Announcing BitShares PTS2...PTS2 will honor all shares of PTS one-for-one, with the remaining unmined PTS shares mapped to a "reverse angel" marketing fund to help grow the value of PTS2 - and all its children.'''
wait a minute...pts and pts2 will coexist？ only pts holders could snapshot pts2 and they will have two coins in hand(say a PTS worth $3.5, now he may have a $3 worth PTS and a $1 worth PTS2) , what about AGS holders? I bought lots of PTSs but donated every of it to get AGS, now I'm thinking it unfair...
one more thing, would you still accpet PTS donate for AGS? or the PTS2 thing will come after the end of AGS donating?
Quoteone more thing, would you still accpet PTS donate for AGS? or the PTS2 thing will come after the end of AGS donating?
Good point. The easiest way is to do as you suggest and wait for AGS to be complete. But I hope we don't have to wait that long, so I'm open to other ideas...
Quoteone more thing, would you still accpet PTS donate for AGS? or the PTS2 thing will come after the end of AGS donating?
Good point. The easiest way is to do as you suggest and wait for AGS to be complete. But I hope we don't have to wait that long, so I'm open to other ideas...
How will you take the PTS2 converted from the current PTS donation？
Quoteone more thing, would you still accpet PTS donate for AGS? or the PTS2 thing will come after the end of AGS donating?
Good point. The easiest way is to do as you suggest and wait for AGS to be complete. But I hope we don't have to wait that long, so I'm open to other ideas...
Quoteone more thing, would you still accpet PTS donate for AGS? or the PTS2 thing will come after the end of AGS donating?
Good point. The easiest way is to do as you suggest and wait for AGS to be complete. But I hope we don't have to wait that long, so I'm open to other ideas...
Announcing BitShares PTS2
Shortly after we released PTS in November, Bytemaster reserved the right to release an upgrade when the technology was available. That time has arrived. As soon as DPOS finishes its validation trials and BitShares XT is released, we will turn our attention to PTS2 (which, thanks to the new DPOS toolkit, should be rather easy to do.)
PTS2 will honor all shares of PTS one-for-one, with the remaining unmined PTS shares mapped to a "reverse angel" marketing fund to help grow the value of PTS2 - and all its children.
The value proposition PTS2 has over PTS is as follows:(Of course, the dollar value of this fund depends on whether the market value of PTS2 is greater or less than the value of PTS. Assuming that it is the same, the fund will be worth over a million dollars. As the use of this promotional fund begins to take affect, the value could increase to, say, 2 million dollars. Or it could be worth zero. It depends on what we come up with together.)
- Much faster transaction times.
- A profitable business model.
- All the other benefits DPOS has over mining.
- A million dollar promotion fund to help grow its value for those who hold its shares.
PTS and PTS2 will compete in the free market.
Every PTS share holder will get a PTS2 snapshot share as well.
It is up to the free market to decide which shares to hold and which to sell.
It is also up to each developer to decide which PTS version they will honor.We plan to sell PTS and honor PTS2, but everyone is free to choose otherwise.
This is all we have settled on so far. We turn to the community for ideas about how to best use a genesis block "reverse angel address" to grow the value of a new DAC - especially a Grand ProtoDAC that is likely to get you shares in many other DACs that you can already see being developed in real time. Clearly, anything we do to increase demand for any of the children also increased demand for the parent - so there are many, many ways to do this.
We will be sharing some ideas of our own, but are very interested in getting community ideas and buy-in. The final plan will undoubtedly be a hybrid of the best of the best.
A lot of ideas have been discussed and debated over the past few months. Here's where we all can post the ones we like liked best - and hammer out a promo-plan that most of us can whole-heartedly support.
All DACs have snapshots that honor something.
Upgrade DACs honor their predecessor.
New DACs honor their industry parent which honor PTS/AGS.
If a DAC is the first in a new industry, it honors PTS/AGS directly, just like XT did on February 28.
All DACs have snapshots that honor something.
Upgrade DACs honor their predecessor.
New DACs honor their industry parent which honor PTS/AGS.
If a DAC is the first in a new industry, it honors PTS/AGS directly, just like XT did on February 28.
When an upgrade occurs it can be done either by hard fork if there is delegate consensus or as an alternative chain if not.
When an alternative chain is offered, everybody gets shares in both via the snapshot mechanism. As long as there are users for both, they can co-exist like Coke Classic and New Coke a few decades ago. The expectation is that one or the other of the products will win and the other will fade to zero - but that is up to the market to decide.
Announcing BitShares PTS2
Shortly after we released PTS in November, Bytemaster reserved the right to release an upgrade when the technology was available. That time has arrived. As soon as DPOS finishes its validation trials and BitShares XT is released, we will turn our attention to PTS2 (which, thanks to the new DPOS toolkit, should be rather easy to do.)
PTS2 will honor all shares of PTS one-for-one, with the remaining unmined PTS shares mapped to a "reverse angel" marketing fund to help grow the value of PTS2 - and all its children.
The value proposition PTS2 has over PTS is as follows:(Of course, the dollar value of this fund depends on whether the market value of PTS2 is greater or less than the value of PTS. Assuming that it is the same, the fund will be worth over a million dollars. As the use of this promotional fund begins to take affect, the value could increase to, say, 2 million dollars. Or it could be worth zero. It depends on what we come up with together.)
- Much faster transaction times.
- A profitable business model.
- All the other benefits DPOS has over mining.
- A million dollar promotion fund to help grow its value for those who hold its shares.
PTS and PTS2 will compete in the free market.
Every PTS share holder will get a PTS2 snapshot share as well.
It is up to the free market to decide which shares to hold and which to sell.
It is also up to each developer to decide which PTS version they will honor.We plan to sell PTS and honor PTS2, but everyone is free to choose otherwise.
This is all we have settled on so far. We turn to the community for ideas about how to best use a genesis block "reverse angel address" to grow the value of a new DAC - especially a Grand ProtoDAC that is likely to get you shares in many other DACs that you can already see being developed in real time. Clearly, anything we do to increase demand for any of the children also increased demand for the parent - so there are many, many ways to do this.
We will be sharing some ideas of our own, but are very interested in getting community ideas and buy-in. The final plan will undoubtedly be a hybrid of the best of the best.
A lot of ideas have been discussed and debated over the past few months. Here's where we all can post the ones we like liked best - and hammer out a promo-plan that most of us can whole-heartedly support.
All DACs have snapshots that honor something.
Upgrade DACs honor their predecessor.
New DACs honor their industry parent which honor PTS/AGS.
If a DAC is the first in a new industry, it honors PTS/AGS directly, just like XT did on February 28.
When an upgrade occurs it can be done either by hard fork if there is delegate consensus or as an alternative chain if not.
When an alternative chain is offered, everybody gets shares in both via the snapshot mechanism. As long as there are users for both, they can co-exist like Coke Classic and New Coke a few decades ago. The expectation is that one or the other of the products will win and the other will fade to zero - but that is up to the market to decide.
Been sitting quietly on the sidelines watching this forum everyday. Recently there was a thread: Today I loose confidence in I3. I thought come on guys, just be patient some great products will come. And so far your logic always made sense.
But the coexistence of PTS and PTS2 just seems like a quick money scheme, the fact that you're considering to do this even before the AGS funding is over, makes me think you're having funding problems. Another million would be enough for now, but what will you come up with, when those funds have dried up?
For investors your making the deal more complicated than it already is, now they have to choose between holding PTS and PTS2, because DAC's can choose to honor either one
PTS will drop from the top 10 coin market list, because it has effectively lost half it's value.
Sorry to be cynical, I still believe in I3, but this just doesn't make any sense.
Been sitting quietly on the sidelines watching this forum everyday. Recently there was a thread: Today I loose confidence in I3. I thought come on guys, just be patient some great products will come. And so far your logic always made sense.
But the coexistence of PTS and PTS2 just seems like a quick money scheme, the fact that you're considering to do this even before the AGS funding is over, makes me think you're having funding problems.
Announcing BitShares PTS2
Shortly after we released PTS in November, Bytemaster reserved the right to release an upgrade when the technology was available. That time has arrived. As soon as DPOS finishes its validation trials and BitShares XT is released, we will turn our attention to PTS2 (which, thanks to the new DPOS toolkit, should be rather easy to do.)
PTS2 will honor all shares of PTS one-for-one, with the remaining unmined PTS shares mapped to a "reverse angel" marketing fund to help grow the value of PTS2 - and all its children.
The value proposition PTS2 has over PTS is as follows:(Of course, the dollar value of this fund depends on whether the market value of PTS2 is greater or less than the value of PTS. Assuming that it is the same, the fund will be worth over a million dollars. As the use of this promotional fund begins to take affect, the value could increase to, say, 2 million dollars. Or it could be worth zero. It depends on what we come up with together.)
- Much faster transaction times.
- A profitable business model.
- All the other benefits DPOS has over mining.
- A million dollar promotion fund to help grow its value for those who hold its shares.
PTS and PTS2 will compete in the free market.
Every PTS share holder will get a PTS2 snapshot share as well.
It is up to the free market to decide which shares to hold and which to sell.
It is also up to each developer to decide which PTS version they will honor.We plan to sell PTS and honor PTS2, but everyone is free to choose otherwise.
This is all we have settled on so far. We turn to the community for ideas about how to best use a genesis block "reverse angel address" to grow the value of a new DAC - especially a Grand ProtoDAC that is likely to get you shares in many other DACs that you can already see being developed in real time. Clearly, anything we do to increase demand for any of the children also increased demand for the parent - so there are many, many ways to do this.
We will be sharing some ideas of our own, but are very interested in getting community ideas and buy-in. The final plan will undoubtedly be a hybrid of the best of the best.
