Author Topic: PTS - the insane gift that keeps on giving!  (Read 13866 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline toast

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nikolai
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 Ander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3506
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Ander
Re: PTS - the insane gift that keeps on giving!
« Reply #121 on: December 25, 2014, 08:15:13 pm »
We arent mad about this because of the value ofthe sharedrop.

We are mad because of the PRECEDENT it demonstrates, in regards to future sharedrops, which WILL have value.


This sharedrop should be 100% BTS, no fucking shares at all to PTS or AGS because we bought them out.

Any other allocation and I am upset.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline toast

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nikolai
Re: PTS - the insane gift that keeps on giving!
« Reply #122 on: December 26, 2014, 02:15:53 am »
We arent mad about this because of the value ofthe sharedrop.

We are mad because of the PRECEDENT it demonstrates, in regards to future sharedrops, which WILL have value.


This sharedrop should be 100% BTS, no fucking shares at all to PTS or AGS because we bought them out.

Any other allocation and I am upset.

Actually IIRC the purpose of the merger was to buy *BM* out, not AGS/PTS. Also, it seems like PLAY, RPC, etc are all deciding to honor AGS/PTS anyway despite what BM said.

What you're saying is that I3 *failed to kill the old social consensus*. How is that their fault?
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 donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile
Re: PTS - the insane gift that keeps on giving!
« Reply #123 on: December 26, 2014, 05:30:08 am »
We arent mad about this because of the value ofthe sharedrop.

We are mad because of the PRECEDENT it demonstrates, in regards to future sharedrops, which WILL have value.


This sharedrop should be 100% BTS, no fucking shares at all to PTS or AGS because we bought them out.

Any other allocation and I am upset.

Agreed. PTS and AGS were gone. It is a questionable precedent. After this one, let's all get together and hammer out a new social consensus. 

Offline NewMine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 552
    • View Profile
Re: PTS - the insane gift that keeps on giving!
« Reply #124 on: December 26, 2014, 06:47:23 am »
We arent mad about this because of the value ofthe sharedrop.

We are mad because of the PRECEDENT it demonstrates, in regards to future sharedrops, which WILL have value.


This sharedrop should be 100% BTS, no fucking shares at all to PTS or AGS because we bought them out.

Any other allocation and I am upset.

Actually IIRC the purpose of the merger was to buy *BM* out, not AGS/PTS. Also, it seems like PLAY, RPC, etc are all deciding to honor AGS/PTS anyway despite what BM said.

What you're saying is that I3 *failed to kill the old social consensus*. How is that their fault?

The bold is what has pissed me off more than anything and nobody mentions this:

BM basically held BTSX hostage. Apparently the shit load of money he/they raised through AGS and the money they have subsequently earned through BTSX wasn't enough to keep BM on board and see the project through. Satoshi gave 2 years before walking and he never took a fucking cent. So I suppose it was quite acceptable to believe we, the shareholders, would get a similar effort and output for the money they "donated".

I suspect that BM is friends with the VOTE guys from before BitShares was ever branded.  Either that or he was duped by another salesman a la Brian Page.  In the beginning VOTE was just another DAC that would develop on its own using what BM already developed, the BitShares Toolkit. VOTE chose their share allocation and were quite greedy in the amounts they would keep for themselves versus what PTS/AGS would get. No one really cared because VOTE really never had or has any real potential to be a monster DAC. Over beers one night BM was sold on all the shit FMV is doing and that they have their reach so far into California that the sky is the limit. With AGS funds gone, BM bought into their hype and decided he should be working for FMV's VOTE because they will pay him more in the future, and it's a guarantee that FMV can deliver California. BM struggling over whether or not he should pull a FreeTrade and jump ship and get a bigger future payday, or to continue working for the people who's funds he took and which have been all sucked dry, he came up with the hype that merging the two and diluting is the best scenario for all. No one seemed to question why it would be ok for him to abandon "His" (don't give me some DACsun bullshit either) project to make a better competitor?  That would be like Google hiring you to develop a program that could risk asses housing insurance through google maps and satellite and public databases then half way through the project you decide to take everything you were paid by Google to do, over to Microsoft and finish building. Now obviously in the real world their are non-compete and non-disclosure agreements, but we don't have that.  Remember: this is all speculation and I have no clue if it is true. I only suspect because we still have no real picture of what the killer monster DAC that only could be achieved through VOTE is or will be. We have also discovered that FMV doesn't answer questions and that FMV is a small fish that just leapt into a Pacific Ocean they thought was a backyard kiddie pool. FMV is a warm fuzzy good idea with no real world way to pierce through to the people and to the levels it needs to reach. The lack of feedback from their recent trip and the nonchalant attitude towards VoteCal (wasn't what was going on in CA part of the big hype for VOTE?) confirms this in my mind.

