There is still widespread confusion about BitShares PTS and Protoshares

[StanLarimer]

Wow, this is like a never-ending record.  Asked and answered dozens of times!

AGS and PTS got shares in BTS, VOTE, DNS, PLAY, and MUSE (MUSIC) with two more to come this year (Identabit (via BTS) and another yet to be announced).  

Everybody else has been able to do this and the BitShares.org community happily helps honest newbies figure out how to collect theirs.

Posting that you never received all these shares over and over again, no matter how many people try to help you understand and succeed can only be seen as

Grand Willful Ignorance with Malice Aforethought and Libelous Intent to Create FUD

In most jurisdictions, this foul offense is classified somewhere between felony assault and spray painting graffiti on someone's store front bricks.

  

[1714178096]

1714178096

[1714178096]

1714178096

[runpaint]

AGS and PTS got shares in BTS, VOTE, DNS, PLAY, and MUSE (MUSIC) with two more to come this year (Identabit (via BTS) and another yet to be announced).

So you're sharedropping more DACs, but not to PTS holders.

Everybody else has been able to do this and the BitShares.org community happily helps honest newbies figure out how to collect theirs.

I asked you personally how to register an account with BitShares, and you were unable to tell me:  

I have some Bitshares DNS at Poloniex, but they delisted it because "there are no active devs".  

I haven't been able to find any information about a wallet for Bitshares DNS.  Or PTS for that matter.  

I downloaded the regular Bitshares client, but it said I had to have some Bitshares to register an address before I could deposit any Bitshares, which means I can't deposit any, which means I can't register a deposit address.  So I didn't waste any more time on it, that was about a month ago.

Back in November the developers of BitShares DNS and BitShares VOTE merged their efforts with BitShares X to form a single Super DAC called simply BitShares.

So you use your BitShares wallet to claim BTS proportional to your share of DNS or VOTE.  There will not be separate DNS or VOTE wallets.

BitShares now comes with a built-in faucet to pay your registration for you if you have no funds of your own yet.  When you are looking at your newly created BitShares account you hit the blue Register button in the top right corner and a pop-up window lets you pick which account to pay your half-penny registration fee with.  If you have no such accounts then a faucet account appears and we'll pay the whole half-penny for you.  Just use that.  

BitShares PTS was recently upgraded from POW to DPOS by a third party.  So you'll need to import your old PTS wallets into the new one to continue trading them.  You can find that developer's web site here:  http://ptscrypto.com/

I'll be back later today with some more links you may find useful.

But, as you know, I was unable to import my old PTS, because Poloniex swapped them to the new PTS.  And, to this day, I have never received a sharedrop of anything because you stopped using PTS but didn't require the coins to be burned in the "merge".

How is it a "merge", when all of the old coins still exist and continue to be sold to people like me?

Grand Willful Ignorance with Malice Aforethought and Libelous Intent to Create FUD

  

And what do they call it when someone promotes shares, promises that holders will receive shares of all future releases, but then only follows through for a few months and then abandons it?






I am a PTS holder.  I have been a PTS holder for 10 months.  I have never received any sharedrops.  You are planning to sharedrop new DACs including Identibit, but you are not planning to drop it to PTS holders.  

[nomoreheroes7]

I am a PTS holder.  I have been a PTS holder for 10 months.  I have never received any sharedrops.  You are planning to sharedrop new DACs including Identibit, but you are not planning to drop it to PTS holders.  

...well that is because you bought PTS after the hardfork that effectively merged PTS with BTS. Why the hell did you do that? PTS was kept alive after the hardfork due to a small group of die-hards that wanted to keep it running, but Invictus' association with PTS was more-or-less bought out in the merger. The promise of "sharedrops from future DACs" is kept alive through the BTS that all PTS holders received. Well, the ones that were smart enough to buy before PTS was killed off, that is.

