the rebirth post https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10430 ?


This is what I get:

"An Error Has Occurred!
The topic or board you are looking for appears to be either missing or off limits to you."

This thread is a good place for III to provide factual explanation to PTS/AGS holders!
I'm for the merge. I think BTS will continue to grow despite current disputes.
However I think a promise is a promise and it should be kept.
I think integrity is important and I believe most people will understand the following written "document" as I understood it the first time I saw it.
Any AGS/PTS investor believed in it and it was backed by @Bytemast, @Stan and III.

Thanks to sudo for pointing this out:

Don't forget the beginner's mind

https://github.com/InvictusInnovations/BitShares/blob/master/LICENSE.md

Social Consensus Software License - Version 1.0 - August 10, 2013
Copyright (c) 2013 Invictus Innovations, Inc. All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in the source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following condititons are met:
1.Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2.Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
3.Neither the name of Invictus Innovations, Inc nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
4.The genesis block of any blockchain must allocate 10% of the total lifetime shares ever allocated by the blockchain to the holders of BitShares PTS proportional to the percentage of total BitShares PTS held. Additionally 10% of the total lifetime shares ever allcoated by the blockchain to the holders of BitShares AGS must be allocated in the genesis block.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS OR ANYONE DISTRIBUTING THE SOFTWARE BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

Now III can explain how is this non-binding promise fulfilled.

I tried to find "fair" mechanics for merge between BTSX, AGS and PTS. I've put some random thoughts and ideas and I've reached to *something*.
This completely ignores the price of any asset at any time. It concentrates only on promises.

Let A,B,C,D,E are people who bought 1% each of AGS/PTS/BTSX at pre feb28 and post feb28 like this:

pre feb28
PTS      AGS
A-1%   B-1%

post feb28
PTS      AGS      BTSX
C-1%   D-1%   E-1%

Each person was rewarded stake as follows:

BTSX Chain
A = 0.5%
B = 0.5%

DNS/NOTE/VOTE (too complex to even include them)

Each person was promised the following stake:
BTSX Chain Descendant
A = 0.5%
B = 0.5%
C = 0%
D = 0%
E = 1%
DEV = 0% (dilution inevitable)

DAC
A = 0.1%
B = 0.1%
C = 0.1%
D = 0.1%
E = 0%
DEV = 80% (no dilution?)

BM's proposal essentially tries to combine DACs and BTSX Descendants into one MERGED DAC.
Given the different stakes for each party this is very difficult to be done "fair".
However we can attempt to imagine how the merge would look like. Lets first transform the idea of DAC so that there are no development funds (all the funds are allocated to PTS/AGS).
Lets imagine the dev decides to reward A,B,C,D with ALL his shares and rely on dilution for development.
This should equal to what feb28 snapshot did - 50%/50% to AGS/PTS.
It should look like this:
DAC NO-DEV
A = 0.5%
B = 0.5%
C = 0.5%
D = 0.5%
E = 0%
DEV = 0% (dilution inevitable)

We want to combine DACs and BTSX descendants into one.
Lets merge the DAC NO-DEV and BTSX Chain Descendant into one COMBINED DAC while keeping all the promises.
Lets assume both future DACs and BTSX Descendants have equal potential for growth.
Then we can average out the stake for every actor.
This is more or less a combination of past promises to PTS/AGS/BTSX holders:
MERGED DAC NO-DEV and BTSX Chain Descendant (=AKA merged promises)
A = 0.5%
B = 0.5%
C = 0.25% (C & D were not getting any stake in BTSX Descendants but had 0.5% in DACs)
D = 0.25% (C & D were not getting any stake in BTSX Descendants but had 0.5% in DACs)
E = 0.5% (E was not getting any stake in DACs but was getting 1% in BTSX descendants)
DEV = 0% (dilution inevitable)

The above shows what each actor should get if the AGS/PTS/BTSX promise is kept merged/averaged out.