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile
Re: PTS - the insane gift that keeps on giving!
« Reply #125 on: December 26, 2014, 07:29:48 am »
Unbelievable amount of misinformation in this thread. Here are the facts:

* Stan explained clearly that PTS/AGS "buyout" was simply a proposal that was discussed and rejected.
* The reason that 11/05 was proposed to be the last "official" (non-3rd party) snapshot is because there will be no future "official" snapshots. Neither Dan or Stan ever argued that the social consensus would be arbitrarily mutated to make the 11/05 snapshot the perpetual sharedrop instrument in place of the live PTS chain. Devshares is not a production coin - it is a worthless testnet. It makes sense to use the live PTS chain in Devshares because the social consensus is and always was based on a liquid PTS. The fact remains that the last "official" snapshot will remain the one that took place on 11/05. Just an amazing twisting of facts to imply that this somehow affects 3rd party DACs or modifies the social consensus (it doesn't).

The even bigger problem here is a fundamental misunderstanding of the business case for "Sharedrop Theory." It is absolutely absurd to think that the bare-bones PTS chain is somehow a "threat" to BTS. It's like saying Lamborghini faces a threat from the Toyota Corolla. They are targeted to completely different functions and demographics. There will be many winners in this race. We, as a community, are better off having a horse in each race. PTS gives us a piece of all DPoS chains, even those who may directly or indirectly compete with BTS. They will exist regardless of whether or not we get a stake in them. And by the way, I have no problem with people who choose not to invest in PTS or do not see value in PTS. My problem is with those who are twisting Stan's words to create the illusion that I3 decided to kill PTS or to alter the social consensus. That is not a disagreement on value, it is a categorical lie.

Edit: correction per cube
« Last Edit: December 26, 2014, 07:47:41 am by alphaBar »

Offline cube

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1404
  • Bit by bit, we will get there!
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcube
Re: PTS - the insane gift that keeps on giving!
« Reply #126 on: December 26, 2014, 07:37:22 am »
..
* The reason that 11/05 was going to be the last "official" (non-3rd party) snapshot is because there will be no future "official" snapshots. Neither Dan or Stan ever
..

To be precise, and to avoid further miscommunication,

"The reason that 11/05 was suggested/proposed/drafted going to be .. snapshot ...".  I3 (or ex-I3) eventually decided to go with Dec-14  snapshot for Devshare.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2014, 07:39:54 am by cube »
ID: bitcube
bitcube is a dedicated witness and committe member. Please vote for bitcube.

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
Re: PTS - the insane gift that keeps on giving!
« Reply #127 on: December 26, 2014, 08:00:50 am »
We arent mad about this because of the value ofthe sharedrop.

We are mad because of the PRECEDENT it demonstrates, in regards to future sharedrops, which WILL have value.


This sharedrop should be 100% BTS, no fucking shares at all to PTS or AGS because we bought them out.

Any other allocation and I am upset.

Actually IIRC the purpose of the merger was to buy *BM* out, not AGS/PTS. Also, it seems like PLAY, RPC, etc are all deciding to honor AGS/PTS anyway despite what BM said.

What you're saying is that I3 *failed to kill the old social consensus*. How is that their fault?