[runpaint]

Currently, BitShares is almost as difficult for the non tech savvy to learn to use as Ethereum

So if I was "tech savvy", I would have been able to register a BitShares account when there was no available faucet link in the wallet, and when Stan Larimer was unable to provide me with any way to register?

Are you sure?  I guess you're saying Stan Larimer isn't tech savvy.

You first have to download and sync the BitShares wallet, and then you must type in your PTS private key, and then, more BTS than you were originally promised, will suddenly appear in your wallet.

More than I was promised?  As a PTS holder I was promised all future DACs by Stan Larimer, but now he says I won't be receiving any Identibit.

We al make mistakes, but the existance of an old chain after a new chain is forked from it, is a fact of crypto that scares a lot of people

I own the PTS from the new chain.  The old chain is what Cryptsy sells, the new PTS chain is what Poloniex and Bter sell.

When the PTS community forked to BitShares

They forked their coin into another coin that already existed?  I don't think you know what "fork" means.  
 
Unless you're saying that BitShares currently runs on the same Proof-of-Work blockchain that began with Protoshares?

When the PTS community forked to BitShares, they transferred the social contract to all BTS holders

But they didn't.

If PTS was replaced with BitShares, then the PTS would be gone.  That would be a coin swap.  

Stan Larimer promised that every future DAC would be dropped to PTS holders.  

Link?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=bitshares+pts+protoshares


If you can't read the "snapshot" I've posted multiple times in this topic, why should I post it again?  It's on page 1 of a "web-site" called "Google.com", but I understand it's hard for those who aren't tech savvy.

https://letstalkbitcoin.com/caution-watch-for-falling-pts/

Updated on July 18, 2014

We are not recommending changes to the PTS Social Consensus; all developers should continue to honor them with at least 10% in future DACs.

 

All developers should continue to honor the PTS Social Consensus, except for the developers of BitShares?

Is there anyone in this topic so far who actually understood what BitShares PTS is?  I didn't.

BitShares PTS has never been sharedropped anything.  Holders of BitShares PTS have never received BTS snapshots.

That was Protoshares that did that.  BitShares PTS is a different coin.  

PTS was the abbreviation used for Protoshares.

Let me explain something called a "fork".  PTS was the abbreviation for Protoshares, and that coin network was forked into a coin called BitShares PTS.  Since it is considered the same coin, but forked into a new version, it continues to be traded under the ticker symbol PTS.

When DPOS was invented for BitShares, the Protoshares miners adopted the DPOS model and kept the coin alive because they are hardcore fans, and they are free to do what they please.  Just as bitcoin cannot be shut down, no other chain that humans choose to keep alive can be killed except via mass extinction level event.

But all of the coins could have been consumed with a simple coin swap for BTS, and that would have been the end of PTS

They didn't do that, because they wanted to get free BTS and then also sell their now-worthless PTS coins when they had no intention of ever sharedropping to them again.   And they even increased the coin supply so they would have extra millions upon millions to dump.

[runpaint]

I am a PTS holder.  I have been a PTS holder for 10 months.  I have never received any sharedrops.  You are planning to sharedrop new DACs including Identibit, but you are not planning to drop it to PTS holders.  

...well that is because you bought PTS after the hardfork that effectively merged PTS with BTS.

If it was a merge, the PTS coins wouldn't still exist separately.  They would have become BTS coins.  But they didn't, so it wasn't a merge.

PTS was kept alive after the hardfork due to a small group of die-hards that wanted to keep it running

Do you really believe that lie?  

And what about the 1 Billion PTS coins that still existed?  Are you saying Stan Larimer didn't sell his?  Only "die hard fans" wanted money?

Well, the ones that were smart enough to buy before PTS was killed off, that is.

When was PTS "killed off"?  In December, "after the merge", PTS performed a sharesplit.  The coin was active and adding new features.  Is that what you mean by "killed off"?  It still has its own forum at Bitsharestalk. 

Are you saying Stan Larimer is not tech-savvy enough to get rid of old coins that weren't supposed to exist after a coinswap?

