You guys don't understand devshares.

[jshow5555]

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.

WOW!!!! - That is humongous nail in the alphaBar's coffin 

Ask somebody to lock this thread.
I will delete the other(as I started it)!

[bytemaster]

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. 

 

[btswildpig]

Some thoughts:

For those of us that are staunch BTS supporters there are a couple things about PTS to consider:

1) If I3 held donated PTS past Dec 31, 2014 it may be taxable income. The income would be valued at donation date. Recall that was about $15/share. Current prices are about $0.26/share. Do the math on that tax liability and all of a sudden them returning all PTS starts to make sense.

2) If PTS dies with I3, and the BTS "merger", the SEC may have case for PTS being a security.

So while you fight the anti-PTS war in support of BTS think about what's really going on and what a worse case scenario may look like.

As Stan often says, "Think bigger".

The SEC part is way off .... because DNS wasn't revived ..... Won't they afraid DNS would make a case for SEC ?

[btswildpig]

1. This is a free market .

2. Ergo , investors will leave those projects they don't feel right , it's not their job to think bigger for the dev team . It's the dev team's job to think bigger for them .

3. If investors leaved , the price of BTS will drop . If price of BTS drops , the delegate income won't be sufficient enough to even pay rent for the dev team . Ergo , dev team will leave to look for other job . Ergo , there will be no BTS project , at least not the one we hope will success .

4. Yes , this is a free market . But don't think for a second that we've seen the full power of a free market reaction . And please don't think for a second that all the high talent devs are gonna stick around for this project when the price drop 50% even 100% .

5. Free market will choose the winner , but it would be a total disappointment that if the winner wasn't us in the end . So instead of push everything on the free market , could you guys start acting like you care about the very survival of this very project (I don't mean the code , I don't mean the devs and BM's vision , I mean the BTS we paid for ) . It would be point less if BM's vision prevails and the winner wasn't the BTS that I bought and paid for . It would be even less possible to prevail if this kind of "free market" expectation keep going on .

[jshow5555]

Even better you then drop AlphaBar's PTS on PTS POW, to buy them out! Even better burn them, to buy them out!

Changing everything other than the abbreviation 'PTS', does not sound like 'the same' to me. Hope the less tolerant accept your reading of the law.

If BTC wanted to upgrade from POW to DPOS what should the process be?

I will do it like this:

For the balance on the new chain to be valid/credited 2 conditions must be met:
-Private key [import/proof of possession];
-Transaction sending the balance to the burn address[after snapshot date]

Burned balance is you balance on the new chain.

[Riverhead]

Even better you then drop AlphaBar's PTS on PTS POW, to buy them out! Even better burn them, to buy them out!

Changing everything other than the abbreviation 'PTS', does not sound like 'the same' to me. Hope the less tolerant accept your reading of the law.

If BTC wanted to upgrade from POW to DPOS what should the process be?

[jshow5555]

Some thoughts:

For those of us that are staunch BTS supporters there are a couple things about PTS to consider:

1) If I3 held donated PTS past Dec 31, 2014 it may be taxable income. The income would be valued at donation date. Recall that was about $15/share. Current prices are about $0.26/share. Do the math on that tax liability and all of a sudden them returning all PTS starts to make sense.

2) If PTS dies with I3, and the BTS "merger", the SEC may have case for PTS being a security.

So while you fight the anti-PTS war in support of BTS think about what's really going on and what a worse case scenario may look like.

As Stan often says, "Think bigger".

Well they did the right thing and returned them.

Continuing mining them (some of us indeed do so!!!) is how you help this issue.
Even better you then drop AlphaBar's PTS on PTS POW, to buy them out! Even better burn them, to buy them out!

Changing everything other than the abbreviation 'PTS', does not sound like 'the same' to me. Hope the less tolerant accept your reading of the law.

PS
But who cares 'I am just jshow and I have done nothing but whine' [quote Gamey]

[bytemaster]

Some thoughts:

For those of us that are staunch BTS supporters there are a couple things about PTS to consider:

1) If I3 held donated PTS past Dec 31, 2014 it may be taxable income. The income would be valued at donation date. Recall that was about $15/share. Current prices are about $0.26/share. Do the math on that tax liability and all of a sudden them returning all PTS starts to make sense.

2) If PTS dies with I3, and the BTS "merger", the SEC may have case for PTS being a security.

So while you fight the anti-PTS war in support of BTS think about what's really going on and what a worse case scenario may look like.

As Stan often says, "Think bigger".

[Riverhead]

Some thoughts:

For those of us that are staunch BTS supporters there are a couple things about PTS to consider:

1) If I3 held donated PTS past Dec 31, 2014 it may be taxable income. The income would be valued at donation date. Recall that was about $15/share. Current prices are about $0.26/share. Do the math on that tax liability and all of a sudden them returning all PTS starts to make sense.

2) If PTS dies with I3, and the BTS "merger", the SEC may have case for PTS being a security.

So while you fight the anti-PTS war in support of BTS think about what's really going on and what a worse case scenario may look like.

As Stan often says, "Think bigger".

