BitShares Forum
Other => Graveyard => BitShares PTS => Topic started by: Riverhead on November 12, 2014, 12:39:36 pm
-
The recent beating HackerFish is taking over his gift to BTS is a good case in point for why a dedicated allocation token makes sense. With BTS the issue is how to handle the assets (namely their collateral) other DACs will have other issues. It's a mess.
Although this is the PTS subforum I'll create a new thread at the link below if anyone wants to discuss further.
http://pts.cubeconnex.com/index.php?topic=23.0
-
Thank you for moving forward with this Riverhead. Good job man. We need to form a coalition and I believe this is where the rubber meets the road. We need to really dig into this...even if it hurts.
-
I still don't get why people are wanting to keep PTS alive.. A snapshot was taken for BTS from pts/ags/vote/btsx so that the one common crypto could exist without fragmentation. The revived PTS has no purpose other than to keep PTS investors happy. Let PTS die and stop trying to split the community apart.
-
If you think the issues with BTS snapshots are complicated now just wait until things really get rolling.
Let's say BTS has a multi billion dollar market cap, a thousand UIAs, hundreds of millions of BTS locked up in collateral and cold storage, institutional investors owning large stakes in BTS, etc.
Now something like PLAY or MUSIC comes along and wants to AirDrop to an engaged crypto community. Is BTS the best answer? I think it'd be an absolute nightmare.
-
If you think the issues with BTS snapshots are complicated now just wait until things really get rolling.
Let's say BTS has a multi billion dollar market cap, a thousand UIAs, hundreds of millions of BTS locked up in collateral and cold storage, institutional investors owning large stakes in BTS, etc.
Now something like PLAY or MUSIC comes along and wants to AirDrop to an engaged crypto community. Is BTS the best answer? I think it'd be an absolute nightmare.
So litterally the only purpose of the new PTS is to act as a crypto that can be snapshotted?
Well.. so can any other crypto (excluding BTS). And are you stating that BTS will not be used for snapshots on behalf of the BTS community? Will my previous PTS not be merged into BTS now? What on earth are you pulling here?!
-
If you think the issues with BTS snapshots are complicated now just wait until things really get rolling.
Let's say BTS has a multi billion dollar market cap, a thousand UIAs, hundreds of millions of BTS locked up in collateral and cold storage, institutional investors owning large stakes in BTS, etc.
Now something like PLAY or MUSIC comes along and wants to AirDrop to an engaged crypto community. Is BTS the best answer? I think it'd be an absolute nightmare.
So litterally the only purpose of the new PTS is to act as a crypto that can be snapshotted?
Well.. so can any other crypto (excluding BTS). And are you stating that BTS will not be used for snapshots on behalf of the BTS community? Will my previous PTS not be merged into BTS now? What on earth are you pulling here?!
BTS AirDropping on your PTS has nothing to do with PTS continuing on as an AirDrop target. You still get all the BTS coming to you as a result of the AirDrop. Much like you'll get all the Sparkle (assuming you didn't dump after the BTS AirDrop).
What people need to understand is that a Crypto Token can't be killed by fiat, only abandoned by its community, or burned. If someone wanted to fire up the old BTSX code and get that going it'd work just fine providing they had enough delegates and coins to keep the delegates voted in. As a community we decided that we'll support BTS and no longer support BTSX and it faded to black.
A good number of the community dumped PTS after the BTS AirDrop on PTS/DNS/VOTE/BTSX but not everyone. The term "Merger" has done more to confuse the issue. If this was a true merger all the PTS tokens would have had to be mined, bought, and burned in exchange for BTS tokens.
-
If you think the issues with BTS snapshots are complicated now just wait until things really get rolling.
Let's say BTS has a multi billion dollar market cap, a thousand UIAs, hundreds of millions of BTS locked up in collateral and cold storage, institutional investors owning large stakes in BTS, etc.
Now something like PLAY or MUSIC comes along and wants to AirDrop to an engaged crypto community. Is BTS the best answer? I think it'd be an absolute nightmare.
So litterally the only purpose of the new PTS is to act as a crypto that can be snapshotted?