A lot of ideas have been discussed and debated over the past few months. Here's where we all can post the ones we like liked best - and hammer out a promo-plan that most of us can whole-heartedly support.
1.BTS X released & Dpos verified
2.if AGS donate is not finished then danate pause
3.PTS2.0（DPos） use Proof of burn
① set a new address
② give PTSer some time such as two weeks
③ PTSer donate PTS1.0 to the “new address”
④ PTS2.0 honor the donater in the list
⑤ the rerest PTS holded by community for development
4 AGS donate restart with PTS2.0
Why the old PTS still exist ?Thats unnecessary .
stan, I just want to know that the agser whether could get the pts2.0 through their amount of ags?
Personally , support to launch PTS2.0.
But , one thing critical should be clarified is how to distribute new DAC shares among PTS and PTS2.0 .
If we have decided to maintain PTS2.0 in a long run , My suggestion is just honuring PTS2.0 and let PTS go into history.
No one is able to 'shut down' the PTS that exists among the p2p network, which means PTS and PTS2 have to coexist for sure till the hash rate drops to zero.
But 3i can change the SCSL to make developers honor PTS2 rather than PTS after the hard fork.
https://github.com/InvictusInnovations/BitShares/blob/master/LICENSE.md
Thanks for your explanationQuoteWhy the old PTS still exist ?Thats unnecessary .
DACs are autonomous. You can't kill them if people still want to run the code.
All DACs have snapshots that honor something.
Upgrade DACs honor their predecessor.
New DACs honor their industry parent which honor PTS/AGS.
If a DAC is the first in a new industry, it honors PTS/AGS directly, just like XT did on February 28.
When an upgrade occurs it can be done either by hard fork if there is delegate consensus or as an alternative chain if not.
When an alternative chain is offered, everybody gets shares in both via the snapshot mechanism. As long as there are users for both, they can co-exist like Coke Classic and New Coke a few decades ago. The expectation is that one or the other of the products will win and the other will fade to zero - but that is up to the market to decide.
Been sitting quietly on the sidelines watching this forum everyday. Recently there was a thread: Today I loose confidence in I3. I thought come on guys, just be patient some great products will come. And so far your logic always made sense.
But the coexistence of PTS and PTS2 just seems like a quick money scheme, the fact that you're considering to do this even before the AGS funding is over, makes me think you're having funding problems. Another million would be enough for now, but what will you come up with, when those funds have dried up?
For investors your making the deal more complicated than it already is, now they have to choose between holding PTS and PTS2, because DAC's can choose to honor either one
PTS will drop from the top 10 coin market list, because it has effectively lost half it's value.
Sorry to be cynical, I still believe in I3, but this just doesn't make any sense.
No one is able to 'shut down' the PTS that exists among the p2p network, which means PTS and PTS2 have to coexist for sure till the hash rate drops to zero.
But 3i can change the SCSL to make developers honor PTS2 rather than PTS after the hard fork.
https://github.com/InvictusInnovations/BitShares/blob/master/LICENSE.md
Thanks for your explanationQuoteWhy the old PTS still exist ?Thats unnecessary .
DACs are autonomous. You can't kill them if people still want to run the code.
So there will be a snapshot?After the snapshot?When will the PTS2 release?I don't want to wait a month after the snapshot.
Personally , support to launch PTS2.0.
But , one thing critical should be clarified is how to distribute new DAC shares among PTS and PTS2.0 .
If we have decided to maintain PTS2.0 in a long run , My suggestion is just honuring PTS2.0 and let PTS go into history.
All DACs have snapshots that honor something.
Upgrade DACs honor their predecessor.
New DACs honor their industry parent which honor PTS/AGS.
If a DAC is the first in a new industry, it honors PTS/AGS directly, just like XT did on February 28.
When an upgrade occurs it can be done either by hard fork if there is delegate consensus or as an alternative chain if not.
When an alternative chain is offered, everybody gets shares in both via the snapshot mechanism. As long as there are users for both, they can co-exist like Coke Classic and New Coke a few decades ago. The expectation is that one or the other of the products will win and the other will fade to zero - but that is up to the market to decide.
Been sitting quietly on the sidelines watching this forum everyday. Recently there was a thread: Today I loose confidence in I3. I thought come on guys, just be patient some great products will come. And so far your logic always made sense.
But the coexistence of PTS and PTS2 just seems like a quick money scheme, the fact that you're considering to do this even before the AGS funding is over, makes me think you're having funding problems. Another million would be enough for now, but what will you come up with, when those funds have dried up?
For investors your making the deal more complicated than it already is, now they have to choose between holding PTS and PTS2, because DAC's can choose to honor either one
PTS will drop from the top 10 coin market list, because it has effectively lost half it's value.
Sorry to be cynical, I still believe in I3, but this just doesn't make any sense.
No one is able to 'shut down' the PTS that exists among the p2p network, which means PTS and PTS2 have to coexist for sure till the hash rate drops to zero.
But 3i can change the SCSL to make developers honor PTS2 rather than PTS after the hard fork.
https://github.com/InvictusInnovations/BitShares/blob/master/LICENSE.md
Exactly. DACs are autonomous. You can't kill them until the last person stops running their code.
We can't "make" developers do anything. We can only point out why it is in their best interest to honor the demographic defined by a particular chain. It is conceivable that their could be two different demographics emerging - one that won't let go of mining even if it only produces a block a day, and another that represents a more adventurous group of early adopters. Perhaps some developers will want to honor a mix of both.
However, I think this is all just a thought experiment. The chain is too slow now - which is the main reason we are upgrading it (as this community has passionately demanded for months). I think PTS will last about a week past PTS2, but who knows?
everyone seems confused - me too!
10% PTS and 10% AGS at least for new DACs from Invictus so far
what happens when PTS 2 is released?
All DACs have snapshots that honor something.
Upgrade DACs honor their predecessor.
New DACs honor their industry parent which honor PTS/AGS.
If a DAC is the first in a new industry, it honors PTS/AGS directly, just like XT did on February 28.
When an upgrade occurs it can be done either by hard fork if there is delegate consensus or as an alternative chain if not.
When an alternative chain is offered, everybody gets shares in both via the snapshot mechanism. As long as there are users for both, they can co-exist like Coke Classic and New Coke a few decades ago. The expectation is that one or the other of the products will win and the other will fade to zero - but that is up to the market to decide.
Been sitting quietly on the sidelines watching this forum everyday. Recently there was a thread: Today I loose confidence in I3. I thought come on guys, just be patient some great products will come. And so far your logic always made sense.
But the coexistence of PTS and PTS2 just seems like a quick money scheme, the fact that you're considering to do this even before the AGS funding is over, makes me think you're having funding problems. Another million would be enough for now, but what will you come up with, when those funds have dried up?
For investors your making the deal more complicated than it already is, now they have to choose between holding PTS and PTS2, because DAC's can choose to honor either one
PTS will drop from the top 10 coin market list, because it has effectively lost half it's value.
Sorry to be cynical, I still believe in I3, but this just doesn't make any sense.
No one is able to 'shut down' the PTS that exists among the p2p network, which means PTS and PTS2 have to coexist for sure till the hash rate drops to zero.
But 3i can change the SCSL to make developers honor PTS2 rather than PTS after the hard fork.
https://github.com/InvictusInnovations/BitShares/blob/master/LICENSE.md
Exactly. DACs are autonomous. You can't kill them until the last person stops running their code.
We can't "make" developers do anything. We can only point out why it is in their best interest to honor the demographic defined by a particular chain. It is conceivable that their could be two different demographics emerging - one that won't let go of mining even if it only produces a block a day, and another that represents a more adventurous group of early adopters. Perhaps some developers will want to honor a mix of both.
However, I think this is all just a thought experiment. The chain is too slow now - which is the main reason we are upgrading it (as this community has passionately demanded for months). I think PTS will last about a week past PTS2, but who knows?
But that honoring PTS2 is also an option will be included in SCSL after which is launched, right？
All DACs have snapshots that honor something.
Upgrade DACs honor their predecessor.
New DACs honor their industry parent which honor PTS/AGS.
If a DAC is the first in a new industry, it honors PTS/AGS directly, just like XT did on February 28.
When an upgrade occurs it can be done either by hard fork if there is delegate consensus or as an alternative chain if not.
When an alternative chain is offered, everybody gets shares in both via the snapshot mechanism. As long as there are users for both, they can co-exist like Coke Classic and New Coke a few decades ago. The expectation is that one or the other of the products will win and the other will fade to zero - but that is up to the market to decide.
Been sitting quietly on the sidelines watching this forum everyday. Recently there was a thread: Today I loose confidence in I3. I thought come on guys, just be patient some great products will come. And so far your logic always made sense.
But the coexistence of PTS and PTS2 just seems like a quick money scheme, the fact that you're considering to do this even before the AGS funding is over, makes me think you're having funding problems. Another million would be enough for now, but what will you come up with, when those funds have dried up?
For investors your making the deal more complicated than it already is, now they have to choose between holding PTS and PTS2, because DAC's can choose to honor either one
PTS will drop from the top 10 coin market list, because it has effectively lost half it's value.
Sorry to be cynical, I still believe in I3, but this just doesn't make any sense.
Hi staneveryone seems confused - me too!
10% PTS and 10% AGS at least for new DACs from Invictus so far
what happens when PTS 2 is released?
PTS2 is an upgrade so it must honor its predecessor 1 for 1. A mere upgrade should never siphon value from an existing chain to give to another group.
Now, if you are releasing a new chain, you want to attract all the competitive advantages for it you can. Honoring PTS 10% and AGS 10% gets you their support and our support. That leaves you 80% to go after other demographic groups, fund development, fund marketing, or whatever.
Hi staneveryone seems confused - me too!
