PTS upgrade poll

[sudo]

did anyone mentioned  chinese community  about this vote of PTS future

[cryptillionaire]

First post, but here we go:
I think DPOS is the way forwards, it looks like the PTS POW is now gpu mineable so the coin distribution is becoming centralized.
POW is dead across all cryptos, it's a terrible waste of electricity.

[pc]

DPOS is not unstable. Stability issues in an old version of the Ubuntu client do not mean it is unstable.

Clarification: the "old version" was the newest official version at the time of my tests.
If stability issues in an official version do not mean it is unstable, then what else does?

Testz is the custodian of Bitshares PTS and is tasked with carrying out the consensus decision of the community.

There is no "consensus decision". There isn't even an absolute majority, only a relative.

[alphaBar]

I'm not a fan of PoW, but IMO PTS should stay on PoW for now, with a modified diff adjustment algorithm.

Apart from being a PITA to build, the current reference implementation of DPOS is still much too unstable. At least that's what my experiments with BTS-X indicate so far, see https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=6975.msg92769#msg92769 .

DPOS is not unstable. Stability issues in an old version of the Ubuntu client do not mean it is unstable. BTSX already has 3 times the market cap of PTS and includes a host of functionality (and thus potential vulnerabilities) that would not be present in the PTS upgrade chain. Should we then argue that BTSX should be rolled back to a PoW chain as well, since DPOS is so unstable? I agree that we need binaries, but that would require pruning and then branding the reference client - no additional functionality whatsoever.

Testz is the custodian of Bitshares PTS and is tasked with carrying out the consensus decision of the community. I believe he is more than competent enough for a rebrand of an existing reference client.

[pc]

I'm not a fan of PoW, but IMO PTS should stay on PoW for now, with a modified diff adjustment algorithm.

Apart from being a PITA to build, the current reference implementation of DPOS is still much too unstable. At least that's what my experiments with BTS-X indicate so far, see https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=6975.msg92769#msg92769 .

[alphaBar]

As  a high school student , most of my friends only learn about pow mining with GPU. we can join mining once we feel tired of our game  or we can just run the miner while we are not in the game.  it is a good to keep pow mining and all of my friends like it.  I consider pow mining is a good feature of bitshares products since we can experience pow and pos all together with one product and can easy to find out how sucks pow mining is .

 

In BitShares you can be more productive, instead playing game you can propose yourself as delegate and use delegate rewards to do something useful for community, and then you feel tired, run miner, mine some profitable coins and sell it for BTSX.
 

Mining SHA256 with a GPU? No reason anyone would do this with all the other GPU-friendly algos out there. Also, for all of the votes in favor of proof of work, not single valid argument has been presented in its favor.

[donkeypong]

I agree it's a bad PR move (actually the whole DPOS upgrade is any way you approach it), I'm just saying it doesn't go to the devs and it isn't instant.

In one respect.

However, transitioning to DPoS is also a sign that the PTS community has rejected mining as wasteful and unproductive AND adopts DPoS as a sign of "skin-in-the-game" support for Invictus-developed blockchain technology.

If there is anybody out there that still believes that mining allows for fair distribution - they should be ignored, because they haven't been paying attention.

We should make the transition and look forward to the incoming criticism as a good opportunity to spotlight the PoW/PoS debate.

Agree.

[alphaBar]

Isn't it an option to disperse the remaining shares to the existing shareholders relative to their current holdings?

Agreed, this is the best way forward. We could also scale it up to 2 billion units. Doesn't matter as long as the proportions are maintained.

I agree it's a bad PR move (actually the whole DPOS upgrade is any way you approach it), I'm just saying it doesn't go to the devs and it isn't instant.

In one respect.

However, transitioning to DPoS is also a sign that the PTS community has rejected mining as wasteful and unproductive AND adopts DPoS as a sign of "skin-in-the-game" support for Invictus-developed blockchain technology.

If there is anybody out there that still believes that mining allows for fair distribution - they should be ignored, because they haven't been paying attention.

