The case for building on bitshares_toolkit

[toast]

Typically *coin projects extend the Bitcoin source. I'd like to make the case for building on the bitshares toolkit instead. I've talked to James and Paul about this and they seem mostly on board, but some extra public discussion can't hurt.

BitShares is a project to help build Decentralized Autonomous Companies, which is a metaphor for describing blockchains+cryptequity that provide a service. Truthcoin is a DAC. bitshares_toolkit provides a "shell" DAC, basically a bitcoin clone. Several other projects are already being built with this toolkit, which you can read about on bitsharestalk.org

Advantages

* bitshares_toolkit is specifically designed to be extended with custom business logic. Bitcoin's "input/output" style transactions get pretty hairy for complicated functionality compared to what is essentially traditional transactional DB transactions in the toolkit.
* The feature set is a strict superset of Bitcoin's functionality. Named stealth addresses, forced client-side best practices, and functionality from any of our other DACs (most significantly the Truthcoin <-> Truthshares embedded exchange) will be available *right from the start*. All that's left to develop is your PMs.
* There is not much collaboration between Bitcoin core devs and altcoin developers. Bitcoin devs do what is best for them and then altcoin devs adopt it if it is helpful. In the bitshares ecosystem, "core bitshares devs" do not have their own DAC and are specifically maintaining the toolkit on behalf of all the DACs derived from it.
* Our GUI wallet and block explorer also follow the same philosophy and so it will be much easier to get up and running from the end user's perspective.

Non-disadvantages
* "DPOS is not a proven security model!" -> We can use POW. The toolkit makes it easy to swap out parts as you see fit. POW is very easy to implement. Alternate POS models aren't too bad either. (I also think POW has already been proven to be dangerous especially for blockchains with markets, but we can discuss that when we get there).
* "Truthcoins aren't shares, they're coins!" -> facepalm... not being facetious, I've actually heard an argument like this before IRL
* "You'd be forced to preallocate 10%/10% to AGS/PTS!" -> Read this: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=2876.0

Actual disadvantages
* Bitcoin has obviously had much more time to become battle-hardened simply by being older. We don't know about bugs we don't know about. (However, only bugs related to stuff outside of the "hard parts" matter for this - the rest is up to you anyway).

So what's with the pitch?
I'm part of the Bitshares team, we are working full time on getting as many DACs bootstrapped as possible. We align our incentives by giving DAC devs good reason to honor AGS/PTS. I own AGS/PTS, and so I want to make TC succeed and give a share to the bitshares community in exchange for our enthusiastic support on all levels (development, marketing, anything in between).


Happy to discuss concerns and suggestions about the toolkit here.

[psztorc]

I would just like to say that it appears to me (without having looked into it too deeply) that by building the bitshares toolkit, the bitshares team has already done a lot of the "work" that I would have expected someone-working-for-me-to-build-Truthcoin to have done. I personally would have offered someone who did this a sizeable stake in the project.

I actually only-slightly understand what "10%/10% to AGS/PTS" means. The crucial thing is that my brain translates 10%/10% into 1. I don't know if this is two separate 10%'s, or 20% or what.

It is true that, thanks to the magic of open source, we could use the bitshares work for free, but (as anyone who has coded knows) the people who wrote the code are (pre-release) as valuable as the code itself. So even if we wanted to do that, we probably couldn't.

[toast]

10%/10% means 10% to PTS and 10% to AGS, for a 20% preallocation.

The nature of open source and easy copyability is an argument *for* honoring AGS/PTS. It represents the lion's share of DAC early adopters and you are always at risk of a fork to a different distribution which could get a network effect faster. Read the link in the OP for a more in-depth argument.

[psztorc]

This is very interesting chicken-and-egg problem. AGS/PTS represents the Bitshares community, which is valuable if it is valuable and valueless if it is valueless.

I would imagine such a community would want to get one really simple, solid, successful product release out early, and have something really ambitious in the pipe.

I agree with the focus (for blockchain projects) on the network effect, which is exactly why I'm interested in a Bitcoin snapshot for the 'money'.

[toast]

This is very interesting chicken-and-egg problem. AGS/PTS represents the Bitshares community, which is valuable if it is valuable and valueless if it is valueless.

I would imagine such a community would want to get one really simple, solid, successful product release out early, and have something really ambitious in the pipe.

I agree with the focus (for blockchain projects) on the network effect, which is exactly why I'm interested in a Bitcoin snapshot for the 'money'.

Now that I understand better: "Truthcoins" should be allocated to whatever you decide is most "fair" or marketable - like bitcoin airdrop. "Votecoins", the things that earn income from the network's operation, should drop on AGS/PTS/proto-truthcoin(fundraiser)/premine, etc

[psztorc]

Now that I understand better: "Truthcoins" should be allocated to whatever you decide is most "fair" or marketable - like bitcoin airdrop. "Votecoins", the things that earn income from the network's operation, should drop on AGS/PTS/proto-truthcoin(fundraiser)/premine, etc

Don't you think that, if we Bitcoin airdrop'd, the Votecoins would themselves become extraordinarily valuable? I do. Bitcoiners who didn't want the airdrop'd-Truthcoins might sell them (kick-starting external exchange liquidity), but they might also do a bunch of frivolous trading (akin to "gambling"). Moreover, no one can claim that we are challenging Bitcoin's value. I think the potential is worth considering for a very long time.

Its a complex question, though. I hope you can help by communicating with the Bitshares community to see what would be acceptable.