PTS vs BTS Snappshotting

[cryptillionaire]

One thing that would immediately clear my mind regarding PTS, is whether or not the snapshot for BTS went through (that BTSX was diluted so that PTS and AGS could be merged in, alongside vote and DNS).

If the dilution did occur, then isn't is a bit unfair that PTS would then continue to exist?...

Can anyone answer this? Was PTS merged into BTSX alongside DNS and VOTE as planned last year? Or did the community decide to allow PTS to exist on its own?
If it has been, then there is no reason for PTS to exist anymore.

We really should put this into an FAQ...

The merger on nov-5 merged DNS, VOTE and BTSX into the new BTS super-DAC. Because now the superDAC exists, I3 will not release any additional DACs. That change of plan was seen as unfair to PTS/AGS holders (post feb-28), which is why PTS and AGS also received additional BTS in the "merger". The social consensus remains unchanged wrt 3rd party DACs. Both Stan and Dan have repeatedly stated that PTS will continue to exist after nov-5.

Right, so when BTSX was first created both PTS and AGS were sharedropped to.
Then when it merges, PTS and AGS holders get given more BTS - getting paid a second time.
Then PTS decides it wants to continue existing after that?
Why not join the BTS team?
Why not offer more funtionality as a DAC than just managing to get the bitshares toolkit running and hijacking the old marketing?

The social consensus I believe now applies to BTS, and the idea of sharedropping will spread to getting userbases from other cryptos outside of the bitshares toolkit crypto scene.

[jwiz168]

One thing that would immediately clear my mind regarding PTS, is whether or not the snapshot for BTS went through (that BTSX was diluted so that PTS and AGS could be merged in, alongside vote and DNS).

If the dilution did occur, then isn't is a bit unfair that PTS would then continue to exist?...

Can anyone answer this? Was PTS merged into BTSX alongside DNS and VOTE as planned last year? Or did the community decide to allow PTS to exist on its own?
If it has been, then there is no reason for PTS to exist anymore.

We really should put this into an FAQ...

The merger on nov-5 merged DNS, VOTE and BTSX into the new BTS super-DAC. Because now the superDAC exists, I3 will not release any additional DACs. That change of plan was seen as unfair to PTS/AGS holders (post feb-28), which is why PTS and AGS also received additional BTS in the "merger". The social consensus remains unchanged wrt 3rd party DACs. Both Stan and Dan have repeatedly stated that PTS will continue to exist after nov-5.

This is what we stand for . Let PTS do its job from a third party view. It is what PTS did, do , and will because of its framework . So as to AGS.

[pc]

One thing that would immediately clear my mind regarding PTS, is whether or not the snapshot for BTS went through (that BTSX was diluted so that PTS and AGS could be merged in, alongside vote and DNS).

If the dilution did occur, then isn't is a bit unfair that PTS would then continue to exist?...

Can anyone answer this? Was PTS merged into BTSX alongside DNS and VOTE as planned last year? Or did the community decide to allow PTS to exist on its own?
If it has been, then there is no reason for PTS to exist anymore.

We really should put this into an FAQ...

The merger on nov-5 merged DNS, VOTE and BTSX into the new BTS super-DAC. Because now the superDAC exists, I3 will not release any additional DACs. That change of plan was seen as unfair to PTS/AGS holders (post feb-28), which is why PTS and AGS also received additional BTS in the "merger". The social consensus remains unchanged wrt 3rd party DACs. Both Stan and Dan have repeatedly stated that PTS will continue to exist after nov-5.

[cryptillionaire]

One thing that would immediately clear my mind regarding PTS, is whether or not the snapshot for BTS went through (that BTSX was diluted so that PTS and AGS could be merged in, alongside vote and DNS).

If the dilution did occur, then isn't is a bit unfair that PTS would then continue to exist?...

Can anyone answer this? Was PTS merged into BTSX alongside DNS and VOTE as planned last year? Or did the community decide to allow PTS to exist on its own?
If it has been, then there is no reason for PTS to exist anymore.

[cryptillionaire]

On another note, regarding the issue of BTS being tied up in cryptoassets - if a new DAC was deciding to snapshot BTS, they'd announce the date and users would move their cryptoassets back to bts, which would help the peg and allow for liquidity for those wanting to buy bitassets..

Are there any further features planned for the new PTS? Because otherwise, it's just the bitshares toolkit up and running with no extra features attached (less than what other DACs offer).

[donkeypong]

Pts was the house that I3 buit.

PTS was scaffolding to build BitShares.

[cryptillionaire]

One thing that would immediately clear my mind regarding PTS, is whether or not the snapshot for BTS went through (that BTSX was diluted so that PTS and AGS could be merged in, alongside vote and DNS).

If the dilution did occur, then isn't is a bit unfair that PTS would then continue to exist?...

[Gentso1]

The argument seems to boil down to is PTS a new DAC?

If I take a house and gut it, replace and remodel everything is it new? Yes and no but mostly no.It does not have a new deed or address and some items below the surface of the home are not replaced because they are fine and in good working order. It does however have more value then a home of the same style and year that has not been rebuilt.