Well.. so can any other crypto (excluding BTS). And are you stating that BTS will not be used for snapshots on behalf of the BTS community? Will my previous PTS not be merged into BTS now? What on earth are you pulling here?!
Sharedropping has a lot to do with your target demographic. PTS will continue to operate as a sharedrop instrument according to the social consensus. Furthermore, PTS is the first coin having the following properties: (1) deflationary DPoS token ideally suited for use as a currency-DAC, (2) ideal sharedrop instrument due to 100% PoW distribution and no premine or allocation tampering, (3) reference implementation of the Bitshares Toolkit (easy-to fork, 3rd party DAC community support, DAC-agnostic features such as "import by signed msg" which was recently shipped, etc.).
-
We already had the snapshot drop to end all snapshots, but now we have the walking zombie PTS as well. What we need is a new Social Consensus. A BTS drop is most important, since that represents most of the community now, but it could also include the new PTS as well as AGS to balance that. Hey, maybe you'd throw MUSIC and PLAY drops in there too! Anyone want to commission a poll?
-
We already had the snapshot drop to end all snapshots, but now we have the walking zombie PTS as well. What we need is a new Social Consensus. A BTS drop is most important, since that represents most of the community now, but it could also include the new PTS as well as AGS to balance that. Hey, maybe you'd throw MUSIC and PLAY drops in there too! Anyone want to commission a poll?
I had this suggestion
I was going to suggest that. Both AGS and PTSers represent the sharedrop group which follow BTS. Unifying them gives a wider representation and makes it tempting for future developers to sharedrop on.
I would even extend it to make it 30-40% PTS, 30-40% AGS and distribute the remaining among other 2.0 projects like NXT, XCP, NEM etc. The NEM shareholder list in particular is quite interesting as it covers most of the Bitcointalk group.
In this way we make it easy for any developer to have an easy sharedrop target. I would even go ahead and ditch the 20% and ask for 'only' 10% to fulfill the social consensus. The idea is to make this as attractive as possible as a sharedrop target and would benefit us all in the long run.
Of course, alphabar and co. doesn't want to consider anything else, they seem to think that projects are just lining up to sharedrop on PTS. In anycase, IMO DPoS PTS defied the social consensus and have no right to try and preach others about that.
-
We already had the snapshot drop to end all snapshots, but now we have the walking zombie PTS as well. What we need is a new Social Consensus. A BTS drop is most important, since that represents most of the community now, but it could also include the new PTS as well as AGS to balance that. Hey, maybe you'd throw MUSIC and PLAY drops in there too! Anyone want to commission a poll?
I had this suggestion
I was going to suggest that. Both AGS and PTSers represent the sharedrop group which follow BTS. Unifying them gives a wider representation and makes it tempting for future developers to sharedrop on.
I would even extend it to make it 30-40% PTS, 30-40% AGS and distribute the remaining among other 2.0 projects like NXT, XCP, NEM etc. The NEM shareholder list in particular is quite interesting as it covers most of the Bitcointalk group.
In this way we make it easy for any developer to have an easy sharedrop target. I would even go ahead and ditch the 20% and ask for 'only' 10% to fulfill the social consensus. The idea is to make this as attractive as possible as a sharedrop target and would benefit us all in the long run.
Of course, alphabar and co. doesn't want to consider anything else, they seem to think that projects are just lining up to sharedrop on PTS. In anycase, IMO DPoS PTS defied the social consensus and have no right to try and preach others about that.
This is just plain wrong - you are latching on to some obsolete information. First you claim that PTS should simply be absorbed by BTS and die (which would be a clear violation of the social consensus), then you point the finger at us for violating the social consensus (!). Early on Dan did initially propose that the merged BTS may "absorb" PTS, but this was simply a proposal. We see proposals every day in this forum. Can we simply label one of them as fact and pretend that it must be so?
As for your claim that we should sharedrop to AGS, this was discussed at length. PTS is not a "new DAC" - it is simply an upgrade to the existing PTS chain with no modification to the allocation. Messing with the allocation would be a violation of the social consensus as it would skew the sharedrop percentages of future DACs and would pollute the separate but overlapping demographics of each sharedrop instrument (PTS and AGS). And just to hammer the point, the AGS holders who donated to the AGS fund with PTS were refunded all of their AGS and are in a position to profit more than any single group.