10% PTS and 10% AGS at least for new DACs from Invictus so far
what happens when PTS 2 is released?
PTS2 is an upgrade so it must honor its predecessor 1 for 1. A mere upgrade should never siphon value from an existing chain to give to another group.
Now, if you are releasing a new chain, you want to attract all the competitive advantages for it you can. Honoring PTS 10% and AGS 10% gets you their support and our support. That leaves you 80% to go after other demographic groups, fund development, fund marketing, or whatever.
to my undertanding it is a upgrade , it is simple thing , I think a better way is to announce a forced update. then everybody can understand this.
DPOS frees up 300,000 that would have been needed to pay miners.
What do to with them is the question.
Not mining them (i.e. burning them) would give a 15% one time windfall to PTS holders even though it was AGS donations that made the DPOS breakthrough possible.
We think those savings from that R&D should be used to benefit everyone in our industry.
DPOS frees up 300,000 that would have been needed to pay miners.
What do to with them is the question.
Not mining them (i.e. burning them) would give a 15% one time windfall to PTS holders even though it was AGS donations that made the DPOS breakthrough possible.
We think those savings from that R&D should be used to benefit everyone in our industry.
I think that 300,000 saved PTS honors 50/50 to PTS/AGS would be a good choice.
yay.why we have to reserve the 300,000 PTS2 to the fund?I3 have already got enough fund from age to promote BTS.Just honors 50/50 PTS/AGS would be a better solution .
DPOS frees up 300,000 that would have been needed to pay miners.
What do to with them is the question.
Not mining them (i.e. burning them) would give a 15% one time windfall to PTS holders even though it was AGS donations that made the DPOS breakthrough possible.
We think those savings from that R&D should be used to benefit everyone in our industry.
I think that 300,000 saved PTS honors 50/50 to PTS/AGS would be a good choice.
Yes I understand you +5%Hi staneveryone seems confused - me too!
10% PTS and 10% AGS at least for new DACs from Invictus so far
what happens when PTS 2 is released?
PTS2 is an upgrade so it must honor its predecessor 1 for 1. A mere upgrade should never siphon value from an existing chain to give to another group.
Now, if you are releasing a new chain, you want to attract all the competitive advantages for it you can. Honoring PTS 10% and AGS 10% gets you their support and our support. That leaves you 80% to go after other demographic groups, fund development, fund marketing, or whatever.
to my undertanding it is a upgrade , it is simple thing , I think a better way is to announce a forced update. then everybody can understand this.
Yes, I tried that. Got called "arrogant" for even considering such a thing. :)
Bottom line is we usually have to explain all our new ideas several different ways before everyone gets comfortable with it.
Hi staneveryone seems confused - me too!
10% PTS and 10% AGS at least for new DACs from Invictus so far
what happens when PTS 2 is released?
PTS2 is an upgrade so it must honor its predecessor 1 for 1. A mere upgrade should never siphon value from an existing chain to give to another group.
Now, if you are releasing a new chain, you want to attract all the competitive advantages for it you can. Honoring PTS 10% and AGS 10% gets you their support and our support. That leaves you 80% to go after other demographic groups, fund development, fund marketing, or whatever.
to my undertanding it is a upgrade , it is simple thing , I think a better way is to announce a forced update. then everybody can understand this.
Yes, I tried that. Got called "arrogant" for even considering such a thing. :)
Bottom line is we usually have to explain all our new ideas several different ways before everyone gets comfortable with it.
I like proof of burn.
It is fair.
Here is a simpler question Stan:
‘Why after you announce you *genius* idea how to increase the value of PTS ” 2x to 10X”, the price of PTS went down?’
I guess your non- full-of-yourself, non-arrogant answer would be that the market is not smart enough to see your genius?
Why don’t you consider for once the more trivial explanation that people see when they are served bullshit?
Your being rude. Stan is doing what he and 3I think is best for their investors and I agree with them. Your grasping at straws here dude. This is good news for all of us.i think so too. But I expect a HUGE marketing buzz for that money!!!
stan
why not just use Proof of Burn？
Burn 1pts1.0 you get 1pts2.0 before the deadline
then destroy the address of pts1.0
All the DACs honor PTS2.0&AGS such as Lotto DNS etc.
stan
why not just use Proof of Burn？
Burn 1pts1.0 you get 1pts2.0 before the deadline
then destroy the address of pts1.0
All the DACs honor PTS2.0&AGS such as Lotto DNS etc.
Proof of Burn would be a good solution in a perfect world where everyone could participate, but it will add time and effort to the upgrade, and it will be perceived as unfair for those missing out on the burn. Even if "burn donations" are accepted over a long time period of several months, there will probably be some who miss out, through sickness, vacations, natural disasters or any number of things that can occupy you for a long period of time.
Those people who miss the burn will be left with worthless PTS1.0 and no way to convert them to PTS2.0. That's not fair, so I prefer letting the two coexist so people can get their PTS2.0 whenever they want.
However, I'm mixed as to whether the remaining 300k shares should be airdropped or not. As Stan points out, giving them to existing holders will give them a 15% dividend, but on the other hand doing a pure airdrop/marketing scheme will dilute them. Let's not forget that those 300k shares are not currently mined, and theoretically represent a dilution of the value of each share if they get instamined this way.
The marketing/airdrops might create buzz and raise the value, but this is still a risk to the investments of current holders. I therefore propose that at least a portion of the remaining 300k shares are distributed to current holders, something like 20% to PTS. I'd even support giving a percentage to AGS holders, as a reward for supporting the development of the technology enabling PTS2.0.
stan
why not just use Proof of Burn？
Burn 1pts1.0 you get 1pts2.0 before the deadline
then destroy the address of pts1.0
All the DACs honor PTS2.0&AGS such as Lotto DNS etc.
Proof of Burn would be a good solution in a perfect world where everyone could participate, but it will add time and effort to the upgrade, and it will be perceived as unfair for those missing out on the burn. Even if "burn donations" are accepted over a long time period of several months, there will probably be some who miss out, through sickness, vacations, natural disasters or any number of things that can occupy you for a long period of time.
Those people who miss the burn will be left with worthless PTS1.0 and no way to convert them to PTS2.0. That's not fair, so I prefer letting the two coexist so people can get their PTS2.0 whenever they want.
However, I'm mixed as to whether the remaining 300k shares should be airdropped or not. As Stan points out, giving them to existing holders will give them a 15% dividend, but on the other hand doing a pure airdrop/marketing scheme will dilute them. Let's not forget that those 300k shares are not currently mined, and theoretically represent a dilution of the value of each share if they get instamined this way.
The marketing/airdrops might create buzz and raise the value, but this is still a risk to the investments of current holders. I therefore propose that at least a portion of the remaining 300k shares are distributed to current holders, something like 20% to PTS. I'd even support giving a percentage to AGS holders, as a reward for supporting the development of the technology enabling PTS2.0.
I have to agree. I don't see how burning could possibly work, not even mathematically, because you have to keep mining to even be able to burn and that would mean you'd only get more pts1.0 that you'd have to burn again and the whole thing approaches ridiculousness in infinity but never quite reaches it completely. I'm having a hard time believing miners will stick around till the bitter end without some form of incentive. I'm currently keeping up 1.2/2.4% of the pts-network as a charity, but even I have a hard time convincing myself to keep doing that if it's all going to be burned anyway. (I do not have massive amounts of PTS I only started doing it after all the opportunistic miners left)stan
why not just use Proof of Burn？
Burn 1pts1.0 you get 1pts2.0 before the deadline
then destroy the address of pts1.0
All the DACs honor PTS2.0&AGS such as Lotto DNS etc.
Proof of Burn would be a good solution in a perfect world where everyone could participate, but it will add time and effort to the upgrade, and it will be perceived as unfair for those missing out on the burn. Even if "burn donations" are accepted over a long time period of several months, there will probably be some who miss out, through sickness, vacations, natural disasters or any number of things that can occupy you for a long period of time.
Those people who miss the burn will be left with worthless PTS1.0 and no way to convert them to PTS2.0. That's not fair, so I prefer letting the two coexist so people can get their PTS2.0 whenever they want.
However, I'm mixed as to whether the remaining 300k shares should be airdropped or not. As Stan points out, giving them to existing holders will give them a 15% dividend, but on the other hand doing a pure airdrop/marketing scheme will dilute them. Let's not forget that those 300k shares are not currently mined, and theoretically represent a dilution of the value of each share if they get instamined this way.
The marketing/airdrops might create buzz and raise the value, but this is still a risk to the investments of current holders. I therefore propose that at least a portion of the remaining 300k shares are distributed to current holders, something like 20% to PTS. I'd even support giving a percentage to AGS holders, as a reward for supporting the development of the technology enabling PTS2.0.
good points. I am also not a fan of burning!
+5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5%
Jeez I am confused. So PTS2 will not be the same at PTS1? I thought they would just killed mining, make it DPOS via snapshot and the old network would just be ignored by most people. Keeping track of yet another branch/currency makes all this super complicated for someone dipping their feet into the Bitshares ecosystem.
I don't care that much what happens to the remaining PTS. Whether given away or kept by AGS. What I do care about is there now being 2 PTSs that just muddy the waters even more. BTSX will be tested, so PTS will just be another snapshot and the old chain can die. Does it seriously need to be more complicated ?
Jeez I am confused. So PTS2 will not be the same at PTS1? I thought they would just killed mining, make it DPOS via snapshot and the old network would just be ignored by most people. Keeping track of yet another branch/currency makes all this super complicated for someone dipping their feet into the Bitshares ecosystem.
I don't care that much what happens to the remaining PTS. Whether given away or kept by AGS. What I do care about is there now being 2 PTSs that just muddy the waters even more. BTSX will be tested, so PTS will just be another snapshot and the old chain can die. Does it seriously need to be more complicated ?
