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

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: 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!

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.   

• 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?

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.