No DPOS upgrade for Bitshares PTS???

[gamey]

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.

[alphaBar]

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.

[gamey]

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.

[alphaBar]

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.

[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

[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... 

[donkeypong]

I try to be patient around here, but I would like PTS to be addressed also.

[alphaBar]

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?

[toast]

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?

[alphaBar]

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?

[alphaBar]

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?