The bold is what has pissed me off more than anything and nobody mentions this:

BM basically held BTSX hostage. Apparently the shit load of money he/they raised through AGS and the money they have subsequently earned through BTSX wasn't enough to keep BM on board and see the project through. Satoshi gave 2 years before walking and he never took a fucking cent. So I suppose it was quite acceptable to believe we, the shareholders, would get a similar effort and output for the money they "donated".

I suspect that BM is friends with the VOTE guys from before BitShares was ever branded.  Either that or he was duped by another salesman a la Brian Page.  In the beginning VOTE was just another DAC that would develop on its own using what BM already developed, the BitShares Toolkit. VOTE chose their share allocation and were quite greedy in the amounts they would keep for themselves versus what PTS/AGS would get. No one really cared because VOTE really never had or has any real potential to be a monster DAC. Over beers one night BM was sold on all the shit FMV is doing and that they have their reach so far into California that the sky is the limit. With AGS funds gone, BM bought into their hype and decided he should be working for FMV's VOTE because they will pay him more in the future, and it's a guarantee that FMV can deliver California. BM struggling over whether or not he should pull a FreeTrade and jump ship and get a bigger future payday, or to continue working for the people who's funds he took and which have been all sucked dry, he came up with the hype that merging the two and diluting is the best scenario for all. No one seemed to question why it would be ok for him to abandon "His" (don't give me some DACsun bullshit either) project to make a better competitor?  That would be like Google hiring you to develop a program that could risk asses housing insurance through google maps and satellite and public databases then half way through the project you decide to take everything you were paid by Google to do, over to Microsoft and finish building. Now obviously in the real world their are non-compete and non-disclosure agreements, but we don't have that.  Remember: this is all speculation and I have no clue if it is true. I only suspect because we still have no real picture of what the killer monster DAC that only could be achieved through VOTE is or will be. We have also discovered that FMV doesn't answer questions and that FMV is a small fish that just leapt into a Pacific Ocean they thought was a backyard kiddie pool. FMV is a warm fuzzy good idea with no real world way to pierce through to the people and to the levels it needs to reach. The lack of feedback from their recent trip and the nonchalant attitude towards VoteCal (wasn't what was going on in CA part of the big hype for VOTE?) confirms this in my mind.

You miss one key point.  Once BTS sharedrop was made, there were more donations made to AGS funds.  These funds were not given any of BTSX so they couldn't reasonably be spent on BTSX development.  So he couldn't just stick with BTSX like you claim and everything would be fair.  He *had* to do something.  He couldn't just go spend those AGS funds on BTSX, he had to find a new DAC with a new sharedrop or otherwise people who donated post Feb 28th would have been screwed.

I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile
Re: PTS - the insane gift that keeps on giving!
« Reply #128 on: December 26, 2014, 08:01:16 am »
..
* The reason that 11/05 was going to be the last "official" (non-3rd party) snapshot is because there will be no future "official" snapshots. Neither Dan or Stan ever
..

To be precise, and to avoid further miscommunication,

"The reason that 11/05 was suggested/proposed/drafted going to be .. snapshot ...".  I3 (or ex-I3) eventually decided to go with Dec-14  snapshot for Devshare.

Agreed:

* It is a misrepresentation of a proposal, not even the final consensus. In fact Stan and others have made it crystal clear, **repeatedly**, that the social consensus remains unchanged.
* This isn't even about a real sharedrop, it is about Devshares which is a worthless testnet.
* Worst of all, we're only hurting ourselves. PTS is not a competitor to Bitshares - it is an opportunity to own the entirety of the market for DPoS (including 3rd party DACs, competitors, etc). Just baffling that anyone would argue against this... My post from BTT on the matter:

Quote from: alphaBar
... BTSX is now rebranded as just 'Bitshares' (BTS) and Invictus (the "company" that created the Bitshares software) is now disbanded. The original core developers are still working hard on BTS, but are now employed by the blockchain rather than a centralized corporate entity (this was done for obvious reasons). The new Bitshares uses an inflationary protocol that enables delegates to be paid for supporting the network in ways other that just block production. This new funding model enables the currency to incentivize rapid development and innovation. So, we are left with both BTS and PTS. These two tokens are not direct competitors, and are rather symbiotic for at least the following reasons:

