The following is a list of exchanges that support PTS:

* www.bter.com
* www.poloniex.com

Please PM me with updates.

The new DPOS-based PTS chain has just signed its first blocks!

Block times are still a little irregular, but will stabilize once all delegates have their gear up and running.

Source: https://github.com/PTS-DPOS/PTS/tree/v2.0
Linux packages: http://software.opensuse.org/download.html?project=home%3Ap_conrad%3Abts&package=PTS
Windows build: https://github.com/PTS-DPOS/PTS/releases

Thanks to all forum members for their support, and special thanks to our initial delegates!

Source: http://pts.cubeconnex.com/index.php?topic=71.0

Edit: Specifications

* 10 second block confirmation (!)
* Supply will be scaled to 1,000,000,000 (1 Billion) PTS
* Absolutely no inflation or dilution of the supply, now or ever
* Current PTS-holders will receive their exact proportion of stake in the new chain as of the snapshot date

************Updates****************

NEW CHAIN IS LAUNCHED:

NOTICE: Please upgrade to v2.0.1 (includes malleability fix from BTS 0.4.26)
Source: https://github.com/PTS-DPOS/PTS/tree/v2.0.1
Linux packages: http://software.opensuse.org/download.html?project=home%3Ap_conrad%3Abts&package=PTS
Windows build: https://github.com/PTS-DPOS/PTS/releases

************************************


Summary

* Upcoming snapshot will take place on December 14th
* New website is live: www.ptscrypto.com
* GUI client is nearing completion
* Testnet is stable, Dry Run #1 to be announced shortly




BitShares PTS (originally named “Protoshares”) is the original crypto-equity of the BitShares ecosystem. PTS was created prior to development of the BitShares Toolkit, a revolutionary blockchain technology using Dan Larimer’s Delegated Proof of Stake consensus algorithm (DPoS). PTS is a sharedrop instrument for future decentralized autonomous companies (DACs) built upon the Toolkit. Per the BitShares social consensus, PTS holders will receive at least a 10% share in all future DACs.

Now that development of the Toolkit is complete and the first DAC (BTS) is launched, the time has come to upgrade BitShares PTS away from the slow and inefficient proof of work protocol to a new DPoS blockchain using the BitShares Toolkit. We invite you to join us in celebrating the rebirth of BitShares PTS - a historic original, a pre-eminent sharedrop instrument, and now with unparalleled DPoS technology.


Snapshot

Block production in the current proof of work blockchain has slowed to a crawl. Therefore, the upgrade of BitShares PTS will use the last block produced and published to the network prior to the end of day on December 14, 2014 UTC. Exchanges should honor your stake in the new chain (specifics forthcoming).


Specifications

* 10 second block confirmation (!)
* Supply will be scaled to 1,000,000,000 (1 Billion) PTS
* Absolutely no inflation or dilution of the supply, now or ever
* Current PTS-holders will receive their exact proportion of stake in the new chain as of the snapshot date


Features

* Fair 100% proof of work distribution
* True anonymity using TITAN technology
* No ugly hash addresses (send and receive to usernames)


Social Consensus

The BitShares social consensus is a non-binding agreement and invitation to developers of future BitShares DACs to sharedrop at least 10% of their total allocation to PTS holders.

In this way, PTS holders receive a perpetual dividend in the form of ownership in every future BitShares DAC. And unlike Bitcoin, whose largest holders (the exchanges) would never honor a sharedrop, PTS-friendly exchanges such as Bter, Poloniex, and Btc38 have a track record of honoring ownership of PTS holders in new DACs. This makes PTS the ideal sharedrop instrument for developers who want dedicated DAC-friendly shareholders and wide distribution.


Principles

* simplicity - BitShares PTS is delegated proof of stake (DPOS). It is a pure implementation of the core DPOS protocol without the application-specific functionality of the many profitable DACs that will be built on top of it. In this way, PTS is the foundation layer of the BitShares ecosystem.

* openness - BitShares PTS is not only open-source, but also open strategy. PTS promotes open development and contribution to the BitShares platform by third party developers and investors. At the same time, PTS is agnostic to the features, technology, and business strategy of any particular DAC that is built on top of it. BitShares PTS is the Switzerland of DACs.

* collaboration - BitShares PTS will be built with extensibility and collaboration in mind. In addition to serving as the common core of profitable DACs, PTS will also serve as a launching pad and resource for developers of new DACs. In this way, any contribution to BitShares PTS is a contribution to the BitShares ecosystem. The mantra of PTS is: easy-to-use, easy-to-build, and easy-to-fork.

* stability - BitShares PTS is a stable, non-inflationary, and fairly distributed token. BitShares PTS is not a business and is not designed with the objective of maximizing profit. As the business environment changes, application-specific DACs will have to evolve to maintain their competitive advantage. PTS may also evolve, but only with a slow and steady hand that serves the interest of PTS holders and these principles.


