Hi and i will start with "What's going on?"
i have some questions, hope someone can answer them, because i lost complete the overview here.
I was very busy with other tasks, therefore i was not able to do the key import for bitshares dns,
now i am reading, that bitshares dns not even exits anymore.. and also that Protoshares is almost
done or is done... i mean all that happened in the last 4-5 weeks?????
Great.
my questions:
I. "So PTS is nearly useless now?"
II. "DNS snapshot was on 5th november, i missed to transfer my keys to the dns-wallet, so for dns my PTS keys are now useless? and i lost my share for the dns->"new bitshares" conversion now?
III. "Is there already a "Vote" wallet?
IV. "How can i see all private keys which exits in the wallet.dat, because i'm missing one btc-donation for AngelShares, which i can't verify in the blockexplorer"
V. "is there an overview of what exactly is going on in the bitshare ecosphere..?"
The simple answer is that No, PTS is not useless. However, it's not quite clear what PTS is: there is a team of people trying reboot a DPOS version of PTS, but they haven't decided whether they're going to use a snapshot of PTS from November 5th or whether they're going to use a future snapshot.
The simple answer is that No, PTS is not useless. However, it's not quite clear what PTS is: there is a team of people trying reboot a DPOS version of PTS, but they haven't decided whether they're going to use a snapshot of PTS from November 5th or whether they're going to use a future snapshot.
Although I'm not quite authoritative wrt the snapshot question, I'm *very* certain that we're going to use a future snapshot.
The plan, in general, is to upgrade the existing PTS to a DPOS chain. That means that all transactions in the old chain must be honoured, up to a yet-to-be-announced point in the future. Using the Nov-5 snapshot simply doesn't make any sense.
The plan, in general, is to upgrade the existing PTS to a DPOS chain. That means that all transactions in the old chain must be honoured, up to a yet-to-be-announced point in the future. Using the Nov-5 snapshot simply doesn't make any sense.
The plan, in general, is to upgrade the existing PTS to a DPOS chain. That means that all transactions in the old chain must be honoured, up to a yet-to-be-announced point in the future. Using the Nov-5 snapshot simply doesn't make any sense.
+5%
It would just be giving back PTS to those that sold after the snapshot so that they could sell it again.
The plan, in general, is to upgrade the existing PTS to a DPOS chain. That means that all transactions in the old chain must be honoured, up to a yet-to-be-announced point in the future. Using the Nov-5 snapshot simply doesn't make any sense.
+5%
It would just be giving back PTS to those that sold after the snapshot so that they could sell it again.
Can't existing POW PTS be sent by users to a 'proof-of-burn' address in order to receive new DPOS PTS?
If a burn address were used it would be a way to increase the value of the new DPOS PTS:
- It removes potential competition - what if someone else decided to 'revive' the old POW PTS in a slightly different way? It's harder for them if a load of it's been burned already.
- DPOS PTS hodlers have demonstrated some kind of commitment to it by burning the old PTS.
- DPOS PTS hodlers have also had to invest in it (in a way) by having to think about it and make a conscious decision.
The above points make it a bit more viable and therefore more valuable.
Other advantages of proof-of-burn:
- Because action is required to claim DPOS PTS, it means that all hodlers are currently active. That is to say, it could clear out 'lost', inactive or exchange-owned PTS
- Erm...
If it were to be done from a snapshot we would then have the old POW PTS remaining. This could go on ad infinitum. Dumping, keeping, buying, other devs reviving the old, old PTS with a different feature...101 different versions of PTS. I'm sure some people would say this is fine - let there be competition. I think it'd be too messy.
Wouldn't proof-of-burn bring more clarity and finality to the situation?
The plan, in general, is to upgrade the existing PTS to a DPOS chain. That means that all transactions in the old chain must be honoured, up to a yet-to-be-announced point in the future. Using the Nov-5 snapshot simply doesn't make any sense.
+5%
It would just be giving back PTS to those that sold after the snapshot so that they could sell it again.
Can't existing POW PTS be sent by users to a 'proof-of-burn' address in order to receive new DPOS PTS?
If a burn address were used it would be a way to increase the value of the new DPOS PTS:
- It removes potential competition - what if someone else decided to 'revive' the old POW PTS in a slightly different way? It's harder for them if a load of it's been burned already.
- DPOS PTS hodlers have demonstrated some kind of commitment to it by burning the old PTS.
- DPOS PTS hodlers have also had to invest in it (in a way) by having to think about it and make a conscious decision.
The above points make it a bit more viable and therefore more valuable.
Other advantages of proof-of-burn:
- Because action is required to claim DPOS PTS, it means that all hodlers are currently active. That is to say, it could clear out 'lost', inactive or exchange-owned PTS
- Erm...
If it were to be done from a snapshot we would then have the old POW PTS remaining. This could go on ad infinitum. Dumping, keeping, buying, other devs reviving the old, old PTS with a different feature...101 different versions of PTS. I'm sure some people would say this is fine - let there be competition. I think it'd be too messy.
Wouldn't proof-of-burn bring more clarity and finality to the situation?
You can use proof of burn to a null address as an "AGS" style way of getting your stake.
Nothing says that PTS cannot be "split" into two networks... 1 that is slowly dying like POW and the other growing DPOS...
Just have several burn addresses.... let PTS users pick their fate.
You can use proof of burn to a null address as an "AGS" style way of getting your stake.
Nothing says that PTS cannot be "split" into two networks... 1 that is slowly dying like POW and the other growing DPOS...
Just have several burn addresses.... let PTS users pick their fate.