There is still widespread confusion about BitShares PTS and Protoshares

[runpaint]

All the BTS community knew that some people would fail to adequately research their PTS investment

What is "adequate"?  A promise from the devs - publicly available to this day to anyone who Googles for PTS - that all future drops would go to BitShares PTS holders?

All they had to do was a normal coinswap, just like every other coin does.  Then there wouldn't be any coins in existence that they didn't want to exist.  

No, Protoshares was always "PTS" and so was BitShares PTS after they changed their name in October.

I've already proven that they had changed the name to BitShares PTS before February.  Why do you keep repeating that, when it's not true?  

Because PTS holders received their payday under the condition that they never expect another sharedrop from Invictus.  But since the greedy PTS holders said : well technically, there is nothing stopping another coin dev from dropping on us, we have the right to not only keep PTS alive, but to continue promoting it.  The reaction from the BTS community who had just paid them to shut their mouths was: "yeah, and there's no incentive for a dev to sharedrop on an obviously greedy group of selfish assholes who would damage the community that just paid them more than their coin was worth to pitch in an give some effort for the greater good Bitcoin2.O, and instead, they worked to undermine the communities best efforts.

If that is what happened, why didn't they simply require PTS to be sent and swapped, which would have prevented that problem?

It's not even about being technically fulfilled, it was about being a socially acceptable deal, and since greater than market rates were paid, by any common sense measure, it was more than fair.

Yes, it is 100% about whether they fulfilled their obligations.  It has nothing to do with "being fair".  

I am a PTS holder.  Therefore, it makes a big difference to me whether they are obligated to drop me any future shares.

It makes no difference to me if they gave some other people a lot of shares.  That doesn't change the fact that I am a PTS holder.

One day he is going to wake up and feel sick to his stomach when he realizes the kind of people that all his hard work is benefiting

Did you happen to read what I quoted from Dan, regarding the distribution and seizure of BrowniePTS?

What kind of people are you worried about benefiting, if you're not worried about benefiting a totalitarian power-monger who seeks to silence his personal critics through the threat of public shaming and financial penalties?

No it didn't, who said that? PTS always stood for "Protoshares" until the October snapshot when they started calling it BitShares PTS

How many links do I need to post, showing Stan Larimer calling it BitShares PTS in January and February of the same year?


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



and also

[1714006847]

1714006847

[1714006847]

1714006847

[1714006847]

1714006847

[sidhujag]

Which new PTS are you referring to?

The new one is this: http://ptscrypto.com/ or https://github.com/PTS-DPOS/PTS

This one has nothing to do with bitshares. It uses DPOS. The old one uses POW https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-pts

You can see on the old one there is a message saying there is a new PTS using DPOS... the idea was that any devs building ontop of bitshares would use PTS from the NEW pts DPOS chain to sharedrop and the old one which had a bad diff algo causing the difficulty to go sky high on minimal mining was left to go obsolete. The original was used to sharedrop when BTS happened and a few other projects. Its up to the social consensus of these new projects to consider the "new" PTS to sharedrop on new coins or assets. It's not up to the dev team to push this mandate.

It wasn't swapped/burned because it wasn't officially the dev team that created the new PTS AFAIK. It was an independent project.

[runpaint]

You are free to issue your runpaintBrownies if you please.
... 
Please, create some UIA's and have your friends do it too.

My friends and I don't own Bitsharestalk, and we can't convince developers to give us 20% of their new asset for free.  So it's a little different when Stan and Dan do it.

The cost is 5,000 BTS currently I believe (all profits go to Bitcoin2.O holders).
...
if they are cool, then I might sharedrop my next project on them (see how the future looks)

Where have I heard that before?  I already spent money for BitSharesPTS, and you're not going to sharedrop to that.  Why should I pay for another asset?

we love Crypti, we just don't let our devs code for them

But the Invictus devs code for BitShares, because Invictus merged with BitShares and brought all their projects with them.  So BitShares2.0 is an Invictus DAC, which was promised to be sharedropped to holders of BitShares PTS, which is me. 

