I had multiple wallets to keep my pts safe. Now one of the accounts where in I have 30 odd PTS is locked out. I cant remember the password. So basically most of the operations like importing wallet or password is out of the question.
Is there any other way to claim the BTSX

Quote from: mess on May 22, 2014, 01:04:25 AM

2. It is not DESIGN FLAW of Bitcoin! It's only a matter of implementation. If you guys implement PTS as dynamic difficulty adjustment (like some other altcoins did), PTS wouldn't be like this today. But you are blaming Bitcoin! WTF! DPOS hasn't been proven to work yet! Stan, you're acting like Mark Karpeles here (blaming Bitcoin for transaction malleability).
3. Of course it has to go to somewhere, but it is not for 3I to decide. According to your posts, you still think it's your own money and you're just wait until others get tired to argue with you so that you can control them.

Regarding DPOS exactly the point I made in the stickied thread. Everyone side stepped the question as if it was Vodoo to question Dan's intellect. If he says it works, then ITS ALIVE!!!  ;)

And yep you are never going to get answer to your posts. Hell its easier to ignore people and take the money. AGS was already a bad idea. god knows how it actually passed community scrutiny -- taking 1 PTS = 1 BTS colloquially and changing it to 1 PTS = 1 BTS for you and 1 BTS for I3 -- whoever thought that was brilliant idea -- yeah I know, all for the deep well called development by one person (and so much time spent on finding qualified developers).

Good thing I actually trust people as far as I can throw them and invested only what I could afford to loose.

Quote from: Stan on May 17, 2014, 02:36:48 PM

Yes, and the least-risky gamble, given what we have learned along the way.   :)

Part of the issue is that real money has to be at stake to get a valid test of how market behaviors drive the fundamental theory of operation.  Since real money is at stake, we must be vewy, vewy, careful. 

The other options have known unacceptable flaws. 
We can't responsibly release real money applications with known unacceptable flaws.

Stan, I think Adam agrees with you on not releasing a product with unacceptable flaws and real money applications. His point is why not focus on first creating the upper layer like the BTS exchange first and then worry about transactional system. example like having a wallet with all the "wallet" type features and then worrying about how will it be parsing the blockchain.
In that case, we could have Lotto, BTS, DNS out as pre-alpha to show I3 can really deliver on its promise. The current situation is that Keyhotee and Bitshares have been delayed.

This whole debate is getting a bit confusing with long replies from Adam, Stan and Dan. Here's my cliff notes version of it (based on Adam's points):
1. Protoshares acting as token (10% ) for Bitshares being changed to 50-50 Angleshares aka proof of burn like Mastercoin: As Stan put it; this has been done and decided. Maybe only by I3 decided on it by themselves or there was a forum consensus but given AGS is already in play; there is no way to give PTS/BTC back. So Adam can we just lay this to rest?

2. Delivery of the bitshares product and the Proof system: The initial structure was to allow people to mine it via CPU (aka PTS) which failed. The TaPoS implementation of it failed. Now we have gone to DPos.
The issue Adam seeming to be pointing out is that I3 should have focused more on releasing Bitshares (as alpha). It would allow people to play around on Testnet and with I3 working on a proof system at the background. His understanding of cryptocurrency protocol is that transaction system are more detach/attach kind and can be changed later. I am not technically inclined so if true, I have to agree with Adam.

If we had a working testnet for BTS, we could have played around with it and seen how things actually work out - mining, TaPos, DPOS etc at once. Now with the actual final product surely having DPoS, we are betting huge on it. With all due respect to Dan this is just a gamble.

Quote from: bytemaster on May 11, 2014, 03:04:16 PM
Separating out the concepts of value vs price is key.   Changes in the value of the dollar changes the dollar-price of stocks but not their value. 

With respect to the OP claims regarding equity gains being the same thing as profitability I was merely pointing out that you need a point of reference when calculating profitability.   In the case above the 'point of reference' for profitability was outside the system, ie: dollars or or other goods.   In this particular instance the profit and loss is obscured by price fluctuations.   This is very similar to how many people think they are earning a profit in the stock market, paying taxes on a profit, but in reality are losing value to inflation.  Without a stable reference point profitability is hard to calculate.

Another example of how profitability is hard to calculate is with Bitcoin mining rigs.   Suppose you paid $1000 for the rig and over the course of its life it mined 4 BTC which are now worth $2000.   Was this a profitable move or did they take a loss?    If BTC was $100 when they bought the rig then they could have purchased 10 BTC and the result is that instead of a 2x gain they had a 60% loss.   Why should we use BTC vs dollars for measuring ROI?      Because your income is in BTC so you need to measure your expenses in terms of BTC.

A DAC has its income in the form of transaction fees measured in shares, so its expenses and profit should also be accounted for in shares.   This kind of accounting is measuring profitability entirely independent of any outside forces.   It factors out everything that is irrelevant and focuses on one simple question, "all else being equal, do I own more or less percent of the DAC". 

Inflation (defined as an increase in the money supply) does not solely determine the value of the dollar but it does contribute to it.   The value of the dollar is based upon supply and demand like everything else and thus increasing demand for the dollar could result in falling prices even as there is monetary inflation.    So conventional economists would be running around claiming the sky is falling due to 'deflation' (defined as falling prices) even though  Austrian economists will be warning of the dangers of 'inflation' (increasing money supply) which is misallocating resources.

So before you start throwing around claims like 'practical economies is so painfully missing' I would suggest you hang out a bit and ask some harder questions.