[btswildpig]

People have mentioned that we didn't DISCUSS it with everyone and just acted.   That was mostly because we didn't want to DELAY our test network launch and we didn't WANT IT TO BE POLITICAL.  We just wanted a network out there and assumed it would be of low enough value that no one *SHOULD CARE*.    Bad assumptions apparently.   

Now we have a firestorm and have lost days of effort dealing with the fallout.   

I guess it is too much to ask for people to pick their battles.

There is no battle & expecting the human response to information stimuli to be different than it is, is too much to ask. I think 99/100 media guys could have told you a post 11/05 drop of BTS anything to PTS was negative at this stage. I don't think it's too much to ask to run something by 1 person the community thinks is decent at PR. Then there is no delay, no fallout, no drama. All of which are completely unnecessary.

on one hand , they want to be free from all the professional things that big companies do .

on the other hand , they want to attract big money and big investors like big companies do in order to grow .

It's a transition stage that they might not be ready . All the blow backs , just part of what shareholders would do in even a 5 million USD worth of  company in the real world , let alone a 40 million USD one . They want to earn the big bucks , they'll have to be equiped to earn it , do things they don't like in their bones .

Does Bitcoin have all of the professional things that big companies have?   
Big companies have professional things because they keep things behind closed doors.   We do almost everything in the open. 
A DAC must not depend upon any one individuals strengths or weaknesses.

Bitcoin has done all the basis a long time ago , they don't have active development , they don't have new allocation plans , they don't have one upgrade in a week  ......

My additional example :   Linux is under active development , however Linux is neither the share of a company nor a currency , so there is no room for bad PR .

You really want to compare to those which are nothing like BTS in the first place ? 
I'm telling you , like seriously , decentralization and open source are not the magic word for disregarding the public relations .

Openness does not has a conflict with discretion . You do spend several minutes to comb your hair before you go outside , right ? You can let people to know you and still be sensitive about something . There are only several hundred active forum members here , you can talk your way out of the jam this time , but what about next ? What about when user base turn in the millions ? You want millions of people serving you , or you serving the millions of people ?

Anyway , I have to wash and comb my hair now , because I'm not comfortable with even my messy hair after waking up out in the open  .  That , is the most professional PR people does everyday without knowing it , even a honest person would show you his modified,polished hair  . They even pay for a trillion dollar of industry to supply them with profession PR toolkit like shampoo . People even polish their personal image to get better PR .

[Stan]

"The Social Consensus is dead.  Long live the Social Consensus!"

The BitShares Social Consensus helped bootstrap this entire industry.  It was a learning experience.

As we have matured we have recognized that an even stronger way to achieve the same thing is to appeal to the self-interest of the DAC developer. (It is easier to catch flys with honey than vinegar, no?)

That's why we have been consistently developing BitShares Sharedrop Theory over the past year.   This describes the reason for dropping on a blockchain snapshot is because it serves as a targeted mailing list for people who fit a particular demographic.

This moves the responsibility onto the members of each demographic to advocate why they should get free shares rather than letting professional miners claim them by brute force and quickly resell them.

That should be an easy case to make against the professional mine and dumpers.  Now each group that wants a piece of a new developer's pie still needs to make the case for their demographic relative to other demographics.

Then its up to the developer to structure a deal that will attract the kind of supporters she thinks will make the new project a success.

This is what the Social Consensus has been evolving into, and now that complete decentralization has been achieved with BitShares, it is the only way it can work.  We cannot appeal to the authority of a central developer.  The free market is now completely in control.   

Stakeholders need to start thinking like cities competing to host the Olympics.

Developers will continue to study what sharedrop strategy works best.

Owners of potential sharedrop targets need to study what will make them the most preferred targets.

I'm pretty sure that, over time, developers will tend to prefer targets that
give them a big, wet, grateful, hassle-free PR kiss for their trouble.

Let the free market competition begin...   

[sumantso]

For those who are not invested, or who divested recently, it is not too late to diversify your portfolio by owning a little PTS.

No, thanks. Inspite of your repeated assertions of it being suited for 3rd party devs, I very much doubt any project would sharedrop on this when they know there are other groups who will get miffed at this decision. The sharedrop is an attempt to gain a community, not piss off potential investors.

[gamey]

[...] I had suggested trying to create a good sharedrop token using PTS, AGS, some BTS and even other projects like NXt, NEM etc. The idea was to pitch a sharedrop token to potential toolkit users which is widely distributed with an united community. Sadly, alphaBar and co looked at it as decreasing their profits and ignored it.

So let me get this straight. I spent countless hours of my own time and money to upgrade PTS for the benefit of all PTS stakeholders. I insist on no pre-mine, no development fund, no tampering with the allocation, and you have the nerve to accuse me of selfishness?? Working for free is now considered "selfish", what a world we live in...

And if leaving the allocation and the social consensus untouched was enough to ignite such a reaction, do you honestly think we would all be able to agree to some arbitrary hodge-podge allocation of random sharedrops to "Nxt, NEM etc." Not happening.