DPOS frees up 300,000 that would have been needed to pay miners.
What do to with them is the question.
Not mining them (i.e. burning them) would give a 15% one time windfall to PTS holders even though it was AGS donations that made the DPOS breakthrough possible.
We think those savings from that R&D should be used to benefit everyone in our industry.
I think that 300,000 saved PTS honors 50/50 to PTS/AGS would be a good choice.
But how would that bring in more new demand from outside our community?
Wouldn't using it to grow the value of what you have already got increase your wealth more?
We think so, so we have recommended going after new demand and getting the network effect up there to protect your investment from forking raiders.
dear stan ，maybe you dont know that most Chinese investors are realy confused and angry. you have to make it clear ,not make things more and more complicated，3i dacs have not growed up yet. pts1 and pts2 co-exist will lead to many serious problems. you have to realize it，things are not
that simple...we discuss a whole day long,we will let someone good in English tell that...but you realy have to shot down pts 1.0....i love 3i and i am one of the most bts holder ....i agree 3i every time, and i wait patiently without any words, but this time, make me feel really really really upset. When i say upset,i mean really upset
We will offer the best possible product we can devise.
The market will choose whether to accept it.
:)
this is THE opportunity to test a community fund with a multi-sig address containing these pts!!!
Say we decide to do the marketing thing, who would control those funds in order to distribute them? I3? A community representative? Do we hardcode a mapping to some other coins? Or would it go to a single address before being distributed? It's touchy issue in the same way a premine is imo, and something that would have to be handled carefully.
simple is the best
steps：
1. Notice Snapshot time in advance & contact the exchange（mainly BTC38&BTER ）publish announcement
2. 3I announce DACs will honor PTS2.0&AGS instead of PTS1.0&AGS
3. the exchange（mainly BTC38&BTER ） stop trading（just like 2.28）
4. Snapshot of PTS1.0 & Release PTS2.0 client (with genesis block honoured the PTSer in Snapshot)
5. the exchange（mainly BTC38&BTER ） start trading of PTS2.0
ps
Put the unmined PTS into DAC fund。 Promote the development of DAC ecosystem。
pts1 and pts2 co-exist will lead to many serious problems.
Quotesimple is the best
steps：
1. Notice Snapshot time in advance & contact the exchange（mainly BTC38&BTER ）publish announcement
2. 3I announce DACs will honor PTS2.0&AGS instead of PTS1.0&AGS
3. the exchange（mainly BTC38&BTER ） stop trading（just like 2.28）
4. Snapshot of PTS1.0 & Release PTS2.0 client (with genesis block honoured the PTSer in Snapshot)
5. the exchange（mainly BTC38&BTER ） start trading of PTS2.0
ps
Put the unmined PTS into DAC fund。 Promote the development of DAC ecosystem。
This is the best solution I have heard so far! The only difference to previous proposals is that by not completely kill PTS1, once the snapshot is done and PTS2 is mapped to PTS1, some people might be able to sell their PTS1 to others who haven't followed the thread. Obviously, if we can sell to others worthless PTS1 after the snapshot of PTS2 for anything it is always good but that doesn't make it fair though and might hurt the marketing efforts...
Snapshot+update client is simple & efficient
when once Snapshoted you can convert forever
for example 5years later someone remembered he had bought some PTS at 2013
he find the Wallet.dat opened with PTSx.0 client（maybe 10.0）,he still has all the shares。
POB may hurt someon who forget his PTS，hurt someon in prison & can't control the PTS wallet temporarily。
My previous reply of POB considered not thoughtful，sorry。
Snapshot+update client is simple & efficientmy guess: invictus wants to use their toolkit for pts2 instead of fiddling with satoshi client .. and I can underatand that decision well
when once Snapshoted you can convert forever
for example 5years later someone remembered he had bought some PTS at 2013
he find the Wallet.dat opened with PTSx.0 client（maybe 10.0）,he still has all the shares.
Snapshot+update client is simple & efficientmy guess: invictus wants to use their toolkit for pts2 instead of fiddling with satoshi client .. and I can underatand that decision well
when once Snapshoted you can convert forever
for example 5years later someone remembered he had bought some PTS at 2013
he find the Wallet.dat opened with PTSx.0 client（maybe 10.0）,he still has all the shares.
So this leaves two options I can think of either distribute to both AGS and PTS holders evenly or use it in marketing and adding more value to your current investment. Pumping up the value of your worthless shares instead of giving you more worthless shares, doesn't sound to bad. As long as it doesn't pay for wages it sounds like Mess would be okay with it.sounds reasonable to me
Who exactly defines the community?
I am afraid of the public opinion calling these 15% a premine (which its is, if 3i holds the privkey) thus will tank the price imo.
We should really consider a community fund.
correction to the below... PTS Snapshot in BTER I understand will give you the balance from the BTS snapshot...
However if they can do something similar so the moment that your PTS2 snapshot is taken, they credit your balance with PTS2 that would be great. It will be a fair solution for the ones that want to sell their PTS1 after the snapshot without having network delays to send the funds from our wallets to the exchange...
Bitshares-PTS2 - or another more inspiring name? I like PTS name, just it might be an opportunity to rename / simplify the branding nomenclature, instead of adding a 2; these shares might be argued to no longer be "proto" or early shares, so maybe this would become a misnomer? Also, the full name of the coin is currently Bitshares-PTS, the S also referencing shares for the second time in the same phrase. Possibly, simplify the naming system.
PTS2 will honor all shares of PTS one-for-one, with the remaining unmined PTS shares mapped to a "reverse angel" marketing fund to help grow the value of PTS2 - and all its children.'''
So this is just another way of saying "the unmined PTS will be added to the AGS funds. They will be used for the same purpose as the AGS funds which is to develope the ecosystem". Am I right there Stan? So I guess the spending of those PTS will also be included in the AGS spending spread sheets?
dear stan ，maybe you dont know that most Chinese investors are realy confused and angry. you have to make it clear ,not make things more and more complicated，3i dacs have not growed up yet. pts1 and pts2 co-exist will lead to many serious problems. you have to realize it，things are not
that simple...we discuss a whole day long,we will let someone good in English tell that...but you realy have to shot down pts 1.0....i love 3i and i am one of the most bts holder ....i agree 3i every time, and i wait patiently without any words, but this time, make me feel really really really upset. When i say upset,i mean really upset
I don't see the reason that we need to keep PTS1 alive.+5% let that thing die! Cant be use for spending anyway .. confirmations take several hours atm
I don't see the reason that we need to keep PTS1 alive.+5%。
I don't see the reason that we need to keep PTS1 alive.+5%。
the only reason PTS1 alive is for 3i to dump their coins
I don't see the reason that we need to keep PTS1 alive.
I don't see the reason that we need to keep PTS1 alive.+5%。
the only reason PTS1 alive is for 3i to dump their coins
I3 should do it's best to halt trading on PTS1 a day or 2 before the snapshot. It's beyond unethical in my opinion for I3 to dump their PTS on unsuspecting buyers and create a situation where we can do the same.
expected date for the transition? 1week?, 2 weeks?, 3 weeks? ,1 month?, +2 months?
I don't see the reason that we need to keep PTS1 alive.+5% let that thing die! Cant be use for spending anyway .. confirmations take several hours atm
Why bother changing pts1 when be can go for dpos
Stan: please then focus on marketing and describe you incentives so that everyone (espescially pot. Newcomers) understand your desicions .. otherwise i can see way they will not call it a premine!!
Have we considered a charity fund? maybe with a nlocktime?
charity !!!
- Insert your favorite category here...
expected date for the transition? 1week?, 2 weeks?, 3 weeks? ,1 month?, +2 months?
This is the next thing we plan to work on after XT has proven DPOS is ready for use across all our products.
To proof dpos we need a working dpos chain ... so we also need the wallet
To proof dpos we need a working dpos chain ... so we also need the wallet
I know.
But I am not clear about what exactly Stan meant. There are so many terms which can easily cause confusion.
The 'XT' may be the XT wallet and P2P network based on DPOS that will be released in the coming weeks, and also may be the whole XT product that will be after Me in the coming months.
So which one？
To proof dpos we need a working dpos chain ... so we also need the wallet
I know.
But I am not clear about what exactly Stan meant. There are so many terms which can easily cause confusion.
The 'XT' may be the XT wallet and P2P network based on DPOS that will be released in the coming weeks, and also may be the whole XT product that will be after Me in the coming months.
So which one？
I think you might be confusing Bitshares XT with Bitshares X. Bitshares XT is the soon to be released "test" chain (that is what the T stands for) for the final product Bitshares X.
Stan: please then focus on marketing and describe you incentives so that everyone (espescially pot. Newcomers) understand your desicions .. otherwise i can see way they will not call it a premine!!
Have we considered a charity fund? maybe with a nlocktime?
Ok, now we are getting to the topic I was trying to get started! :)
There have been many ideas discussed on this forum during the past few months
General categories:We are looking for great ideas and hope to come up with a potent mix.
- Airdrop to other communities.
- Donations to the Jamaican Bobsled Team or World Peace.
- Teaming with another community that specializes in buzz.
- Huge ad campaigns.
- Give major opinion makers a free stake.
- Offer incentives for getting involved - download wallets and/or Keyhotee
- DAC-specific promotions - e.g. prizes every week for the best new BitShares ME offering.
- Elon Musk's viral method of $10 for every new Keyhotee user an existing Keyhotee user recruits
- Insert your favorite category here...
Stan: please then focus on marketing and describe you incentives so that everyone (espescially pot. Newcomers) understand your desicions .. otherwise i can see way they will not call it a premine!!
Have we considered a charity fund? maybe with a nlocktime?
