Author Topic: [ANN] BitShares PTS Mandatory Upgrade & Snapshot Announcement  (Read 46447 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline fuzzy

Re: [ANN] BitShares PTS Mandatory Upgrade & Snapshot Announcement
« Reply #90 on: December 01, 2014, 06:03:38 am »
"What if they can't and then there are two "real" Bitcoin chains?"

Kind of like how we now are going to have 2 PTS chains? BitsharesPTS and (confusingly) another BitsharesPTS. Which one should benefit from social consensus sharedrops? What if I decide to come along and fork the new BitsharesPTS, would you expect me to change the name? Would I be entitled to announce that it's a mandatory upgrade? Would I be entitled to market it as the recipient of all future sharedrops?
Indeed, those are the questions I'm asking.

Is it the case that a crypto cannot change its consensus algorithm? Is Bitcoin doomed to PoW forever?

Sent from my Timex Sinclair.

Are you really asking the question or just lamenting the fact someone can't fork a crypto, change all the core features, change the developers and then announce arbitrarily that it's a mandatory upgrade? I think it's been stated over and over, even Bytemaster agrees, change the name UPFRONT not after the fact or convince everyone to burn the original PTS to launch the new one.

I think that bytemaster has only been clear in saying that bitshares should be taken out of the name.  Not PTS.  PTS is still a sharedrop token. 

This is interesting to me because to those thinking PTS is meant to die seem to only have been around for a very short period of time.  They have no idea what PTS was designed to do...just like AGS.  It is intended to be a sharedrop target for Invictus and then 3rd parties' tokens.  With the merger of mulitple DACs into the BitShares VoltronDAC, Invictus had announced they would no longer exist as an entitiy...so BTS giving one final snapshot to PTS/AGS and BTSX was meant to satisfy the social consensus honored by Invictus and make BTS' creation "fair" in the eyes of all. 

PTS and AGS were not meant to be retired---only retired by those working on BTS.  Thus, the constant expression of "We encourage 3rd parties to sharedrop on PTS/AGS". 

I agree there should be some way to destroy the old PTS though...but how?
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline slacking

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 47
    • View Profile
Re: [ANN] BitShares PTS Mandatory Upgrade & Snapshot Announcement
« Reply #91 on: December 01, 2014, 06:18:36 am »
"Upgrading PTS to DPOS has been planned for a long time, only nobody at I3 had the time to do it."
     If this was the intent of I3 then why did they very deliberately kill BitsharesPTS in order to merge it's value into BTS?

"From a purely technical perspective of course we're starting a new chain with a genesis block based on a snapshot from the old chain. There's really no other way to do it." 
     You want to start a new social consensus blockchain based on the Bitshares toolkit and airdrop on former PTS holders..that's it in a nutshell. That part I have no problem with. The problem is you state that future DAC's using the Bitshares toolkit are "invited" to honor your new social consensus but why would they? Because you have fraudulently called yourself the "new" BitsharesPTS. This looks like a copy and paste, pump and dump trading off a dead coin's brand and hijacked name...crypto coat-tail riding. And your response it "there's no other way to do it?".

"You can stay on the PoW chain and see where it leads. Most likely it won't lead anywhere but simply stop in its tracks."
     THAT WAS THE INTENTION. That was the whole purpose of merging PTS, AGS and all the others. So that there would be one place to snapshot for future DAC's wanting to honor the social consensus. BTS is what represents the Bitshares community not what you're doing. Your blockchain might have a use to some other crypto community but we are already united behind BTS.

It seems that you are not quite up to date regarding that merger. If you read the october newsletter you'll see that BTSX, DNS and VOTE were merged into BTS. It doesn't say anything about PTS and AGS being merged. I3 did not "kill PTS", and I don't think you know what their intention was - in fact BM and Stan have repeatedly said that PTS will continue to exist after the nov-5 snapshot.