The good news for PTS holders is that we have a strong community of dedicated stakeholders, developers, and delegates along with a variety of features that make PTS ideally suited for sharedrop by 3rd party DACs:

* provably fair 100% PoW distribution, no pre-mine
* reference implementation of the BitShares Toolkit
* deflationary DPoS protocol
* a variety of DAC-friendly features in the works, including our new "wallet_import_by_signedmsg" command

For those who are not invested, or who divested recently, it is not too late to diversify your portfolio by owning a little PTS.

What has jshow done ?  Outside of whining?  I sure hope there is an answer to this.....

[alphaBar]

[...] I had suggested trying to create a good sharedrop token using PTS, AGS, some BTS and even other projects like NXt, NEM etc. The idea was to pitch a sharedrop token to potential toolkit users which is widely distributed with an united community. Sadly, alphaBar and co looked at it as decreasing their profits and ignored it.

So let me get this straight. I spent countless hours of my own time and money to upgrade PTS for the benefit of all PTS stakeholders. I insist on no pre-mine, no development fund, no tampering with the allocation, and you have the nerve to accuse me of selfishness?? Working for free is now considered "selfish", what a world we live in...

And if leaving the allocation and the social consensus untouched was enough to ignite such a reaction, do you honestly think we would all be able to agree to some arbitrary hodge-podge allocation of random sharedrops to "Nxt, NEM etc." Not happening.

The good news for PTS holders is that we have a strong community of dedicated stakeholders, developers, and delegates along with a variety of features that make PTS ideally suited for sharedrop by 3rd party DACs:

* provably fair 100% PoW distribution, no pre-mine
* reference implementation of the BitShares Toolkit
* deflationary DPoS protocol
* a variety of DAC-friendly features in the works, including our new "wallet_import_by_signedmsg" command

For those who are not invested, or who divested recently, it is not too late to diversify your portfolio by owning a little PTS.

[jshow5555]

Alphabar using the Bitshares name and I3 social consensus. This just seems wrong to most of us. What Alphabar seeks to create is a kind of universal sharedrop token for any future DAC and that seems like a completely new venture with it's philosophical roots in Sharedrop Theory and not in the old PTS social consensus. Yet he uses the Bitshares name, yet he uses the PTS name, yet he claims the right to market as the preferred sharedrop target for DAC's using the Bitshares Toolkit.

The fact that Devshares effectively "recognized" his claim has only further irked people that feel Bitshares developers are essentially encouraging Alphabar instead of promoting sharedrops to BTS. To be clear, I'm talking about sharedrops from future DAC's that use the Bitshares toolkit (important point).

It is my opinion that if Alphabar would change the name of his DAC and drop the references to being the preferred sharedrop token for DAC's using the Bitshares Toolkit, then all this would go away.

On the other hand if Bytemaster prefers to gift Alphabar the Bitshares name and preferred sharedrop status then that needs to be said as well. Then we can all move on.

Wow, another completely inaccurate characterization. What about Stan and Dan's repeated support of the PTS upgrade over the past weeks? what about TestZ (the custodian of PTS) supporting the upgrade? What about all of the exchanges and services supporting the upgrade? Did I manipulate all of these stakeholders into bending to my will? Absolutely comical that you would frame this as though it was a lone venture. This was a consensus among PTS shareholders, nothing else. Why alphaBar and not TestZ or Stan or Dan or Bter or Poloniex or Coinmarketcap or etc, etc, etc?? You cannot create a story around your own facts, sorry.

And where is this "completely new venture" you speak of? Literally nothing has changed about PTS except the consensus algorithm (and even that was out of pure necessity due to a dying PoW chain). Name one thing, except the DPoS upgrade, that has changed. Did we alter the allocation? No. Did we modify the social consensus? No. Did we change the name? No. Where is this "new venture" that you speak of? The only new venture I see is the attempt that is being made here to twist Dan and Stans prior statements (in one of many early proposals) to make it appear as though it was their position that PTS should die. And no matter how many times they correct this, in this very thread, people continue to promote it as though it is fact. Let me state this for the record again:

* The merger was not intended to kill or absorb PTS. This was confirmed repeatedly by both Stan and Dan.
* Stan and Dan are no longer the official custodians of PTS. They have expressed support for the project, but are not responsible for its continued development.
* The social consensus was not modified by the merger. Even if a DAC intended to create a new or different social consensus, as Dan stated in the Mumble session this morning, the core feature-independent DPoS protocol was funded and supported almost entirely by PTS and AGS investors so it would make sense to sharedrop to that demographic and not BTS. Ultimately, developers will do as they please, but there is a compelling argument to continue the role of PTS and AGS as sharedrop instruments going forward.

The only thing that changed is the social consensus, and it did so no matter of your 7 posts stating otherwise!

PTS had the social consensus in its license, your PTS and BTS for that matter does not.
Simple as that.
So, in short EVERYTHING changed.


Well one thing did not - you alphaBar posting 7 unrelated post in a thread, stating lies and building his 'The DAC that will kill BTS'.

BTW, here is another lie, if repeating the one above 7 times was not enough, you said that people think/state that 'your PTS are a threat to BTS'. Nobody has said that anywhere - well nobody except you in the past.