Ok, now we are getting to the topic I was trying to get started! :)
There have been many ideas discussed on this forum during the past few months
General categories:We are looking for great ideas and hope to come up with a potent mix.
- Airdrop to other communities.
- Donations to the Jamaican Bobsled Team or World Peace.
- Teaming with another community that specializes in buzz.
- Huge ad campaigns.
- Give major opinion makers a free stake.
- Offer incentives for getting involved - download wallets and/or Keyhotee
- DAC-specific promotions - e.g. prizes every week for the best new BitShares ME offering.
- Elon Musk's viral method of $10 for every new Keyhotee user an existing Keyhotee user recruits
- Insert your favorite category here...
It looks like a great plan. Airdrop to other coins could considerably expand our community. But which ones should be the selected? BTC, LTC and PPC have good reputation, and are well distributed. They might be the reasonable targets.
Sure.. practical .. but the 15% premine issue persists.
I am afraid of the public opinion calling these 15% a premine (which its is, if 3i holds the privkey) thus will tank the price imo.
We should really consider a community fund.
+die pts1 ... die!!!
+pts2 .. tha moon ;-)
I doubt that would change much, because you will have to decide who gets the vote and you have the same problem all over again.Sure.. practical .. but the 15% premine issue persists.
I am afraid of the public opinion calling these 15% a premine (which its is, if 3i holds the privkey) thus will tank the price imo.
We should really consider a community fund.
+die pts1 ... die!!!
+pts2 .. tha moon ;-)
Then don't call it premine, since it isn't. Postmine? Community fund? How about making a SIMPLE voting DAC to vote on how this money should be spent?
How about making a SIMPLE voting DAC to vote on how this money should be spent?
To the Chinese community and Mess and any that I missed, do you realize that Invictus/Stan no longer have absolute control over PTS, because it is an opensource distributed network? So they no longer have the power to destroy or replace it with an upgrade, like an app in the appstore. Instead of screaming centralization and throwing around some rather serious allegations could you propose alternatives that would please you?
Incrementally updating PTS via consecutive hard forks and new wallets into the proposed DPOS PTS2.0 variant doesn't sound feasible to me. It would also take too long and cost too much.
They can't kill off PTS1, because they really can't, it's out of their hands, it is no longer theirs to kill.
So the quickest route to upgrade to DPOS (which is also the same as releasing the new tech you've been waiting for/investing in) is to go with the proposed snapshot-copy and release of PTS2.0 while effectively still leave all the power and choice to the community, because they do not have absolute control over you or the other participants. Now here's the thing with PoS, to work with the stake it needs to be there, you have to know the total amount to even be able to talk about a stake in the first place. So that leaves the issue with the remaining coins and how to solve that. What should be done with those extra coins that will give you the most return in the long run?
Distributing the remaining shares to PTS-holders is not fair to the would be miners, miningpools and electricity companies, because those are the one that would have earned that value. It also wouldn't be fair to all speculators, because they decided the price on the fact of there being a total of 2 million plus 1% inflation. It also isn't fair to AGS-investors, because they have really paid for the development of the tech and value of PTS and apparently misused it for speculation as well, which means the relative share-distribution can't change anymore either.
Distributing to AGS is unfair to PTS-holders.
So this leaves two options I can think of either distribute to both AGS and PTS holders evenly or use it in marketing and adding more value to your current investment. Pumping up the value of your worthless shares instead of giving you more worthless shares, doesn't sound to bad. As long as it doesn't pay for wages it sounds like Mess would be okay with it.
I'm not meaning to offend, but it sure does sound like people are complaining for all the wrong reasons and actually trying to hurt themselves more than they realize.
yes，they can。they shouldn`t sell over the pts 1.0 to the market ,and give future DACs to pts 1.0,and pts will die. let pts die naturally
All DACs have snapshots that honor something.
Upgrade DACs honor their predecessor.
New DACs honor their industry parent which honor PTS/AGS.
If a DAC is the first in a new industry, it honors PTS/AGS directly, just like XT did on February 28.
When an upgrade occurs it can be done either by hard fork if there is delegate consensus or as an alternative chain if not.
When an alternative chain is offered, everybody gets shares in both via the snapshot mechanism. As long as there are users for both, they can co-exist like Coke Classic and New Coke a few decades ago. The expectation is that one or the other of the products will win and the other will fade to zero - but that is up to the market to decide.
Been sitting quietly on the sidelines watching this forum everyday. Recently there was a thread: Today I loose confidence in I3. I thought come on guys, just be patient some great products will come. And so far your logic always made sense.
But the coexistence of PTS and PTS2 just seems like a quick money scheme, the fact that you're considering to do this even before the AGS funding is over, makes me think you're having funding problems. Another million would be enough for now, but what will you come up with, when those funds have dried up?
For investors your making the deal more complicated than it already is, now they have to choose between holding PTS and PTS2, because DAC's can choose to honor either one
PTS will drop from the top 10 coin market list, because it has effectively lost half it's value.
Sorry to be cynical, I still believe in I3, but this just doesn't make any sense.
No money problems. Our books are open for inspection.
We need to upgrade PTS because people have been complaining about how slow it is.
The logical upgrade that solves everything is DPOS.
DPOS frees up 300,000 that would have been needed to pay miners.
What do to with them is the question.
Not mining them (i.e. burning them) would give a 15% one time windfall to PTS holders even though it was AGS donations that made the DPOS breakthrough possible.
We think those savings from that R&D should be used to benefit everyone in our industry.
By calling attention to PTS and all the things its good for, we generate demand that we hope will grow the value of PTS and its children and therefore of AGS far more than any other plan we have heard.
PTS will climb on coinmarketcap as others learn what it is good for. Other BitShares DACs will appear there too as the promotions generates demand for them.
Demand for increased marketing effort (and the desire by this community to be seen as generous) has been all over this forum for months.
We listened.
We came up with a plan that would do all of the above.
We offer it as an alternative you can choose or reject.
Stan: please then focus on marketing and describe you incentives so that everyone (espescially pot. Newcomers) understand your desicions .. otherwise i can see way they will not call it a premine!!
Have we considered a charity fund? maybe with a nlocktime?
My apologies to delulo, I hit the wrong button and lost his post. Here's what I had in my paste buffer:QuotePTS2 will honor all shares of PTS one-for-one, with the remaining unmined PTS shares mapped to a "reverse angel" marketing fund to help grow the value of PTS2 - and all its children.'''
So this is just another way of saying "the unmined PTS will be added to the AGS funds. They will be used for the same purpose as the AGS funds which is to develope the ecosystem". Am I right there Stan? So I guess the spending of those PTS will also be included in the AGS spending spread sheets?
Unless we do something dead simple like a simple air drop snapshot to Dogecoin owners or something, then the funds will have to be targeted manually. But reaching out to a broad group of new people or sponsoring contests and multiple good ideas can only really be done manually.
The best way we know to do this is the BitShares Trust model - a public address and spreadsheet where everyone can see how the funds are being used. The only difference is this address will have a shrinking balance as the funds are distributed - hence my "inverse angel" metaphor.
This is a good test of what we expect developers to do for most new DACs. Any DAC that (wisely) sets aside a fund to develop, promote, and maintain itself (e.g. 45/45/10) will need to use a similar approach. PTS2 is just the first protoDAC to demonstrate this approach.
We want to keep the funds separate from the AGS trust for one very big reason:It is a dramatic way to illustrate the tangible benefits of moving away from mining.:)
At work all day, check the forum and a s-storm is forming. 9 pages is too much to sift through this second, but did I read this correctly: Invictus wants to create a new chain were they honor all current PTS with equal amount of PTS2, then honor the remaining un mined 355,000+ PTS for 355,000 PTS2 to themselves in a so called reverse Angel????
Stan would it be a good idea to give a part of the pts (let's say 20%) to AGS holders after the end of fundraising/donation AGS period, so the demand for AGS would increase more the last 60 days and some of the frustratedearlyinvestors would calm down and find their lost confidence again... ?
PS I know some early investors (AGS holders) they would love to buy bitshare-pts (because of the DPOS thing) now but they are out of funds... It would be nice/great to give to all of your AGS investors/donators a symbolic quantity of DPOS bitshares-PTS 2.0 to "play" around :)
I strongly oppose keeping the unmined pts for "marketing" and suggest scaling existing pts holding up to 2 million as was the original plan.
Past marketing spending does not give me great confidence =[
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
I strongly oppose keeping the unmined pts for "marketing" and suggest scaling existing pts holding up to 2 million as was the original plan.
Past marketing spending does not give me great confidence =[
I strongly oppose keeping the unmined pts for "marketing" and suggest scaling existing pts holding up to 2 million as was the original plan.
Past marketing spending does not give me great confidence =[
Do you mean distributing the new coins to current PTS-holders? If so, then you can't do that, because you will be screwing over the AGS-donators big time. Especially the ones who donated PTS to the AGS-funds. And to be brutally honest, ags-funds paid for the DPoS-technology directly not the PTS-holders, who are mostly betting amongst themselves how much of a free ride they'll be getting :D.
After all the discussion I still see only 2 options:
1) distribute evenly between AGS (both pts and btc ones) and current PTS-holders
2) Use the 15% coins to increase the value for all parties involved, such as a marketing campaign, although the dollar-value is peanuts by today standards. Maybe a faucet, air-drop, charity, marketing doesn't mean it should be purely greed driven and if possible should be done by community vote (but that probably won't be feasible).
Number 2 sounds more impressive to me (pun intended) and could help things get off the ground, but as Toast pointed out, it should not be done in the way marketing has been done up till now by Invictus/bitshares. Nothing personal, but PR, marketing and community involvement needs some major attention after launching the first DPoS-chains at the very latest.
I strongly oppose keeping the unmined pts for "marketing" and suggest scaling existing pts holding up to 2 million as was the original plan.
