PTS does have a different role than just being an investment vehicle, although people only interested in bitsharesX might not believe in future value.

But for now it has mutiple roles in future bitshares-community projects, as a kind of voting, community auditing and marketing DAC on top of it being an investment instrument.

New DAC builders (if they are smart) will try to give enough of a stake to PTS to make investors willing to bother taking a position, since taking a position takes real money, it actually has some value. So in return the DAC builders get some hype/marketing going and if PTS-traders aren't all lazy greedy bums, they'll base their positions on actual information and this will make the price also reflect a hive mind vetted value of the new project.

If it can still fulfill this role inside btsx, I'm not sure. Despite all technical arguments about the added bonus of btsx-security etc, I am still not comfortable about absorbing PTS into btsx.  Maybe it could be upgraded to a contract, investment, voting DAC or something, on it's own separate chain, where other people can also add their investment coins and still be perceived as independent from bitsharesx.

Sorry if I'm not making myself clear, it's late and I'm tired and this is the best I can do for now.

I have to correct my earlier statement about bitcoincard having halted development. I just read an update by the dev-team also responsible for that project that that project is actually in the final stages where all hardware is built and they are in the testing/tweaking phase.

I also was not clear that they are the same devs responsible for the mycelium wallet and will probably use mobile phones for their meshnetwork projects as well.

Interesting project to keep track off, irrespective if they succeed or fail, it will provide some useful insights.

But carry on, I did not mean to interrupt the OT-discussion.

PTS predates dpos, the mining is a relic of the past that needs to be fixed.

Here's how I see PTS. It now has become an auditing and investors voting DAC. When launching a new DAC you give enough percentage stake to PTS that people will bother to make a decision and because buying and selling PTS takes actual money, the votes are not free and have value. This means it is both a marketing tool, it generates a little hype (later on this might get bigger), but it also works as a stamp of distributed community approval and gauge on what the crowd mind thinks of your project.

However people seem to forget that the musicDAC is NOT an Invictus project. At least that's what Dan Larimer said in the last Mumble hangout that I listened in on. Invictus/bitshares apparently has only occasional contact in an advisory role, but are not part of the MusicDAC team. Inversely that also means that the musicdac is not getting any financial benefit out of the AGS or PTS funds at all.

For all short term Invictus projects PTS/AGS can expect a large part of the stake, because those projects were actually paid for by PTS and AGS. Also if Bytemaster and team play their cards right, their cut of the pie could grow with the ecosystem and offer a sustained funding pool for their operations. So it makes sense for them to honour PTS/AGS for a larger amount, seeing as those are their investors.

But for this team outside of Invictus/bitshares this is a different matter. They need funds and that means getting the most hype and people. Trying to sell to newcomers that they will be providing the funds for the new project and in return for forking over the cash they'll get 20%, might not be the best marketing strategy in history. Also keep in mind, the musicDAC will gain jack all from honoring PTS/AGS in terms of funding.

So from my perspective,a split like  10%PTS - 10%AGS - 10%Foundation- 70%IPO (This is the polar opposite of the current plan btw) would be totally acceptable and might have the best chance of succesfully getting of the ground. Provided their concepts and design are actually sound and they do the marketing right. I also wouldn't mind if it was 10/10/80 with the promise of using 60/70 or whatever for future IPOs.

BUT and yes that is a big BUT, the PTS investing voters need to know what they are taking a position in and giving their stamp of approval. For now I can't find any clear answers on how the DAC part of the project will actually work. So I can't actually give any sound argument about a proper share split, because I have no clue about what is being split up in the first place, or how funding is planned for the project or anything. Keep in mind I'm not calling this a scam, but I do think you should regroup and do this snapshot plus the launch in a better way. And stop the current one.

So far nobody seems to know the answer to this next question.
Will this be a ecosystem where everybody can start up shop and issue their Brand/Songs whatever on the blockchain (without peertracks) and where peertracks just so happens to be first to market in this new specialized artist-blockchain ecosystem? Or is this a new ITunes style centralized website concept, but just with a more public database in the form of a blockchain?

Not only should the answer to the above be clear without a doubt, but even this pts-snapshot should be marketed and clearly announced on all appropriate channels and be part of the pre-hyping. Is there even a website with a countdown or the completed whitepaper, or something?

I'm not trying to destroy this project, I really want stuff like this to succeed, but this is not the right way to do it in my honest opinion.

