Yes, I think you missed this post. Not to worry, everyone else is ignoring it too...
Bytemaster's entire argument falls apart when you take into account that businesses using any payment platform will be running their hardware anyway and therefore, the cost of running a PoS node is negligible.
But, let's assume for argument's sake that a node will
ONLY forge if it can recoup its operating cost off of transaction fees alone.
An intelligent node operator will use an energy-efficient device (~20W) to forge. You can get some fairly powerful computers running at ~20W. Let's say a forger uses a 35W computer.
35W * 24 hours / 1000w/kW * $0.10 kWh = $0.084
It costs the node operator 8.4 cents per day.
Currently, NXT is worth over 1.7 cents. He needs to generate 8.4/1.7 = 4.94 NXT per day to breakeven.
NXT's current average daily transaction fees amount to 5,095 NXT.
4.94 / 5095 = 0.000969808
The node operator needs to forge 0.0969% of all blocks. We can now calculate the amount of NXT he needs to have by multiplying by the total amount of NXT.
0.000969808 * 1,000,000,000 = 969,808 NXT
The node operator must own 969,808 NXT to breakeven forging on a 35W computer.
Now, let's calculate how many forgers the NXT network can support running 35W computers.
1,000,000,000 / 969,808 = 1031
The NXT network can currently support
ONE THOUSAND AND THIRTY-ONE 35W nodes.
Bytemaster's argument that as the network scales profitability decreases is fallacious, because the number of transactions increase proportionally to the transaction fees per block. Therefore, if a forger would be required to run a more computationally powerful node, he would be able to afford to do so. Bytemaster takes his argument to ridiculous extremes claiming that to process 1000 tps, you would need a server with 256GB of RAM, 2TB of expendable hard drive space per week and a synchronous 64Mbps connection. Most people in the developed world have asynchronous residential internet connections that are close to or above this speed. I fail to see why such a connection would need to be synchronous as the nodes would be downloading 1000 tps per second, but would only need to publish ONE block if they managed to forge it. 2TB of blockchain space per week seems extreme. Bitcoin's blockchain is only 31 GB after six years. If blockchain sizes increased to such a size, I imagine some type of blockchain shrinking would be implemented. As time goes on and Moore's law continues, computational power and ram get cheaper, more efficient and more powerful. By the time any cryptocurrency reaches 1000 tps, which I imagine will take years, the hardware landscape will have completely changed and the cost/power ratios of hardware will be even more efficient. If you take into account the ability for nodes to figure out who the next forger is (aka NXT Transparent Forging) and route transactions only to that node, it makes Bytemasters' node requirements even more asinine.
It seems limiting forgers to 101 necessitates that the forgers run more powerful hardware to handle the load. Each forger has to produce 0.99% of all network blocks and therefore consumes more bandwidth and electricity. It also seems to decrease the resiliency of the network by placing the ENTIRE load on 101 individuals/computers. This make the network an easier target for DDOS attacks too.
I don't see the necessity in centralizing a PoS system. As others have stated,
DPoS is a solution in search of a problem. When one considers that there is no such problem to solve, they must ask themselves why was such a "solution" introduced. As I have stated before and will continue to ascertain,
it is my belief that the ONLY reason DPoS was chosen for Bitshares was to force centralization on its stakeholders, disenfranchise them of their forging profits and subject them to tax via inflation. In addition, since DPoS is vulnerable to Sybil attacks and Stan Larimer has stated that it is acceptable for multiple delegates to be controlled by one individual, one can assume that it is the intention of the Bitshares' developers and business interests, which they have a vested interest in, to establish a type of delegate monopoly over the system. Whereby, they continue to increase their profits at the expense of existing shareholders. One may ask, why do they need to strip tx fees from stakeholders and impose inflation on them when they already hold, I am sure, a great amount of stake themselves. The only rational explanation I can give you is that it is unfettered greed and a desire to maintain total control over the system via a delegate monopoly under the guise of free elections. Ask yourself, since the network can clearly support more than 101 forging nodes, why are elections necessary?
I could sit here all day and debate back and forth with Stan and others who support Bitshares, but in the end, everyone has to form their own opinion on what the Bitshares' devs and business interests are really trying to accomplish with this venture. Some people might call me a "troll", but the fact is that I intentionally made this post inflammatory to draw attention to what I believe is a threat to the original movement of Bitcoin, NXT and decentralization. There is no greater threat to decentralization than corporatization masquerading as such. The corporatization of the Bitcoin movement is what destroyed it. I don't want to see that same fate happen to the cryptocurrency scene in general. I don't want to see people fall victim to what I believe are faux movements. The day when corporations take over the blockchain is the day our freedom dies. I will admit to being a holder of both BTC and NXT. If you believe that has skewed my viewpoint, so be it; but believe me when I say, I supported these movements not only in the hopes of making profit, but also because I believed in the ideology behind them. It is my contention that
Bitshares' imposed inflation on stakeholders is nothing less than taxation without representation. You may say, "I can vote for delegates. How is it without representation?" I argue it is without representation because you yourself do not forge on your own behalf and instead are forced to hand over the security of your investment to business interests and
developers who believe it is their right to be forever delegates and can easily manipulate the vote to form a permanent monopoly over the system.
Monopoly is the nemesis of free enterprise. Why should a select group of 101 businesses get stakeholder subsidies? What about the smaller businesses users might want to start? Such users are forced to pay a tax to their competitors and fund their operations without such an advantage.
Your "freedom to choose" really isn't freedom at all, because all your choices result in you becoming a tributary slave to the delegates.
Show Posts
