That right there is a blatant manipulation of the truth.  Bit"assets" aren't 300% reserved.  Bit"assets" are in fact a derivative of bitshares.  Claiming that this derivative is 300% secured is absurd.  Let me quote Preston Byrne as he explained it with such finesse.


Btw, 3/1 isn't a fraction.  It's a whole number.

Once again "pooled staking" isn't "required in NXT".  The rational for actors in PoW vs PoS is entirely different.  There is no depreciating assets that must ROI by a set date in PoS.  You are assuming a lot of false conditions in an attempt to rationalize your desire to force centralization on PoS.  If you have 10k NXT forging, you will always produce ~3.15 blocks per year assuming all stake is forging regardless of other actors.  You cannot compare PoW to PoS because they are entirely different systems.


You cannot "audit" private businesses who are delegates.  You cannot "audit" under the table dealings and secret arrangements between delegates.  It's been proven that a very small amount of the Bitshares' shareholders can effectively control the entire delegate selection process through strategic voting.  The problem with DPoS and the reason it's susceptible to sybil attacks is because you withdrew the requirement for owning stake and replaced with a political election with an unworkable ballot system.  Even if you made every single delegate submit ID, you still would be susceptible to political and business cronyism which would remain undetectable.  Collusion between delegates is also a form of sybil attack.


Yes, there is "arbitrary" centralization in DPoS.  You arbitrarily capped the max amount of forgers at 101.  You are again assuming PoS forgers will centralize in a similar manner to PoW miners, but the fact is that there are currently 216 forgers independently operating on the NXT network.  Your hypothesis isn't backed up by facts.

You either don't know what your talking about or you're lying.  Stake leasing isn't required in NXT and the cost of running a node is minuscule.  How much does it cost to run a 30W computer 24/7 year round?  At $0.1 USD / kWh it costs $26.28 USD not "$10 million dollars!"  If you have 10k NXT, you'll generate ~3.15 blocks a year or a block every four months if all the stake is forging.  10k NXT costs $80 USD.  Even if TF would require a minimum stake amount of 100k NXT, you would still have a potential of 10,000 forgers and it would only cost each forger $800 USD to acquire such a stake.

DPoS is the mechanism that doesn't have any Sybil protection not NXT.  With NXT, you actually have to pay for your stake.  With DPoS, you only have to convince others to vote you in.  There is no guarantee that the delegates are actually independent and nobody has any idea what type of deals are going on behind the scenes between delegates (aka collusion).  DPoS is actually implemented with "approval voting" which is known to be unworkable in contested elections because it allows strategic voting.


Wrong.  NXT doesn't artificially cap the amount of forgers to an arbitrary number that is easily controllable by a very small amount of stakeholders.  Why would Bitshares choose approval voting for their delegate selection mechanism when it is susceptible to this manipulation if this was not their intent?


He's not my hero because he's not BCNext.


First off let's clarify that Bitshares is in fact a fractionally reserved system because the bit"assets" are not fully, 100% reserved and thus there is a lack of convertibility.  Regardless of how many "gateways" are brought online, it will always be fractionally reserved because of the way bit"assets" are created.  "Gateways" in Bitshares are entirely different than "gateways" in Ripple.  All assets in Ripple are brought onto the network through the gateways and therefore the gateways should, in theory, have 100% reserves unless they are corrupt.  Assets in Bitshares are merely created and the gateways serve only as a means of allowing a limited amount of bit"assets" to be redeemed for their physical counterparts for a fee.  Since bit"assets" are fractionally reserved by the gateways, this allows a situation to develop where a lack of confidence in your prediction market will lead to a total collapse of the asset.  This is why it is so irresponsible and in my opinion fraudulent, to describe bitshares as:


Furthermore, your insistence that PoS must accept arbitrary centralization to scale is absurd.  No platform is even close to reaching 100 tps let alone 1ktps or 100ktps.  The necessity of such tps throughputs are so far in the future that it borders on lunacy to state we must relinquish our decentralization today in preparation for this future event.  There's a good chance that 100ktps will never be required by any of these platforms and if it is most likely consumer grade hardware at that point will be able to handle it.

I find it much more likely that your insistence on forcing centralization on your userbase today is an attempt to establish a stranglehold of control around your network which is impossible to break.  You can say all day that the delegate numbers can change from 101 to 1001, but who controls this change is the delegates and when the delegate elections can be controlled by a limited amount of shareholders (because of approval voting), it's those limited shareholders who set the rules now and in the future.