Past marketing spending does not give me great confidence =[
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
Regarding the name - Please do not name it PTS 2, or PTS anything or Bitshares anything. Please create a new brand because the naming scheme is incredibly confusing even for people who pay close attention.
Can't wait for BTSX
I'm not sure why this is better than Proof of Burn to an address, but I don't explicitly have a problem with it. Anyone who has used the protoshares network for a transaction in the last few month knows this upgrade was inevitable, so no surprise there.
One question: Will INVICTUS be honoring PTS 1 or PTS 2 or both? I think if Invictus does this with the announcement that the social contract is shifting from the PTS 1 vehicle to the 2 vehicle, PTS1 will die pretty quick. If you're wishy-washy on this it'll hang around because it has potential value.
I'd support the burning of the unmined PTS and lacking that think they should be used for the long term bounty roadmap I've proposed before.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3363.0
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3448.msg43334#msg43334
I don't think Invictus should be in charge of how the funds are spent, they're a clear bottleneck towards the further development of the ecosystem since all roads must pass through Daniel's brain, it would be better if Invictus worked with the community to define this roadmap and its various components, then seeded it with this as the initial funding to get people working on even the far out stuff.
Regarding the name - Please do not name it PTS 2, or PTS anything or Bitshares anything. Please create a new brand because the naming scheme is incredibly confusing even for people who pay close attention.
Can't wait for BTSX
This deserves some attention: http://www.reddit.com/r/BitShares/comments/2664wp/bitshares_attempting_to_pocket_more_money_and/
You can read what we actually asked the forum to discuss here:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4648.msg58921#msg58921
The question we asked everyone was: Since the new DPOS upgrade won't need to pay miners any more, what should we do with the rest of the shares we had planned to use to pay miners? We discussed several possibilities, one of which was to give them all away in various campaigns to attract new supporters and thus increase public awareness of all the new products currently in development. The default is that the remaining shares will simply never be mined. We are currently listening for the input from the community about what everybody thinks will grow the value of everyone's investments the most.
Having 100% controlled by i3 would be a disaster
I have altered my stance a tad.
If you guys can release BTS-x or one of the other DAC's before updating PTS, I will have no problem if Invictus gets more money. At that point it will be clearer to gauge the risk involved. As of now it is very hard to justify a risk of Invictus taking a 14% chunk of PTS-whatever, a secondary offering lets say, with zero results to back it thus far.
I deleted a damning post because I see this as a possible compromise. That is if you are truly looking for community thought and input.
I have altered my stance a tad.
If you guys can release BTS-x or one of the other DAC's before updating PTS, I will have no problem if Invictus gets more money. At that point it will be clearer to gauge the risk involved. As of now it is very hard to justify a risk of Invictus taking a 14% chunk of PTS-whatever, a secondary offering lets say, with zero results to back it thus far.
I deleted a damning post because I see this as a possible compromise. That is if you are truly looking for community thought and input.
Having 100% controlled by i3 would be a disaster
This seems really harsh. I'm not sure where you are coming from here. People seem to think the marketing hasn't done much but we haven't really had anything to market yet. It's not like I3 has blown through a lot of money. I think there may be a shift as the first products are released and AGS wraps up.
There are also risks to handing out a ton of money to "the community" because there's not really a fair way to do that.
My take:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4648.msg59090#msg59090
I'm not sure why this is better than Proof of Burn to an address, but I don't explicitly have a problem with it. Anyone who has used the protoshares network for a transaction in the last few month knows this upgrade was inevitable, so no surprise there.
One question: Will INVICTUS be honoring PTS 1 or PTS 2 or both? I think if Invictus does this with the announcement that the social contract is shifting from the PTS 1 vehicle to the 2 vehicle, PTS1 will die pretty quick. If you're wishy-washy on this it'll hang around because it has potential value.
I'd support the burning of the unmined PTS and lacking that think they should be used for the long term bounty roadmap I've proposed before.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3363.0
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3448.msg43334#msg43334
I don't think Invictus should be in charge of how the funds are spent, they're a clear bottleneck towards the further development of the ecosystem since all roads must pass through Daniel's brain, it would be better if Invictus worked with the community to define this roadmap and its various components, then seeded it with this as the initial funding to get people working on even the far out stuff.
Regarding the name - Please do not name it PTS 2, or PTS anything or Bitshares anything. Please create a new brand because the naming scheme is incredibly confusing even for people who pay close attention.
Can't wait for BTSX
Good post there by Stan. I added one also, under my "letsseewhatsupthere" handle. True believers, please chime in on Reddit. Every time there's a change or addition to the Bitshares ecosystem, there are some ugly posts on Reddit, and it's important for us to get on there and explain the truth.
I'm not comfortable with suddenly inflating the PTS circulation by 15%, but if this is the plan, and that 15% is to be distributed for marketing purposes, I recommend the Google Fiber approach. I think the we should start a competition between communities and honor the communities with the highest demand with snapshots granting their chains the new PTS, much as Google selected cities and neighborhoods for Fiber internet service rollout. This solution is (relatively) low effort on our part compared to running numerous competitions for scraps, could generate massive publicity, and ends up with stake distribution to active communities who actually want it. It's also more transparent and easy to follow, and thus hard to accuse III of just grabbing the funds. I would expect the top 3 communities at the most to be honored, possibly with 8%, 5%, and 2% of the 15% total.
Having 100% controlled by i3 would be a disaster
This seems really harsh. I'm not sure where you are coming from here. People seem to think the marketing hasn't done much but we haven't really had anything to market yet. It's not like I3 has blown through a lot of money. I think there may be a shift as the first products are released and AGS wraps up.
There are also risks to handing out a ton of money to "the community" because there's not really a fair way to do that.
My take:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4648.msg59090#msg59090
Agent86 -- sometimes I think you talk like I3's mom.
I think the balance of 350k PTS should be burned. If not, the market may finally lose faith in everything I3 has been doing. If PTS drops another 40%, the crash in value will scare off new investment and your best developers could walk away.
...
You hit on one of the key criteria: recipients should have to prove they actually want to participate. General air drops don't do that.
Ideally though, the activity should include something that results in the participant actually learning about the value of what they are claiming and why its a better idea to hold onto your winnings while there are so many DACs in the pipeline.
Proper "value training" would address your concern about inflation, since most of the distribution would remain off the market.
So, basically, this is an "Input Thread" where only inputs that are not against Stan's stance will be accepted and taken into consideration.
I'm almost entirely in AGS now, just saving a bit of PTS in case the AGS donation ratio goes even higher. My concern about the 15% is entirely on principle and expected public perception as based on those principles. The way I see it, the default option if no action were taken is that the PTS chain would die, and PTS would become illiquid but frozen at a higher final stake per unit than originally expected. This is obviously not ideal, so I think the transition to DPOS to keep it liquid is obvious, but I think altering the final stake per unit, and the distribution method of those units from the default requires some debatable justification....
You hit on one of the key criteria: recipients should have to prove they actually want to participate. General air drops don't do that.
Ideally though, the activity should include something that results in the participant actually learning about the value of what they are claiming and why its a better idea to hold onto your winnings while there are so many DACs in the pipeline.
Proper "value training" would address your concern about inflation, since most of the distribution would remain off the market.
The beauty of the Google Fiber solution (and I think the reason Google chose it) is that it recruits community members who value the product to convince the rest of their communities that they should value the product (and recruit others). Viral "value training" within the community is basically the only way for that community to win, and we only have to offer the prizes and plant the initial seeds.
So, basically, this is an "Input Thread" where only inputs that are not against Stan's stance will be accepted and taken into consideration.
Watch and see! :)
...
This is good. A viral component puts the strategy into a whole new category.
What did you think of Elon Musk's strategy where everyone got $10 for signing up and $10 for each person they signed up?
Theoretically, a million dollars could motivate maybe 50,000 sign-ups...
Of course, we'd have to decide what it means to "sign up". Getting 50,000 users for Keyhotee waiting for all our DACs to plop into their wallets would seem to take things to another level...
Combine that with your idea - competing to be the most private/secure communities, for example - would be a nice synergy.
I'm almost entirely in AGS now, just saving a bit of PTS in case the AGS donation ratio goes even higher. My concern about the 15% is entirely on principle and expected public perception as based on those principles. The way I see it, the default option if no action were taken is that the PTS chain would die, and PTS would become illiquid but frozen at a higher final stake per unit than originally expected. This is obviously not ideal, so I think the transition to DPOS to keep it liquid is obvious, but I think altering the final stake per unit, and the distribution method of those units from the default requires some debatable justification....
You hit on one of the key criteria: recipients should have to prove they actually want to participate. General air drops don't do that.
Ideally though, the activity should include something that results in the participant actually learning about the value of what they are claiming and why its a better idea to hold onto your winnings while there are so many DACs in the pipeline.
Proper "value training" would address your concern about inflation, since most of the distribution would remain off the market.
The beauty of the Google Fiber solution (and I think the reason Google chose it) is that it recruits community members who value the product to convince the rest of their communities that they should value the product (and recruit others). Viral "value training" within the community is basically the only way for that community to win, and we only have to offer the prizes and plant the initial seeds.
This is good. A viral component puts the strategy into a whole new category.
What did you think of Elon Musk's strategy where everyone got $10 for signing up and $10 for each person they signed up?
Theoretically, a million dollars could motivate maybe 50,000 sign-ups...
Of course, we'd have to decide what it means to "sign up". Getting 50,000 users for Keyhotee waiting for all our DACs to plop into their wallets would seem to take things to another level...
Combine that with your idea - competing to be the most private/secure communities, for example - would be a nice synergy.
Why not launch PTS2 when AGS donation is finished? Or finish it early if required.
