Poll

How should PTS be upgraded?

PTS should be migrated to a standalone DPOS blockchain.
27 (50%)
PTS should be migrated to a user-issued asset in BTSX.
10 (18.5%)
PTS should stay on the current PoW chain.
17 (31.5%)

Total Members Voted: 47

Author Topic: PTS upgrade poll  (Read 13593 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline sudo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2255
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: ags
Re: PTS upgrade poll
« Reply #35 on: August 19, 2014, 03:43:52 pm »
did anyone mentioned  chinese community  about this vote of PTS future ???

Offline cryptillionaire

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 153
    • View Profile
Re: PTS upgrade poll
« Reply #34 on: August 17, 2014, 09:31:46 pm »
First post, but here we go:
I think DPOS is the way forwards, it looks like the PTS POW is now gpu mineable so the coin distribution is becoming centralized.
POW is dead across all cryptos, it's a terrible waste of electricity.

Offline pc

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1530
    • View Profile
    • Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko?
  • BitShares: cyrano
Re: PTS upgrade poll
« Reply #33 on: August 17, 2014, 08:31:10 am »
DPOS is not unstable. Stability issues in an old version of the Ubuntu client do not mean it is unstable.

Clarification: the "old version" was the newest official version at the time of my tests.
If stability issues in an official version do not mean it is unstable, then what else does?


Testz is the custodian of Bitshares PTS and is tasked with carrying out the consensus decision of the community.

There is no "consensus decision". There isn't even an absolute majority, only a relative.
Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko? ISBN 978-3-8442-6568-2 http://bitcoin.quisquis.de

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile
Re: PTS upgrade poll
« Reply #32 on: August 16, 2014, 11:11:33 pm »
I'm not a fan of PoW, but IMO PTS should stay on PoW for now, with a modified diff adjustment algorithm.

Apart from being a PITA to build, the current reference implementation of DPOS is still much too unstable. At least that's what my experiments with BTS-X indicate so far, see https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=6975.msg92769#msg92769 .

DPOS is not unstable. Stability issues in an old version of the Ubuntu client do not mean it is unstable. BTSX already has 3 times the market cap of PTS and includes a host of functionality (and thus potential vulnerabilities) that would not be present in the PTS upgrade chain. Should we then argue that BTSX should be rolled back to a PoW chain as well, since DPOS is so unstable? I agree that we need binaries, but that would require pruning and then branding the reference client - no additional functionality whatsoever.

Testz is the custodian of Bitshares PTS and is tasked with carrying out the consensus decision of the community. I believe he is more than competent enough for a rebrand of an existing reference client.

Offline pc

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1530
    • View Profile
    • Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko?
  • BitShares: cyrano
Re: PTS upgrade poll
« Reply #31 on: August 15, 2014, 10:40:41 am »
I'm not a fan of PoW, but IMO PTS should stay on PoW for now, with a modified diff adjustment algorithm.

Apart from being a PITA to build, the current reference implementation of DPOS is still much too unstable. At least that's what my experiments with BTS-X indicate so far, see https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=6975.msg92769#msg92769 .
Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko? ISBN 978-3-8442-6568-2 http://bitcoin.quisquis.de

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile
Re: PTS upgrade poll
« Reply #30 on: August 03, 2014, 12:51:41 am »
As  a high school student , most of my friends only learn about pow mining with GPU. we can join mining once we feel tired of our game  or we can just run the miner while we are not in the game.  it is a good to keep pow mining and all of my friends like it.  I consider pow mining is a good feature of bitshares products since we can experience pow and pos all together with one product and can easy to find out how sucks pow mining is .

 :) :) :)

In BitShares you can be more productive, instead playing game you can propose yourself as delegate and use delegate rewards to do something useful for community, and then you feel tired, run miner, mine some profitable coins and sell it for BTSX.
 :) :) :)

Mining SHA256 with a GPU? No reason anyone would do this with all the other GPU-friendly algos out there. Also, for all of the votes in favor of proof of work, not single valid argument has been presented in its favor.

