Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Hi,
I dont want to start a new thread, but I have been out of this for a couple of months. Now all my PTS is in the old wallet and I need to transfer to the new one. How do I do this? And have I lost out on something?
Hi,
How do I transfer my old PTS here?
wallet_import_bitcoin <wallet_filename> <passphrase> <account_name>Yes please let PTS die like it should have. We paid millions during the merger so PTS should no longer be included in anything. I am confident that the shareholders are going to revolt against anyone supporting PTS through sharedrops.
ok , I guess all the people that view 11.05 as the final snapshot have issues with denial .
Rest assured , I can accept that I was the only one misunderstood the whole thing .
But what about others ? Can you help clear that , first with all the western members here with denial issues , then I can learn from you and see how that goes .
Because , simply "you were wrong" is not a answer . There are too many people out there won't accept that .
..
* The reason that 11/05 was going to be the last "official" (non-3rd party) snapshot is because there will be no future "official" snapshots. Neither Dan or Stan ever
..
To be precise, and to avoid further miscommunication,
"The reason that 11/05 was suggested/proposed/drafted going to be .. snapshot ...". I3 (or ex-I3) eventually decided to go with Dec-14 snapshot for Devshare.
... BTSX is now rebranded as just 'Bitshares' (BTS) and Invictus (the "company" that created the Bitshares software) is now disbanded. The original core developers are still working hard on BTS, but are now employed by the blockchain rather than a centralized corporate entity (this was done for obvious reasons). The new Bitshares uses an inflationary protocol that enables delegates to be paid for supporting the network in ways other that just block production. This new funding model enables the currency to incentivize rapid development and innovation. So, we are left with both BTS and PTS. These two tokens are not direct competitors, and are rather symbiotic for at least the following reasons:
* Both tokens promote DPoS as the most secure, innovative, and efficient consensus algorithm in the world.
* BTSX was sharedropped 50% to PTS and thus represents a largely overlapping demographic.
* They use slightly different implementations of DPoS. BTS uses targeted inflation to raise funds for development/etc, while PTS is deflationary. In PTS, a delegate with a 100% pay rate receives 100% of the fees in the blocks that they produce. A 0% pay rate would simply burn those fees, thus reducing the supply and increasing the value of everyone else's shares.
* BTS is a true 'DAC' (distributed autonomous corporation), and is designed to rapidly evolve and to disrupt a variety of industries (DNS, Vote, Banking/Exchange, etc). BTS is the Ferrari of crypto-currencies and has cutting edge features found in no other coin.
* PTS is a stable 'currency-DAC' and sharedrop token. It is designed primarily to provide a stable unit of account with fair distribution, and to be a launching pad for feature-specific DACs (some of which may compete directly or indirectly with BTS). PTS is a reference implementation of DPoS and is the original and preferred sharedrop token. It cannot and will not compete with BTS on specific features or within specific industries. Rather, PTS is an investment in the protocol and the ecosystem of future BitShares DACs.
I think at this point most people realize that the crypto wars will not result in a single consolidated token used by every person and for every application. Rather, as Andreas puts it, there will likely be a few or a handful of tokens that take a majority of the marketshare. The rest will make up a long tail of tokens directed towards increasingly niche applications. If you believe this to be true, then it stands that both BTS and PTS can be enormously successful without competing directly for market share.
This is absolutely wrong. The reason that 11/05 was proposed to be the last "official" (non-3rd party) snapshot is because there will be no future "official" snapshots. Neither Dan or Stan ever argued that the social consensus would be arbitrarily mutated to make the 11/05 snapshot the perpetual sharedrop instrument in place of the live PTS chain. Devshares is not a production coin - it is a worthless testnet. It makes sense to use the live PTS chain in Devshares because the social consensus is and always was based on a liquid PTS. The fact remains that the last "official" snapshot will remain the one that took place on 11/05. Just an amazing twisting of facts to imply that this was somehow a modification of the social consensus (it wasn't).
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10608.0
You'll have to convince people to forget this first before accusing them being twisting the facts .
PTS will continue to circulate and trade; however, without I3 planning any future snapshots its value will be based upon the speculative value of 3rd party DACs such as Music, Play, and others.
Thank you for that , just want to let the others know that those who thought 11.05 was the final snapshot for I3 related product are not crazy and suck at reading information at all .
The issue here is that I3 is not claiming this is not a I3 product , instead they are claiming that those who thought 11.05 was the final were mistaken .
... BTSX is now rebranded as just 'Bitshares' (BTS) and Invictus (the "company" that created the Bitshares software) is now disbanded. The original core developers are still working hard on BTS, but are now employed by the blockchain rather than a centralized corporate entity (this was done for obvious reasons). The new Bitshares uses an inflationary protocol that enables delegates to be paid for supporting the network in ways other that just block production. This new funding model enables the currency to incentivize rapid development and innovation. So, we are left with both BTS and PTS. These two tokens are not direct competitors, and are rather symbiotic for at least the following reasons:
* Both tokens promote DPoS as the most secure, innovative, and efficient consensus algorithm in the world.
* BTSX was sharedropped 50% to PTS and thus represents a largely overlapping demographic.
* They use slightly different implementations of DPoS. BTS uses targeted inflation to raise funds for development/etc, while PTS is deflationary. In PTS, a delegate with a 100% pay rate receives 100% of the fees in the blocks that they produce. A 0% pay rate would simply burn those fees, thus reducing the supply and increasing the value of everyone else's shares.
* BTS is a true 'DAC' (distributed autonomous corporation), and is designed to rapidly evolve and to disrupt a variety of industries (DNS, Vote, Banking/Exchange, etc). BTS is the Ferrari of crypto-currencies and has cutting edge features found in no other coin.
* PTS is a stable 'currency-DAC' and sharedrop token. It is designed primarily to provide a stable unit of account with fair distribution, and to be a launching pad for feature-specific DACs (some of which may compete directly or indirectly with BTS). PTS is a reference implementation of DPoS and is the original and preferred sharedrop token. It cannot and will not compete with BTS on specific features or within specific industries. Rather, PTS is an investment in the protocol and the ecosystem of future BitShares DACs.
I think at this point most people realize that the crypto wars will not result in a single consolidated token used by every person and for every application. Rather, as Andreas puts it, there will likely be a few or a handful of tokens that take a majority of the marketshare. The rest will make up a long tail of tokens directed towards increasingly niche applications. If you believe this to be true, then it stands that both BTS and PTS can be enormously successful without competing directly for market share.
need some PTS too to register ...
PTS5civCG4YdjLZbn6m3JTx65Z8P1nQvEb4Sw1Dh8yjsh7e9EK7jd
This could be big.