Still, I would tear stan a new one if I saw that he said that Brownies were better than BTS for sharedrops, but I'm not doing that goose chase thanks.

Nice try, but that wasn't the question.  We're discussing why the devs say Brownie PTS are better for drops than BitShares PTS.

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.

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

Got a link?  Didn't think so.

But I did have a link, so you thought wrong.

[runpaint]

- yes, the name Protoshares was changed to BitSharesPTS in the spring of 2014, and a I recall, this was because we wanted to raise the visibility of the sharedrop target

What do you mean, "as you recall"?  You've proven that your recollection can't be trusted, because you've been insisting that it wasn't changed until October.

So when you say "as I recall", maybe you mean "since you've repeatedly proven me wrong, I'm going to change my story and pretend that I remembered it myself."

The choice was an obvious one that only you, and others in your shoes regret.

The obvious choice was a normal coinswap.  They didn't do that, because they're greedy and wanted to have their coins and sell them too.

And now that I'm raising a stink about it, it looks like BitShares people regret it too.  They don't want me talking about it or "trolling and fudding", but here I am.  If it gives them a headache, hopefully it was worth the coins they sold twice.

"PTS merged with BTS, we don't regret it."

If they merged, why is PTS still trading separately for 16 satoshis?  That's right - because they gave themselves extra BTS to "replace" their PTS, and then they sold the PTS anyway.

If they don't regret it, why are so many of them coming to this topic to lie about it?



 
  

However, of all the bad marketing decisions Invictus has made over the years, this was not one of them (to change the name from BitSharesX to BitShares and get rid of all competing chains to consolidate development).

You're saying they made a decision to get rid of the BitShares PTS blockchain?  Then why didn't they attempt to actually do it?

The BitShares community is a contract-free zone where at no point in time shall there exist a legal obligation for any party to behave any way in the future.  

Too late, you already promised your obligations at one point in time.   If you don't want it to be serious, then stop selling it for real money.  

Here is the BitShares Social Contract - That's the word YOU used, "Contract" - which obligates certain people to behave a certain way in the future - and you came up with it yourselves:

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

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

So if BitShares is a "contract-free zone", then the Larimers have to leave.

In total BTS will “air drop”  7% PTS, 7% AGS, 3% VOTE, and 3% DNS.  This air drop is not a buyout or merger but a no strings attached gift to these communities to encourage them to contribute to BTSX rather than their own competitors.

PTS, AGS, VOTE and DNS stakes will vest linearly over 2 years, meaning that each day users will get to claim some of their stake.

PTS will continue to circulate and trade; however, without I3 planning any future snapshots its value will be based upon the speculative value of 3rd party DACs such as Music, Play, and others.  

 

PTS / AGS holders will effectively receive 20% stake in all PAST and FUTURE blockchain ideas built by the Invictus team through this air drop, plus a much larger cut in DevShares, Play, and Music among others.

AGS was a gift... no strings attached.  Anyone who has AGS and is complaining has no one they can blame but themselves for setting wrong expectations.  

That's an outright lie.

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

Who set the expectations for what AGS holders would get?  Did AGS holders publish those expectations themselves, at Invictus-Innovations.com?

PTS is liquid and will remain liquid.  
PTS is receiving a gradual snapshot as features are implemented on a time table that is similar to when PTS would have received their snapshots.

holders were hoping for a future snapshot in a real DAC as obviously people don't want PTS just for PTS sake... until there is a "real dac" PTS holders are not really liquid.  
 ...
So you don't want to be locked in for a gradual 2 year release.... then sell to someone who is willing to be locked in for 2 years.  There are many buyers of PTS that are pricing in a discount for giving up liquidity and you have the option.    Be liquid and sell today... or get a larger stake over 2 years.

