jelas suka banget gan kalau di tanya kayak gitu,soalnya kan bisa mendapatkan uang dengan mudah dan hasilnya lumayan menjajikan banget  dan cocok sekali buat inventasi buat masa depan kita gan dan juga bisa menambah pengetahuan dan manfaat di bitcoin.

manfaatnya sering online di bitcointalk banyak sekali lo gan contohnya.

1.bisa mendapatkan banyak informasi tentang bitcoin
2.bisa mengetahui projeck-projeck yang lagi ramai di ikuti para member-member
3.bisa menaikan rank kita semua
4.bisa mendapatkan uang dari bitcointalk juga gan
5.DLL gan  
makanya itu bitcointalk banyak manfaatnya dan banyak pengetahuanya juga gan.apa lagi sekarang sudah banyak sekali peminatnya pula.

Kalau saya sih 2/3 jam gan perhari ngabisin waktu untuk bitcoin udah cukup, itu juga setelah saya pulang kerja gan. Harus pinter juga buat bagi waktu untuk pekerjaan utama saya dan untuk bitcoin gan itu yang terpenting .

Di karenakan hasilnya cukup menjanjikan dan bisa untuk membantu keuangan di keluarga kita maupun kita gan. Karna itu bitcoin sekarang banyak banget peminatnya gan

How about bonded escrow?  3x BTC value or something

bitshares is an experiment in creating decentralized price-tracking crypto using natural market incentives, and building a crypto-asset ecosystem around that.

The trading experience is comparable to normal cryptocurrency exchanges except all the books are on the blockchain so you don't have to worry about exchange insolvency. You get yield on assets with high short demand like bitUSD or bitSILVER offering over 3% right now.

There is a powerful user-issued asset system, which flexible enough to allow traditional centralized companies can legally issue their stock, among a lot of other applications.

You don't have leveraged trading unless you want to leverage long BTS by shorting a BitAsset.

There are bridges to get from BTC to bitBTC to get in and out cheaply for small quantities, but the cheapest way to get a bunch of any bitAsset is still to go directly through BTS.


The fees are a fixed 0.1 BTS per transaction, or 2 times that if you are paying in a market-pegged asset with a price feed (so you can have just a bitUSD vs bitBTC balance and still pay transaction fees). There is not that much volume, but it is growing slowly as more gateways and exchanges come online and more traders from centralized exchanges see the utility of holding bitUSD and others.

It's theoretically more secure if you take care to secure your private keys. It's still risky just because it's a brand new codebase that has lots of bugs. Still not worse than Cryptsy though...

Indeed, I did not understand that Jordan and co did not consider liquidity providers' funds as reserves. I think OP's point still tands if you replace the term "reserves" with the appropriate word. I wish OP was less inflammatory though.

Right now they do, but again Jordan said their plan is to have NO reserves at all.


So the only mechanism there to support nubit price if it starts falling is to NBT to NSR burn (equivalent to inflating NSR to buy back NBT), which is in the process of being implemented.

Jordan specifically said their *goal* is 0% reserves, which means they are really backing it with NSR's ability to inflate to buy back NBT

The idea is that by the time it gets to 0, all outstanding bitassets should have already been bought back and covered - you can't have the rug pulled out from under you except for truly catastrophic collapse where traders literally cannot react in time. With NSR you can have insolvency creep up on you without anyone noticing

There's no "threshold" for getting elected. Maybe you mean the current 10% lowest approval in our particular system, but that is also in the same system where the largest stakeholder has nowhere near 10%.

In my example I said to assume full voter participation, and to assume you have 3 guys with 10% stake each and the other 70% stake is split among tons of small stakeholders who vote in their own interest.

In this (extremely contrived) scenario, all 101 delegates would have 70% approval, while the 3 guys even if they all voted for each other would only have 30% approval.

If this is confusing to you please read the wiki on how approval voting works.

You're right I can't prove anything about distribution, but I'll claim that it doesn't matter. The point I was making is this:

Each share gets one vote *per potential delegate*. Suppose 3 guys own 10% each, so their coalition owns 30%, and everyone else owns a tiny fraction.

Now suppose everyone is a perfectly rational voter and there is maximum participation. Obviously that's a stretch but bear with me.

How many delegates will the 3 richest guys get? 30? No! They will get 0, and 100% of the delegates will be those selected by the majority composed of tiny stakeholders. If that doesn't make sense to you, go read how approval voting works.

Now suppose there is a coalition that owns 51% of the stake. How many delegates will they get, 51? No! They will get all of them!

In this sense you are right - majority ownership is complete ownership. That's how companies work. If you are in the minority and don't like policy elected by the majority, split off with your own DAC.

At the end of the day, 51% stakeholders rule and cannot be diluted by any large stakeholder without 51% approval.

My claim is that there is no 51% coalition that can coordinate to do anything but enforce property (BTS and bitasset) ownership. That's how all these consensus systems work, they hide the ability to do anything "bad" behind a coordination problem of getting 51% of the consensus metric.

You realize BTS uses approval voting and not direct voting right?  (multi-winner approval voting:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting#Multiple_winners)


Except that the *minimum* approval for any delegates is over 10% right now, while the *maximum* owned by any individual is on the order of 1%.