What does BM's proposal looks like (using current prices):

DAC & BTSX Chain Descendant (BM's PROPOSAL)
A = 0.5% (0.4% (BTSX rewarded by feb28, diluted by 20%) + 0.1% (total PTS stake))
B = 0.5% (0.4% (BTSX rewarded by feb28, diluted by 20%) + 0.1% (total AGS stake))
C = 0.1%
D = 0.1%
E = 0.8% (1% diluted by 20%)
DEV = 0% (dilution inevitable)

It is too late for me to properly distinguish between bullshit and sanity so please ignore it if it is the first kind.

UPDATE: The conclusion is:
If we average the promise and keep all groups of investors in balance we should have this:
DAC & BTSX Chain Descendant
A = 0.5% (0.25% (BTSX rewarded by feb28, diluted by 50%) + 0.25% (total PTS stake))
B = 0.5% (0.25% (BTSX rewarded by feb28, diluted by 50%) + 0.25% (total AGS stake))
C = 0.25%
D = 0.25%
E = 0.5% (1% diluted by 50%)
DEV = 0% (dilution inevitable)

Meaning 1B shares should be issued and distributed to PTS/AGS stakeholders.

As a summary:
Proposal: Issue 1B new BTSX shares and distribute them to AGS/PTS holders (500 mil to AGS, 500 mil to PTS). This should result in consolidating AGS/PTS/BTSX into BTS.

Explanation:

Issuing 1B new shares will not change the stake of AGS and PTS buyers before feb28.

Issuing 1B new shares will compensate buyers of AGS/PTS post feb28 as follows:
These users were not supposed to have stake in BTSX descendant DACs but they were supposed to have 50%/50% stake in 3rd party DACs (assuming no dev allocated funds). Now they are given  25% of their PTS/AGS stake in all future DACs. (meaning if they had 1% stake in PTS/AGS they will have 0.25% stake in BTS)

Issuing 1B new shares will compensate buyers of BTSX as follows:
BTSX buyers were promised the opportunity to participate in BTSX descendant DACs with 100% of their stake. However they had no stake in any 3rd party DACs. With the merge of 3rd party DACs and BTSX Descendants BTSX owners are given 50% of their BTSX stake in ALL future DACs. (meaning if they had 1% stake in BTSX they will be given 0.5% stake in BTS).

Imagine the following:
As a user I'd like to have non-dillutable share in BTSX.
For example I want to buy 1% of all BTSX shares and retain this 1% regardless of future BTSX dillution.
Of course the price for such shares could be higher and they should not be allowed to vote.
Is such mechanic useful, beneficial ?
What do you think?

We could use bitshares toolkit tech (with some modifications) to verify the origin of a product.

Lets see the following example:
We have a producer of goods - winemaker. That produces limited bottles of wine per year. The producer sells the wine to distributor(s), who deliver it to the retailers , where consumers buy it.
Currently each bottle has a serial number and the users could rely on producer's website to verify if the bottle is authentic. However this requires centralized bookkeeping and there is no proven track record of each bottle.

What I imagine:
The producer creates X bottles of wine (or any other items) and issues X named unique tokens on the blockchain. Each token represents a single bottle (item). Whenever the current owner transfers(sells) the bottle (item) to another entity the equivalent transaction is made on the blockchain. Seller can only sell once what he legitimately has acquired. Buyer is certain about the origin of the item as he is able to track the whole history on the blockchain back to the original item producer. In case of malicious intermediate (falsifying the real bottle (item) ) he could do this only once per authentic item aquired. Any buyer will be able to see the list of previous owners of the bottle (item) and locate and expose the malicious parties.

Consumption of the bottle (usage of the item) could also be implemented as blockchain transaction. Ratings could be added relatively easy on the blockchain ONLY from verified users that consume the bottle (use the item). Ratings could be tracked also per distributor or per retailer in order to avoid a producer who maliciously rates himself.

Thoughts?

My name is Emil Velichkov (https://www.linkedin.com/in/emilvelichkov).
Together with Konstantin Krustev (https://www.linkedin.com/in/konstantinkrastev) we are responsible for development, maintenance and security of *.bitdelegate and some seed nodes.
Since we heard about III (december 2013) we immediately realized the potential of the concept and the (un)imaginable possible applications of DAC(s).
We haven't stopped mining Bitshares-PTS with all the GPUs we have (except for 2x GTX 780 which do pretty good job for gaming) even though it is not profitable anymore.