BitShares PTS vs. Bitcoin




Resources

* Website
* Forum
* BitShares Subforum
* Github
* Block Explorer
* Reddit


Future Goals

* After the upgrade, a complete rebrand.
* A suite of technical, marketing, and community resources for DAC developers to build on top of PTS.


Exchanges

www.bter.com
www.poloniex.com


Sincere thanks to pc and cube for the development work, testz for his support and feedback, cass for helping with the website, and I3 for returning all PTS donated funds back to the community and breathing new life into this project.

This was buried in some debate about personal issues in this thread, so I'm repasting here for feedback:

Problem

Creating a new account requires use of an ugly Bitcoin-style hash address to receive funds. This is not intuitive for most users. In other words, you must have BTS in your wallet in order to register a new account, but you cannot receive BTS easily without already having an account (chicken and egg problem).

Proposed Solution

We create a transaction type that involves registering a "free-floating" account name and a password hash. This "free floating" name could then be "claimed" by any wallet by simply broadcasting a transaction that proves they are in possession of the password. This way, faucets and exchanges could pay for account registrations using the regular security mechanisms (captcha) and broadcast those names as free-floating registered accounts. Then a user would simply launch their client, enter the password they have chosen, and link the registered account name to their private keys. "Free-floating" accounts would be ineligible to receive funds until claimed. Here is a step-by-step illustration:

1) User launches their client which says "visit any of the following sites to register your account: BTSfaucet.com, BTSregister.com, Bter.com, etc. etc.
2) User visits one of those sites (possibly in a web view, or in their own browser)
3) The site has a captcha or requires email verification or whatever else to prevent spam. After passing the challenge, the site asks the user to select a username and a password (at least 10 characters - no need to be super-secure here). The site broadcasts a "free floating" account registration (including fee) and redirects the user back to their client ("Done! Now just open your client to claim your username").
4) The user returns to their client and enters the new username and password to generate a new transaction claiming the username (ie, linking the username to the private keys of that particular client).

The “chicken and egg” problem is not due to a lack of funds. Plenty of faucets and exchanges would pay for the .01 BTS necessary to register accounts. The real problem is the use of the “ugly hash” to receive that first transaction My solution solves this issue directly, without making payment-free registration (which is not necessary).

Over the past couple of weeks I've been requesting an accounting of the assets entrusted to I3 for purposes of development and marketing. Just before the November 5th snapshot, and after repeatedly ignoring my private and public questions, I3 began to divide the funds into 30,000 PTS amounts held in separate addresses:
https://www.coinplorer.com/PTS/Addresses/PaNGELmZgzRQCKeEKM6ifgTqNkC4ceiAWw

Here was my initial post, which received little attention and no reply from Dan or Stan:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10908

I put together a divestiture proposal for the Angel fund which has also been repeatedly ignored by I3:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10701.0

The only response regarding the divestiture proposal was that the funds would simply be "granted" to the devs, so we don't have to worry about distribution being centralized. Really? These funds were donated to I3 with the distinct purpose of being used for marketing and development. Now the solution is to simply give them away and hope that they will be used wisely? What happened to accountability? What company just "grants" millions of dollars of its shareholder assets to third parties without any way to hold them accountable for use of those funds?

The fact that very few people on this forum even care about this is the worst part. If I3 cannot make these types of important decisions with transparency and community input, how in the world do we expect to gain the trust of investors outside of this community? Do we think that nobody will ask these questions? Or that we can simply ignore them and they will go away? What kind of unsophisticated investor are we trying to court who wouldn't care about this? Very frustrated by it all...

I think this deserves its own thread so I'm reposting my feelings on the merger and re-org here.

I see a complete reversal of strategy happening on this forum and, frankly, it is frightening. Some of us have abandoned the “open platform” model of the Bitshares Toolkit in favor of protectionism and centralization. Bytemaster is a smart dude, but the assumption that any innovative idea must have his blessing and must consume his limited resource is just plain wrong. Why should we sink or swim on the basis of a single DAC? The original vision of the Bitshares Toolkit was collaborative and open. 3rd party developers would be encouraged to fork the toolkit and to innovate. Now it seems that we’ve reverted to the very model that Dan campaigned against in the Bitcoin space - that one chain would eventually rule them all. What is the price of all this protectionism? Even if it were true that individual DACs would indirectly compete in the marketplace, why do we assume that this is some sort of a “failure”?

I understand that Dan himself, as an individual, cannot work on competing alternatives. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not to position the Toolkit as an open platform for innovation by 3rd party DACs. When I hear people calling for an end to PTS and AGS, it signals to me that we’ve abandoned this vision. Dan doesn’t need to personally develop each DAC, but I think he can do certain things to keep the platform open and to incentivize development by third parties. For example:

* Keep and promote PTS and AGS as sharedrop instruments for future DACs. (Thank you for the recent change of position on this.)
* Create a reasonable and voluntary divestment strategy for the Bitshares Trust to ensure that 3rd party DACs are incentivized to sharedrop for a fair and balanced distribution.
* Either contribute to, or promote the efforts of others who wish to separate the core DPOS code base from DAC-specific applications such as BTSX, DNS, and Vote. Separating the code base would go a long way towards incentivizing 3rd party development. Not only is this good practice from an engineering perspective, but it lowers the barrier to entry for the developer who has an idea for “the next great DAC”.