Now was that hard? Instead of doing +5% to an obvious flawed argument which mixed inflation and valuation together wasn't really helpful. It did put a doubt in my mind whether you actually understood obvious price ramifications vis-a-vis valuation vs inflation. In a similar way, BTC/USD price climbing - was it due to inflation or was it due to value increase of BTC (or future valuation potential) or was it USD falling in value ? There is no way to tell, is it? Though from a finite point of view it might seem increase in BTC valuation might be same as USD valuation decreasing, it certainly is not. Now you might argue it does produce same result, there is an underlying cause which is different.
If you do understand valuation then its fine by me.

That said, inflation is defined as "defined as an increase in the money supply"? Are you again being serious now? It is not so simple...inflation is - "Inflation is a sustained increase in the general price level of goods and services in an economy over a period of time" (yeah from wiki). What this means is in true terms inflation can be onset by say increasing oil prices too and it has done in the past.  So lets stick to conventional definitions instead of singularly expressed definitions.

Though what I said was directed at the Count and not at you; I see you have taken it pretty offensive. So let me clarify, I own over 5k in PTS and donated around 2 BTC in AGS so been here long. I have my doubts regarding BTS - specially the pricing -- it is still an experiment for me , I don't have many "hard questions" cause if it works, its great, if it doesn't then meh! I have already written down the expenses (yeah I have made loads on earning a profit in the stock market, paying taxes on a profit ;) )

Quote from: Count of La Mancha on May 10, 2014, 07:41:12 PM


Sir... you are clearly wrong.     If the dollar went to 0 in hyperinflation to price of the equities in terms of dollars would go to infinity.   An increase in the supply of money means there is more money to bid up the value of equities. 

You cannot pick and choose commodities, services, equities, etc for the purposes of inflation.  Anything that can be exchanged with dollars has its price affected due to changes in dollar valuation.

And this is why I think most of the crypto equities stuff is doomed. Lack of understanding practical economies is so painfully missing. Mixing two concepts together - inflation and falling dollar value.

Lets just deal with what BM said- falling dollar value, it will actually cause equity gains to be wiped . A $100 stock worth at $110 (increase in value) is actually same as $100 or $90 -- there is no real (even if there is a nominal one) increase if we were to say dollar value has fallen. In case of commodities, it will be a real increase not only a nominal one -- thats the difference.

Quote from: bytemaster on May 08, 2014, 01:50:50 PM

QuoteDecentralized autonomous corporations/companies are a smaller topic, because they are basically a subclass of DAOs, but they are worth mentioning. Since the main exponent of DAC as terminology is Daniel Larimer, we will borrow as a definition the point that he himself consistently promotes: a DAC pays dividends. That is, there is a concept of shares in a DAC which are purchaseable and tradeable in some fashion, and those shares potentially entitle their holders to continual receipts based on the DAC's success. A DAO is non-profit; though you can make money in a DAO, the way to do that is by participating in its ecosystem and not by providing investment into the DAO itself. Obviously, this distinction is a murky one; all DAOs contain internal capital that can be owned, and the value of that internal capital can easily go up as the DAO becomes more powerful/popular, so a large portion of DAOs are inevitably going to be DAC-like to some extent.

Thus, the distinction is more of a fluid one and hinges on emphasis: to what extent are dividends the main point, and to what extent is it about earning tokens by participation? Also, to what extent does the concept of a "share" exist as opposed to simple virtual property? For example, a membership on a nonprofit board is not really a share, because membership frequently gets granted and confiscated at will, something which would be unacceptable for something classified as investable property, and a bitcoin is not a share because a bitcoin does not entitle you to any claim on profits or decision-making ability inside the system, whereas a share in a corporation definitely is a share. In the end, perhaps the distinction might ultimately be the surprisingly obscure point of whether or not the profit mechanism and the consensus mechanism are the same thing.

The above definitions are still not close to complete; there will likely be gray areas and holes in them, and exactly what kind of automation a DO must have before it becomes a DAO is a very hard question to answer. Additionally, there is also the question of how all of these things should be built. An AI, for example, should likely exist as a network of private servers, each one running often proprietary local code, whereas a DO should be fully open source and blockchain-based. Between those two extremes, there is a large number of different paradigms to pursue. How much of the intelligence should be in the core code? Should genetic algorithms be used for updating code, or should it be futarchy or some voting or vetting mechanism based on individuals? Should membership be corporate-style, with sellable and transferable shares, or nonprofit-style, where members can vote other members in and out? Should blockchains be proof of work, proof of stake, or reputation-based? Should DAOs try to maintain balances in other currencies, or should they only reward behavior by issuing their own internal token? These are all hard problems and we have only just begun scratching the surface of them.

This section attempts to be fair, but is clearly missing the point:

1)  Assumption that equity gains are the same thing as profitability, after all it could just mean the dollar is falling in value.

While I am in agreement with other of your statements, this one just ruined it for me. Are you being serious? Dollar falling in value = increase in prices is true only for commodities or commodity currencies  --- not for equity gains.

One of the holes in ethereum explanation is all shares have voting powers (if we were to refer bitcoin as shares). I guess they have never heard of the term "preferred stocks".  So I believe your definition of bitcoin existing as a share to be pretty true.

That all said, this whole DAO, DAC, DA etc was a bit silly. I felt ethereum should stick to their nomenclature -- no is stopping them from doing so. Instead of trying to initiate an unnecessary debate