Author Topic: What's the difference between BTS and Nxt, with POS, no mining and AngelShares?  (Read 8549 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jorneyflair

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
And for what it's worth, I argued that 20% of the PTS mining reward should have gone to Invictus because it was silly to compete against miners when your companies ability to deliver was the only reason the token was valuable in the first place.  You could go as high as 50% I bet without people thinking its a scam premine sorta thing.  With a currency it's tough to argue that, but with PTS?  It's a no brainer. 

The only problem is, they didn't do that at first.  So now, they want to "fix their problem" by going 100% in the other direction, from giving 100% of it away to monopolizing 100% and keeping everything for themselves.

The solution is not binary, you do some of both.  The part you profit from goes to fund the project, the part that is "mined" goes to ensure wide distribution and variety of stakeholders.   You don't have to think about Mining just as computation, think about it as ANY quantifiable activity you want to reward that can see broad participation. 

Your obsession with comparing unlike things is not helping, Protoshares is fundamentally not apple stock and what some other commodity does does not impact the deal as laid out by Invictus.   They made the deal, and are now stuck with it because if they show me the deal is only as good as their promise, I prudently decide to invest my funds in projects that don't have such arbitrary standards for real money operations.   Crypto is rules based, so you've got to follow the fucking rules even when you don't want to because its not a choice.   If you opt into the system, you've opted into the rules.

exactly, you cant change the rules in a bet just cuz you are losing cash.   :D

Offline Lighthouse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 376
  • Making a Market in PTS since 11/06/2013
    • View Profile
    • Lighthouse Bulk Orders and Trusted Escrow (Closed)
And for what it's worth, I argued that 20% of the PTS mining reward should have gone to Invictus because it was silly to compete against miners when your companies ability to deliver was the only reason the token was valuable in the first place.  You could go as high as 50% I bet without people thinking its a scam premine sorta thing.  With a currency it's tough to argue that, but with PTS?  It's a no brainer. 

The only problem is, they didn't do that at first.  So now, they want to "fix their problem" by going 100% in the other direction, from giving 100% of it away to monopolizing 100% and keeping everything for themselves.

The solution is not binary, you do some of both.  The part you profit from goes to fund the project, the part that is "mined" goes to ensure wide distribution and variety of stakeholders.   You don't have to think about Mining just as computation, think about it as ANY quantifiable activity you want to reward that can see broad participation. 

Your obsession with comparing unlike things is not helping, Protoshares is fundamentally not apple stock and what some other commodity does does not impact the deal as laid out by Invictus.   They made the deal, and are now stuck with it because if they show me the deal is only as good as their promise, I prudently decide to invest my funds in projects that don't have such arbitrary standards for real money operations.   Crypto is rules based, so you've got to follow the fucking rules even when you don't want to because its not a choice.   If you opt into the system, you've opted into the rules.

Before you say the price of PTS is too high, take a look at theThe Reason.  Protoshares are an entirely new type of Cryptocurrency, one that pays to hold.

Offline Lighthouse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 376
  • Making a Market in PTS since 11/06/2013
    • View Profile
    • Lighthouse Bulk Orders and Trusted Escrow (Closed)
If the premise of Apple stock when it was sold to investors was "10% of our profit will be given to holders of Apple stock and 90% will be given to miners" than yes, I would have a problem with it.   It's all about what the deal is when the deal is struck, once that deal is struck it cannot be changed because any change whether good or bad demonstrates the only thing backing the value of the deal is the continued willingness of the company to honor it since it can be changed arbitrarily if they want to or feel like it's worthwhile.

I don't think Mining is free, but I think that it's being marketed as though it is much more possible for a normal user than it is in reality despite the fact that we know this to not be true.  If you don't believe me, look at literally the first thing pointed out on the officially sanctioned protoshares.net "Fair Mining".  I fought that when it was under development because it leads to unrealistic expectations.

You don't have to believe me, there are lots of crypto equities out there and will be many more in the weeks and months to come.  I am probably one of the largest holders of PTS, it would be odd for me to act against my own interest.

I hope you can find a way to see this through the eyes of someone other than yourself, because if you do you'll notice that taking away all the ways to get invested in Invictus's products, when the plan was for 90% of them to be distributed for non-monetary attention mechanisms, will result in the failure of Invictus's plans because the competition makes them look petty, upset about missing out on "all the money" and short sighted.