Are you saying Stan Larimer tried to "kill" PTS, but he can't get the PTS forum removed from Bitsharestalk?

[nomoreheroes7]

I am a PTS holder.  I have been a PTS holder for 10 months.  I have never received any sharedrops.  You are planning to sharedrop new DACs including Identibit, but you are not planning to drop it to PTS holders.  

...well that is because you bought PTS after the hardfork that effectively merged PTS with BTS.

If it was a merge, the PTS coins wouldn't still exist separately.  They would have become BTS coins.  But they didn't, so it wasn't a merge.

That's why I said effectively merged. PTS' value became BTS' value. Since you can't kill a blockchain (you know, the whole point of crypto), that was the best that could be done.

Either way I'm pretty sure you're just trolling at this point. I'll just go back to watching the BTS price rise in anticipation for October 13th. 

[runpaint]

That's why I said effectively merged. PTS' value became BTS' value. Since you can't kill a blockchain (you know, the whole point of crypto), that was the best that could be done.

Then how do other coins achieve swaps without all the old coins still in circulation?  That's right, they require users to send their old coins before they receive the new coins.  

But after "they did the best that could be done", there were a billion PTS in circulation.  

Either way I'm pretty sure you're just trolling at this point. I'll just go back to watching the BTS price rise in anticipation for October 13th.  

Now who's trolling?  BTS is still selling for less than the launch price.  

[runpaint]

PTS and BTS were not merged.

[runpaint]

But since Protoshares was launched by Invictus Innovations, and they now say that Protoshares merged with BitShares, then BitShares would inherit the responsibilities and promises of Invictus Innovations.  That means inherited the promise to distribute their DACs to holders of PTS.

[Scamlarimer]

The name of the game is jump through the hoops while we rename and rename and merge and add more hoops.

If you monkeys didn't notice your shares dilluted from the merger (genious), then I bet you can't wait for what we got planned next.


Name changes, more hoops, and more mergers.


Here suck on these brownie points.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

This is the scam that never ends,
It just goes on and on my friends,
Some people got conned into buying it not knowing what it was,
And they'll continue scamming you forever just because...

This is the scam that never ends,
It just goes on and on my friends,
Some people got conned into buying it not knowing what it was,
And they'll continue scamming you forever just because...

This is the scam that never ends,
It just goes on and on my friends,
Some people got conned into buying it not knowing what it was,
And they'll continue scamming you forever just because...

[runpaint]

Thanks for the detailed point-by-point response.


I started this topic because I have PTS at Poloniex and I want it to be worth more.  If any coin or project announced a planned drop, people would once again start buying PTS.  That would be nice.


You have explained a lot of the history of BitShares that most people probably don't know.

But I do see one discrepancy:

So around Halloween last year, there was a second BitShares snapshot where Protoshares holders were given additional shares that were worth more than the total Protoshares market cap (due to their post "original BitShares snapshot earlier in the spring" exposure).  All the Protoshares holders had to do in return for this immediate windfall was to change their name to something else (anything) in order to allow the original "Protoshares Promise" to remain valid.  Some group of kids rebranded Protoshares as BitShares PTS so as to not make people think that they should expect any sharedrops from Invictus due to the "Protoshares Promises" flooding Google.  

After that final Protoshares snapshot, Invictus was no longer beholden to Protoshares holders, but to BTS (which now included every Protoshare owner on the planet).  At that point, they formed Voltron, and proceeded to develop the magic that you are about to witness.  and the rest will be history.. Exciting times indeed.

...

So did they break their promise (of providing the Protoshares holders with at least 10% of every future DAC)?  

Technically no, because "Protoshares" changed their name that day to BitSharesPTS

So was it around Halloween, or 8 months earlier in February?  

You are saying "some group of kids" rebranded Protoshares to BitShares PTS, in November, after the final snapshot.

But in the above quote, in February 2014, Stan Larimer is already saying that it had changed from Protoshares to BitShares PTS.  