If a superior technology is built on the Toolkit, then as shareholders of AGS and PTS we would greatly benefit from it. Pushing 3rd party devs and DACs away from the platform will not prevent the existence of competing alternatives to BTS. More than likely, it will just ensure that those alternatives are built elsewhere and that we as a community do not benefit from them.

People of Bitshares, I’ve been discussing an issue privately with Stan and it was suggested that I present the issue to the community for input. As many of you know, a group of us are trying to organize an upgrade to PTS and to reposition PTS as a currency DAC and sharedrop instrument. I’ll try to provide a quick summary before diving into the details.

Background Information

* Many PTS investors are displeased with the recent merger proposal. In particular, many feel that the social contract has been violated by:
  -granting only 7% stake to PTS/AGS holders instead of 10%.
  -even worse, locking PTS into a 2 year vesting period in the merged BTS.
  It is not the intent of this post to discuss the “fairness” of the allocation.
* Currently, the PTS Angel address currently holds ~13.5% of the entire money supply of PTS.
* It was the intent of the merger proposal to “absorb PTS” into the new BTS and therefore, in theory, PTS residual value would be almost nothing without community action.

Problems

A single entity owning 13.5% of the money supply is a non-starter for “distributed consensus” in a DPOS version of PTS. This is because the entire legitimacy of the coin comes into question when a single entity owns such a massive stake. There is a "critical mass" of centralization (which someone alluded to in another post) that effectively makes the entire consensus algorithm useless. Here is a thought exercise illustrating the point:

  * What is the likely percentage of PTS holders who move their funds out of the genesis block? I would guess a minority within the first year. Let's take an estimate of 50%.
  * What percentage of those people would actively participate in voting? Let's estimate that at 35%.

If these estimates are even close to being reasonable, it would mean that only 17.5% percent of the stake would be used in active voting. A single entity owning 13.5% of the money supply (not counting the personal funds of I3 employees) means that essentially a single person (Dan) decides the entire 101 delegate stack. This translates into complete centralization of the currency. I want to emphasize that I am not arguing that Dan should not be trusted, just that it violates the intent of a distributed consensus algorithm for a single entity to possess absolute and unanswerable control. At this point it becomes more efficient for Dan to simply manage the ledger as a trusted counterparty. I contend that we are currently at that point with PTS.

Proposal

Firstly, I appreciate that the Bitshares Trust has been careful not to crash the price of PTS by liquidating the Angel fund recklessly. I think most would agree that, long term, having a 13.5% stake in such an asset is not in the best interest of the Trust or PTS holders. I’ve proposed a structure for reducing the position of the Angel fund in the upgraded PTS, as follows:

The Bitshares Trust would promise to:
-reduce the fund’s position to a maximum of 3% stake within 2 years. This requires divesting about 180,000 PTS.
-sell 55,000 PTS to private investors in a series of blind auctions distributed over the next year (e.g., monthly). For example, two 2300 PTS segments can be sold each month at a discount to large investors in exchange for a non-binding commitment to not sell for at least 1 year.
-sell another 55,000 PTS on the exchanges over the next 2 years.
-perform a controlled burn of 30% of the fund to offset the downward price pressure of the above. The 30% stake is not chosen randomly. The BTS allocation of PTS was discounted by 30% from the amount of the social contract and this would be a similar allocation.

This proposal would allow I3 to generate a lot of cash and to maintain a very large stake in PTS without compromising the integrity of the whole system.

Advantages

* Over the long haul, the Trust would get a higher return on investment than if it were to simply sell the whole 13.5% on the exchanges. In fact, I’m not sure if there would be any incentive to keep PTS alive without such a commitment from the Trust. Without such a structure in place, the actual end result might be that PTS completely dies after the BTS merger.
* Such a commitment would do a lot to restore PTS investor’s confidence in Bitshares and I3, and to inspire PTS investors to grow the Bitshares ecosystem.
* Lastly, such a commitment would better position PTS as a stable long-term store of value for outsiders who may be wary of investing in a PoS coin with low participation and a single shareholder having a lopsided proportion of the money supply.

Conclusion

This proposal allows the Bitshares Trust to generate a lot of revenue from a currency that would otherwise die and therefore be worthless to all parties. The Fund would keep a significant stake in the new PTS, and at the same time show PTS investors a token of good faith after the very tumultuous recent events.

I have presented this proposal to Stan. He did not offer an approval or disapproval of the idea, but he did mention that the proposal should be presented to the community in order for the Bitshares Trust to consider supporting it. Please voice your concerns and opinions here.