Ich blicke im Moment auch nicht durch .. aber du solltest vielleicht diesen Beitrag lesen:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10317.msg135396#msg135396

Hab ich schon. Die 80% machen keinen Sinn.
Es muesste um 10% (bzw. 20% aktuell) dev-funds gehen, welche schon eingerechnet waren und daher schon im aktuellen Marktpreisreflektiert sind.
Aktuell gibt es 5B DNS wovon 4B an AGS/PTS gingen und 1B an den dev-fund.

Ich verstehe nicht wie man annehmen kann das dies eine 'balancierte' Verteilung ist, wenn der Markt so reagiert.
Das Liquidity-Argument muesste wenn dann auch fuer PTS/AGS gelten.
Oder seht Ihr das anders?

Hey folks,

Just posted this in the main merger thread:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10279.msg135338#msg135338

Synopsis:
It has been said that:
- the DACs will be valued according to their market cap.
- the invested funds will be preserved.

It looks like both won't happen as Stan already stated that:

Now do you begin to see why it wasn't hard for the VOTE and DNS developers to Seize the Day?

I just want to understand it. I would love to hear your opinions. Please let's be nice to each other.

just a suggestion: You may want to give the thread a less offensive subject
We don't know what toast's position is. In the proposal thread it did not sound like this was his idea or that he already agreed to it.

Hey bytemaster,

I think you are a brilliant guy and you are doing a hell of a job!
Also I really liked how you handled the whole situation and the way you argued on the 'panic mumble session'. We are all learning and nothing is set in stone.
I even started to like the I3 way of saying we don't care about we've said yesterday (no offense!). This isn't even meant ironically. If you are moving fast, sometimes you have to break things.
But if people have to loose more than 50% of their investment please let them understand why. I am a rational guy and I like a good argument, so just bear with me for a second.

First, you mention that the only fair way to value a DAC is to do so according to their market cap.

Later, you start to argue that 'market cap' isn't 'market cap' because there wasn't enough liquidity. 
Which was quite high if you consider that everyone was pulling their bids from the books because of that proposal announcement.
Also you were using wrong numbers (which don't even come close to the real ones) to back it up.

Further toast assured on the forum that the invested money will be preserved.
Just have a look at the markets after the announcement.

But what really kind of upsets me a bit is the way you are playing your arguments.

"BTSX could have evolved without giving DNS anything and then competed with DNS"

You announce an ecosystem, a new DAC goes live, people invest and then you tell them
Hey don't be upset we could have destroyed you anyway?

I really want to understand why you think this valuation/allocation is right. The only argument that you have given is the liquidity one, which I guess hardly is one. 

Am I against this merger? No I support it. I think the idea is brilliant.
It sounds like VOTE and BTSX are a perfect match.  And I agree, if you start merging you can just to it right and go full circle.

I know this is one particular view and you have to take different angles to look at it.
But the proposal and the way you are arguing show that you are not taking the DNS DAC perspective.
Hence, this argument.

I invested quite a lot into DNS close to the ATH, I didn't care if it was above avg. price because of what was announced for the DAC,
didn't panic as the discussions started because toast stated clearly in the forum that the invested funds will be preserved.
I know there is a lot on your plate, but this proposal may just have cost me a lot. Although it was stated otherwise earlier on.
You can't announce a DAC, push it to exchanges to start trading, announce coming features and than 'dump it'

Sorry.... I really tried to write this in an a lot more calm way. I know it's just a proposal, but one that hurt me quite a bit already.

Why is the DNS DAC treated differently?  From the BTSX point of view this 'merger' would mean to pick up the DNS DAC as a bargain.
When we try to take a look at it from the DNS DAC perspective it is a hard sell.
A buy out of DNS at below 50% market value? And we are talking about a market value before any decent GUI and full functionality was released.
It would be very unlikely that the sharesholders of a start up in that phase would sell out at that rate, right?

Disclaimer: I am invested in DNS And I don't want to come on too strong as I know this is a proposal.
If you don't agree with my remarks, let me know.  Actually I like the idea of a merger but from  the DNS perspective it does not seem right.

Hey,

Just updated the qt_wallet and after start up it throws the following error in the status bar and log file:

th_a:?unnamed?   log_message
Message from GUI: rpc error : JSON Parse error: Property name must be a string literal (undefined) 

Build from fresh co (https://github.com/dacsunlimited/bitsharesx) on Ubuntu 14.04
I noticed the error after I wasn't able to send a transaction.

Any ideas? Thanks in advance!

Dear bytemaster (and of course everyone else)

before i start arguing: Thanks for all the work you already did. You are doing a great job!

If I read your arguments correctly you want (among other things) to accomplish the following:

a) decentralize the mining
b) decrease the amount of big cloud miners

But I don't see how including/shifting to a lottery really changes things.
Wouldn't then people want that botnet -  which plays the lottery for them - even more?
A process that runs 'in the  background and just takes 25% cpu time" sound like the perfect thing to hide in office/library/everyone’s computers.

At the end it comes down to probability. I get it, you are arguing with psychology.
And I think you are right to a certain degree, but still a lot of people do the math and have that botnet that plays the lottery for them anyway.

Another point you make is that people won't trust the pool operator to pay out the jackpot. Why shouldn't they? Setting up the pool is a lot of work. To run away with the first 10K that come at you sounds like a bad idea if you can take n% of the next m lottery wins. In summary I think this makes it even worse. People will still use pools. But just the big one(s), that everyone trusts. So this may even prevent further decentralization.

My argument is that you don't have to change that much to accomplish your goals. You haven't had it so bad in the first place. The original miner kind of sucked for cloud mining. I did some benchmarks: Virtualization layers (like kvm for example) slowed things down by almost 50%. I blame that on the high memory requirements in the original wallet-miner. Before you say:  virtualization slows everything down: The effect was not reproduceable with (solo)mining primecoin and VirtIO/VT worked on that machine:).  I kind of liked the effect, as I thought it was on purpose .  But my sample data wasn't large enough to prove this effect for different hardware and software virtualization layers.  But it may be a hint towards punishing large scale cloud mining. The later miners did not show this behavior btw: The virtualized miners now perfom on par with the non virtualized machines. 

In summary I think the lottery idea is a step in the wrong direction because it does not encourage decentralization.
People already form lottery/pool syndicates to play the lottery!  Why shouldn't they do that when mining? Isn't that what pools are about already?

The main reason that people switched from solo-mining to pools is not only the instant gratification but also the immense performance increase
the pool clients offered.  If there would have been an optimized solo-minier at start, some people would still be solo-mining.
To prevent this pool-oligopoly situation we saw in the beginning, an open-source pool server would be really helpful.
People wouldn't have the need to use the big-pool(s) with high fees if they could use their own one with zero fees.

Another point that we should consider is that the image a lottery system reflects may be harmful considering that people shall use BTS for serious stuff.
(No offence to lottery-site operators btw  

tl;dr
In a nutshell I argue that the following (some of it has already been proposed in this thread) will do a better job to accomplish a) and b) than implementing a lottery.

- continuous difficulty adjustment (e.g.  similar to primecoin)
- PoW has to rely (even more) on high memory bandwidth to penalize cloud miners.
- Pools and pool software should be available at start
   - open source pools should be available, so that people can operate them easily.
- Optimize the miners before release.

Yes, that does not prevent botnets from happening but neither does the lottery.
I hope you find that helpful. Thanks for your hard work!