I thought that PTS was "is" experiment, project that could simultaneously test how BTC will look in the future

That's why I mined and still mining

PTS cannot continue in it's current form. I am for shutting it down or creating something new.

As the flagship, poster-boy, champion, whatever you want to call it, of DPOS it is absolutely necessary that no part of our ecosystem rely on PoW.

There is nothing really lost by shutting it down. The Proto-Dac (A DAC that will require a hard fork to implement its main features) serves the same purpose of being in on the ground floor of that DAC. The only thing we're losing is people being able to buy once and gain all.  That was great before 3I proved itself but that is no longer the case.

Quote from: bytemaster on October 18, 2014, 03:14:59 AM

Quote from: amencon on October 18, 2014, 03:13:29 AM

Quote from: Pheonike on October 17, 2014, 09:41:48 PM
How about having AGS style drive for the remaining PTS coins. Then switch it over to a bitasset. This everyone a chance to get in on the end of PTS.

I'd be OK with that, would probably buy a few more that way as well if the price was right.  I like the idea of another small round of crowd funding for I3 development without screwing anyone in the process.

We would rather not use that fund raising strategy again when we have better options.

Fair enough, I also wouldn't be crushed if it doesn't happen.  Letting the rest of PTS get mined or distributing the remaining shares to current PTS holders also feel like fine options to me.

Quote from: gamey on October 18, 2014, 12:56:18 AM
There is another point I don't think anyone has brought up.

Lets say I am a developer writing a DAC a couple years from now.  I have to decide PTS/AGS allocations.  With liquid PTS I have a better demographic to get my DAC off and going.  (New users along with older users)  I can basically leverage existing exchanges to provide users who believe in my product.  Now if you make PTS static, I would have 2 demographics (AGS and PTS) that are roughly the same with no one new in the system.

So what is the logical thing to do ?  Make another distribution method.  Sharedrop on something popular and cut PTS down to 10%.  Or perhaps I'd just issue an asset somewhere if technically feasible.

This hurts I3 and those who are stuck with an illiquid PTS.  Static PTS would have much lesser value to rational DAC developers.  And if a developer happens to write a worthwhile DAC, they're likely quite rational.....

I agree, the way I see it DAC code will grow more complex, effecient and effective much like any technology over time.  I'll bet years down the road we will see DACs built that will make the current ones look archaic.  I hope Bitshares brand is right there at that point in time building competitive and modern DACs to compete in the marketplace.  I think a liquid PTS helps encourage keeping the investors and innovators within the Bitshares ecosystem.

Quote from: amencon on October 18, 2014, 03:13:29 AM

Quote from: Pheonike on October 17, 2014, 09:41:48 PM
How about having AGS style drive for the remaining PTS coins. Then switch it over to a bitasset. This everyone a chance to get in on the end of PTS.

I'd be OK with that, would probably buy a few more that way as well if the price was right.  I like the idea of another small round of crowd funding for I3 development without screwing anyone in the process.

We would rather not use that fund raising strategy again when we have better options.

Quote from: Pheonike on October 17, 2014, 09:41:48 PM
How about having AGS style drive for the remaining PTS coins. Then switch it over to a bitasset. This everyone a chance to get in on the end of PTS.

I'd be OK with that, would probably buy a few more that way as well if the price was right.  I like the idea of another small round of crowd funding for I3 development without screwing anyone in the process.

There is another point I don't think anyone has brought up.

Lets say I am a developer writing a DAC a couple years from now.  I have to decide PTS/AGS allocations.  With liquid PTS I have a better demographic to get my DAC off and going.  (New users along with older users)  I can basically leverage existing exchanges to provide users who believe in my product.  Now if you make PTS static, I would have 2 demographics (AGS and PTS) that are roughly the same with no one new in the system.

So what is the logical thing to do ?  Make another distribution method.  Sharedrop on something popular and cut PTS down to 10%.  Or perhaps I'd just issue an asset somewhere if technically feasible.

This hurts I3 and those who are stuck with an illiquid PTS.  Static PTS would have much lesser value to rational DAC developers.  And if a developer happens to write a worthwhile DAC, they're likely quite rational.....

Quote from: Ander on October 17, 2014, 09:39:12 PM

Quote from: bytemaster on October 17, 2014, 09:30:48 PM
Migration of PTS to BTSX asset is what I think is called for.

That would be great. As long as anyone is still able to buy and sell it as desired.


Also, if we make PTS an asset inside BTSX, then instead of just being the #11 or so coin on coinmarketcap currency page, it can be #1-2 on the asset page.  We will have a something Bitshares related near the top of both lists! :)

+5% Yeah it's a big decision and a short time frame. BM came up with the whole concept of PTS in the first place so I'm sure it's not something he's proposed lightly.

So I'm ok with it. Making PTS DPOS makes sense if we believe in DPOS and rather than having another 101 delegate system it makes sense to put it on BTSX. It would probably put it at no.2 on the coinmarketcap asset list which will become more important over time.

Quote from: bytemaster on October 17, 2014, 09:30:48 PM
Migration of PTS to BTSX asset is what I think is called for.

I get that resources need to be carefully considered and I am not sure how many man hours etc it would take to migrate this, but I would suggest you really listen to Ander.  I'm on the fence about this one and if not for a question of resources I would 100% be against "the last snapshot" idea. 

Perhaps this sort of technology could be leveraged elsewhere ? Bitcoin wallet snapshot -> DPOS user asset.  (hmmm. probably not.)


Pros and Cons of making last snapshot and ignoring PTS going forward -

Pros
1) Minimal labor and resources consumed.
2) Simplified marketing.  (Althought Protoshares doesn't really need to be marketed, it can be ignored)


Cons
1) Less marketing exposure via additional products
2) Another "change" for people to complain about.
3) People who bought PTS with ideas of liquidity are screwed, even if the last 300k are not mined.
4) DAC developers have to do a crowd sell for people to have a stake who weren't early adopters.
5) Cuts off new users into ecosystem.
6) Looks bad in general for a coin to just die like that.

In general the last snapshot idea suggests to me the idea of the toolkit is somewhat being abandoned or being pushed further off the roadmap.

How about having AGS style drive for the remaining PTS coins. Then switch it over to a bitasset. This everyone a chance to get in on the end of PTS.

Quote from: bytemaster on October 17, 2014, 09:30:48 PM
Migration of PTS to BTSX asset is what I think is called for.

That would be great. As long as anyone is still able to buy and sell it as desired.


Also, if we make PTS an asset inside BTSX, then instead of just being the #11 or so coin on coinmarketcap currency page, it can be #1-2 on the asset page.  We will have a something Bitshares related near the top of both lists! :)

Migration of PTS to BTSX asset is what I think is called for.

I agree with this thread, and the idea that it warrants its own thread. While I think getting rid of PTS will held tremendously with branding and will alleviate confusion, the idea of forever closing off access to future potential BitShares converts with a VIP seniority program just sounds terrible...

There is absolutely no need for the new thread

If that new dacs uses bitusd and cross chain trading happens then an increase in bitusd will increase btsx. It's not a direct relationship yet.