Their intention was stated Oct. 19 in https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10148.0 but you repeatedly lobbied to take over PTS and they caved in for some reason.
(From Bytemaster post)

"My Proposal:

1) Drop all other BitShares brands.... rename BitShares X to just BitShares
2) End PTS...  BitShares will evolve to incorporate every possible feature that stakeholders vote on.
3) If there is a clone then it should start out with stakeholders it thinks are best... because BitShares holders are uniting.
4) Add stake holder approved dilution without limit to BitShares X.
5) Bring in all AGS holders and given them a stake in BitShares X that cannot be moved for 6 months... the ratio that this stake should be given should be equal to PTS market cap... so $5 million or 10% dilution of BTSX allocated to these individuals.    This is effectively BTSX buying out our competition. 
6) Bring in one last PTS snapshot also valued at $5 million for another 10% dilution of BTSX... 6 months until funds could be spent... buy out this competition and end PTS.
7) Our team will focus on no other DACs other than BitShares in general and work to make it the most robust and *FLEXIBLE* DAC out there.  "
« Last Edit: December 01, 2014, 06:20:47 am by slacking »

Offline fuzzy

Re: [ANN] BitShares PTS Mandatory Upgrade & Snapshot Announcement
« Reply #92 on: December 01, 2014, 06:48:07 am »
This is the problem.  I can go out right now and find a whole host of posts that prove this incorrect.  I don't have the time, so I'll simply say you can look them up. 
You have not bolded the most important statement here...it provides the context:
Quote
7) Our team will focus on no other DACs other than BitShares in general and work to make it the most robust and *FLEXIBLE* DAC out there.  "

PTS IS dead for all intents and purposes to the devs who work on the BitShares SuperDAC.  They worked for Invictus and now are no longer going to do so. 

For those who were not around from the beginning, it is hard to understand the context.  PTS was said from the very beginning to be a token that should be sharedropped on...thus creating more competition within the bitshares ecosystem as new chains would be developed.  PTS (and AGS) were vehicles to get a stake in numerous projects by honorable and ethical devs alike who wanted to bootstrap their projects with interested community members who were willing to purchase a simple token just to be able to have a diversified portfolio of cryptos based on the toolkit. 

AGS people funded the toolkit largely and I have a far larger stake in AGS than in PTS...so I have no clue why I would lobby for PTS to remain alive without the understanding of what it was originally envisioned to represent that most of us who have been here from the beginning have grown to understand it as. 

These are simply my opinions...They really do not matter.  Just like your opinion is largely not going to matter when it comes to the consensus.  Those who want to try to drive value into the chain are going to do so...whether or not you want them to is a moot point. 

I support it personally, because I like the idea of a world where their is a diffusion of power across many chains.  I also like the idea that for the first time in a long time, people can buy into a single token and never have to sell it to receive stake in new, potentially highly valuable projects.  PTS is a token I can buy my mom for christmas and say "just hold onto this and in 10 years redeem all the shares you have".  i don't have to explain bitAssets to her, or DNS, or Decentralized Voting. I just tell her "buy this and get a stake in many projects!"

It is honestly kind of needless to worry about anyway for BTS holders...anything PTS helps build will be a candidate for the main BTS chain to adopt (some will call this stealing in the future community discussions), thus driving more value into the primary chain.  I think all of this is silly talk--except for destroying the old chain, which I think is a must.  This holds true even if it requires setting back the launch date.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2014, 06:52:41 am by fuzzy »
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
    • View Profile
Re: [ANN] BitShares PTS Mandatory Upgrade & Snapshot Announcement
« Reply #93 on: December 01, 2014, 07:05:44 am »
For those of you who are not shareholders in PTS and wish to see PTS die, I think your negativity is misplaced. The fact remains that this is a hard fork upgrade with an exact 1:1 allocation in the new chain. Bytemaster, stan, testz, and a host of other individuals have expressed their support for both this upgrade and PTS' continued existence as a sharedrop instrument for 3rd party DACs.

It is disingenuous to present obsolete information such as proposals that Dan made in the past and try to frame it as though he is against this project. Dan is the original developer and he has expressed his explicit support and so has TestZ, the "custodian" of PTS, Stan, many of the largest stakeholders, and other core Bitshare devs. At the same time, a couple of things are abundantly clear:

(1) Dan and the other I3 devs are no longer custodians of PTS due to BTS being their primary focus going forward. This has been the case for some time now.

(2) We must perform the upgrade responsibly. To me, this means that the first item on the agenda after the upgrade will be a complete rebrand (including a name change). We cannot allow PTS to be confused with the flagship product of Bitshares which is and will continue to be BTS.

None of this discussion is unexpected, and I think we all know that any proposal will have its share of naysayers. It is my hope that those people will realize what Invictus and PTS shareholders already have - that there is a place in this world for PTS and that this badly needed upgrade is an overall net gain for the Bitshares ecosystem and community.

