Quote from: Stan on May 22, 2014, 04:34:24 AM

Quote from: mess on May 22, 2014, 04:29:07 AM
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:

• 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]
  

I was going to reveal my true identity to get your attention, but I don't think it's necessary anymore.

So, basically, this is an "Input Thread" where only inputs that are not against Stan's stance will be accepted and taken into consideration.

@Stan, are you ignoring me?
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4658.msg59291#msg59291

Please address your investors' concern. Don't be dodgy.

Quote from: AdamBLevine on May 22, 2014, 12:59:18 AM
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

+5%.
@Stan, please don't blow Adam off this time.

Quote from: Stan on May 21, 2014, 05:32:25 PM

Quote from: DonJoe on May 21, 2014, 04:39:35 PM
I have been following the project since Oct last year and was mining from day 1 on Nov. 5th. After half and year, I saw I3 is veryvery good in collecting money and all the product is PTS and a large forum. And now you want to take the other 360k PTS? Are you short of funding to travel to St. Martin?? :-[ Can anyone tell me who is using the AGS money travel to St. Martin??? Why the current AGS funding is spending on worthless website refinement and unnecessary staff but not paying to Peter Todd or Sergio to review the code and suggestion?

PTS is really slow now because the difficulty is not adjusted every block. It is design flaw, not the fault of miner. I can only see all the miners now are very loyal and should be rewarded. Other coins are talking pre-mine from genesis block, but I3 is taking it at the end. Sounds bad, but truth, isn't it?

1. Our executive team has been invited to attend a meeting of venture capitalists in St Martin who indicated an interest in funding the BitShares ecosystem.  They are even reimbursing many of the expenses.

2.  PTS was based on BTC code.  This code has the design flaw you mention.  This is why we propose to upgrade to a DPOS variant.

3.  Upgrading to DPOS frees up the money previously allocated for miners which will no longer be needed.  This has to go somewhere, even by default.  That is what we are discussing with this community.

4.  We pay for as much time as Sergio is able to give us.

5.  Giving away crypto-assets via various spigot mechanisms is common.  We are proposing targeted give-aways for which there are hundreds of industry examples.

6.  These are companies, not currencies - there is no stigma to companies figuring out their share allocations in advance and reserving some shares for future needs.  The term pre-mining has no meaning in this domain.

1. Please show us the evidence!
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.
4. .
5. Would you mind provide one of such examples?
6.
7. Is it so hard for you and 3I to admit that you were doing a bad job, instead of using all the twists and turns to obfuscate the real issue here? Until you admit you are wrong, I don't think you have what it takes to make BitShares a success.
8. And, most importantly. Please reply to me regarding all the concerns I have. I am your big investors! I invest real money into 3I. As the saying goes, "People should be responsible for their own investment", but it doesn't mean that you guys can fuck me all over and there's nothing I can do about it!

Quote from: Stan on May 21, 2014, 04:16:45 AM

We will offer the best possible product we can devise.
The market will choose whether to accept it.

:)

• It's only the best possible product through which 3I can get more money, not the best solution for the community. I don't think 3I and its investors share the same benefit down this route.
• It's not a free market, since you guys have fucked it up so much.

Quote from: Stan on May 21, 2014, 06:59:02 AM

Quote from: 天籁 on May 21, 2014, 06:54:04 AM

Quote from: Stan on May 21, 2014, 06:29:22 AM

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.

• Stop being such an asshole to scare investors away, and more new demand will come to you. Seriously!
• NO! NO! NO! It will not! The only way that will increase our wealth more is that 3I takes control of the unmined PTS and hopefully launch a fair and helpful distribution of those PTS, which I don't think is very likely to happen, according to your track record. Stan, you have made similar promises aspirations before and almost none of them was fulfilled. So, please, do something helpful other than BS to your investors!

Quote from: JoeyD on May 21, 2014, 09:27:24 AM

Quote from: mess on May 21, 2014, 05:34:09 AM

Quote from: Stan on May 21, 2014, 02:36:46 AM
Decentralized competition is what we're after.  All we can do is put a product out there and hope people like it.  We encourage competitors to put their own products out there and compete with us!

We have just announced the intention to design an upgrade chain called PTS2 that has DPOS instead of mining and should solve all of the current problems PTS has from using legacy Bitcoin mining code.  Its design will honor PTS holders 1 for 1 and reserve the unallocated/unmined 15% for use increasing its value proposition (demand) for those who choose to hold it.  No different than any developer who announces, say, a 45/45/10 DAC with the 10% reserved to fund development, promotion, and support.  The standard approach we have always been advocating and the freedom we have left for every BitShares developer.

Now here's the thing: 

Every PTS share holder will now ALSO own a PTS2 share!

That's how our industry works.  That's how every change proposal happens.  Soft forks and let the industry choose!

Those who like PTS can sell their PTS2 and vice versa.

That's how every shareholder gets a vote - the free market!  What each person chooses to hold and chooses to sell.

So nothing has changed with PTS.  Miners can still mine it. Exchanges can still trade it. Your wallets will still work if they do.

But developers will have to choose which chain they will honor (or perhaps some clever mix).