If we look at the numbers:

PTS/AGS got 20% of BTSX = 400,000,000 BTSX
BTSX gets 80% of BTS = 2,000,000,000 BTS
PTS/AGS get 16% of the 500M BTS = 80,000,000 BTS

So in total PTS/AGS gets 19.2% of BTS. So the social contract is only short 0.8%.

Now any DAC that snapshots BTS to bootstrap their DAC will effectively be honoring AGS/PTS.

So PLEASE tell the Chinese community that even if they are furious about this situation that they DO NOT destroy any of their accounts that have a balance.

Yes but BTS will only be snapshotted 20% I presume so they will get 20% of 20% which is 4%.

Tell them that we don't expect any forks worth while to fork at just 20%... I think third parties will do what is best... we always said that AGS/PTS was voluntariy and best practice is 10%.... not everyone does 10%.   The point is that I wouldn't worry about 3rd parties much... it would be like complaining that you aren't getting a large stake in all of the alt coins.

PTS will continue (we didn't take your PTS) you were just given a continuous share drop over the next 2 years which is what PTS was expecting anyway with new DACs being launched every couple of months.   Your liquidity wasn't removed.  You can sell your PTS if you like.

But you're already quoted saying "obviously people don't want PTS just for PTS sake".

So you didn't take their PTS, but you did take away its value.  

But to help you and others learn, I dug out these facts straight from the horses mouth and all it took was a simple:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=5;area=showposts;start=0

Thank you for finding more quotes showing the lies and bad business practices.


Can you find more quotes proving that the "community" is still centrally controlled by the Larimers, and they manipulate people into saying "we as a community made the decision" when in fact the community had no power to do anything?

[crypto jerk]

This bts system sure is run like a scam.

Many many many promises. And many many many short sighted fuck ups. Here we have stan night and day slobbering over his brothers intellect, however dan keeps having to change his designs and stories cause they are flawed everytime.

Step 1. Make it complicated
Step 2. Promise a bunch of shit
Step 3. Dissolve the company who made the original promises, oops don't have to honor those promises anymore
Step 4. Rename and merge/dillute
Step 5. Reform into a new organization with exactly all of the same people doing the same thing.
Step 6. Repeat step 1

[runpaint]

In essence, PTS holders changed their name to BTS

And the story changes again.  Didn't you say it was called PTS, and then they changed it to PTS, which was the same name but different?

then made a new DPOS coin and called it PTS

So you're saying it's a different coin.

Your angle this whole time is that a few miners scammed "people like me", the non-tech-savvy bumblers who "jumped head-first into shallow water", without doing adequate research into what we were buying.   

The problem with your latest story is that I bought the original coin, on Poloniex. 

Anyone who had PTS on Poloniex or Bter got automatically transferred the new coin supply. 

Did Poloniex and Bter get fooled?  They aren't tech savvy? 

[sidhujag]

these responses are annoying im out

[runpaint]

That's going to be really tough when Bitcoin2.O comes out and the Larimers have to do what the community votes them to do or they are fired.

Unless they have more votes than everyone else. 

[EvilDave]

And people say that Nxt is complicated........

[DecentralizeEconomics]

That's going to be really tough when Bitcoin2.O comes out and the Larimers have to do what the community votes them to do or they are fired.

Unless they have more votes than everyone else. 

They've rigged voting so they will always come out on top.

DPoS is not decentralized.  Here is why:

For all those interested in how a few of the wealthiest Bitshares' stakeholders can effectively rig the mass majority of the elections, here is how.

It doesn't matter if you collect delegates' SSNs, driver's licenses, birth certificates and thumbprints, Bitshares' DPoS mechanism will always be susceptible to manipulation.  You have introduced a "social construct" (aka voting) which turns Bitshares' delegates into a "government of the wealthy".  No one will ever know what type of "behind-the-scenes" politics is going on which results in which delegates are selected.

