In other words, I am feeling pretty good about having the upgrade date be:  Tuesday, October 13th  (middle of work week)

For the record, sumantso was initially discussing

Dec.14,2014BTS_S2

as shown in BTER balance, and reflects the number of bitshares in your BTER account the day of the merger snapshot. BTER did this because they stated that they would honor the snapshot, and therefore provide users with the vested shares that correspond to the Dec.14,2014BTS_S2 balance.

To date, BTER has not released any of the vested shares that correspond to the Dec.14,2014BTS_S2 balance.

Isn't the Dec. 14,2014BTS_S2 the "Sparkles" snapshot?

Isn't Sparkles dead?

1. I'm contributing with the following amount of BTS: 2500
2. I'm contributing with the following resources: N/A
3. I'm aiming for the following amount of transactions per second:

Has this issue been resolved?

Questions for similar scenarios:

1. If I own the "maloney" name and wish to make subdomains for each family member, will there be a way to do so in 2.0?

1a. Will the premium account of "maloney" be an umbrella, or will each subdomain need to purchase a premium account (ie- bob.maloney, erin.maloney, bills.maloney, savings.maloney)

2. What if I own a business? (ie- larrypage.google down to the lowly employees... thx1138.google)



A little outside the box and into the more distant future:

Could it ever be possible for a domain owner to grant permissions for subdomains to be generated where the top domain owner would not have access to the subdomains private key? (some kind of non-hierarchical structure would be required, I assume)
 
Maybe with the ability of the top domain holder to remove the subdomain if abusive, but have the assets of that subdomain sent to another predetermined account (preset by the subdomain creator) upon close by top domain owner.

Quote from: bobmaloney on September 06, 2015, 07:14:41 pm

Quote from: Stan on September 06, 2015, 06:43:18 pm

Quote from: mint chocolate chip on September 06, 2015, 06:17:30 pm

Identabit's 20% sharedrop on BTS is not so clear cut,  as Ander and others have pointed out. It is 10% of total supply, 20% of the initial supply.

Shentist, you deserve some and will likely get some if you continue to re-post in this thread; it took me 4 posts over 7 weeks and several private messages - to finally get recognized, I feel your disenchantment with the whole thing.

Pretty clear cut.  You start out at 20% and have time to decide to keep it or dump it while its still 20%.  What happens in the long term does not affect the value proposition of the sharedrop.

Identabit will have no vesting?

Is there going to be any way to claim Identabit (it sounds as if any use of our wallet will first require KYC/AML identification) without tying it to our equivalent BTS holdings?

I'm surely no expert in this area, but this issue worries me a bit - is there a solution to this?

Excellent questions!  I'm amazed no one has asked these before.  We've been expecting them.

Yes, the original announcement mentions vesting - something deemed essential to starting a new coin since we see painfully what happens to a coin when too much supply is on the market all at once.

When a traditional company issues stock, it remains illiquid for many years before a new round of funding or public offering makes it liquid.  As a result, those initial shares don't compete with the company's ability to sell additional shares to fund operations before it develops self-funding revenue streams.

Cryptos are too liquid.  If you read The Most Excellent Summer Adventures of Tonyk, you'll find his strategy was essentially, "Hmmm, nothing is scheduled until late This Summer, let me take my money elsewhere for ten weeks and then bring it back closer to the next round of big news."  Very good for Tonyk, I don't blame him for taking advantage of the rules.  But for that reason, we can't continue to have such rules.

Full liquidity is deadly for a crypto because it sucks out the investment dollars when they are needed most and drives down the price for those who are trying to use those funds to do development.  Investors aren't really investors if they don't leave their funds in company during the Long Hard Slog of development.  They are speculators.  And they only give the company their money during Big News days and then are gone again while the company struggles.

Enabling such behavior is called a Type One Error in emerging sharedropping theory.

So, vesting is here to stay.  It essentially emulates how startups work and keeps the capital inside the startup until it succeeds.

