Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - cryptillionaire

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
46
BitShares PTS / Re: [ANN] BitShares-PTS Dry Run #1 launched
« on: December 13, 2014, 03:17:38 pm »
I thought the idea was that PTS was to be merged into BTS and the social consensus would be taken from BTS.. PTS serves no purpose now, why are you wasting your time on this? Stop making things confusing for newbies and let PTS die already.

47
Can you not just merge the market caps and get it done?
To me the proposal looks to be a simple change from new DACs honoring PTS/AGS to also now honoring BTSX; coupled with drawing together the devs and value from certain DACs and maximising their contributions, all then becomes within a new BTS. The benefits far out way the losses.

Keep it simple, get it done!
Market caps are massively volatile though, if the exchanges don't have a lot of volume, then someone could pump the hell out of the small DACs before the merger happens.

I don't think vote/dns should get as large a slice of the pie as people have been suggesting, purely because they weren't functioning DACs in the first place - it's just double paying AGS/PTS holders if we merge.

I think PTS should get a larger share than AGS, like 75% vs 25%, infact.. i don't think AGS should get anything since they were already snapshotted for BTSX/VOTE/DNS/ - why pay them again? It was a donation to developer funds, so this is like a refund to them.. creating funds out of thin air, not cool.

48
General Discussion / Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« on: October 24, 2014, 06:10:05 pm »
Wait.. yeah.. AGS was actually donations to the DAC creators.. making it liquid now would be like creating new AGS funds out of thin air.. I'd prefer if AGS was just wiped out - AGS holders have already been given shares in BTSX/DNS/VOTE/MUSIC/LOTTO - why should they now be given their funds back?!

What about future DACs? AGS was to raise funds for future DACs but in an ill-liquid fashion thus you recieved a premium. By merging into BTS then AGS will be given future allocation to all DACs in a liquid form.. something that is NEW in the contract for AGS... and one that may have had everyone completely get into AGS knowing this before hand... I held my PTS knowing that more  DACs would come along and it would be more valuable as the platform becomes more valuable...

Thus if I had known that AGS would become liquid before Bitshares took off I would have converted all my PTS to AGS which I didn't do knowingly.

According to : http://wiki.bitshares.org/images/e/e7/Distribution_snapshots.jpg

Seems like the only difference is that AGS was not liquid thus offered at a premium to PTS. So I would imagine over time as new interesting DACs were released that PTS would rise to a higher valuation than the average AGS price was over time because the desire to get into a DAC that is successful in a successful environment would make money.

At the very least if this were to happen I would like to see the PTS allocation(based on market price of today) equivalent to the average price of AGS.. thus not a 50/50 split but based on the average price... so if PTS was half of the price of AGS then it should be 75% PTS / 25% AGS... because markets work in cycles and as soon as bitshares took off the desire to get into future dacs would rise thus causing more demand for PTS.
Yeah, I agree with 75% PTS and 25% AGS. I don't agree with giving DNS/VOTE as much as people have been suggesting - they weren't even fully functioning DACS.

49
General Discussion / Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« on: October 24, 2014, 11:33:41 am »
Wait.. yeah.. AGS was actually donations to the DAC creators.. making it liquid now would be like creating new AGS funds out of thin air.. I'd prefer if AGS was just wiped out - AGS holders have already been given shares in BTSX/DNS/VOTE/MUSIC/LOTTO - why should they now be given their funds back?!

50
Neither DNS or VOTE were actually fully functioning, were they? Do they really deserve as much as several percent in the merger? I think they're severely overvalued.

51
General Discussion / Re: Sidechains paper released: The end of altcoins?
« on: October 22, 2014, 07:55:33 pm »
The concept of tree chains is FAR better than side chains IMO.

52
General Discussion / Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« on: October 22, 2014, 12:09:15 pm »
Should PTS/AGS really get 7%?
PTS/AGS was snapshotted for the initial distribution of BTSX, hence I think they shouldn't get a 1:1 merger.

53
I disagree with diluting the btsx shares to merge pts/ags into btsx, both already were given 50% of the btsx at the first snapshot, so the value of pts has already been cashed in for btsx. I think a bitasset makes far more sense, as people would be able to keep trading the pts/ags.

That said, pts offers nothing to the community aside from being a blockchain that is snapshotted for the intial sharedrop of a new DAC. But any blockchain can be snapshotted for this purpose, not just pts. If we moved it to DPOS, then we would see dac creators becoming delegates and being funded directly through fees.

Hell, we should be snapshotting far more than just PTS/AGS, as every blockchain we include is introducing far more users to DACs than just PTS/AGS - both of which are barriers of entry to get into DACS.

54
PTS and AGS will be folded into BTS (AGS and PTS will receive shares in BTS) and DACs will be all "divisions" BTS.
I need to catch up on all the developments that have been happening, but why should we dilute the bts/btsx for AGS/PTS holders when they have already been rewarded for holding AGS/PTS with the initial btsx snapshot? I think a bitasset would be far more preferable than to dilute btsx.

55
Would DACs benefit from side chains or even tree chains for combining blockchains under the one common blockchain?
I like the idea of tree chains..

https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg04388.html
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=586832.msg6425551#msg6425551

56
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Delegate how-to Series
« on: October 19, 2014, 05:41:16 pm »
So would there be a community bounty for these videos?

57
General Discussion / Re: Should we continue to funding mining of PTS?
« on: October 17, 2014, 02:37:05 pm »
Massively against continuing POW on PTS, it should be moved to DPOS ASAP.
The developers of new dacs would be perfect delegates.

I do think however, that snapshots for sharedrops shouldn't be limited to only PTS/AGS - the social consensus is that they each get 10% minimum, why not then snapshot other blockchains like bitcoin for 10%? It would bring a massive influx of new users!

58
Would it be possible to create an user issued asset, but not 100% premine it as the creator of it, but instead take a snapshot of another blockchain to fairly distribute it out?

59
General Discussion / Re: Video of Dan's LV Keynote
« on: October 10, 2014, 05:04:15 pm »
Hey,

Can someone pm me the link please?

Cheers :)

60
Can we snapshot other dacs instead of just pts/ags?
The social consensus is that a min of 10% goes to both ags & pts, but why not take a snapshot of btsx and other trusted bitshares dacs? It would seriously help distribution and also bring a lot more users to new dacs.

I would caution against this.  I realize this is kind of a slippery slope argument - If we keep snapshotting one dac after another, it's going to turn into a situation very similar to a ponzi scheme, where the true value is always a DAC or two down the line.

AGS and PTS were explicitly advertised as being vehicles for DAC snapshots, so there's no problem with those, but BTSX was never advertised as such.
Yeah, I realize that pts/ags is the snapshot chain, but PTS is ridiculously volatile - immediately after a snapshot it crashes. Not only that, but PTS is a POW crypto, pretty naff imo. I fail to see how distributing a small chunk (10%) to a snapshot of another dac would make it a ponzi scheme.. It'd be like buying users from one dac for a small introductory share each. PTS offers us nothing, BTSX offers us far more.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11