Quote from: islandking on November 30, 2014, 03:29:36 PM
Will the spark snapshot be on this new chain?

No, spark snapshot will be taken at same time from old PTS (last block of PTS at December 14, UTC).

Quote from: islandking on November 30, 2014, 03:29:36 PM

Quote from: testz on November 30, 2014, 03:28:18 PM

Quote from: islandking on November 30, 2014, 03:05:21 PM
Will BTS be apart of the snapshot?

It's not new DAC, it's PTS replacement/upgrade 100% share drop to old PTS.

So all future PTS snapshots will be done on this new upgrade?

Yes, this is idea, if community support this upgrade all future snapshots will be done of new PTS.
New PTS will have all required functionality for making snapshots.

Quote from: testz on November 30, 2014, 03:28:18 PM

Quote from: islandking on November 30, 2014, 03:05:21 PM
Will BTS be apart of the snapshot?

It's not new DAC, it's PTS replacement/upgrade 100% share drop to old PTS.

So all future PTS snapshots will be done on this new upgrade? Will the spark snapshot be on this new chain?

Quote from: islandking on November 30, 2014, 03:05:21 PM
Will BTS be apart of the snapshot?

It's not new DAC, it's PTS replacement/upgrade 100% share drop to old PTS.

Quote from: FreeTrade on November 30, 2014, 08:55:37 AM

Quote from: alphaBar on November 30, 2014, 08:48:11 AM
The billion units was primarily to help in marketing. It gives us a nice round number to start with for supply (vs. 1,783,034) and it creates the perception of value (eg, feels better to tip 100PTS than 0.1PTS). Perception drives reality.

I agree this is an unnecessary and distracting change. Changing the number of units again feels like a new project, rather than an upgrade. Maybe a 1.8 mil hardcap, with the the last 40,000 set aside for transaction subsidies.

If i want to invest in berkshire hathaway and they change their number of shares to 1 billion it makes their shares look less prestigious so i dont like this.  I want pts to be prestigious investment vehicles-not just some random blank currency based off vanilla dpos.  If you are going to sell ice cream at least label it premium and slightly more diffocult to get or else you are just selling icecream like all the rest.  Please dont needlessly mess with supply.

Sending pts should feel lkke sending flakes of gold, not bags of copper.

Will BTS be apart of the snapshot?

Dry Run #1 announced: http://pts.cubeconnex.com/index.php?topic=48.0

Quote from: FreeTrade on November 30, 2014, 12:56:16 PM

Quote from: pc on November 30, 2014, 12:20:01 PM
We've already discussed that idea.
Our goal is to position PTS as a no-dilution, no-inflation investment vehicle, so we have decided against it.

Tony had an interesting idea here -
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11576.0

I think we've got about 1,760,000 PTS minted now.

If we were to have 20,000 transaction processing subsidy (1%) in the first year, reducing by 50% each year . . . we'd have a maximum possible cap of 1,800,000 mil - you could still market it as no-dilution, no-inflation, on the basis that there is a total supply of 1.8 mil.

Really looking for a compromise with you guys on transaction processing subsidy - a lot of smart people have said it's not a good idea to get rid of it with no replacement. You'd also start to gain a reputation for pragmatic compromise, rather than ideological dogmatism.

I think this is a point on which rational minds can disagree. All of the work we have done so far has been with no subsidy (on our own dime) and we're just getting started. Please consider a few things: (1) BTSX was operating successfully using the same model, (2) it is a point of differentiation for us and aligns better with our strategy/marketing, and (3) it can always be added if shareholders deem it necessary (slow and steady).

Quote from: pc on November 30, 2014, 12:20:01 PM
We've already discussed that idea.
Our goal is to position PTS as a no-dilution, no-inflation investment vehicle, so we have decided against it.

Tony had an interesting idea here -
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11576.0

I think we've got about 1,760,000 PTS minted now.

