Author Topic: No DPOS upgrade for Bitshares PTS???  (Read 6404 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
956 to be exact!
and is in the top 10 thread starters with 71 threads.
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile
Pts is maintained by testz.   

What is "testz" (an organization?), who are the members of testz, how do we contact those people, and where can we get additional information on the organization and people?

Anyone here have any idea who "testz" is? It has literally never been mentioned in a single thread in this forum except this one.

Testz is an old hand. When you conduct a search of the threads, you have to go to the main home page first, then search. Otherwise, you are just searching the thread you are in. Testz has 900+ posts.

https://184.154.208.204/index.php?action=profile;u=183

Offline sudo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2255
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: ags
Invictus only produces software. Pts is maintained by testz.   Btsx by dacs unlimited

Invictus will not issue any crypto currency or shares. 

If the pts community organizes a well accepted upgrade that would be good for everyone. 

My opinion is that someone should create a user issued asset on btsx. based on an official snapshot. 

It will not be invictus, but I would support moving the social consensus to such an asset if executed well. 

Those that want it to happen should organize to make it happen. I think most would rather see it on btsx than not.   Exchanges are already integrated with it too. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


My opinion is that someone should create a user issued asset on btsx. based on an official snapshot.   +5% +5%

pts embedded in btsx is the best choice

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
He is online as of now. Check users online...

nope here is the link. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=183
« Last Edit: August 01, 2014, 05:29:44 am by tonyk »
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile
Pts is maintained by testz.   

What is "testz" (an organization?), who are the members of testz, how do we contact those people, and where can we get additional information on the organization and people?

Anyone here have any idea who "testz" is? It has literally never been mentioned in a single thread in this forum except this one.

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile
Pts is maintained by testz.   

What is "testz" (an organization?), who are the members of testz, how do we contact those people, and where can we get additional information on the organization and people?

With respect to the question of listing PTS within BTSX vs an independent blockchain, I am wondering whether it makes sense for PTS to be encompassed by what is essentially the first DAC. In other words, there are very ambitious features of the BTSX DAC that could fail spectacularly, independent of DPOS (pegged assets, for example). I am leaning towards PTS not being subject to the volatility introduced by these features. In fact, I would argue that the original "eggs in one basket" concern about the security of DPOS actually applies more clearly to BTSX than DPOS. PTS should be independent, both in price, volatility, and features from the DACs that are born from it. This way it ends up representing a more distributed and non-biased segment of investors who are not for or against any particular feature of any particular DAC, but who believe in the underlying protocol as a foundation (DPOS).

Offline biophil

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 880
  • Professor of Computer Science
    • View Profile
    • My Academic Website
  • BitShares: biophil
I strongly support moving PTS to btsx as soon as we have a GUI for user-created asset trading.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

Support our research efforts to improve BitAsset price-pegging! Vote for worker 1.14.204 "201907-uccs-research-project."

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani
Invictus only produces software. Pts is maintained by testz.   Btsx by dacs unlimited

Invictus will not issue any crypto currency or shares. 

If the pts community organizes a well accepted upgrade that would be good for everyone. 

My opinion is that someone should create a user issued asset on btsx. based on an official snapshot. 

It will not be invictus, but I would support moving the social consensus to such an asset if executed well. 

Those that want it to happen should organize to make it happen. I think most would rather see it on btsx than not.   Exchanges are already integrated with it too. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


so let's start from which of us want it  happen?


 +5% from me!


PS  would it better to start a new poll thread with bytemaster's idea/proposal?

Offline bytemaster

Invictus only produces software. Pts is maintained by testz.   Btsx by dacs unlimited

Invictus will not issue any crypto currency or shares. 

If the pts community organizes a well accepted upgrade that would be good for everyone. 

My opinion is that someone should create a user issued asset on btsx. based on an official snapshot. 

It will not be invictus, but I would support moving the social consensus to such an asset if executed well. 

Those that want it to happen should organize to make it happen. I think most would rather see it on btsx than not.   Exchanges are already integrated with it too. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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 gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
They take input from community, but they act themselves.  The phrase implies they are doing something underhanded amongst themselves to benefit themselves.