-
First you claim that PTS should simply be absorbed by BTS and die (which would be a clear violation of the social consensus), then you point the finger at us for violating the social consensus (!). Early on Dan did initially propose that the merged BTS may "absorb" PTS, but this was simply a proposal. We see proposals every day in this forum. Can we simply label one of them as fact and pretend that it must be so?
Did I ask PTS to die? Maybe (I don't recall, tbh), but as you said opinions change.
Messing with the allocation would be a violation of the social consensus as it would skew the sharedrop percentages of future DACs and would pollute the separate but overlapping demographics of each sharedrop instrument (PTS and AGS).
As suggested by Fuzzy and others, could've just made it 50/50. Both were supposed to be sharedrop targets for I3 and projects using the toolkit. Unifying them made more sense.
And just to hammer the point, the AGS holders who donated to the AGS fund with PTS were refunded all of their AGS and are in a position to profit more than any single group.
Easily solved by alloting only to BTC AGS. Could've even made it 50% PTS/30% AGS/ 20% others (NXT, XCP, NEM, BTS etc...)
-
then you point the finger at us for violating the social consensus (!).
I believe you did, you clearly feel you didn't. As BM says, free market decision is what counts - you will be lobbying with projects to sharedrop on your Alphabar PTS, I will be badgering them not to, lets see what happens.
You had the chance to create the perfect sharedrop vehicle (IMHO, of course), and you didn't take it.
-
We already had the snapshot drop to end all snapshots, but now we have the walking zombie PTS as well. What we need is a new Social Consensus. A BTS drop is most important, since that represents most of the community now, but it could also include the new PTS as well as AGS to balance that. Hey, maybe you'd throw MUSIC and PLAY drops in there too! Anyone want to commission a poll?
I had this suggestion
I was going to suggest that. Both AGS and PTSers represent the sharedrop group which follow BTS. Unifying them gives a wider representation and makes it tempting for future developers to sharedrop on.
I would even extend it to make it 30-40% PTS, 30-40% AGS and distribute the remaining among other 2.0 projects like NXT, XCP, NEM etc. The NEM shareholder list in particular is quite interesting as it covers most of the Bitcointalk group.
In this way we make it easy for any developer to have an easy sharedrop target. I would even go ahead and ditch the 20% and ask for 'only' 10% to fulfill the social consensus. The idea is to make this as attractive as possible as a sharedrop target and would benefit us all in the long run.
Of course, alphabar and co. doesn't want to consider anything else, they seem to think that projects are just lining up to sharedrop on PTS. In anycase, IMO DPoS PTS defied the social consensus and have no right to try and preach others about that.
Sumantso, I have a lot of respect for you as a long-standing forum member, but I wish you'd stop going on about this supposed "violation." It seems like your rejection of the concept of an upgrade is just for the sake of being pedantic. What if the markets accept DPOS PTS as an upgrade (I.e., old PoW stops trading and DPOS replaces it)? Would you finally accept that the DPOS PTS project was no more a "new DAC" than a simple hard fork would be?
Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2
-
The upgrade got the nod from Bytemaster, Stan, Toast, Testz, and a number of other community members. That's good enough for me. The detractors are people I respect and value as members of the community but well meaning people can, and often do, disagree without resolution.
-
Sounds like the rebirth of PTS is a bunch of fucking criminals trying to pull off a scam.
Jog on, PTS is dead.
-
Sounds like the rebirth of PTS is a bunch of fucking criminals trying to pull off a scam.
Jog on, PTS is dead.
I am very sorry to see that you have nothing better to do than disparage the hard work of others. We all know that Dan, Stan, Testz, the exchanges, delegates, and service-providers would not support "criminals trying to pull off a scam." This was simply a badly needed upgrade away from the PoW chain which was producing literally 1 block per day. No change to the allocation whatsoever. I'm sorry to disappoint, but I hope you will find a good hobby to pass the time. In other words, go fly a kite.
-
If you think the issues with BTS snapshots are complicated now just wait until things really get rolling.
Let's say BTS has a multi billion dollar market cap, a thousand UIAs, hundreds of millions of BTS locked up in collateral and cold storage, institutional investors owning large stakes in BTS, etc.
