We can't change precision of exchanges, so the only option is to change supply. There could be a hard fork that changes supply / maintains ratios without anybody having any effective difference (a lot like a reverse stock split).

Also, for the third time,

Quote from: fluxer555 on December 25, 2014, 03:52:47 AM
Why would anyone want to purchase DevShares?

Quote from: fluxer555 on December 25, 2014, 04:11:42 AM

Quote from: toast on December 25, 2014, 04:02:02 AM
It's dangerous and irresponsible for us to make people feel like their DVS is worth holding on to.

Quote from: fluxer555 on December 25, 2014, 03:52:47 AM
Why would anyone want to purchase DevShares?

It may be useful for DevShares to limit the total supply to something very low like 5000, to avoid facing the impossibility of trading at sub-satoshi levels.

What you're really saying is precision needs to be higher (we weren't close to the limit even at 2bn). Unfortunately we already launched, maybe we will need to reset or maybe there will just be a price floor at ~$10k market cap =P

Quote from: toast on December 25, 2014, 04:02:02 AM
It's dangerous and irresponsible for us to make people feel like their DVS is worth holding on to.

Quote from: fluxer555 on December 25, 2014, 03:52:47 AM
Why would anyone want to purchase DevShares?

It may be useful for DevShares to limit the total supply to something very low like 5000, to avoid facing the impossibility of trading at sub-satoshi levels.

Quote from: fluxer555 on December 25, 2014, 03:52:47 AM
Toast, for some reason I feel that your argument for 100% Dan allocation is rhetorical, as in you're trying to prove a point by saying that. I'm not sure what the point is, however. Obviously having a test net controlled by a single user is not useful.

On the whole, I'm disappointed with the direction that DevShares is being taken. Namely, the "no rules" premise behind DevShares amputates its value proposition, and is at odds with the intention for it to have a non-zero value. It will be an interesting experiment for sure. I think engineering a real backbone to its value should not be too difficult, but this does not seem to be the intention of any of the Devs besides theoritical.

I think a choice has to be made: Is DevShares a DAC, or is it a test-net?

Why would anyone want to purchase DevShares?

It is a testnet that trades a price greater than 0 which enables us to test bitasset markets. You would purchase DVS to make test transactions.

QuoteNamely, the "no rules" premise behind DevShares amputates its value proposition

Good!

Quoteand is at odds with the intention for it to have a non-zero value.

No it's not, the only requirement for this is that an exchange lists it and that there is more than 1 order on each side of the book.

My suggestion wasn't entirely rhetorical, it was a genuine conversation we had at the office. The point I'm making is that it's dangerous and irresponsible for us to make people feel like their DVS is worth holding on to.

I'm in awe that people care so much about DevShares.

It's there to test the new software before it gets unleashed to the public, right?

Anything other than a non-zero value is a bonus!

Why is there petty bickering over DVS allocation?

I very much agree with the things toast is saying on this matter.

Toast, for some reason I feel that your argument for 100% Dan allocation is rhetorical, as in you're trying to prove a point by saying that. I'm not sure what the point is, however. Obviously having a test net controlled by a single user is not useful.

On the whole, I'm disappointed with the direction that DevShares is being taken. Namely, the "no rules" premise behind DevShares amputates its value proposition, and is at odds with the intention for it to have a non-zero value. It will be an interesting experiment for sure. I think engineering a real backbone to its value should not be too difficult, but this does not seem to be the intention of any of the Devs besides theoritical.

I think a choice has to be made: Is DevShares a DAC, or is it a test-net?

Why would anyone want to purchase DevShares?

Quote from: sumantso on December 25, 2014, 02:59:58 AM

Quote from: toast on December 25, 2014, 02:12:32 AM

Quote from: nomoreheroes7 on December 25, 2014, 01:49:56 AM

Quote from: toast on December 25, 2014, 01:42:09 AM
...I don't care and I think it's stupid.

Great, so a core BTS dev thinks the concerns of its shareholders are stupid. Good to know.

I care about BTS, not about PTS. None of the core devs read discussions about PTS anymore, isn't that what you'd expect once are incentives are folded into BTS?

You don't care about PTS, yet you sharedropped 33% of DVS on alphabar PTS?

First of all, the snapshot was december 14th!  Alphabar PTS holders did not benefit! Nobody who held normal PTS but not alphabar PTS was left out. So this is a red herring.

Second, I've been advocating that we should make devshares 100% allocated to Dan so that people don't argue and have the opportunity to feel ripped off.