Wrong. The phrase implies that there is a lack of transparency coupled with an apparent reversal of their (I3's) position. Stan was seemingly on board with "Proposal 3" which I link to above (it was HIS OWN proposal), and so was almost everyone who commented. He said: "This is, in my opinion, not the best we can do as a community,  but this seems to be the closest thing to a consensus we have at this point.  Not unanimous consensus by any means, but perhaps the only way to move forward."

Think about this: the marketing director proposes something which the community discusses at length and agrees to. Then, after a private meeting he goes 180 degrees in the opposite direction with no further feedback or explanation. That is called "backdoor decision making".

Here is a list of issues switching over
Resources to test from POW/momentum -> DPOS = large.
DPOS's wallet isn't even finished yet.
Several major exchanges would have to stop supporting PTS if the change happened this instant.
PTS would be in chaos with 2 forks going forward.  Unlike most forks where the old fork is obviously dead, that won't be the case here.
All the support resources that would be taken away by this.
As I alluded to previously, there is a distinction.  With PTS/POW it was all mined into existence.  All they did was release software.  Now you are asking them to allocate PTS.  Think of this in terms of how laws might be applied in some country somewhere.  Having it mined into existence is a lot better position to be in.

It is a minefield and I3 doesn't have infinite resources.

I really really wish PTS wasn't so screwed up either.  I just don't know why you would want them to change it over right now.  It should probably have a hard fork fixing the difficulty issue sooner than later if nothing else.

Obviously the developers and Stan disagree with you on this new "resource limitation" argument since they were the ones who proposed the change in the first place! But then again, maybe you know better than even the developers about what can and cannot be done. /s

The fact is that it takes very little additional resource FROM I3 to do the fork. The exchanges will need to implement a wallet on their end, but they will have to do that for BTSX anyway. There is minimal overhead for PTS support, or any other DAC for that matter (once they support the first DPOS coin).

Very little resource but out of how much?  It has to be thoroughly tested.  You make your points as if they're all facts and DPOS is great - game over.  They're still working on the voting in case you haven't noticed.

I wish something would be done about PTS, but I don't think there is any "backdoor decision making".  You keep framing it like that.  What else can they do ? Take a forum poll and then make every decision based on that ?  Forum polls/dicussions are binding or else we will always have "backdoor decision making".  That is the position you are taking ?

I'm was just telling you reasons I would guess their change in direction.  Sorry if you don't like that.  You don't have to go all jr. high sarcastic on me. I apologized for lol'ing at you originally. 

There are just a ton of things to do.  Do you really think 5-6 million USD goes that far when you are trying to do what they're doing ?   You have obviously true points, but your phrasing is doing nothing but promoting FUD.  A lot of people would like to see PTS moved over to DPOS, but DPOS has barely been out for starters.

You want them to give a hard date/decisions on something that they can't even currently do, which all it does is create an endless cycle of threads like this. 

Obviously you don't want a discussion on it.  You just want to vent, so I will bow out of replying further.

BTW Dan discussed this on the last beyondbitcoinshow that was posted from the weekend before if anyone wants to hear his view on it.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani
The fact is that it takes very little additional resource FROM I3 to do the fork. The exchanges will need to implement a wallet on their end, but they will have to do that for BTSX anyway. There is minimal overhead for PTS support, or any other DAC for that matter (once they support the first DPOS coin).

make sense

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile
They take input from community, but they act themselves.  The phrase implies they are doing something underhanded amongst themselves to benefit themselves.

Wrong. The phrase implies that there is a lack of transparency coupled with an apparent reversal of their (I3's) position. Stan was seemingly on board with "Proposal 3" which I link to above (it was HIS OWN proposal), and so was almost everyone who commented. He said: "This is, in my opinion, not the best we can do as a community,  but this seems to be the closest thing to a consensus we have at this point.  Not unanimous consensus by any means, but perhaps the only way to move forward."

Think about this: the marketing director proposes something which the community discusses at length and agrees to. Then, after a private meeting he goes 180 degrees in the opposite direction with no further feedback or explanation. That is called "backdoor decision making".