You can only get a delegate spot by appealing to the largest agreeing subset of BTS holders. This group will tend to vote in the interests of 51% shareholders.

This is where we disagree, I think. It is not a political position because the delegate has absolutely no influence over the inflation rate or DAC policy outside of what is approved *before he is elected* by the stakeholders.

We keep saying "the shareholders rule the delegates, not the other way around" but you just don't believe it.

There *is* a group of powerful insider who form a plutocracy - it's the majority shareholders! In this sense yes, BTS centralizes power in the hands of BTS holders (+bitAsset holders) at the expense of non-BTS holders.


Again, the fixation on the delegate cap is bizzare. We considered making it unlimited with block production proportional to approval, and concluded this would make it *too centralized*.

It might be hard but it will shed some light. I think we still have the main disagreement where you think block producers have some sort of advantage over non-block producers. You would claim that increasing the cap from 100 to 1,000,000 would make it more decentralized, I would claim that's nonsense (remember I said 1 block producer only doesn't work because of technical challenges of swapping him out quickly which matters for network availability - not because it is a control point). Let's figure out why we disagree - what is the goal of decentralization, what metrics are useful for measuring goal, etc.


BM is quite open to debate and has changed his mind in light of better arguments many times - I will ask him to enable comments. I won't drag him here to BTT unless there is a specific question you'd like him to answer (IMO there is nothing new in this thread so I won't pull him here yet because he needs to be coding).


Yes, "leprechauns" - like trolls but they have a pot of BTS. Again an interesting thing to note is that I would think a BTS bagholder is just as likely to be a leprechaun as a delegate. Heck, eventually I hope to see delegates not be major BTS stakeholders at all, and have them work to improve BTS with razor thin margins. Until then you will obviously see major overlap because there are only a few thousand community members and a few dozen who can commit full-time.

Ok, that's a decent response. Here's some more thoughts.

Maybe "decentralized" means something different to most people. I hadn't thought that others might think it means something other than "lack of centralized control points". These concern us because they can be used by non-stakeholders to take money away from stakeholders. Again, I would like you to state the *goal* of building your system so that it is not centralized.

I'm still not totally clear what the cause of your concern for the small number of block producers is. Having more delegates does not give me more power or money unless the stakeholder choose it.

Maybe one day BTS stakeholders will do a cost/benefit analysis and realize that spending 10x on validation is worth the perceived extra decentralization. Heck maybe even spending a few thousand a year for anyone to opt-in to a mailing list that says "you, too, are helping secure the network" - equivalent to what small-time miners or forgers are experiencing right now.



Even stranger it was suggested by a hardcore anarcho-capitalist who hates centralized control! Either he is an idiot or onto something more fundamental about the nature of consensus...


This is a good thread, thanks for being civil. Does it really end with disagreement about the definition?

If we banned the words "centralized" and "decentralized" and started this topic over, would we still be disagreeing?
http://lesswrong.com/lw/nu/taboo_your_words/    What are we actually talking about here, if not "avoiding robbery via takeover of control points" ?

To the contrary, RIGHT NOW all other systems are more decentralized because they are small enough to afford more than 100 validators. DPOS will only become more decentralized AT SCALE, when you cannot afford that many validators unless you force them to be distinct. The argument is presented in depth in a few places:

http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2015/01/07/The-Most-Decentralized-Proof-of-Stake-System/
http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/DPOS#Scalability

But as I said in my previous post, focusing on the ratio of block validators to users is a red herring. Focus on the ratio of stake in the network to influence over network behavior. Other POS systems force out the little guy.

Decentralization is about who is in control.

The original design was pure TAPOS with a *single* block signer! This would still be decentralized by our interpretation because SHAREHOLDERS decide who that block signer is and because the block signer does not have the ability to do any damage if clients refuse to roll back. The problem with this design is that it is a million times easier to coordinate the transition between block signers on-chain than off-chain, so we want enough block signers to stop them from coordinating to block all transactions and tada you've invented DPOS.

Who cares about the ratio of users to block producers? Block producers have no power and serve the BTS holders. Again, what is your goal?

Our goal is to protect BTS (and by extension, bitAsset) holders from non-BTS holders. That's it.

It is crazy to me how people focus on the block producer cap instead of the underlying consensus metric. If you remove the cap and let people produce proportionally to their approval, you would see a higher concentration of blocks produced by a smaller number of nodes.

Having 101 validators is FORCING the network to be MORE decentralized than the other consensus protocols, where 99% of blocks are produced by far fewer than 100 validators. As a stakeholder, your control over block producers is exactly proportional to your stake whereas in other systems it becomes unprofitable to validate unless you control huge amounts of the stake (or hash power in POW, or unique nodes on ripple UNL)

What is the goal of decentralization? It is to make it difficult for anyone but majority stake-vote to decide what the rules of ownership are. To protect the stakeholders from everyone else. The goal is not to make everyone feel like a part of the validation process and pay them for make-work.

@OP  you claim NXT is more decentralized, can you respond to specific points here?  http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2015/01/07/The-Most-Decentralized-Proof-of-Stake-System/