX with a steep learning curve and separately listed pegged assets does not. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9596.msg125364#msg125364
Arhags solution of making the case of all the assets being listed on the main page is what we should ask Gliss for.
Edit: I see Toast already has been
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=199685.msg9069751#msg9069751
-
PTS does have a different role than just being an investment vehicle, although people only interested in bitsharesX might not believe in future value.
But for now it has mutiple roles in future bitshares-community projects, as a kind of voting, community auditing and marketing DAC on top of it being an investment instrument.
New DAC builders (if they are smart) will try to give enough of a stake to PTS to make investors willing to bother taking a position, since taking a position takes real money, it actually has some value. So in return the DAC builders get some hype/marketing going and if PTS-traders aren't all lazy greedy bums, they'll base their positions on actual information and this will make the price also reflect a hive mind vetted value of the new project.
If it can still fulfill this role inside btsx, I'm not sure. Despite all technical arguments about the added bonus of btsx-security etc, I am still not comfortable about absorbing PTS into btsx. Maybe it could be upgraded to a contract, investment, voting DAC or something, on it's own separate chain, where other people can also add their investment coins and still be perceived as independent from bitsharesx.
Sorry if I'm not making myself clear, it's late and I'm tired and this is the best I can do for now.
-
I agree that PTS could continue to add value as a proto-DAC doing proto-dac things which it could not do on btsx. I would want to use this to build the smart contracting platform and prototype mechanisms for other DACs
-
I agree that PTS could continue to add value as a proto-DAC doing proto-dac things which it could not do on btsx. I would want to use this to build the smart contracting platform and prototype mechanisms for other DACs
Yes. I like this idea because I have a a lot of PTS. (Well, it is relative... ) +5%
AGS fund has a lot of PTS that I assume has been left for long term funding. So giving value back to PTS is a big benefit for longterm Bitshares funding.
+5%
-
make btsx strong, valueable enough and start to have network effect is really important and so difficult now. compare to this goal, i really can not see keep pts separate for these nice to have features how necessary and make sense, while feature like voting will even debase the value of bts voting, and transfer pts into btsx could save a lot of development resource also. don't be too optimistic and idealistic pls..
-
I would like to add my "newbie" two cents to this discussion.
I found this thread after starting another here yesterday: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10036.msg130794
[and, no, it was not 'advertisement']
I agree with the commentators above who say that PTS (in it's current form) a reach out to the "other 99%" of the cryptoworld who are still mining-centric. I know I was confused and also INTRIGUED by this "PTS" thing! :)
Also, it makes sense that PTS will rise in value along with the rest of the Bitshare ecosystem as the idea takes hold. I came around fast because a small group of enthusiast have been trying to work out a "Proof of Others Stake" (PoOS) which is basically DPoS with a few differences... anyhow that is a different story, and I am very very happy with DPOS at the moment.
My suggestion would be to keep PTS/AGS separate from the BTSX simply because of MARKETING... marketing is a very very important and powerful part of this crypto-world. see: Ethereum ;)
I suggested a relatively simple switch to a PoS algo similar to PND because I was a "big investor" in PND back in February... and saw how smoothly it changed to PoS while retaining most of the "structure" of regular crypto currencies with their many addresses in a wallet, the familiar QT-style interface... etc.
BTSX is still confusing to new-comers, and having PTS/AGS act as "bridge" to get people into DPOS is a wise marketing choice in my view.