Forcing people to lose their shares if they don't vote.

[gamey]

THis was just a thread I made up to stir up discussion.  There is a planned year inactivity fee which serves to entice people to vote and serves to prune the blockchain as old blocks are moved to the front of the chain.

[pgbit]

Currently, what is the situation with losing shares automatically if people don't vote? Do you have to move Bitshares around from one account to another once a year still? (all of them, or just say 1?). Does a warning appear on the account to notify people when they should vote by? If this rule stands, a lot of people will lose out, and I don't -personally- think it is fair not to include some sort of warning or status measure to say when accounts might have funds automatically deducted. More clarity within the wallet itself I think might help here.

[luckybit]

Luckybit, your style of arguing doesn't work with mine.  You keep what you're doing, because I know you're a strong supporter of Bitshares.  I've pretty much said anything there is to say.  To address all your points would just have this thread grow without bounds.  I am looking for some sort of consensus and improving of our understanding.  I read what you type, but I can't respond to all of it.   I am not sure you really even try to read what others say.  If you do, then you always seem to ignore what I feel are my more salient points.

 

I can accept this. We can agree to disagree on certain points. Hopefully both of our contributions to the conversation can be meaningful to readers who want to see different viewpoints. I don't ignore your points or anyone's points on purpose.

[gamey]

Luckybit, your style of arguing doesn't work with mine.  You keep what you're doing, because I know you're a strong supporter of Bitshares.  I've pretty much said anything there is to say.  To address all your points would just have this thread grow without bounds.  I am looking for some sort of consensus and improving of our understanding.  I read what you type, but I can't respond to all of it.   I am not sure you really even try to read what others say.  If you do, then you always seem to ignore what I feel are my more salient points.

[luckybit]

All these coins are stupid IMO.  If a coin doesn't displace another coin via the same userbase, then it is nothing but another scamcoin/shitcoin/whatever.  It is already an absurdity with all the different coins.  Why create another coin that I see having 100% chance of going nowhere.  Why would Blackcoin peopel push a coin with 50% dilution over their own coin?  Eventually a small handful of the coins will succeed and most will fall to 0.  Give an existing community a real coin that doesn't remove a huge amount of equity and at least it will have the pretense of being successful.

Bitshares X isn't a coin. It's something completely different and DPoS is a generation ahead of Litecoin and Bitcoin.
If Litecoin or Bitcoin devs were interested in DPoS do you really think they would need our help? What do they need a gift from us for when they've got a market caps in the billions?

If we are talking about Blackcoin the purpose of Blackshares is not "Blackcoin 2.0" or whatever you were thinking. It's just a Bitshares chain customized to suit the tastes of the Blackcoin community. It's not meant to replace Blackcoin so there is no dilution of anything. Blackcoin would be for currency while Blackshares would be for BitAssets and other functionality. It's a way to get them on the Bitshares platform by offering them 50% stake.

Otherwise they'll just have to buy their way in or make their own chain which wouldn't have as much volume because our community wouldn't have a stake in it.

  If you split a coin 50/50 then you've just created a coin where NO ONE is happy with except the Bitshares people.  So sure, you get a higher equity, but whats the point?  Who is going to use the currency?  Is the point so we can all hold hands and dance around the crypto-tree under the moonlight?   Yea no doubt blackcoin people will take the 50% handout too, but what do you expect them to do with it ?  Where is it going ?  There are 100s of coins already.  If a new Bitshares airdrop to a coin doesn't have the coin displace an existing coin, then it seems like just another bs coin to me.

Since Bitshares people are going to make up the majority of users it's more important that our community be happy with it than a community which isn't even onto PoS yet.

Now if you're talking about a PoS community then I can at least understand some of these arguments. They are looking toward the future and are taking active steps. If you look at the Blackcoin community they are trying very hard to evolve their technology. That is the kind of community to work with and share technology with.

I say share because you want to exchange, you don't want to gift.

Yes I want to exchange in a way which is a win for both communities. I want symbiosis. I don't want to help another community at the expense of this community.

You lectured everyone about charity, but then when it comes to a real gift you do a complete 180.  I'm so confused.

I never really lectured about charity. Nothing I promoted was a gift. It was either a marketing strategy or a way to form strategic alliances. I don't know how you can go into business thinking about giving gifts to competitors and charity. I do believe in collaboration but if you're going to collaborate you still have to know what your community is worth and what position you're in. If you're the community who can offer technology to another community then why not?

That isn't a gift. The purpose is to increase the long term userbase. Nintendo used to give free games with their systems and cut the price down to create a loyal userbase. So were games free? No they weren't gifts, they were to get people on the platform.

In our case the Sharedrops are can encourage participation and collaboration. In all of my posts on Sharedrops I encouraged targeted Sharedrops. When I discussed being fair that might be what you deemed charity but I believe only by being fair can you get loyal supporters for your cause.

Whereas POS people have little reason to switch over because they already have a generation 1.5/2.0 technology.

