Go to http://coinmarketcap.com/

Any with  *  next to the available supply are none mineable. (** means significantly premined)


Nxt has been in the top 10 for over a year, I would start there.

Nxt is Proof of Stake. The blockchain is secured by the stake > Proof of Stake.

Generating new coins (inflation) is a separate issue. Inflation erodes value over time, it was a deliberate decision for Nxt to have zero inflation. That doesn't mean it isn't POS.

Raspberri Pi's cost next to nothing to run = the network costs next to nothing to run. Low cost = more nodes = more resilient network. You make it sound like running on raspberry pis is a bad thing.


There are 9 Nxt core devs, 2 of them have public identities (there is a link to a recent Bitcoin meet up where Nxt spoke but I can't find it). You imply being anonymous is a negative thing too?




Why is that bad?

CfB is doing ok  


Here are some resources for Monetary System: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=587007.msg10097750#msg10097750

If you're really stuck, ask in here https://nxtforum.org/general-discussion/price-speculation/



@Triff, I haven't been reading that. I'll try to catch up. Doubt my thought will be that useful though  Bitcoin will not change until it is on it's knees.

CfB is doing ok 


Here are some resources for Monetary System: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=587007.msg10097750#msg10097750

If you're really stuck, ask in here https://nxtforum.org/general-discussion/price-speculation/

Forking here refers to a situation where you are unhappy with the current situation and want to break away, in a schism. Thinking about it, this would be true for any crytpo too so is irrelevant and I will remove it.

The rest is accurate, from my lengthy discussion with Stanlarimer, Testz, Sumantsu, yourself and others.


99.9% of my posts are supporting Nxters. It would be undisclosed/underhand if I started a new account with zero post history. But this isn't about Bitshares or Nxt but decentralization and what it means. A point you continue to miss. Once we had confirmed what the community thought this meant, we could have had a better discussion.

But you have made sure that that doesn't happen.

You can set your minter to mint 1000 coins, it will take longer of course but you only pay 1 Nxt fee still. You can set the 'batch' you want to mint. So it makes value even more interesting  


Two ASIC resistant kekkak (?) coins are being heavily mined at the moment (as they are the first two), EGOLD and ELEMS I think. Who knows what value they will have (if any) but they are very popular.  

I don't know enough about the process so I can't really advice on this so go to nxtforum.org if you are interested.

Which parts do you object to?


My only interaction with that thread was based around the "Bitshares is decentralized" claim. Dan Larimer (Bytemaster), the core dev, describes Bitshares as "a distributed multi-user database" in his blogpost "What is Bitshares?".
http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/update/2014/12/18/What-is-BitShares/

I agree with him. The node delegates object and insist it is decentralized (with a disclaimer).


This thread is supposed to be a discussion about decentralization, once we had opinions on what that means then we could go from there. You have prevented that from happening.

Which parts of my description don't you agree with and I can adjust it.

There was only one useful comment back from my round up (testz, (s)he seems to be the only one interested in the tech rather than hollow evangelism (presumably on the promise of continued revenue)) so where did I go so wrong?

All true. Here is what I learned from questioning 2-3 of the delegates; https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=916696.msg10106756#msg10106756


But the point of this thread is the check the communities definition of what decentralized means.

By mentioning Bitshares, you have just skewed people opinions (negatively and positively) without allowing them to consider the facts against the fundamentals of what they consider constitutes decentralised.

Why did you feel the need to do that?

@OP

The POS idea that "The chain is secured by stake".

But there are at least 3 current implementations on how this is achieved, each with a different answer to your question. Coinage only relates to Peercoin and its clones. Nxt has a different system. And there are others out there.

Do you have a particular interest POS coin in mind?

Some Bitcoiners favourite hobby is inventing a bad POS system in their heads (one that usually doesn't exist), and attacking it and claiming POS can't work. They don't take the time for little things like understanding the details 

[this thread began in the Bitcoin General section]


I have a crypto currency in my mind. Here are the fundamental properties:


***
The number of nodes in the network is limited to 95, so not all users will have the opportunity to secure the network themselves.


Opinions on the biggest decisions (i.e. increasing the limit on nodes) can be expressed by the users but they are none binding, as the devs who run a proportion of the nodes would have to agree first and then write the fork with a new upper limit of nodes.