* Both tokens promote DPoS as the most secure, innovative, and efficient consensus algorithm in the world.
* BTSX was sharedropped 50% to PTS and thus represents a largely overlapping demographic.
* They use slightly different implementations of DPoS. BTS uses targeted inflation to raise funds for development/etc, while PTS is deflationary. In PTS, a delegate with a 100% pay rate receives 100% of the fees in the blocks that they produce. A 0% pay rate would simply burn those fees, thus reducing the supply and increasing the value of everyone else's shares.
* BTS is a true 'DAC' (distributed autonomous corporation), and is designed to rapidly evolve and to disrupt a variety of industries (DNS, Vote, Banking/Exchange, etc). BTS is the Ferrari of crypto-currencies and has cutting edge features found in no other coin.
* PTS is a stable 'currency-DAC' and sharedrop token. It is designed primarily to provide a stable unit of account with fair distribution, and to be a launching pad for feature-specific DACs (some of which may compete directly or indirectly with BTS). PTS is a reference implementation of DPoS and is the original and preferred sharedrop token. It cannot and will not compete with BTS on specific features or within specific industries. Rather, PTS is an investment in the protocol and the ecosystem of future BitShares DACs.

I think at this point most people realize that the crypto wars will not result in a single consolidated token used by every person and for every application. Rather, as Andreas puts it, there will likely be a few or a handful of tokens that take a majority of the marketshare. The rest will make up a long tail of tokens directed towards increasingly niche applications. If you believe this to be true, then it stands that both BTS and PTS can be enormously successful without competing directly for market share.


Offline James212

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 312
    • View Profile
Re: PTS - the insane gift that keeps on giving!
« Reply #129 on: December 26, 2014, 10:20:16 am »
Why would anyone want to purchase DevShares?

I answered this. It's to run tests, that's it. That's the stated function.

The people who will buy DVS to run tests will be BTS delegates, using diluted funds paid by BTS holders ONLY. Unless DVS is sharedropped only to BTS holders, it will have a secondary function as a wealth transfer from BTS owners to AGS/PTS owners for absolutely no logical reason. Even if the price ends up being vanishingly small it's an issue of respect that will stay with the community.

I'm pretty sure most in the Chinese community haven't realized DVS will have real value and be listed on exchanges yet. Once it's listed and gets a market cap, the amount of the involuntary donation from BTS to PTS/AGS will be observable as 66% of that market cap. I think it's a situation we should avoid if we want to ensure the community doesn't get even more disillusioned before we even have a chance to begin marketing.

 +5% +5%
BTS: theangelwaveproject

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
Re: PTS - the insane gift that keeps on giving!
« Reply #130 on: December 26, 2014, 10:25:02 am »

The people who will buy DVS to run tests will be BTS delegates, using diluted funds paid by BTS holders ONLY. Unless DVS is sharedropped only to BTS holders, it will have a secondary function as a wealth transfer from BTS owners to AGS/PTS owners for absolutely no logical reason. Even if the price ends up being vanishingly small it's an issue of respect that will stay with the community.



You would want to give to PTS/AGS because those who were around earlier tend to be more devoted and technically oriented.  It also allows the devs to likely have more DVS to play with for the intended purpose.  I don't know if any wealth is being transferred from BTS.  You didn't make that case IMO.  I don't think BTS market cap will be hurt in any sort of quantifiable way because a testnet exists.  So 'transfer' is the wrong word to me.

Even though the testnet might not have as much value in doing what it is supposed to do and I would likely not have as many DVS, I'd be happy for them to restart it and drop it straight to BTS so a certain uhh element would finally shut-up.

Toast as right.. easiest solution is to just give all of them to some person who distributes as they please... so the idea of no value is more direct and easier for people to grasp.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline James212

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 312
    • View Profile
Re: PTS - the insane gift that keeps on giving!
« Reply #131 on: December 26, 2014, 10:55:20 am »
We arent mad about this because of the value ofthe sharedrop.

We are mad because of the PRECEDENT it demonstrates, in regards to future sharedrops, which WILL have value.


