Author Topic: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [CLOSED]  (Read 18289 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline earthbound

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 120
    • View Profile
    • earthbound.io
Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
« Reply #90 on: January 19, 2014, 01:23:59 am »
I think there is no need for a dispute between earthbound and barwizi when it comes to the intentions of the license.

1) Those the believe in copyright must abide by the SCSL or they cannot use our code.  The SCSL allows them to do ANYTHING but release a DAC that doesn't allocate shares to AGS and PTS holders.  This is a 0 restriction license other than the allocation.

2) Those that do not believe in copyright can do what ever they want including completely ignoring the AGS and PTS allocation.

In any case, it's become very apparent to me that many-a-programmer will willfully ignore the wishes of others, besides (onlookers: see my aside in my last sentence of this post: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=2313.msg27945#msg27945 )

As for expecting that such willful ignorance will probably take place (if I read you correctly, and if I also missed before that this is your expectation), well, that may be rather novel, and I like it :)
I think I'm not alone when I say I'd like to see more and more planets fall under the ruthless dominion of our solar system. -Jack Handey

Offline earthbound

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 120
    • View Profile
    • earthbound.io
Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
« Reply #91 on: January 19, 2014, 02:09:40 am »
Quote
The actual code is Invictus, by third party we mean to say that they are bot being financed or supported via AGS.

Dan, can we get some clarification on this point?

Quote
your licensing and restrictions you chose to not to separate commons and non-commons use of the product ergo you left out the key parts where we restrict those who subscribe to IP and wish to use the product without honouring the SCSL

I understand the philosophical argument here about believing and not believing in IP; however, in reality, this is almost impossible to enforce.  How do you know what I believe and don't believe? Even then, what if my belief changes? At the end of the day, a DAC that doesn't honor the SCSL doesn't get the license to use and modify the code.  At that point, you have a community of PTS and AGS holders that can be very vocal about DACs that steal the code and don't honor the consensus.

It's very possible I misunderstand (it's been known to happen ;)) so I will write all of the following under the assumption that I do misunderstand. Which, actually, may be the assumption y'all would want to make, also, because if I misunderstand it in the following way, maybe this illuminates a risk that others misunderstand it in this way, also.

So, again, please assume that I misunderstand, and consider: for me, discussion in a legal document of questions about the status quo of law, and whether any given set of beliefs supports that status quo or not--this rings loud alarm bells of anarchism (which, after all, is quite frowned upon, oh, say . . . in courts of law. Yes, I realize how ironic it is for me to say this, in light of the fact that others have cited my writing in this thread as sounding deeply anarchist). For me, it shouts: "Anarchy! Anarchy! We may have qualms with the entire status quo conception of law--so that we might not uphold the law!" Yoink! How scary might a license document be (and how untenable and unenforceable) if it bears any potential shades of lawlessness in it?

To further play out this "what if?" -- if any court of public opinion forms around the license (and against it) which derive from any misunderstandings similar to mine, that may run the risk of making other substantial (and potentially enforceable) questions about the document harder to ask. I fear it would undermine the credibility of the whole document in any setting wherein it may eventually become desirable to wield said document as real, verifiable, and powerful legal weaponry. I suggest we want to lend every possible strength of precedent, credibility and enforceability which it is possible to lend to the document--and I therefore propose omitting any philosophical discussions (from the document) about who believes what about law. I suggest it may be most desirable to couch all the language and assumptions in the most strictly lawful (and perhaps even conservative businessman-type) language that it can afford (obviously, while avoiding undue complexity and also lending it as much immediate clarity and enforceability as possible).