We should make the transition and look forward to the incoming criticism as a good opportunity to spotlight the PoW/PoS debate.

 

[bobmaloney]

I agree it's a bad PR move (actually the whole DPOS upgrade is any way you approach it), I'm just saying it doesn't go to the devs and it isn't instant.

In one respect.

However, transitioning to DPoS is also a sign that the PTS community has rejected mining as wasteful and unproductive AND adopts DPoS as a sign of "skin-in-the-game" support for Invictus-developed blockchain technology.

If there is anybody out there that still believes that mining allows for fair distribution - they should be ignored, because they haven't been paying attention.

We should make the transition and look forward to the incoming criticism as a good opportunity to spotlight the PoW/PoS debate.

[bobmaloney]

Isn't it an option to disperse the remaining shares to the existing shareholders relative to their current holdings?

There should be.

This solution carried over to a DPoS platform seems the most fair and obvious, allowing for PTS and AGS to carry 2 million units each.

Question:
If PTS was transitioned to a DPoS platform (with no additional load, such as bitassets) - wouldn't a home desktop with a moderately fast internet connection be more than enough hardware and bandwidth for potential delegates?

[testz]

As  a high school student , most of my friends only learn about pow mining with GPU. we can join mining once we feel tired of our game  or we can just run the miner while we are not in the game.  it is a good to keep pow mining and all of my friends like it.  I consider pow mining is a good feature of bitshares products since we can experience pow and pos all together with one product and can easy to find out how sucks pow mining is .

 

In BitShares you can be more productive, instead playing game you can propose yourself as delegate and use delegate rewards to do something useful for community, and then you feel tired, run miner, mine some profitable coins and sell it for BTSX.
 

[toast]

The release schedule can be the same as before, it doesn't have to be "overnight"

That's more of a net present value argument. Equivalent to saying "it's ok because it is actually only 10% of the coin supply that we are post-mining to a central entity." On principle there is a huge difference between giving away coins to the devs and paying a distributed network of miners to provide security. If we do this there is no amount of marketing that will dig us out of the hole we put ourselves in.

I agree it's a bad PR move (actually the whole DPOS upgrade is any way you approach it), I'm just saying it doesn't go to the devs and it isn't instant.

[alphaBar]

The release schedule can be the same as before, it doesn't have to be "overnight"

That's more of a net present value argument. Equivalent to saying "it's ok because it is actually only 10% of the coin supply that we are post-mining to a central entity." On principle there is a huge difference between giving away coins to the devs and paying a distributed network of miners to provide security. If we do this there is no amount of marketing that will dig us out of the hole we put ourselves in.

[toast]

The release schedule can be the same as before, it doesn't have to be "overnight"

[alphaBar]

On the remaining supply question, there are basically 3 positions:

1) Cut the supply at current values.
2) Use remaining supply to pay delegates // developers // for promotion.
3) Use remaining supply to keep virtual mining subsidized.

Option 2 sounds most logical.

Pools are quickly dropping support for PTS so something needs to be done or well end up in BTC world with a pool having >51%.  Miner development has come to a standstill also.

The current supply of PTS is 1,655,659 PTS. What CLains option #2 is proposing is an overnight inflation and giveaway of an additional 344341 coins - over 17% of the resulting 2 million shares. I cannot overemphasize what a disaster this would be in terms of public perception. It would be like a new coin "post-mining" 17% of the supply and giving it to the developers. Can you imagine the backlash? "Bitshares devs steal 17% of coin supply overnight" and "Invictus Central Bank creates and confiscates coins out of thin air". If you've been around for any time at all you remember the scam allegations that were thrown around when AGS was announced. We have failed miserably at anticipating and planning for public perception - something that I have a bit of experience in. I will tell you with 100% certainty that if you do this (option #2 in CLain's comment), any benefits you gain from marketing/promotion would be dwarfed by the damage you cause in public perception. That's my advice - proceed at your own risk.