That was before any sharedrops had ever happened, and the first DAC wasn't even released yet.  BitShares itself had not been released yet.  And Protoshares had already changed to BitShares PTS.  

The sharedrops and merger were still going through November 2014, to the people who held BitShares PTS in November 2014.  Not to the people who had previously held Protoshares, but to anyone who bought BitShares PTS in November.  

So the coin I currently hold, Bitshares PTS, is the same coin which was used for every single BitShares DAC sharedrop, since the very first drop of BitShares itself.  

Why have multiple people told me that I have a different coin, that I've confused Protoshares with BitShares PTS, and that drops were only made to the previous coin?

If the answer is simply "because they changed their mind and no longer use BitShares PTS for drops", then just say so.  

Since Invictus Innovations Incorporated no longer exists, their promise has technically been fulfilled - unless any of the DACs released in 2015 contain any development that originated with Invictus in 2014.  

In that case, I have been promised shares of any such DAC because I hold BitShares PTS.  Here is a link to that promise:  https://letstalkbitcoin.com/caution-watch-for-falling-pts/

(I won't bother exploring the fact that all 10 employees of Invictus hired themselves as delegates and developers of BitShares, continuing the same development without interruption, so that there can be no clear distinction drawn between development done by Invictus and development done by BitShares - http://bitsharesblog.com/invictus-innovations-incorporated-i3-wound-down/)

Plus, it is more than misleading for the creator of BitShares to tell other devs that they should honor the agreement, and then not honor it himself:

Updated on July 18, 2014

We are not recommending changes to the PTS Social Consensus; all developers should continue to honor them with at least 10% in future DACs.

 

Some people are giving me false information, and they're pushing it really hard.  They really want me to believe that Protoshares didn't change to BitShares PTS until the final snapshot - but it had already changed before the first snapshot.



And guess who also takes snapshots?  The Wayback Machine!

This is from January 20, 2014, before any BitShares or DACs had ever been dropped:


https://web.archive.org/web/20140120131210/http://invictus-innovations.com/social-consensus/

Statement of Social Consensus

Google defines a Social Contract as “an implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits.” Another term that means the same thing is Social Consensus.  We use the terms interchangeably, but prefer Consensus because it is simply more accurate.   It also emphasizes the two-way nature of the consensus.   It is beyond our control to prevent a copycat from forking our open source code in a way that fails to honor this consensus.  It is up to the market to reject this, or not.

BitShares PTS (a.k.a "proto-shares") is a digital currency just like Bitcoin.  The difference is that PTS is backed by something of more tangible value - the future potential of an entire new  industry of Decentralized Autonomous Companies (DACs),  The PTS Social Consensus simply states that holders of PTS will give preference to DACs that initialize their internal money supplies proportionally to the current distribution of the PTS currency.  Savvy DAC developers do this to gain the rapid support of PTS holders who represent the overwhelming majority of knowledgable early adopters of DAC-backed currencies.  It is thus a more targeted give-away than the typical mining-based lottery system used by most crypto-currencies.  It targets established early adopters who can help get the new DAC adopted quickly.

Our first formal statement of the PTS Social Consensus was that we would support only DACs that honor BitShares PTS.  This was first published in our October newsletter and again in our forum on Nov 3, prior to genesis on Nov 5, 2013:

At a DAC’s pre-published launch time, the DAC’s genesis block shall be initialized
to precisely match the current unspent outputs of its corresponding PTS blockchain.

A week later we informally generalized this to at least 10% of all DACs we support.  

All chains shall be derived from PTS,
with a 1:1 mapping and 10% of the ultimate money supply of that chain.

The 10% requirement is a minimum, since any number greater than that also satisfies the consensus.  The 1:1 mapping and 10% minimum together set an upper limit on the number of shares a DAC may allocate.  If only 1.5M PTS exist at DAC release, then 15M is the derived upper limit to number of shares for that DAC.  Developers may equivalently exercise the right to scale the share count to the needs of each DAC while preserving percentages for all stakeholders.