PoS communities are signalling that they are headed in our direction. Please go to some different PoS communities and see how receptive they are to Sharedrops compared to Bitcoin and Litecoin. I've done that and Blackcoin as a community was at least receptive enough to send a rep here.

Where is Charlie Lee? Bring him here and then talk. If he won't register and join in on the discussion it's unlikely that Litecoin as a community is interested in these Sharedrop ideas.

[gamey]

I think the entire concept of forking any existing altcoin to make a "2.0" version is very misguided.

How do you think the market would react if you switched out Litecoin's mining algorithm with a different one and then called it Litecoin 2.0 and did the allocation strategy you suggest? This is the same thing...

I actually tend to agree with this.  I just brought it up as a different type of DAC category because it would require different considerations for an airdrop.  I was never behind the idea and really it only came to my attention recently so I brought it up as something to discuss.

[luckybit]

I realise with  '2' you're saying we're essentially going to clone most of the features that make a coin unique but add something like DPOS.

Considering the centralisation and inflation of POW, provided we aren't too greedy these switchovers should have a real shot.

In which case  >90% going to holders of the existing POW coin means a much higher likelihood of success. Something like a successful Litecoin switchover would be epic.

The coins we'd fork would not be highly specialized coins, but coins with large market caps that we would improve with the addition of DPOS and the removal of inflation via POW. If the coin is discarded then so be it, but it WILL get the Bitshares name out there.  Making it 50/50 or a "merger" seems greedy to me and I suspect it will be perceived that way.  With 90/10 we at least have a chance of the coin being taken seriously.  I even agree about > 90%.  95%.. whatever. If they want to pump and dump it, it will be coming from their camp.  Not ours.

The goal is to win hearts not equity/capital.

How is it that you can accept a pump and dump as good for the Bitshares brand?
Bitshares technology would still be associated with it. At 10% our community would have minimum involvement which would mean it's very likely it would be pumped, dumped, generate bad press, and forgotten.

If it's 50/50 then if their side dumps it then we'd get an even larger stake in it. Starting at 50/50 is very fair because it gives either side a chance to dump and it allows the market to determine who owns the majority rather than political decree. If they don't believe in the DPoS technology then they might dump it and buy ASICs which would mean we'd get that stake.

But I'd honestly rather just go with a community which would be just as passionate about it as ours so we can avoid the whole pump and dump process. Also we don't want to look like we are forcing a technology on a community with core developers who do everything the opposite. If Charlie Lee were here and he agreed to such an idea then maybe I would change my mind but he's probably not even registered.

[gamey]

A misconception you may have is that you believe the Liteshares chain should be Litecoin 2. It's never going to be Litecoin 2. Just as Blackshares as I described was not meant to replace Blackcoin. It's meant to be an additional custom chain with the Blackcoin logo. It's to be our DAC which we share with Blackcoin community by branding and the 50/50 split. It could easily be 90% for us and 10% for the Blackcoin community, but then they would say it's unfair because it has their branding.

Bitshares has BitBTC in it right? Does that mean we owe the Bitcoin community 90% of the stake because it has BitBTC in it? Even if you put a Bitcoin skin on top and called it Bitcoinshares it still makes no sense to gift 90 of it to a sharedrop because the purpose of a sharedrop is to achieve long term support and participation.

You are the one inventing the argument that bitassets are tied into cloned/forking/merging a coin. 

I don't believe in these sorts of "gifts". That is the point. I also don't see why we should assume they deserve even a 50% stake. If we develop the fork we can give them whatever stake we feel is right and that could be 90% for us and 10% for them. And that would mean more people from our community would use the chain but when they are getting 10% of something for free which they'll dump for Bitcoins or Litecoins I don't see what difference it makes.

With a PoS community I would say these communities are likely to be active supporters of the DAC. They might actually start developing and updating the code. We might see new features that their developers put into it in the future. 50/50 would still be a good deal for them because we'd split it half and half. I don't think it's the same proposition with a PoS community because what if they decide not to dump and actually start using the DAC enough to compete with us in network effect?

So while I don't think Litecoin or Bitcoin would compete on network effect because they don't care (Bitcoin already has Colored Coins, Counterparty and Mastercoin), I don't see the Blackcoin community reacting the same way because they don't have these capabilities yet and clearly have shown that they are moving in this direction.

To sum up why I settle on 50/50 so strongly I look at this

1) Network effect. We have it. 5000 members on our forum and most of the concepts including Sharedrops come from this community.
2) Long term users will mostly come from this community. It makes no sense to reward another community with 90% stake as a gift when the majority will cash out immediately and not be long term users of the technology. They'd just as likely use NXT, Mastercoin, or anything else if they want technology.
3. Without our community backing it then it's likely most altchains will fail. Many will be the same sort of pump and dump scams you see every day with no community behind it. What happened to the Silicon Valley coin? The Bitcointalk coin? These coins all failed because they dropped to a user base that doesn't care enough to use the technology.

I think in most altcoins the primary users will come from this community. So if most of the volume comes from this community then most of the profit comes from this community. If that is the case then if it's not 50/50 then this community will simple be in a position to make a fork of the fork which is 50/50 and use that one. The other fork would get less volume and eventually whither and die.