You are encouraging that behavior because you too would like to see the value of your personal holdings, already acquired under a much less rare paradigm than the one you wish to move to, increase beyond the multiplier you've already achieved.  As I mentioned, this is not surprising but it's also not very smart as you seek to shrink the pie, giving yourself a larger share at the expense of plentiful pie for those yet to discover it.  If all the pie is already owned and must be bought from people like you and me, the price is much higher than it would be through the process described.  That means less stakeholders can afford to get involved when they compare the opportunity to other available projects and that means the project is weaker for it.

And of course, since the whole ecosystem is open source you're really just encouraging someone to fork Bitshares when it's finished and sell the tokens at a flat affordable rate that doesn't honor the people who bought early because they are so in the minority compared to the possible number of users who would find the platform useful.

It's a new paradigm, attempts at capturing all value in the ecosystem mean people fork your project because they want to work on a version where they can capture some of the value too.  In that way, "leaving money on the table" means there is money for those not yet involved to see opportunity in picking up, leaving no money on the table encourages them to clone your table with all the money already on it and compete for your customers.

Do you get it yet?  And I acquired less than 0.1% of my PTS stake through mining.
« Last Edit: December 25, 2013, 08:20:09 pm by Lighthouse »
Before you say the price of PTS is too high, take a look at theThe Reason.  Protoshares are an entirely new type of Cryptocurrency, one that pays to hold.

Offline threepoint14

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Concern for existing holders at the expense of those who would be new holders is exactly the problem.  You like the fact that you're getting a better deal at the expense of somebody else?  Well that's shocking.   

Please understand it's not about you, you're already invested so I no longer care what you think as your financial stake is insured.  You already thought the deal was good enough to invest, so you did.

So you support the idea of debasing APPL stock or federal reserve notes via mining to offer a better deal for new holders? 

The market allocates all resources and anyone can get in at any time in a fair and voluntary manner.

Actually, I haven't invested much at all because I was waiting for something more sane than burning my capital via mining.  My investment will be far more productive if Invictus can use the money than if I burn it.

You also seem to be delusional if you think that mining is free, the cost of mining approaches the value of the coin earned and so it is only marginally profitable while the mining difficulty lags the change in value.   Ultimately mining doesn't enable people to get in much cheaper than buying in.   It just feels different. 

I find your lack of concern for existing holders to be on par with Obama wanting to spread the wealth from the rich to the poor.   To hell with the existing holders of wealth, what about everyone else who is too lazy to buy $5 worth of PTS or Angel Shares?     We should reward them for consuming $5 worth of electricity.   

Show me a case of someone who has the resources to mine more than 10 PTS per year but not the funds or ability to buy 10 PTS?    This would exclude anyone who buys a soda, cup of coffee, or pack of cigarettes a couple of times per week.       

I will grant you that a large number of people suffer from this delusion that wealth should be redistributed without contributing value in return in the name of fairness.   This doesn't make them right and if we all followed their demands then society would be destroyed as value is transferred from the producers of value to the consumers of value until we consumed all of the seed corn and starve. 

I suggest we start a charity pool and anyone that can convince someone on the board that they have the ability to mine 10 PTS per year but lack the ability to buy 10 PTS can simply be given 10 PTS on a voluntary basis.  Clearly they are in desperate need of charity.

Offline Lighthouse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 376
  • Making a Market in PTS since 11/06/2013
    • View Profile
    • Lighthouse Bulk Orders and Trusted Escrow (Closed)
We need a way to ensure distribution considering mining is no longer effective, many of the other solutions are too centralized to truly work effectively and investors in protoshares were people who were the early supporters.

I think Keyhotee IDs might be the solution here, except they should probably take like a day to mine  per year instead of an hour.
Before you say the price of PTS is too high, take a look at theThe Reason.  Protoshares are an entirely new type of Cryptocurrency, one that pays to hold.

Offline Pocket Sand

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
    • View Profile
We need a way to ensure distribution considering mining is no longer effective, many of the other solutions are too centralized to truly work effectively and investors in protoshares were people who were the early supporters.

Offline Lighthouse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 376
  • Making a Market in PTS since 11/06/2013
    • View Profile
    • Lighthouse Bulk Orders and Trusted Escrow (Closed)
Concern for existing holders at the expense of those who would be new holders is exactly the problem.  You like the fact that you're getting a better deal at the expense of somebody else?  Well that's shocking.   

