They are not exactly the same between PoW and DPoS even though I used the same numbering for both. I will not write the ones for DPoS at this time. For PoW, they are: Satoshi’s Proof-of-Work
1. Permissionless free market to stand up a consensus ordering (i.e. mining) node. <--- not a flaw, but it is a flaw of DPoS
2. Power-law mining distribution is unstable trending toward winner-take-all devolution.
3. Transaction fees are not a free market because of the block size, regardless whether block size is fixed or variable.
4. No asynchronous concurrency of transaction ordering for enhanced scaling and throughput (although resilency and liveness are provided by miners competing to produce the next block). Only the node that produces the next block may add transactions during the block period.
5. Long range retroactive chain forks (aka long-con attack) if quantum computers appear.
6. 51% attack on minority blocks can’t be objectively observed.
7. Orphans blocks. High transaction confirmation latency. Confirmation only probabilistic, never final. Burning must exceed double-spend value.
8. Wasteful and inefficient.
There is a lot of assuming/guessing here, but here it goes...    1. (this flaw only applies to dPoS). From what I have gathered (very limited time), your solution is a hybrid, but is still similar to dPoS. It seems you are referring to the PoW part of your design, which is much more permission-less than DPoS?* 2. The mining of all forms of PoW (as they currently exist) can be exploited due to economies of scale, which tends towards winner take all. Agreed. That means you have conceived a new PoW consensus algorithm that is immune to economies of scale? Interesting... 3. Since your model is a PoW/dPoS hybrid, I assume your model pays transaction fees evenly to stakeholders and/or destroys transaction fees so everyone benefits in additional equity (the latter of which is exactly what dPoS does, so that would make sense)? Miners can still be compensated by competing for blocks and earning a subsidy when they do find a block. 4. If the network's nodes can agree that a transaction happened by a majority consensus and the sender paid a sufficient transaction fee, then there is no reason why you could not allow multiple stakeholders/miners to put transactions into blocks (rather than just the person who found the block, if they refused to do so)? 5. TPoS? 6. I got nothing... 7 & 8. Enter the DPoS aspect of the hybrid... On 7 you even said " Burning must exceed double-spend value," which perhaps validates the assumption I made on the latter half of #3. ... The destruction of transaction fees for the betterment of all stakeholders in DPoS is referred to burning. * I still argue PoW is not permission-less, but can concede it is much more permission-less than all forms of PoS. |
|
|
|
Teaser from my white paper: Proposed Improvement Overview
The key design innovations are:
1. [redacted]
2. [redacted]
3. [redacted]
a) [redacted]
b) [redacted]
c) [redacted]
d) [redacted]
4. [redacted]
This design rectifies all the major flaws of DPoS and Satoshi's proof-of-work.
----|-PoW-|-DPoS-
#1 | #2 | #2
#2 | #1 | #1
#3 | #3a | #3a
#4 | #3d | #3d
#5 | #1 | #4
#6 | #3b | _
#7 | #3 | _
#8 | #3 | _
What are the 8 major flaws you perceive (keep it concise, please)? Then, we can try to guess what the key design innovations are.  |
|
|
|
|
Personally,
I don't care whether Zcash or Zclassic wins out. I am just happy to see Zerocoin/Zerocash tech finally make it to a live blockchain!!
Whether Monero or Zcash/Classic end up being the go-to solution, again I don't care.
All of them have their subjective pros and cons, but all of them bring a much needed layer of privacy to legacy blockchains.
|
|
|
|
I ordered a soft copy of this from MinerJones shortly before leaving town for work in July. I just go back in town and was excited to check out the book. I would like to make a correction on the CryptoVest section. Hopefully this can be updated in future revisions of the book.
I have no affiliation with the "UK investment club" named Cryptovest, and their logo at the top of the CryptoVest section in the book is not mine. They simply hijacked the name CryptoVest shortly after I came up with it. I am not sure whether they did this unintentionally, or intentionally, nor do I really care. The point being is that CryptoVest physical cryptocurrencies have nothing to do with any investment club, and never have.
ouuuch, that's a big error. Had I known this 6 hours earlier, I could have easily changed it. but now, doing so would mean up to 5 days of additional delay, and I don't think that is fair for everyone. That said, I will certainly update future editions. No worries. I would appreciate updating it in future editions, and I just wanted to make sure everyone knew that I have no association with the CryptoVest investment club. Thanks! |
|
|
|
|
I ordered a soft copy of this from MinerJones shortly before leaving town for work in July. I just go back in town and was excited to check out the book. I would like to make a correction on the CryptoVest section. Hopefully this can be updated in future revisions of the book.
I have no affiliation with the "UK investment club" named Cryptovest, and their logo at the top of the CryptoVest section in the book is not mine. They simply hijacked the name CryptoVest shortly after I came up with it. I am not sure whether they did this unintentionally, or intentionally, nor do I really care. The point being is that CryptoVest physical cryptocurrencies have nothing to do with any investment club, and never have.
|
|
|
|
I will be out of town for about 4 months starting Monday
I am back home now. Let me know if you would like to buy some coins. Same price... $10 a coin, plus shipping. All coins are unloaded. |
|
|
|
|
Bumping this thread on the news of the Bitfinex hack. How many more exchange defaults are needed before most people realize.a switch to a decentralized exchange is necessary?
Mt. Gox, Bitcoinica, Bitfloor, Bitcurex, Canadian Bitcoins, Mintsy, Cryptsy, Bitfinex ...
|
|
|
|
|
@hozer
Since it has been trade-able, SBD has performed much better as stable / US dollar pegged cryptocurrency than Nubits. It also has wayyy more volume and market depth. $135k in volume vs $5k in volume... It also pays decent interest which is cool
I am not sure if you are trolling, but SBD should at the very least be brought up in any reasonably objective conversation regarding market pegged assets.
|
|
|
|
Thank you sir. Cryptovest was probably my very first physical bitcoin, so its an honor.