This sharedrop should be 100% BTS, no fucking shares at all to PTS or AGS because we bought them out.

Any other allocation and I am upset.

Actually IIRC the purpose of the merger was to buy *BM* out, not AGS/PTS. Also, it seems like PLAY, RPC, etc are all deciding to honor AGS/PTS anyway despite what BM said.

What you're saying is that I3 *failed to kill the old social consensus*. How is that their fault?

I disagree. The purpose of the merger was two fold:
1)   to focus our project efforts by buying out DNS and Vote.
2) to streamline (and to make less confusing )  our business and market image by consolodatin the multiple investment vehicals for future BTS(X) products -(BTSX/AGS/PTS) into just one... BTS.  Therefore the share inflation that was used to pay AGS/PTS represented the present value of all future investment gains. This is how we liquidated our responsibility to the two original/ privaleged investment groups -(AGS/PTS).  As of 11/5 there is no more social consensus requirement to drop to AGS/PTS.  However the share inflation paid to PTS & AGS created a new social consensus to do 100% of future drops to BTS.
BTS: theangelwaveproject

Offline James212

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 312
    • View Profile
Re: PTS - the insane gift that keeps on giving!
« Reply #132 on: December 26, 2014, 11:00:39 am »
We arent mad about this because of the value ofthe sharedrop.

We are mad because of the PRECEDENT it demonstrates, in regards to future sharedrops, which WILL have value.


This sharedrop should be 100% BTS, no fucking shares at all to PTS or AGS because we bought them out.

Any other allocation and I am upset.

Agreed. PTS and AGS were gone. It is a questionable precedent. After this one, let's all get together and hammer out a new social consensus.

The social concensis is naturally derived and pretty obvious. After you pay off someone in the present for future value they would gained. you don't continue to pay gains to them going forward. 
« Last Edit: December 26, 2014, 02:36:18 pm by James212 »
BTS: theangelwaveproject

Offline slacking

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 47
    • View Profile
Re: PTS - the insane gift that keeps on giving!
« Reply #133 on: December 26, 2014, 12:11:20 pm »
We arent mad about this because of the value ofthe sharedrop.

We are mad because of the PRECEDENT it demonstrates, in regards to future sharedrops, which WILL have value.


This sharedrop should be 100% BTS, no fucking shares at all to PTS or AGS because we bought them out.

Any other allocation and I am upset.

Actually IIRC the purpose of the merger was to buy *BM* out, not AGS/PTS. Also, it seems like PLAY, RPC, etc are all deciding to honor AGS/PTS anyway despite what BM said.

What you're saying is that I3 *failed to kill the old social consensus*. How is that their fault?

I disagree. The purpose of the merger was two fold:
1)   to focus our project efforts by buying out DNS and Vote.
2) to streamline (and to make less confusing )  our business and market image by consolodatin the multiple investment vehicals for future BTS(X) products -(BTSX/AGS/PTS) into just one... BTS.  Therefore the share inflation that was used to pay AGS/PTS represented the present value of all future investment gains. This is how we liquidated our responsibility to the two original/ privaleged investment groups -(AGS/PTS).  As of 11/5 there is no more social consensus requirement to drop to AGS/PTS.  However the share inflation paid to PTS & AGS created a new social consensus to do 100% of future drops to BTS.


You nailed it! This is what most people thought. There also appears to be a disturbing trend of posting proposals, getting feedback and then declaring in a newsletter "there was no consensus" so we did something completely different. Should not the revision to an original proposal ALSO have appeared in the forum as a ***DRAFT*** for a second round of feedback before being finalized? Maybe all of this could have been avoided if this simple step had taken place? I agree on one point though, this has turned into a disaster right as 1.0 is due to be released....so sad.

Offline hpenvy2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: PTS - the insane gift that keeps on giving!
« Reply #134 on: December 28, 2014, 02:13:02 am »
Round and round we go. Would love to see each person make a proposal on how they would like to see it improved moving forward and move on to actually promoting BitShares. Love the passion, would have liked to see more of it when Gamey posted his taskforces.