In this document, we are formally endorsing an integrated BitShares Social Consensus for PTS, AGS and all derived BitShares DACs. This consensus is further defined in the BitShares Consensus Software License (BCSL).  We also clean up the language to better comply with the laws of our jurisdiction. To that end, Invictus will only endorse, support and promote DACs that meet all of the following applicable consensus requirements:

For all third party DACs:

Allocate at least 10% of its internal money supply to PTS holders at genesis.

[Scamlarimer]

We're going to need a diagram of all the mergers and name changing.

This shit got complicated real fast.

[sidhujag]

This is why there was the merger last November between BitShares, DNS, Vote, and PTS etc...  There was a nice site explaining it all called BitShares reloaded however can't find it anymore.  AGS holders also got their PTS returned which was quite a nice surprise.

I'm AGS holder. Yes, they returned PTS after they became worthless. I bought AGS with BTC and didn't get anything back . They are just bunch of scammers. Today I only receiving BTS dust which is by the way locked!!!!
And of course I'am not sharedrop target anymore in percentage I invested. From now on, Dan and Stan suggesting that better sharedrop target is Brownie.PTS, private issue token inside BTS created by Dan. He is better than Madoff. Someone from USA will need to take legal actions against him and his company. He recently open another one to hide his frauds.

 

No you got BTS for your PTS and AGS, more than if you had just bought PTS and got BTS.. so I don't get what you are saying.

I mined 1000 PTS and got 20k bts from that which gave me incentive to start developing to increase the value of BTS over time.

[sidhujag]

Thanks for the detailed point-by-point response.


I started this topic because I have PTS at Poloniex and I want it to be worth more.  If any coin or project announced a planned drop, people would once again start buying PTS.  That would be nice.


You have explained a lot of the history of BitShares that most people probably don't know.

But I do see one discrepancy:

So around Halloween last year, there was a second BitShares snapshot where Protoshares holders were given additional shares that were worth more than the total Protoshares market cap (due to their post "original BitShares snapshot earlier in the spring" exposure).  All the Protoshares holders had to do in return for this immediate windfall was to change their name to something else (anything) in order to allow the original "Protoshares Promise" to remain valid.  Some group of kids rebranded Protoshares as BitShares PTS so as to not make people think that they should expect any sharedrops from Invictus due to the "Protoshares Promises" flooding Google.  

After that final Protoshares snapshot, Invictus was no longer beholden to Protoshares holders, but to BTS (which now included every Protoshare owner on the planet).  At that point, they formed Voltron, and proceeded to develop the magic that you are about to witness.  and the rest will be history.. Exciting times indeed.

...

So did they break their promise (of providing the Protoshares holders with at least 10% of every future DAC)?  

Technically no, because "Protoshares" changed their name that day to BitSharesPTS

So was it around Halloween, or 8 months earlier in February?  

You are saying "some group of kids" rebranded Protoshares to BitShares PTS, in November, after the final snapshot.

But in the above quote, in February 2014, Stan Larimer is already saying that it had changed from Protoshares to BitShares PTS.  

That was before any sharedrops had ever happened, and the first DAC wasn't even released yet.  BitShares itself had not been released yet.  And Protoshares had already changed to BitShares PTS.  

The sharedrops and merger were still going through November 2014, to the people who held BitShares PTS in November 2014.  Not to the people who had previously held Protoshares, but to anyone who bought BitShares PTS in November.  

So the coin I currently hold, Bitshares PTS, is the same coin which was used for every single BitShares DAC sharedrop, since the very first drop of BitShares itself.  

Why have multiple people told me that I have a different coin, that I've confused Protoshares with BitShares PTS, and that drops were only made to the previous coin?

If the answer is simply "because they changed their mind and no longer use BitShares PTS for drops", then just say so.  