Quote from: toast on December 25, 2014, 02:12:32 AM

Quote from: nomoreheroes7 on December 25, 2014, 01:49:56 AM

Quote from: toast on December 25, 2014, 01:42:09 AM
...I don't care and I think it's stupid.

Great, so a core BTS dev thinks the concerns of its shareholders are stupid. Good to know.

I care about BTS, not about PTS. None of the core devs read discussions about PTS anymore, isn't that what you'd expect once are incentives are folded into BTS?

You don't care about PTS, yet you sharedropped 33% of DVS on alphabar PTS?

Quote from: nomoreheroes7 on December 25, 2014, 01:49:56 AM

Quote from: toast on December 25, 2014, 01:42:09 AM
...I don't care and I think it's stupid.

Great, so a core BTS dev thinks the concerns of its shareholders are stupid. Good to know.

I care about BTS, not about PTS. None of the core devs read discussions about PTS anymore, isn't that what you'd expect once are incentives are folded into BTS?

Quote from: nomoreheroes7 on December 25, 2014, 01:49:56 AM

Quote from: toast on December 25, 2014, 01:42:09 AM
...I don't care and I think it's stupid.

Great, so a core BTS dev thinks the concerns of its shareholders are stupid. Good to know.

manipulating info like this ..... can work on tv news.

bitshares ---- reimagine everything

but everything not fit on bts, need more space i think...

yeah caotic info flowing to forum, lot of changes , new unspectec dacs ,,,,,,,,,,,, is the famous pow (proofofwork), must keep in touch with bts to be updated to maximize your invest but if not you take shares equal, so...

im not from team work but i wish, so my words are only my sense.

and really if pts be used to make snapshots of other proyects (not only bts dacs or pts) and force them to give you shares , is this bad for pts stakeholders or bts ?... i think not.

and sparkles is comming.

i think bitsharesPTS need change name. i like perpetualshares cose can mantain pts

Quote from: toast on December 25, 2014, 01:42:09 AM
...I don't care and I think it's stupid.

Great, so a core BTS dev thinks the concerns of its shareholders are stupid. Good to know.

Quote from: jshow5555 on December 25, 2014, 01:06:50 AM
For all practical purposes those 'old' PTS are the same as the new alphabar's PTS, as this is the exact time of alphabar's PTS genesis block as well. Meaning it would have made now difference if you used their genesis block.

Exactly, so alphabar's PTS holder don't get anything extra. What snapshots have their been off of his version exclusively?


I didn't respond to the 6+ pages of argument because I don't care and I think it's stupid. My only request is that their team call it "protoshares" instead of "bitshares PTS".

Quote from: toast on December 25, 2014, 12:41:00 AM

Quote from: slacking on December 24, 2014, 10:36:21 PM
One of the worst things is that with Bitshares 1.0 release coming out, there will be a big marketing and advertising push for the first time. People will be searching for Bitshare related news and info and one of the thing that will be showing up is Bitshares PTS, a DAC that has nothing to do with Bitshares! They'll be getting free exposure by continuing to use fraudulently use the Bitshares name!

Stan makes the statement "The concept of merging PTS and AGS was brought up as a proposal for discussion but the idea of such a merger did not reach consensus.  The whole discussion lasted but a few days and the idea was abandoned, as many are after strongly opposing community input." so maybe he can show me where the community consented to having Alphabar...

1) Use the existing Bitshares PTS brand for a project of his own unrelated undertaking?
2) Claim the right to DAC (created from Bitshares toolkit no less) sharedrops from BTS?
3) Be GIVEN %33 DEVSHARES SHAREDROP, further legitimizing his claim of being the preferred sharedrop instrument for all future DAC's?

All of this leaves a very bad taste in my and many others mouths, the fact that the Chinese redacted it from the latest newsletter says that they fear their readers would not react well to it either. I wholeheartedly endorse any effort to start voting out delegates who don't switch to a %100 BTS sharedropped Devshares fork.

Actually the devshares sharedrop was computed from the old PTS.
We literally didn't even think about alphabar's PTS. So that's that. IDK if it should be "fixed"?

It is truly sad that after 6 pages of true and valid arguments you post to just to point a technical incorrectness.

For all practical purposes those 'old' PTS are the same as the new alphabar's PTS, as this is the exact time of alphabar's PTS genesis block as well. Meaning it would have made now difference if you used their genesis block.

Quote from: toast on December 25, 2014, 12:41:00 AM

Actually the devshares sharedrop was computed from the old PTS.
We literally didn't even think about alphabar's PTS. So that's that. IDK if it should be "fixed"?

As long as you used the Dec 14th snapshot, the two results should be identical at that time.