The following may be an aside, but as possibly supporting case precedent: I've read about folks who refused to register for Social Security Numbers under the auspices that their religious beliefs forbid them to do so. I'm sorry to say this is only anecdotal (and I wager some here might more easily find the references than I, or know more of what I speak), but my recollection is that it didn't hold up in the end . . . I think they were compelled to obtain SSNs. (And aren't SSNs an essential mechanism for the IRS to ensure it gets its lawful tax cut in all the settings where the law supports it?)
« Last Edit: January 19, 2014, 02:12:47 am by earthbound »
I think I'm not alone when I say I'd like to see more and more planets fall under the ruthless dominion of our solar system. -Jack Handey

Offline bytemaster

Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
« Reply #92 on: January 19, 2014, 02:27:24 am »
I agree with earthbound in respect that we want this license to be enforceable under the law.

BSD + AGS/PTS clause may be sufficient for that.

For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline barwizi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 764
  • Noirbits, NoirShares, NoirEx.....lol, noir anyone?
    • View Profile
    • Noirbitstalk.org
Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
« Reply #93 on: January 19, 2014, 05:43:31 am »
I agree with earthbound in respect that we want this license to be enforceable under the law.

BSD + AGS/PTS clause may be sufficient for that.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vJoHfPO3lCV5pSVoHiZ2s3sp6yUUkVDSkul15A4dWPY/edit?usp=sharing

PDF with Bitshares document theme https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxCtiOzdwvPydTRQUF9xWlNMWXM/edit?usp=sharing
« Last Edit: January 19, 2014, 06:00:04 am by barwizi »
--Bar--  PiNEJGUv4AZVZkLuF6hV4xwbYTRp5etWWJ

The magical land of crypto, no freebies people.

Offline bytemaster

Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
« Reply #94 on: January 19, 2014, 05:56:58 am »
Quote
All modified redistributions shall allocate at least 10 % of the total value supply units to PTS holders ie holders of the original at genesis. All AngelShares sponsored redistributions shall allocate a further 10% of the total value supply to AngelShares. The remaining Value supply is allocated at redistributor’s discretion.   

Aside from the spelling errors, lack of definition of AngelShares or PTS in a legally enforceable way?
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline barwizi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 764
  • Noirbits, NoirShares, NoirEx.....lol, noir anyone?
    • View Profile
    • Noirbitstalk.org
Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
« Reply #95 on: January 19, 2014, 06:09:38 am »
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vJoHfPO3lCV5pSVoHiZ2s3sp6yUUkVDSkul15A4dWPY/edit?usp=sharing

Anyone that wants to chip in can just give me their mail address.

Aside from the spelling errors, lack of definition of AngelShares or PTS in a legally enforceable way?

I've defined them, and value supply.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2014, 06:15:20 am by barwizi »
--Bar--  PiNEJGUv4AZVZkLuF6hV4xwbYTRp5etWWJ

The magical land of crypto, no freebies people.

Offline maqifrnswa

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 661
    • View Profile
Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
« Reply #96 on: January 19, 2014, 04:57:23 pm »
Thank you, earthbound, for articulating the point I've been clumsy getting to. My whole point was that the license was getting unwieldy and unenforceable . Using standard licenses should be preferred.

Quote
All modified redistributions shall allocate at least 10 % of the total value supply units to PTS holders ie holders of the original at genesis. All AngelShares sponsored redistributions shall allocate a further 10% of the total value supply to AngelShares. The remaining Value supply is allocated at redistributor’s discretion.   

Aside from the spelling errors, lack of definition of AngelShares or PTS in a legally enforceable way?

How about:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1708.msg29542#msg29542

The 4th clause and definition are there, slight modification below.
Quote
4. Modifications must preserve the condition that at least 10% of initially allocated digital assets are assigned proportionally to PTS holders and at least 10% of initially allocated digital assets are assigned proportionally do AGS holders per the definitions below.

"digital assets" are defined as exchangeable units derived from the Product and includes, for example, the total currency supply generated by the genesis block.
"PTS holders" are defined as Protoshares addresses and their corresponding account value in the protoshares blockchain [bytemaster, if there is a fork - which blockchain is the protoshares blockchain?] at a given point in time [bytemaster, what point in time?]
"AGS holders" are defined as the accounts and cumulative corresponding contributions that contributed as transaction inputs to the PTS and BTC donation addresses defined by I3 at a given point in time [bytemaster, what point in time?]