Since Invictus Innovations Incorporated no longer exists, their promise has technically been fulfilled - unless any of the DACs released in 2015 contain any development that originated with Invictus in 2014.  

In that case, I have been promised shares of any such DAC because I hold BitShares PTS.  Here is a link to that promise:  https://letstalkbitcoin.com/caution-watch-for-falling-pts/

(I won't bother exploring the fact that all 10 employees of Invictus hired themselves as delegates and developers of BitShares, continuing the same development without interruption, so that there can be no clear distinction drawn between development done by Invictus and development done by BitShares - http://bitsharesblog.com/invictus-innovations-incorporated-i3-wound-down/)

Plus, it is more than misleading for the creator of BitShares to tell other devs that they should honor the agreement, and then not honor it himself:

Updated on July 18, 2014

We are not recommending changes to the PTS Social Consensus; all developers should continue to honor them with at least 10% in future DACs.

 

Some people are giving me false information, and they're pushing it really hard.  They really want me to believe that Protoshares didn't change to BitShares PTS until the final snapshot - but it had already changed before the first snapshot.



And guess who also takes snapshots?  The Wayback Machine!

This is from January 20, 2014, before any BitShares or DACs had ever been dropped:


https://web.archive.org/web/20140120131210/http://invictus-innovations.com/social-consensus/

Statement of Social Consensus

Google defines a Social Contract as “an implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits.” Another term that means the same thing is Social Consensus.  We use the terms interchangeably, but prefer Consensus because it is simply more accurate.   It also emphasizes the two-way nature of the consensus.   It is beyond our control to prevent a copycat from forking our open source code in a way that fails to honor this consensus.  It is up to the market to reject this, or not.

BitShares PTS (a.k.a "proto-shares") is a digital currency just like Bitcoin.  The difference is that PTS is backed by something of more tangible value - the future potential of an entire new  industry of Decentralized Autonomous Companies (DACs),  The PTS Social Consensus simply states that holders of PTS will give preference to DACs that initialize their internal money supplies proportionally to the current distribution of the PTS currency.  Savvy DAC developers do this to gain the rapid support of PTS holders who represent the overwhelming majority of knowledgable early adopters of DAC-backed currencies.  It is thus a more targeted give-away than the typical mining-based lottery system used by most crypto-currencies.  It targets established early adopters who can help get the new DAC adopted quickly.

Our first formal statement of the PTS Social Consensus was that we would support only DACs that honor BitShares PTS.  This was first published in our October newsletter and again in our forum on Nov 3, prior to genesis on Nov 5, 2013:

At a DAC’s pre-published launch time, the DAC’s genesis block shall be initialized
to precisely match the current unspent outputs of its corresponding PTS blockchain.

A week later we informally generalized this to at least 10% of all DACs we support.  

All chains shall be derived from PTS,
with a 1:1 mapping and 10% of the ultimate money supply of that chain.

The 10% requirement is a minimum, since any number greater than that also satisfies the consensus.  The 1:1 mapping and 10% minimum together set an upper limit on the number of shares a DAC may allocate.  If only 1.5M PTS exist at DAC release, then 15M is the derived upper limit to number of shares for that DAC.  Developers may equivalently exercise the right to scale the share count to the needs of each DAC while preserving percentages for all stakeholders.

In this document, we are formally endorsing an integrated BitShares Social Consensus for PTS, AGS and all derived BitShares DACs. This consensus is further defined in the BitShares Consensus Software License (BCSL).  We also clean up the language to better comply with the laws of our jurisdiction. To that end, Invictus will only endorse, support and promote DACs that meet all of the following applicable consensus requirements:

For all third party DACs:

Allocate at least 10% of its internal money supply to PTS holders at genesis.

At the time of snapshot there was only one PTS period, it was then rebranded and a new genesis block was born which sharedropped the original PTS but nothing to do with BTS from that point on.

[runpaint]

Dan and Stan suggesting that better sharedrop target is Brownie.PTS

Got a link?  Didn't think so.

