That's probably because you exaggerated how cheap/easy an attack could be done...

You claim you can attack it with a few thousand dollars and a lot of sock puppets. I dare you to try, I doubt you can get more than a few sock puppets voted in, and you would need 51....

The large stakeholders are only voting in trusted members of the community and/or people that are working on a project that will help BitsharesX in some way, which are also unlikely to perform an attack. Revealing/proving your identity is also a deterrent from this, most delegates can be tied to community members or identities. Before you say this makes it less secure, I point you to the fact the large Bitcoin pools are not anonymous either.

Like seriously... your recent arguments as to the weaknesses of DPOS are filled with exaggerations as to how easy they would be to perform and are borderline FUD. I admit they are possible, but they are just as unlikely as a lot of Bitcoin's possible attack vectors.


Neither is Bitcoin, or any consensus algorithm for that matter, and no consensus algorithm will EVER be as secure as this... it is a pipe dream.

I wish this could be a debate on the merits of BitsharesX/bitUSD vs Nubits/Nushares, but since you guys want to focus on ad hominem criticism.... You criticize the Bitshares community for name calling etc and then you on to do the same thing all throughout your post. Furthermore..

As chryspano mentioned it is ironic that you show up out of the blue in August, after taking a 5 month hiatus from Bitcointalk, and immediately start bashing Bitshares in all 6 of your posts since you came back.

It is doubly ironic that this is around the time that Nubits, a project that would be competing with BitsharesX by solving the same problem in a different way, was about month from being released.

It is triply ironic that you seem to be a big fan of Peercoin/Peershares/Nubits:
http://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=30870
http://www.reddit.com/user/sportscliche

It is quadruply ironic that in February of this year you give a completely different reason for not investing in Bitshares than you give in your post here and now.

http://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=527.msg18220#msg18220


It seems to me you are a bit bitter you missed out on getting into Bitshares early because you talked yourself out of it. Instead you decided to invest in Peercoin which is about 1/3 of the value today that it was in February. If you had invested into Bitshares instead you would of came out way better as BTSX is up 300% since its release and the people that got in before the snapshot have done much better than 300%. That being said, I'm sure all of this isn't affecting your opinions and statements as to Bitshares and how horrible of people the Bitshares developers and community is.  

Unfortunately, you haven't learned your lesson in the past 7 months of pain that you've been a Peercoin investor and wrote off Bitshares. Yet, here you are 7 months later backing the wrong horse again (Nubits) and suffering from the stubborn tribe mentality that plagues most cryptocurrency communities. Bytemaster, and other Bitshares community members, have eloquently and thoroughly explained for everyone to read why Nubits/Nushares is flawed and likely to fail, yet you decide to write this possibly valuable learning experience off as name calling, cheerleading, and hating for the sake of hating.

Along with the concept of Nushares/Nubits being flawed, the release of Nushares behind closed doors to well connected Peercoin community members and Nubits developers doesn't strike me as being very fair or open. Bitshares had months of open fundraising and mining/buying/selling of PTS that gave everyone an equal chance to get in on the ground floor. The developers didn't have any special privileges compared to any other random investor, they paid/mined their fair share of the genesis stake of BitsharesX just like everyone else.

Don't let your stubbornness and bitterness cost you any more of your cryptocurrency savings than you've already lost by investing in Peercoin. I am not saying invest in BitsharesX, but you are backing the losing horse all over again in the market pegged cryptocurrency wars. This is your warning, and it is the warning that Bytemaster and other Bitshares community member have been so nice to share with you. If you invest heavily in Nushares/Nubits I think you may look back at this in a year and say damn... I should of listened to them, they really weren't just trolling.

BitsharesX is the better solution to the same problem meanwhile awarding its users with less risk than Nubits/Nushares. It is for this reason and others that we believe we are going to win this battle of the USD market pegged stable cryptos, including through our innovative and successful implementation of the decentralized market place, the dedicated community and developers, and our solution being the closest thing you'll get to a "hands off" free market approach in a market pegged crypto asset. Whether you choose to believe us and heed the writing on the wall is up to you, and you can take it or leave it.

Now, can we get back to technical analysis as to the merits of Nushares/Nubits and BTSX/bitUSD, or do you guys want to continue flinging poop at one another?

I know who you are alluding to, and at first I thought he was one of your sock puppets. However, one of the data points I am comparing didn't match up. I have already decided he is not one of them.

No.. Not revealing them, I am still trying to figure out which of the sock puppets ARE NOT yours. There is at least one other person with a lot of sock puppets, I am sure MoneroMan88 is yours though.

You aren't fooling anyone. If that MoneroMan88 post, which was signed in the name of ~CfA~, wasn't you then why did Moneroman88 instantly delete it as if it was damning evidence? Truth is I already figured out MoneroMan88 was you via other methods, and this was just the cherry on top.

CfA is now PMing me denying it was him, trying to throw me off his track. I already figured it out though and there's nothing he can say. CfA controls many sock puppets, not just MoneroMan88... I will reveal more info at a later date.

Lol, I am not ready to reveal the evidence but I will do so eventually. It will reveal how I am connecting the dots and you may be able to change your ways to deter me from doing so. In the meantime, carry on... btw you forgot to switch sock puppet accounts.

~Ch~

Ps to everyone: I didn't edit that quote, he ninja deleted it... I just caught him red handed.

I have tied you to at least a few of them, I am pretty sure you are Moneroman88 as well. You slipped up on a post and I was able to make a connection, along with the other data points I am comparing matching up.

