Author Topic: You guys don't understand devshares.  (Read 36050 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cube

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1404
  • Bit by bit, we will get there!
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcube
..
The confusion here is that Stan said "that thread can not represent anything anymore , it's replaced by the newsletter" .
Any thing mentioned in that thread and not ended up in the newsletter is merely a draft and thus not official .

There is no confusion here.  Stan has clarified the misunderstanding and made his stand clear. 

I have said before - "There is a difference between 'not knowing the fact' and 'the fact is there but mentally denies the fact'". 
ID: bitcube
bitcube is a dedicated witness and committe member. Please vote for bitcube.

Offline gamey

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


Ok.  Thank you for a very nice summary.  I think having every fact listed out in order like that is a great way to actually figure out what people disagree with.  I at least understand why people are concerned.  +5%  I'll drop this subject and let you guys continue on after explaining my view.

PTS should be dropped as potential sharedrop receipient for any AGS/I3 funded DAC created in the future.  11/05 was the final and thats that.  I'm not sure what Stan was trying to do wherever he made these PTS statements, but I'd imagine he misspoke.  To me it has been fairly clear what the intention of BM is.  PTS is still his baby so he isn't going to go badmouth the project where people are trying to continue that vision, but on the other hand Dan needs to be clear that PTS will not be sharedropped to for any real product.  I can agree with that.

The third party PTS should be able to do what it wishes and I think bitsharestalk should welcome them. 
« Last Edit: December 26, 2014, 08:55:00 am by cn-members »
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile

This is absolutely wrong. 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 was somehow a modification of the social consensus (it wasn't).

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10608.0
You'll have to convince people to forget this first before accusing them being twisting the facts .

From your link:

Quote
PTS will continue to circulate and trade; however, without I3 planning any future snapshots its value will be based upon the speculative value of 3rd party DACs such as Music, Play, and others. 

Where is the confusion here?

Edit: confirming that even the 11/05 comment was a proposal, not final consensus
« Last Edit: December 26, 2014, 07:48:53 am by alphaBar »

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile
Thank you for that , just want to let the others know that those who thought 11.05 was the final snapshot for I3 related product are not crazy and suck at reading information at all .

The issue here is that I3 is not claiming this is not  a I3 product , instead they are claiming that those who thought 11.05 was the final were mistaken .

This is absolutely wrong. 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 was somehow a modification of the social consensus (it wasn't).

Edit: confirming that even the 11/05 comment was a proposal, not final consensus
« Last Edit: December 26, 2014, 07:49:12 am by alphaBar »

Offline muse-umum

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 717
  • BitShares everything
    • View Profile
I3 is not going to be sharedropping on PTS going forward.
You can't say this. Even I3 can't say this right at this moment. (oh, they can, at then Stan claims that the words they've said are not formal, if formal ones are needed, check the newsletter. Even he can also say the words on the newsletter are not formal, check with I3's lawyer to get the formal ones.  LOL)

Does this really seem to be in question to you guys?
Yes. It matters quite a lot. It's about trust. I will stop all of my investments on BTS once I figure out I can't trust the 'official' guys anymore.

Offline Riverhead

but maybe BTS forum should not support PTS  anymore, maybe admin can delete the post because it is unrelated topic?

If the people coding DevShares feel PTS holders are a valid sharedrop target to meet their end needs I say it is relevant. They can sharedrop to whomever they wish.

This isn't directed at alt but I find some amusement watching a subset of the community lobbying for the death of PTS. It is a test case, in a way, for when a group of people, say a forum or a government, decides a crypto needs to die. How this plays out will be foreshadowing on staying power of any crypto product.

Offline gamey

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

my question was that what was your understanding of 11.05 snapshot before today ?
That's a the first step to understand the mess . because now people are saying that 11.05 wasn't even final to begin with .

I think that 11.05 was the last official snapshot for I3 and all I3 products should use that. 

Although I support the new PTS, I think there were too many unknowns for some time for it to be adopted officially by I3 after all that occurred.

However I don't think it is important, because all DACs (Sparkle/new PTS) have been third-party which can do what they wish.

Thank you for that , just want to let the others know that those who thought 11.05 was the final snapshot for I3 related product are not crazy and suck at reading information at all .

The issue here is that I3 is not claiming this is not  a I3 product , instead they are claiming that those who thought 11.05 was the final were mistaken .

Well there is final from I3's standpoint... and final in a general sense.  I would like to know where it is said I3 will use future snapshots involving PTS.  I3 is not even using PTS/AGS anymore outside of making the mistake of sharedropping to a testnet of no value.

I haven't read all these arguments but I sat down to read some bitsharestalk and saw this stuff was still going .. just doesn't seem productive, but then maybe I still misunderstand something.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline alt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2821
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: baozi

my question was that what was your understanding of 11.05 snapshot before today ?
That's a the first step to understand the mess . because now people are saying that 11.05 wasn't even final to begin with .

I think that 11.05 was the last official snapshot for I3 and all I3 products should use that. 

Although I support the new PTS, I think there were too many unknowns for some time for it to be adopted officially by I3 after all that occurred.

However I don't think it is important, because all DACs (Sparkle/new PTS) have been third-party which can do what they wish.
yes, they can do this. they can fork many PTS if they like
but maybe BTS forum should not support PTS  anymore, maybe admin can delete the post because it is unrelated topic?

