The reason for the delay is simple.  We chose to delay the release while we addressed the more pertinent issues of past BitShares dev funding expenditures:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,17292.msg220480.html#msg220480
(this is just one of hundreds of posts on this super hot topic)

Until we can address every concern about what happened 2 years ago, we do not feel confident giving you our 100,000 TPS smartchain.  So please, sit back and wait longer while we continue to address where the AGS funds went (satoshi for satoshi), and when newmine has finally accepted that nobody can change the past, then, and only then, will you get to play with our new invention.  Why are you in such a hurry for Dan to build your new 2.0 blockchain anyway?  Newmine is in total control of the release date.  Ask him when he is going to stop wasting Dan's precious concentration time with topics that have no bearing on the 2.0 release.

Look at all the progress that Dan is making toward convincing Chuck that he is super awesome.  Where else do you think that Dan should have spent these past several hours (and that's just the tip of the iceberg).  Would you rather have been downloading your 2.0 testnet today?  Sorry, but Chuck was the cause of the delay.  But it's OK.  Look at what Dan produced for us today:

Check out all that time, effort, remembering, and concentration, that went into crafting such a thoughtful comprehensive and well punctuated post:

such bullets:

@newmine we will never reach consensus so long as you continue to attack a straw man.     Lets identify some points of agreement, let me know which statements you disagree with and why:

1. Original BitShares Plan - use proof of work to mine 100% of everything with 0 pre-mine.   A $500,000 budget from Angel funding was available to accomplish this plan.   I3 had to purchase vast majority of its stake via electrical costs, cloud computing costs, mining hardware costs, or direct purchases.    Any stake I3 had came at the expense of the budget for development.     

a. Was that plan fair?   "Yes"
b. Was that plan sustainable?  "No",  lacking funds to develop BTS would never materialize and PTS would be worthless.
c. What options would I3 have:  a) don't mine or buy more PTS,  b) sell any PTS we did acquire and use fund for Plan B and be accused of running a Pump and Dump. 
d. Under this plan I3 makes no profit  (0 dips)

2. BitShares Plan B.. Angel Shares.  Under this plan I3 grew its budget from $500,000 to $2M (after BTC price decline) which allowed BTS to be built and released creating $10M of value for PTS holders and $10M of value for AGS holders.
a. I3 developers received an average paycheck for their time: a fair trade.
b. I3 retained 0 stake in BTS from AGS outside their paycheck.

So far the community gave $2M and received $20M using post-bear market prices... unequal trade favoring community.
So far the developers gave $2M worth of labor and received $2M worth of value.... equal trade, hardly selfish, greedy, or double dipping.

3. Is everything fair at this point?   If so then the developers are free to walk away, they did their job the best they could with the budget they had.   

a. If you assume the developers had 0 savings at the start, how do you propose they continue from this point forward?  How many man-hours of labor do you feel is enough before the developers are free to move on with a clean conscience and the moral high ground?  Give us an actual number. 

4. Once we know how much labor the DEVS owed the community for their $2M worth of BTC, they can know when they are free to quit without being greedy.  Assume the DEVs worked every hour they owed.  What options do we have?
a. The devs can quit, but that wouldn't be good for BTS
b. The devs could work part time, and work on BTS as a hobby (but why should they?  they have no more debt nor any stake in BTS). 
c. The devs could start a new blockchain that they actually own a cut in using the public domain work of BTS.   Not good for BTS, but great for Devs.
d. The devs could write all new code and start a new blockchain
e.  The devs could allow stakeholders to vote in dilution so that the Devs could continue to work.   How many man hours do the Devs owe the network in exchange for the meager 4000 BTS per day per person before they are not considered greedy?

@newmine for all your accusations of the devs being greedy, you seem to have missed that every single developer has received less money than they could have made working elsewhere and simply buying BTS with their surplus income.  From this perspective, every single developer has been giving their time to BitShares for free in what amounts to charity work because they are poorer today for having worked on BTS than having worked other jobs.

So... I have just TWO questions for you @newmine how much labor do we owe you and what dollar value did we receive in exchange for that labor?    How much per hour do you get paid at your job?

phew, I get tired simply skipping over it...

That was just one of many large blocks of Dan's concentration time that was spent stroking newmine's ego rather than building our BitSahres 2.0 test chain.  Only when newmine is ready for you to test the new 2.0 blockchain will you be permitted to.

Krills needs his diaper changed too because one minute he wants to Dan to spend his time addressing newmine's historical concerns:

damn right

and the next minute he wants Dan to code:

you guys always take longer.
when bm said this month,never believe him.

Neither of which can be done simultaneously in this reality.