Offline FreeTrade

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 700
    • View Profile
Re: [ANN] BitShares PTS Mandatory Upgrade & Snapshot Announcement
« Reply #94 on: December 01, 2014, 07:18:33 am »
Agree - I regard with deep suspicion those who claim to be PTS shareholders, and just insist that we leave 'their' chain alone.

I don't agree with every detail of the upgrade, but it is necessary and I support it.   
“People should be more sophisticated? How are you gonna get that done?” - Jerry Seinfeld reply to Bill Maher

zerosum

  • Guest
Re: [ANN] BitShares PTS Mandatory Upgrade & Snapshot Announcement
« Reply #95 on: December 01, 2014, 07:19:44 am »
For those of you who are not shareholders in PTS and wish to see PTS die, I think your negativity is misplaced. The fact remains that this is a hard fork upgrade with an exact 1:1 allocation in the new chain. Bytemaster, stan, testz, and a host of other individuals have expressed their support for both this upgrade and PTS' continued existence as a sharedrop instrument for 3rd party DACs.

It is disingenuous to present obsolete information such as proposals that Dan made in the past and try to frame it as though he is against this project. Dan is the original developer and he has expressed his explicit support and so has TestZ, the "custodian" of PTS, Stan, many of the largest stakeholders, and other core Bitshare devs. At the same time, a couple of things are abundantly clear:

(1) Dan and the other I3 devs are no longer custodians of PTS due to BTS being their primary focus going forward. This has been the case for some time now.

(2) We must perform the upgrade responsibly. To me, this means that the first item on the agenda after the upgrade will be a complete rebrand (including a name change). We cannot allow PTS to be confused with the flagship product of Bitshares which is and will continue to be BTS.

None of this discussion is unexpected, and I think we all know that any proposal will have its share of naysayers. It is my hope that those people will realize what Invictus and PTS shareholders already have - that there is a place in this world for PTS and that this badly needed upgrade is an overall net gain for the Bitshares ecosystem and community.

The fact remains thatthis is a hard fork upgrade with an exact 1:1 allocation in the new chain.

If I were you, I would try to not present lies...a s hard facts.

But then aging, it is your modus operandi... why stop , I mean.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2014, 07:25:35 am by tonyk2 »

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
    • View Profile
Re: [ANN] BitShares PTS Mandatory Upgrade & Snapshot Announcement
« Reply #96 on: December 01, 2014, 07:40:10 am »
For the pedantics among us (and I count myself among them), I should clarify that when I say "exact 1:1 allocation in the new chain" I mean you will receive your exact proportion of stake in the upgraded chain with no change to the allocation, no premine, and no dilution. The supply will be scaled to 1Billion, but your percentage of stake will remain unchanged.

Offline Riverhead

Re: [ANN] BitShares PTS Mandatory Upgrade & Snapshot Announcement
« Reply #97 on: December 01, 2014, 12:51:53 pm »
This is a very interesting conversation because it strikes at the heart of what it means to fork. I suspect we'll be having it over and over in the years to come.

Let's say for example Dan decided to introduce a new feature in BTS that required DPoS to be abandoned in favor of his new uberer consensus model to end all consensus models. It would require a Fork. Does he have the right to do this? Would there then be two BTS chains where some delegates refused upgrade their client? The delegates that don't upgrade can't be voted out because the voting of those that upgraded is taking place on a different chain. So at that point who says which BTS is the real BTS?

In my humble opinion the free market answers the question.

Yes, there would be two BTS chains (just as now there are dozens of which all but a few are dormant) but the smart money would follow the core devs to the their new chain. The old chain would live on so long as delegates were signing blocks with the old client. Therefore, for the pedant, the expression "oh, you are on the wrong chain, that's why your transactions are not seen by anyone else" should actually be stated, "Oh, you are not on the same chain as the majority and therefore the majority can't see your transactions. Install this new client which references this new chain and all will be well".

A fork is just a 1:1 snapshot to a new chain that the new client version references instead of the old one. We can couch that using different words to make it look like a simple upgrade or a whole new coin. The mechanics are basically the same.

Offline pc

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1392
    • View Profile
    • Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko?
  • BitShares: cyrano
Re: [ANN] BitShares PTS Mandatory Upgrade & Snapshot Announcement
« Reply #98 on: December 01, 2014, 01:54:19 pm »

Let's say for example Dan decided to introduce a new feature in BTS that required DPoS to be abandoned in favor of his new uberer consensus model to end all consensus models. It would require a Fork. Does he have the right to do this? Would there then be two BTS chains where some delegates refused upgrade their client? The delegates that don't upgrade can't be voted out because the voting of those that upgraded is taking place on a different chain. So at that point who says which BTS is the real BTS?

