I'm having similar issues, though I haven't selected 101 delegates (i thought if I select then, then the will get 10x per vote each because I LOVE them sooo much! )

i did the console command too and got:

>> wallet_check_vote_proportion myaccount

{
  "utilization": 0.019801979884505272,
  "negative_utilization": 0
}

I think you can vote up to 100% of your shares for each delegate.  So if you have 100 shares and vote for one delegate you are using 100 shares for voting, if you vote with all 100 shares for 10 delegate you are then giving 1000 votes to delegates.

While voting is important I don't think it's a big deal if you aren't voting for all 101 at first, hopefully over time as you find new delegates to vote for you will eventually use the full voting power of your shares, and those votes will be a product of due diligence and thought and not random picking.

There is another point I don't think anyone has brought up.

Lets say I am a developer writing a DAC a couple years from now.  I have to decide PTS/AGS allocations.  With liquid PTS I have a better demographic to get my DAC off and going.  (New users along with older users)  I can basically leverage existing exchanges to provide users who believe in my product.  Now if you make PTS static, I would have 2 demographics (AGS and PTS) that are roughly the same with no one new in the system.

So what is the logical thing to do ?  Make another distribution method.  Sharedrop on something popular and cut PTS down to 10%.  Or perhaps I'd just issue an asset somewhere if technically feasible.

This hurts I3 and those who are stuck with an illiquid PTS.  Static PTS would have much lesser value to rational DAC developers.  And if a developer happens to write a worthwhile DAC, they're likely quite rational.....

I agree, the way I see it DAC code will grow more complex, effecient and effective much like any technology over time.  I'll bet years down the road we will see DACs built that will make the current ones look archaic.  I hope Bitshares brand is right there at that point in time building competitive and modern DACs to compete in the marketplace.  I think a liquid PTS helps encourage keeping the investors and innovators within the Bitshares ecosystem.

I think we are in agreement that PTS should result in the creation of a new liquid asset class that performs the same function.
I think we are in agreement that 2 weeks is too fast...
I think we are in agreement that issuing on BTSX is best

I just think it should be clear that any new asset is not "PTS" and not produced by I3 or DAC Sun and if done properly will be recognized as "fair" by us.

I like this conclusion.  I doubt anyone is strongly attached to keeping the mining part of PTS around, but I think it's important to keep it liquid.

I believe too many people have invested in PTS based on the understanding that it would be liquid to just pull the rug out from under them.  Ander also made an excellent point about future prospective investors potentially turning away from the ecosystem due to not having a liquid token they are able to buy into as a speculation on the future of I3 supported DACs.

I'm nearly certain that DACs in general will at some point flourish, that you will see them spring up and compete all over the place.  Hopefully by that time, Bitshares will be seen as a pioneer and will have sprouted at least some of the most successful and well known DACs to date.  I think the decentralized revolution is just beginning and it seems crazy to cut off investment opportunities into the future of the Bitshares ecosystem.

Doesn't everyone imagine there being incredible and complex DACs still be launched and tested say 5 years from now?  Isn't Bitshares positioned well to ride the crest of the coming tsunami of DACs yet to be invented in the future?  Isn't the point of PTS to invest in future DACs?  Feels short sighted to cut it off now and call it mission accomplished.  I always assumed it would be years down the line when PTS would get very interesting, after the word was out and DACs following the social consensus were well known and well regarded, with more being created all the time.

I'm actually quite surprised to see so many supporting the "lock-in" of PTS.

I'm rather ambivalent about the naming of the new "PTS" asset, Genesis sounds pretty good but I think the other suggestions would also work.

So, if I can get hold of some old empty Protoshares PTS wallets, that had some PTS in them before the first snapshot I can import multiple private keys into the i.e. the BitshareX client?

As long as they held the PTS at the time of the snapshot, then yes.

Quote from: amencon on October 15, 2014, 05:07:55 pm

Quote from: blahblah7up on October 15, 2014, 04:52:36 pm

Quote from: amencon on October 15, 2014, 01:32:46 am

For now merchants accepting bitUSD need be already motivated to stay in crypto AND want the value stability of USD.  Merchants all over are already accepting BTC and converting to USD so unless they have a reason not to want to hold fiat, bitUSD won't likely appear to hold much extra value proposition than their current setup.

This is the extra value proposition:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10046.0

It's not a very good one until there is enough widespread confidence in the currency.  5% (or whatever) interest is great, but not if you have to hold some currency you don't understand and nobody else is using or talking about.

Who says you have to even be aware of that currency?  Get a debit card that returns a yield from StanCard^TM or something.

Load the prepaid "StanCard" wit USD via the on-ramp service, earn interest while on the card, and unload the card when you buy something in USD from any merchant that accepts prepaid StanCards.

You're right Stan, I made that post before I was aware of the pending existence of "StanCards".  In a world where those exist, my comment doesn't apply.

Quote from: amencon on October 15, 2014, 04:39:22 pm

Quote from: mbaeichapareiko on October 15, 2014, 08:07:40 am

amencon,

It was just a scenario that exposed the reluctancy of a computer tech to accept bitcoin due to "he thinks its a dying currency",   and him not being aware that there are ways to accept and peg it to dollars (he feels usd is not a dying currency).      *we will see*

The point being implied...  if bitusd is implemented with payment processors, then merchants can decide to keep their digital income from sales in either bitusd,  or btc.      The advantage being if you keep it in bitusd, you can gain interest.  Or you can convert into and out of other assets,  btc etc very easily.      A problem I see with bit pay, coin base converting into usd, is that once you are in usd, it is not as liquid to convert back into btc or other digital assets as bitusd is.     