Now something like PLAY or MUSIC comes along and wants to AirDrop to an engaged crypto community. Is BTS the best answer? I think it'd be an absolute nightmare.
I'm trying to look at this and find which is really the best snapshot token.
Non-technical me (as you know:p) doesn't know how hard it will be to just snapshot all the BTS in collateral and cold storage. Is that a big undertaking? Not sure that UIAs would effect it. The other side effect of BTS being a snapshot token is that people who only want to buy a snapshot token have to buy the much more expensive BTS, which they might not want to do.
The main problem I see with PTS is it's so easily manipulated. A price increase from dropping on BTS will be much smaller so it's harder for the developer to pump up the price with the project announcement. The bigger the market cap of the receiver the less powerful the insider info about the drop is, so that's an objective plus for BTS.
Other potential pluses for BTS are the high market cap which could potentially be made use of by a DAC which snapshotted it heavily enough to win voters approval. e.g. A BTS delegate could fund the new DAC if it dropped heavily on BTS. Also the BTS community is very large and very active.
Active voters are needed for DPOS to succeed. Does anyone know the difference between the levels of voter activity in BTS vs PTS? Higher voter activity is great argument to receive a sharedrop. BTS must have far higher numbers of individual voters as there are considerably more active users. It's possible PTS will still have a high percentage of active stake, but it will be owned by far fewer people I would think, which is what matters for a DPOS chain looking for active individual voters to sharedrop on.
With such a weak social consensus, if any, still existing, on what 3rd parties should do, there's no safe way to invest in all future DACs. Buying PTS and hoping for a stake is a gamble if there's no solid social consensus - which no one has the power to declare. If there is disagreement then the consensus is gone, sadly, or not depending on your position.
Ironically if PTS hadn't been revived there would probably be a consensus that BTS should be snapshotted as there would be nothing to dispute.
So now people who want to invest in all future (bitshares-toolkit) DACs, there is no clear path. All that's left is fighting between BTS and PTS. How can the two be brought out of conflict so there is no competition for future 3rd party sharedrops?
-
Sounds like the rebirth of PTS is a bunch of fucking criminals trying to pull off a scam.
Jog on, PTS is dead.
I think you just need to educate what PTS for . PTS evolves into DPOS , which in my opinion is a DAC. Definitely PTS is not dead . As an independent developer, any one of these talented programmers can use it to make a DAC and be able to honor the social contract. It is the sole discretion of the developer to make the sharedropping scheme at his or her own will. That doesn't make him or her a criminal. He or she simply makes the most out of PTS and its DPOS technology. That, my friend, is technological innovation. Two or three years from now it will make a standard for business that is autonomous and decentralized.
-
Sounds like the rebirth of PTS is a bunch of fucking criminals trying to pull off a scam.
Jog on, PTS is dead.
I think you just need to educate what PTS for . PTS evolves into DPOS , which in my opinion is a DAC. Definitely PTS is not dead . As an independent developer, any one of these talented programmers can use it to make a DAC and be able to honor the social contract. It is the sole discretion of the developer to make the sharedropping scheme at his or her own will. That doesn't make him or her a criminal. He or she simply makes the most out of PTS and its DPOS technology. That, my friend, is technological innovation. Two or three years from now it will make a standard for business that is autonomous and decentralized.
You can' t say that and also refuse to sharedrop on AGS.
-
You can' t say that and also refuse to sharedrop on AGS.
Goodness, just let it go. You don't sharedrop with every hard fork. Only future DACs are sharedropped. PTS is not a future DAC, it is one of two prongs in the social consensus. We've already performed another hard fork after the 12/14 upgrade - should we then sharedrop to AGS again? We are not tampering with the allocation, period.
-
Sounds like the rebirth of PTS is a bunch of fucking criminals trying to pull off a scam.
Jog on, PTS is dead.
I think you just need to educate what PTS for . PTS evolves into DPOS , which in my opinion is a DAC. Definitely PTS is not dead . As an independent developer, any one of these talented programmers can use it to make a DAC and be able to honor the social contract. It is the sole discretion of the developer to make the sharedropping scheme at his or her own will. That doesn't make him or her a criminal. He or she simply makes the most out of PTS and its DPOS technology. That, my friend, is technological innovation. Two or three years from now it will make a standard for business that is autonomous and decentralized.
