I think we would find it hard to discuss without those two words! But I think we would still be disagreeing, as I have failed to explain clearly why a limit of 101 nodes isn't much different from the world we live in today. And probably the % who say BTS is decentralised will be the same as % that say the world today is decentralised. DE has a special way of expressing himself but I think he is right in a lot of what he says and the logical thread in his thoughts is sound. As long as most Bitshares users are in the bitsharestalk silo, I think Bytemaster should allow comments on his blogs  Or better still, come here. I get the impression bitsharestalk is an echo chamber for his ideas. And with comments, Nxters can correct some of the BS he writes about the platform, when he is aiming "to be objective as possible" I did note that out of the 7-8 BTS guys I have spoken to, that I think I have only 1 (maybe 2) of them weren't node delegates. I never said it but it did feel a bit like a series of ASIC manufacturers telling me POW is the best thing in crypto  Stan gets paid $2500 a month as a node operator just to tell people BTS is great (evangelising, he calls it), I bet there are a lot of people out there who would say anything is great for $2500/month! More ordinary guys views would reduce this feeling. |
|
|
|
You assume it costs (and will cost) a lot of money to run a node. Maybe it does in Bitshares. Why do you think this is true in other systems? Constantly posting the same links is getting tedious. DE answered this at length in the other thread. I reposted it. And I answered a question on it up thread. I will get DE's post, in reply to Bytemaster's blog... The first line is key, the rest is just humoring him. I added in the other thread not only businesses but encrypted messaging apps, MMO games etc. Basically anything that is already running and connected to the internet, adding a POS stake node has a negligible cost (tech is in development for these things). 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. |
|
|
|
|
My repeated point is that your interpretation of decentralization (almost as bad a "decentralisation is just a tool" btw) is a minority view. Most people wouldn't accept it and was the point of me starting this thread was to gauge the definition (away from BTS or Nxt holders in the main Bitcoin discussion with the relevant vocab and numbers changed) so it would be useful to our current situation. I could show you that I am right. But FandangledGizmo chose to sabotage any hope of that.
I won't go into asking why someone decided to start a crypto with a single block signer.. Ok, just one question. Which dev proposed this idea?
Who cares about the ratio of users to block producers? = Who cares about government and corporate control of the economy?
I remind you that we can vote people in and out now (in many countries). Not as quickly as DPOS, granted, but in real life we have the advantage of knowing politicians can't come back under a different name. And Politicians can't easily buy themselves votes to keep themselves in power or buy votes for their cronies to stay elected. I haven't discussed this but DE did have a point in the other thread.
Decentralization is about who is in control. 101 people (in the best possible scenario) isn't enough for anything of significant size to stay decentralied.
|
|
|
|
|
There are shades, the main three distinctions are centralised > distributed > decentralised with shades in each.
I keep seeing arguments framing everything in terms of decentralisation. I read stan's 7 ideas as an example of it and it is absurd.
Imagine starting with the colour red. Add a bit of yellow an it is a different colour. Keep adding yellow and there will be a point were you can't call it red any more and soon it will clearly be orange in 95% of people's eyes. Stan is starting with orange and trying to make us think of orange only in terms of red. It doesn't work.
We already have a word to describe this setup, it is distributed. Attempts are being made to twist this into 'sufficiently decentralised', attempting to pass a clear orange in 95% of people's eyes off as the reddest of reds (most decentralised).
Decentralisation is a very special word is crytpo, it is a foundation concept and core principle so its definition shouldn't be diluted.
|
|
|
|
It is crazy to me how people focus on the block producer cap instead of the underlying consensus metric. If you remove the cap and let people produce proportionally to their approval, you would see a higher concentration of blocks produced by a smaller number of nodes.
Having 101 validators is FORCING the network to be MORE decentralized than the other consensus protocols, where 99% of blocks are produced by far fewer than 100 validators. As a stakeholder, your control over block producers is exactly proportional to your stake whereas in other systems it becomes unprofitable to validate unless you control huge amounts of the stake (or hash power in POW, or unique nodes on ripple UNL)
What is the goal of decentralization? It is to make it difficult for anyone but majority stake-vote to decide what the rules of ownership are. To protect the stakeholders from everyone else. The goal is not to make everyone feel like a part of the validation process and pay them for make-work.