Because you have instituted this ridiculous charade into chain security, all your figures on "decentralization" and "speed of decentralization" are speculative and assume that all 101 delegates are unique, non-colluding individuals.  The fact is all these delegates are not going to compete against each other for a position.  Who will become a delegate and control the delegate selection process are the wealthiest stakeholders.  This will be accomplished in a quid pro quo manner.  This means that really Bitshares is less decentralized than NXT because they will be able to form political/business coalitions which imo will result in them dominating the delegate selection process.  The wealthiest stakeholders in Bitshares can do this very easily because it is an "Approval Voting" process.  This allows stakeholders to put the entire weight of their stake behind each and every delegate they approve. The Bitshares' devs will deny this to the very end because they are part of this "ruling elite".

I think I could make a pretty good argument that delegates' "real world" identities being known by the community doesn't really matter or prevent a "Sybil attack".  Imo, what would constitute a "Sybil attack" is the collusion of delegates' motives.  I'm also pretty positive that the colluding delegates wouldn't "harm" the Bitshares' ecosystem, but instead use their power to manipulate delegate elections to capitalize on the delegate positions.  Everybody can know everyones' name, but it's impossible to know their true intentions.

Any block chain has the problem that a few big players can collude, whether they are large stakeholders or large hashpoolers.  We dilute that down to under one percent influence per delegate, max.

Then there's the question of what they can collude about.  We can all observe whether they are performing their very limited block signing job to spec or not. We can look at their published price feeds. They have no other power.

That's true that in all blockchains stakeholders/hashpower can collude, but they can only collude in a one-to-one proportion to their stake/hash.  Since approval voting is used in delegate elections, I maintain that large stakeholders can effectively collude to a multiple proportion of their stake.  Whereby, for example, 20% of colluding stake can disproportionately influence the elections of more than 20% of the delegates.  This leads to a coalition of a few wealthy stakeholders being able to determine the outcomes of the mass majority of the delegate elections.  This is especially true considering that voter turnout of smaller stakeholders will be lower than the voter turnout of larger stakeholders.  As I said previously, it would be the intention of the colluding wealthy stakeholders to not harm Bitshares, but to elect delegates from which they would derive monetary gain in excess to their proportion of stake in the system at the expense of all other stakeholders.

Let's give an example.  Remember, in "approval voting", voters do not just vote for one delegate.  They can select as many or as few delegates as they wish and the entire weight of their stake counts towards each delegate they choose.  Say for instance that the top delegate has 50% of the vote and the 101st delegate has 30% of the vote.  The voting spread percentage is 20% (50%-30%).  If the votes per delegate is a linear increase according to delegate rank, an additional 10% of the stake vote will move the 101st delegate to the 50th position.  Likewise, a removal of 10% of the stake vote from the lower 50 delegates will result in them losing their delegate position.  By strategically voting, a few wealthy stakeholders can influence a disproportionate number of delegate positions in relation to their actual stake.  In this example, a coalition of 10% stake was able to control 50% of the delegates.

Does this sound fair to you?!

[Bisha]

You didn't do due dilligence. You expected BitShares PTS to be sharedropped on when everyone knew they wouldn't work like that anymore. Annoucements were made before hand regarding the merger. Yeah, plans have changed, but so what? You had time to know about that. Only someone who didn't check for info did what you did.

[runpaint]

You didn't do due dilligence. You expected BitShares PTS to be sharedropped on when everyone knew they wouldn't work like that anymore.

Everyone knew how it was going to work?

You yourself still don't know how it works, which you proved in this confusing conversation.  Everyone here has given a different opinion about what happened with PTS and how it works now. 

[Pheonike]

 
Protoshares which became PTS where sharedropped on. That was there purpose and when the the share drop happened they were suppose to die.You have to understand, the developers (Dan) did not control PTS, it was a POW coin. After the share drop some ppl decided they wanted to keep it running. How do you stop a decentralize POW coin if people continue to mine it? That's why its confusing because there was no way to shutdown PTS after the drop.

