Ethereum was the biggest altcoin scam EVER.
Bitshares may have not been as large of an initial scam, but they keep pivoting their scam and are right up there at this point. Why do you say shit like that when you know that's not true at all? Both have been transparent about what they are trying to do. Would you rather keep cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology stagnant than innovate and pivot where need be? I'm terribly disappointed with this community. It discouraging enough that most people don't understand the importance of the blockchain, its even more discouraging when so called proponents of blockchain tech don't understand the importance of trying new things. If you put you're money into one of these platforms thinking you were going to get rich quick you are a loser and don't understand how investing in start ups works. |
|
|
|
I voted Bitshares since I have a bunch. But in reality I don't think any will reach parity. Of all those coins listed I believe Monero has the best chance given enough years.
Why monero? |
|
|
|
|
Why is it necessary to create another DPOS blockchain? If you want you can just fork bitshares
|
|
|
|
|
are you trying to create a currency or a better blockchain?
|
|
|
|
We still need a 1 second per block coin...
Bitshare's DPOS has been tested with 2 second block production. |
|
|
|
|
People wont be using bitcoin, like people don't use Altavista now.
|
|
|
|
Its not Fiat. IOU are not Fiat. You do realize that if you have your money in bank, exchange or on paypal that you have an IOU for fiat. The stable currencies on the bitshares block chain are not IOUs from a centralized entity, it is an IOU from the block chain that is backed by more the 2x its value in a liquid collateral and earns interest. If you understand how a bank works than you understand that you can automate the functionality of it on the block chain. That is you can create a collateralized debt instrument that is enforced by the block chain and is not subject to counterparty risk. We don't want fiat, we just want the price stability of fiat and to not really on opaque financial intermediaries that can lose or seize our money. |
|
|
|
Bill raises some great points about the shortcomings of Bitcoin. What he may not be aware of is the amount of innovation on the block chain level that has occurred over the past year. These problems associated with crypto currencies have been solved, but unfortunately not by Bitcoin...Other block chain protocols that have a more dynamic development process are creating stable crypto currencies that can be exchanged right on the block chain so users can maintain full control over their money and private keys. If you haven't looked into Bitshares or Ethereum you should look at the solutions they provide: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2014/12/18/What-are-BitShares-Market-Pegged-Assets/https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/11/11/search-stable-cryptocurrency/ In the case of charge backs, multisig transactions are certainly an underused solution. Bitshares goes a step further to make escrow transactions . A buyer can send their funds to an escrow account with restrictions on the state of the funds. The buyer can only release the funds to the seller, the seller can only release the funds to the buyer, and the escrow agent can decide what portion of the funds goes to each party in the case that buyer and seller cannot come to agreement on their own. This greatly reduces the coordination cost necessary to conduct multi sig transactions, since buyer and seller do not need to rely on the third party even in the case a chargeback is necessary. Anonymity is not a problem either because the block chain is a public record of transaction. The public key cryptography allows for users to maintain privacy at their discretion. If someone wanted to disclose their financial record to the government they could do so an I would assume in the future this will become more of requirement for those who want to exchange crypto currencies for fiat. This is also a major reason why stable currencies that can be exchange on the block chain are so important. If you can exchange different stores of value on the block chain no money every needs to exist the network. That means less sell pressure on external exchanges and no regulations by governments. The more financial instruments we create on the block chain the more liberated we will be from the prohibitively expensive costs of financial intermediaries and the regulations of specific jurisdictions that restrict global monetary exchange. The future of banking certainly relies upon block chain technology but whether or not we will see Bitcoin adapt to meet the needs of the currently underbanked population is much less certain. I hope it does, but at the very least we should continue to support those projects that make block chains more useable for the broader population. |
|
|
|
What is the best dollar pegged coin? Why is it the best?
Why would anyone trade the BTC/(dollar-pegged-coin) as opposed to BTC/USD? The volume is much lower. There is added risk in holding the dollar pegged coin as opposed to USD itself.
You get all of the advantages of a crypto currency (particularly security over private keys) without the volatility of bitcoin. You are also keeping all the value in the crypto space as apposed to putting your money back into fiat. Its a fairly new concept so the volume is still low, but I'd expect adoption to spread as we see lower and lower bitcoin prices. |
|
|
|
http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/nubits/#marketsthere's no volume in the nbt/usd market on ccedk. the only markets are nbt/btc. i don't think its even close to 0% reserve theres not enough btc on the market, but they certainly have taking losses from their btc holdings. the proof is the trade data...
|
|
|
|
|
there are 99 billion xrp. they havent added any to the supply. xrp has already reached a market cap of over $2.5b a month or so ago. its very close to surpassing bitcoins market cap
|
|
|
|
Its the greed of the involved group which makes it difficult to warm up to them despite their fantastic tech. They are now trying a new pump and dump with the PTS.
You do understand that given the current valuation of BTS these developers are making far less than they are worth... Stop calling people greedy because you want them to provide you something for nothing. Their time and resources cost money, and simply because you are not willing to help foot the bill doesn't mean others are not. Also as an aside, every long term investor has made tremendous gains. |
|
|
|
To answer your question on stopping the asset market, there are training wheels in place that will bring the market to a halt. Deviation of price feeds, minimum liquidity, minimum price feeds, etc... which in the very beginning were easy to bump into as there were very few users.