We have set up 2 facilities about 20 km apart with high speed fiber-optic internet (100mbit upload and 100mbit download), backup internet connection with similar capabilities but different ISP. UPS and dedicated high-end hardware (Each server has Quad Core CPU,32GB RAM, SSD, HDDs in HW Raid). We have split the delegates into these 2 locations. Each location backs the other one. We have also backups on the cloud.

Currently we are hosting:
BitsharesX delegates:

angel.bitdelegate  (Active, 3%)  -  Its income is intended to be used to fund projects beneficial for Bitshares ecosystem.
immortal.bitdelegate  (Active, 3%)  -  Its income is intended to be used for maintenance and development of delegates/seed nodes and anything needed for Bitshares ecosystem. The goal is to provide seed node(s) and delegates for any new or small project related to Bitshares.
lotto.bitdelegate  (Active, 3%)  -  I'll shut it down when it is voted out:https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=5368.msg106083#msg106083. All the funds will be distributed via lottery.
emski.bitdelegate  (Active, 3%)  -  I'll use it for testing the new versions before updating other delegates. Current experience I have is that updating as soon as the update is released results in instability and missed blocks and/or forks.
Seed node 84.238.140.192:42577 ( Active )

Bitshares2 Witness
emski (active, not voted in)
seed node 84.238.140.192:42570

All delegates use the version published without any code modifications. Feeds are provided by the script I presented here - https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9698.0

How the funds gathered so far are spent: I haven't used "wallet_delegate_withdraw_pay" except in the test networks.

I'll provide dedicated hosting to any project beneficial to Bitshares ecosystem (free of charge as long as I have sufficient resources left and its requirements are sane) PM me or write here for requests.

Any changes will be added to this post. Any updates will be posted in this thread.

Devshares:
Seed node 46.10.205.0:32123 (dvsseed.bitdelegate.org:32123) ( Active )

emski ( Active, not voted in, 20% ) - used for testing.

Bitshares 1.0 Lotto delegate funds 39,341.00 BTS . Distribution via lottery is still pending as the sum is insignificant.

EDIT1:Removed KeyID delegates and seed info post feb 5th snapshot.
EDIT2:Strikeout PTS Mining post feb 5th snapshot.
EDIT3:Added delegate pay
EDIT4:Added devshares seed and delegate. "Strikeout" purpose of delegates as their pay was reduced to 3%
EDIT5:Removed bitshares1.0 delegates and descriptions. Added information about lotto delegate funds.
EDIT6:Removed BTS2.0 seed and witness as they are now inactive.

I've done some modifications to xeroc's (which was derived from alt's version) version of the price feed script.
You can see it here: https://github.com/emilvelichkov/pytshares

Basically I've added weighting of each exchange so a delegate could select which exchange matters more.

Also I've changed the conditions when the feed is published:
Nothing except time restrictions and price difference is taken into account. If price differs more than [-max_negative_diff , max_positive_diff]*MyLastFeed feed is published. By default: [-0.2%, 0.5%].
Feeds cannot be published more frequently than minFeedAgeInSeconds.

Also I've changed the logic of price fetching to include additional validation and to ignore error from exchanges with low trust_level. This way failure to fetch price data from low trusted exchange will not prevent the calculation and publishing of feeds.

It is still experimental so some issues might arise. Some proof-read is welcome.

Here is the full changelog:
+ added minFeedAgeInSeconds (minimum time between feed publish)
+ added minValidAssetPrice (any feed for asset with lower price will be ignored)
+ added max_positive_diff/max_negative_diff (asset price should increase more than max_positive_diff in order to be published)
+ added exchange trust level (it multiplies the volume of the exchange.)
* changed publish_rule in the following way:
price is published if maxFeedAgeInSeconds have passed
price is published if price of any asset changes more than [-max_negative_diff, max_positive_diff]
* Errors fetching prices from any exchange are ignored unless exchange_trust_level > 0.8 (this is to prevent single small exchange from stopping all feeds)

You should be able to trade GLD on BitsharesX blockchain.