So until the babies have been fed and burped, and learn that no man has yet discovered a way to be in 2 places simultaneously performing 2 different productive tasks (like the rest of us here have already learned at some point in our lives) then there can be no 2.0

Is there anyone else here besides Hosk, and Krills who has a concern that is so important that we need Dan to drop the 2.0 development and immediately discuss it at this very (and possible critical? .... no? ...) moment.

We are not looking for a quick ticket to retirement.

Who says it's not going to be quick?

Overstock could have chose to put their service on the BitShares smartchain, and maybe it wouldn't have lost so much money building and maintaining redundant blockchain infrastructure.  BitShares gives them full control over whatever system they want to implement and as much bandwidth as they could ever dream of, but it's all irrelevant now. OSTK is the hot chick that wouldn't talk to you in high school, but now realizes........

The BitShares smartchain is just the high speed internet connection.  If NASDAQ, and Overstock want to relinquish their "first mover advantage" in this space, then that's fine with us, because as soon as one of their competitors chooses to leapfrog them by jumping onto our 100,000 TPS public blockchain, then Mr Byrne will realize that he just built his system on a dial-up 56k internet connection that he has to continue servicing at -$100,000

The BitShares blockchain (BTS) is the infrastructure.  The market has not realized yet that all they need to do is to provide their service over the most robust infrastructure, and by the looks of the competition, it appears that nothing comes close to the performance of our smartchain.

But it is kind of funny watching people who steal IP try to reinvent the wheel.

I got your pitch right here:

BitShares - the choice is yours  +100,000 TPS or -$100,000

If my analysis was a little too frank, and you still think that Mr Byrne is the one for you, then I'll delete this post.  I just get a little upset when my chief talent, BM, gets publicly BR'd:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlwwVuSUUfc#t=37s

BM just built a protocol that's adequate for mass global public consumption.  What makes you think that he is going to get all star struck when Jeff Bezos comes knocking?  Cryptonomex is firmly in the negotiating drivers seat.  The only competitors to the BitShares Smartchain (where you will integrate your business) are centrally controlled blockchains that, as Mr Byrne is fast finding out, are not cheap to develop, secure, or maintain.

The price of integrating into the BitShares Smartchain went up the moment the 100,000 TPS secret sauce was discovered.

Name one company that you would trust with your money, and only there you will find our competition (if they forked our smartchain).

The reason you trust the BitShares Smartchain over all other chains in the world is because you don't have to trust that somebody else will vote in your best interest.  Because you get to vote yourself.

If it's just good old publicity you want, just sit back, relax, and wait for all the public BitShares Smartchain clones to begin popping up claiming:  Fork of BitShares, Fork of BitShares, Fork of BitShares.  Bitcoin truly cemented its dominance following the rise and fall of its clones.  What's taking this process so long to play out is the fact that much of the crypto community is miners, and the rest barely even comprehend mining.

Bitcoin 1.0 is static blockchain technology founded on a proof of work where the work is pure mathematical computation.  Bitcoin 2.0 is dynamic smartchain technology based on a proof of work where the work is useful coding and marketing.  Bitcoin 1.0 is the "primitive", and BitShares 2.0 is the "technical."  The simple reason for this distinction is because Bitcoin1.0 (like fiat currency) is controlled by something other than the shareholders. 

Technical Currency is Bitcoin2.0 because you get to trust your own technical abilities when voting on the survival of your wealth.
Primitive Currency is everything else besides hard assets where you put your trust in somebody else entirely (in god or Gavin we trust).  So unless the bitcoin community gives control over the code to its holders, there are no other 2.0 currencies.

The break from non-shareholder controlled money (or code / protocol) was first performed successfully by BitShares through Smartchain Technology; and just as bitcoin was copied to puking, community controlled currencies like BitShares will be forked to death too.  Not because BitShares is that awesome, but simply because BitShares was the first.  One thing that will be different, however, is that the BitShares clones will be more successful than the Bitcoin1.0 clones, because centrally coded crypto resembles fiat more than it resembles BitShares.

BitShares - community controlled crypto code

Shhhhh, don't tell anyone, but all the money a coin doesn't spend on its own block signing nodes can be used to grow the coin instead.  Savings can be used...

1.  To develop new products and services
2.  To attract new users
3.  To reward the owners by not increasing the supply for no good reason.

If they find out how easy it is to upgrade a coin to industrial grade performance, everyone will be doing it.

Seriously Stan, I have a concern.

