You wish you were me!

~BCX~

This doesn't makes sense. If it is a fork of Litecoin (Scrypt PoW) and 100% premined, how do they incentivize people to secure the network?

I call scam if it works as described.

You should come to our forums and ask BM about this. He is probably the most knowledgable in the BTSX community when it comes to the economics and dynamics of trading of Bitassets. I am sure that this has probably been discussed somewhere, but the way you describe it I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Admittedly I am not super knowledgable on exactly how everything works, but I get the general idea of how everything functions. Maybe the way I explained it was wrong, but it is certainly not my intent to deceive... I only say that because it makes sense to me.

I like to say that it is as close to a decentralized free market solution that exists when it comes to decentralized market pegged assets (for Krach: derivatives). It is as free of a free market approach as possible, with rules (or regulations if you want to call them that) in place so the Bitassets maintain the true value of their real life counterparts. I am not privy to all of the rules as they have changed a lot since BTSX launched, but I do know there are a lot of them to stop random things from happening that could disrupt the market. Such as not allowing for someone to go short under 10% of a price feed which is updated by delegates that updates the real value of the assets. A good explanation I've heard is that it is like a free market with training wheels. When BTSX first launched there were very little rules as to trading and the market peg was as much as 10% to 15% off at certain point in time. Through all the updates new rules have been applied to protect users from possible attack vectors and maintain the market peg which I believe is trading at about a 99.5% accuracy currently.

What you are saying is that someone wealthy could come could come in and crash the price, forcing a large wave of margin calls for the shorts, and causing the Bitassets to become under collateralized due to the shorts running out of capital or lowering demand for people to go short in a huge crash? If that is what you are talking about, then I think this is a possibility and a common vulnerability people bring up. If you would like to read more about it then Preston Byrne's blog series is a good place to start about vulnerabilities of the market system. Daniel (Bytemaster), the lead dev responds in the comments to some of the blog postings and it makes for interesting reading material. Krach can't hold a candle to this guys blogs.   http://prestonbyrne.com/category/bitmarmot/

It is technically different, but you are ASSUMING that I have more of a vested interest in BTSX than holders of BTSX which is false as you don't know my personal situation. In actuality I own less thank 10k BTSX and am a little fish in a small pond considering they are worth something like 3.5 cents each and the market cap is something like 65 million dollars. Since we are assuming things, I can assume you have more vested interest in whatever cryptocurrency you hold than I have in my measly amount of BTSX. Just as easily as others voted me in as a delegate, I could get voted out. I own very little stake so in actuality I have little to gain from converting people to users of BTSX.

It is not a marketing statement. Holding bitBTC is similar to holding real BTC if all you are doing is speculating on it or trading it. Sure, there are fundamental differences and Bitassets do not have all the utility of their real counterparts but that is not what I am referring to when I say holding bitBTC is like holding BTC, and I have already admitted that. It is similar if all you are doing with it is hodling or day trading as it has almost the exact same value. Yes there are some risks involved with Bitassets rather than the actual assets themselves, but that is just common sense. Should I explain that I am using a keyboard to type this message and I am breathing air right now to stay alive too?

You are failing to understand that although BTSX resembles a cryptocurrency it is a company. It makes decisions based on making the company more profitable, and part of that is through marketing. BTSX doesn't market itself any differently from any other company.

There are many people that make misleading claims in Bitcoin marketing, yet you still support it? IE. No transaction fees! Instant transactions! It's deflationary! These are all partially true statements, but misleading none the less. Many cryptocurrencies use similar marketing schemes and yet you are singling out BTSX for doing something that is being done on a wide scale.

The VC firm invested money on equal fitting as everyone else that invested into AGS and PTS before the snapshot, which the original BTSX stake was dispersed on. Other than possibly having more money to invest (I don't know specifics), they had no competitive advantage over anyone else. This is part of the FUD I am talking about. VCs and hedge funds are investing into BTC too, yet here you are again singling out BTSX for things that are happening in Bitcoin and other cryptos.

