The result is like a 'constitutional company' where the laws are entirely defined in the constitution and the 'president' can be recalled at any time and has almost no power even when in office.

This same process can be used to resolve when a hard fork goes into effect.   

Thoughts?

It seems to me that you are trying to solve a problem that the Bitcoin devs have not even implemented a solution for. (How to stop forks and the 51% attack)

I don't think security is a problem if the companies operating within the framework of the DAC double check their transactions manually.

Yes, a DDOS could still shut down the network for a while, so I guess you just have to buy some DDOS protection from an external source. Is this doable?

You want to remove mining from the equation? Why not just form a traditional corporation? It seems to me that is what you're getting at anyway. You already control the code, so you control everything anyway. How are you going to get people to devote their own computing resources to secure the blockchain?

I have a stake, so I want it to be done right, so take as long as you need to figure out how to implement Bitshares-X. You've already taken the snapshot, perhaps to stimulate interest and discussions like these, I don't know, but it seem to me that the plan for development and implementation of Bitshares-X has gone off on a dangerous tangent.

Am I right? Am I wrong? Am I partially wrong? Am I completely wrong?

The idea of Distributed Autonomous Applications/Companies/etc are important, I think, for the future and freedom of the internet. What are you doing to this end? Is hacking together a bunch of legal rules in a legal off-chain document going to serve this purpose? Does it even serve the purposes of the shareholders?

In western culture, the axiom is often: "The customer is always right." Merchants know that whatever immediate profits they might lose by letting customers return defective products, they'll make many times over in future profits from loyal customers.

Things are much different in China. The general rule is: Caveat Emptor. When Chinese people buy things in China, they almost never expect that they can take it back, or that a warranty will be honored. This beedui isn't the same thing, but the cultural difference is important. This is why tbkmcjl has the attitude "The exchange is king."  I'd like to remind him that if the exchange (or any business) loses its customers, the exchange has lost.

The way I see it, his beedui.com fiasco has one of the following possible explations:
1. The beedui administrators did not understand the way that the PTS snapshot / Bitshares-X DAC was going to work.
2. They did understand, but decided to scam their customers, taking advantage of the general confusion and lack of clear explanations coming from the invictus innovations staff.

It took me a while searching around to find the correct info, and English is my native language! Also I saw one post on this forum, by invictus staff, saying that the snapshot would happen after 11:59PM UTC/GMT on February 28th. In fact, the block at 11:32PM, block 57793, is the important block that serves as the snapshot.

Why did they lock PTS about 12 hours early? Either incompetence or a big scam.

Why is beedui.com locking deposits/withdrawals on PTS until March 5th? Something is fishy.

The question that ZVS asked and still needs to be answered is: Does Beedui.com have any anouncement in Chinese language, on their website, where they say whether or not they will issue Bitshares-X to their account holders? Do they have anything on their website explaining their motivations/reasoning?

Source of blockchain info:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3291.msg41449#msg41449

How to claim your Bitshares-X:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1596.0