Later on some ppl decided they wanted to upgrade PTS to use DPOS like BTS but they fail to get the support and the zombie PTS kept living.

Brownie PTS is actually Brownie Points. People started abbreviating the Points to PTS which of course has caused more confusion for new people. Brownies are user token on on Bitshares issued by Dan to reward the people who have gone above and beyond helping BTS to work. One of the partners decided that they wanted to drop on these peple because they have shown love for the project and would be the kind of ppl they would want to work on their project. Again brownies were not meant to be sharedropped on, but how do you stop somebody from doing it?

[DecentralizeEconomics]

Protoshares which became PTS where sharedropped on. That was there purpose and when the the share drop happened they were suppose to die.You have to understand, the developers (Dan) did not control PTS, it was a POW coin. After the share drop some ppl decided they wanted to keep it running. How do you stop a decentralize POW coin if people continue to mine it? That's why its confusing because there was no way to shutdown PTS after the drop.

They could have required Protoshare holders to burn their coins if they wanted to be sharedropped Bitshares.  That would have effectively destroyed Protoshares.

Brownie PTS is actually Brownie Points. People started abbreviating the Points to PTS which of course has caused more confusion for new people. Brownies are user token on on Bitshares issued by Dan to reward the people who have gone above and beyond helping BTS to work. One of the partners decided that they wanted to drop on these peple because they have shown love for the project and would be the kind of ppl they would want to work on their project. Again brownies were not meant to be sharedropped on, but how do you stop somebody from doing it?

"Brownie Points" are a pathetic attempt to keep everybody towing the line so the never-ending scam can continue to lure in the unsuspecting.  What type of a person, especially one who supposedly believes in crypto, freedom and libertarianism, starts distributing and allowing a currency to be sold to others when they can be confiscated on a whim?

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,17354.0.html

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.  -Bytemaster, Dan Larimer

[runpaint]

Protoshares which became PTS where sharedropped on. That was there purpose and when the the share drop happened they were suppose to die.

What do you mean?  Are you saying that people were supposed to stop selling something that they had, that was still being bought on exchanges?  Why would they stop?

You have to understand, the developers (Dan) did not control PTS, it was a POW coin. After the share drop some ppl decided they wanted to keep it running. How do you stop a decentralize POW coin if people continue to mine it? That's why its confusing because there was no way to shutdown PTS after the drop.

Dan did control PTS, and he held PTS.  He could have shut it down by requiring a coin swap.  Then no exchange would continue to list PTS, because there would be no coins to sell.  

Instead of shutting it down, he let himself keep all his PTS.  Then, amazingly, "someone" gave Dan millions of extra PTS, and then "someone" dumped millions of PTS on the market so the price went from .002BTC to .00000125BTC in 7 days (December 13 to December 20).

Brownie PTS is actually Brownie Points. People started abbreviating the Points to PTS which of course has caused more confusion for new people.

Yes, there is widespread confusion regarding what actions have been taken and why.

Brownies are user token on on Bitshares issued by Dan to reward the people

But he gave them mostly to himself.  And they're not to reward people - they're to control and threaten people, and to get more money for Dan and Stan.

One of the partners decided that they wanted to drop on these peple

Out of 8 million Brownie PTS, Dan kept 4 million for himself.  Then he "distributed" 4 million to his brother, the other devs, his friends, and people who became obligated to give him something in return;  only ~ 50 actual people from the community received shares, and some of them got a total of 333 Brownie PTS.

So what you mean is "one of the partners decided to give a huge percentage of the free coins to Dan and Stan."

Again brownies were not meant to be sharedropped on, but how do you stop somebody from doing it?

How do you know they weren't meant for sharedrops?  Because they told you?

If they weren't meant for it, do you think it's a coincidence that Dan "accidentally" got a bunch of money out of it?

