Wasn't there a list somewhere about all the kinds of ways they took money off the system? Do I have that right: - They collected IPO's or donations for the development - Then they took some initial stake of Bitshares. - They also took stakes of the other coins they had (AGS or whatnot). - Then profiting when merging those. - Then they get the delegate inflation. - The bonus mentioned above... - Hm... and yeah, lol - they're actually selling the test-coins. Those are supposed to be a top20 coin too. Forgot anything? They also say they bought more shares early. They must have made millions. Pretty stunning that that's not enough to pay developers - so now they have to hardcode to make sure they get the tax. |
|
|
|
Also I would straight up say: Switching bitcoin will be impossible. How would a transition even work without compromising the security of the network? What will happen to all the gear?
I think it's a good example of the problem of divided incentives. Should POS in theory prove to be better for the coin, the miners would still block it - and rather harm the coin to prevent their financial loss. They will have the ultimate decision.
You're giving miners way too much credit for being able to decide on the protocol specifications. If some significant part of the community decides that they would prefer a POS based bitcoin and to change to POS at blockheight x then the miners have no real power to combat this change. They can only decide on whether or not they think it is still profitable to keep mining on the POW fork of "bitcoin". Who is that "significant part of the community"? If it excludes most core devs (who seem to hate POS) and most miners... which also means most big exchanges, since they have massive mining ventures too - e.g. Huobi and BTC-China. Adding then that most users are unmotivated to look into any of those issues, then we talk about a tiny minority that has to take over the system. Technically possible - but improbable close to the point of "never gonna happen". And if it would (maybe because of a government attack), it will be major chaos. It seems much more logical that people who don't like the system switch to an alt with the desired properties. |
|
|
|
Or this: https://wiki.nxtcrypto.org/wiki/Whitepaper:Nxt#Proof_of_StakeAlso I would straight up say: Switching bitcoin will be impossible. How would a transition even work without compromising the security of the network? What will happen to all the gear? I think it's a good example of the problem of divided incentives. Should POS in theory prove to be better for the coin, the miners would still block it - and rather harm the coin to prevent their financial loss. They will have the ultimate decision. |
|
|
|
|
I don't really see why it would be better for crowdfunding than the Asset exchange... or digital good store if you prefer a stable price.
|
|
|
|
I don't have the time/energy to fully digest what the paper
is saying, but the conclusions of the author seem to say that
Nothing at stake is a real problem that hasn't been solved. Maybe you ought to go ahead and fully digest what the paper is saying before proceeding. Why would I do that when A) I just stated I don't have time B) I can quote the author's own conclusions He asked a logical question: If you don't have time to understand it - why do you have time to comment on it? The conclusion actually states it in very simple terms: The problem exists, but is basically theoretical, because extremely hard to realize. Notice also that they are suggesting the "multibranch" approach - which makes the attack even more unlikely. And if it requires actual stake to do a N@S attack, then there is definitely something at stake!
You don't seem to understand what the Nothing at stake problem is about. (Yes, obviously you need to own coins, but you could attack and then sell your coins.) Then there is something at stake. Really... why deny it when in the next sentence you affirm it? You attack the coin that you own. The value will likely drop - with or without a final success. One of the biggest arguments in favor of
proof of work is that it costs more to attack
the network than to participate in its security.
So where is the difference? Buying 25% of the POS coin would not be a high cost? In fact to buy the 51% mining power of Bitcoin would be way cheaper than buying 25% of the currency. Probably by several orders of magnitude. |
|
|
|
This is going to be the most interesting Nxt feature thus far, truly unique and a thousand possibilities.
My thought too! Hope it is flexible enough so that the MS coins can get unique features and innovations. Curious to see the POW system working. |
|
|
|
I really can't understand your arguments.
So be it. |
|
|
|
BTS is just a bank that every bitasset created is backed by x2 BTS in collateral. As long as 1 BTS has some value bigger than ZERO your investment in bitassets is secured
So please do your research first, stop spreading FUD,
About that: it's x3 collateral - not 2. And BTS doesn't have to fall to zero - it just has to fall enough so that the collateral is not covering the costs. Or the price of the pegged asset has to rise enough. Which btw. makes it worse than the baseball cards example by Zer0Sum. Those have at least some independent value - even if manipulated. BTS on the other hand is directly tied to the success of the pegs. If one of them falters, the other will too. I am ready to accept this if you are ready to accept that BTC has no value as well.
Bitcoin, created out of thin air and the birth certificate for its creation recorded for the future generation... not redeemable for anything ever, btw.
