Statements such as: ...
do not inspire confidence, I have to say. They rather tell me that people endorsing this system do have intentions I am not willing to share. They do not want to change the status quo but rather repeat history and pull out money from people. As usual I am concerned, so the best way out I know is asking.  "they" here is a random pumping zealot, not a member of the team |
|
|
|
These 101 delegates are responsible for including transactions on the bitshares network. Now think about this. The DAC attempts to set monetary policy for the "bit assets" depending on the market price. If there are more sellers, the DAC destroys bit assets. If there are more buyers, the DAC prints more bit assets. So, whoever controls the transactions included on the blockchain controls the DAC or monetary policy that the DAC enacts on the entire network. Who controls the transactions included on the blockchain? The 101 delegates. Also total FUD, the delegates do not dictate the supply of BitUSD, the traders do. Delegates are only used for the consensus protocol, if they exclude transactions to try to skew the peg then at best they can lose money and get fired... |
|
|
|
Actually, I do not speculate on things like those but regarding the recent upsurge of the trust in BitShares I am curious about the opinion and insights of others.
I mean how could anybody in the crypto community would want to mirror the FED?
I cannot believe that to be true.
Precisely. Anyone who has done their homework and spent any time at all on bitsharestalk.org over the past year knows that BitShares is the antidote to the Federal Reserve's 100+ years of economic atrocities. But do yourselves a favor and study before you decide if this is the Next Big Thing or not. " Knowledge and Understanding is the ultimate Proof of Work." I am not sure if it is an antidote or just a replacement that changes nothing. Not sure if you read http://invictus-innovations.com/bitshares-as-dac-bank/But fractional reserve lending is about robbing the wealth of others. I am not sure if that is in the best interest of the crypto community. Except it's 150%+ reserve, not fractional reserve. Does that change how you feel? |
|
|
|
|
this is hilarious, please don't stop
|
|
|
|
|
Request: Do *NOT* list BitShares DNS on coinmarketcap until it is actually launched and trading. The exchanges have their snapshots and can let their users trade them, but this will be an artificially inflated cap just like we saw with BitSharesX when it first launched a month ago.
I'll post here when it's ready. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
It's still off, but a different number than before. Is it rounding to the nearest 10,000 or something? |
|
|
|
You aren't even representing the supply accurately.
What url can be used to get accurate current supply? Don't put it up yet! Only 10% is trading and so it is massively inflated. Seriously please take it down. bter and btc38 are likely to open up withdrawals any day now, so taking the listing down is probably not necessary at this point, however we should make sure coinmarketcap lists with correct supply, so they should be given correct url to use. Alright fine, someone will get a supply URL for you soon enough |
|
|
|
You aren't even representing the supply accurately.
What url can be used to get accurate current supply? Don't put it up yet! Only 10% is trading and so it is massively inflated. Seriously please take it down. |
|
|
|
|
Whatever, fuck it... let people buy in when only 10% is trading, their loss....
|
|
|
|
OMG, NO FFS please do not put it up there until it is *actually trading*, like with deposits / withdrawals You aren't even representing the supply accurately. Please just take it down and don't put it up until one of the real devs asks you (me or bytemaster) |
|
|
|
OMG, NO FFS please do not put it up there until it is *actually trading*, like with deposits / withdrawals |
|
|
|
Time to list BTSX on coinmarketcap.com It has not yet been released, but can already be pre-traded on https://bter.com/Currently valued at over 40000 BTC. More info on Bitshares X (BTSX) here - http://bitshares.orgNO, please remove BTSX from coinmarketcap until it is ready or there is at least a btsx-specific info site. |
|
|
|
IMO, the cap means its very different, as I can see the same pooling problem with TF as in PoW. But it seems not many agree with this viewpoint.
So, I ask again: what is this cap good for? Where is the technical difficulty in creating a new pool, when my first pool is capped? Yeah the cap doesn't mean much IMO, the "downvotes" are the more important part. The important part is that as a pool operator, you can only pay dividends to all stakeholders and not just to your voters, otherwise you will get voted out. This alleviates economies of scale which lead to centralization. |
|
|
|
You would lead a snapshot/fork effort to re-launch their coin with 100% bitcoin? I don't think he said he would do it, just that it could happen. Open Source projects can be modified and redistributed that is simply a reality. Well they have to be modified and distributed by humans, not fairies. You still have to make your site #1 on google for that search term, you still have to have people talking to media to explain your project, etc. Do you really think Aethereum will beat Ethereum? I think they won't even if ethereum keeps 100% dev premine. I think this thread is where I would find the most pro-BTC allocation people. If you guys don't do it, I don't think anyone will. My opinion is that everyone here is a bitcoin whale and that the "fairness" / "legitimacy" argument is a red herring. I think the average joe would be ok with getting 10 coins in a project with a dedicated dev team over 12.5 coins in a project that is fighting the core devs and trying to maintain a fork. |
|
|
|
Peter R: What % do you think is "safe" for an altcoin developer to use?