Then make PTS2 = PTS + AGS, this will keep it simple further on as new DACS will honour PTS2.
AGS will become liquid as it has already serve its purpose.
Let PTS die and do a transition as it has been suggested.
Why not launch PTS2 when AGS donation is finished? Or finish it early if required.
Then make PTS2 = PTS + AGS, this will keep it simple further on as new DACS will honour PTS2.
AGS will become liquid as it has already serve its purpose.
Let PTS die and do a transition as it has been suggested.
The new PTS2 could be call FounderShares as suggested before and would be clear is equal to PTS + AGS (Proto + Angel). The 300k reminder could be distributed in equal terms across both PTS / AGS as both have had have different risks and good periods.
So, basically, this is an "Input Thread" where only inputs that are not against Stan's stance will be accepted and taken into consideration.
Watch and see! :)
I've been watching you guys since day 1, made huge investments all along. I understand that I shouldn't spit out some dirty words in this forum, but they pretty much expressed my anger, and I don't think I'm alone on this matter. And I take back those F words I've said. But, honestly, I don't think you, Stan, is a proper PR guy for this project, and it's best for you to step down from your throne and hire someone else who's more open and professional.
Here's my thoughts on the PTS upgrade:I was going to reveal my true identity to get your attention, but I don't think it's necessary anymore.
- The real issue with PTS is the slow block rate, which can be easily solved with a hard fork that adapts faster diff adjustment.
- If 3I is so determined to get away with PoW and go for the unverified DPOS, I'm okay with that. But the unmined PTS should not be under 3I's control in any form (reverseangel fund, etc).
- Please don't let PTS1 and PTS2 co-exist. You have no idea what that means. [\li]
Why not launch PTS2 when AGS donation is finished? Or finish it early if required.
Then make PTS2 = PTS + AGS, this will keep it simple further on as new DACS will honour PTS2.
AGS will become liquid as it has already serve its purpose.
Let PTS die and do a transition as it has been suggested.
The new PTS2 could be call FounderShares as suggested before and would be clear is equal to PTS + AGS (Proto + Angel). The 300k reminder could be distributed in equal terms across both PTS / AGS as both have had have different risks and good periods.
This actually sounds like one of the better suggestions, but would require bounties to be issued by the community for marketing projects etc.
While a lot of people seem to think that the AGS-fund is an enormous amount of money, to me it doesn't look all that impressive compared to the amount of work and spending that will be required for all the projects that are planned and what the community seems to expect the fund to pay for.
Snowballs = ponzi?
I am fine with Stan and how openly he addresses concerns of the community .. id really like to meet stan in person some day+5%
I think FounderShares is more consistent.
absolutly
FounderShares seems appropriate to me.
All DACs have snapshots that honor something.
Upgrade DACs honor their predecessor.
New DACs honor their industry parent which honor PTS/AGS.
If a DAC is the first in a new industry, it honors PTS/AGS directly, just like XT did on February 28.
When an upgrade occurs it can be done either by hard fork if there is delegate consensus or as an alternative chain if not.
When an alternative chain is offered, everybody gets shares in both via the snapshot mechanism. As long as there are users for both, they can co-exist like Coke Classic and New Coke a few decades ago. The expectation is that one or the other of the products will win and the other will fade to zero - but that is up to the market to decide.
Been sitting quietly on the sidelines watching this forum everyday. Recently there was a thread: Today I loose confidence in I3. I thought come on guys, just be patient some great products will come. And so far your logic always made sense.
But the coexistence of PTS and PTS2 just seems like a quick money scheme, the fact that you're considering to do this even before the AGS funding is over, makes me think you're having funding problems. Another million would be enough for now, but what will you come up with, when those funds have dried up?
For investors your making the deal more complicated than it already is, now they have to choose between holding PTS and PTS2, because DAC's can choose to honor either one
PTS will drop from the top 10 coin market list, because it has effectively lost half it's value.
Sorry to be cynical, I still believe in I3, but this just doesn't make any sense.
Why not launch PTS2 when AGS donation is finished? Or finish it early if required.
Then make PTS2 = PTS + AGS, this will keep it simple further on as new DACS will honour PTS2.
AGS will become liquid as it has already serve its purpose.
Let PTS die and do a transition as it has been suggested.
The new PTS2 could be call FounderShares as suggested before and would be clear is equal to PTS + AGS (Proto + Angel). The 300k reminder could be distributed in equal terms across both PTS / AGS as both have had have different risks and good periods.
This actually sounds like one of the better suggestions, but would require bounties to be issued by the community for marketing projects etc.
While a lot of people seem to think that the AGS-fund is an enormous amount of money, to me it doesn't look all that impressive compared to the amount of work and spending that will be required for all the projects that are planned and what the community seems to expect the fund to pay for.
Wow, I wonder why PTS is up 31.6% on coinmarketcap.com?
Back in the Top Ten!
Any theories?
Maybe, some people having to pay some ridiculous tax on expected interest on savings(that they already have had to pay a heavy tax on in the first place), many times higher than what banks actually pay in interest, which is already way below inflation, meaning they are effectively not being taxed a percentage of the interest but a multiple factor of the actual interest on top of losing money to inflation? Or is that not a big enough target audience to explain the rise in crypto? If not, then it's probably due to the weather.Wow, I wonder why PTS is up 31.6% on coinmarketcap.com?
Back in the Top Ten!
Any theories?
Maybe because Bitcoin and just about everything else on coinmarketcap has gone up?
Thanks for the support gamey and I am indeed losing money in electricity to keep up 1.2 - 2.4% of the network (hashpower estimate swings around wildy).
Just abandon PTS in its mining form. Talk to the pools, have them shutdown. Officially drop all support for the POW PTS. It will no longer be a Bitshares product. By adding yet ANOTHER currency all you've done is made even more for people to keep up with and comprehend. That is already part of I3s problem. BitsharesME, BTS X, AGS, PTS, etc. Now we get FounderShares !? Why not just keep protoshares ? By renaming it to Foundershares you've just added confusion and kept the window open for someone to go around hustling the old PTS chain to rubes. You will have that problem regardless, but you can mitigate as strongly as possible if you get 1 I3 employee with a high visibility go to every exchange that has PTS and every mining pool and explain to them the hard fork going on.
People in the cryptoworld have been burned by hard forks before. This is nothing new. If I want to use an old client I can generate orphaned blocks all day on numerous currencies.
PTS1 and PTS2 is the same as renaming it Foundershares. Just a bad idea. Keep it simple. By renaming it you leave ambiguity towards the original PTS. THis is nothing more than a hard fork and has been done countless times elsewhere. Don't reinvent the wheel on this process. Please.
Also, give some of the money to the guys who have been mining PTS at a loss while keeping the network slowly moving along. They if anyone clearly deserve some portion of this 300k odd PTS.
FundShares distribution of PTS + AGS should be equal, ie: 8 million of FundShares = 4 million PTS + 4 million AGS.
Did you not realize it is the exact same thing? For the release of the products we need a proper functioning PTS, because that is part of the deal. The renaming and redistribution is for the product to be released. Hard-forking or replacing PTS with DPoS is faster than the release of bitsharesXT or DNS or Lotto. Only bitsharesME can probably be released earlier and even that needs a proper working and clearly chosen PTS-chain.FundShares distribution of PTS + AGS should be equal, ie: 8 million of FundShares = 4 million PTS + 4 million AGS.
It would be better if we actually had some sort of product released instead of trying to rename and redistribute things..
I think you guys are the #1 group that should unequivocally get some portion of the extra money. I have never mined a PTS share ever, so I am not suggesting this to get paid. All my miners have pointed at multipools and these days I barely find them worth their heat + upkeep.Quote from: gameyAlso, give some of the money to the guys who have been mining PTS at a loss while keeping the network slowly moving along. They if anyone clearly deserve some portion of this 300k odd PTS.Thanks for the support gamey and I am indeed losing money in electricity to keep up 1.2 - 2.4% of the network (hashpower estimate swings around wildy).
I just get frustrated with people who can't understand what's going on and accuse I3 of acting like scammers when we are not.
Maybe you are right that the market won't like us to use the PTS as a community fund for marketing, give aways, or promotion. But maybe they will love it and we can find a way to spend it to drive lots of new people to bitshares.
Stan has already said if there is conflict and the forum is split, the PTS will most likely be burned/mapped out of PTS2. They were treating these as community funds; they solicited the community for input on how to spend them to drive value for everyone. Instead people called us scammers and people are acting like Stan wants to sell them and get a Bentley.
If we burn them we burn them, and if you think this gives you the best ROI than make that case and tell us why. But if you think I3 is dishonest why are you even invested at all?
Perhaps burning them gives you the best ROI, perhaps it's a missed opportunity and it will cost you. That is the decision here. And we are all in the same boat! We sink or soar as a community.
Ok, maybe there is a small difference between those who are primarily in AGS vs PTS but for the most part we are all in the same boat and I3 is in the boat with us, and they built the boat, we all want this to be huge.
Full disclosure, I don't have much sympathy for people in PTS freaking out about not getting a 15% bump in stake when they can go get a much larger return by donating to AGS.
I agree that if we don't use them carefully they would be better off burned. But I also have an open mind to the possibilities
How many PTS do we need in the new snapshot to get a ride in Stan's Bentley ?
Edit - BOOTH BABES !!!! Yea thats the ticket. 1 million worth of booth babes at the next major conference !!
How many PTS do we need in the new snapshot to get a ride in Stan's Bentley ?
Edit - BOOTH BABES !!!! Yea thats the ticket. 1 million worth of booth babes at the next major conference !!