Could we get clarification that you want the social consensus to solely be the genesis block or final money supply? Both have problems. Final money supply is probably preferred but will prevent any coin from having inflation. If it is the genesis block, you might as well have no social consensus at all in the license and go with a simple 3 clause BSD since anyone can follow the license and create a chain with a tiny genesis block.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2014, 04:59:34 pm by maqifrnswa »
maintains an Ubuntu PPA: https://launchpad.net/~showard314/+archive/ubuntu/bitshares [15% delegate] wallet_account_set_approval maqifrnswa true [50% delegate] wallet_account_set_approval delegate1.maqifrnswa true

Offline barwizi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 764
  • Noirbits, NoirShares, NoirEx.....lol, noir anyone?
    • View Profile
    • Noirbitstalk.org
Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
« Reply #97 on: January 19, 2014, 05:24:39 pm »
Quote
Could we get clarification that you want the social consensus to solely be the genesis block or final money supply? Both have problems. Final money supply is probably preferred but will prevent any coin from having inflation. If it is the genesis block, you might as well have no social consensus at all in the license and go with a simple 3 clause BSD since anyone can follow the license and create a chain with a tiny genesis block.

I do not think you understand how this works exactly. Let me put it this way, the consensus states you allocate 10% with a 1:1 mapping, ergo your DAC needs to take into account how many PTS are in existence. SO if there are 100 PTS total in existence, your dac may have a max of 1000 units distributable. That is to say, the 10% is that of ultimate supply based on current existing PTS. You place these in the genesis block allocated to each holding address,  the inclusion is at genesis as it is simpler and easily verifiable.


The chain is based off the current amount of existing PTS with the stipulation of mapping 1:1, as a result it is in violation of license to try scale down the chain.
--Bar--  PiNEJGUv4AZVZkLuF6hV4xwbYTRp5etWWJ

The magical land of crypto, no freebies people.

Offline barwizi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 764
  • Noirbits, NoirShares, NoirEx.....lol, noir anyone?
    • View Profile
    • Noirbitstalk.org
Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
« Reply #98 on: January 19, 2014, 05:37:29 pm »
The 4th clause and definition are there, slight modification below.
Quote
4. Modifications must preserve the condition that at least 10% of initially allocated total digital assets are assigned proportionally with a 1:1 mapping to PTS holders  and at least 10% of initially allocated digital assets are assigned proportionally to AGS holders.

"digital assets" are defined as exchangeable units derived from the Product and includes, for example, the total currency supply generated by the genesis block.
"PTS holders" are defined as Protoshares addresses and their corresponding account value in the protoshares blockchain at time of genesis initialization
"AGS holders" are defined as the accounts and cumulative corresponding contributions that contributed as transaction inputs to the PTS and BTC donation addresses defined by I3 at a given point in time

this definition reads awkwardly, my attempts to modify have fallen flat. i modified the clause a bit, but not so sure digital assets does quite as well as the one i put in pace. your definition refers to exchangeable units whereas mine refers to them as stake, seems appropriate.

comments?
--Bar--  PiNEJGUv4AZVZkLuF6hV4xwbYTRp5etWWJ

The magical land of crypto, no freebies people.

Offline maqifrnswa

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 661
    • View Profile
Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
« Reply #99 on: January 19, 2014, 05:47:07 pm »
I like "stake" that you used, but I'm not a lawyer and would like to see their opinion.

Quote
Could we get clarification that you want the social consensus to solely be the genesis block or final money supply? Both have problems. Final money supply is probably preferred but will prevent any coin from having inflation. If it is the genesis block, you might as well have no social consensus at all in the license and go with a simple 3 clause BSD since anyone can follow the license and create a chain with a tiny genesis block.