Please understand it's not about you, you're already invested so I no longer care what you think as your financial stake is insured.  You already thought the deal was good enough to invest, so you did.
Before you say the price of PTS is too high, take a look at theThe Reason.  Protoshares are an entirely new type of Cryptocurrency, one that pays to hold.

Offline threepoint14

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
10% --> 50%? are you serious? I do NOT think the rule should ever been changed though i hold over 3,000 PTS .

P1.Rules are rules .  You cant issue an order in the morning and rescind it in the evening , how can i trust the PLAN in the near future?

P2." PTS holders will get 50% stake in BitShares, a 5x gain from existing Social Contract" and what about the new comer in the future , like a new  alternate cryptocurrency has been 50% premined? honestly i hate such coins if i were the new fish. :(

Merry christmas any way :D

I completely agree with this post and am really glad someone else recognizes that changing the deal even for the better is wrong because we signed on to a specific plan.  My expectation was that it would be 10% protoshares holders and 90% mined, the fact that 90% would be mined is actually a good thing.  Taking away mining removes a main avenue for non-monetary investment into the thing

I think people need to realize investment involves taking scarce economic resources and allocating them in a way that increases value.  By mining shares into existence you consume resources while transferring value from existing holders to yourself.   You may be better off so long as the value transferred to you is greater than the value you consumed, but I fail to see how the rest of society is better off having enriched you simply for consuming electricity.

If you want to invest into something then you should take the same resources you consumed and allocate them to someone who can make your investment grow.  This is real investment. 

Mining only makes sense to existing holders if it buys them decentralization in which case mining is the cost of doing business.  Mining pools prove that mining does not buy you decentralization and instead mining results in a kind of centralization that is very hard for the average user to overcome because the barriers to entry are so high.  Any attempt to clone a new coin would result in immediate takeover by the existing mining pools if they so desired so long as a technology it centralizes control in a way that is hard for new coins to escape from.   No one can release a sha256 coin without the ASIC miners owning it all.

There are many GPU and CPU coins that can be mined to earn crypto currency which can then be traded for BTS and Bitcoin.  Also you can still mine PTS so this is only a question about how to allocate BitShares after launch.

For everyone who thinks there must be a non-monetary means to invest in a currency, do you think it would make sense for the Federal Reserve to announce a new stimulus package where they will print new dollars for anyone who can find hashes on their computer?   Would this be good or bad for the economy?  If it would be bad for the dollar economy why would it be good for the BitShare economy?   What about providing a non-monetary means to invest in APPL?  Should Apple issue new shares to people who mine just so they have an opportunity to get involved?  Would this be more equitable? 

As far as I can tell the change described by bytemaster can be thought of as changing the BTS supply from 20 million to 4 million and replacing mining via consumption of resources to mining through reallocation of those same resources to the development of the BTS ecosystem.   In this case the PTS social contract is entirely unchanged.   The only thing that has been changing is BitShares which in turn does affect PTS price, but I think it is better for PTS for BitShares to have the best possible design and implementation.

I look forward to seeing the details so I can invest! 

Offline jorneyflair

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
It's the Mining and Trading( even including speculation)stuff makes PTS better than MSC or NXT, cuz it will be more acceptable and well-known by tons of ppl obviously. Technically, moving away mining removes a main avenue for non-monetary investment into it.

Anyway i wish BTS become a international settlement e-currency(cuz im a big PTS holder) :D

Offline Lighthouse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 376
  • Making a Market in PTS since 11/06/2013
    • View Profile
    • Lighthouse Bulk Orders and Trusted Escrow (Closed)
10% --> 50%? are you serious? I do NOT think the rule should ever been changed though i hold over 3,000 PTS .

P1.Rules are rules .  You cant issue an order in the morning and rescind it in the evening , how can i trust the PLAN in the near future?

P2." PTS holders will get 50% stake in BitShares, a 5x gain from existing Social Contract" and what about the new comer in the future , like a new  alternate cryptocurrency has been 50% premined? honestly i hate such coins if i were the new fish. :(

Merry christmas any way :D

I completely agree with this post and am really glad someone else recognizes that changing the deal even for the better is wrong because we signed on to a specific plan.  My expectation was that it would be 10% protoshares holders and 90% mined, the fact that 90% would be mined is actually a good thing.  Taking away mining removes a main avenue for non-monetary investment into the thing
Before you say the price of PTS is too high, take a look at theThe Reason.  Protoshares are an entirely new type of Cryptocurrency, one that pays to hold.

