bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2015/01/13/Decentralization-of-Nxt-vs-BitShares/ unbelievably biased comparison! i like how the way ethereum does this sort of things, much more mature and professional. Please share the links with us. He means Vitalik allows comments where claims can be questioned and discussed. Choose any of Vitaliks blogposts. |
|
|
|
Apologies it doesn't seem to let me quote from the thread you locked Daedalus, I hope this suffices... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=920621.msg10135356#msg10135356Daedalus: Thank you, I think you have been listening. With all crypto still in bootstrapping, it is the future picture that counts. Imo BitShares doesn't try to maximize decentralization but optimize decentralization. Despite a year's worth of bootstrapping, NXT with it's 2 minute average block times and 15 accounts signing 60% of blocks appears to be currently be both an inferior performance and more centralized blockchain. If another blockchain can offer more optimal performance and large gains in useful decentralization then BitShares holders are able to change their model including the 101 number. As Toast said in the same locked thread... Toast: 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. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=920621.msg10127852#msg10127852 is a problem. I discussed the problems in changing the 101 number waaay up thread. The incentives work against it. But I am getting tired of repeating myself. I will await Bytemaster's response to Come-from-Beyond. |
|
|
|
These early proof of stake systems claim that they have greater decentralization than BitShares. Nobody has claimed this. Any claims have centred around "Bitshares can't be called decentralized". These are two different things. |
|
|
|
I think this topic is funny.
Here's an example why:
Let's say community 1 and 2 both have 1000 active stakeholders.
Community 1 has no delegates
Community 2 has 101 delegates
In community 1, everyone can process a block. 60% of all blocks are processed by the same 15 stakeholders. But The total amount of block processors is 200 (example).
In community 2, only the 101 delegates can process blocks. Each block is verified by 101 delegates. But the total amount of block processors is only 101.
Now comes the fun part:
Imagine that community 1 and 2 both reach 1M active stakeholders.
In community 1, number of block processors grows naturally with community size / distribution.
In community 2, number of block processors stays 101.
What people don't get:
In community 2, Multiple stakeholders are delegating their power to one Delegate.
The bigger the community get's, the more centralized it will become.
This is the very opposite of decentralization. I don't get how people don't see this.
I have repeated this 4-5 times. I think, as I said above, it is because Bitshares have developed in isolation from crypt so the idea of "sufficient decentralisation" has gone unchallenged. But they won't contemplate any form of discussion with the wider community to check if the majority agree. The purpose of this thread is now redundant, if you wish to continue discussion please use one of the existing threads posted above by Stan or start your own. Thread is locked, I can unlock it to discuss the results of any community consultation on the subject of decentralisation. Feel free to PM. |
|
|
|
Thank you, I think you have been listening. With all crypto still in bootstrapping, it is the future picture that counts. |
|
|
|
None of these are more than 7 days old, one of them a day old. I am getting the feeling there has been no external discussion of BTS. Which makes sense, it explains how your claim to decentralisation has gone unchallenged for so long. |
|
|
|
I will leave it with you. Hopefully, you'll find the bitcointalk working overs of dans previous blogposts. Or I'll come back to walls of text containing a series of ill fitting analogies  I'd prefer the former but I know you won't let me down stan  |
|
|
|
Just a discussion thread then, to allow everyone to make their points and be heard. It is bitcoiners you are trying to get the opinion of, champions of the first decentralised blockchain. At least I was, before the sabotage.
I thought that's exactly what this thread (and the two before it) have been. No? No. Members of the BTS community saw fit that exactly that was prevented. There are no bitcoiners here. That is why I made the suggestion. |
|
|
|
This is a free ticket on bitsharestalk. You led me to believe a wider audience on reddit and bitcointalk had scrutinised Dans claims. Particularly of his blog posts. |
|
|
|
Can you post any examples of these working overs?
Bump. |
|
|
|
|
Just a discussion thread then, to allow everyone to make their points and be heard. It is bitcoiners you are trying to get the opinion of, champions of the first decentralised blockchain. At least I was, before the sabotage.
|
|
|
|
|
Can you post any examples of these working overs?
|
|
|
|
|
It is strange how Vitalik is able to have comments on his blog, arguably the most widely read in crypto, without issue.
If this thread is to remain useful, I think it is in your interests to repeat the initial purpose of this thread. You can do it on your own terms with as much obfuscation as Stan can muster. It is a challenge, if you think 'smart decentralisation' is a flyer, then it should be no issue for you.
|
|
|
|
You certainly do earn you $2500 a month, anyone would think you get paid by the letter There is no controversy over the definition of decentralised. Restart this thread in the the Bitcoin General section, as I attempted to do, and find out for yourself. And let me know when Dan has gained the confidence to engage in genuine debate everything is a little too staged managed for my tastes atm.. This is absolutely the most amusing thing I have read in a while. I am the most directly accessible lead developer out there. If you want to have a real live debate, join our weekly mumble sessions. It will be quite entertaining and educational for all involved. Why don't you allow comments on your blog if you choose to make claims about other cryptos? A little one sided, no? I guess you have been reading all along but chose not to take part? |
|
|
|
You certainly do earn you $2500 a month, anyone would think you get paid by the letter There is no controversy over the definition of decentralised. Restart this thread in the the Bitcoin General section, as I attempted to do, and find out for yourself. And let me know when Dan has gained the confidence to engage in genuine debate everything is a little too staged managed for my tastes atm.. |
|
|
|
Pre-empt Stans next post: he is still assuming today's distributions are fixed and will never improve For a fair comparison of his model, he should be using Ripple as his 'vs'. I said previously that distributed models are quicker at achieving consensus as they have a fixed number of nodes to consult, rather then a constantly changing x number that occur in decentralised systems. Last I heard, Ripple have 15 second confirmations. Bytemaster should know this is he truly was "objective as possible", his blog has turned into a hate campaign against Nxt with no right of reply. Comments would allow readers to judge the true value of what he is saying. He also writes as though he has found a big secret.. Bump. You should test your definitions in the wider community. I'll refrain from going into init, xeldel etc delegates and the 101. It is not a good look. I will leave you to your campaign. |
|
|
|
Pre-empt Stans next post: he is still assuming today's distributions are fixed and will never improve For a fair comparison of his model, he should be using Ripple as his 'vs'. I said previously that distributed models are quicker at achieving consensus as they have a fixed number of nodes to consult, rather then a constantly changing x number that occur in decentralised systems. Last I heard, Ripple have 15 second confirmations. Bytemaster should know this is he truly was "objective as possible", his blog has turned into a hate campaign against Nxt with no right of reply. Comments would allow readers to judge the true value of what he is saying. He also writes as though he has found a big secret.. |
|
|
|
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.
Expand on this part pls. Why would they get 0 delegates? Won't each get 20% approval of the Bitshares stakes, voting for each other? 30% if they also vote for themselves? Which is more than the threashold for getting elected |
|
|
|
When do I get my consultancy fee? |
|
|
|
|
Put some research and factual numbers in and we could have a discussion. There are already two false assumptions I noticed (and one serious negative, presented as a positive). At the moment, these are just assertions in the same camp as your "trust me, I'm a rocket scientist" posts. They are style over substance.
Again, this is only considering today. At least one major blockchain is designed to become more decentralised over time. Bitshares path is fixed: it is distributed today and will tend towards centralisation as the network grows.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