Users can change the devs/node runners and replace them with new ones, (i.e. Replace Bitcoin Dev Gavin with someone else who is deemed better) by a ballot. Devs/node runners can run more than 1 node by default if users allow it. If users decide 1 entity = 1 node max, it may be hard to enforce (different online IDs belonging to the same person would have to be detected) but we can do RL passport checks etc to confirm identities are independent before allowing eligibility to be included in the node ballot.


The devs will always run a proportion of the nodes, as they get an income from running a node. There is nothing stopping devs becoming users and taking part in the ballots using tokens they buy.


***


Would you call my set-up decentralized?


I can answer questions to clarify anything, if required. You can change your vote later, if any discussion changes your mind.

Thanks in advance for your opinions  

You keep saying it is written in Java, and I think you mean it as a negative but you don't define clearly in what way it is a negative.

No, people were waiting for block 300,000. Most at this stage will be people claiming numerous names for speculation and some for planned projects.

N.B. There are over 300 currencies and counting   Boom days for forgers

Yes, you won't be able to see 'Monetary System' on the left hand side bar without it.


Download v 1.4.7.1 above
Extract it
In the v 1.4.7 folder, copy nxt_db folder to the new version folder

(nxt_db is the blockchain folder)


Update takes 2 min, you don't have to re-downlaod the blockchain doing this. You can do this with all updates.

Yes, but there was a glitch in displaying the menu on the left to use MS

This update fixes it.

Update.

"Bitshares is decentralised" was the starting point. It turns out this is true only if you accept Bitshares definition of being "sufficiently decentralised". I don't I believe it is decentralised, I believe it to be distributed. Bytemaster describes it as the same in his blogpost "What is Bitshares". What you call "unproductive semantics", a near full consensus would see it as being "the difference between true and false". I think you will find very few people on this forum who will accept Bitshares definition of decentralised, so you will continue to run into friction for as long as you describe it as such.

With regard to "diminishing returns" and "no real benefit" of increasing above 101 node current cap, most crypto enthusiasts would call this increasing decentralisation.


I learned the cap can be lifted/made dynamic, so why a cap at all? Well if there were an uncapped number of nodes, the limited amount of funds being shared around would be spread very thinly between x nodes and it could be unprofitable to run a node. It would find an equilibrium (or fail) but I strongly suspect it would be a small fraction of the incomes right now. So the cap protects the profitability of the delegates, it keeps income higher than it would otherwise be.


To change the cap, shareholders would have to convince a dev to propose a fork (or series of forks) to choose from. The devs are the delegates, and always will be as otherwise they won't get any income for their work. These are the guys you will have to convince to accept losing a lot of their income if you want to have 0.1% inflation or 500 nodes, otherwise there would be no forks to choose from. Sure, you can vote devs out and other devs in but who knows Bitshares better than Bytemaster et al. I find it hard to believe that these and others would ever be voted out or that the new devs would know bitshares as well to continue development.


If businesses do end up running nodes, they should plan not to have the stream as the main source of income. Businesses will have an annual forecast, with expected income and expenses. If shareholders vote to half the inflation, suddenly many nodes may become unviable as their expected income has significantly decreased. Or worse, they wake up and find they have been voted out and have no income at all. This will always be the case for those hovering around the bottom with a lower share of votes. Some may decide it is not worth the risk or become so battered and bruised in a chaotic and unstable environment of being node 93-98-105-101-99-107-105... that they don't bother at all.


The distribution of nodes seems to be more concentrated than presented. I presumed init0 etc. are "initial", the start up nodes and Bitshares doesn't yet have 101 candidates for voting? Still in the bootstrapping phase would be a reasonable defence. But this demolishes the "more decentralised" claim.


If there is friction in the growth of nodes in relation to the growth of the network, this leads to increasing centralisation. Let us say that today, there are 1000 Bitshares users and we know there are 101 nodes/delegates. In a year, there are 2000 users but if there are still only 101 nodes then this is increasing centralisation: more people being subject to a decreasing minority. And there is an incentive for there to be friction, as the existing delegates would be protecting their income.


The basics I know paint a picture of conflicting incentives. The shareholders are in charge but only if the devs let them be. The devs are delegates so unless altruism lasts forever, they will increasingly act in their own interests to protect their income. The shareholders could vote them out at this point but they would be shooting themselves in the foot. Would bitcoiners sack Gavin and Herne? Or would Nxters force out Jean-Luc or Kushti?

If you accept these conflicting interests as true, the result is likely to be a system that will slowly degenerate with time.

Ok, I got to go soon but I am gonna recap what I have learned...