BitShares PTS2 - Community Input Thread

[betax]

FundShares distribution of PTS + AGS should be equal, ie: 8 million of FundShares = 4 million PTS + 4 million AGS.

[betax]

Why not launch PTS2 when AGS donation is finished? Or finish it early if required.

Then make PTS2 = PTS + AGS, this will keep it simple further on as new DACS will honour PTS2.

AGS will become liquid as it has already serve its purpose.

Let PTS die and do a transition as it has been suggested.

The new PTS2 could be call FounderShares as suggested before and would be clear is equal to PTS + AGS (Proto + Angel). The 300k reminder could be distributed in equal terms across both PTS / AGS as both have had have different risks and good periods.

This actually sounds like one of the better suggestions, but would require bounties to be issued by the community for marketing projects etc.

While a lot of people seem to think that the AGS-fund is an enormous amount of money, to me it doesn't look all that impressive compared to the amount of work and spending that will be required for all the projects that are planned and what the community seems to expect the fund to pay for.

If it is all for marketing, the 300k could be given to charities. This way everyone is a winner, and will ensure also promotion of the charity DAC and initial selection of charities.

[omgomgomg]

All DACs have snapshots that honor something.
Upgrade DACs honor their predecessor.
New DACs honor their industry parent which honor PTS/AGS.
If a DAC is the first in a new industry, it honors PTS/AGS directly, just like XT did on February 28.

When an upgrade occurs it can be done either by hard fork if there is delegate consensus or as an alternative chain if not. 

When an alternative chain is offered, everybody gets shares in both via the snapshot mechanism.  As long as there are users for both, they can co-exist like Coke Classic and New Coke a few decades ago.  The expectation is that one or the other of the products will win and the other will fade to zero - but that is up to the market to decide.

Been sitting quietly on the sidelines watching this forum everyday. Recently there was a thread: Today I loose confidence in I3. I thought come on guys, just be patient some great products will come. And so far your logic always made sense.

But the coexistence of PTS and PTS2 just seems like a quick money scheme, the fact that you're considering to do this even before the AGS funding is over, makes me think you're having funding problems. Another million would be enough for now, but what will you come up with, when those funds have dried up?

For investors your making the deal more complicated than it already is, now they have to choose between holding PTS and PTS2, because DAC's can choose to honor either one

PTS will drop from the top 10 coin market list, because it has effectively lost half it's value.

Sorry to be cynical, I still believe in I3, but this just doesn't make any sense.

Totally agree when i heard this news.

Come on. for months 3i was struggling making one thing, which is Bitshares X wallet, to work.

And yet, they are doing great job on ok, i haven't done this, but i wanna do that, oops, maybe that, coz that is a great idea.
ok, forget it, i wanna do that, coz that sounds neat.

if chinese is ur main market. ill tell you what, you are losing faith in china market by having more ideas without a fact you have something finished.

Even a six year old chinese boy will hate when you just have so many idear without putting even one solid product in reality.

Can we have Bitshares X working, then ideas? Gosh! why is this so hard

[puppies]

I am fully behind the transition to DPOS, and think it should be handled as a hard fork.

I am also for giving away the unmined shares.  What needs to be decided is how to get around the bad press that will come from allegations of a pre-mine. 

I propose a pure gift to charity.  This gift would be spread out to prevent quick inflation.  Rather than allocating these funds to a central authority in the genesis block I would like to see them generated over time.  Perhaps every ten-thousandth block generated a pre determined amount of coin and pays directly to the address of the charity that has the most(we can work out the specifics later) votes.  This voting would be on block chain, and the payout would be written into the client.  This would remove most if not all of the allegations against III, and provide great PR.

Based upon my limited understanding of DPOS I think this could be done pretty easily.  It should also be very secure.  These funds would of course have a maturation process.  Any delegate that paid out to the wrong address would be fired immediately and a fork would occur.  Any delegate that excluded broadcast votes would also be fired.

Does this make sense?

[xeroc]

FounderShares seems appropriate to me.

absolutly

[donkeypong]

I think FounderShares is more consistent.

FounderShares is an awesome name.

[CalabiYau]

I am fine with Stan and how openly he addresses concerns of the community .. id really like to meet stan in person some day

FounderShares seems appropriate to me. 

[xeroc]

the german translation of ponzi is schnellballsystem a.k.a. snowball system

[AdamBLevine]

Snowballs = ponzi?

A ponzi is a hollow snowball where the appearance gets bigger and bigger but rather than robustness it is fragility because the structure is being removed from the inside as each new layer is built rather than being layered additively on top.

I think a snowball isn't a bad metaphor, but I think FounderShares is more consistent.

[JakeThePanda]

Why not launch PTS2 when AGS donation is finished? Or finish it early if required.

Then make PTS2 = PTS + AGS, this will keep it simple further on as new DACS will honour PTS2.

AGS will become liquid as it has already serve its purpose.

Let PTS die and do a transition as it has been suggested.