If we were to have 20,000 transaction processing subsidy (1%) in the first year, reducing by 50% each year . . . we'd have a maximum possible cap of 1,800,000 mil - you could still market it as no-dilution, no-inflation, on the basis that there is a total supply of 1.8 mil.

Really looking for a compromise with you guys on transaction processing subsidy - a lot of smart people have said it's not a good idea to get rid of it with no replacement. You'd also start to gain a reputation for pragmatic compromise, rather than ideological dogmatism.

Quote from: testz on November 30, 2014, 10:47:22 AM

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).

We've already discussed that idea.
Our goal is to position PTS as a no-dilution, no-inflation investment vehicle, so we have decided against it.

Quote from: FreeTrade on November 30, 2014, 08:55:37 AM

Quote from: alphaBar on November 30, 2014, 08:48:11 AM
The billion units was primarily to help in marketing. It gives us a nice round number to start with for supply (vs. 1,783,034) and it creates the perception of value (eg, feels better to tip 100PTS than 0.1PTS). Perception drives reality.

I agree this is an unnecessary and distracting change. Changing the number of units again feels like a new project, rather than an upgrade. Maybe a 1.8 mil hardcap, with the the last 40,000 set aside for transaction subsidies.

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).

Quote from: alphaBar on November 30, 2014, 05:56:30 AM

Quote from: toast on November 30, 2014, 05:46:04 AM
Just call it "protoshares". Calling it "bitshares-PTS" was an unfortunate necessity because I3 was a company that could get sued.

Yes, the branding is a bit of an awful mess but our intention is to address one issue at a time. The current focus is 100% on an upgrade to DPoS. Same coin, same name, same allocation, same exchanges, with only one simple upgrade.

The key to making this upgrade happen is to convince the exchanges to switch their current order books over to the new blockchain. Do you think that is possible or will people feel this is "stealing" their POW PTS? Will be interesting to see how exchanges and holders react

Quote from: FreeTrade on November 30, 2014, 08:55:37 AM

Quote from: alphaBar on November 30, 2014, 08:48:11 AM
The billion units was primarily to help in marketing. It gives us a nice round number to start with for supply (vs. 1,783,034) and it creates the perception of value (eg, feels better to tip 100PTS than 0.1PTS). Perception drives reality.

I agree this is an unnecessary and distracting change. Changing the number of units again feels like a new project, rather than an upgrade. Maybe a 1.8 mil hardcap, with the the last 40,000 set aside for transaction subsidies.

I think the community and exchanges are fairly accustomed to this by now. There is broad enough support that I don't think the scaling will be a problem, especially now that the PoW chain has almost ground to a complete halt.

I've already pledged that I will not support any pre-mine, dilution, or change to the snapshot allocation, so I think inflating for subsidies is a non-starter. One thing I will say is that with most things there are a million wrong ways to do it and a handful of right ways. For all the things that could be done better, I think the plan I've outlined reaches common ground among PTS holders on the most important points.

Quote from: FreeTrade on November 30, 2014, 08:55:37 AM

Quote from: alphaBar on November 30, 2014, 08:48:11 AM
The billion units was primarily to help in marketing. It gives us a nice round number to start with for supply (vs. 1,783,034) and it creates the perception of value (eg, feels better to tip 100PTS than 0.1PTS). Perception drives reality.

I agree this is an unnecessary and distracting change. Changing the number of units again feels like a new project, rather than an upgrade. Maybe a 1.8 mil hardcap, with the the last 40,000 set aside for transaction subsidies.

+5

Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 997D

Quote from: alphaBar on November 30, 2014, 08:48:11 AM
The billion units was primarily to help in marketing. It gives us a nice round number to start with for supply (vs. 1,783,034) and it creates the perception of value (eg, feels better to tip 100PTS than 0.1PTS). Perception drives reality.

I agree this is an unnecessary and distracting change. Changing the number of units again feels like a new project, rather than an upgrade. Maybe a 1.8 mil hardcap, with the the last 40,000 set aside for transaction subsidies.