All these coins are stupid IMO.  If a coin doesn't displace another coin via the same userbase, then it is nothing but another scamcoin/shitcoin/whatever.  It is already an absurdity with all the different coins.  Why create another coin that I see having 100% chance of going nowhere.  Why would Blackcoin peopel push a coin with 50% dilution over their own coin?  Eventually a small handful of the coins will succeed and most will fall to 0.  Give an existing community a real coin that doesn't remove a huge amount of equity and at least it will have the pretense of being successful.


  If you split a coin 50/50 then you've just created a coin where NO ONE is happy with except the Bitshares people.  So sure, you get a higher equity, but whats the point?  Who is going to use the currency?  Is the point so we can all hold hands and dance around the crypto-tree under the moonlight?   Yea no doubt blackcoin people will take the 50% handout too, but what do you expect them to do with it ?  Where is it going ?  There are 100s of coins already.  If a new Bitshares airdrop to a coin doesn't have the coin displace an existing coin, then it seems like just another bs coin to me.

I guess maybe you are planning on recreating the exchange for them ?

You lectured everyone about charity, but then when it comes to a real gift you do a complete 180.  I'm so confused.

What I do find interesting is the question of gifting to POW vs POS.  I hear you about POW not wanting to accept a POS coin, but those are the coins that are inflated by necessity.  So the supporters of a coin who are mining it would not support us, but the users who use the coin for other reasons might.

Whereas POS people have little reason to switch over because they already have a generation 1.5/2.0 technology.

And what happens when these merged/forked coins inevitably fail ?  (99%+ chance IMO)  Is it worth it to get the Bitshares technology out there to show it is superior even when the coins themselves fail?  It would be a bit of a blackeye on Bitshares, but then it hasn't even been determined who would try to fork a coin into DPOS. Would I3 get behind it with a grant?  Or would it be an independent 3rd party.  Perhaps someone in their community would do it and just make it 100% airdrop 

[tonyk]

I think this discussion is a mess. Everybody is writing his thoughts on random topics (yours truly included)…, starting from random points were somebody said something about something in most cases totally unrelated to the OP…

[luckybit]

Airdrops are bad. 

We need to realize there are 3 different types of DACs and form this discussion around those distinct categories.

1) I3 official DACs - Unlikely to be airdropped to a random altcoin.  (Actually not sure how these allocations will work.)
2) DACs that are basically forks of altcoins to show off DPOS
3) Independent DACs.

#2 is where I agree with airdrops because it is basically the definition of a forked coin.  The debate should be around finding it acceptable to honor PTS/AGS at a lower % than 10%/10%.

#3 is going to be up to the developer.  If someone writes a DAC then it will be up to them what mixture of allotment they wish to use.  I am interesting in discussing this because of all the possible variations to align incentives.   This is partially why I started this thread.

#1 I3 DACs.  Kinda pointless to even debate it here either, because I think Dan & others have changed their mind on the value of airdrops.

So if anyone wants to have the bad/good discussion on airdrops, it would be nice to see your thoughts qualified.

 

I realise with  '2' you're saying we're essentially going to clone most of the features that make a coin unique but add something like DPOS.

Considering the centralisation and inflation of POW, provided we aren't too greedy these switchovers should have a real shot.

In which case  >90% going to holders of the existing POW coin means a much higher likelihood of success. Something like a successful Litecoin switchover would be epic.

If you gave them 100% in a fork they'd still pump and dump it. It's been tried before with many altcoins and never has worked. There has never been a successful switchover which turned a PoW community into a PoS community.

Here is what I believe will happen. You'll give them your technology and 90% of the equity. They'll pump and dump it, use the cash to buy new ASIC rigs or shares in NXT.

What exactly would you stand to gain from pursuing short term superficial userbases from PoW communities? Also if you don't do the Sharedrop in a targeted way it's even more likely you'll get a pump an dump.

So what I'm taking into account with my 50/50 thing is that the purpose of DPoS should not be to try and give Bitcoin and Litecoin free upgrades. They aren't going to trust this technology over their own developers and their developers aren't pushing for it.

And the users who do want PoS can just buy into the main Bitshares DAC. So by doing this you'd be reducing your own volume in the main DAC along with your equity. Essentially at best a pump and dump and at worst a hostile takeover attempt. I wouldn't support either scenario.

Now if you could somehow make a case that they would be long term users who wouldn't use the money to buy new ASICs, and that the Litecoin or Bitcoin developers would switch over, then I would start to understand.

But if you cannot convince their developers to switch over then the switch over will be a pump and dump because without any long term support it's never going to be anything but a gimmick. If the developers of Litecoin were on the same page posting in here saying they want to switch to DPoS then I would then understand why negotiating for 10% makes sense because you know they have developers skilled enough to take 100% and a community bigger than ours.

The problem though is you and Gamey are talking about replacing Litecoin with Liteshares or Litecoin 2. I think that will be viewed as our community attempting a hostile takeover and will backfire. I also think giving another community a gift is a hostile fork because it would potentially damage our community to gift the competition.