I prefer Dan's gadgets... :P :)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t1.0-9/q72/s720x720/1003522_435178253295609_466575167_n.jpg)
Did you not realize it is the exact same thing? For the release of the products we need a proper functioning PTS, because that is part of the deal. The renaming and redistribution is for the product to be released. Hard-forking or replacing PTS with DPoS is faster than the release of bitsharesXT or DNS or Lotto. Only bitsharesME can probably be released earlier and even that needs a proper working and clearly chosen PTS-chain.FundShares distribution of PTS + AGS should be equal, ie: 8 million of FundShares = 4 million PTS + 4 million AGS.
It would be better if we actually had some sort of product released instead of trying to rename and redistribute things..
I have altered my stance a tad.
If you guys can release BTS-x or one of the other DAC's before updating PTS, I will have no problem if Invictus gets more money. At that point it will be clearer to gauge the risk involved. As of now it is very hard to justify a risk of Invictus taking a 14% chunk of PTS-whatever, a secondary offering lets say, with zero results to back it thus far.
I deleted a damning post because I see this as a possible compromise. That is if you are truly looking for community thought and input.
Thanks.
That is indeed what we are saying - "after XT is released we will turn our attention to PTS upgrade".
My original expectation was that we would get a flood of excited ideas for how to attract new demand and then pick a consensus best of the best and go execute it.
Hard for me to grasp the concept that there is any risk to Invictus serving as a temporary custodian charged with executing an agreed upon plan as a faithful servant ... but I guess the world is a suspicious place.
:)
Sorry to jump in to the discussion late, but I think this discussion of the 15% unmined PTS is absurd (mathematically, economically, and morally). The inflation of PTS to account for this 15% would normally occur logarithmically over a period of YEARS and has not yet taken place. If I were to sell my shares now, these non-existent PTS would have no inflationary impact on my coins. Furthermore, the amortization schedule of the 15% is fixed. You are now proposing to frontload all of that into a marketing fund and to allocate it to I3. Guess what happens when you do that? I incur ~5-10 years of monetary inflation from you overnight. This may be overshadowed by the price bump of a working DPOS release, but that is irrelevant.
'....
There should be a snapshot of PTS and we should transition to DPOS with a 1:1 mapping of PTS1 -> PTS2. What you guys are doing here does not inspire confidence.
Stan, do you understand the difference between a mathematically controlled logarithmic inflation and what you are proposing? If you know anything about the time-value relationship of money you would not try to equate an instantaneous frontloaded 15% centralized inflation scheme with what PTS currently has. It does amount to a theft of 15% from current shareholders. In other words, if I sold my coins tomorrow or next month we both know I would not incur the full 15% inflation. AGS contributors were promised a stake in FUTURE DACS, not the upgrade of PTS (which they knew about prior to investing in AGS). This hypothetical objection from AGS holders is a fiction, and is perfectly staged to grab 15% of our equity in the name of "fairness." I expected more from you guys.
Wow, I wonder why PTS is up 31.6% on coinmarketcap.com?
Back in the Top Ten!
Any theories?
Bitshares PTS is up about 15% in the market since they announced this. If you don't like this upgrade, then why not sell now?
Bitshares PTS is up at least 15% in the market since they announced this. If you don't like this upgrade, then why not sell now?
Bitshares PTS is up at least 15% in the market since they announced this. If you don't like this upgrade, then why not sell now?
Bitshares PTS is up at least 15% in the market since they announced this. If you don't like this upgrade, then why not sell now?
All newbies care for the investors here and wish they invest ... elsewere. Am I missing something?
Do you really believe they are invested on PTS ?
No, I'm just trying to suggest that some of the negative posters move on; if you don't get it now, then I don't think the next few months are going to be pleasant for you and you may want to look for something that meets your needs better. The most important thing about this PTS2 proposal (aside from the needed upgrade that will eliminate mining inflation) is that we need a PR blitz as these DACs come out. If you're content to sit on your PTS/AGS and hope you will be successful, I think you're missing the point that we need a large influx of additional people and investment into this ecosystem. The fact that you think the 15% dilutes your value is extremely short-sighted when you consider how many magnitudes greater that value could be if we can use that 15% to create a buzz.
Sorry to jump in to the discussion late, but I think this discussion of the 15% unmined PTS is absurd (mathematically, economically, and morally). The inflation of PTS to account for this 15% would normally occur logarithmically over a period of YEARS and has not yet taken place. If I were to sell my shares now, these non-existent PTS would have no inflationary impact on my coins. Furthermore, the amortization schedule of the 15% is fixed. You are now proposing to frontload all of that into a marketing fund and to allocate it to I3. Guess what happens when you do that? I incur ~5-10 years of monetary inflation from you overnight. This may be overshadowed by the price bump of a working DPOS release, but that is irrelevant.
The idea that AGS holders should be compensated for the PTS upgrade is also bogus, and here is why:
1) The holders of AGS knew that the PTS chain would be upgraded to the finalized I3 protocol prior to their investment in AGS.
2) The license agreement of AGS investment was for the development of future DACs, not for the application of the protocol to PTS.
There should be a snapshot of PTS and we should transition to DPOS with a 1:1 mapping of PTS1 -> PTS2. What you guys are doing here does not inspire confidence.
Bitshares PTS is up at least 15% in the market since they announced this. If you don't like this upgrade, then why not sell now?
All newbies "care" for the investors here :P and wish they take their investments ... elsewere. Am I missing something?
Do you really believe they are invested on PTS ?
Totally agree when i heard this news.
Come on. for months 3i was struggling making one thing, which is Bitshares X wallet, to work.
And yet, they are doing great job on ok, i haven't done this, but i wanna do that, oops, maybe that, coz that is a great idea.
ok, forget it, i wanna do that, coz that sounds neat.
if chinese is ur main market. ill tell you what, you are losing faith in china market by having more ideas without a fact you have something finished.
Even a six year old chinese boy will hate when you just have so many idear without putting even one solid product in reality.
Can we have Bitshares X working, then ideas? Gosh! why is this so hard
Bitshares PTS is up at least 15% in the market since they announced this. If you don't like this upgrade, then why not sell now?
All newbies care for the investors here and wish they invest ... elsewere. Am I missing something?
Do you really believe they are invested on PTS ?
I wish, I have invested as little as you 'dani' and posted more, so I have more weight in your eyes!
Bitshares PTS is up at least 15% in the market since they announced this. If you don't like this upgrade, then why not sell now?
All newbies "care" for the investors here :P and wish they take their investments ... elsewere. Am I missing something?
Do you really believe they are invested on PTS ?
We have newbies calling others newbies? That is funny.
In response to Adam B Levine, Mess, Werneo and Stan as central communication manager you cannot burn the 15% (I know it's silly to even suggest otherwise, but Adam B Levine was not suggesting proof of burn of the PoW-PTS, because that obviously would not work) nor give them to current PTS-holders for the reasons that have been explained already repeatedly like in the links below.
Some remarks that have now been repeated several times on this forum even on different threads really makes me wonder if people have a clue what they are talking about, but that doesn't seem to inhibit them from making accusations or voicing their opinion and drowning out the real arguments. How do you propose Invictus to just magic the old pts out of existence? If they could actually do that what are you even investing in? What's the point of projects like this if some central group had that kind of power? Invictus can't force the market to chose their way and if the market choses against Invictus DPoS-PTS, they will have to honor that choice. Click on the links below if you don't get what I'm talking about.
It's getting a bit tiresome to see the same thing explained over and over again and the discussion just looping back to the same misconceptions as if nothing happened, seems a forum is not a good way to discus this.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4648.msg59085#msg59085 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4648.msg59085#msg59085)
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4648.msg59209#msg59209 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4648.msg59209#msg59209)
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4636.msg59213#msg59213 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4636.msg59213#msg59213)
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4658.msg59215#msg59215 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4658.msg59215#msg59215)
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4648.msg59274#msg59274 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4648.msg59274#msg59274)
Back to suggestions, I've come up with a 3-rd one and this one is a winner for sure.
Give it all to me and then I'll flaunt around showing how rich I became off of bitshares that'll be sure to reach the mainstream media. I could even organize a public poll on this forum for the most ridiculous way to do it. For example moon Putin / Obama or another public figure of choice depending on what'll get most attention with bitshare millionare tattooed on my butt-cheeks. Or crash a high-profile / high-society dinner party with a couple of pornstars with enough doubly inflated real-estate to have readable advertisementspace for the words "You could be here if you were a bitshare millionaire". I'm considering the slogan "I'm a bitshare millionaire and I don't care", but I'm open to suggestions.
Stan, do you understand the difference between a mathematically controlled logarithmic inflation and what you are proposing? If you know anything about the time-value relationship of money you would not try to equate an instantaneous frontloaded 15% centralized inflation scheme with what PTS currently has. It does amount to a theft of 15% from current shareholders. In other words, if I sold my coins tomorrow or next month we both know I would not incur the full 15% inflation. AGS contributors were promised a stake in FUTURE DACS, not the upgrade of PTS (which they knew about prior to investing in AGS). This hypothetical objection from AGS holders is a fiction, and is perfectly staged to grab 15% of our equity in the name of "fairness." I expected more from you guys.
No, I'm just trying to suggest that some of the negative posters move on; if you don't get it now, then I don't think the next few months are going to be pleasant for you and you may want to look for something that meets your needs better. The most important thing about this PTS2 proposal (aside from the needed upgrade that will eliminate mining inflation) is that we need a PR blitz as these DACs come out. If you're content to sit on your PTS/AGS and hope you will be successful, I think you're missing the point that we need a large influx of additional people and investment into this ecosystem. The fact that you think the 15% dilutes your value is extremely short-sighted when you consider how many magnitudes greater that value could be if we can use that 15% to create a buzz.
So call it what it is then - a donation. And feel free to donate 15%, heck even 50% of your PTS. Just don't force the rest of us to do it and don't try to call it "fair" by equating it to the mining block reward.