What are Brownie.PTS?  Sounds similar to the PTS I already have.

Let's check it out:

Announcing Brownie Points (BROWNIE.PTS)

Today I am happy to announce a new way of giving credit to those who contribute to the BitShares community, Brownie Points.   According to Wikipedia, brownie points are a hypothetical social currency, which can be acquired by doing good deeds or earning favor in the eyes of another.    

Normally brownie points are not tracked, but with the advent of BitShares it is now possible for us to actually track brownie points.  I have created a digital asset called BROWNIE.PTS on the BitShares network.   Brownie Points will be given away liberally to anyone who does anything positive for the BitShares community or Cryptonomex as recognition for earning my favor.

Everyone who attends a Friday Mumble sessions will be awarded with 100 BROWNIE.PTS, everyone who makes a useful, positive post on the forum will earn 10 BROWNIE.PTS.  Everyone who finds and reports an actual bug on github will be rewarded with 100 BROWNIE.PTS.   Anyone who resolves a legitimate issue on GitHub will be rewarded with major BROWNIE.PTS.    

I will award brownie points for just about anything that I appreciate and in proportion to the amount that I appreciate it.   If you are interested in helping me dole out BROWNIE.PTS then please contact me because I would really appreciate the help!    

What are Brownie Points Good for?

Technically all Brownie Points mean is that you are on my good side.  Brownie Points are not redeemable for anything and do not create any obligations between me and anyone else.   BROWNIE.PTS is a tool that allows me to keep track of everyone who is in my good favor and to what extent.   You will want to make sure you claim your BROWNIE.PTS because it would just be rude to refuse the BROWNIE.PTS and one day you may regret it; Karma can be a Bitch.        

Claiming Past Brownie Points

If you have contributed to BitShares over the past two years, please post in this thread with a detailed description of the work you have done and an estimate of how much time and money you spent doing that work.  Include your BTS account name and you may find some BROWNIE.PTS in your wallet.  

No Obligations

BROWNIE.PTS is merely a tool for my own use and I may choose to stop issuing brownie points at any time for any reason.   I may reward them (or not) as I see fit, in the amounts I see fit, for the reasons I see fit.   I may also seize brownie points from any account if you fall out of favor and anyone who complains in any way about how Brownie Points are issued or how I use Brownie Points is certainly not in my favor and may lose any Brownie Points they have earned.  

« Last Edit: July 02, 2015, 06:40:35 PM by bytemaster »

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,17354.0.html?PHPSESSID=g9b0lri71712l32mor9b3i2pc6

All of the developers will be earning brownie points in addition to everything else.  

So far I have distributed 2,800,000 BROWNIE.PTS among 50 people!  
...
To put things in perspective I am allocating about 200,000 per full-time-year of effort as a rough unit,  or 100 BROWNIE.PTS per hour contributed.

So...is that 2,000,000PTS to yourself and 9 other devs, for 1 year's work, and then 800,000 between 40 other people?

Anyone may buy and sell Brownie Points.  

I don't get how you are going to be able to seize BROWNIE.PTS if they aren't sent and kept to the recipient accounts' public balances (how would you know who you are seizing the balance from?).

You are right, if kept in a blinded balance it couldn't be seized but it also wouldn't be useful for me to track who has earned my good will.    You will be able to disable blinded balances on an asset-by-asset basis so I will probably just disable blinded balances for BROWNIE.PTS.

So you're going to allow people to buy it from other people, but you will seize it from anyone you don't like.

How many BPs are distributed so far? (Current supply is 8.2 mil but not sure all of them are distributed)

4M of those are not distributed.   They will continue to be issued and distributed as necessary.

I can't think of a better criteria for who should get a share than those who helped build the ecosystem.
...
In this case, Underwood decided that Bytemaster's thank you note system was as good a metric as any.

So Brownie PTS are the best criteria for who should get a share of other DACs?