So to clarify, Liteshares should not and should never be called "Litecoin 2.0". It should not seek to replace Litecoin. It should be a DAC from our community which we share with the Litecoin community. We could call it Liteshares or something else but the idea is let their core devs continue working on Litecoin and don't interfere with their agenda.

[toast]

I think the entire concept of forking any existing altcoin to make a "2.0" version is very misguided.

How do you think the market would react if you switched out Litecoin's mining algorithm with a different one and then called it Litecoin 2.0 and did the allocation strategy you suggest? This is the same thing...

[luckybit]

In the first part you go out of your way to agree with me that independent DACs are up to their creator.  Then later you say they should never be made without innovations and list qualifications.  Whaaat !??

The irony is that I made this post to help us and others from talking past each other.  I have failed incredibly.

Independent DACs are up to the creators. That doesn't mean they'll have a community backing it. What I understand is that the community is what makes or breaks a DAC. If you created a Litecoin fork you wouldn't get even 50% of the Litecoin community, you would probably get a pump and dump from massive Litecoin miners who would use the money to buy the latest ASIC rig.

PoW communities made up almost entirely of miners aren't going to go running to Proof of Stake so I just don't think it makes any sense strategically.

I don't think they have anything to gain and I don't think we have anything to gain. It would be like trying to get Bitcoin to accept Cooperative Proof of Stake and we see how conservative Bitcoin developers are.

To be fair these PoS technologies are untested so Litecoin wouldn't be quick to switch anyway but if somehow they could be made to switch why give them 90% of your technology when you get 0% from them? Sure you would get a pump and dump which would allow you to make quick money but you get no long term partnership like you could get from a Proof of Stake community with 50/50.

In my opinion if it's only 10% for our community then it's likely to fail because if the Litecoin community doesn't fall in love with the chain then our community will not be interested in the chain because the stake is way too small.

I'll stick to the 50/50 split because it's the only fair solution in a merger. If this were corporations would we give up 90% stake when our community will probably make up the vast majority of the users of the DAC? We provide all the users, the network effect, they take all 90% of the stake? If you merge communities you ultimately have to merge stakes in a new chain.

A misconception you may have is that you believe the Liteshares chain should be Litecoin 2. It's never going to be Litecoin 2. Just as Blackshares as I described was not meant to replace Blackcoin. It's meant to be an additional custom chain with the Blackcoin logo. It's to be our DAC which we share with Blackcoin community by branding and the 50/50 split. It could easily be 90% for us and 10% for the Blackcoin community, but then they would say it's unfair because it has their branding.

Bitshares has BitBTC in it right? Does that mean we owe the Bitcoin community 90% of the stake because it has BitBTC in it? Even if you put a Bitcoin skin on top and called it Bitcoinshares it still makes no sense to gift 90 of it to a sharedrop because the purpose of a sharedrop is to achieve long term support and participation.

It seems obvious to me that diluting the equity in a coin with 50/50 will kill any consideration of it actually being used. 

I don't believe in these sorts of "gifts". That is the point. I also don't see why we should assume they deserve even a 50% stake. If we develop the fork we can give them whatever stake we feel is right and that could be 90% for us and 10% for them. And that would mean more people from our community would use the chain but when they are getting 10% of something for free which they'll dump for Bitcoins or Litecoins I don't see what difference it makes.

With a PoS community I would say these communities are likely to be active supporters of the DAC. They might actually start developing and updating the code. We might see new features that their developers put into it in the future. 50/50 would still be a good deal for them because we'd split it half and half. I don't think it's the same proposition with a PoS community because what if they decide not to dump and actually start using the DAC enough to compete with us in network effect?

So while I don't think Litecoin or Bitcoin would compete on network effect because they don't care (Bitcoin already has Colored Coins, Counterparty and Mastercoin), I don't see the Blackcoin community reacting the same way because they don't have these capabilities yet and clearly have shown that they are moving in this direction.

To sum up why I settle on 50/50 so strongly I look at this

1) Network effect. We have it. 5000 members on our forum and most of the concepts including Sharedrops come from this community.
2) Long term users will mostly come from this community. It makes no sense to reward another community with 90% stake as a gift when the majority will cash out immediately and not be long term users of the technology. They'd just as likely use NXT, Mastercoin, or anything else if they want technology.
3. Without our community backing it then it's likely most altchains will fail. Many will be the same sort of pump and dump scams you see every day with no community behind it. What happened to the Silicon Valley coin? The Bitcointalk coin? These coins all failed because they dropped to a user base that doesn't care enough to use the technology.

I think in most altchains the primary users will come from this community. So if most of the volume comes from this community then most of the profit comes from this community. If that is the case then if it's not 50/50 then this community will simple be in a position to make a fork of the fork which is 50/50 and use that one. The other fork would get less volume and eventually whither and die.

[gamey]

I realise with  '2' you're saying we're essentially going to clone most of the features that make a coin unique but add something like DPOS.

Considering the centralisation and inflation of POW, provided we aren't too greedy these switchovers should have a real shot.