Actually, in a DPOS chain this is decidable. A majority of shareholders could vote 101 delegates in who purposefully do not sign blocks. That would bring the old chain to a standstill.

This is different in a PoW chain. A single miner can keep the chain alive if he wants to.


In my humble opinion the free market answers the question.

Exactly. The market can even decide to keep *both* chains - I think that's what would happen in your BTC-to-DPOS example above.
Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko? ISBN 978-3-8442-6568-2 http://bitcoin.quisquis.de

Offline jckj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 238
    • View Profile
Re: [ANN] BitShares PTS Mandatory Upgrade & Snapshot Announcement
« Reply #99 on: December 01, 2014, 01:55:39 pm »
Great.

Offline Riverhead

Re: [ANN] BitShares PTS Mandatory Upgrade & Snapshot Announcement
« Reply #100 on: December 01, 2014, 03:15:52 pm »

Actually, in a DPOS chain this is decidable. A majority of shareholders could vote 101 delegates in who purposefully do not sign blocks. That would bring the old chain to a standstill.

This is different in a PoW chain. A single miner can keep the chain alive if he wants to.


Excellent point. I hadn't considered that.

Tuck Fheman

  • Guest
Re: [ANN] BitShares PTS Mandatory Upgrade & Snapshot Announcement
« Reply #101 on: December 01, 2014, 09:18:26 pm »
As each day passes, the more I embrace this ... except, I actually embraced this idea from the very beginning and it was why I bought into PTS pre-Feb. 

Since "The Post Heard 'Round The World" things have been very confusing around here. Personally, I'm glad to be able to get back to the original plan, especially since I now have more PTS than prior to TPHRTW at a fraction of the cost.

Thanks for doing this!

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
Re: [ANN] BitShares PTS Mandatory Upgrade & Snapshot Announcement
« Reply #102 on: December 01, 2014, 09:37:42 pm »

Let's say for example Dan decided to introduce a new feature in BTS that required DPoS to be abandoned in favor of his new uberer consensus model to end all consensus models. It would require a Fork. Does he have the right to do this? Would there then be two BTS chains where some delegates refused upgrade their client? The delegates that don't upgrade can't be voted out because the voting of those that upgraded is taking place on a different chain. So at that point who says which BTS is the real BTS?

Actually, in a DPOS chain this is decidable. A majority of shareholders could vote 101 delegates in who purposefully do not sign blocks. That would bring the old chain to a standstill.

Not exactly though. What would likely happen in that scenario is that the minority that did not vote for the top 101 (or even just 51 is enough) delegates that stopped producing blocks would take a snapshot of the stake and purge all stake that is voting for the non-block-producing delegates. Then the minority (who are now again a majority) would continue the old chain with a new set of delegates.

The only way to kill a blockchain is for its value in the open market to drop so low that virtually no one in the world cares about it anymore.

Offline Riverhead

Re: [ANN] BitShares PTS Mandatory Upgrade & Snapshot Announcement
« Reply #103 on: December 01, 2014, 09:45:21 pm »
Kind of sad. Blockchains don't die they just become irrelevant. Like an old sick dog no one wants to adopt :'(

Sent from my Timex Sinclair.


Offline pc

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1392
    • View Profile
    • Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko?
  • BitShares: cyrano
Re: [ANN] BitShares PTS Mandatory Upgrade & Snapshot Announcement
« Reply #104 on: December 01, 2014, 10:17:07 pm »
Actually, in a DPOS chain this is decidable. A majority of shareholders could vote 101 delegates in who purposefully do not sign blocks. That would bring the old chain to a standstill.

Not exactly though. What would likely happen in that scenario is that the minority that did not vote for the top 101 (or even just 51 is enough) delegates that stopped producing blocks would take a snapshot of the stake and purge all stake that is voting for the non-block-producing delegates. Then the minority (who are now again a majority) would continue the old chain with a new set of delegates.

Strictly speaking, that would be *another* hardfork. So then you have 3 chains, one dead and two competing for being "the real thing". :-)
Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko? ISBN 978-3-8442-6568-2 http://bitcoin.quisquis.de