Quote from: pc on December 01, 2014, 01:54:19 pm

Actually, in a DPOS chain this is decidable. A majority of shareholders could vote 101 delegates in who purposefully do not sign blocks. That would bring the old chain to a standstill.

Not exactly though. What would likely happen in that scenario is that the minority that did not vote for the top 101 (or even just 51 is enough) delegates that stopped producing blocks would take a snapshot of the stake and purge all stake that is voting for the non-block-producing delegates. Then the minority (who are now again a majority) would continue the old chain with a new set of delegates.

Let's say for example Dan decided to introduce a new feature in BTS that required DPoS to be abandoned in favor of his new uberer consensus model to end all consensus models. It would require a Fork. Does he have the right to do this? Would there then be two BTS chains where some delegates refused upgrade their client? The delegates that don't upgrade can't be voted out because the voting of those that upgraded is taking place on a different chain. So at that point who says which BTS is the real BTS?

In my humble opinion the free market answers the question.

"Upgrading PTS to DPOS has been planned for a long time, only nobody at I3 had the time to do it."
     If this was the intent of I3 then why did they very deliberately kill BitsharesPTS in order to merge it's value into BTS?

"From a purely technical perspective of course we're starting a new chain with a genesis block based on a snapshot from the old chain. There's really no other way to do it." 
     You want to start a new social consensus blockchain based on the Bitshares toolkit and airdrop on former PTS holders..that's it in a nutshell. That part I have no problem with. The problem is you state that future DAC's using the Bitshares toolkit are "invited" to honor your new social consensus but why would they? Because you have fraudulently called yourself the "new" BitsharesPTS. This looks like a copy and paste, pump and dump trading off a dead coin's brand and hijacked name...crypto coat-tail riding. And your response it "there's no other way to do it?".

"You can stay on the PoW chain and see where it leads. Most likely it won't lead anywhere but simply stop in its tracks."
     THAT WAS THE INTENTION. That was the whole purpose of merging PTS, AGS and all the others. So that there would be one place to snapshot for future DAC's wanting to honor the social consensus. BTS is what represents the Bitshares community not what you're doing. Your blockchain might have a use to some other crypto community but we are already united behind BTS.

"Therefore, the upgrade is mandatory from an economical perspective."
    That's like saying "here, I'm going to give you some free crypto in my new unrelated blockchain and you should take it because it's mandatory from an economic perspective." Try to understand, you are not updating PTS, PTS is DEAD..thus you are not adding value to it, because it no longer exists. It's value has been transferred to BTS. You are squatting on the name.

Nice idea, what if we convert PTS to new PTS by 1:1 ratio and make hard limit of new PTS to 2 000 000 (as planned from beginning) and use unallocated PTS to honor delegates for 10 years (it's will be ~0,0076 PTS per produced block except user registration and transactions fee).

The guy is a blowhard and an unstable businessman with limited respect for the law. Take my advice and don't invite people like Kim into your community.

Code: [Select]

            sum=sum+$bal;