I know you are not MoneroMan88, because I have figured out who it is. I spent a few hours last night doing research into trolls and accounts I suspect are sock puppets. I think I know who MoneroMan88 is already, but I am not about to reveal my cards as I am still collecting data. I will say that whomever is controlling the sock puppets like to talk to themselves to make their posts seem more relevant, and they occasionally take separate sides on issues to throw people off of their trail. The amount of sock puppetry going on in this subforum is crazy.. I so far have about 20 sock puppets on my list, half of them tied to one person.

Wtffff. Yes I did. BCX is TWing Bitcointalk too. Leave now before you are taken back to 1822.

Time warp activated.

It is hard to take that statement seriously coming from someone named "black Jesus."

Sorry if I was wrong, I didn't know it had already been discussed. Carry on...

Hi MoneroMan88 

"Official dev team statement coming" statement coming in 3....... 2...... 1.......... .75............. .7........... .69........ etc

That is a good idea, and I think it would go a long ways towards instilling trust in the RSA UFOs used to create the accumulator. Building it into the client would make it more likely that people would partake in the generation of the UFOs.

Even better, if we could figure out a way to incentivize people to do it they would be more likely to do so. If this could be figured out I think Anoncoin would have something really special here. By changing the PoW to RSA UFO generation it would incentivize them by rewarding them block rewards. I'm not sure what Anoncoin's block time is, but you could take the largest UFO generated per block and reward the finder with some Anoncoins. I would suggest switching from PoW to a form of PoS so it costs much less to secure the block chain. That would free up some Anoncoins in each block reward to be awarded to the person that generates the biggest UFO.

I don't have enough technical knowledge to figure out if this is plausible or not, but if it is possible then it could really help the long term sustainability and security of the project. There are already talks of switching to auxPoW, why not switch to something like ufoPoW if it is possible. Hopefully Gnosis or Meeh can comment as to if this would be possible to do in some way or another. Perhaps it could be done in another way and the way I stated is impossible... either way if it can be done I think it would be a great thing to do.

That is good to know, so that alleviates one of my worries. I think it would go a long ways, as to my other concern of the government already knowing the factorization, to extend the RSA UFO project indefinitely. That way the security of the accumulator can be upgraded via a hard fork when bigger UFOS are found at a later date. That way over time the chance the NSA has already cracked the UFOs gets smaller and smaller.

From my understanding of RSA UFOs, that is not true as Gnosis only received N and there is no way for him to figure out the factorization of N, which is two large unfactorable numbers P and Q. By combining multiple RSA UFOs, I think Anoncoin is using 13, it ensures that the person that solved one of the UFOs in the distributed computing project cannot know the final accumulator, and Gnosis can't either since he doesn't know the factorization of the 13 RSA UFOs. It makes sense to me how it works and you are incorrect in saying Gnosis knows the factorization of N, as without a LOT of computing power it is impossible for him to know that.

The only worry I have about the RSA UFO project is that possibly someone already knows the factorization of N (IE. The government), or someone will later find it out with faster processors in the future. I am not sure if this is a realistic thing to be worried about though, as the only thing I know about this stuff is from doing research on ZeroCoin/Zerocash/Anoncoin. I will try to reach out to the Zerocash Devs to get their opinion on the RSA UFO project, as I would trust their opinion over a random poster on these forums (no offense).

They seem to think that they can, but the answer to that question is not clear as it is based off of random Twitter messages. We could really use some clarification on this by the original ZeroCoin/cash developers.

I think the problem is we are all here discussing something we don't truly understand and never really will be able to understand on a technical level. Seeing as though the ZeroCoin/Zerocash guys aren't really interested in communicating with the cryptocurrency community, there is bound to be misconceptions and misinformation that arises. I take everything everyone says on this stuff with a grain of salt and tend to believe the original people working on the ZeroCoin/Zerocash projects over others. I have asked one of them their opinion on Anoncoin but he didn't answer, so I am on the fence about Anoncoin's implementation of ZeroCoin and the RSA UFO project.. as I don't fully understand both and the ZeroCoin/Zerocash developers haven't commented on it.

I did see Ian Miers' speech at the Bitcoin 2013 conference in person, he struck me as someone that really cares about financial privacy for the betterment of society, and someone that is unlikely to be a shill for the government. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=A7rnE9nqhic

Again, maybe I am naive but if he feels Zerocash is a better solution then who am I to argue with his expertise?

With all that being said. I see Anoncoin's implementation of ZeroCoin, if successful, as being the most anonymous cryptocurrency that exists today. Who knows if Zerocash will ever come to be in a sufficiently trust less manner, and I think this "experiment" (which is how I look at it) is very important and needed.

I am just going off of what they have stated on Twitter. Along with the following statements, they have mentioned the ability to generate the parameters by using multi party computations.. which is basically what the rsa ufo project is doing with ZeroCoin. If you look through their statements on Twitter it doesn't sound much different than they way Anoncoin is computing the ZeroCoin accumulator.

Just to play Devils advocate...

I believe the trust issue has to do with unlimited minting of coins, and if someone were to have the initial parameters they will not be able to break the anonymity.. that is at least what Ian from the Zerocoin/Zerocash project stated on Twitter, so the bolded statement is wrong.

Also it seems that the Zerocash parameters can be generated in the same way you guys have implemented the tea ufo project by the use of multi party computations.

I also read that it is not a case of having to trust everyone involved in the creation of the initial parameters was honest, but you only need to trust that one of them was honest. If 20 people had a part in creating the initial parameters, then you would only need to trust that at least 1 out of those 20 people were honest.

These are almost direct quotes from Ian and Matthew from the ZeroCoin/Zerocash projects.

That being said, Zerocash/ZeroCoin has not been able to release a working product yet, so I think it is good projects like Anoncoin are implementing Zerocoin themselves. There is no way of knowing if Zerocash will come to fruition in a sufficiently trustless manner anyways.