You can' t say that and also refuse to sharedrop on AGS.
As I have said, just my opinion. It is a DAC technically because it has adapt DPOS but fundamentally otherwise the reason is it was just an upgrade from PoW version of it.
-
Have the current DPOS-PTS devs stated that they intend to keep it deflationary?
If so that solves it for me. I would buy it for that property regardless of whether it establishes itself as a sharedrop target or not.
-
You can' t say that and also refuse to sharedrop on AGS.
Goodness, just let it go. You don't sharedrop with every hard fork. Only future DACs are sharedropped. PTS is not a future DAC, it is one of two prongs in the social consensus. We've already performed another hard fork after the 12/14 upgrade - should we then sharedrop to AGS again? We are not tampering with the allocation, period.
Since you base the viability on Dan and Stan's views, here's one for you
I apriciate everyones concern and feedback, but please back off. We all get the point and this discussion is interfering with actual productive R&D.
If we are talking about principles here:
1) PTS should live on and be supported by who ever wants to buy in / share drop to it.
2) BTS should ask for a reasonable recognition (20% or less) share drop in future chains.
3) AGS is what it is. It is just another share drop target. I personally thing PTS should have share dropped 10% on AGS for funding its upgrade and freeing it from mining.
4) I don't want DVS to set any precedents.
-
Have the current DPOS-PTS devs stated that they intend to keep it deflationary?
If so that solves it for me. I would buy it for that property regardless of whether it establishes itself as a sharedrop target or not.
Yes, delegates are paid solely in transaction fees (0-100%). A 0% delegate would burn all transaction fees in blocks it produces, thus reducing the total supply. I would personally oppose any form of dilution in PTS, ever.
-
The truth is that which approach is best varies with how each person weights the factors that go into in.
BM apparently weighs honoring the toolkit a bit higher.
Alphabar weighs keeping the distribution unchanged higher.
Both are noble considerations.
BM sees PTS as another chain that is borrowing toolkit technology to upgrade.
Alphabar sees himself as donating his time to help fix something for the community that was broken.
Both are valid perspectives.
All such decisions can be tipped one way or the other by adding just one more little fact or motivation.
That doesn't mean that either side is wrong or evil. We all just weigh the various factors differently.
We need to realize that lots of arguing is not likely to change these weightings. They go deep into each individual's personal beliefs.
Since we aren't likely to change those, we should try to accept the choice of the person who must decide.
Otherwise, we are just continuing to pollute our collective swimming pool with no further benefit.
Whether we grow or fade depends on how fresh and clean we keep the water in this swimming pool.
-
The argument seems to boil down to is PTS a new DAC?
If I take a house and gut it, replace and remodel everything is it new? Yes and no but mostly no.It does not have a new deed or address and some items below the surface of the home are not replaced because they are fine and in good working order. It does however have more value then a home of the same style and year that has not been rebuilt.
Here's my take:
Pts was the house that I3 buit.
It was a great grand old house but over the years I3 moved. In fact I3 stayed in the same neighborhood but to a bigger nicer home called BTS.
I3 has it's hands full building and maintaining BTS. So PTS was left vacant to rot and be a eye sore to the entire neighborhood, which we will call DPOS Heights.
AlphaBar moved in and started to work on this old ugly PTS house. Now its not quite as ugly ;). It can add value to the entire neighborhood.
Would it have been easier for BTS holders to accept this if they got something sure.
Does it make BTS more valuable because it helps to showcase DPOS possible.
Do I think it will be successful project, well that depends on how you measure success but short answer is no.
Do I wish them the best of luck, absolutely :)
-
One thing that would immediately clear my mind regarding PTS, is whether or not the snapshot for BTS went through (that BTSX was diluted so that PTS and AGS could be merged in, alongside vote and DNS).
If the dilution did occur, then isn't is a bit unfair that PTS would then continue to exist?...
-
Pts was the house that I3 buit.
PTS was scaffolding to build BitShares.