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
However PTS/AGS is a demographic which is likely significantly different from BTS and thus may have greater value as testers.

Wasn't that demographic already included in the merger?

I wonder why did we inflate 14% to get PTS and AGS in.

Yes but different proportions...  so yes and no.

If you are wondering about why, then there were numerous threads leading up to this explaining why.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline gamey

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

my question was that what was your understanding of 11.05 snapshot before today ?
That's a the first step to understand the mess . because now people are saying that 11.05 wasn't even final to begin with .

I think that 11.05 was the last official snapshot for I3 and all I3 products should use that. 

Although I support the new PTS, I think there were too many unknowns for some time for it to be adopted officially by I3 after all that occurred.

However I don't think it is important, because all DACs (Sparkle/new PTS) have been third-party which can do what they wish.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline alt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2821
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: baozi
I see the people here arguing with Stan are NOT asking for more DVS.

The messages they are trying to deliver are:
1.  PTS has been 'dead' since 11.05. This is the only snapshot date for PTS after then regarding the 'official' DACs like DevShares.
2.  Bytemaster said in one post that DevShares would respect 11.05 snapshot for PTS.
3.  Message 2 was widely spreaded around both English and Chinese community.
4.  Actually Stan/developers/3I (I don't know whom I should put here :'( ) failed to follow message 2.
5.  Stan didn't want to admit the fault and tried to defend himself by a reason which is not so reasonable and surely not accepted by them.

In a word, they hate someone always dance around the questions.

I, for one, think what they are trying to fight for is reasonable.
+5%
I don't care even if the sharedrop for DevShares is a fault.
I just want to know if PTS is still  support by this community or not

What do you mean support? and how do you define community?  All these arguments have these problems.  Sooo vague, but I am not sure how it can be any other way.

I3 is not going to be sharedropping on PTS going forward.  Does this really seem to be in question to you guys?  What support is ok and isn't?

If a developer asks a question who sharedropped to PTS in the forums, should anyone involved with I3 ignore the question?  If so, then I guess the developer should just go all crypto and hide their identity?  Should there be no PTS community forum on bitsharestalk?

edit - On a lighter note, I plan on killing this argument just by sheer will of arguing.  It won't be a first for me. :)
"support" means make it more valuable, include sharedrop to PTS holder, develop, marketing, etc..
I think it's not  suitable to use "community" here, so I just want ask Bytemaster, will you continue support PTS?
I don't want argument about this, I want to know the answer, and then I can decide what to do next.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2014, 06:58:15 am by alt »

sumantso

  • Guest
However PTS/AGS is a demographic which is likely significantly different from BTS and thus may have greater value as testers.

Wasn't that demographic already included in the merger?

I wonder why did we inflate 14% to get PTS and AGS in.

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile
I think Stan clarified his position on the merger very well. It is true that there were a variety of proposals and that one of them was the idea of a PTS/AGS "buyout". That proposal failed for a variety of reasons. It was clear to many of us that there is a place for PTS and AGS in the world along side BTS. Here is a quote from a post I made in BTT that explains my position on the relationship of BTS to PTS/AGS:

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 gamey

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

1、I don't think devshares have any value at all .
2、I can get more devshares from 12.14 snapshot because of what I3 returned .
3、Did you think 11.05 was the final snapshot date for all I3 related products before today ? Please answer directly .

!!! What is an I3 related product ? !!!  Something that was funded by AGS ?  If a core developer comes around a year from now and wants a new DAC is it an I3 related product?  Because I think such a dev can do whatever they wish to do in regards to sharedropping.

Regardless, I think that any future snapshots for products (not to be confused with testnets) will utilize BTS just like has been said.  I don't think there will be any such products because the funding will have been spent and all new DACs will be projects independent of I3 but not I3's code.

I hope that is direct, because it is as good as I can do.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
I see the people here arguing with Stan are NOT asking for more DVS.

The messages they are trying to deliver are:
1.  PTS has been 'dead' since 11.05. This is the only snapshot date for PTS after then regarding the 'official' DACs like DevShares.
2.  Bytemaster said in one post that DevShares would respect 11.05 snapshot for PTS.
3.  Message 2 was widely spreaded around both English and Chinese community.
4.  Actually Stan/developers/3I (I don't know whom I should put here :'( ) failed to follow message 2.
5.  Stan didn't want to admit the fault and tried to defend himself by a reason which is not so reasonable and surely not accepted by them.

In a word, they hate someone always dance around the questions.

I, for one, think what they are trying to fight for is reasonable.
+5%
I don't care even if the sharedrop for DevShares is a fault.
I just want to know if PTS is still  support by this community or not

What do you mean support? and how do you define community?  All these arguments have these problems.  Sooo vague, but I am not sure how it can be any other way.

I3 is not going to be sharedropping on PTS going forward.  Does this really seem to be in question to you guys?  What support is ok and isn't?

If a developer asks a question who sharedropped to PTS in the forums, should anyone involved with I3 ignore the question?  If so, then I guess the developer should just go all crypto and hide their identity?  Should there be no PTS community forum on bitsharestalk?

edit - On a lighter note, I plan on killing this argument just by sheer will of arguing.  It won't be a first for me. :)
« Last Edit: December 26, 2014, 06:37:41 am by gamey »
I speak for myself and only myself.