I do not think you understand how this works exactly. Let me put it this way, the consensus states you allocate 10% with a 1:1 mapping, ergo your DAC needs to take into account how many PTS are in existence. SO if there are 100 PTS total in existence, your dac may have a max of 1000 units distributable. That is to say, the 10% is that of ultimate supply based on current existing PTS. You place these in the genesis block allocated to each holding address,  the inclusion is at genesis as it is simpler and easily verifiable.


The chain is based off the current amount of existing PTS with the stipulation of mapping 1:1, as a result it is in violation of license to try scale down the chain.

I understand it. In fact, you just exactly described what I called "final money supply" limits.

My question is: do we want "final money supply limits" or "genesis block limits." If you follow what you wrote (i.e., "final money supply limits"), you cannot have an inflationary coin. If you follow "genesis block limits," you don't have social consensus.

Also, 1:1 mapping isn't necessary as long as you use percentages. We should not add extra limits for no reason.
Here's why 1:1 mapping is an extra unneeded constraint. 100 pts are in existence.
A DAC offers 2:1 mapping. their final money supply is 500, they give 50 to PTS holders. This follows the social consensus but is prohibited by the license.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2014, 05:48:46 pm by maqifrnswa »
maintains an Ubuntu PPA: https://launchpad.net/~showard314/+archive/ubuntu/bitshares [15% delegate] wallet_account_set_approval maqifrnswa true [50% delegate] wallet_account_set_approval delegate1.maqifrnswa true

Offline barwizi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 764
  • Noirbits, NoirShares, NoirEx.....lol, noir anyone?
    • View Profile
    • Noirbitstalk.org
Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
« Reply #100 on: January 19, 2014, 06:20:11 pm »
I like "stake" that you used, but I'm not a lawyer and would like to see their opinion.

Quote
Could we get clarification that you want the social consensus to solely be the genesis block or final money supply? Both have problems. Final money supply is probably preferred but will prevent any coin from having inflation. If it is the genesis block, you might as well have no social consensus at all in the license and go with a simple 3 clause BSD since anyone can follow the license and create a chain with a tiny genesis block.

I do not think you understand how this works exactly. Let me put it this way, the consensus states you allocate 10% with a 1:1 mapping, ergo your DAC needs to take into account how many PTS are in existence. SO if there are 100 PTS total in existence, your dac may have a max of 1000 units distributable. That is to say, the 10% is that of ultimate supply based on current existing PTS. You place these in the genesis block allocated to each holding address,  the inclusion is at genesis as it is simpler and easily verifiable.


The chain is based off the current amount of existing PTS with the stipulation of mapping 1:1, as a result it is in violation of license to try scale down the chain.

I understand it. In fact, you just exactly described what I called "final money supply" limits.

My question is: do we want "final money supply limits" or "genesis block limits." If you follow what you wrote (i.e., "final money supply limits"), you cannot have an inflationary coin. If you follow "genesis block limits," you don't have social consensus.

Also, 1:1 mapping isn't necessary as long as you use percentages. We should not add extra limits for no reason.
Here's why 1:1 mapping is an extra unneeded constraint. 100 pts are in existence.
A DAC offers 2:1 mapping. their final money supply is 500, they give 50 to PTS holders. This follows the social consensus but is prohibited by the license.

 :) i'm not debating the consensus, that is for bytemaster and company to work out. As for inflationary coins, you may want to read bytemaster's opinions and ideas on that. For now PTS is the code people will fork, but i am working on a version with stake, relative reward and lots more. it will be another version people can use for code and will have a similar license.
--Bar--  PiNEJGUv4AZVZkLuF6hV4xwbYTRp5etWWJ

The magical land of crypto, no freebies people.

Offline maqifrnswa

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 661
    • View Profile
Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
« Reply #101 on: January 19, 2014, 07:28:48 pm »
:) i'm not debating the consensus, that is for bytemaster and company to work out. As for inflationary coins, you may want to read bytemaster's opinions and ideas on that. For now PTS is the code people will fork, but i am working on a version with stake, relative reward and lots more. it will be another version people can use for code and will have a similar license.

