Quote from: sumantso on December 08, 2014, 07:41:54 pm

I mentioned in the dry run thread but this place is appropriate.

Since you are using the BTS toolkit to make your DPoS PTS, you should honour the social consensus and award at least 10% to AGS. If you don't you are starting off by breaking it itself and setting an example.

Couldn't agree with you more! This is a new coin, new people running it, new code (ulitmately it won't even be called Bitshares PTS) AND they used the BTS toolkit to make it, therefore they should honor the social consensus and give AGS 10%.

"new coin" - Nope, simply a badly needed upgrade to the protocol. The current PoW chain is practically dead and the upgrade will not modify the allocation in any form. If AGS holders decided to create a DPoS chain, would we then insist that they also sharedrop PTS? Of course not. Both PTS and AGS are benefactors of DPoS and neither is a "future DAC". The social consensus would be violated if we transferred ownership of AGS to PTS or vice versa. They represent different demographics and are equal and separate prongs of the social consensus.

"new people" - I3 transferred custodianship of PTS long, long ago and this is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Lastly, there is no name change yet. After the upgrade the community will decide the path to take on rebranding. It is necessary to prevent confusion between PTS and BTS and I believe would be performed even if we had a healthy PTS chain and no upgrade were necessary.

Quote from: biophil on December 08, 2014, 07:46:27 pm

Quote from: sumantso on December 08, 2014, 07:41:54 pm

I mentioned in the dry run thread but this place is appropriate.

Since you are using the BTS toolkit to make your DPoS PTS, you should honour the social consensus and award at least 10% to AGS. If you don't you are starting off by breaking it itself and setting an example.

This would be inconsistent with the idea that this is an upgrade to PTS. DPOS PTS is not a new DAC.

Or at least that's the story I expect the DPOS people to adhere to.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

Though it is sad to think that AGS will likely die a slow death and I will likely wish I had simply purchased PTS from the beginning, I agree 100% with this assessment. 

This is not a new DAC.  It is a vanilla token with one purpose---to be a sharedropping token for those who believe in DACs and would like to show themselves as such. 

However, I would rather move away from this issue and move onto what I feel is far more important:  The chinese community has brought up some very valid concerns about running a DPOS PTS chain by itself.  Their argument is that there is already bitPTS and so it could easily be used as the sharedropping token because at present it will not be profitable to run PTS delegates at the current market cap. 

Can we please discuss this?

* A user-issued asset under BTS would not be a viable deflationary currency-DAC competitor to Bitcoin.
* A user-issued asset under BTS would not be a viable sharedrop instrument for 3rd party DACs that have competitive overlap with BTS.
* A user-issued asset under BTS would not be a useful resource for 3rd party developers seeking a reference implementation of the Bitshares Toolkit that can be easily forked and sharedropped (without all of the layers of functionality built atop it by BTS). See for example our new "import by signed message" functionality that is the 1st of its kind. PTS as a token would be divorced entirely from PTS as a development community and resource.
* A user-issued asset under BTS would, over time, narrow the demographic of PTS holders from being DAC-agnostic to being exclusively pro-BTS.

There are many other reasons, but these were the main points distilled from the many prior discussions of this topic.

Some of the ideas proposed here are worthy of discussion for a separate DAC. These discussions should also serve as an indication of the difficulty in reaching agreement across multiple stakeholders when arbitrarily dividing or combining assets. PTS is one of the 2 prongs of the social consensus, and the stakeholders represented by each demographic (AGS and PTS) should not be tampered with. Both demographics are benefactors of DPoS (not just AGS), and this is why the treatment of the PTS upgrade as a "new DAC" is fundamentally inaccurate. As an example, if AGS holders decided to create a liquid AGS on a DPoS blockchain, it would be irrational to demand that PTS be sharedropped in the new AGS chain.

I3 are no longer custodians of PTS, but they are in full support of the project. Many people are conflating these two things.

I3’s primary focus going forward will be BTS, but some of their devs have offered resources to the project already. Toast has offered development support in his free time, Cass has helped with the website, Testz supports the project, Stan and Dan have returned all funds from the BitShares Trust and both have expressed support for the project. There were potential regulatory risks associated with PTS funding and continued custodianship by I3. The major exchanges and services have also expressed support. Coinmarketcap is updated and BTER will honor the snapshot. As you can see, this project is about as official as things can get without explicit I3 ownership.

* A standalone DPOS blockchain makes PTS the only DAC-agnostic, non-inflationary DPOS chain and the best candidate for sharedropping by 3rd party DACs.

* PTS will also be the most logical chain to fork by 3rd party DACs. Our developer pc has already implemented an “import by signed message” feature which exists in no other crypto and is an absolute necessity for sharecropping DACs. See here: http://pts.cubeconnex.com/index.php?topic=37

As for the questions about incentive structure for running delegates, I think it is important to note that the incentives are exactly the same as those of the prior BTSX chain. As adoption and market cap grows, the incentives and decentralization of the network also increase.

The Chinese community has been integral to the success of PTS. We invite you to join us in growing the Bitshares ecosystem by building a strong, stable, and efficient PTS.

Thanks to svk for getting the block explorer up and running (currently pointed to dry run#1): http://pts.bitsharesblocks.com/

Thanks to svk for getting the block explorer up and running (currently pointed to dry run#1): http://pts.bitsharesblocks.com/

Secure genesis claims

It is now possible to claim genesis balances without importing private keys by means of the new "wallet_import_by_signedmsg" command. A description of the idea can be found here: http://pts.cubeconnex.com/index.php?topic=37.0

  this was badly needed. Hats off to pc for the hard work.

Looks like the returns were processed without a hiccup.