In which case  >90% going to holders of the existing POW coin means a much higher likelihood of success. Something like a successful Litecoin switchover would be epic.

The coins we'd fork would not be highly specialized coins, but coins with large market caps that we would improve with the addition of DPOS and the removal of inflation via POW. If the coin is discarded then so be it, but it WILL get the Bitshares name out there.  Making it 50/50 or a "merger" seems greedy to me and I suspect it will be perceived that way.  With 90/10 we at least have a chance of the coin being taken seriously.  I even agree about > 90%.  95%.. whatever. If they want to pump and dump it, it will be coming from their camp.  Not ours.

The goal is to win hearts not equity/capital.

[gamey]

LuckyBit, I am just explaining different categories to form discussion around.  Didn't really even begin to expect you to find so many places to tell me "you're wrong".  I'm also not sure why you want a DPOS forked coin to be 50/50 when I suggest we make it more like 90/10.  Then you tell me the only reason is for a "pump and dump".  I am totally confused.  It seems obvious to me that diluting the equity in a coin with 50/50 will kill any consideration of it actually being used.  It is then less of a gift and more of a equity grab.  It also makes the Bitshares people look exceptionally greedy.  You then go on about being lazy.. and forking a fork a fork etc.  There you 100% lost me.  Seriously.  Ok, if you don't like the word "fork".  That is fine, but it was just something I picked off the top of my head because it works better than any other word if you don't consider previous usage.

The #2 category has already existed.  Look at the thread about Litecoin 2.0. 

You totally confuse me with being a big proponent of airdropping and charity and this and that, and then you tell me that the category for discussion's sake shouldn't exist. Nor should true charity exist, but something where we get 50% to create a coin that no existing party will wish to adopt.

In the first part you go out of your way to agree with me that independent DACs are up to their creator.  Then later you say they should never be made without innovations and list qualifications.  Whaaat !??

The irony is that I made this post to help us and others from talking past each other.  I have failed incredibly.

[Empirical1]

Airdrops are bad. 

We need to realize there are 3 different types of DACs and form this discussion around those distinct categories.

1) I3 official DACs - Unlikely to be airdropped to a random altcoin.  (Actually not sure how these allocations will work.)
2) DACs that are basically forks of altcoins to show off DPOS
3) Independent DACs.

#2 is where I agree with airdrops because it is basically the definition of a forked coin.  The debate should be around finding it acceptable to honor PTS/AGS at a lower % than 10%/10%.

#3 is going to be up to the developer.  If someone writes a DAC then it will be up to them what mixture of allotment they wish to use.  I am interesting in discussing this because of all the possible variations to align incentives.   This is partially why I started this thread.

#1 I3 DACs.  Kinda pointless to even debate it here either, because I think Dan & others have changed their mind on the value of airdrops.

So if anyone wants to have the bad/good discussion on airdrops, it would be nice to see your thoughts qualified.

 

I realise with  '2' you're saying we're essentially going to clone most of the features that make a coin unique but add something like DPOS.

Considering the centralisation and inflation of POW, provided we aren't too greedy these switchovers should have a real shot.

In which case  >90% going to holders of the existing POW coin means a much higher likelihood of success. Something like a successful Litecoin switchover would be epic.

[Stan]

A reminder:  just our first chain, XT, is 50/50.
toast hijack: to be clear, stan is assuming "XT" will be upgraded to be fully-featured. What we mean is, "our first X chain that is fully-featured is 50/50". We haven't fully committed to whether we will upgrade XT or snapshot to another chain for the first "real" X chain - it's probably a good idea though.

No commitments beyond 10/10/80 have been made (by us) for anything else.

In reality, it is up to each derivative developer/operator to define the fiendishly clever mix they think will beat their competitors.

We will support all developers/operators who meet the 10/10 threshold without violating our stated principles.  We reserve the right to endorse the "best" product from among those who meet this minimum threshold.

[luckybit]

1) I3 official DACs - Unlikely to be airdropped to a random altcoin.  (Actually not sure how these allocations will work.)

This is true, The I3 DACs aren't going to be sharedropped. The problem is they'll take so long to release each one that the XT will probably be forked a few times before Bitshares X is even released and then Bitshares X will probably get forked too. Basically they are the leaders and everyone will have to upgrade their forks to follow what I3 invents until other people know enough to innovate.

2) DACs that are basically forks of altcoins to show off DPOS

This I don't agree with. The proper word is a merger. A fork of the altcoin would be basically taking all the features and technology they have and changing the logo. No one is suggesting that or at least I wasn't suggesting it. So you've left out mergers where two communities combine.

What advantage is there for example to fork the Bitshares technology and then call it Litecoin 2.0? I never could make sense of that. The people advocating that aren't advocating any custom BitAssets from the standard chain or any new features so it's just not interesting.

3) Independent DACs.

Independent DACs we do not really control.

#2 is where I agree with airdrops because it is basically the definition of a forked coin.  The debate should be around finding it acceptable to honor PTS/AGS at a lower % than 10%/10%.