I'm not debating anything, I'm just trying to point out what the license actually says and am asking if that is what the intention is. If we put in that 10% of the genesis block must be at least PTS and 10% must be AGS, we are in fact eliminating the social consensus.
Example:
I take the pts code and change it so that the genesis block gives 1 new DAC asset to every PTS holder and the correct proportion to AGS holders. 50/50. My very next block mines 100billion coins which I give to myself. I followed the license, and the license's description of social consensus, but in fact destroyed it. If that is possible, then just license it BSD and don't worry about this extra restriction anyone can get around. Of course, proof of stake blockchains wouldn't do this, but there is nothing preventing someone from implementing a proof of work blockchain that does an end around any genesis-block based social consensus language

Inflationary coins: it doesn't matter what bytemaster or I think, only what is written in the license. If I3 wants to kill off all inflationary coins forever, then put the "final money supply" description in the license. That's fine, but the decision must be made to do that (that's all I'm asking for, is this I3's intentions or not). I don't understand why reading what bytemaster's opinion of those coins has any bearing on this document unless I3 decides it should be in it. My opinion is to not restrict freedom, and even though I think inflationary coins could be a poor economic model, if someone want to do it they should be free to do it. However, social consensus would need to be redefined for that case if I3 wants to do that.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2014, 07:30:46 pm by maqifrnswa »
maintains an Ubuntu PPA: https://launchpad.net/~showard314/+archive/ubuntu/bitshares [15% delegate] wallet_account_set_approval maqifrnswa true [50% delegate] wallet_account_set_approval delegate1.maqifrnswa true

Offline barwizi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 764
  • Noirbits, NoirShares, NoirEx.....lol, noir anyone?
    • View Profile
    • Noirbitstalk.org
Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
« Reply #102 on: January 19, 2014, 07:46:19 pm »
There are now two versions in play. i would like us to consider the effectiveness of each and how it stands with regard top the future. Protoshares is the current basis of DACs but this may not hold for much longer than the next two months.

I think the license should be one copyable to any code base that is brought under the DAC flag and used in the DAC community, not just specific to PTS.

This would mean the consensus would be more like "all chains will give 10% to the original and 10% to a sponsoring fund" (that is if others are successful enough to be able to have funds)

This makes it a general DAC license and means us devs wont have to structure a license for every code base we bring into the fold. If one so wishes, even using an all new code base they could honour PTS and there by ensure that all forks will indirectly honour PTS holders.
--Bar--  PiNEJGUv4AZVZkLuF6hV4xwbYTRp5etWWJ

The magical land of crypto, no freebies people.

Offline barwizi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 764
  • Noirbits, NoirShares, NoirEx.....lol, noir anyone?
    • View Profile
    • Noirbitstalk.org
Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
« Reply #103 on: January 19, 2014, 07:53:48 pm »
:) i'm not debating the consensus, that is for bytemaster and company to work out. As for inflationary coins, you may want to read bytemaster's opinions and ideas on that. For now PTS is the code people will fork, but i am working on a version with stake, relative reward and lots more. it will be another version people can use for code and will have a similar license.

I'm not debating anything, I'm just trying to point out what the license actually says and am asking if that is what the intention is. If we put in that 10% of the genesis block must be at least PTS and 10% must be AGS, we are in fact eliminating the social consensus.
Example:
I take the pts code and change it so that the genesis block gives 1 new DAC asset to every PTS holder and the correct proportion to AGS holders. 50/50. My very next block mines 100billion coins which I give to myself. I followed the license, and the license's description of social consensus, but in fact destroyed it. If that is possible, then just license it BSD and don't worry about this extra restriction anyone can get around. Of course, proof of stake blockchains wouldn't do this, but there is nothing preventing someone from implementing a proof of work blockchain that does an end around any genesis-block based social consensus language

Inflationary coins: it doesn't matter what bytemaster or I think, only what is written in the license. If I3 wants to kill off all inflationary coins forever, then put the "final money supply" description in the license. That's fine, but the decision must be made to do that (that's all I'm asking for, is this I3's intentions or not). I don't understand why reading what bytemaster's opinion of those coins has any bearing on this document unless I3 decides it should be in it. My opinion is to not restrict freedom, and even though I think inflationary coins could be a poor economic model, if someone want to do it they should be free to do it. However, social consensus would need to be redefined for that case if I3 wants to do that.