You are talking about the situation as it is today. 101 nodes might be acceptable to some for the amount of users in the network today. But what happens if node growth lags (way) behind network growth (which is likely do to the economic incentives of the node operators). Is 101 nodes for the economy of 3 billion people decentralised? Rather than enforcing decentralisation, the fundamental concept of capping participation enforces centralisation over time as the network expands. The ratio between node operator and user can only have an upward trajectory in a capped system; 1:10 > 1:50 > 1:200 > 1:1000 ..... > 1:1Million This pattern is growing centralisation. A system destined for growing centralisation can't be called decentralised. Where is the logic? You need to show why Bitshares won't follow this path. |
|
|
|
Here are some links for Monetary System The second one list a couple of other use cases I didn't (create a store of value by locking a number of NXT into the new crypto). The first gives a general introduction. |
|
|
|
What the Monetary System can do?
It's a little complicated.
Montary System allows the creation of new tokens/coins. There are a series of properties that you can apply to these tokens when they are created. Examples: You can launched your own crypto with it (including with a POW distribution), secured by Nxt's POS. There are two POW coins being minted as we speak. You can trustlessly crowd fund with it. You have a project in mind, you make your case to potential investors. They then invest money but if you don't raise the amount specified for the crowdfund by the blockheight you specified, all funds are returned to investors automatically. So scammers can't run away with the funds. You can sell vouchers for your business. One of the properties only allows transfers to and from the issuing account. So your retail vouchers can't be resold. Another property allows you to issue more vouchers if you require them. There are other combinations that create other properties suitable for other situations (stock splits / issuing new stock). And other properties will be added, like adding anonymity through coin shuffling. If you have a project in mind, it would be best speaking to the guys on nxtforum.org before you issue it. Properties can't be added once a MSCoin has been created. |
|
|
|
|
You are the only one left arguing it is still decentralised stan.
As long as there is a cap on participants, I don't think it will matter how you try to spin it.
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone can't participate in security. Only 101.
Campaigning, competing, waiting, on standby don't do anything for security.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentralisation is a function of the participants in the network. Limiting the number of participants, limits the decentralisation. I wouldn't call anything that prevents you participating as decentralised.
Don't you want Bitshares to be a global technology? If you do, 3 billion people under 101 nodes is the reality you have to consider.
|
|
|
|
|
By only sending transactions to the next node that forges rather than all nodes. This means netwotk traffic drops to small fraction of what it would be, keeping forging within reach or ordinary people.
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the kicker, DE was right when he said this is a solution looking for a problem.
There are already platforms where each node could be run for $30 a year or less, when running at visa levels of transactions.
This capped node system forces a compromise out of ignorance or a desire for profit. It sounds like you are happy to have the economy of 3 billion people in the hands of 101 nodes. Do you run a node?
|
|
|
|
|
We are not talking semantics, we are talking realities.
Dan Larimer believes 101 nodes is 'sufficient decentralisation'. So presumably, he would prefer the 101 node limit to never be increased?
3 billion people bound to a system reliant on 101 nodes getting millions of dollars in income each (which is the plan). Decentralised? I don't think so, few here would. It is a system that tends towards centralisation.
|
|
|
|
|
Let me put it another way..
Pretend it has been a huge success and 3 billion people are using it. You've successfully got the devs to hard fork the delegate cap up to 2500. How is this better than the system we have today with governments, lobbyists, finance industry, oligarchs etc... ? Do you believe these groups don't collude today?
In this system, 2500 have all the economic power. Is this decentralisation?
|
|
|
|
|
We are going around in circles.
No one is calling Bitshares centralised. They are saying it isn't decentralised.
It is this kind of soft headed thinking and misdirection that I have come to expect.
In this case, marginal utility = increasing decentralisation. Putting an artificial cap, selected arbitrarily creates a distributed network. It can't scale efficiently as the network grows.
If 1000 users are voting for 101 nodes, a year later there are 2000 users without the cap being raised then as the economy grows there is increasing centralisation. You can only raise the number of nodes with the devs permission, who are recipients of income from running a node. So they have to accept less income for it to happen.
The incentives are working against growth in the system. At least for those who value decentralisation.
|
|
|
|
|
Two posts and there could be 50+ Nxters in here who definately wouldn't say it is decentralised. They would describe it as distributed, in the same camp as Ripple.
But what would be the point of that?
Bitshares definition 'sufficiently distributed' = 'distributed' in mainstream crypto. The core dev refers to it as distributed.
Node owners like StanLarimer seem to be promoting it as decentralized as they see marketing value in it, which feeds into their own bottom line. ~$2500 a month roughly in Stans case.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