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile
Re: PTS upgrade poll
« Reply #29 on: August 02, 2014, 10:10:26 pm »
I agree it's a bad PR move (actually the whole DPOS upgrade is any way you approach it), I'm just saying it doesn't go to the devs and it isn't instant.

In one respect.

However, transitioning to DPoS is also a sign that the PTS community has rejected mining as wasteful and unproductive AND adopts DPoS as a sign of "skin-in-the-game" support for Invictus-developed blockchain technology.

If there is anybody out there that still believes that mining allows for fair distribution - they should be ignored, because they haven't been paying attention.

We should make the transition and look forward to the incoming criticism as a good opportunity to spotlight the PoW/PoS debate.

Agree.

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile
Re: PTS upgrade poll
« Reply #28 on: August 02, 2014, 09:27:13 pm »
Quote
Isn't it an option to disperse the remaining shares to the existing shareholders relative to their current holdings?

Agreed, this is the best way forward. We could also scale it up to 2 billion units. Doesn't matter as long as the proportions are maintained.

I agree it's a bad PR move (actually the whole DPOS upgrade is any way you approach it), I'm just saying it doesn't go to the devs and it isn't instant.

In one respect.

However, transitioning to DPoS is also a sign that the PTS community has rejected mining as wasteful and unproductive AND adopts DPoS as a sign of "skin-in-the-game" support for Invictus-developed blockchain technology.

If there is anybody out there that still believes that mining allows for fair distribution - they should be ignored, because they haven't been paying attention.

We should make the transition and look forward to the incoming criticism as a good opportunity to spotlight the PoW/PoS debate.

 +5%
« Last Edit: August 02, 2014, 09:29:07 pm by alphaBar »

Offline bobmaloney

Re: PTS upgrade poll
« Reply #27 on: August 02, 2014, 09:19:55 pm »
I agree it's a bad PR move (actually the whole DPOS upgrade is any way you approach it), I'm just saying it doesn't go to the devs and it isn't instant.

In one respect.

However, transitioning to DPoS is also a sign that the PTS community has rejected mining as wasteful and unproductive AND adopts DPoS as a sign of "skin-in-the-game" support for Invictus-developed blockchain technology.

If there is anybody out there that still believes that mining allows for fair distribution - they should be ignored, because they haven't been paying attention.

We should make the transition and look forward to the incoming criticism as a good opportunity to spotlight the PoW/PoS debate.
"The crows seemed to be calling his name, thought Caw."
- Jack Handey (SNL)

Offline bobmaloney

Re: PTS upgrade poll
« Reply #26 on: August 02, 2014, 09:10:23 pm »
Quote
Isn't it an option to disperse the remaining shares to the existing shareholders relative to their current holdings?

There should be.

This solution carried over to a DPoS platform seems the most fair and obvious, allowing for PTS and AGS to carry 2 million units each.

Question:
If PTS was transitioned to a DPoS platform (with no additional load, such as bitassets) - wouldn't a home desktop with a moderately fast internet connection be more than enough hardware and bandwidth for potential delegates?

"The crows seemed to be calling his name, thought Caw."
- Jack Handey (SNL)

Offline testz

Re: PTS upgrade poll
« Reply #25 on: August 02, 2014, 08:58:57 pm »
As  a high school student , most of my friends only learn about pow mining with GPU. we can join mining once we feel tired of our game  or we can just run the miner while we are not in the game.  it is a good to keep pow mining and all of my friends like it.  I consider pow mining is a good feature of bitshares products since we can experience pow and pos all together with one product and can easy to find out how sucks pow mining is .

 :) :) :)

In BitShares you can be more productive, instead playing game you can propose yourself as delegate and use delegate rewards to do something useful for community, and then you feel tired, run miner, mine some profitable coins and sell it for BTSX.
 :) :) :)

Offline toast

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nikolai
Re: PTS upgrade poll
« Reply #24 on: August 02, 2014, 08:36:12 pm »
The release schedule can be the same as before, it doesn't have to be "overnight"

That's more of a net present value argument. Equivalent to saying "it's ok because it is actually only 10% of the coin supply that we are post-mining to a central entity." On principle there is a huge difference between giving away coins to the devs and paying a distributed network of miners to provide security. If we do this there is no amount of marketing that will dig us out of the hole we put ourselves in.

I agree it's a bad PR move (actually the whole DPOS upgrade is any way you approach it), I'm just saying it doesn't go to the devs and it isn't instant.
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
Re: PTS upgrade poll
« Reply #23 on: August 02, 2014, 08:28:23 pm »
The release schedule can be the same as before, it doesn't have to be "overnight"

That's more of a net present value argument. Equivalent to saying "it's ok because it is actually only 10% of the coin supply that we are post-mining to a central entity." On principle there is a huge difference between giving away coins to the devs and paying a distributed network of miners to provide security. If we do this there is no amount of marketing that will dig us out of the hole we put ourselves in.

Offline toast

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nikolai
Re: PTS upgrade poll
« Reply #22 on: August 02, 2014, 08:23:17 pm »
The release schedule can be the same as before, it doesn't have to be "overnight"
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
Re: PTS upgrade poll
« Reply #21 on: August 02, 2014, 08:21:38 pm »
On the remaining supply question, there are basically 3 positions:

1) Cut the supply at current values.
2) Use remaining supply to pay delegates // developers // for promotion.
3) Use remaining supply to keep virtual mining subsidized.


Option 2 sounds most logical.

Pools are quickly dropping support for PTS so something needs to be done or well end up in BTC world with a pool having >51%.  Miner development has come to a standstill also.

The current supply of PTS is 1,655,659 PTS. What CLains option #2 is proposing is an overnight inflation and giveaway of an additional 344341 coins - over 17% of the resulting 2 million shares. I cannot overemphasize what a disaster this would be in terms of public perception. It would be like a new coin "post-mining" 17% of the supply and giving it to the developers. Can you imagine the backlash? "Bitshares devs steal 17% of coin supply overnight" and "Invictus Central Bank creates and confiscates coins out of thin air". If you've been around for any time at all you remember the scam allegations that were thrown around when AGS was announced. We have failed miserably at anticipating and planning for public perception - something that I have a bit of experience in. I will tell you with 100% certainty that if you do this (option #2 in CLain's comment), any benefits you gain from marketing/promotion would be dwarfed by the damage you cause in public perception. That's my advice - proceed at your own risk.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2014, 08:23:43 pm by alphaBar »

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile
Re: PTS upgrade poll
« Reply #20 on: August 02, 2014, 07:57:32 pm »
On the remaining supply question, there are basically 3 positions:

1) Cut the supply at current values.
2) Use remaining supply to pay delegates // developers // for promotion.
3) Use remaining supply to keep virtual mining subsidized.

The most difficult option, but most according to original contract is 3.
The easiest and simplest option is 1, simply stopping the inflation.
The best long term for the PTS DPOS chain itself is probably 2.

PS I just came up with the subsidized mining pool idea and was a little overexcited (read: biased) by it.
Showing the miners finally who knows economy, get promotion via that camp, etc.  :D


#1 is the best choice - every person gets the same proportion of shares they currently have. No inflation and no giveaways.

#2 would result in an instantaneous inflation (even worse than mining) devaluing all of our shares. This is an insane amount of coins to just create out of thin air and give away. Funds for marketing and promotion has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Typical marketing and promotion funds are a tiny fraction of the amount we're talking about, an in my opinion should be voluntary. I am of the opinion that PTS needs just the basics - good informational resources (ie, a website/client) and a secure and efficient protocol (DPOS). It is up to the DACs to promote and market their coins since they are designed to be for-profit businesses. PTS was created for a different objective.

#3 defies logic for me. We would be paying for miners to secure the networks of other coins and receiving nothing in return.

Offline Brekyrself

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 514
    • View Profile
Re: PTS upgrade poll
« Reply #19 on: August 02, 2014, 07:18:54 pm »
On the remaining supply question, there are basically 3 positions:

1) Cut the supply at current values.
2) Use remaining supply to pay delegates // developers // for promotion.
3) Use remaining supply to keep virtual mining subsidized.

The most difficult option, but most according to original contract is 3.
The easiest and simplest option is 1, simply stopping the inflation.
The best long term for the PTS DPOS chain itself is probably 2.

PS I just came up with the subsidized mining pool idea and was a little overexcited (read: biased) by it.
Showing the miners finally who knows economy, get promotion via that camp, etc.  :D




Option 2 sounds most logical.

Pools are quickly dropping support for PTS so something needs to be done or well end up in BTC world with a pool having >51%.  Miner development has come to a standstill also.

Offline mint chocolate chip

Re: PTS upgrade poll
« Reply #18 on: August 02, 2014, 07:08:39 pm »
On the remaining supply question, there are basically 3 positions:

1) Cut the supply at current values.
2) Use remaining supply to pay delegates // developers // for promotion.
3) Use remaining supply to keep virtual mining subsidized.

The most difficult option, but most according to original contract is 3.
The easiest and simplest option is 1, simply stopping the inflation.
The best long term for the PTS DPOS chain itself is probably 2.

PS I just came up with the subsidized mining pool idea and was a little overexcited (read: biased) by it.
Showing the miners finally who knows economy, get promotion via that camp, etc.  :D


Isn't it an option to disperse the remaining shares to the existing shareholders relative to their current holdings?

Offline CLains

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: clains
Re: PTS upgrade poll
« Reply #17 on: August 02, 2014, 07:00:57 pm »
On the remaining supply question, there are basically 3 positions:

1) Cut the supply at current values.
2) Use remaining supply to pay delegates // developers // for promotion.
3) Use remaining supply to keep virtual mining subsidized.

The most difficult option, but most according to original contract is 3.
The easiest and simplest option is 1, simply stopping the inflation.
The best long term for the PTS DPOS chain itself is probably 2.

PS I just came up with the subsidized mining pool idea and was a little overexcited (read: biased) by it.
Showing the miners finally who knows economy, get promotion via that camp, etc.  :D


« Last Edit: August 02, 2014, 07:04:10 pm by CLains »

Offline Riverhead

Re: PTS upgrade poll
« Reply #16 on: August 02, 2014, 06:30:15 pm »
If mining stops are you suggesting the current supply is it and no more coins will be created? I'm not against that idea, just curious if that's what you meant.

Offline cass

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4311
  • /(┬.┬)\
    • View Profile
Re: PTS upgrade poll
« Reply #15 on: August 02, 2014, 06:11:32 pm »
I don't see the need to continue mining. Miners can mine other currencies and exchange for this one, if that is what they want to hold. This is the same advice that other PoS coins give out.

agreed  +5%
█║▌║║█  - - -  The quieter you become, the more you are able to hear  - - -  █║▌║║█

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile
Re: PTS upgrade poll
« Reply #14 on: August 02, 2014, 06:06:04 pm »
I don't see the need to continue mining. Miners can mine other currencies and exchange for this one, if that is what they want to hold. This is the same advice that other PoS coins give out.

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile
Re: PTS upgrade poll
« Reply #13 on: August 02, 2014, 06:05:19 pm »
How about adding another option to the poll:

- Fix difficulty adjustment algorithm immediately using KGW, but start planning for DPOS transition in the future.

The difficulty algorithm can be fixed, but please explain your reasons for delaying the upgrade to DPOS.

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile
Re: PTS upgrade poll
« Reply #12 on: August 02, 2014, 06:02:24 pm »
Mining should continue seamlessly via a subsidized multipool (remaining PTS is given to miners this way).

I'm not seeing the point of keeping a multipool to donate to miners who are no longer performing a service for the network. As shareholders, we are entitled to select the most cost-effective solution for securing our shares. PTS was created with the intent of solving the problem of proof of work, which Dan explicitly described as "overpaying for security". Now that the solution we funded has arrived, are we expected to continue overpaying? And in this case it is worse because we would literally be giving away our money to miners who are busy providing security for competing currencies. Seems totally irrational to me.

Offline kslavik

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Re: PTS upgrade poll
« Reply #11 on: August 02, 2014, 05:43:50 pm »
How about adding another option to the poll:

- Fix difficulty adjustment algorithm immediately using KGW, but start planning for DPOS transition in the future.

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile
Re: PTS upgrade poll
« Reply #10 on: August 02, 2014, 04:59:58 pm »
Immediate fix should be immediate.

Other than that I also think a new DPOS chain is good. The argument that PTS should not stand or fall with BitShares X is persuasive, ..

Mining should continue seamlessly via a subsidized multipool (remaining PTS is given to miners this way).

Snapshots should be coordinated to ensure nobody loses their stake. Social consensus must not be broken.

Yes, you said it perfectly.

Offline CLains

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: clains
Re: PTS upgrade poll
« Reply #9 on: August 02, 2014, 03:54:57 pm »
Immediate fix should be immediate.

Other than that I also think a new DPOS chain is good. The argument that PTS should not stand or fall with BitShares X is persuasive, ..

Mining should continue seamlessly via a subsidized multipool (remaining PTS is given to miners this way).

Snapshots should be coordinated to ensure nobody loses their stake. Social consensus must not be broken.

Offline Riverhead

Re: PTS upgrade poll
« Reply #8 on: August 02, 2014, 12:09:24 pm »
https://github.com/BitShares/BitShares-PTS/releases/tag/v1.0.0

The original protoshares website is down: http://invictus.io/bitshares-pts.php
See the broken link in the sidebar of the subreddit here: http://www.reddit.com/r/protoshare/.
This link (also found in various places) is broken: http://invictus-innovations.com/downloads/

The link you provided (the github repo) is not found anywhere on the Bitshares website - not even on the page that describes Protoshares.

Edit: added broken link
Point taken.  Since PTS still plays a major role in the allocation of future releases from I3 and others using the Bitshares-toolkit it would make sense for it to feature more prominently on the updated public facing sites.  Given the small size of I3's dev team and the releases of late it wouldn't surprise me if this is on the plan.

Offline kslavik

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Re: PTS upgrade poll
« Reply #7 on: August 02, 2014, 10:33:25 am »
PTS was originally created as POW crypto currency, and I think it should remain as such in the future. There is an urgent need to upgrade difficulty algorithm and I'm all for it - KGW should be implemented as soon as possible.

Changes such as DPOS or BitsharesX DAC is kind of a violation of the original contract/promise but are good options for the future when most of the PTS are mined.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2014, 05:40:12 pm by kslavik »

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile
Re: PTS upgrade poll
« Reply #6 on: August 02, 2014, 05:59:55 am »
I want to clarify a few things:

1) Invictus will not be responsible for upgrading PTS. If we do not coordinate to get it done, it will not happen (see Dan's response here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=6333.msg84980#msg84980)

2) DPOS is production ready. It is already deployed in BTSX which has 3 times the market cap of PTS.

Yes, it is true that the upgrade will take time to complete. This is further reason to begin the upgrade process IMMEDIATELY. We need to set a future block for the upgrade snapshot. Between now and then, there is minimal development work that needs to be done. Here is what the process should look like:

a. Future block is selected for the upgrade snapshot, let's say 1 month in the future.
b. The exchanges will configure a new DPOS-based PTS client. With regard to exchange functionality, this is essentially a clone of BTSX and should require minimal effort.
c. A few hours before the snapshot the exchanges will halt trading of old-PTS.
d. After the snapshot the exchanges will import the snapshot into the genesis block of the new-PTS and resume trading. Old-PTS will no  longer be supported by any exchange.

If the community agrees to migrate to a new DPOS blockchain, there is literally no reason (technical or otherwise) to delay the move. Aside from saying "it is hard", I would love to hear exactly (1) what is hard about it and (2) how waiting would alleviate that difficulty.

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile
Re: PTS upgrade poll
« Reply #5 on: August 02, 2014, 04:11:33 am »
https://github.com/BitShares/BitShares-PTS/releases/tag/v1.0.0

The original protoshares website is down: http://invictus.io/bitshares-pts.php
See the broken link in the sidebar of the subreddit here: http://www.reddit.com/r/protoshare/.
This link (also found in various places) is broken: http://invictus-innovations.com/downloads/

The link you provided (the github repo) is not found anywhere on the Bitshares website - not even on the page that describes Protoshares.

Edit: added broken link
« Last Edit: August 02, 2014, 04:22:38 am by alphaBar »

Offline Riverhead


Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile
Re: PTS upgrade poll
« Reply #3 on: August 02, 2014, 04:00:51 am »
@toast, I don't disagree with you, but I think there is a real sense of urgency here. Just as an example, can you link me to the PTS website? Probably not since the official website is no longer working (still linked everywhere though!) and there is no link anywhere on the Bitshares website for downloading the PTS client!

Really the most basic component of any crypto is a website and a download link for the client, and we don't even have that anymore. This is the type of stuff that just kills investor confidence and results in the price decline we are witnessing. I am trying to be constructive here, but if this was a business whoever was in charge would be fired. And if there was supposed to be a handoff of responsibilities then somebody seriously dropped the ball.

I did not create this thread to point fingers - I am simply proposing a way forward, and I contend that it should be executed with urgency.

Offline toast

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nikolai
Re: PTS upgrade poll
« Reply #2 on: August 02, 2014, 03:50:25 am »
Quote
The upgrade should be seamless and relatively frictionless now

I really strongly disagree, I think it will be hard as hell to do it seamlessly. You are effectively making a new chain and killing the old one at the same time... All the services that integrate with PTS will have to be rewritten. You can't just "swap out" the POW for DPOS in the current version of PTS.

I do think it is necessary, but it needs to be done carefully.

Meanwhile:

Quote
The current PTS chain is insecure and inefficient due to a low hashrate, high inflation, and other problems (difficulty adjustment, etc).

This is what the difficulty patch that testz is working on addresses. The high inflation will remain but the wonky hashrate will be fixed.
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
PTS upgrade poll
« Reply #1 on: August 02, 2014, 03:44:13 am »
Friends, the PTS price has been dropping rapidly for the last few weeks. Dan has indicated that the maintenance and decisions related to PTS are no longer the responsibility of Invictus. The user "testz" has been tasked with maintaining PTS in accordance with the community's consensus. I created this poll with 3 options, but as we all know there are really only two paths forward. The current PTS chain is insecure and inefficient due to a low hashrate, high inflation, and other problems (difficulty adjustment, etc).

We need to decide how and when to proceed with an upgrade. Please vote and comment to indicate your preference as well as your preferred timing of the upgrade. I personally believe that PTS should be upgraded IMMEDIATELY as a standalone DPOS chain and should NOT be a user-issued asset in BTSX and here is why:

BTSX is essentially the first DAC. There are very ambitious features of the BTSX DAC that could fail spectacularly, independent of DPOS (pegged assets, for example). PTS should not be subject to the volatility and risk introduced by these features or future features that may be implemented by BTSX. PTS should be independent, both in price, volatility, and features from the DACs that are born from it. It should be the Switzerland of DACs, agnostic and separate from even the market perceptions of a DAC and its features. 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).

With respect to the timing of the upgrade, I believe it should be done urgently and immediately to prevent a further decline in the price and investor confidence in PTS. The upgrade should be seamless and relatively frictionless now that the large exchanges have implemented BTSX (implementation of any DPOS wallet is essentially the same). An advanced announcement of the exact block of the snapshot for the upgrade should be sufficient. If it is agreed, we will need people to reach out to cryptsy, bter and other exchanges to coordinate the timing.

With Invictus shifting their focus away from PTS, it is up to the community to make this happen and to stop the bleeding in PTS. Whatever your opinion, please make it known or nothing will change.