Funny how people who wants one bitUSD for all chains are opposed to one DAC proposition...
. So you want Bytemaster to work on one DAC you want one universal bitUSD or whatever bitAsset, But you don't like this proposition....
I'll summarize my understanding of the two options our community have. I may be wrong in my understanding, especially because we don't have much information on the one DAC technical proposition.
1.We have one DAC and all business model will be developed on this DAC(Vote and Play and maybe DNS) let's call this DAC : Bitshares
This same idea it is developed at a furious pace with lots of funding by a competitor I'm sure you all heard about them: Ethereum. So if you know how Ethereum works, well it the same idea with Bitshares.
So what would Bitshares advantages/disadvantages be I will only cover the most debated parts(but not the ags/pts part) :
- you'll have just one token bts instead of many tokens (vote,dns,play etc). (I may be wrong about that tough)
- you'll have one unique bitAsset, i.e. bitUSD will be used by all others businesses, So you go to play a game, you download the PLAY game wallet, bitUSD is integrated already you just use it.
The absolutely amazing part about that is all your bitAssets are issued in only one place. This I can't stress how important is this part.
AND this could be technically accomplished only under one Bitshare Dac proposition.
-you'll have one team working for Bitshare and so you'll have Bytemaster full attention dedicated in one place.
- Bitshares will be turing complete.
If(big if here) this could be done it would be an amazing achievement, and this should be the way to go. By the time Etherum will be finishing development, you'll already have a Turing complete platform with working applications on it.
The unknowns/disadvantages :
- Bytemaster always said that one chain to rule them all, it is not scalable. And that why Bitshare chose to take multiple chain DAC option.
Now I'm thinking this is a major change not only technical but also at philosophical approach level. So I'm thinking maybe somehow he found a way to technically solve the scalability issue, has he ?
- How long it will take to be achieved ?
-How it will affect BitshareX, DNS, PLAY ?
2. The other option we have is to not change nothing of course.
-every new chain will have its own unique token(i.e notes)
-no worry about scalability
- bitAssets will be issued in ALL DAC's that needs a stable bitAsset, not only in Bitshare X. Please understand, with this approach, this is the only way to do it. Could not be technically done any different. I.e you'll have bitUSDmusic, bitUSDdns bitUSDvote etc. The topic was discussed at length in the Vote tread.
So if I judge by the tread about the Voting DAC, most of you, don't like this approach at all. The problem is, for some reason, we understood and imagine that the bitUSD will only be issued in Bitsharex and every DAC will used it from there. This could not be done as it is now.
In my opinion BitshareX is still absolutely the best thing since Bitcoin but of course
one chain Bitshares could be even better. There was a proposition made by arhag :
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=8527.msg114390#msg114390 that will solve the multiple bitAssets issue and you still have different blockchains. But of course there are trade-offs.
I think the one chain approach has it own problem but the advantages are far more beneficial than the disadvantages.