"But wait!", says the shameless speculator in the back of the room, "If I can't sell right away, then technically you guys can dilute me before I get a chance to fecklessly dump and collect my full 20% of the sharedrop.  You need to plus-up my sharedrop to offset whatever dilution is going to take place during the vesting period!   I deserve to be able to take my money and invest in Ethereum while the developers must endure my selling pressure and are forced to sell theirs at deep discounts to buy groceries!"

Yes, there are people who think that way and expect sympathy from the developers. 

Except that there will be NO dilution during the vesting period because John underwood invented Proof of Appreciation.  This says that no new shares enter circulation until there is proof that the shares have appreciated enough to offset the dilution.  So your 20% can never lose value due to dilution and you can sell it while your shares have appreciated to offset any new supply that may trickle in.

Thanks for that answer, Stan.

This is exactly what I was hoping for and glad that it will set a solid precedent for future sharedrops and community support.

Now, about KYC/AML. It is true that Identabit requires all accounts to have positive ID and you can't collect your sharedrop without an account. 

Catch 22?

No.  Remember the purpose of a sharedrop is to target people who will be your supporters, not to give away free money.  If a person won't sign up with a verified account even to collect free money, then they are identifying themselves as people that Identabit wouldn't want to sharedrop on anyway.

Put it another way.  The sharedrop is a way to get people motivated to overcome their natural crypto-reluctance to identify themselves, even though they do it every day to collect their paychecks and pay their taxes.  Just because we want some place to keep our finances anonymous does not mean that every place has to be anonomyous.  So, requiring us cryptoheads to register helps break down that barrier, and is thus a key strategy to get cryptoheads used to the concept of having a mix of anonymous and identity-based accounts. Knowing how to use both is a key to the complementary roles of BitShares and Identabit the way folks know the difference between savings and checking acounts today.

Those who are not willing to take that little leap, will never be Identabit supporters anyway and are thus self-judged to be likely dumpers.

Eliminating likely dumpers is a key skill in Sharedrop Engineering.  It is not something that needs a solution.

I'm not concerned about KYC/AML with Identabit .

I'm concerned that there may not be a way to claim our sharedrop without giving away the corresponding public address and quantity of our Bitshares.

Maybe it doesn't work this way and there is something that I'm missing, but from my limited understanding, anyone who would have access (for any reason) to view my Identabit Genesis claims, would be able to link it back to my BTS holdings as well (by seeing what addressed moved what)?

Quote from: mint chocolate chip on September 06, 2015, 06:17:30 pm

Identabit's 20% sharedrop on BTS is not so clear cut,  as Ander and others have pointed out. It is 10% of total supply, 20% of the initial supply.

Shentist, you deserve some and will likely get some if you continue to re-post in this thread; it took me 4 posts over 7 weeks and several private messages - to finally get recognized, I feel your disenchantment with the whole thing.

Pretty clear cut.  You start out at 20% and have time to decide to keep it or dump it while its still 20%.  What happens in the long term does not affect the value proposition of the sharedrop.

Identabit will have no vesting?

Is there going to be any way to claim Identabit (it sounds as if any use of our wallet will first require KYC/AML identification) without tying it to our equivalent BTS holdings?

I'm surely no expert in this area, but this issue worries me a bit - is there a solution to this?

Quote from: fav on September 05, 2015, 07:30:24 am

you guys give brownie points too much thought and power.

it's just a token of appreciation, not moving the price of bts. also, do we really need to discuss this in a new thread like every week?

People do, however, according to this picture



I get that the active BitShares community are brownie holders. They will also get 20%, the same amount as BitShares holders. Assuming our BitShares supply is 2,5bilions and brownie for 10M (it's 9,2M, but let's simplify), you will get 250x more indentabits per brownie than you would per BTS. That's why Brownie's price is high and could potentially scale even more.

Right now people are buying something that will earn them ~250x more at a price only ~10x more than BTS

This is possible, but bytemaster has already added a caveat that brownie.pts may not receive all of the "Active BTS Community 20%", so that final sharedrop distribution may vary.