What would be the incentive for users to switch from the original system they know and use currently to the new cloned system?

From the author of The Postman, esteemed Kevin Costner film
http://davidbrin.wordpress.com/2013/12/06/bitcoin-and-other-dacs-a-new-cyber-lifeform/

== Will online distributed “robot” corporations dominate the economy? ==

Distributed-Autonomous-CorporationsIn fact, Bitcoin is only the best-known and most widely used example of a wider class of system. So let me link you now to a very interesting… and perhaps necessary… reading for those who would like to have a Big Picture look at the new ecosystem of autonomous networked entities online.

These Distributed Autonomous Corporations – as named by Stan Larimer of Invictus Innovations — dwell in the separate computers of thousands of individuals and groups who independently decide to run — or update — host software for the system, allowing it to “live.”  Like stockholders in a company, or customers, they thus vote for it to exist, by using it and providing it with an array of distributed homes.

The rapid evolution of these DACs cause Larimer to opine that we appear to be heading toward a realm that automatically and organically invokes Isaac Asimov. That this is the way robots have truly arrived.  And they need laws. And “nature” will be pretty much compelled to provide them.

Larimer foresees independent software-residing and internet spanning entities that are “corporate” in that they have a semblance of motivation and life, they thrive when they attract customers based on high reputation, and they defend their existence.  Unlike standard corporations, however, a healthy DAC soon becomes independent of human control EXCEPT the market need to keep attracting and satisfying customers. No other human parameter can interfere, he claims.

Bitcoin-RoboticsIn “Bitcoin and the Three Laws of Robotics,” Larimer attempts to show how a set of Generally Stable Attractor States (my terminology here), will make it likely for these DAC’s to stay autonomous and healthy in a market ecosystem that naturally and organically tends toward synergies similar to the renowned Asimovian laws (that I channeled and dissected in my novel, FOUNDATION’S TRIUMPH).

Accelerando_(book_cover)Indeed, Charles Stross’ Accelerando, popularises this concept of autonomous economic legal entities, demonstrating in accessible ways this concept as one logical set of ends.

On the other hand, this market-home model of distributed markets that are out of human supervision has a scary side, since there may be a critical mass of humans willing to provide networked home bases for any kind of activity, including bazaars for evil, like hiring assassins. Indeed, the last vestige of human control… customers and members setting up virtual homes in distributed computers… may seem quaint when we approach the cloud-like cyber world forecast by William Gibson and Vernor Vinge, way back in the 1980s.

Without any doubt, Larimer’s incantation and prediction is fascinating, even persuasive…

… until we recall that it is still an incantation and a polemic. A just-so story, like countless we have been told about markets, like Supply Side “economics,” that just ain’t necessarily so.

Me? I think parallels for these new software  forms are found in biology, all right.  But not in the leap from single cell to multi-cellular life. The true fundamentals span all of that, going back to life’s very beginning — predation, parasitism and so on.

Life, for most of its eras, never saw a lick of cooperation or genuine, deal-making quid pro quo, but rather ferocity, voracity and ruthless taking-advantage. These basic drives and successful methods have a billion years more precedent than the much more recent — and demonstrably unstable — regime of human-made markets, corporations and libertarian conceptions of fair exchange.

Khan-BitcoinShow me the benign “market” of voluntarily-exchanged goods and services that evolved organically in the Cambrian! Or Devonian, or Permian, or Cretaceous. It might have happened on other worlds! It might have happened here – letting animal species trade in positive sum games – that is, it might have, had the market state of quid-pro-quo been as automatically compelling in the real world as Mr. Larimer implies, in breathless enthusiasm. Just as Karl Marx and Murray Rothbard and other transcendentalist logicians urged us to believe in their if-therefor incantations.

But biology did not spontaneously evolve or create quid-pro-quo markets. Although there certainly have been symbiotic relationships — e.g. between plants and pollinators — these arose amid death and exploitation and almost never involved the kinds of knowing reciprocity that Larimer describes as happening automatically with his beloved DACs.

Elsewhere I describe how close we may be to quasi intelligent information systems that grow spontaneously and unsupervised, bursting onto the scene of artificial intelligence from a wholly unexpected direction… programmed with exactly this age-old voracity, with parasitism lying at its newborn heart. A scenario motivated by short-sighted, human greed and one that we allow to play out, at our great peril.

Pain, exploitation and death were the attractor states for a billion years.  Mr. Larimer and other cyber transcendentalists ought to bear it in mind.

Here is one additional detail that can be used to evaluate forks:  the only CDs that count toward confirming a fork are CDs earned prior to the fork.  In other words, a fork cannot confirm itself by re-spending coin-days earned after the fork.   

This particular metric is a bit tricky to maintain, but is possible to calculate.   

I also believe that this is the key to preventing CDs from being reused constantly.... you can start accumulating CD immediately after you destroy them, but if you spend them again too soon they do not count.   I think we can define 'too-soon' as before 3-4x as many CDs have confirmed your original CDD.   So, if you control 1% of the money supply and thus destroy a lot of CD at once, you have to wait until another 4% of the money supply confirms your CDD before your new CD fully vest.   In summary, CD must vest prior to being spent.

Arkanaprotego mentioned earlier about how an optimized client would essentially "game" the system automatically.   What would just embracing this?  Can there be a "mining mode" that watches the network looking for advantageous opportunities to be the biggest spender in the network at that particular instant of opportunity?   I bet given the opportunity most people would do that instead of letting their coindays acrue and requiring them to time it manually.  Would this even be possible?  Seems like the client would need to monitor transactions being broadcast and when it identifies a lot of transactions smaller than its potential CDD available it opportunistically fires a TX to itself and attempts to claim the block.  Lots and lots of clients doing this on an ongoing basis would create a very level market if I read my incentives correctly.  Latency would be an issue, opportunities would be spotted by many and fired quickly.....   Either way, you see where I'm going here.

Quote from: bytemaster on December 06, 2013, 01:18:53 am

Quote from: Markus on December 06, 2013, 01:14:26 am

Quote from: Stan on December 05, 2013, 04:32:36 pm

• What percent of the total money supply goes to ProtoShareholders?   Invictus maps 1:1, 2M PTS to 10% of supply.

Stan, can you clarify this please:
Is it 2M PTS that are mapped to 10% of the max supply of the new DAC?
I thought it would be whatever amount of PTS existed at the time of spin off. So if it was today, it would only be roughly 1.05M PTS mapped to 10% of supply.

Correct... it would be 1.05M today.  2M if it takes us a year from now to deliver.

And is the first new DAC bitUSD or something entirely different please can you explain, simply

My understanding is the situation is still fluid, there are several dacs under development or design by different teams.  Bitshares is sorta an opus.  Gotta get it right.  I hope Invictus launches a few experimental DACs honoring protoshares to make sure their theories are correct before launching such an important chain.  Protoshares was successful despite a lot of problems, I think those bugs should be worked out before Bitshares releases.

Bump, any takers here?

that's the level I'm buying back in at too, sold some at .04

There should be, I have no idea where we are in the development cycle beyond late.

Show both - the actual numerical amount of currency you have AND the % of the total money supply you represent in some sort of understandable format

I dunno, if you can nail this it will be good but it could be very confusing and doesn't really feel like dividends in the same way although I know it is intellectually.