Any thoughts on my input?  Added a good few hundred words or so.
https://github.com/matt608/bytemaster.github.io/blob/master/_posts/2014-12-21-Provably-Honest-Online-Elections.md

BTS used to by DVS the BTS has to be sold, taking value from BTS.  There's no way a BTS delegate should pay 66% of their pay to AGS + PTS, which is how DVS is distributed.  If it was a testing chain just for BTS alone with 100% BTS sharedrop that would be fine, and is another reason the sharedrop should have been just on BTS.  BTS is the only coin that can fund it and it's BTS developers who are working on it.  PTS + AGS have nothing to do with it.  Unless devs now have no allegiance to BTS but to the toolkit? (while profitable) 

It's 'dev choice' and devs have lots of PTS + AGS so they can drop 66% themselves if they want.  The provided reason for the 66% giveaway was to get the support of AGS + PTS, except they (almost) have no market cap so they're worth much less as supporters.  No 100% BTS holder would vote in a delegate to subsidies AGS + PTS (i.e. DVS).  It's just a big mistake to drop on them when great lengths have been taken to streamline the BTS message, I mean, who are they working for?  BTS or not? 

People think its no big deal because it will be worthless but I'm not so sure.  I've seen countless 'worthless' coins become very valuable, e.g. litecoin.  Crypto is very unpredictable.  We shouldn't underestimate random speculation on DevShares.  There's no need to vote in any subsidy.  If they dropped on just BTS we could organise something as a backup measure if necessary.

Don't want to stir the pot for the sake of it, just expressing my honest opinion as a community member.

I have a bunch of suggestions to make the argument stronger, where should I post those?

1. (priority 1) Core functionality -> resolve all forking issues.
2. (priority 1) User protection and information -> Implement safety features in the clients that prevent the user from transacting if that user is on a fork. (Apart from delegate participation there could be queries to some seed nodes in order to see if the client is on the same fork). The users must be clearly informed about the state of the network.
3. (priority 3) Lightweight client. Mobile application.
4. (priority 3) Spread the word about Bitshares.

I'd want to add in a 3b - UIA features.

  No doubt you'll get voted in quick.

Quote from: matt608 on December 19, 2014, 09:25:32 pm

Quote from: cube on December 19, 2014, 09:49:09 am

Quote from: cube on December 14, 2014, 03:58:29 pm

..
The faucet was suspended during the latest frantic delegate upgrade to 0.4.25, downgrade to 0.4.24.1 and upgrade to 0.4.26.  This delegate upgrade exercise is completed and the faucet's operation is resumed.

The latest upgrade version 0.4.27.1 seems stable.  The faucet has reopened.

http://freebts.cubeconnex.com:3333

Where is 0.4.27.1 downloadable from?

btw I get this image viewing in safari on the faucet
http://bitusd.com.ar/?p=44 (putting img tags gives a question mark... so I linked to the screenshot)

https://github.com/BitShares/bitshares/releases/tag/v0.4.27.1

Thanks

Reviewing sharedrop theory:

Allocations are not selected to be "fair", they are selected to attract the greatest amount of interest possible to a new offering.

You get share-dropped on in proportion to the perceived value of the demographic your coin represents.  It's the developer's choice.  It would be just as legitimate to do 10/10/10/10/10/10...10 and attract 10 diverse demographics, seven of which "deserve" nothing.

The simplest logic is to treat all three groups the same because they overlap anyway. This minimizes (obviously it does not eliminate) arguments about percentages.  All three groups get more than they "deserve". 

If you still want to argue, argue why your favorite demographic would give a bigger boost to the new DAC if its share of that DAC was somehow just a bit bigger.

I'm not going to make a fuss, but well reasoned criticism of important decisions shouldn't be discouraged.  Like code, all decisions will be tested at some point the sooner they are tested the better.  It looks like the decision has been made however so I'll keep it brief.

I favour 10/10/80 AGS/PTS/BTS

It probably makes no difference at all to the success of DevShares whether its 33/33/33 or 10/10/80.  The default position should be the one that favours BTS.  We did just give away half a billion BTS to AGS/PTS for the sake of getting (ex)i3 to be loyal to BTS alone.  They should be fighting BTS's corner in every sphere including sharedrops, without breaking past commitments, in which case 10% honours the social contract.

Why were half a billion BTS given away only to share drop 66% on them a month later?  It's not an even distribution at all - which is the aim because that maximises incentives - (you wouldn't do a giveaway where one half got $10 and half for got $1, you'd do $5 each). 

It *appears*, even if this is not the case, that the allocation is chosen based on maximising developer incentive who may have large PTS/AGS stakes, not market incentive for network effect, which is just the cover story.

*-Prepares package for head shipment-*

As someone who needs the votes of Toast, Stan + everyone, I hope people appreciate me not hiding behind a sock puppet to say potentially controversial things.  I am a BTS fighter.

reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2pp10d/how_bitshares_will_massively_grow_bitcoin_and/