这样会影响比特资产的价值，导致大家不愿持有比特资产？

Quote from: yidaidaxia on February 16, 2014, 09:34:07 am

后续的BTSX类DAC的发布按BTSX当时持有情况分配。原文里有解释，抵押的算BTSX(实际上新白皮书里称之为XTS)持有者的，而不是比特资产持有者的。

短期应该有影响，长期不会，毕竟每次配送新链都应改会提前很久通知的，没有不确定性。

看我引用的下面这段Dan的原文。虽然我回帖请他确认，但我认为已经写的很清楚了。即使测试链坏了，为修复问题而重置，也不会再有快照了，而是
"to the original genesis block"，而分配情况是些在创世区块里的。所以他后面才会说，2/28之后再想要获得BTSX的唯一方法是直接投资BTSX。

我估计官方也是刚想清楚这个事情，所以甚至2/14你问他他还是按老说法说。。

"Because BitShares XT is a test chain, there is potential for catastrophic bugs that result in invalid allocation of shares.  If this misallocation cannot be easily remedied by fixing a few transactions then we will recommend reverting back to the original genesis block and try again.  Therefore, the Feb 28th snapshot will be the most important snapshot for BitShares X investment.  After Feb 28th, if you want a stake in future BitShares X chains and variants your only option will be to invest directly in BitShares XT. "

Quote from: yidaidaxia on February 16, 2014, 09:03:06 am

2. 即使2/28的测试链因bug作废，也不再会按新的PTS/AGS持有状态进行分配，而是修复问题后使用2/28分配状态重新上线。这意味着2/28将是仅有的一次PTS/AGS获得BTSX权益的机会。

这一点是这样吗？2月14日时我私信问过BM，他这么说的。

我的问题：

provided on feb.28, 1.5 million pts have been mined, then pts :bts = 150:200, i have 150 pts and get 200 bts. but then the test launch is failed. and finally the official launch date is 5.1 , at that time pts:bts = 1:1, then how many bts do i have , 200 or 150 ?

他的回答：

If we reset and take a new snapshot, then you will have 150 rather than 200.... so if it works sooner then you make more.

中文翻译过来就是说，如果在228测试时，总共有150万PTS被挖出，那么如果我持有150个PTS, 将可以兑换200个BTS。但是如果测试失败了，而最终正式链启动时，有200万个PTS被挖出，那我的150个PTS就只能兑换到150个BTS了。


所以呀，大家对这些东西的理解不一致，很需要有个官方的声音用中文给大家解释解释。

我先把最重大的变化提炼下，供大家参考：

1. BTSX后续所有新子链将按BTSX持有情况分配，而不是PTS/AGS持有情况。

2. 即使2/28的测试链因bug作废，也不再会按新的PTS/AGS持有状态进行分配，而是修复问题后使用2/28分配状态重新上线。这意味着2/28将是仅有的一次PTS/AGS获得BTSX权益的机会。

当然，PTS/AGS后续仍将获赠其他DAC。只是有小部分价值流入了第一个BitSharesX链。我认为这是非常明智的做法，正如Bytemaster所言，这将导致BitSharesX链稳定下来之后，新入场资金集中到BitSharesX上，使得BitsharesX的价值有机会尽快进入上升通道，而不是像原来那样资金分散投资进PTS/AGS等待新子链分配或是测试链作废。这实际是聚集市场资源，尽快形成正循环，一旦BitSharesX的价格上升，将带动更多资金流入，那么PTS/AGS也可以跟着受益(因为期望后续产品也像BitSharesX一样带来高回报)，非常正确的路线！

另，感谢版主准备把这个帖子的详细内容译出，造福大家。

传说中的余额宝大户群群主南宫同学果然比喻不忘老本行

还要早点提。小心平台卡币。

Thank you a lot for the update. I have a question: will there be a GUI ready for early Mar. test?

Thanks for your feedback and detailed explaination. Now I see the point and agree w/ you that, currently, decentralization is more important than fast trasaction. But 5 min is still too long to current people's mind set/expectation, let's see if we could educate people to accept that and the system/market could operate effectively. The only way to do this is to conduct the bitshares XT, so looking forward to 2/28 now. 

Quote from: yidaidaxia on February 02, 2014, 05:52:20 pm

Quote from: bytemaster on February 01, 2014, 11:06:59 pm

Target block time is 5 minutes.

If I understand it correctly, that means every transaction need at least 5 min to complete. I think it's too long for a efficient system where people could do their bitassets trading business on it..  Any idea to reduce the transaction time.? I know it's difficutly since ripple way does not work as your assessment.

In a decentralized system you are limited by the speed of light if you want stability.   Strictly speaking blockchains do not need to be decentralized to serve their purpose.   Someone could implement the exact same transaction model on a central server and as long as the blockchain was public record you could trust them and if they were shutdown someone could just migrate the chain to a new server.  Such a chain could offer instant confirmations and still be trust-free, but centralized.

Thus I content that decentralization has costs but is not necessary for the trust-free revolution.   For now people expect things to be fully decentralized because of regulatory issues. 

Ripple consensus is ultimately a fig leaf of decentralization that is only slightly better than having a dedicated central server with automatic fail over.   The purpose of consensus is to agree on the next closed ledger so I can see it working something like this:

Everyone agrees to let Sam decide on the next closed ledger and he can have that role until he abuses it even once or he dies.  Then we have a chain of command where if Sam is no longer able to perform the job (arrested, etc) then Alice takes over.   Alice could even be set up behind a TOR hidden service.    Neither Sam nor Alice could generate alternative chains without getting caught their alternative chains would be rejected.  Furthermore, Alice could simply sign everything Sam produces and therefore they would have to collude to produce an alternative chain.

I think you can see from this that decentralization of block production is more a necessity of marketing than of security of the network.  Though some could argue that it is a necessity of security for those that would end up signing every block as they would become giant targets for government shutdown.  In the future, once governments lose this war against crypto, then many centralized services will compete to offer instant transactions based upon the premise of open/audit-able blockchains.

The latest changes to the client make it incompatible with earlier alpha test chains. 

I will put together a new white paper before Valentines Day (Feb 14) which updates everything.    I am effectively following the Trx as POS white paper Nov 28th with a few small tweaks.

Excellent! Looking forward to all these great progress!