If the majority of value stays with PTS, developers will be inclined to want to attract its holders.  If the majority prefers PTS2, most developers will honor that.  Over time, the least popular chain will probably die out.  Or not.

Nobody's rights have been violated.  A new competing protoDAC has been announced!  (Something we reserved the right to do from week 1).  Everyone is free to own and honor the one they like best - or both - or even clone their own better alternative.

And so are we.   :)

So, Stan, you're pretty determined to suck every last bit of value out of PTS, huh.

• Do you really need more funding for promotion, support, etc? Are 5,000 BTC + 340,000 PTS worth of donations not enough for you?
• Distributing the remaining PTS to AGS holders are the most obvious solution that would benefit your investors. Can't you see that at all?
• Don't you have any idea that this move would put you into a position that's against PTS and AGS holders?

I understand completely, that 3I has reserved the right to launch a competing protoDAC, along with other rights that you guys reserved as well, like yeah, "disavow anything you ever said on this forum". Well played.

But if you really want BitShares to succeed, you've got to work for the true benefit of the investors (PTS/AGS holders), instead of playing your little tricks to gradually suck everybody's money into your own pocket. I don't think you guys have the balls to piss the VCs off like this if you were to get money from VCs. And the whole idea of AGS is just scam, but we have no other choice but to donate all our ass off, otherwise our shares got diluted. But you managed to raised millions via AGS anyway. We tolerated it, so could you please just stop asking for money right now and firkin deliver?

Would you mind elaborating, because I don't quite get the logic behind your reasoning.

How do you see this as "sucking" all value and it being a bad thing? I also am a bit confused about the dilution of your shares if you just kept a hold of your PTS. Because from an ROI point of view PTS seems to be the big scam, because they get all the benefits of the AGS fundraiser and the projects that paid for, without needing themselves to invest in anything. I'd like it if someone could explain to me how PTS-holders are not getting anything other than a sickening better deal than people investing directly into AGS.

Could very well be I'm missing some very important points, but if you just number conclusions, without the reasoning that led you to them, that doesn't help in clearing things up.

• 3I sucks the remaining unmined PTS into their own holding. No matter what they say and what they intend to do with those PTS, it is under their control. I wonder why they are so reluctant to spend the AGS fund to do all the marketing and bounties.
• Why is it a bad thing? It's because I don't trust 3I anymore. They've become the single point of failure in the whole project. In regard to the AGS fund, they are not open to suggestions from the community. And the worst part is that they seem to keep the AGS fund as their salaries for the next several years. Salaries! Not for the development of the whole industry.
• I'm sorry, but what you said about PTS is completely incomprehensible to me. Here's what I think of PTS: PTS and AGS will get equal share of other DACs if they can ever launch successfully: that's basically the intrinsic value of PTS and AGS. According the current ratio between PTS and AGS, a reasonable man would donate AGS, in sacrifice of the liquidity of PTS. This is the evil side of AGS: If you donate PTS in exchange for AGS, the donated PTS goes to 3I but they still have equity among those DACs; if you donate BTC in exchange for AGS, those BTC don't have equity value. And the price of PTS depends on this ratio, which inherently lost value. Simply put, 3I launched AGS to tax the PTS holders on stupidity, and the PTS holders don't have other choice since 3I makes the rules! Do the math yourselves, guys!

Quote from: donkeypong on May 21, 2014, 03:51:04 AM
Wow, Simeon sounds really negative for someone with a stake in this. Have a little patience, people! You might be a billionaire in another year or two, but it's not gonna happen by this time next week! Regarding Stan's use of language, I don't think he's the one that's trying to catch people using a wrong word. He's trying to set the record straight when others twist his words (intentionally or not) into misunderstandings and rumors. If someone in his position is not careful, then pretty soon, these rumors about Invictus' 'promises' spiral out of their control. The last thing they want is people accusing them of over-promising. Goals matter, and Bitshares is aiming to deliver great things.

Billionaire in a year or two? What a joke!
Look around the Bitcoin 2.0 space, is it so hard to convince yourself that BitShares is the least competitive one (well, at least up til now)? I don't mean to say that to hurt this community, but come on! Your optimistic viewpoint should be based on real progress they've made instead of some blind belief, is it?
We should urge 3I to put themselves together and go for the right direction, instead of letting them to lead us by the nose.

Quote from: Stan on May 21, 2014, 02:36:46 AM
Decentralized competition is what we're after.  All we can do is put a product out there and hope people like it.  We encourage competitors to put their own products out there and compete with us!

We have just announced the intention to design an upgrade chain called PTS2 that has DPOS instead of mining and should solve all of the current problems PTS has from using legacy Bitcoin mining code.  Its design will honor PTS holders 1 for 1 and reserve the unallocated/unmined 15% for use increasing its value proposition (demand) for those who choose to hold it.  No different than any developer who announces, say, a 45/45/10 DAC with the 10% reserved to fund development, promotion, and support.  The standard approach we have always been advocating and the freedom we have left for every BitShares developer.

Now here's the thing: 

Every PTS share holder will now ALSO own a PTS2 share!