Awesome! Thanks for including me, this is an awesome project. I look forward to hopefully snagging one of these from you! |
|
|
|
^^^ Looking good. I wish my signature was 1/2 as sexy as that.  I got my signed labels and holograms in the mail today. |
|
|
|
ps: no need to quote me telling steemit flaws like "whales are ruling it" or "no distribution/premine etc etc", i know all that and i'm against all that too... but still a good platform.
Sums up my thoughts well too. I don't recommend buying STEEM, but might as well try to cash in by creating content. The only thing it costs is your time. |
|
|
|
OK, how do we scam the scammers.
Sign up Post cool shit ?? Profit |
|
|
|
Can somebody explain to me why, in terms of he has this hype?
Yes, there is a platform with articles and pay for them. But is this something new?
All of the Steem threads are being started by people that are not even involved with or using Steen. It is a sock puppet smear campaign, similar to the sock puppet FUD campaigns previously mounted against Mine to and Ethereum. Some are pro-Steem to make it seem like the Steel community is attempting to pump up the value in a scamingly way, and some are anti-Steem to get across the true intent of the FUD campaign. All are meant to create a negative opinion of Steen. |
|
|
|
|
It looks like the sock puppet army has more sock puppets than I ever imagined...
|
|
|
|
If I vote on something new, it gets maybe to the 5th or 6th page of trending. Multiply the volume on the site by 10x and that becomes the 50th page. The really highly ranked posts will have many votes from non-whales, just a they do now, but by an even greater degree.
Volume doesn't matter, as the content is organized by the SP power behind the up votes. 10x the volume does not mean your up vote will go 10x pages down, as you have way more SP than most. Also, you are ignoring bandwagon voting. A post which has a whale vote is much more likely to get dolphin/minnow votes because it is much more likely to make the front page and make a decent curation reward. The dolphin, fish and minnow votes are mainly a windfall result of the whale vote. As long as content is displayed by whatever content has the most SP behind its up votes, you can't seriously look at this chart and say that whales will become irrelevant... Doing the math myself... the top 24 accounts own 47% of the SP in the voting pool (after omitting the Steemit account considering it doesn't vote.)  |
|
|
|
Whales will become totally irrelevant when the user base and posting volume increases by 10x or 100x or even 1000x. There just aren't that many whales and whales have the same voting power restrictions as anyone else. A rare whale sighting will be a big deal.
Whales will still have a huge amount of sway as far as deciding what content gets put on the front page. When there are 4 to 10 posts a minute, the "new" tab is useless and it is impossible to read all or even a majority of new posts. To show up on all the other tabs, you need to have a substantial amount of SP up voting your post. The dolphins, fish and minnows aren't able to see a post to be able to up vote it unless it already has some serious SP behind it. The most likely source is votes from whale(s). Enough dolphins, fish and minnows are not going to be able to find a post to give it enough up votes to outpace that of one or a few whale up votes. |
|
|
|
Last day to buy coins from me. I will be out of town for about 4 months starting Monday. I have already exited the Ebay market, so that is wide open for anyone that wants to flip these. Buyers Beware:This Ebay listing is being advertised as a Special First Edition coin, but the picture shows a Regular First Edition coin. Special First Edition coins have a window in the hologram showing the firstbits, Regular First Edition coins do not. Regular First Edition coins may have been assembled by the buyer and not by myself, so there is a bigger potential for getting scammed when buying these coins from third parties. The coin in this listing is not a Special First Edition coin: http://www.ebay.com/itm/ONE-CryptoVest-Physical-LITECOIN-SPECIAL-First-Edition-Cryptocoin-Crypto-/262533815188?hash=item3d203c1b94:g:cMYAAOSwbsBXjjCe |
|
|
|
That frees up $95,040 a day. What would be a better use of this money?
Leave it unallocated at least until it is determined that some sort of replacement liquidity incentives aren't needed. Lack of liquidity is potentially a catastrophic problem in this system, with most of the supply locked up tight, and the pegged asset requiring high liquidity to serve its purpose (being convertible in practice at close to the pegged price). If replacement liquidity incentives are needed then my vote goes to elected liquidity providers at this point (who would be charged not only with providing general and useful liquidity but also explicitly spending their allocated funds to help maintain the peg). I don't know of a good structure for autonomous liquidity incentives. Pretend for a moment that it was determined that liquidity incentives are not necessary. Would the idea make content curation more fair for content creators? Or is the idea broken somehow? |
|
|
|
So, liquidity incentives look like they may go bye bye. That frees up $95,040 a day. What would be a better use of this money? What if the money could be used to pay electable curators? I see two benefits: - This would even out the money distributed from front page posts, which make thousands, to posts making pennies or dollars.
- It would also diversify the content that makes it to the front page.
Electable curators would be elected by stake, similar to how delegates are elected, and each person elected would receive a special token named DSP (delegated SP). DSP would not earn any curation rewards for up votes, and elected curators would not be able to power it down, but instead each elected curator would receive a set wage per day for curating. However, when it comes to content curation rewards for content creators, DSP would be one and the same as SP. $95,040 per day is a lot of money. You could realistically pay 2,376 part time electable curators $40 per day. They could each receive an amount of DSP equal to the amount of SP that has voted for them separately, or they could each receive an equal amount of DSP as determined by some equation (like... the average of the top 101 SP account totals, with the #1 spot (steemit) not being a part of the equation.) The whales may not like the idea, but they really need to think of ways to make the system more fair before it collapses on them. Just another half baked idea from yours truly...  What do you think? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