NO, the asset algo won't work because it's economic nonsense... They are realizing that it's NOT WORKING, but blaming collateral issues like liquidity, etc. As in "if only enough people trade it will magically become a peg". No. No. No. A USD "peg" or "future" is viable *** ONLY *** if it is "convertible" or can be "settled" with USD... It cannot be conjured or willed or finagled or "forced to parity" in the complete absence of USD.  So according to this post... BTS is, in fact, worthless. Short positions are settled every 30 days at the feed price (the market price on external exchanges)...Your claim is like saying futures contracts can only be settled with the underlying asset, which is not true at all. Most contracts are settled in cash payments. |
|
|
|
Not exactly a game changer since bitshares has 10 second confirmation times.
So if bitshares has 10 second confirmation, why that prevents it from being a game changer?  I'm not saying its not a good feature to have. Its not a game changer because the game has already changed. |
|
|
|
|
Not exactly a game changer since bitshares has 10 second confirmation times.
|
|
|
|
While we are clearly rushing towards a fiat currency crisis. I have my doubts that it would be crypto that would replace it, rather than precious metals.
People arent going to go to the store with gold and silver. Metals are a terrible medium of exchange which is why throughout history they are typically not used as the primary currency. Currencies should be a claim on asset and not the asset itself. Thus I can see a digital version of the gold and silver being the primary mediums of exchange. If I have a crypto currency that maintains the purchasing power of gold and entitles me to interests on my initial capital then I would certainly use that over the physical asset. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin uses a representative democracy. Mining pools are the representatives and miners vote on those representatives with their hashing power. PoW and DPoS are not comparable to our current representative democracy, because they are completely liquid democratic systems, in so far as delegates and mining pools can lose their voting shares at any point and their task as a representative are easily understood and auditable by the public.
Your last point doesn't really make sense. You can hardfork a DPoS chain...
Correct, as I clarified that DPoS can be hardforked above as well. The key difference is delegates (miners) within Bitcoin have large costs and constantly need to innovate in a competetive market where the benefit for being in that role of power isn't as good as with DPoS. With DPoS you are king if wealthy as you can vote yourself into office and perform a profitable task that has a much higher net profit margin than mining. Essentially, with DPoS early and large stakeholders are setting themselves up to dominate not only control of the vast majority of wealth in the money supply but the voting process. With bitcoin you can own a lot of coins but if you also wanted to control a percentage of the voting process you have to give up some of your wealth to innovating ASIC technology and paying for power. So with PoW it is difficult to maintain control of both as you have to pay the salaries of pools, asic manufacturers, solar/microhydro/ and other power sources, ect... PoW gives power to those that are willing to destroy the most resources at the lowest cost. It is not economically rational and tends more to centralization than PoS systems. |
|
|
|
the truth is that fiat will eventually be history and crypto currency will become the norm,might not be bit coin,but this filthy tangible currency is not going to cut it in 100 years. It would be a stretch to say 20,so I said 100 years just to be safe,considering I will be dead ;( sniff sniff,and when I am gone,remember me like tupac. No one cares.  It'll be less than 10 years. We are on the verge of a currency crisis that will precipitate a global depression particularly in western nations. |
|
|
|
If 80% of delegates act differently from the wishes of stake holders, they can be voted out. So, I think the only major worry would be someone gaining 51% of the money supply and attacking. Even then, it would be a stupid waste of money, as you are killing something you own a majority in and spent a lot on to gain that stake.
If 60% of stakeholders decide something should be done differently.. Then that is there choice, no? The ones that don't agree can sell their stake and start a new chain on their own. That makes sense to me because Bitshares looks at cryptocurrencies as a business. If you own 51% of a business, you should be able to do as you please. It is like how a democracy would work or business would work in the real world.
Exactly, DPoS works like a representative democracy. Bitcoin doesn't but is designed anarchistic in nature where a majority of the community nodes, miners, or developers cannot force any user or miner with new changes they disagree with. There is a reason I used the figures of 60% DPoS stakeholders and 80% of the delegates. Ever notice how in representative democracies, politicians will campaign on one platform and than have no obligation to fulfill their promises once elected. Nowadays you can almost guarantee they won't do what they promised and often the opposite. What guarantees do stakeholders have that their delegates will fulfill their promises and remain true in character? You say it would be counter-intuitive for any delegate to do anything to harm his investment but I just gave one example where a majority of delegates could decide upon something harmful that they would assume is beneficial: blacklisting. With Bitcoin you always have a choice , down to the individual, and the miners and developers are held in check by a revolt(hard fork) that could happen at any moment something controversial is proposed. Not so with DPoS , because by design all users whether they vote or not are under the "social contract" of going along with the majority and after all you cannot undermine the vote as that would undermine DPoS in principle. Bitcoin uses a representative democracy. Mining pools are the representatives and miners vote on those representatives with their hashing power. PoW and DPoS are not comparable to our current representative democracy, because they are completely liquid democratic systems, in so far as delegates and mining pools can lose their voting shares at any point and their task as a representative are easily understood and auditable by the public. Your last point doesn't really make sense. You can hardfork a DPoS chain... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
the peg is maintained with US dollars. there are exchanges that have NBT/USD trading pairs and that's where the peg is originally maintained. The NBT/BTC traiding pairs are just some random internet people doing arbitrage.