Well first of, cancel the 10 October snapshot. 8 days is no longer enough time to react, without having made clear how this thing will work and what people are buying into, this is BS and a very bad start.

First work out your plan and funding model, make those plans very clear to everyone, so there is no doubt what people will be buying, and make sure you advertize everywhere so everyone can get in on it and only then start the snapshot countdown. Only then can people take their position in this. Seriously cancel the snapshot date and do a better announcement on more channels than just this obscure forum post.

Perhaps you can build a delay tolerant mesh network for the "Internet of Things" with this DAC?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWtRTzXJvtI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RusR2PiqPs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delay-tolerant_networking

Let's put CubeSats in space and use delay tolerant networking.

Ever since hearing of a similar project for bitcoin I've been wondering about what kind of actual throughput is possible with cubesats. With gps the satellites only send their own unique signal and you triangulate those signals on the ground, but I don't know how practical it would be to try and run a payment network via satellite.

Delay-tolerant-networking is just one tiny bit of the puzzle with mesh-networks, because mesh-networks need to be more adaptable  than just the occasional broken static connection route. Ideally a mesh network should also work in isolation but also be able to reconnect and resynchronize when mesh networks (re)connect. That is not an easy thing to solve.

So far we've only talked about extending the current existing network through mesh-networking, but I'm not aware of practical solutions for a mesh network that can divide and rejoin without any issues. It takes the problem of forks in a blockchain to a whole different level where forks are allowed to live side by side and then get merged when they touch each other.

I lack the technical knowledge in this field and I can't code, so I don't know the details about what happens when a fork is resolved and what will happen to the transaction history of the smaller mesh/fork joining a larger one. You'd probably need delay tolerant blockchains. Maybe a global heartbeat where all members send a signal at regular intervals, which would make clear who is part of the currently connected  nodes on this part of a meshnetwork and store that in the collective data. Then it might be possible to fit the separate pieces of the puzzle together afterward even if those pieces have been disconnected for an extended period of time.

EDIT

Quote from: mf-tzo on October 02, 2014, 08:52:13 am

and to add some more sauce to the above...wait until the Chinese government start claiming repayment of the US debt to see what will happen...

*autsch* .. do you have any 'hard facts' on this? are they talking about this already?

Seems the opinions are divided on which country will be used to cash out on the shorting of the euro, but some bankers seem to think France is the next in line after the successful attempt to make some cracks with Greece.

If France goes I think even bitEUR would use it's utility, or maybe a number of historic museums would like it. Sort of like crypto coin collectors or something.

This is an interesting discussion.

Just realize that if you make it into an asset, then there will never be a top 10 PTS crypto-coin.  It will always be an asset from here on out.

Also, it now relies on people to download and become involved with BTSX first, when BTSX was the product of PTS.  In some ways this could be good, but overall not so much.

I'm ambivalent about the whole thing in general.

I'm ambivalent on this as well. I'm not really comfortable with the idea that the intermediary for all DACs will become locked into this single DAC-experiment. To me it feels a bit like making the free-market less free. I'd rather not see PTS be a subsidiary of one single DAC. I'd like a more modular solution, where even bitsharesx could fail, but not take down the entire ecosystem.

I agree with that, but then again, if there is no compelling advantage of an altcoin to the USERs it really doesn't matter if Bitcoin can integrate the altcoin's technology, does it?  And as far as I can tell BTSX's supposed advantages don't amount to much when you really drill down...

Now you've lost me, which users are you talking about now? Because first you say the average user doesn't give a hoot about what bitcoin actually is or how it works, nor do they care about any other coin and what they might become, and then suddenly you say they do care.  If the average Joe doesn't give a four letter word, than that would probably mean that the first system to come with actual solutions will get the cake (or at least the first serving of it), not the one who promises he might or might not offer something in the achievable future. The features and technology bitsharesX has, it has them right now, bitcoin as of now, does not have those features. Getting an exchange working on the bitcoin blockchain will not be an easy copy paste from bitsharesx, I'm fairly confident in that assessment.

I agree with you that getting critical mass in user adoption is key, but I am not as confident that bitcoin has that, so if you have any solutions or ideas on that front, then I think those would be very much appreciated on this forum. Btw, I'm not against bitcoin, although I do like bitshares solutions a lot better. I just want the decentralized revolution to happen and I don't have any preference how or with which project, but I do hope from the bottom of my heart that it will not be a single blockchain one.