If they weren't meant for it, why did Dan spend 5000BTS to register them as a User Issued Asset?  For fun?  OH WOW, but then he also got 10% of the entire supply of Identibit!  How lucky for him, and he didn't even plan it!


Just like Dan "didn't want PTS to continue, but then someone gave him millions of extra shares."
Now Dan "didn't want BrowniePTS to be sharedropped, but then someone gave him millions of extra Identibit."


Brownie PTS was announced July 2, and on August 12 Identibit announced it was sharedropping to Brownie PTS.  It is self-evident that Brownie PTS was entirely a way for Dan to get more money for himself, and that he worked together with Identibit to get more for himself through Brownie PTS.

[runpaint]

And what is, Identibit, anyway?  

According to Stan Larimer, it means that all BitShares users will have to register their Social Security Number?

Now, about KYC/AML. It is true that Identabit requires all accounts to have positive ID and you can't collect your sharedrop without an account.  

Catch 22?

No.  Remember the purpose of a sharedrop is to target people who will be your supporters, not to give away free money.  If a person won't sign up with a verified account even to collect free money, then they are identifying themselves as people that Identabit wouldn't want to sharedrop on anyway.

Put it another way.  The sharedrop is a way to get people motivated to overcome their natural crypto-reluctance to identify themselves, even though they do it every day to collect their paychecks and pay their taxes.  Just because we want some place to keep our finances anonymous does not mean that every place has to be anonomyous.  So, requiring us cryptoheads to register helps break down that barrier, and is thus a key strategy to get cryptoheads used to the concept of having a mix of anonymous and identity-based accounts. Knowing how to use both is a key to the complementary roles of BitShares and Identabit the way folks know the difference between savings and checking acounts today.

Those who are not willing to take that little leap, will never be Identabit supporters anyway and are thus self-judged to be likely dumpers.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,17354.375.html


Stan also says if you don't want the government to connect your identity with how many BitShares you own, don't claim Identibit.  

[runpaint]

Here's a faithful BitShares community member, earlier this month in September 2015:

I own AGS and the only reason I invested in BTS is to become the target of future sharedrops. That was the promise from Dan and Stan. AGS buyer had special place in their posts at that time. Now some 'mumble' listener  or Forum member with BROWNIE.PTS have bigger share in future DACs. I invested xx BTC when price was 600USD.  As post 28/2 investor I only received BTS dust and the worst thing is that most of them are still locked. We even did't have chance to sell AGS. Remember you returned PTS which was also the currency for buying AGS.

Dan and Stan is that all. Is that your final decision that Brownie.PTS worth more than AGS. Please answer me I'am really disappointed.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,17354.360.html

[Pheonike]

Protoshares which became PTS where sharedropped on. That was there purpose and when the the share drop happened they were suppose to die.

What do you mean?  Are you saying that people were supposed to stop selling something that they had, that was still being bought on exchanges?  Why would they stop?

You have to understand, the developers (Dan) did not control PTS, it was a POW coin. After the share drop some ppl decided they wanted to keep it running. How do you stop a decentralize POW coin if people continue to mine it? That's why its confusing because there was no way to shutdown PTS after the drop.

Dan did control PTS, and he held PTS.  He could have shut it down by requiring a coin swap.  Then no exchange would continue to list PTS, because there would be no coins to sell.  

Instead of shutting it down, he let himself keep all his PTS.  Then, amazingly, "someone" gave Dan millions of extra PTS, and then "someone" dumped millions of PTS on the market so the price went from .002BTC to .00000125BTC in 7 days (December 13 to December 20).

Brownie PTS is actually Brownie Points. People started abbreviating the Points to PTS which of course has caused more confusion for new people.

Yes, there is widespread confusion regarding what actions have been taken and why.

Brownies are user token on on Bitshares issued by Dan to reward the people

But he gave them mostly to himself.  And they're not to reward people - they're to control and threaten people, and to get more money for Dan and Stan.

