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.
Topic: No DPOS upgrade for Bitshares PTS??? (Read 10690 times)