OK, PTS has a max of 2 mill so every DAC forked from it can have a max of 20 miliion units. that is the maximum, no inflation nothing but a theoretical max of 20 million. so you cannot have your billion value block because it is in violation of the consensus, which clearly states that with a 1:1 mapping PTS should account for at least 10% of the total value supply.

The very calculations for your DAC are based on PTS so any use that does not follow that is in violation of the license.
--Bar--  PiNEJGUv4AZVZkLuF6hV4xwbYTRp5etWWJ

The magical land of crypto, no freebies people.

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2906
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
« Reply #104 on: January 19, 2014, 08:16:35 pm »
:) i'm not debating the consensus, that is for bytemaster and company to work out. As for inflationary coins, you may want to read bytemaster's opinions and ideas on that. For now PTS is the code people will fork, but i am working on a version with stake, relative reward and lots more. it will be another version people can use for code and will have a similar license.

I'm not debating anything, I'm just trying to point out what the license actually says and am asking if that is what the intention is. If we put in that 10% of the genesis block must be at least PTS and 10% must be AGS, we are in fact eliminating the social consensus.
Example:
I take the pts code and change it so that the genesis block gives 1 new DAC asset to every PTS holder and the correct proportion to AGS holders. 50/50. My very next block mines 100billion coins which I give to myself. I followed the license, and the license's description of social consensus, but in fact destroyed it. If that is possible, then just license it BSD and don't worry about this extra restriction anyone can get around. Of course, proof of stake blockchains wouldn't do this, but there is nothing preventing someone from implementing a proof of work blockchain that does an end around any genesis-block based social consensus language

Inflationary coins: it doesn't matter what bytemaster or I think, only what is written in the license. If I3 wants to kill off all inflationary coins forever, then put the "final money supply" description in the license. That's fine, but the decision must be made to do that (that's all I'm asking for, is this I3's intentions or not). I don't understand why reading what bytemaster's opinion of those coins has any bearing on this document unless I3 decides it should be in it. My opinion is to not restrict freedom, and even though I think inflationary coins could be a poor economic model, if someone want to do it they should be free to do it. However, social consensus would need to be redefined for that case if I3 wants to do that.

OK, PTS has a max of 2 mill so every DAC forked from it can have a max of 20 miliion units. that is the maximum, no inflation nothing but a theoretical max of 20 million. so you cannot have your billion value block because it is in violation of the consensus, which clearly states that with a 1:1 mapping PTS should account for at least 10% of the total value supply.

The very calculations for your DAC are based on PTS so any use that does not follow that is in violation of the license.

As our current consensus is stated on our old web site:

Quote
The 10% requirement is a minimum, since any number greater than that also satisfies the consensus.  The 1:1 mapping and 10% minimum together set an upper limit on the number of shares a DAC may allocate.  If only 1.5M PTS exist at DAC release, then 15M is the derived upper limit to number of shares for that DAC.  Developers may equivalently exercise the right to scale the share count to the needs of each DAC while preserving percentages for all stakeholders.

1:1 mapping can be in actual shares or equivalently 1:1 in percentages of the total lifetime supply.
So the term 1:1 could be replaced by simply "preserve percentages" and mean the same thing. Perhaps this would be the better way to say it.

I suppose this technically allows inflation as long as nobody's percentage of the money supply changes.   :)

Anything that dilutes holders of PTS and AGS to below 10% would seem to be an obvious violation of the whole spirit of the consensus.

Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.