Here is a list of issues switching over
Resources to test from POW/momentum -> DPOS = large.
DPOS's wallet isn't even finished yet.
Several major exchanges would have to stop supporting PTS if the change happened this instant.
PTS would be in chaos with 2 forks going forward.  Unlike most forks where the old fork is obviously dead, that won't be the case here.
All the support resources that would be taken away by this.
As I alluded to previously, there is a distinction.  With PTS/POW it was all mined into existence.  All they did was release software.  Now you are asking them to allocate PTS.  Think of this in terms of how laws might be applied in some country somewhere.  Having it mined into existence is a lot better position to be in.

It is a minefield and I3 doesn't have infinite resources.

I really really wish PTS wasn't so screwed up either.  I just don't know why you would want them to change it over right now.  It should probably have a hard fork fixing the difficulty issue sooner than later if nothing else.

Obviously the developers and Stan disagree with you on this new "resource limitation" argument since they were the ones who proposed the change in the first place! But then again, maybe you know better than even the developers about what can and cannot be done. /s

The fact is that it takes very little additional resource FROM I3 to do the fork. The exchanges will need to implement a wallet on their end, but they will have to do that for BTSX anyway. There is minimal overhead for PTS support, or any other DAC for that matter (once they support the first DPOS coin).

Offline Brekyrself

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 512
    • View Profile
Another issue is pool and miner support.  www.beeeeer.org is taking it's pts pool offline August 7th.

Offline onceuponatime

I support the Invictus decision-making process. The only way to make coherent decisions is to listen to the stakeholders, take everything into account, and then act decisively. They can't submit all their decisions to the whims of polls and voting and squeaky wheels; if they did, it would be chaos and nothing important would get done.

That said, I agree with the opinion that PTS badly needs an upgrade and I join you in calling for one as soon as possible. DPOS sounds like a good improvement. I say throw it on there. PLEEEASE, folks, fix PTS, and not just with a band-aid patch.

So says this squeaky wheel (and stakeholder).

Agree +5%

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile
I support the Invictus decision-making process. The only way to make coherent decisions is to listen to the stakeholders, take everything into account, and then act decisively. They can't submit all their decisions to the whims of polls and voting and squeaky wheels; if they did, it would be chaos and nothing important would get done.

That said, I agree with the opinion that PTS badly needs an upgrade and I join you in calling for one as soon as possible. DPOS sounds like a good improvement. I say throw it on there. PLEEEASE, folks, fix PTS, and not just with a band-aid patch.

So says this squeaky wheel (and stakeholder).

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
Lol @ the continued use of  "backdoor decision making" as if someone is doing anything underhanded. 
[...]
Part of the problem is that Stan went and started making their thoughts public, then they went back, changed them and currently not following through.

That is the exact definition of backdoor decision making, not sure what you are laughing about. There was a long and detailed public discussion leading to consensus. Then "some people" decided to reverse course, in private, and with no input or explanation to the community.

They take input from community, but they act themselves.  The phrase implies they are doing something underhanded amongst themselves to benefit themselves.  That just doesn't seem to be the case at all.  You seem like you're trying to spread more FUD than anything. 

I shouldn't have laughed, but I just feel the urge to be a bit rude back when I see people implying that something malicious is happening here.  Like I3 is doing this to benefit themselves.  That is what you were implying.  I think the approach they're taking is for everyone's benefit.

Here is a list of issues switching over
Resources to test from POW/momentum -> DPOS = large.
DPOS's wallet isn't even finished yet.
Several major exchanges would have to stop supporting PTS if the change happened this instant.
PTS would be in chaos with 2 forks going forward.  Unlike most forks where the old fork is obviously dead, that won't be the case here.
All the support resources that would be taken away by this.
As I alluded to previously, there is a distinction.  With PTS/POW it was all mined into existence.  All they did was release software.  Now you are asking them to allocate PTS.  Think of this in terms of how laws might be applied in some country somewhere.  Having it mined into existence is a lot better position to be in.

It is a minefield and I3 doesn't have infinite resources.

I really really wish PTS wasn't so screwed up either.  I just don't know why you would want them to change it over right now.  It should probably have a hard fork fixing the difficulty issue sooner than later if nothing else.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile
Lol @ the continued use of  "backdoor decision making" as if someone is doing anything underhanded. 
[...]
Part of the problem is that Stan went and started making their thoughts public, then they went back, changed them and currently not following through.

That is the exact definition of backdoor decision making, not sure what you are laughing about. There was a long and detailed public discussion leading to consensus. Then "some people" decided to reverse course, in private, and with no input or explanation to the community.