The new PTS2 could be call FounderShares as suggested before and would be clear is equal to PTS + AGS (Proto + Angel). The 300k reminder could be distributed in equal terms across both PTS / AGS as both have had have different risks and good periods.

This actually sounds like one of the better suggestions, but would require bounties to be issued by the community for marketing projects etc.

While a lot of people seem to think that the AGS-fund is an enormous amount of money, to me it doesn't look all that impressive compared to the amount of work and spending that will be required for all the projects that are planned and what the community seems to expect the fund to pay for.

The real question is how do you do this without pissing off one of the groups? If AGS converts to less shares than PTS then you just defeated the purpose of the AGS investors.  More DAC shares is the reason I purchased AGS.  If AGS doesn't convert to less shares than PTS, the value of PTS will be severely diluted.  Please correct me if this is wrong.

[Stan]

So, basically, this is an "Input Thread" where only inputs that are not against Stan's stance will be accepted and taken into consideration.

Watch and see!   

I've been watching you guys since day 1, made huge investments all along. I understand that I shouldn't spit out some dirty words in this forum, but they pretty much expressed my anger, and I don't think I'm alone on this matter. And I take back those F words I've said. But, honestly, I don't think you, Stan, is a proper PR guy for this project, and it's best for you to step down from your throne and hire someone else who's more open and professional.

Here's my thoughts on the PTS upgrade:

• The real issue with PTS is the slow block rate, which can be easily solved with a hard fork that adapts faster diff adjustment.
• If 3I is so determined to get away with PoW and go for the unverified DPOS, I'm okay with that. But the unmined PTS should not be under 3I's control in any form (reverseangel fund, etc).
• Please don't let PTS1 and PTS2 co-exist. You have no idea what that means. [\li]
  

I was going to reveal my true identity to get your attention, but I don't think it's necessary anymore.

Boy, that would sure be great if we had someone to take over my job here on the fuzzy boundary between management, marketing, and magic.  Until then, I'll try to do my best.

I think I agree with your point about a quick hard fork being best.  Like ripping off a bandage.  Be quick and get it over with.  The point of the soft fork discussion was to show that there are viable voting methods based on market forces.  Having looked at perfect fairness (and what it would cost to explain and implement), I expect that people will be more willing to accept the "autocratic" or "arrogant" appearance of a hard fork - especially after everyone has had a chance to have a say in the pre-fork planning. 

Of course, even with a hard fork, all we can do is advocate the switch.  There is always the option of being overruled if more people keep using the old version anyway.  Ask Coca-Cola and Microsoft.

I agree there are negative optics to putting the distribution under I3 control.  The problem we have is finding an acceptable alternative.  It should be an entity who is trustworthy and can be counted on to use good judgement based on a sound understanding of the technology and the vision we are trying to achieve. 

Stakeholder voting makes sense for decisions that do not require specialized knowledge or full-time study, or optimization of multiple trade-offs. But I wouldn't want to be on a plane where each passenger had their own cockpit and the plane did what the majority commanded. 

There are also two separate roles:  Who decides what will be done vs. Who executes that decision.  What I had hoped to do was come to a consensus/compromise here on the forum and then presumably we could be trusted to faithfully execute the team plan.

As for revealing true identities, you should take comfort in the fact that everyone at Invictus has already done that.  We are all out there and our life-time reputations are on the line.

 

[xeroc]

+ you will be able to trade pts2 and not ags.. so you can trade jusz one half of the founder shares??

Not so intuitive to me :-(

[JoeyD]

Why not launch PTS2 when AGS donation is finished? Or finish it early if required.

Then make PTS2 = PTS + AGS, this will keep it simple further on as new DACS will honour PTS2.

AGS will become liquid as it has already serve its purpose.

Let PTS die and do a transition as it has been suggested.

The new PTS2 could be call FounderShares as suggested before and would be clear is equal to PTS + AGS (Proto + Angel). The 300k reminder could be distributed in equal terms across both PTS / AGS as both have had have different risks and good periods.

This actually sounds like one of the better suggestions, but would require bounties to be issued by the community for marketing projects etc.

While a lot of people seem to think that the AGS-fund is an enormous amount of money, to me it doesn't look all that impressive compared to the amount of work and spending that will be required for all the projects that are planned and what the community seems to expect the fund to pay for.

[betax]

Why not launch PTS2 when AGS donation is finished? Or finish it early if required.

Then make PTS2 = PTS + AGS, this will keep it simple further on as new DACS will honour PTS2.

AGS will become liquid as it has already serve its purpose.

Let PTS die and do a transition as it has been suggested.

The new PTS2 could be call FounderShares as suggested before and would be clear is equal to PTS + AGS (Proto + Angel). The 300k reminder could be distributed in equal terms across both PTS / AGS as both have had have different risks and good periods.

[CLains]

there are several crucial differences between 1995 when elon musk was operating and now.. one is that the user base on the net was already an awesome group of people, and not poor people looking to make a small buck or bots trying to infiltrate and receive rewards made to attract humans.