You state you want to "rid the world of fractional reserve banking", but what you really want to do is "rid the world of fractional reserve banking" only to resurrect it via DPoS which is in fact its "second coming".  Self admittedly, you refer to this as "corporate fascism" which it is, but it's also communism.  There is no greater centralization than that which merges the bureaucracy of state and capital.

I vote that we stomp out this r0ach!

Stake leasing (centralization) isn't required in NXT's PoS.  Delegation (centralization) is required in Bitshares DPoS.  The centralization imposed upon Bitshares' users is deemed "necessary" and "an end game scenario" because of the flawed notion that you espouse that the cost of running a node is unaffordable to the masses.  The reality of the situation is that the costs of running a PoS node is negligible and even more so if you are running a business that utilizes the platform.  Being able to process 100ktps or even 1ktps on any crypto platform is total overkill at this stage in time.  Bitshares is spinning this "DPoS centralization is necessary to increase tx speed" as an excuse to centralize forging away from the home user and into their grasp.  At the time 1ktps or 100ktps is necessary, which will be years and years in the future, consumer grade, retail hardware will most likely be able to handle the load anyway, which will render their "DPoS centralization is necessary" mantra as null and void.


Obviously, PoS started with Peercoin.  There was a reason I ended the sentence with "as it's accepted today".  You should and I know that Peercoin's PoS is inferior to NXT's PoS implementation.

NXT was first to implement PoS as it's accepted today.  If you were involved in crypto when Bitshares was first being concieved, you'll remember that it was originally going to be PoW.  Only after the Larimers and their backers (aka the Chicom gov) saw the success of NXT did they change Bitshares over to their highly centralized, rigable version of PoS which they termed DPoS.  "Stable market pegged assets"?  Really?  You should stop lying about that.  None of these so called "assets" are stable because they aren't one-hundred percent backed by their physical counterparts.  Anybody with any sense knows that without full covertability you cannot have parity.

Yes, I'm extremely doubtful that Bitshares will be able to get anywhere close to 100ktps without having it centralized on a very small amount of very powerful servers which will of course be beyond the means of affordability for the average person.

DPoS is just a centralized version of NXT's PoS which was implemented so the Larimers and a select group of manipulators (aka the Communist Chinese Gov) can effectively rig the delegate elections through "approval voting" and control the platform.  Also, Bitshares ridiculous claim of 100k tps requires hardware with 1TB of ram.

I Lol'd.   

This is a good idea.  Here's the link to NXT's source -> https://bitbucket.org/JeanLucPicard/nxt/overview

Really?  He collected 21 Bitcoins @ ~$120 USD and didn't even get a stake.


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

I have a feeling that "MangoCoinz" is going to be a big hit.

Sooo... for $3564 a year... where exactly is this BanxPlatinumz "seat" I get?  And what happens if I don't ACT NOW!?

That's inconsequential when a small minority of the shareholders can effectively rig the delegate elections by strategic voting.

But it's ok to sell (Bit)SHARES without registering with the SEC?


It seems that Stan and Dan only want to comply with the law when it suits their best interests.

I'd immediately sell all my AMPs if the Synereo devs announced that they "may seize AMPs from any account if you fall out of favor and anyone who complains in any way about how AMPs are issued or how I use AMPs is certainly not in my favor and may lose any AMPs they have earned".

I'm not lying.  I never said brownie pts and delegate voting were the same thing.  I'll break it down for you:

1 - My problem with "brownie pts" is that Stan and Dan are allowing them to be sold and sharedropping to them while at the same time retaining the ability to seize them out of people's accounts.  How can that even be considered a "crypto"?

2 - My problem with delegate voting is that they use "approval voting" which allows a very small amount of shareholders to effectively rig the delegate elections.  See my above post for an example.  Here's a link that explains how approval voting is unworkable in contested elections.

It's not "nonsensical" if it's accurate.  Stan and Dan Larimer are a bunch of wealth redistributers (into their own pockets).  Now whether you want to call that "communism". "corporate fascism", or an "outright scam" is up to you.

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


It's my understanding that they have enough funds to release a basic social networking application, but then will require an additional round of funding which would be procured through the sale of AMPs to a VC.

The BTS delegate system is easily rigged through strategic voting (see above post).  It's my opinion that it was intentionally designed in such a way so Stan, Dan and a select group of manipulators can effectively control which delegates get elected, thus controlling the chain.  Why else would you choose "approval voting" as the delegate selection mechanism?

There is no association between Omni and Synereo besides the fact that the initial distribution of AMPs was performed on the bitcoin blockchain via Omni protocol.