Am I understanding this correctly in that if one person sends 1 PTS to the Angelshares address and that is all the PTS sent in for THAT day, then they get all 5,000 Angelshares for that day? But if 5,000 people send in 1 PTS for that day, each gets 1 Angelshare?

Yes, thats correct.   You bid a total amount of support, and at the end of the day the allocation is split between all donors proportionally.

bytemaster, how many confirmations does each transaction need to have before each day's deadline? People may choose to denote in the last minute.

Also if you wanted to get the cheapest price, you should bid early to make it less worth for more people to donate.  The fewer people donate over the course of a day, the more likely a bunch of people are going to be waiting for the last minute all jumping in.  It would be better if they just bid when they became interested so people looking for opportunities don't spend time trying to snipe.

when I start the latest version of memorycoin, it pops this error message

"Error opening block database.
Do you want to rebuild the block database now?"
with the option OK or Abort

When I click OK, it opens a new window that says "error opening block database" and crashes

I'm running Bitcoin QT, what gives?  Same thing happened with the original Memorycoin client.  Running windows 7

The size of the reward isn't the problem, it's that you're paying people a salary rather than paying for results.  Paying a salary means you pay for one persons time.  Who cares about their time, it might not be that valuable - It would be better to set out goals that whenever anyone achieves them results in some of the designated funds being sent their way.

So long as you pay people for their time, you have to micromanage them to make sure they are using their time effectively.  I don't think thats possible, therefore its nuts to pay for time.

And Freetrade, the client won't even run on my computer - It loads with a blockchain related error message then crashes a few minutes later, when your software works I'll be happy to vote my PTS derived shares.

Neither of us knows what will happen in the long run. For now I am investing because it makes sense to me to do so with the price so cheap. The potential payoff is very large so the risk:reward is too good to pass on. The meme aspect of doge does not have to be a reason it will fail. Memes come and go all the time, yes, but a currency based on a meme is completely new. You could classify it as a fad now, and it the future it might fail or it might not. We will see.

You're welcome to do whatever you want with your money, but you've got to admit the future is much shakier for Dogecoin than it is for Bitcoin at this current moment in time, and thus my concern is for introducing people to a comparably much less stable currency than the one actually in use by people for commerce right now.    If Doge fails, everyone you gave Doge to is left with a bad taste in their mouth about cryptocurrency, which I do not like.   Yes Doge could succeed, but chances are much better it will become old news after a few weeks and fade away like hundreds of altcoins before it.  You're only giving away Dogecoins because you want to avoid that fate, so the act is purely selfish.

I have no problem with you acting in this way, but lets not dress it up as anything other than the self-interest that it is.

And for what it's worth, I argued that 20% of the PTS mining reward should have gone to Invictus because it was silly to compete against miners when your companies ability to deliver was the only reason the token was valuable in the first place.  You could go as high as 50% I bet without people thinking its a scam premine sorta thing.  With a currency it's tough to argue that, but with PTS?  It's a no brainer. 

The only problem is, they didn't do that at first.  So now, they want to "fix their problem" by going 100% in the other direction, from giving 100% of it away to monopolizing 100% and keeping everything for themselves.

The solution is not binary, you do some of both.  The part you profit from goes to fund the project, the part that is "mined" goes to ensure wide distribution and variety of stakeholders.   You don't have to think about Mining just as computation, think about it as ANY quantifiable activity you want to reward that can see broad participation. 

Your obsession with comparing unlike things is not helping, Protoshares is fundamentally not apple stock and what some other commodity does does not impact the deal as laid out by Invictus.   They made the deal, and are now stuck with it because if they show me the deal is only as good as their promise, I prudently decide to invest my funds in projects that don't have such arbitrary standards for real money operations.   Crypto is rules based, so you've got to follow the fucking rules even when you don't want to because its not a choice.   If you opt into the system, you've opted into the rules.

If the premise of Apple stock when it was sold to investors was "10% of our profit will be given to holders of Apple stock and 90% will be given to miners" than yes, I would have a problem with it.   It's all about what the deal is when the deal is struck, once that deal is struck it cannot be changed because any change whether good or bad demonstrates the only thing backing the value of the deal is the continued willingness of the company to honor it since it can be changed arbitrarily if they want to or feel like it's worthwhile.

I don't think Mining is free, but I think that it's being marketed as though it is much more possible for a normal user than it is in reality despite the fact that we know this to not be true.  If you don't believe me, look at literally the first thing pointed out on the officially sanctioned protoshares.net "Fair Mining".  I fought that when it was under development because it leads to unrealistic expectations.

You don't have to believe me, there are lots of crypto equities out there and will be many more in the weeks and months to come.  I am probably one of the largest holders of PTS, it would be odd for me to act against my own interest.

I hope you can find a way to see this through the eyes of someone other than yourself, because if you do you'll notice that taking away all the ways to get invested in Invictus's products, when the plan was for 90% of them to be distributed for non-monetary attention mechanisms, will result in the failure of Invictus's plans because the competition makes them look petty, upset about missing out on "all the money" and short sighted.

You are encouraging that behavior because you too would like to see the value of your personal holdings, already acquired under a much less rare paradigm than the one you wish to move to, increase beyond the multiplier you've already achieved.  As I mentioned, this is not surprising but it's also not very smart as you seek to shrink the pie, giving yourself a larger share at the expense of plentiful pie for those yet to discover it.  If all the pie is already owned and must be bought from people like you and me, the price is much higher than it would be through the process described.  That means less stakeholders can afford to get involved when they compare the opportunity to other available projects and that means the project is weaker for it.

And of course, since the whole ecosystem is open source you're really just encouraging someone to fork Bitshares when it's finished and sell the tokens at a flat affordable rate that doesn't honor the people who bought early because they are so in the minority compared to the possible number of users who would find the platform useful.

It's a new paradigm, attempts at capturing all value in the ecosystem mean people fork your project because they want to work on a version where they can capture some of the value too.  In that way, "leaving money on the table" means there is money for those not yet involved to see opportunity in picking up, leaving no money on the table encourages them to clone your table with all the money already on it and compete for your customers.

Do you get it yet?  And I acquired less than 0.1% of my PTS stake through mining.

Concern for existing holders at the expense of those who would be new holders is exactly the problem.  You like the fact that you're getting a better deal at the expense of somebody else?  Well that's shocking.   

Please understand it's not about you, you're already invested so I no longer care what you think as your financial stake is insured.  You already thought the deal was good enough to invest, so you did.