Everyone knows BTC can fall. Everyone knows there is no object you can redeem if it does. But remember BTS is ( straight from their website): "Better than a swiss bank account". "Save in Gold, Silver, Gas, Anything" "Never Frozen" "Free Market Decentralization!" Even the supporters here admitted that rather: BitAssets are derivatives with hidden risks. You don't save in anything but BTS... ...which can collapse, evaporating your money. And it holds so far because of central intervention. |
|
|
|
Wow. They didn't try very long to pretend, did they? |
|
|
|
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. Posting a 3 month old quote is not exactly showing BTS is not working. Please explain your points such as claiming the algo as economic nonsense. Why? The quote said they need training wheels. And now three months later they still need them according to you. So it's very much applicable. You also wrote justifications for the power of the devs to unilaterally change how the market works. Which illustrates my point... to give an analogy: We don't accept dictators because they can do more effective work - we reject them on moral grounds. That's the thing though - I'm originally not against BTS. I invest in what works. But whenever I read more about it, it seems worse instead of better. Just the first post in that thread shows that they have no clue what they're doing. There is no way you could calculate a meaningful risk profile that way. I also want to add that Rome was not built in a day and direct on/off ramps are being worked on for bit assets. Point taken... they do work on the peg at least since one and a half year though. And it's work on something economists consider impossible. |
|
|
|
I don't quite follow what you are trying to conclude Bitcoin: Trustless Bitshares: Respect based Bitcoin: Conservative development. Decisions based on research Bitshares: Decisions based on idolizing founders Bitcoin: Following an ideology Bitshares: Following profit Bitcoin: Market cap and inflation predictable for hundreds of years. Bitshares: Market cap and inflation redecided every couple of months. Bitcoin: Protocol Bitshares: Corporation I'm not saying Bitcoin is perfect - I'm in the alt-section after all. And I'm aware that alts can't always afford the same procedures. But we should thoroughly think about before we throw away key ideas. Short term rational reasons are not the only thing decisions (i.e. inflating the cap) should be based on. We have to consider if setting such precedent isn't destroying the basis for promoting cryptocurrrencies. That includes speculators: If they support for example Ripple by buying their coins, then we just might as well promote shares of Bank of America. The founders..., can not exactly just "change" the system at will. How is it prevented? They did stop the BitAsset markets before and changed the pegging system. They will not be able to do this once the USD price slips again? |
|
|
|
It think it will hurt the whole ecosystem. If there are no ideals of crypto then why should average people start to care?
The founders, who are all highly respected and speak at many conferences.... That was true for Bernie Madorff for about 40 years. Which is simply to say that this is no guarantee. Exactly what Crypto was supposed to fix. ..., can not exactly just "change" the system at will. How is it prevented? They did stop the BitAsset markets before and changed the pegging system. They will not be able to do this once the USD price slips again? You speak of ideals yet the BitShares folks have been some of the most honest, open, and up front people in this crypto space! They have been quite inconsistent from the start. The system is run by delegates thus just like mining they would have to upgrade to the version with differences. Check out the summary again at http://bitshares.org/bitshares-reloaded/ and it will start to make sense why they went this merger route. You're avoiding my Litecoin example - giving Litecoiners some arbitrary numbers of Bitcoins and then adding those to the bitcoin cap might also make sense. Litecoiners might even agree as it would stop their bleeding. That's still pretty clearly a bad thing to do. Caps are supposed to stay stable - else I can have no trust that in 3 months there will not be another big inflation - because the devs are respected and enough delegates profit. If voted officials and corporations can do these kind of acts, then we can just stick to the current banking system. |
|
|
|
Nah, you can just see what is possible if you can change the maximum amount of coins. The above has only 49~ ,below over 1 Million
For all I've read, a good chunk of the 1 Million is from the founders, as they pay their employees with it. Anyone with half a brain could perform some due diligence and see supply was increased due to a merger.
Guess I'm lacking the brain to see how that makes a difference. Would it be all fine if Bitcoin just adds some cap and hands them to people for their Litecoin? I'm surprised how little people bother about the original spirit of crypto currencies. The trust in unalterable supply was supposed to be the one core advantage vs. fiat. Now they just call it dilution instead of inflation and change it every couple months. But it's fine, as long as the price goes up. The Bit-asset market is completely at the hand of the founders - they can (an did) just stop it and update the the functionality whenever they feel like it. It's just a corporation as they (and Ripple) say. It think it will hurt the whole ecosystem. If there are no ideals of crypto then why should average people start to care? |
|
|
|
|
So why exactly is Coinmarketcap not listing paypal then?
|
|
|
|
What is this about though? Coinmarketcap bug?  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