One of the partners decided that they wanted to drop on these peple

Out of 8 million Brownie PTS, Dan kept 4 million for himself.  Then he "distributed" 4 million to his brother, the other devs, his friends, and people who became obligated to give him something in return;  only ~ 50 actual people from the community received shares, and some of them got a total of 333 Brownie PTS.

So what you mean is "one of the partners decided to give a huge percentage of the free coins to Dan and Stan."

Again brownies were not meant to be sharedropped on, but how do you stop somebody from doing it?

How do you know they weren't meant for sharedrops?  Because they told you?

If they weren't meant for it, do you think it's a coincidence that Dan "accidentally" got a bunch of money out of it?

If they weren't meant for it, why did Dan spend 5000BTS to register them as a User Issued Asset?  For fun?  OH WOW, but then he also got 10% of the entire supply of Identibit!  How lucky for him, and he didn't even plan it!


Just like Dan "didn't want PTS to continue, but then someone gave him millions of extra shares."
Now Dan "didn't want BrowniePTS to be sharedropped, but then someone gave him millions of extra Identibit."


Brownie PTS was announced July 2, and on August 12 Identibit announced it was sharedropping to Brownie PTS.  It is self-evident that Brownie PTS was entirely a way for Dan to get more money for himself, and that he worked together with Identibit to get more for himself through Brownie PTS.

What do you mean?  Are you saying that people were supposed to stop selling something that they had, that was still being bought on exchanges?  Why would they stop?

Exactly, if people thought they had more value than what they could get from exchanging them for BTS, why would they? I can't force you trade something with me if you don't want it. If people were willing to keep trading it after the drop why would the exchange stop listing it if they could keep making money from it?


AS for the brownie points, that's what a user issued asset is. It cost 5000bts to register and the creator has full control over them. The only thing special about brownie points is that people believe they will have value because they believe in Dan. Nothing is stopping you from spending 5000bts and issuing your own asset.Problem is no one think it's worth anything because you wouldn't bring any value to it.

[BitcoinNational]

BitShares itself (not PTS) can and is being used for sharedropps already.

Cool story.  



I'd like to see more sharedrops using Bitshares PTS snapshots, since Stan Larimer promised that every future DAC would be dropped to PTS holders.  

Is that a broken promise from Bitshares, or will they use PTS for drops?

broken promises

And in a nut shell this explains why BTS is a nasty smelly fish.

PTS has been dead for a year, a DEAD wallet on cryptsy.
And all the shares promised by PTS are vaporware, or am I missing something?
But last time I checked I still don't have them nor see them traded/listed.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

And what is, Identibit, anyway?  

According to Stan Larimer, it means that all BitShares users will have to register their Social Security Number?

Now, about KYC/AML. It is true that Identabit requires all accounts to have positive ID and you can't collect your sharedrop without an account.  

Catch 22?

No.  Remember the purpose of a sharedrop is to target people who will be your supporters, not to give away free money.  If a person won't sign up with a verified account even to collect free money, then they are identifying themselves as people that Identabit wouldn't want to sharedrop on anyway.

Put it another way.  The sharedrop is a way to get people motivated to overcome their natural crypto-reluctance to identify themselves, even though they do it every day to collect their paychecks and pay their taxes.  Just because we want some place to keep our finances anonymous does not mean that every place has to be anonomyous.  So, requiring us cryptoheads to register helps break down that barrier, and is thus a key strategy to get cryptoheads used to the concept of having a mix of anonymous and identity-based accounts. Knowing how to use both is a key to the complementary roles of BitShares and Identabit the way folks know the difference between savings and checking acounts today.

Those who are not willing to take that little leap, will never be Identabit supporters anyway and are thus self-judged to be likely dumpers.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,17354.375.html


Stan also says if you don't want the government to connect your identity with how many BitShares you own, don't claim Identibit.