Here's my take:

Pts was the house that I3 buit.
It was a great grand old house but over the years I3 moved. In fact I3 stayed in the same neighborhood but to a bigger nicer home called BTS.
I3 has it's hands full building and maintaining BTS. So PTS was left vacant to rot and be a eye sore to the entire neighborhood, which we will call DPOS Heights.
AlphaBar moved in and started to work on this old ugly PTS house. Now its not quite as ugly . It can add value to the entire neighborhood.

Would it have been easier for BTS holders to accept this if they got something sure.
Does it make BTS more valuable because it helps to showcase DPOS possible.
Do I think it will be successful project, well that depends on how you measure success but short answer is no.
Do I wish them the best of luck, absolutely

[Stan]

The truth is that which approach is best varies with how each person weights the factors that go into in.

BM apparently weighs honoring the toolkit a bit higher.
Alphabar weighs keeping the distribution unchanged higher.

Both are noble considerations.

BM sees PTS as another chain that is borrowing toolkit technology to upgrade.
Alphabar sees himself as donating his time to help fix something for the community that was broken.

Both are valid perspectives.

All such decisions can be tipped one way or the other by adding just one more little fact or motivation.

That doesn't mean that either side is wrong or evil.  We all just weigh the various factors differently.

We need to realize that lots of arguing is not likely to change these weightings.  They go deep into each individual's personal beliefs.

Since we aren't likely to change those, we should try to accept the choice of the person who must decide.
Otherwise, we are just continuing to pollute our collective swimming pool with no further benefit.

Whether we grow or fade depends on how fresh and clean we keep the water in this swimming pool. 

[alphaBar]

Have the current DPOS-PTS devs stated that they intend to keep it deflationary?

If so that solves it for me. I would buy it for that property regardless of whether it establishes itself as a sharedrop target or not.

Yes, delegates are paid solely in transaction fees (0-100%). A 0% delegate would burn all transaction fees in blocks it produces, thus reducing the total supply. I would personally oppose any form of dilution in PTS, ever.

[sumantso]

You can' t say that and also refuse to sharedrop on AGS.

Goodness, just let it go. You don't sharedrop with every hard fork. Only future DACs are sharedropped. PTS is not a future DAC, it is one of two prongs in the social consensus. We've already performed another hard fork after the 12/14 upgrade - should we then sharedrop to AGS again? We are not tampering with the allocation, period.

Since you base the viability on Dan and Stan's views, here's one for you

I apriciate everyones concern and feedback, but please back off.  We all get the point and this discussion is interfering with actual productive R&D.   

If we are talking about principles here:

1) PTS should live on and be supported by who ever wants to buy in / share drop to it.
2) BTS should ask for a reasonable recognition (20% or less) share drop in future chains.
3) AGS is what it is. It is just another share drop target.   I personally thing PTS should have share dropped 10% on AGS for funding its upgrade and freeing it from mining.   
4) I don't want DVS to set any precedents.

[merockstar]

Have the current DPOS-PTS devs stated that they intend to keep it deflationary?

If so that solves it for me. I would buy it for that property regardless of whether it establishes itself as a sharedrop target or not.

[jwiz168]

Sounds like the rebirth of PTS is a bunch of fucking criminals trying to pull off a scam.
Jog on, PTS is dead.

I  think you just need to educate what PTS for . PTS evolves into DPOS , which in my opinion is a DAC. Definitely PTS is not dead . As an independent developer, any one of these talented programmers can use it to make a DAC and be able to honor the social contract.  It is the sole discretion of the developer to make the sharedropping scheme at his or her own will. That doesn't make him or her a criminal. He or she simply makes the most out of PTS and its DPOS technology. That, my friend, is technological innovation. Two or three years from now it will make a standard for business that is autonomous and decentralized.

You can' t say that and also refuse to sharedrop on AGS.

As I have said, just my opinion. It is a DAC technically because it has adapt DPOS but fundamentally otherwise the reason is it was just an upgrade from PoW version of it.

[alphaBar]

You can' t say that and also refuse to sharedrop on AGS.

Goodness, just let it go. You don't sharedrop with every hard fork. Only future DACs are sharedropped. PTS is not a future DAC, it is one of two prongs in the social consensus. We've already performed another hard fork after the 12/14 upgrade - should we then sharedrop to AGS again? We are not tampering with the allocation, period.

[sumantso]

Sounds like the rebirth of PTS is a bunch of fucking criminals trying to pull off a scam.
Jog on, PTS is dead.

I  think you just need to educate what PTS for . PTS evolves into DPOS , which in my opinion is a DAC. Definitely PTS is not dead . As an independent developer, any one of these talented programmers can use it to make a DAC and be able to honor the social contract.  It is the sole discretion of the developer to make the sharedropping scheme at his or her own will. That doesn't make him or her a criminal. He or she simply makes the most out of PTS and its DPOS technology. That, my friend, is technological innovation. Two or three years from now it will make a standard for business that is autonomous and decentralized.

You can' t say that and also refuse to sharedrop on AGS.