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
Lol @ the continued use of  "backdoor decision making" as if someone is doing anything underhanded. 

The change still requires resources to do and is not even plausible to do at this exact moment with the exchange situation.

There are some fine distinctions at play too.  With a mined currency you never create any of the currency yourself.  You do not issue it, etc.  With DPOS it is different, yanno? 

You then have 2 networks floating around after the fork.

I agree PTS sucks.  Altruistic network that is relatively insecure.  I'd rather just see mining turned off. Part of the problem is that Stan went and started making their thoughts public, then they went back, changed them and currently not following through.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2014, 05:35:54 pm by gamey »
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile
if we would get to consensus about what we should do with the coins that are not mined yet, it would be more than sure that DPOS would be  implemented on PTS... at least that was what I understood...  so I am surprised as well  with your answer... I am missing something for sure...

We discussed this at length (see the threads I linked to). There is nothing to "do" with the unmined PTS - it doesn't exist. Here is the analogy to what you're asking about:

* My company spends $100 per day on security.
* The company funds development of a cheaper security technique, which reduces the cost of security to $50.
* Shareholders object that we don't know what to "do" with the saved $50, and therefore we should not implement the new technique.

There was no contractual obligation to give away ANY future savings, whether by DPOS or any other future improvement. Diluting the PTS money supply and giving it away would be theft, period.

Edit: this is really not relevant to my post, which was more about the lack of transparency and the backdoor decision making that went on, eventually crashing the price of PTS.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2014, 04:54:16 pm by alphaBar »

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
I remember asking but cannot remember the answer..

Why not have PTS a as market/asset on the blockchain ... basically its not too important what tech is behind it as long as its a public ledger you can take snapshots from

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani


There are a million other things to do, we need a POW difficulty update for PTS in either case, and we don't want to put all our eggs into one basket while DPOS so young. So we put it off. What makes you so concerned about it?

if we would get to consensus about what we should do with the coins that are not mined yet, it would be more than sure that DPOS would be  implemented on PTS... at least that was what I understood...  so I am surprised as well  with your answer... I am missing something for sure... 

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile
I try to be patient around here, but I would like PTS to be addressed also.

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile
There are a million other things to do

So you're saying you don't have the resources to do this? This is the exact opposite sentiment to what I was reading in the multiple discussion threads started by I3 above.

we need a POW difficulty update for PTS in either case

The POW difficulty update is not the only issue. What about the low hash rate and the fact that many of the miners are only mining for altruistic reasons. The current situation is insecure and inefficient, and the matter was discussed in painstaking detail with the community and resolved. The idea that I3 would make a backdoor decision after all this is just astonishing to me.

we don't want to put all our eggs into one basket while DPOS so young.

I'm sorry but this statement is utterly illogical. BTSX currently has 3 times the market cap of Bitshares PTS. Are you claiming that it is I3's strategy to "diversify" across multiple consensus algorithms just in case DPOS fails? Why not tell our DAC developers to do the same - one can create X11, Scrypt, SHA256, Nxt, etc. The fact is that everyone in this ecosystem has knowingly put their eggs into "this one basket" (DPOS). The entire point of buying PTS or AGS is to be solely in this one basket of DPOS.

What makes you so concerned about it?

*backroom decision making OPPOSITE to the community consensus
*scatterbrained and illogical answers when consulted
*The fact that some PTS whales dumped and crashed the price almost immediately after this backroom decision was made.

Is that enough for you?


Offline toast

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nikolai
There are a million other things to do, we need a POW difficulty update for PTS in either case, and we don't want to put all our eggs into one basket while DPOS so young. So we put it off. What makes you so concerned about it?
Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile
We had hundreds of comments and over a dozen forum posts, many by Stan himself discussing this:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4636.0
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4648.0
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4658.msg59210#msg59210

Ultimately, most in the community were in agreement with this proposal:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4684.0

Why was this not adopted? If there was a change of plans, why was the community not consulted?
« Last Edit: July 29, 2014, 06:00:07 am by alphaBar »

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile
Hi, can someone please explain the official position on this? There was intense discussion about what to do with the mining reward and then complete silence. Protoshares was created with the purpose of funding development of DPOS. What gives?