-
On another note, regarding the issue of BTS being tied up in cryptoassets - if a new DAC was deciding to snapshot BTS, they'd announce the date and users would move their cryptoassets back to bts, which would help the peg and allow for liquidity for those wanting to buy bitassets..
Are there any further features planned for the new PTS? Because otherwise, it's just the bitshares toolkit up and running with no extra features attached (less than what other DACs offer).
-
One thing that would immediately clear my mind regarding PTS, is whether or not the snapshot for BTS went through (that BTSX was diluted so that PTS and AGS could be merged in, alongside vote and DNS).
If the dilution did occur, then isn't is a bit unfair that PTS would then continue to exist?...
Can anyone answer this? Was PTS merged into BTSX alongside DNS and VOTE as planned last year? Or did the community decide to allow PTS to exist on its own?
If it has been, then there is no reason for PTS to exist anymore.
-
One thing that would immediately clear my mind regarding PTS, is whether or not the snapshot for BTS went through (that BTSX was diluted so that PTS and AGS could be merged in, alongside vote and DNS).
If the dilution did occur, then isn't is a bit unfair that PTS would then continue to exist?...
Can anyone answer this? Was PTS merged into BTSX alongside DNS and VOTE as planned last year? Or did the community decide to allow PTS to exist on its own?
If it has been, then there is no reason for PTS to exist anymore.
We really should put this into an FAQ...
The merger on nov-5 merged DNS, VOTE and BTSX into the new BTS super-DAC. Because now the superDAC exists, I3 will not release any additional DACs. That change of plan was seen as unfair to PTS/AGS holders (post feb-28), which is why PTS and AGS also received additional BTS in the "merger". The social consensus remains unchanged wrt 3rd party DACs. Both Stan and Dan have repeatedly stated that PTS will continue to exist after nov-5.
-
One thing that would immediately clear my mind regarding PTS, is whether or not the snapshot for BTS went through (that BTSX was diluted so that PTS and AGS could be merged in, alongside vote and DNS).
If the dilution did occur, then isn't is a bit unfair that PTS would then continue to exist?...
Can anyone answer this? Was PTS merged into BTSX alongside DNS and VOTE as planned last year? Or did the community decide to allow PTS to exist on its own?
If it has been, then there is no reason for PTS to exist anymore.
We really should put this into an FAQ...
The merger on nov-5 merged DNS, VOTE and BTSX into the new BTS super-DAC. Because now the superDAC exists, I3 will not release any additional DACs. That change of plan was seen as unfair to PTS/AGS holders (post feb-28), which is why PTS and AGS also received additional BTS in the "merger". The social consensus remains unchanged wrt 3rd party DACs. Both Stan and Dan have repeatedly stated that PTS will continue to exist after nov-5.
This is what we stand for . Let PTS do its job from a third party view. It is what PTS did, do , and will because of its framework . So as to AGS.
-
One thing that would immediately clear my mind regarding PTS, is whether or not the snapshot for BTS went through (that BTSX was diluted so that PTS and AGS could be merged in, alongside vote and DNS).
If the dilution did occur, then isn't is a bit unfair that PTS would then continue to exist?...
Can anyone answer this? Was PTS merged into BTSX alongside DNS and VOTE as planned last year? Or did the community decide to allow PTS to exist on its own?
If it has been, then there is no reason for PTS to exist anymore.
We really should put this into an FAQ...
The merger on nov-5 merged DNS, VOTE and BTSX into the new BTS super-DAC. Because now the superDAC exists, I3 will not release any additional DACs. That change of plan was seen as unfair to PTS/AGS holders (post feb-28), which is why PTS and AGS also received additional BTS in the "merger". The social consensus remains unchanged wrt 3rd party DACs. Both Stan and Dan have repeatedly stated that PTS will continue to exist after nov-5.
Right, so when BTSX was first created both PTS and AGS were sharedropped to.
Then when it merges, PTS and AGS holders get given more BTS - getting paid a second time.
Then PTS decides it wants to continue existing after that?
Why not join the BTS team?
Why not offer more funtionality as a DAC than just managing to get the bitshares toolkit running and hijacking the old marketing?
The social consensus I believe now applies to BTS, and the idea of sharedropping will spread to getting userbases from other cryptos outside of the bitshares toolkit crypto scene.