Author Topic: Final allocation offer - slightly changed proposal!  (Read 8134 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile


I've changed my mind to 50/50 PTS/AGS.  The reason being that if someone wants to sharedrop to BTS, then that option is there regardless.  So forcing BTS into GENESIS just makes developers have fewer options, even if it does seem more amicable approach.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani
I think this is a good idea. BTS isn't a great vehicle for the social consensus, but GNS could be. I'd say it should just be 50/50 AGS/PTS.

I am pretty sure emski suggested such asset even before the distribution was announced.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10161.0


emski has valid points, very interesting!

Offline Shentist

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1601
    • View Profile
    • metaexchange
  • BitShares: shentist
isnt bitasset any of the following ("market issued asset" or "user issued asset") ?
hmm ... for me a bitAsset always denoted market-issued asset .. but it seems I am wrong here .. thanks for the clarification ..

//edit: however, we are talking bitUSD .. bitGLD .. but BEER, FREE, LOVE ..


in this case i didn't meant bitAsset just user Asset i change the wording.
#
no it is correct :D i stated 2 different principles to issue assets.

sry, for my poor englisch.

Offline toast

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nikolai
I don't grasp the part about asset creation, though. For BitAssets it doesn't make any sense at all, IMO.
He is proposing a user-issued assets ... that's not a bitasset .. no shorts .. no feeds .. just a token to be traded freely ..
isnt bitasset any of the following ("market issued asset" or "user issued asset") ?

We've always used "bitasset" to mean market-pegged assets... But it's a terrible name for exactly this reason - it sounds like it could mean UIA
Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
isnt bitasset any of the following ("market issued asset" or "user issued asset") ?
hmm ... for me a bitAsset always denoted market-issued asset .. but it seems I am wrong here .. thanks for the clarification ..

//edit: however, we are talking bitUSD .. bitGLD .. but BEER, FREE, LOVE ..

Offline biophil

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 880
  • Professor of Computer Science
    • View Profile
    • My Academic Website
  • BitShares: biophil
I think this is a good idea. BTS isn't a great vehicle for the social consensus, but GNS could be. I'd say it should just be 50/50 AGS/PTS.

Yes! I will vote for this 100%.
Support our research efforts to improve BitAsset price-pegging! Vote for worker 1.14.204 "201907-uccs-research-project."

Offline Empirical1.1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile
I like the GNS idea (although I don't really see why BTSX should receive 20%). GNS would preserve liquidity of PTS for 3rd party DACs (the PTS blockchain will die because with the drop in value after nov-5 mining PTS is no longer economically viable).

I don't grasp the part about asset creation, though. For BitAssets it doesn't make any sense at all, IMO.

I don't mind an asset that exists 50/50 AGS & PTS on the BTS(X) blockchain that third parties can still honour, 20%+ if they value that demographic, but that asset shouldn't be entitled to any fees etc. or additional snapshot privileges imo.

Offline Brent.Allsop

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 242
    • View Profile
    • Canonizer.com
These all look like great ideas, intermixed with a bunch of stupid comments and bad ideas.  Do you expect me, or The bytemaster to waste lots of time trying to read and digest all that is being said here, intermixed with all the garbage and changes?

My point being, discussing things like this is a complete waste of time for everyone.  You don't believe you can change the Bytemasters POV, but if you build enough consensus, with enough well reasoned and unanimously agreed on arguments, all very concisely stated (not needing to read 1000 posts to get the state of the art of what you are talking about) you would have a far better chance of having influence on him and everyone else.

We've started a consensus building survey topic on this issue over at Canonizer.com:

http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/160

It would be much more efficient if people concisely describe your proposals, and create a new camp for them, and start building consensus for the ideas.  Getting something done, or convincing someone is not the problem; the only problem is building enough consensus.  Once you have anough consensus, you can do anything.  The first community that learns how to communicate concisely and quantitatively, and is best able to build a large consensus will win this crypto currency battle.

All the chaotic talk like this is just driving down the price of BTSX,, destroying consensus and fracturing the comunity.

« Last Edit: October 23, 2014, 07:23:46 pm by Brent.Allsop »

Offline pc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1530
    • View Profile
    • Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko?
  • BitShares: cyrano
Creation of new assets:

a) BitAssets

BitAssets should be created by vote and every holder of Genesis will be deducted with the needed GNS for creating a new bitAsset. Everyone has to pay, because it benefits the whole community.
   Or
If someone is willing to pay the fees, he can also create a bitAsset
Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko? ISBN 978-3-8442-6568-2 http://bitcoin.quisquis.de

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
I don't grasp the part about asset creation, though. For BitAssets it doesn't make any sense at all, IMO.
He is proposing a user-issued assets ... that's not a bitasset .. no shorts .. no feeds .. just a token to be traded freely ..
isnt bitasset any of the following ("market issued asset" or "user issued asset") ?

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
I don't grasp the part about asset creation, though. For BitAssets it doesn't make any sense at all, IMO.
He is proposing a user-issued assets ... that's not a bitasset .. no shorts .. no feeds .. just a token to be traded freely ..

Offline pc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1530
    • View Profile
    • Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko?
  • BitShares: cyrano
I like the GNS idea (although I don't really see why BTSX should receive 20%). GNS would preserve liquidity of PTS for 3rd party DACs (the PTS blockchain will die because with the drop in value after nov-5 mining PTS is no longer economically viable).

I don't grasp the part about asset creation, though. For BitAssets it doesn't make any sense at all, IMO.
Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko? ISBN 978-3-8442-6568-2 http://bitcoin.quisquis.de

Offline Shentist

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1601
    • View Profile
    • metaexchange
  • BitShares: shentist
I think this is a good idea. BTS isn't a great vehicle for the social consensus, but GNS could be. I'd say it should just be 50/50 AGS/PTS.

I am pretty sure emski suggested such asset even before the distribution was announced.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10161.0

good to see the link. was sure i read the name in some post. i just added the reverse allocation and the need to create new assets with GNS to your idea

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
I think this is a good idea. BTS isn't a great vehicle for the social consensus, but GNS could be. I'd say it should just be 50/50 AGS/PTS.

I am pretty sure emski suggested such asset even before the distribution was announced.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10161.0

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
I think this is a good idea. BTS isn't a great vehicle for the social consensus, but GNS could be. I'd say it should just be 50/50 AGS/PTS.

I am pretty sure emski suggested such asset even before the distribution was announced.
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.