The point I was trying to make is that only 0% is "safe." With any other distribution, there will be questions about legitimacy. If there are too many questions, the technology (should it actually be useful) may be at risk of getting scooped by clone launched with a more efficient distribution. Really? I think you're imagining shitty altcoins and not real crypto-equity innovation. Consider zerocoin. Suppose they went with pure POS and so had 100% preallocation. Their tech was the result of tons of work in advanced crypto research. Also suppose their codebase is unique and getting a dev up to speed is not a small undertaking. Suppose they allocated 90% to bitcoin and 10% into a trust that paid for development. You would lead a snapshot/fork effort to re-launch their coin with 100% bitcoin? What if there were 10 such projects, each with unique technology that is clearly providing value and which was clearly the result of a lot of work? Would you fight all those dev teams at once? |
|
|
|
|
Peter R: What % do you think is "safe" for an altcoin developer to use?
If you have a large dev team and lots of unique tech, it is safer for you to give a smaller proportion to BTC and larger proportion to other, more targeted distribution that is more favorable to yourself. I don't buy the "it only takes one dev to keep a fork maintained" argument, there is so much more to acquiring network effect than initial distribution.
I'm curious about specific numbers. You wouldn't settle for anything less than 100%, and would lead a snapshot effort? What about 80%? 50%? Bitcoin whales can only spread their attention so thin before being unable to fork everything.
|
|
|
|
Again, disclaimer: I'm not an expert.
I would dare to say no, it's not an improvement over Bitcoin. With bitcoin's poW, mining pools don't have any special powers that solo miners don't also have. So while the hashing power is "pooled", consensus isn't really "delegated" beyond the same protocol rules that affect everyone.
If you are talking about supernodes solving the nothing at stake problem because they can check signatures in real time, that is definitely taking a step toward trusted authorities. In contrast, proof of work acts as it's own timestamp.
Bolded part is what I believe to be a major misconception. What powers do delegates have that mining pools don't? I even advocated to call them "signing pools" because they play the same role. All they can do is exclude transactions. (I'll tell you one: they have the ability to vote on "alerts"... but bitcoin's alert system is far more centralized  ) |
|
|
|
This attack does not apply to DPOS... Oh ok I understand this attack better now. Two questions then:
It seems like this affects NXT but not DPOS, because with DPOS once you miss a chance to produce a block it is gone forever - you cannot use old stake-votes to produce a longer chain if at least 51% of delegates have produced a block since then. Is this right?
Also, NXT claims that having clients reject chains built on anything but the most recent block they have seen solves not only this but 51%... this is true in theory but relies on unreasonable network connectivity assumptions. Is this right?
I was asking, not telling. It seems to me like it doesn't apply, but I'd like D&T or other anti-POS pros to explain if I'm wrong. Not a pro (and not anti pos necessarily) but I will say this: the extent you rely on delegation/supernodes as a security mechanism is also the extent you dilute the trustless nature of the system and erode true distributed consensus. Sure, but isn't it an improvement over bitcoin which effectively has delegated-proof-of-work with about 5 delegates selecting blocks on behalf of >80% of hash power? So depending on the implementation there will be trade offs. You could obviously eliminate the n.a.s. Problem with a central authority but that puts us back at square one. If the dpos uses an automated mechanism to resolve conflicts, then it probably can be attacked by false chains in a similar fashion to the other poS systems.
The fork resolution is automatic and is just determined by which chain has more stake-vote counted by delegate signatures. Your next point is exactly what I'm asking - how would an attacker make a false chain using old keys with stake in them, if they cannot ever generate a sequence of delegates where they have more than N delegates in a row? Each round of delegate signatures is done without shuffling in between - if you only have 40% of the stake at any given time you cannot generate a round (~1 hour) where you have more than 40% of the delegates. Once an hour has passed, how would you make a false chain? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