Making it a sharedrop target equivalent to BTS is insane; especially if you consider the ad-hoc and whimsical nature of its distribution.

Nothing ad-hoc or whimsical about it.
...
Net effect - a perfectly reasonable combination for someone to use as a mailing list to give away promotional tokens in a way that is part random and largely targeted to a demographic of helpful people.  It doesn't have to be perfect to serve its intended purpose.

And after all that, it is up to the giver, Underwood in this case, to determine if this particular mailing list serves his own purposes - which may or may not coincide perfectly with Bytemaster's.  The list exists.  People are free to use it if they like.

Brownie.PTS is what it is.   John found it to be the best available mailing list for what he wanted to do.

Brownies were not invented with sharedropping in mind, but they did come out shortly before the time John and I were discussing his genesis distribution.  He was interested in reaching out to people who have demonstrated a willingness to actively help bootstrap a chain and I pointed out that Dan's new brownies were a virtual who's who in that category.  He immediately liked that idea and that was the end of the discussion.

That's Stan Larimer saying BrowniePTS is a better sharedrop target.  Here's the link:  https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,17354.240.html

The numbers are 20% to BTS and 20% to Brownie.PTS in the genesis supply.

And they gave themselves the majority of BrowniePTS.

Our position has always been that the developer of a new coin should be free to choose a distribution that will maximize the potential of the coin, including selling them all herself.

Actually that is false.  Your position in your Official Stated Terms and Conditions was that the developer was required to drop 10% to PTS holders.  And not BrowniePTS, but BitSharesPTS.


Terms and Conditions, January 20, 2014:
https://web.archive.org/web/20140120131220/http://invictus-innovations.com/terms-and-conditions-2/

[runpaint]

Dan and Stan suggesting that better sharedrop target is Brownie.PTS

Got a link?  Didn't think so.

Why were you so sure, when you were actually incorrect?

[sidhujag]

anyone can create a UIA, brownie points are just a UIA and the fact that is has market demand has nothing to do with how it is distributed at will by someone who owns the UIA.

[runpaint]

anyone can create a UIA, brownie points are just a UIA and the fact that is has market demand has nothing to do with how it is distributed at will by someone who owns the UIA.

Yes, anyone can create an asset.  You say the asset creator's associations with BitShares developers doesn't matter;  aren't you the least bit concerned about what goes on behind the scenes, when 40% of an asset is dropped to shares that are mostly controlled by the Larimers?  20% to BTS, and 20% to BrowniePTS which Dan can issue to himself without limit?


Speaking of new BitShares assets and their questionable business practices, have you heard of BanxShares?


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1181883.0

[sidhujag]

anyone can create a UIA, brownie points are just a UIA and the fact that is has market demand has nothing to do with how it is distributed at will by someone who owns the UIA.

Yes, anyone can create an asset.  You say the asset creator's associations with BitShares developers doesn't matter;  aren't you the least bit concerned about what goes on behind the scenes, when 40% of an asset is dropped to shares that are mostly controlled by the Larimers?  20% to BTS, and 20% to BrowniePTS which Dan can issue to himself without limit?


Speaking of new BitShares assets and their questionable business practices, have you heard of BanxShares?


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1181883.0

Yes I have (https://bitshares.org/blog/2015/06/23/banx-capital-joins-the-bitshares-exchange-network/). Its a legitimate project that is up to the community to deem viable or not based on the business plan. You can come up with a runPaintShare which you may sell in exchange for services in which you host delegates or payment processing nodes which pay service fees and distribute dividends to share holders. Its really up to your imagination and its an open market, BanxShares has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the platform itself which is a generalized API for business so to speak.

By viable I mean if he/she is running as a delegate can be voted in/out and if people want to be in on the company profits they can buy the UIA (or not).

I find this analogous to copy cat clones offering services in new coins of bitcoin which may or  may not pan out but many hopeful investors join in, some projects are fruitful and give back while others are left for the dust. Not every business is successful.