I think you've got some things wrong. 2) shouldn't exist because it would be pointless for us and them to "clone" a coin except pump and dump scenarios. What you'd do is make a custom DAC but it would be Bitshares underneath rather than their coin. So it's an entirely new thing for us and them. It would need to have custom BitAssets and the only reason to do this is to test out new BitAssets and invite new users into the Bitshares ecosystem.

As a result they don't deserve more than 50% of it. Of course if you just are lazy and fork it without any custom changes then why not make a fork of the fork, and then a fork of the fork of the fork?

The debate should be around finding it acceptable to honor at less than 50/50. Not the 10%. 10% is the minimum but considering how new the technology is why would you accept 10% now when you're dealing with brand new technology and our community is the biggest and earliest adopters of it?

#3 is going to be up to the developer.  If someone writes a DAC then it will be up to them what mixture of allotment they wish to use.  I am interesting in discussing this because of all the possible variations to align incentives.   This is partially why I started this thread.

As long as they add new features, custom BitAssets, actual innovations, then an independent DAC is a great way to test things out without risking the main chain. Independent DACs can fail and are for bleeding edge but we need a bleeding edge.

#1 I3 DACs.  Kinda pointless to even debate it here either, because I think Dan & others have changed their mind on the value of airdrops.

They never suggested that I3 DACs would support sharedrops. They specifically announced it would be 50/50 between PTS and AGS. They are stuck in that.

This is why I suggest non-I3 forks so that the community can create custom chains for Blackcoin, or just any Proof of Stake community which doesn't have the capability. Whichever fork has the most volume and network effect will win and 50/50 guarantees success.

[gamey]

Airdrops are bad. 

We need to realize there are 3 different types of DACs and form this discussion around those distinct categories.

1) I3 official DACs - Unlikely to be airdropped to a random altcoin.  (Actually not sure how these allocations will work.)
2) DACs that are basically forks of altcoins to show off DPOS
3) Independent DACs.

#2 is where I agree with airdrops because it is basically the definition of a forked coin.  The debate should be around finding it acceptable to honor PTS/AGS at a lower % than 10%/10%.

#3 is going to be up to the developer.  If someone writes a DAC then it will be up to them what mixture of allotment they wish to use.  I am interesting in discussing this because of all the possible variations to align incentives.   This is partially why I started this thread.

#1 I3 DACs.  Kinda pointless to even debate it here either, because I think Dan & others have changed their mind on the value of airdrops.

So if anyone wants to have the bad/good discussion on airdrops, it would be nice to see your thoughts qualified.

[bitbro]

Airdrops are bad. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gamey]

The moral justification for doing this I think would depend on a squatter's rights based foundation of the right to property, and the idea that claiming ownership of property requires providing some way for interested parties to determine that the property in question is actively owned.  Any wallet software should automatically prevent the "inactivity fee" from coming into action as long as the wallet is brought online from time to time.

 

[Troglodactyl]

The original purpose of the inactivity fee as I see it was to prevent blockchain bloat and allow us to keep only one year's records.  This is advantageous both to cut storage and overhead requirements and to make the real "total supply" numbers more transparent by filtering out any holdings belonging to lost or destroyed wallets after a year.

The moral justification for doing this I think would depend on a squatter's rights based foundation of the right to property, and the idea that claiming ownership of property requires providing some way for interested parties to determine that the property in question is actively owned.  Any wallet software should automatically prevent the "inactivity fee" from coming into action as long as the wallet is brought online from time to time. 

[gamey]

Does anyone think this hurts their property rights?

Communism has many forms….
-----------------------------------------------------

Full ownership rights agreement ( and Deed)

[/b]


1. You have full ownership rights on this piece of land. ( description____)

2. To continue having this right you must:

-plow it no earlier or later than 1st of May
-grow only corn (put exact brand here______)
- Use only combines provided by (put company name here______)
- Sell your entire crop @ 4.00 BTS/cryptomarketvolume to ((put company name here______)

3.Failiour to comply with any of 2. Will result in you losing 5% to 100% of your property…
--------------------------------------------------




So, is  this   infragments one’s property rights:
YES

Are you willing to accept it, personally:
In the form suggested probably yes, BUT not without keep an eye where it progresses from this semi-acceptable level!

I was mainly just stirring the pot.  There are so many different things that can be done with this stuff.  I know some people are very pro-airdrop.  I like airdrops too, if we need methods to weed out the people who will either dump or do nothing.   These 2 categories of people would need different approaches.  I mainly brought this as a way to mitigate the "contribute nothing" people when given free shares.  If they show no interest in the shares within the first year, then remove them.

So one does an airdrop and the shares are locked into the addresses for a year.  So they can not be sold or dumped.  Possibly a year + random time.  Then you also make it so that if they don't vote then their shares are removed. (voting in that it shows they've "claimed" their shares .. it could be some other mechanism)  This prevents people who got something for free, had no interest in it, then showed up 3 years later claiming their stake.  If I implemented a DAC and sharedropped, this is what I would want.