Offline que23

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 165
    • View Profile
This is great news! Merry Xmas everyone. Let's make history in 2014!
PTS: Pa75dEzGkMcnM85hRMbdKiS1YdF81rnSCF

Offline jorneyflair

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
10% --> 50%? are you serious? I do NOT think the rule should ever been changed though i hold over 3,000 PTS .

P1.Rules are rules .  You cant issue an order in the morning and rescind it in the evening , how can i trust the PLAN in the near future?

P2." PTS holders will get 50% stake in BitShares, a 5x gain from existing Social Contract" and what about the new comer in the future , like a new  alternate cryptocurrency has been 50% premined? honestly i hate such coins if i were the new fish. :(

Merry christmas any way :D
« Last Edit: December 25, 2013, 01:27:55 pm by jorneyflair »

Offline cass

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4311
  • /(┬.┬)\
    • View Profile
Why in the hell did you guys add NXT back?

Its a total scam with rigged exchange, i dare you to go to this exchange, so called exchange from which you are picking up the price feed for marketcap site : http://dgex.com/  then click around and honestly ask yourself if you would want anyone putting their btc there.

Fake volume, so I can start my own exchange and mod some shitcoin and just price it to what ever i want?
wow come on, this cant be tolerated. Coins which are not accepted at at least 2 exchanges or traded on exchange set up by coin creators for the sole purpose of trading just that one coin, cant be trusted with price discovery this is absurd.

 unknown amount held by creators & created out of thin air then sold for real bitcoins to naive people who believe it is worth 20+ million $ in first few weeks , common if this coin stays on longer more abominations will follow.

 Please do all the new traders in this community a favor help them avoid this nonsense at least until this garbage is priced by a proper price discovery mechanism of the real market, not single coin exchange setup by people behind the coin itself.


Thanks

 follow coinmarketcap discussion from bitcointalk :) we'll see
« Last Edit: December 25, 2013, 12:17:09 pm by cassiopaia »
█║▌║║█  - - -  The quieter you become, the more you are able to hear  - - -  █║▌║║█

Offline ebit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1866
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: ebit
telegram:ebit521
https://weibo.com/ebiter

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
The reason I buy PTS instead of Mastercoin, Datacoin, Namecoin, Nextcoin or any of the other coins that attempt to leverage the blockchain into non-currency decentralized products is that Invictus seems to have an actual assembled team with bios on their website and they are public and vocal in explaining their forthcoming technologies, both in forums and at Bitcoin conferences. They have a public "face" and aren't just slapping a website up with a few paragraphs about what they are, they have white papers, in-depth discussion on the forums, announcements of new hires for things like Director of Marketing. I was sad to see everybody shit on the angel shares idea so quick since I would love for Invictus to get a fresh infusion of cash to fund operations and hiring. They aren't the only players in the DAC area and it would be a shame if they failed due to funding issues.

According to Invictus official site, AngelShares is coming soon :D

And to stave off any panic I can tell you this much in advance:

1) PTS holders will get 50% stake in BitShares, a 5x gain from existing Social Contract
2) PTS holders would have been diluted by 50% through original planned BitShare mining in just 6 months, so PTS holders will come out ahead in percentage terms in just a few months.
2a) Angels are unlikely to sell in first few months, where as most miners would have been dumping supply on the market to cover electric costs.
3) PTS holders can potentially increase their stake by being Angels and funding us with PTS as 50% of AngelShares will be allocated to PTS Angels
4) AngelShares are not transferrable and are not a new blockchain, Invictus will not be issuing securities or taking that kind of legal risk.
5) We have a Christmas Gift for all Keyhotee Founders to throw in the mix.
6) If the market doesn't like the plan, then anyone can fork the code and see if a different allocation strategy can gain the network effect faster.
7) Receive your BitShares by simply importing your ProtoShares and Bitcoin wallets.

Needless to say we took to hart much of the complaints from the original ideas and expect the value of PTS to rise as a consequence of our revised plan.  Though we could be entirely wrong.

Merry Christmas to All!

Anything posted here is just a summary and is subject to change and various details to be documented in our official announcement sometime tomorrow. 

 

This looks very good and is encouraging news. Merry Christmas.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads