Author Topic: Checklist for PTS to DPOS: You can help!  (Read 11609 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline happybit

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 87
  • Happy Bit!
    • View Profile
I would like to add my "newbie" two cents to this discussion.

I found this thread after starting another here yesterday: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10036.msg130794
[and, no, it was not 'advertisement']

I agree with the commentators above who say that PTS (in it's current form) a reach out to the "other 99%" of the cryptoworld who are still mining-centric.  I know I was confused and also INTRIGUED by this "PTS" thing! :)

Also, it makes sense that PTS will rise in value along with the rest of the Bitshare ecosystem as the idea takes hold.  I came around fast because a small group of enthusiast have been trying to work out a "Proof of Others Stake" (PoOS) which is basically DPoS with a few differences... anyhow that is a different story, and I am very very happy with DPOS at the moment.

My suggestion would be to keep PTS/AGS separate from the BTSX simply because of MARKETING... marketing is a very very important and powerful part of this crypto-world. see: Ethereum ;)

I suggested a relatively simple switch to a PoS algo similar to PND because I was a "big investor" in PND back in February... and saw how smoothly it changed to PoS while retaining most of the "structure" of regular crypto currencies with their many addresses in a wallet, the familiar QT-style interface... etc.

BTSX is still confusing to new-comers, and having PTS/AGS act as "bridge" to get people into DPOS is a wise marketing choice in my view.

Offline yidaidaxia

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 179
    • View Profile
make btsx strong, valueable enough and start to have network effect is really important and so difficult now. compare to this goal, i really can not see keep pts separate for these nice to have features how necessary and make sense, while feature like voting will even debase the value of bts voting, and transfer pts into btsx could save a lot of development resource also. don't be too optimistic and idealistic pls..
PTS: PmUT7H6e7Hvp9WtKtxphK8AMeRndnow2S8   /   BTC: 1KsJzs8zYppVHBp7CbyvQAYrEAWXEcNvmp   /   BTSX: yidaidaxia (暂用)
新浪微博: yidaidaxia_郝晓曦 QQ:36191175试手补天

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
I agree that PTS could continue to add value as a proto-DAC doing proto-dac things which it could not do on btsx. I would want to use this to build the smart contracting platform and prototype mechanisms for other DACs

Yes. I like this idea because I have a a lot of PTS. (Well, it is relative... )  +5%

AGS fund has a lot of PTS that I assume has been left for long term funding.  So giving value back to PTS is a big benefit for longterm Bitshares funding.

+5%
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline toast

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nikolai
I agree that PTS could continue to add value as a proto-DAC doing proto-dac things which it could not do on btsx. I would want to use this to build the smart contracting platform and prototype mechanisms for other DACs
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 JoeyD

PTS does have a different role than just being an investment vehicle, although people only interested in bitsharesX might not believe in future value.

But for now it has mutiple roles in future bitshares-community projects, as a kind of voting, community auditing and marketing DAC on top of it being an investment instrument.

New DAC builders (if they are smart) will try to give enough of a stake to PTS to make investors willing to bother taking a position, since taking a position takes real money, it actually has some value. So in return the DAC builders get some hype/marketing going and if PTS-traders aren't all lazy greedy bums, they'll base their positions on actual information and this will make the price also reflect a hive mind vetted value of the new project.

If it can still fulfill this role inside btsx, I'm not sure. Despite all technical arguments about the added bonus of btsx-security etc, I am still not comfortable about absorbing PTS into btsx.  Maybe it could be upgraded to a contract, investment, voting DAC or something, on it's own separate chain, where other people can also add their investment coins and still be perceived as independent from bitsharesx.

Sorry if I'm not making myself clear, it's late and I'm tired and this is the best I can do for now.

Offline Empirical1.1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile

I think it should be it's own separate dpos block chain. What's the point of an on ramp to a freeway you are already driving on?

Fine for you and me. But #10 on coinmarketcap is going to get some other peoples' attention and serve as an on-ramp for outsiders. It's one heck of an advertisement that would just disappear, ensuring that the only people who find out about it are those who know about BitShares X, trust it, and are willing to participate in it.

 +5% Absolutely CMC main page listing is crucial in terms of an advertising platform.

I think they should have been making better use of the marketing opportunity when PTS is snapshot hot but that didn't get much momentum. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=6712.0

I've been discussing the importance with regard to BitAssets too. NuBits (ponzi) gets immediate pegged asset exposure while BTSX with a steep learning curve and separately listed pegged assets does not. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9596.msg125364#msg125364

Arhags solution of making the case of all the assets being listed on the main page is what we should ask Gliss for.

Edit: I see Toast already has been
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=199685.msg9069751#msg9069751
« Last Edit: October 03, 2014, 09:47:59 pm by Empirical1.1 »

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
- putting PTS into BTSX has the disadvantages mentioned by fuzz
- having a separate DPOS chain would mean lot's of delegate overhead that is not really necessary .. PTS is an investment vehicle .. not a currency
- having it on a separate chain is IMHO the way to go
and I thing it should stick with the satoshi-kind chain .. but we should consider yet again to switch to POS as this is the main message Dan will present in Vegas: "POW sux"

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
It seems a lot of people are concerned that this plan will take PTS away from the prime real estate of the main coinmarketcap page and put it in the shadowy corners of the asset tab. This is a valid marketing concern. Personally, I think the arbitrary separation between core blockchain assets and other assets on the blockchain is kind of silly from the perspective of a site like coinmarketcap. In my view, coinmarketcap can have all the different categorizations and tabs it wants, but the main page should be ALL unique cryptoassets (meaning nonfungible with one another) sorted in order of marketcap. Basically, the home page of coinmarketcap.com should go to what is currently http://coinmarketcap.com/all/. Do you think we could convince coinmarketcap to implement this change? If we could, would many of people's hesitations with this proposal go away?


This demeans PTS and will make the price drop as it is now dependent on another chain instead of being diversified from risk by being its own separate chain.

Is diversifying converting its risk from the BTSX chain into risk from its own chain a good thing? If PTS is the core asset on its own chain, then it will be exposed to huge volatility because of how the snapshot system works. It will likely break BitAssets on the chain because of the flash crashes caused right after snapshots. Without BitAssets, cross-chain trading becomes even more of a hassle. If we use another asset as the core asset and simply make PTS a user-issued asset on top, we are now left with the question of what provides value to the core asset. Are the transactions fees of trading PTS back and forth going to be enough to give the core asset value to protect the chain against stake attacks? Even if the core asset was PTS, or if we let the user-issued PTS tokens on the chain also vote for delegates, it would still (very likely) have less security than BTSX.

I am not saying PTS value will go to zero. I am just saying that after snapshots and with no new projects on the horizon, PTS value will likely be hovering at a fairly low value since the only thing that gives it value is expectation that some awesome but currently unknown new project will come around in the future and promise to allocate shares to a snapshot of PTS, which by the way after some point becomes less and less probable over time as more and more projects are created, snapshot PTS, and from then on forks of that kind of project only credit that chain's current stake rather than PTS. Meanwhile, if BitShares X is meant to be vessel holding the BitCurrencies we want the whole world to adopt, it is likely to grow in value over time and become more and more secure (I am fairly confident that it will always have greater market cap, and thus security, than a PTS only chain from this point forward).


Putting PTS on BTSX will subject BTSX to PTS's snapshot announcment/commencment volatility... Not a good idea imo.

The change in price of PTS on the BitShares X chain should have absolutely no effect on the price of BTSX. It is user-issued asset that in no way contributes to the market cap of BTSX (unless you count the transaction and market fees from trading the assets back and forth).
« Last Edit: October 03, 2014, 07:25:37 am by arhag »

Offline fluxer555

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 749
    • View Profile
Putting PTS on BTSX will subject BTSX to PTS's snapshot announcment/commencment volatility... Not a good idea imo.

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile

I think it should be it's own separate dpos block chain. What's the point of an on ramp to a freeway you are already driving on?

Fine for you and me. But #10 on coinmarketcap is going to get some other peoples' attention and serve as an on-ramp for outsiders. It's one heck of an advertisement that would just disappear, ensuring that the only people who find out about it are those who know about BitShares X, trust it, and are willing to participate in it.

Offline Pheonike


I think it should be it's own separate dpos block chain. What's the point of an on ramp to a freeway you are already driving on?

Offline fuzzy

I do not like this idea...

I've watched PTS since it was a baby and it deserves to be its own chain. 

First, if you list it as an asset, it now becomes a kind of "afterthought" on coinmarketcap.  Lost somewhere in the Asset market...

This demeans PTS and will make the price drop as it is now dependent on another chain instead of being diversified from risk by being its own separate chain.  Please do not do this.
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
It seems that how to implementation the no-mining PTS is still very controversy, why don't we start a poll?

 Personally, I prefer integrating PTS inside of BTSX. It will be the first valuable user issued asset, and will add value to BTSX wallet too, because at least there are more needs to open your wallet.

The reason that I don't like DPOS PTS is: 1\The value of PTS will be lower and lower as more snapshots of interesting DACs are conducted, and eventually will approach zero, if there is no new DAC for a period of time. It's not wise to invest on such stuff, even the cost of DPOS is not high; 2\ No PTS shareholder like their shares being diluted when only delegates benefit from it.

This is a very BTSX centric view.  Not everyone came to Bitshares over bitshares X.  The value of PTS won't necessarily be lower.  You guys keep saying this and I understand the thinking but you are running off assumptions that may not be true.  I mean, it is true that PTS will approach 0, but no more true than claiming all stocks go to 0.  I don't even understand why PTS shareholders will be diluted with DPOS.  The tiny transaction fees ?

I mean I don't care that much if it is made a user-issued asset.  However, it is still a top 10 crypto-currency.  All that goes away and now protoshares is BTSX asset.  If the developer says it is too hard I could understand, but I suspect it is no harder for someone like Toast to fork a DPOS coin than it is to do all the coding to issue it on an exchange.  Yea, sure we can back out of it using a future snapshot, but meh.  Thats the same argument you can use for anything.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline Ben Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1070
  • Integrity & Innovation, powered by Bitshares
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: benjojo
Is it not possible that PTS could gain value as the Bitshares DAC economy grows?  I don't believe in the theory that we will run out of innovative DACs and that PTS will terminaly decline in value.  I think it's possible that once several Bitshares DACs have proven their utility and value in the market, PTS could be perceived as harbouring significant value due to the social consensus.  They are finite after all.

As long as the dynamics of PTS's role in the social consensus does't change, launching it as an asset within BitsharesX makes sense.

Allowing I3 to retain a percentage of the unmined PTS also make sense to me......burn the rest.

Offline vegolino

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 450
  • Reality is Information
    • View Profile
PTS and AGS have given birth to BTSX and many more children hopefully  :).
Now prodigal child is inviting parents to move in, rent is much cheeper specially electricity  :), but my advise would be to keep same family doctor I3  :)
That is just the way I see it  :)