I don't think I'd ever suggest this type of rule for people who paid for their shares.  Either via Protoshares or buying the DAC shares directly.  However if only done for those who received the shares for free, one could consider the shares to not be their property until they actually claim it.  They've put forth nothing to attain the property so it is questionable when it actually becomes their property.

[BldSwtTrs]

I'm going to post a comment here that is perhaps not entirely OT.

According to Bytemaster the act of moving funds around is beneficial to the network.

The "silent long term holders, who might not have the technical knowledge, time, or interest to continually remember to shuffle around shares in various DACs" are exactly the people that should be negatively incentived to actively care for the network, rather than sit on their money and passively watch it grow.

Keyhotee (afaik) is a possible solution for the myriad of online holdings one will acquire over the years.

Up the inactivity fee to 50% for all I care.

Thomas Piketty anyone?

Talking about Thomas Piketty is certainly the worst way to advocate that fee.

[pgbit]

Well, 5% fee for not doing anything, or confiscating 5% of your account, comes out at the same.

Can anyone post a link or explanation on how this will operate?

This doesn't affect PTS. This is for future DACs only, and should be made clear by each individual DAC developer.

Obviously up to the DAC creators, but I think this would put people off, having any additional inactivity fee. Especially if it wasnt *entirely* clear i.e. in your face reminder about the fact.

[gamey]

After I read this topic here, I sold all my PTS. This is insider moaning - without vision.
Besides: What are Votes? Where? For what? I dont want to study to understand Bitshares.

I have no clue what you mean "This is insider moaning - without vision."  I assume you are referring to yourself ?

This is a forum, publicly open to anyone.  I am no more of an insider than most people who actively post on this forum.  It is for the exchange of ideas. 

Oh well, one day it'll be a more mainstream concept.  As it is, ideas are being vetted at a high rate.  Once 'best practices' are determined maybe you'll find it more acceptable and come back as an investor. 

BTW, right now is probably the worst time to sell PTS given the price and the imminent releases which will undoubtedly increase the price.  Personally I'd like to say thank you for selling as I am still in buy mode.

[tonyk]

Worth hashing over it for an hour sometime?  Some conversations that started out small have taking literally almost our entire hour...so it is very possible.

Non-native speakers both better understand are easier understood in writing. And while I get why you pump up the stuff you work on, I am really annoyed when somebody posts here –'we discussed that in the mumble session’ like if it is discussed there no point exists in putting, at least the same basic ideas,  in writing.

2c

[Empirical1]

After I read this topic here, I sold all my PTS. This is insider moaning - without vision.
Besides: What are Votes? Where? For what? I dont want to study to understand Bitshares.

Translation: You don't want to investigate before investing?! blame themselves

Guy looks like a particularly lazy investor/speculator. But it also points to the need to focus on marketing and explaining core Bitshares concepts clearly and succintly to the casual investor at an easy to find destination.

[fuzzy]

After I read this topic here, I sold all my PTS. This is insider moaning - without vision.
Besides: What are Votes? Where? For what? I dont want to study to understand Bitshares.

Translation: You don't want to investigate before investing?! blame themselves

These are very difficult questions and this is precisely the reason we have weekly hangouts with Bytemaster.  He is there so we can learn, question and teach each other with one of the leading minds in crypto.  He takes into consideration the points that are made surprisingly well from my standpoint...so why not show up and talk about this with us so we can come to a conclusion on better options--MUCH of this is a shot in the dark with regard to the economics and sociological perspectives...not even getting into the political!

Worth hashing over it for an hour sometime?  Some conversations that started out small have taking literally almost our entire hour...so it is very possible. 

[xeroc]

After I read this topic here, I sold all my PTS. This is insider moaning - without vision.
Besides: What are Votes? Where? For what? I dont want to study to understand Bitshares.

Translation: You don't want to investigate before investing?! blame themselves

[Reiner]

After I read this topic here, I sold all my PTS. This is insider moaning - without vision.
Besides: What are Votes? Where? For what? I dont want to study to understand Bitshares.

[tonyk]

Does anyone think this hurts their property rights?

Communism has many forms….
-----------------------------------------------------

Full ownership rights agreement ( and Deed)

[/b]


1. You have full ownership rights on this piece of land. ( description____)

2. To continue having this right you must:

-plow it no earlier or later than 1st of May
-grow only corn (put exact brand here______)
- Use only combines provided by (put company name here______)
- Sell your entire crop @ 4.00 BTS/cryptomarketvolume to ((put company name here______)

3.Failiour to comply with any of 2. Will result in you losing 5% to 100% of your property…
--------------------------------------------------




So, is  this   infragments one’s property rights:
YES

Are you willing to accept it, personally:
In the form suggested probably yes, BUT not without keep an eye where it progresses from this semi-acceptable level!

[luckybit]

Does anyone think this hurts their property rights?

The idea is as a shareholder there would be some vote you would have to take part of every X time or your shares would be removed. This would also work great on top of air drops.  I think it'd make the system more responsive etc. Less likely for a minority to have too much power due to apathy of the majority.  In the end I think it could be a better proposition to those who wish to own a DAC.

I'm only partially trolling.