That's how our industry works.  That's how every change proposal happens.  Soft forks and let the industry choose!

Those who like PTS can sell their PTS2 and vice versa.

That's how every shareholder gets a vote - the free market!  What each person chooses to hold and chooses to sell.

So nothing has changed with PTS.  Miners can still mine it. Exchanges can still trade it. Your wallets will still work if they do.

But developers will have to choose which chain they will honor (or perhaps some clever mix).

If the majority of value stays with PTS, developers will be inclined to want to attract its holders.  If the majority prefers PTS2, most developers will honor that.  Over time, the least popular chain will probably die out.  Or not.

Nobody's rights have been violated.  A new competing protoDAC has been announced!  (Something we reserved the right to do from week 1).  Everyone is free to own and honor the one they like best - or both - or even clone their own better alternative.

And so are we.   :)

So, Stan, you're pretty determined to suck every last bit of value out of PTS, huh.

• Do you really need more funding for promotion, support, etc? Are 5,000 BTC + 340,000 PTS worth of donations not enough for you?
• Distributing the remaining PTS to AGS holders are the most obvious solution that would benefit your investors. Can't you see that at all?
• Don't you have any idea that this move would put you into a position that's against PTS and AGS holders?

I understand completely, that 3I has reserved the right to launch a competing protoDAC, along with other rights that you guys reserved as well, like yeah, "disavow anything you ever said on this forum". Well played.

But if you really want BitShares to succeed, you've got to work for the true benefit of the investors (PTS/AGS holders), instead of playing your little tricks to gradually suck everybody's money into your own pocket. I don't think you guys have the balls to piss the VCs off like this if you were to get money from VCs. And the whole idea of AGS is just scam, but we have no other choice but to donate all our ass off, otherwise our shares got diluted. But you managed to raised millions via AGS anyway. We tolerated it, so could you please just stop asking for money right now and firkin deliver?

Quote from: bytemaster on May 20, 2014, 07:45:10 PM

QuoteBut the arrogance it takes for Invictus to treat those 15% of PTS  as theirs, as something that belongs to them...

I suppose everything is a matter of perspective, but currently those funds are earmarked for paying miners to burn electricity.   So the PTS community / shareholders are the ones who should vote on what to do with the remaining PTS.   I3 Ltd (AGS fund) controls something like 20% of PTS and so would benefit greatly (far more than any other single actor) by stopping the dilution of PTS and not giving anything away.   

So it is a question of what the remaining PTS shareholders wish to do.   In the interest of separating development from marketing I have left Stan, Brian, Gregory, and Arlen to work with the community to develop the best plans.    I am not a dictator in these things.

Personally I suggested to them that PTS holders should get some benefit as well: ie give x% to PTS holders.  However, I can also see that we intended there to be equal shares in PTS/AGS long-term. 

In my opinion the arrogance is in assuming we are arrogant.  In reality we are just people trying to do the best by everyone and improve the value of what everyone is holding.

We also would not be changing the deal for PTS holders:  we said that there would be 2M + 1% inflation and reserved the right to fork the chain at any point to upgrade it.  In this particular instance the PTS holders go from having 1% inflation to steady deflation from trx fees.   Still a win for them.

I agree with you it is a matter of perspective. But why can't you consider this from the perspective of investors. Of course you guys are happy with this proposal, since you hold hostage of the fund, which constitutes 20% of total shares. But in our investors' point of view, we have donated more to the AGS fund since PTS has increased in value. Please don't say that you guys are doing this for the mutual benefit of us all, for the whole industry. NO! You are doing this because you want more for yourselves and you are using the PTS we donated and turn them against us.

Due to 3I's repeated history of bouncing checks, most investors (me included) have lost faith in you guys, and it is not unreasonable to put it that Stan's PROMISE of 2x,...10X return is highly improbable. So, please, do us a favor and don't screw up on those unmined PTS!

Pardon me if I am being a troll here. Wish BitShares the best.

It's actually just another way to capture the remaining unmined PTS ($1m) into your own pocket, just like what you did by AGS. So long as Invictus has the right to decide whoever gets the remaining unmined PTS, it is in violation of the original social contract. You actually don't need an extra $1m to *help build the crypto-equity industry*, the fund you kept hostage via AGS is already far more than enough.

As an angry investor who invested more than $100k, though I don't post in this forum a lot, I really care the whole development of this project. And I'm really disappointed to see you guys bouncing checks all the time.

Just tested bts_xt_client. The ratio between bts_xt_balance and ags_balance from the same wallet is 1.6395. Shouldn't it be 3.33 according to the Feb 28th snapshot?

Quote from: wesphily on April 15, 2014, 03:22:23 PM
Steve Jobs was fired for delaying projects. Microsoft stole his idea and did it quicker. We all know the conclusion.

All in good time is fine until somebody else does it faster.

If only you have spent some time checking out their github repo: https://github.com/InvictusInnovations/BitShares/commits/master/bts_wallet . It's just unbelievable that they could raise 4000 BTC & 300,000 PTS with this piece of code. I guess they don't want to miss the deadline time after time, either. They're just incompetent. That's all.

PM offers (500PTS at least)
You send first or use escrow.