Proposal to Resolve a Million Issues at Once

[vegolino]

I thought that would necessarily be the case anyway.
I wonder it would not be practical for DNS = NOTE = VOTE = BTSX. Those others are assets within BTS.

The risk is simply having those on one chain.. one bug could rue them all.
Then the other issue is putting PTS/AGS into BTS or put that separate.

There is risk that one bug could rue them all, but don't forget if all developers are together than it is easier to fix the bug rather than if they are separate.

[Musewhale]

I think if we were to make one BTS(BTSX) rule the others (DNS, MUSIC,VOTE..), they could be listed as assets on BTSX chain.

For example, asset Note is created with cap 1.5 billion, and the allocations are exactly the same as the ones cob is implementing. In other words, if AGS/PTS can get at least 10% each, then we are not breaking the social consensus. And no need to dilute BTSX.

good idea.

It must be so

The existing order should not be broken

Not disturb the economic interests, increase the function of BTSX is feasible

I wish merely from the technical to the product line of reform

Before don't destroy the consensus of all investment

[davidpbrown]

I thought that would necessarily be the case anyway.
I wonder it would not be practical for DNS = NOTE = VOTE = BTSX. Those others are assets within BTS.

The risk is simply having those on one chain.. one bug could rue them all.
Then the other issue is putting PTS/AGS into BTS or put that separate.

[helloworld]

I think if we were to make one BTS(BTSX) rule the others (DNS, MUSIC,VOTE..), they could be listed as assets on BTSX chain.

For example, asset Note is created with cap 1.5 billion, and the allocations are exactly the same as the ones cob is implementing. In other words, if AGS/PTS can get at least 10% each, then we are not breaking the social consensus. And no need to dilute BTSX.

good idea.

Very good idea.

I agree too

 

edit: do you wanted to say 35% in case of music and not 10% ?

 

[betax]

I think if we were to make one BTS(BTSX) rule the others (DNS, MUSIC,VOTE..), they could be listed as assets on BTSX chain.

For example, asset Note is created with cap 1.5 billion, and the allocations are exactly the same as the ones cob is implementing. In other words, if AGS/PTS can get at least 10% each, then we are not breaking the social consensus. And no need to dilute BTSX.

good idea.

Very good idea.

I agree too

 

edit: do you wanted to say 35% in case of music and not 10% ?

 

[liondani]

I think if we were to make one BTS(BTSX) rule the others (DNS, MUSIC,VOTE..), they could be listed as assets on BTSX chain.

For example, asset Note is created with cap 1.5 billion, and the allocations are exactly the same as the ones cob is implementing. In other words, if AGS/PTS can get at least 10% each, then we are not breaking the social consensus. And no need to dilute BTSX.

good idea.

Very good idea.

I agree too

 

edit: do you wanted to say 35% in case of music and not 10% ?

[Overthetop]

We are talking too much , we need conclusions...

The community is wondering...

 

[hpenvy]

I think if we were to make one BTS(BTSX) rule the others (DNS, MUSIC,VOTE..), they could be listed as assets on BTSX chain.

For example, asset Note is created with cap 1.5 billion, and the allocations are exactly the same as the ones cob is implementing. In other words, if AGS/PTS can get at least 10% each, then we are not breaking the social consensus. And no need to dilute BTSX.

good idea.

Yeah, interesting approach.

Very good idea.

[Method-X]

I think if we were to make one BTS(BTSX) rule the others (DNS, MUSIC,VOTE..), they could be listed as assets on BTSX chain.

For example, asset Note is created with cap 1.5 billion, and the allocations are exactly the same as the ones cob is implementing. In other words, if AGS/PTS can get at least 10% each, then we are not breaking the social consensus. And no need to dilute BTSX.

good idea.

Very good idea.

[HackFisher]

I think if we were to make one BTS(BTSX) rule the others (DNS, MUSIC,VOTE..), they could be listed as assets on BTSX chain.

For example, asset Note is created with cap 1.5 billion, and the allocations are exactly the same as the ones cob is implementing. In other words, if AGS/PTS can get at least 10% each, then we are not breaking the social consensus. And no need to dilute BTSX.

good idea.

[clayop]

Has toast stopped the development of Keyid？If so and no other team will continue the work, keyid is going to die?

DNS / keyID invested value will be preserved

Does this imply that DNS will be merged into BTS?

[HackFisher]

I have a counterproposal: fork all of the other DACs (except AGS) and create a system for "merge mining" them with BTSX. This way they stay on their own blockchains but use the single set of delegates from BTSX. We'd have to resolve the burn rate issued and they can be given the option to vote away from merged mining at any time. This solution keeps the allocations and blockchains the same (no complaints from anyone about "fairness") but consolidates delegates.

Is it even possible to "merge mine" a DPOS blockchain?

Yes, it is possible, though different than merged mining in the PoW sense. One potential solution for determining burn rate is to allow each user to vote for the following options:

1) merged mining with BTSX with a preferred burn rate
2) non-merged mining (regular voting for delegates)

The system then takes the preferred burn rates of ALL merged mining votes and calculates an average burn rate, which is paid to all BTSX delegates who choose to merge mine the DAC. It is true that bandwidth constraints would limit each delegate to merge mining a limited number of DACs, but that will sustain the Bitshares ecosystem until separate chains are justified (we will probably not have more than a handful viable DACs for near term).

I have always wondered if it would be possible to potentially have one delegate that effectively works for multiple chains at once--this would cost substantially less and significantly increase the value proposition for delegates...

From my understanding, the reason sidechains don't really work for Bitcoin is that the PoW sidechains can still be attacked by the biggest chain. So it's not an ideal solution. Sidechains would work much better for DPOS.

My understanding is that, for DPOS, they also need to share common interest too.

[amencon]

Xeroc can you explain to me why a couple weeks ago the company line was that some secret marketing plus a bitUSD debit card was poised to rocket BTSX above all our wildest expectations, but now all of a sudden the chains need to be consolidated in order to "stand on it's own"?

Were they wrong before or is it bullshit now?

I don't mean to sound combative, I respect you, your opinion and all you've done for this venture thus far.  It is a genuine question.

Thanks buddy.

AFAIK the 'big marketing' push will still be solely for BTSX ... and thus far nothing changed ...

however, it seems that the features of VOTE are superior to the features of BTSX in such a way that the market cap of VOTE could rise faster and higher then the cap of BTSX ... which is pure speculation .. so far almost nothing is known about VOTE (except that it might be turing complete)

people went crazy because of the uncertainty .. imho

anyway .. with the most recent changes .. all of the above is obsolete (in my post)

That's how I read the situation as well.  If the prospects for BTSX didn't change, and BTSX was on the verge of being hugely successful then you can't really state that the chains need to merge in order to survive the marketplace, unless something changed or the original hugely positive "secret" statements were false.

Anyway I guess we are all moving on.  Hopefully this new course achieves it's stated goals better than the last one did.

[toast]

Has toast stopped the development of Keyid？If so and no other team will continue the work, keyid is going to die?

DNS / keyID invested value will be preserved

[sfinder]

Bm, Our delegate team support you fully. Although there maybe a big lost on the value of my btsx but merge all 3 products together is the way to go  for our future objective