Does that sound right to you guys?

Unfortunately we don't have payment processors that can do that yet.  Also many merchants aren't going to want to stay in crypto at first.  Most businesses will want USD and not play speculator on the crypto markets.  That's not to say that over time we can't build confidence in the system and slowly have more and more merchants holding bitUSD.

Part of getting merchants to hold bitUSD will be getting their suppliers to accept bitUSD, like any network it becomes more valuable as more nodes are added.

This is why Bitcoin is valuable, I think it's a bit pie in the sky to think that all of a sudden this network of bitUSD users is going to come flooding in as soon as we get the word out.  It's going to take time and at first there won't be an overwhelming positive value proposition for holding bitUSD as a small amount of interest is worthless if there isn't first complete confidence in the currency you have to hold for it.

In the grand scheme very few merchants accept Bitcoin worldwide, and that's after years of Bitcoin proponents pushing it very hard as well as there existing payment processors that put the very well known and trusted USD directly in their account.

The challenge for us is not only to get these payment processors to include acceptance of bitUSD, but also to convince people there is value in holding bitUSD over regular USD.  I think those that think the world is going to jump on board very quickly for this is in for a bad time.

As for your example merchant, I think that anyone that sees Bitcoin as a "dying currency" is going to likely see bitUSD as a "dead currency".  We have a lot of work to do before your local brick and mortar merchant will be a good marketing avenue.

And all of this is why some are pushing for acceptance of bitUSD on OB.  OB users will be "soft" targets for use of a new crypto.  Plus it then gives bitUSD a real world proof of concept and use case to help market further to more crypto-enthusiasts.  You get enough people on board that way and then hopefully you get some coverage that makes market pegged assets well known enough to be brought to those outside the crypto realm.

As Stan says, maybe I'm not thinking BIG enough, but that seems to be the reality of the situation until Stan, Dan and the rest launch whatever super awesome secret marketing push they've been whispering about for awhile now.

What you say may be true, but I don't think merchants ever need to see bitUSD.
They get USD from an ordinary debit card and don't have a need to know there is bitUSD backing it.

• bitUSD is your crypto savings account.
  People hold it because they get a better yield than saving in fiat.
• Being able to directly spend it with a merchant is a separate value proposition.
  (Not having to convert to fiat or BTC is a convenience.)

The two complement each other but it is the savings yield that will give sleeping people their first reason to use bitUSD.

Then the fact that it is also a checking account with an attached debit card seals the deal.

But without #1, sleepers can get #2 many other ways without bitUSD.

Of course, for those who are awake, bitUSD is simply the best way to escape the risky global fiat system and both of the other two are icing on the cake.

Wow OK, that does sound like it would be the best of both worlds.  They see USD in their account like they are used to, get the interest inherent in the bitUSD system and can use those funds directly with their suppliers without them also needing to adopt into this system.  This will be very exciting if you can make it a reality.

amencon,

It was just a scenario that exposed the reluctancy of a computer tech to accept bitcoin due to "he thinks its a dying currency",   and him not being aware that there are ways to accept and peg it to dollars (he feels usd is not a dying currency).      *we will see*

The point being implied...  if bitusd is implemented with payment processors, then merchants can decide to keep their digital income from sales in either bitusd,  or btc.      The advantage being if you keep it in bitusd, you can gain interest.  Or you can convert into and out of other assets,  btc etc very easily.      A problem I see with bit pay, coin base converting into usd, is that once you are in usd, it is not as liquid to convert back into btc or other digital assets as bitusd is.     

Does that sound right to you guys?

Unfortunately we don't have payment processors that can do that yet.  Also many merchants aren't going to want to stay in crypto at first.  Most businesses will want USD and not play speculator on the crypto markets.  That's not to say that over time we can't build confidence in the system and slowly have more and more merchants holding bitUSD.

Part of getting merchants to hold bitUSD will be getting their suppliers to accept bitUSD, like any network it becomes more valuable as more nodes are added.

This is why Bitcoin is valuable, I think it's a bit pie in the sky to think that all of a sudden this network of bitUSD users is going to come flooding in as soon as we get the word out.  It's going to take time and at first there won't be an overwhelming positive value proposition for holding bitUSD as a small amount of interest is worthless if there isn't first complete confidence in the currency you have to hold for it.

In the grand scheme very few merchants accept Bitcoin worldwide, and that's after years of Bitcoin proponents pushing it very hard as well as there existing payment processors that put the very well known and trusted USD directly in their account.

The challenge for us is not only to get these payment processors to include acceptance of bitUSD, but also to convince people there is value in holding bitUSD over regular USD.  I think those that think the world is going to jump on board very quickly for this is in for a bad time.

As for your example merchant, I think that anyone that sees Bitcoin as a "dying currency" is going to likely see bitUSD as a "dead currency".  We have a lot of work to do before your local brick and mortar merchant will be a good marketing avenue.

And all of this is why some are pushing for acceptance of bitUSD on OB.  OB users will be "soft" targets for use of a new crypto.  Plus it then gives bitUSD a real world proof of concept and use case to help market further to more crypto-enthusiasts.  You get enough people on board that way and then hopefully you get some coverage that makes market pegged assets well known enough to be brought to those outside the crypto realm.

As Stan says, maybe I'm not thinking BIG enough, but that seems to be the reality of the situation until Stan, Dan and the rest launch whatever super awesome secret marketing push they've been whispering about for awhile now.