There is no doubt that the community would have voted unanimously to allow Banxshares onto the blockchain, however, don't just go letting any old business on our blockchain until we get voting power.  We need to keep quality high, avoid blockchain bloat, and save some transaction headroom for when the major high volume customers like Goldman Sachs want a ticket to ride on the blockchain that is an order of magnitude more scalable than all the competitors except CobbTracks.

I would hope that the initial set up costs for the GS deal would bring a more hefty signing bonus than whatever we charged Mark.
 

Nice bump Theman, I mean me.

The bottom line is that the Bitcoin1.0 crowd led by early visionaries like Max Keiser, are beginning to learn the science and benefit behind Bitcoin 2.0 beginning with price stable cryptos which is how we first made the leap.  It does not matter weather you  thought that they would take this long to grasp these difficult technical concepts or not.  They were smart enough to grasp Bitcoin1.0 concepts, so, just exactly how long did you think that it would take for them to figure out that you can use a blockchain token as collateral for a smart contract to stabilize a unit of vale (BitAsset or Smartcoin) relative to the value of a real world asset asset.

That real world asset has value, and so does the blockchain token (bitcoin and BitShares).

Bitcoin Lesson 1.0 = blockchain tokens have value because people perform useful work to operate and protect them.  Only after you fully grasp that concept can you graduate and move on to Bitcoin Lesson 2.0 which is that you can use these tokens when trading collateral values on a blockchain.

Congratulations Mr. Keiser for graduating (no matter how long it finally took you to learn this technical lesson).  Now you can help your fans protect themselves financially, while they get into crypto.

Well done sir.

Smartcoins are not a brand name, but a general type of coin, a "price stable bitcoin"

BitAssets are our version of smartcoins.  In fact, "BitAssets" is just another interchangeable name for "smartcoins" which are very simple smart contracts.

Max Keiser wants everyone to get into crypto now, but not so that he can personally get rich.  He is already a multimillionaire.  He has been openly fighting the system for years now.  And when he got people into crypto last year, they called him a scammer (when they lost money) because all crypto is in a bear market.  All crypto except.....wait for it......

SMARTCOINS!

and do you know why they are called smart coins?

Because smart people like BM bought BitUSD last year, and have not lost a penny on their investment.  and smart people who bought Nubits last year have not lost a bit of their investment.  In fact, if you are smart and buy a "smartcoin" then you will never lose any money (whatever your base "smartasset" is) on your investment.

So now Max still wants people to get into crypto, but he cannot stand to see his fans lose 80% of their investment like they did last year when he was predicting $10,000 bitcoin prices.

So, no, this was not even a Freudian slip by Max Keiser who has been so sick of people calling him a scammer for getting them into bitcoin and Maxcoin last year, that he is now 100% fully aware of the "smartcoin (volatility-free) bitcoin option (what took you so long Max, you should have got smart last year, but that's beyond the point.  the good people here at BitShares are just glad to see that you finally caught up.  Nevermind the money that you could have saved your fans if you had informed them about BitUSD a year ago)" which is why his rehearsed promotional message was:

"bitcoin (the reserve cryptocurrency and crypto concept you must first comprehend), smartcoins (for those who understand bitcoin but don't want the volatility), and startjoin (for those who want to support entrepreneurs in the crypto space).

Again, Max is a pro, and his message is terse and effective.

bitcoin, smartcoins, startcoins

and if you understand these three concepts, then you, my friend, are well aware of the state of the art.

and everyone in the crypto community is fully aware of the myriad of places where you can purchase bitcoins and startcoins, but who here can tell me exactly where the best smartcoins in the world are sold at?

Or let me make it a little easier for you:

What blockchain has the worlds best smartcoins on it?



wait for it.................




BitShares - the best (fastest tradable and most counterparty-risk-free) smartcoins in the business

We should be careful who we trust. Particularly those who say things we all want to hear

He promotes blockchain technology when most media outlets won't even mention it.

Quote from: Tuck Fheman on June 22, 2015, 01:20:00 pm

It also died shortly thereafter, correct?

Not sure as I don't follow this particular coin. I just Google'd Smartcoin because it seemed odd that it was mentioned.

What is more likely?  That Max just told the Greeks today to go out and buy a $40,000 market cap crap coin?  Or that Max just told the Greek mother with 3 kids to put her money into a crypto that lost 80% of its value last year (bitcoin)?

seriously?  You think that Max is that stupid?

Or do you think that Max told the Greeks to buy BitDrachmas, or BitGold, or NuBits, or some other non-confiscatable or bank bail-in-able crypto smartcoin (the ones without the Kerpeles-style counterparty risk)(or bitcoin style price volatility that has been keeping the globe from adopting it for how long now?) that they can store their private key in and travel across the boarder before the concentration camps set in ?

Wait for it..................