Thoughts ?

In a system with dividends you could give dividends to people who vote. By rejecting the people who don't vote from receiving dividends you both secure the system and encourage voting.

If your dividend depends on you voting then you'll vote. In fact everyone would participate in voting if they could be paid to vote.

That is just one way of doing it. Transaction fees which were designed to pay for dividends once upon a time could have easily been directed to the participants who consistently vote.

[Mrrr]

I'm going to post a comment here that is perhaps not entirely OT.

According to Bytemaster the act of moving funds around is beneficial to the network.

The "silent long term holders, who might not have the technical knowledge, time, or interest to continually remember to shuffle around shares in various DACs" are exactly the people that should be negatively incentived to actively care for the network, rather than sit on their money and passively watch it grow.

Keyhotee (afaik) is a possible solution for the myriad of online holdings one will acquire over the years.

Up the inactivity fee to 50% for all I care.

Thomas Piketty anyone?

[mas]

The details are that that as long as you move your funds once per year... at the expense of a normal TRX fee you will not be charged 5%.

This proves ownership, allows the network to recapture 'lost keys', and helps clean up delegate votes.   

This also provides an opportunity for increased privacy because all money is moving frequently others don't know if transfers are to your self or to someone else.

The arguments above have their positive merits. This however will disadvantage silent long term holders, who might not have the technical knowledge, time, or interest to continually remember to shuffle around shares in various DACs. I can imagine that many years down the road, current Bitshares PTS and AGS holders will have shares/coins in multiple DACs, and this burden of having to remember to move them around once a year, can become onerous if you have multiple coins/shares.

5% seems somewhat high, perhaps a lower inactivity fee would balance your positive arguments, and my protection to long term holders without knowledge/time/ability to move things around.

Some (not necessarily me, but maybe) are in this for the long term, and would prefer to have a long term buy and hold without needing to move things around. The inactivity fee burdens those, and perhaps rewards those with shorter term horizons that might shuffle things faster.

[xeroc]

for privacy .. havent considered that part yet

[bytemaster]

The details are that that as long as you move your funds once per year... at the expense of a normal TRX fee you will not be charged 5%.

This proves ownership, allows the network to recapture 'lost keys', and helps clean up delegate votes.   

This also provides an opportunity for increased privacy because all money is moving frequently others don't know if transfers are to your self or to someone else.

[gamey]

Well, 5% fee for not doing anything, or confiscating 5% of your account, comes out at the same.

Can anyone post a link or explanation on how this will operate?

I just made a post discussing the idea.  Don't panic please.  As I start to wrap my head around this stuff, I come up with more ideas. I just posted to stir up a discussion.

Toast - I did not know there was an inactivity fee being implemented. To give anything a serious comparison we'd have to come up with specific parameters.  I need to read more about inactivity fee but it likely is more reasonable than my all or nothing approach.

Mas - As far as what vote I am talking about...  This would be for any DAC.  If you voted for board members, or even manually switching a delegate vote.  The idea is to enforce some level of participation.  The neat thing about DACs is any rule that can be implemented in code could be part of a DAC.  The other nice thing is that if you remove shares of those who don't vote, you can clean up outcome of the airdrop.  (Although I am not convinced this is actually as useful as it might seem at first glance...)

[mas]

Thanks

[Amazon]

Well, 5% fee for not doing anything, or confiscating 5% of your account, comes out at the same.

Can anyone post a link or explanation on how this will operate?

http://bitshares.org/faq/

It is not for PTS

What fees are charged to users of BitShares XT?

A small percentage fee is assessed for every trade on the exchange, a 5% margin call fee is assessed to every user subject to a margin call, and a 5% inactivity fee is assessed to every address that has had no activity for a full year.

[toast]

Well, 5% fee for not doing anything, or confiscating 5% of your account, comes out at the same.

Can anyone post a link or explanation on how this will operate?

This doesn't affect PTS. This is for future DACs only, and should be made clear by each individual DAC developer.

[xeroc]

Its not there yet .. still on the todolist of github afair ..

[mas]

Well, 5% fee for not doing anything, or confiscating 5% of your account, comes out at the same.

Can anyone post a link or explanation on how this will operate?

[xeroc]

Its a 5% inactivity fee .. no confiscation

[mas]

I hold some Bitshares PTS as a long term investment, and I don't plan to be actively involved. Came upon this thread by chance. Could someone explain, or link to an explanation, of what votes you are discussing?

Seems unfair to punish silent long term investors by confiscation.

[jae208]

1 year is good enough

[toast]

Well there is already an inactivity fee after 1 year. Taking away shares for not voting is equivalent to taking away shares for not moving your stake.

Is 1 year too long?

[gamey]

Does anyone think this hurts their property rights?

The idea is as a shareholder there would be some vote you would have to take part of every X time or your shares would be removed. This would also work great on top of air drops.  I think it'd make the system more responsive etc. Less likely for a minority to have too much power due to apathy of the majority.  In the end I think it could be a better proposition to those who wish to own a DAC.

I'm only partially trolling.

Thoughts ?