It seems to me it is making a jab at BTSX by making fun of it. Also M1A1, potato chips, and dirt would be Impossible to make into Bitassets as there is no readily available worldwide prices for them. Prices vary from brand to brand, market to market, country to country. It is more than a fun project, it is redo cultus and thus it seems like you are trying to say BTSX is rediculous, which it is not nearly as rediculous as Botshares.

The point is you don't need a private key, or to run a full node, to speculate on Bitcoin or day trade it. bitUSD resembles the true value of Bitcoin and that is the only important thing when speculating.

A derivative and an asset is not the same thing (again common sense that I didn't feel the need to explain.. you are nit picking) but in the way I am describing its use it is practically the same thing. A derivative can serve the same purpose as an asset if all someone is doing is trading, holding, or speculating. Again, there is added risk but this is common sense.. I don't see why I need to explain things that are common sense as we are all intelligent enough to be involved in cryptos.

I prefer to explain things in plain English. I don't think many people that don't have an investment background don't know what a derivative is, and that is why I hardly use this terminology. I know before learning about BitsharesX I personally didn't know what a derivative is. You are alluding to this being some kind of common knowledge. The easiest to understand explanation to me is Bitassets being market pegged assets that are of equal value to their real life counterparts. Again, plain English...

If you are speculating, trading, or holding you don't need to look anything up on the block chain. All you need is your trade history and transaction history for BTSX and the Bitassets, which are contained in your wallet in BTSX including a block explorer built into the client. Again, you are nitpicking and the points you are making are common sense.

With a little counterparts risk and the proper infrastructure, you can do anything with bitBTC and Bitcoin's which is what I was alluding to. I explained this earlier that it would require the infrastructure to be developed to become a true statement. You deleted the part of my quote where I added that caviar and it is what started this whole derivative vs real asset nonsense, which is again common sense.

There is no reason to exit the BTSX ecosystem if you are day trading, holding, or speculating. This is a moot point in regards to the point I am making. Sure, they don't have all of the utility of the real asset (again common sense), but they serve certain purposes well.

Yes they are unlikely but do exist. After learning about how the system works the risks are again common sense. Although, I think collusion/manipulation from delegates is much more unlikely than the system collapsing due to a crash. They have incentive to do their job right as they are getting paid for it. If they don't then they can get voted out if they act improperly.

Maybe I am naive, but I think a 97% crash is unlikely as well. Especially seeing as though if someone thinks a bubble is coming there is no reason to get out of BTSX when they can get into bitFIAT which doesn't affect the market cap of BTSX and thus limits the amplitude of a bubble as money doesn't exit out of the Ecosystem. There are only specific reasons of exiting the ecosystem and a bubble isn't one of them. Once BTSX holders learn that it is in their best interest to go into bitFIAT rather than exiting the ecosystem all together if they think a bubble is near, the whole system will be better off for it and retain its value better than most cryptocurrencies. Also, the fact it uses DPoS which is an insanely cheap way to secure the network helps with this too, whereas with PoW maintaining the network is very expensive and there is a cost of that and price implications. If the miners sell the coins they are mining to pay for expenses, which they mostly do, then it requires the inflow of new money to retain its price.

The only way I see a total price collapse is if there is some bug or error in the software that causes a collapse of confidence in the protocol overnight. Again, maybe I am naive but it has been in beta testing and out in the wild for a while now. As time goes on and bugs are fixed, the less likely this is to happen over time.

Also, BTSX conveys risks better than any cryptocurrency as there is a ToS that people must accept to use the software. Even Bitcoin doesn't convey the risks as specifically and thoroughly as Bitshares does in its ToS. If people don't read the ToS it is not BitsharesX's fault.


Exactly, except at that point you probably couldn't call it a bubble if it never pops. If shareholders (stakeholders) act in their own best interest by buying bitFIAT when they think a bubble might occurs, then no money ever exits the system unless they want to purchase something, diversify, or exit the ecosystem all together.

People that blindly believe in marketing speech without doing their own research deserve to lose all of their money, and they will certainly do so. This is just smart investing and maybe people will need to learn a lesson or two before realizing this, but this kind of marketing talk is happening everywhere, including in Bitcoin. You are again singling out Bitshares for something every coin and business does.


Whatever.. I am done with this discussion as to delegate or not, as I said it is silly. You have special interest here too in attacking BitsharesX whether you would like to admit it or not. I'm not going to tattoo BitsharesX delegate on my forehead, sorry.

Again common sense, attacking BTSX for something every coin and company does. At least there is collateral for the assets unlike in a bank or holding FIAT.

Again common sense, attacking BTSX for something every coin and company does. At least there is collateral for the assets unlike in a bank or holding FIAT.

Lol, this is all in your mind and your intense hatred of BitsharesX and everything involved with it. Everyone likes to think they are right, and you are judging a technology by its users which is stupid. Do you judge Bitcoin by all its Zealots and every other coin as well? Along with their marketing material... Everyone is trying to sell themselves in this speculators market that is cryptocoins. BTSX and it's user base is no different than any other in these regards, and you are stereotyping a whole community and coin based on the actions of a few people.

They invested in AGS/PTS just like every other genesis stake holder. They had no extra benefit other than having more capital to invest in that most. Again, there are hedge funds/VCs getting into Bitcoin and this is no different as they have equal footing as any other averadge joe. Again, here you are singling out BTSX for something that is happening in the larger coins as well.. Bitcoin, Ripple, Litecoin, etc....

There is no contract because there is none needed. They have as much control and stake in the company as the amount of money or mining power to PTS they provided, in relation to amount that everyone else put in. You act like this is a horrible thing that someone should get an equal amount of stake proportional to the amount of capital or work (in regards to mining PTS) they put in.

Again, this is all common sense as to the utility and risks of Bitassets once learning how the system works. I prefer to not assume I am talking to mentally challenged people on here, as I think everyone seems generally smart enough to understand there are risks and a Bitasset is not the same thing as a real asset. I personally did not know what a derivative is before learning what Bitassets are, so I prefer to not use that terminology meanwhile explaining derivatives in layman terms. I don't think many people know what Derivatives mean if they don't have a lot of experience in different types on investments. I am not rich and I don't have a ton of money to do a ton of different types of invest, and I assume I am talking to the 99% here rather than the 1% that know all about derivatives.

I will respond to your previous post, including the VC question, give me more time as your post is long, my laptop is broken (dead charger I think) and I am on an iPad, and I have been doing other things/answering other questions.

You are using the term delegate as a derogatory term which, according to you, affects my credibility meanwhile throwing in subtle jabs at BTSX, BTSX marketing, me, and the people behind it. Meanwhile I am here offering my honest interpretation of the technology and my honest opinions, you are acting as if I'm not. If you want to talk about the technology then let's do it, but you are being hostile towards everything having to do with BTSX and it is getting old fast.

I am not selling anything more so than you are trying to discredit it. You don't think vested interest ever plays a part in discrediting something or the people that support that thing? Maybe you should enlighten us on your vested interest so things are clear? Everyone already knows mine as I have been talking about Bitshares for months now, and it is the reason I don't need to explain it with every post. You state you don't need to share your vested interest as you are not selling anything, but you certainly are attacking something in which vested interest plays into your mindset and tact at least a little bit.

A delegate doesn't have any more or less vested interest than an owner of X coin, developer of Y coin, or a miner of Z coin as I said. You make it seem as if I am some powerful being, but in reality I have just as much say as anyone in the Bitshares community and can be voted out at any time as I own very little stake in it. I just believe in the technology. If you look through my posting history, historically I talk about and stick up for things I believe in, and Bitshares is one of those things.

You are ignoring your own vested interest... Everyone has vested interest whether a delegate or not, owner of Bitcoin, owner of Bitcoin service or business, owner of X coin, developer of Y coin, or a miner of Z coin. Everyone has vested interest on these forums, yet do not state them with every post they make. By reading my posts it is blatantly obvious I have some sort of vested interest in BTSX, and your request for me to give a disclaimer with every post is unreasonable. You would be lying if you say you don't have any vested interest yourself, yet I don't see you stating clearly what your vested interests are with every post you make, so I don't see why you require the same of me. Do you write "Bitcoiner" on your forehead so people immediately know when you talk about it you have vested interest?

I am not selling anything here, I am helping people understand BTSX meanwhile trying to come to a deeper understanding of it myself. Conversing about the different facets of BTSX helps me learn by reinforcing things I already know, thinking about new things I haven't before, and hearing opposing opinions. Maybe BTSX is not as great as I think it is and one of you will help me see some glaring issue. I haven't seen anything yet along these lines. Although there is some risk involved with Bitassets, I see it as being negligible and akin to the risks (vulnerabilities) that exist with Bitcoin but are unlikely to happen.

You ask some good questions, I will try to answer them the best I can but I'm afraid I don't have all the answers.

You could buy bitUSD, bitEUR, or bitCNY in the above example and it would all work similar. There may be some other bitFIAT Bitassets coming out, I am not sure. They are assets that resemble the value of their real life counterparts through a complicated market pegging system.

All Bitassets are backed by 2x the collateral from the shorts, by matching a short with a long. They do not come into existence any other way, and by matching a sell with a buy from an already existing Bitasset, the collateral is still there. So, you might could look at it as still owning the BTSX you sold for Bitassets, but I am not a tax lawyer.

Technically the short position is the one that "owns" your BTSX when you buy a Bitasset, as they are are the ones putting up the collateral. I could be wrong on this, but I think the BTSX backing the Bitassets are held in a multi signature account in the back end of the decentralized exchange.

After thinking about it more, selling BTSX for a Bitasset does technically create downward pressure on the BTSX market and upward pressure on the Bitasset market, however I think that downward pressure on BTSX is negligible. Perhaps my example wasn't clear, I will try again.

By selling 1 Bitcoin for FIAT on an exchange it definitely creates downward pressure, I think we can both agree on that. 1 Bitcoin worth of FIAT leaves the Bitcoin ecosystem completely until you buy back into Bitcoin.

By selling 1 BTSX for Bitassets, I think the downward pressure is negligible as there is 2 BTSX worth of whatever Bitasset you purchased tied up as collateral, so no BTSX leaves the ecosystem and an extra one is tied up with collateral. If anything a Bitasset coming into existence bolsters the market cap as 2x the BTSX is being held by collateral and is not sold on the market. My point is that Bitassets are a component of BTSX, an asset traded within it on a decentralized exchange (although centralized exchanges can and do trade them as well) and when selling BTSX for a Bitasset it doesn't detract from the market cap of BTSX. Since Bitassets are backed by BTSX and they are a token traded within it, no money ever leaves the BTSX ecosystem by buying them. Am I completely wrong on this? It makes sense to me.

Technically, all Bitassets are backed by BTSX, so you could look at it as not being a new investment, but I could also see it being the other way and admittedly no one really knows possible tax implications as the technology is still pretty new. There are some opposing opinions floating around about what (if any) taxes will apply when trading Bitassets. It makes sense to me that it would not be a taxable event until you spend the bitassets on goods or services or cash them out into real FIAT and realize capital gains as trading from Bitassets to BTSX is similar to crypto to crypto trading. This seems to be the general consensus, but I honestly have no idea if this is accurate or not. I have asked your question in the only place I've seen tax discussion, maybe someone will be able to shed more light on it. A lot of people don't seem to think it is a taxable event, but I have seen at least one mention of the Wash rule in the replies to the link just posted in this thread to Stan's post. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9308.0

Let's say you think a cryptocoin is at the top of a mini bubble and will likely go down in value in the short term.

With most cryptocurrencies you would need to sell them on the market to reduce your exposure which creates downward pressure on the market. Money exits the cryptocurrency's ecosystem for another cryptocurrency or FIAT. You could do so off of services or exchanges, but it is not convenient nor quick, and has counterparty risk involved.

With BitsharesX you can instead buy bitFIAT which are backed by BTSX, and thus there is no downward pressure put on the market and no money actually leaves the BTSX ecosystem. Yet, the end result is similar as you still reduce exposure to a downward price swing. There is no reason for the price to go down unless someone wants to exit the BitsharesX ecosystem all together.

IMO both technologies are extremely unlikely to be implemented into Bitcoin. Bitcoin is too worried about playing nice with governments and achieving mass adoption (getting rich). Bitcoin is allergic to change due to no one wanting to risk the value of their coins for the betterment of society and the technology. That and because opinions differ so much that it is hard to get anyone to agree to do anything. This is why Alt coins are needed, to push the technology forward and improve upon cryptocoins since Bitcoin is unwilling to do so for the most part.

Zerocoin and Zerocash are two different things. Anoncoin (possibly others) is still working on implementing Zerocoin and I think they are close to having the first implementation of it (a month or so according to their dev.) Zerocash is being developed by the original Zerocoin developers and a few others.

Zerocoin does not offer as much anonymity as Zerocash, but it has a benefit over Zerocash in that it can be implemented in a more trust-less manner by the use of RSA UFOs.

That being said, there is still some risk involved in that someone may already have cracked the RSA UFOs (the NSA) or someone could do so in the future. In this case it wouldn't affect anonymity, but they could print free Zerocoins. If it is cracked at some point with faster computers then the coin could be hard forked with higher security RSA UFOs, but the damage could already be done. There is a lot of debate as to how secure the RSA UFO approach is, and I am on the fence about it after hearing a lot of opposing opinions.

I have also heard a lot of opposing opinions as to how much trust would be required to setup Zerocash. The developers claim and I quote "there is trust involved but it is more like having to trust that only one person out of 20 is not cheating you." Furthermore, there are mentions of using multiparty computation to set it up, which is similar to how Anoncoin is setting up the Zerocoin RSA UFOs. Again, I am on the fence as to how much trust would be required and what the better solution is as there are a lot of opposing opinions.

You cannot link a buyer of a zerocoin to a seller of it. You cannot do that in Zerocash either, but with the added ability of not be able to tell how much value a transfer was for. Here is a good place to start learning about Zerocoin and Zerocash, although it may be a bit biased towards Zerocoin: https://wiki.anoncoin.net/Anoncoin_Wiki

I think ring signatures are the best currently available option for anonymity as they are implemented in Cryptonote coins. However, I have heard of at least one coin that is improving upon the anonymity of ring signatures as they are implemented in Cryptonote coins. I believe these coins are using ring signatures, but implementing them a little bit differently. I guess current Cryptonote coins can upgrade if it is a better solution.

The jury is still out as to what anonymous technology is best and opinions differ. It is challenging in that all of these concepts are hard to understand, especially the complicated cryptography in Zerocoin/Zerocash, and I think that is the main reason why the answer is not clear. If they can be implemented in a sufficiently trust-less and secure manner, they could beat out all currently existing technologies.

I realize you are joking, but that is exactly the point. At least Bitassets like BitUSD are collateralized by something. They don't come into existence without matching a short that has provided 200% collateral with a long position, or by a buyer selling a bitUSD that already exists and is collateralized.

Nubits requires the inflow of new money to maintain the peg when the value of Nubits is lower than the value of a dollar, and it is why the Bitshares community has likened it to a Ponzi scheme and compared it to the federal reserve. For the whole system to work it relies on Nushares holders setting interest rates and printing new Nubits, all of which have no collateral and require new capital to come in to maintain the peg. Furthermore, Nushares holders have way less power than the federal reserve even though it functions similar to it. They can't destroy money (Nubits) and they don't have a government, laws, regulations, and guns backing Nubits.

BitsharesX doesn't need any of that because it is as close to a free market solution you can get when it comes to a decentralized market pegged asset, and thus I believe it comes with less risks involved than owning Nubits. It relies on people acting rational in a free market approach rather than shareholders setting interest rates and printing money without collateral. As long as people act rationally, then the Bitasset market peg will be maintained. People will act rationally as it would be unprofitable not to do so for them, the free market system works on the belief that people will act in a way that is financially in their best interest (IE. Profitable.) to trade against the peg is an unprofitable decision as free market participants will buy into that price movement and profit from your unprofitable decision.

At least it is backed by SOMETHING. 

(Alluding to FIAT and fractional reserve banking)

First of all you keep bringing up everywhere I am a Delegate as if it brings more credibility to your statements and less to mine and that is silly. It is like saying that you are a Bitcoin user, so all of your opinions are worthless because you want them to go up in value. If everyone used such logic then everyone's statements here, no matter how honest or credible, would be worth nothing and it is a slippery slope. Why don't you inform us of your cryptocurrency holdings so we can know which statements of yours we can ignore using the same logic?

I never would of got into BitsharesX, or become a delegate for that matter, if I didn't really believe it will be successful for multiple reasons. It is literally the 2nd Alt coin I have supported in two years of being involved with the cryptocurrency community. It's not like I am out shilling for every coin that comes out, pump and dumps and all. You are basically saying if you use or invest in something you lose your ability to rationalize reality, however I actually have the ability to admit when I am wrong and am here giving my honest and genuine opinions on different issues. BitsharesX is still rather new and it is basically the only alt coin I care about, so I have spent most of my time talking about it and helping others understand it. I am sorry if this upsets you, but it is a free world and luckily Theymos is not a nazi.

It has also attracted it's fair share of haters... Cough... and most of the Bitshares community only hangs out on our forums, so I feel like it's my duty to stick up for it. That is actually part of my delegate campaign, to help new users and defend BTSX from FUD. You have been following me around for about a month now and ragging on BitsharesX at any chance you get, and I'm not sure what your issue is but you have pretty much attacked every aspect of it as if it is a complete scam, and then you act as if your opinion is more credible to mine by bringing up that I am a delegate. I guess this argument is just your reason to rag on BTSX today, so I will address your issues, but I don't understand why you hate BitsharesX so much. Example: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=763383.0


I fail to see the difference if you are keeping your cryptocoins and commodities as investments for long periods of time, or are day trading them. If you wanted to, you could cash them out to BTSX at any time and convert them into anything you like.

As to cryptocoins if the infrastructure is developed properly, then there would be no reason to ever want to do that because you could do anything with Bitassets that you could do with Bitcoin if you wanted.

I just think there is more counterparty risk using centralized exchanges and services. Over the years how many of them have scammed customers, been "hacked", or defaulted? A lot of them..

Yes there are places where you can receive more leverage and reduce exposure, but all of them are centralized services and a decentralized autonomous company is not ever going to steal from you, get fake "hacked", or default assuming the market peg works as intended.


Of course there are risks, just like any other cryptocurrency, I thought there being some risk is implied. It is that I think there is less risk trading bitassets than trading on centralized services as to why I say things like this.

The price of BitsharesX could crash and Bitassets become under collateralized, but I look at this an an improbability. By crash I mean going down a lot and not your normal crypto bubble. The BTSX market cap is 62.5 million and there are currently only about $460,000 worth of Bitassets that exist today. Meaning it would need to crash by 93% to become under collateralized. Call me naive, but I think this is unlikely to happen.

In the event that a bubble does occur, people can diversify into bitFIAT to reduce the amplitude of the bubble and reduce your exposure, and that is unlike any other cryptocurrency where you would need to actually sell them to reduce exposure which creates downward pressure on the market. Hedging against bubbles while not putting any downward pressure on BTSX is one of its greatest features. Downward pressure really only needs to occur when you would like to exit the Bitshares ecosystem, as you have already mentioned.

Another reason why I think it is unlikely to lose 93% of its current value is because of the use of DPOS and the fact that there is no new money being printed like there is in most other cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin included. Due to its deflationary properties and the very low cost of maintaining the security of the network through Delegates, no money has to come into the ecosystem for it to retain its value. In fact if no money goes in or out, the value would go up as transaction fees are destroyed. One BTSX has more buying power than it did when BTSX first came out as there are less of them, this is one of the only cryptocoins that can say it is truly deflationary.

To each their own, this is just your opinion as the quoted is my opinion. It seems you are more risk adverse and I am more risk prone. I would prefer to keep my metals and cryptos in Bitasset form as then it is more easily transferable, it gains interest, and it is easier to convert into other value via other Bitassets or exiting the Bitshares ecosystem all together.

That being said, diversification is implied with all of my statements as it is just smart investing. I am not trying to convince everyone to invest everything they have into BTSX, as that would be stupid and your right there are some risks just with anything else for that matter. Even that money in the bank backed by FDIC has risk, as if something extreme were to happen the government couldn't afford to bail us all out without extremely diluting the money supply by printing more money. I don't think anyone should invest more than they are comfortable losing in any asset, currency, or commodity and I apologize if I made it seem that way. I am assuming everyone already knows this as it is pretty much common sense.

Again, as it currently exists BitsharesX is better for day trading, diversifying, or hodling. It doesn't mean that the infrastructure won't develop around it in due time though. There is very little Ecommerce going on with cryptocurrencies anyways as it is mostly speculators. For people like this, BitsharesX is a great solution as it exists today. You can always keep your spending money in BTC or anything you'd like. And lastly, do not put more in BitsharesX you can afford to lose. Again, I thought this was common sense but apparently you want me to say it every time I talk about BTSX? Looking through your posts it doesn't seem as if you state other cryptocurrencies are risky with every post you make on them, so I am not sure why you are requesting I do something you don't even do yourself?

Why would you want to? Most people buy Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies as a speculative investment, not to go on a shopping spree. bitBTC and Bitassets are a better tool for speculative investments than the actual assets themselves. BTSX can give you leverage if you are bullish by shorting and less exposure when you are bearish by moving into bitFIAT, all without the need for trusted third parties. It is good for day traders as there is less Counterparty risk than you would have at a centralized exchange, and the Bitassets accrue interest which is good for both day traders and hodlers a like. It is also good for diversifying into hard metals and other commodities.

The infrastructure will be developed to allow you to use Bitassets more like a currency if you wanted by using multi coin payment gateways, currency exchanges, and multi coin payment processors. The point is that you don't need to deal with trusted third parties unless you want to buy something, use a service, or cash out into FIAT. Again, most people currently use cryptocurrencies as a speculative investment and BitsharesX does that better than other cryptocurrencies for the multiple reasons stated above. As for spending them, the infrastructure will get there in due time... the Bitcoin infrastructure wasn't built in a day.

Use the search button..  a lot of people have tried to do this in various ways.. All of them have failed.

Every time it goes CPU -> GPU -> FPGA -> ASIC

Hi come-from-above 

Yes, but the whole system in its entirety has many benefits rather than just speculating on price movements.

Of course it allows people to make money by going short or long by speculating what the price of an asset and collateral will do.

bitFIAT is a good hedge against crypto bubbles.

It allows people to day trade or diversify their portfolio with cryptocoins, FIAT, stock, and commodities (gold, silver, oil, wheat, corn, etc) with no counterparty risk due to trusted third parties (centralized exchanges).

It allows someone that likes the idea of decentralized cryptocurrencies but doesn't like the volatility of them to still use them by storing their cryptocurrency in a more stable asset (bitFIAT).

It allows Bitassets to gain interest from trading fees.

It allows BTSX stake holders to earn dividends by the destruction of transaction fees. No more BTSX will be printed, so by destroying transaction fees it makes the cryptocurrency deflationary. It is one of the only cryptocoins that is truly deflationary, as Bitcoin/etc is still in its inflationary stage and once all Bitcoin's are mined the transaction fees are paid to miners and not destroyed.

You can hold your Bitcoins (or other slower cryptocoins) in bitBTC, earn interest, and have the benefits of an average of 5 second confirmation times that have more security of a 10 minute Bitcoin confirmation. DPoS is a fast and efficient consensus algorithm with 10 second block times which is convenient. Admittedly the infrastructure and payment processors aren't there yet... but this is a future benefit of the system and you can already do this with person to person transactions.

Hmm.. I'm probably forgetting something.

This is a good place to start: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=7103.0

Edit: My brain isn't working today.

I realize this, but this is still centralization that is applicable to the conversation. Two pools have 25% opens up another attack vector due to pools colluding, getting hacked, or getting approached by thugs with guns. In DPoS in comparison each delegate controls less than 1% of the network. If they act in a bad way they can be voted out.

It works much the same way as Bitcoin's centralization, except with a couple benefits. My point is centralization is a problem in just about any consensus algo due to mining pools and lease forging (PoS). People act in a way that makes them the most or the most steady amount of money. DPOS recognizes this and has a form of controlled centralization that can be managed by shareholders, whereas you have no control over where people mine or who does the mining.

I am not meaning to selectively read your posts. I understand you believe it would be 1 step forward and 2 steps back in terms of security, but the attack vectors you have brought up are incredibly unlikely to happen.. similarly as unlikely as the possible Bitcoin attack vectors. You are also ignoring the benefits such as the speed, scalability, and efficiency the DPoS provide and only focusing on these unlikely vulnerabilities.


Although you may not support centralized mining, it is a fact most PoW mining takes place on centralized mining pools whether you like it or not. I don't like to compare possible idealisms but I like to compare realities.

Yes, you are starting to see why that attack vector is unlikely.

I agree BTSX will remain a niche product for the time being and is unlikely to take over Bitcoin, but I think it has a good chance of securing its place and a large market share in certain niche markets. BTSX will attract people that care about the environment and the impact of PoW, people that like cryptocurrencies but don't care for the volatility, people that trade different cryptocurrencies but want to limit third party risk such as centralized exchanges, people that don't care for how slow Bitcoin transactions are, people that don't like Bitcoin prints new money to secure its network and the economic implications that brings, and currency, hard metal and other commodity traders and speculators. All of these people combined could potentially be a huge market if widely adopted and it is why people see value in BTSX.

You are using a lot of arguments that apply to all other cryptocurrencies. Same applies for every single one as to this point.

Again, this applies to Bitcoin too.. People are using it for illicit transactions yet the government/regulators haven't crushed it they've worked with them. Bitcoin pools, exchanges, payment processors.. The same argument applies.

I would argue that BTSX is already ahead of Bitcoin in terms of its speed and features, to each their own but I would rather use BTSX over Bitcoin any day.  Maybe I am naive, but it seems perfectly secure to me and I haven't heard any likely plausible vulnerabilities to make me think otherwise. Market share is ever changing and not set in stone, the Bitcoin infrastructure is well ahead but Alt coins will eventually catch up in these regards.. Bitcoin just had a several year head start. At some point there will be not many ways to improve upon the infrastructure and they will catch up. I think Bitcoin will remain king of cryptos for sometime, but it is not invulnerable and it will need to innovate and improve itself to remain on top in the long term.

It is yet to be seen whether tree chains and side chains can be successfully implemented and overcome the network effects of alts that solve the same problems. They are only ideas and concepts, not realities and they could not work for multiple reasons. The country coins have failed by giving out coins to people for free and then they dump them on the market, this may happen with these solutions as well.. it is anyone's guess.

DPoS has ways to fund development and infrastructure projects by voting in delegates. You write this off as an insignificant feature, but it is better than the alternative by only being able to fund development by donations. Delegates can currently make 250$/month, give a developer a few delegate spots or so and that will fund his time to continue working on the project maybe not full time, but it will fund some improvement and infrastructure development... It is already being used for this. Since we are a cryptocurrency that is ran like a company, ideas have been floating around about offering more shares as well to fund further development or a huge marketing push, just like big companies do on the stock market. We think about cryptocurrency differently and if we think it is a good business decision it can happen... anything is a possibility and we don't look at it like Bitcoiners look at Bitcoin whereas the rules are set in stone. If it improves the value of everyone's stake in the long run, it may not be a bad idea and has a chance of happening.

I think you are blind or biased if you can't see some benefits to DPoS over PoW/PoN and PoS. Each system has benefits and shortcomings, and you are focusing on the shortcomings. You are ignoring the scalability, efficiency, and speed DPoS provides and thus the reason it was conceived and implemented. You need to stop and think there must be some benefits otherwise BTSX would have chosen an older consensus algorithm. You think we are all retards? Or DPoS is just a marketing scheme? Come on man...