I will be taking a break from this thread for a week or so. This is my last free week before school starts, and I want to get some work done on a web application I am programming. Arguing with agenda-determined idiots is a huge waste of my time. I am not entirely convinced the users posting in this thread are more than one person using multiple sock puppets any ways. FUD away guy(s)... although beware of what you say, I will be back in about a week to prove you wrong.

As I said, anyone gaming the system by making multiple delegates will eventually found out and voted out. You kind of just proved my point. Over time it will be less and less likely that numerous delegate spots are controlled by one person. Furthermore, even if someone is able to gain multiple delegate spots without the knowledge of shareholders it is not a huge deal. The worst they can do is exclude transactions from a block (which would quickly be noticed by stakeholders anyway) which would delay the confirmation of a transaction until the next honest delegate produces a block.

That is not true. Delegates are chosen by what they can provide to stakeholders. Those that can provide the better services/development/marketing/etc will be the ones voted in.

Follow the links next to each delegates name: http://cryptofresh.com/witnesses

You will see that all of them are doing something for stakeholders. Running some service, programming, marketing, user support, documentation, etc... if this is one or even a few people, then these people are doing an inhumanly possible amount of work. Delegate pay is not enough for one person to hire a team to do this work for them, along with each delegates forum, social media, and in-person presence. It is simply not possible to hold many delegate spots unknowingly to stakeholders for an extended amount of time. Maybe Dan Larimer truly is a robot though and holds all of the delegate spots himself...  

Many blockchains are implementing stakeholder voting features, yet you pick out Bitshares to take the brunt of your FUD. Even Nxt, your crowned champion of a cryptocurrency has enabled a voting feature. As I said earlier, if someone forms strategic voting blocks to go against the will of other stakeholders, then that is a really stupid thing to do. The other stakeholders will catch on and sell their stake, hugely and negatively affecting the price per coin. It doesn't make much sense to form strategic voting blocks against the will of the community because of that.

This is intended. In PoS and PoW, stakeholders are unable to choose who benefits from securing the blockchain. dPoS allows stakeholders to choose who profits from the act of securing the blockchain, that way the blockchain can hire employees. Whoever can provide the most value or do the most work for the stakeholders will win the job. This allows stakeholders to "hire employees" who do development, marketing, documentation, user support on the forums, web development, etc.

As I said earlier, it is silly to judge an entire cryptocurrency by one or a few people in its userbase. I could go down the list of crazy/stupid Nxt users, Bitcoin users, <insert cryptocurrency here> users, and use that as a reason to not like the cryptocurrency, but that is stupid to stereotype an entire user base. Do you always stereotype people in general, or do you just stereotype Bitshares users because it fits in your agenda?

Also, who are you to decide what the "original intent" of crypto is or isn't? Technology is opinion and religious agnostic.

You don't understand how it works if you think one person with less than 50% stake can make any changes they want.



You are being hypocritical here. Many cryptocurrencies have introduced features which have inherent "systematic risks", yet you are not attacking them. Even the cryptocurrency you champion, Nxt has introduce systematic risks in a number of features it has implemented. You couldn't be more hypocritical by pushing this point. Nxt's asset exchange, monetary system, and marketplace expose their shareholders to systematic risks. I see very little to no caveats published along with Nxt's marketing of said features. Bitshares must put a caveat on any and all features that expose shareholders to risk, but Nxt (and all other cryptocurrencies that have similar features that you are not trolling) do not have to make sure these caveats are know. This is just supposed to be common sense, right? Nxt users are so much smarter than Bitshares users, so they automatically know the risks involved and no caveats are needed, right? right?

I see the sock puppets are out in full force today, wonderful!  


Maybe you missed what happened in Cyprus when many innocent people had the funds stored in banks stolen?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012%E2%80%9313_Cypriot_financial_crisis

Civil Forfeiture is practically government-sanctioned stealing for the "greater good", and there are many silly laws that governments can use to steal your money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States

Governments forcing citizens to pay for services they don't wish to fund, and/or they don't agree with, and/or is against their religion... is stealing from innocent people. Such as Obamacare, Catholics paying for birth control, paying for someone to sit around and drink beer or do drugs all day while you have to work your ass off (welfare), etc...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

You do not have to be a criminal to have your money stolen by your government, private entities or other people. The examples I listed are only instances of government theft of innocent people's money, not even one instance of private entities or people doing or causing that as well. I could go on and on all day, but my job is not to educate the uneducated, and you guys are wasting enough of my time already having to refute your idiocy-laden posts. Furthermore, Phoenike only mentioned one benefit of Smartcoins, of which there are many. Although, this thread only focuses on negative things about Bitshares so I won't mention them... and as I said, you can do your own research as I'm already wasting too much time here (or just don't do the research and keep FUDing along with your agenda... whatever.)

Is there a clearnet API available for market statistics?

13% stake can be easily overruled by the remaining 87% of stakeholders. Most delegates are known people in the community and Sybil has been mostly mitigated. If someone formed a strategic alliance to rig the voting then that would be dumb on their part, because it would greatly and negatively affect the value of their stake once the other shareholders caught on. They would certainly catch on eventually.. secrets are impossible to keep secret if they involve multiple parties.

All changes needed stakeholder approval. It is unfortunate you didn't get your way and don't agree with the direction the project has gone, however it is ridiculous that you cry about it for the rest of Bitshares' existence. There are many people that have been around since day one that do not feel this way, so the fact that you think they are "liars, cheaters and thieves" is your personal opinion that you are trying to convey as fact.

No one has used that terminology in a very long time, and your use of the word "continually" in that statement makes the statement a lie. It is simply an exaggeration of a past gripe you have with the way Bitshares was originally marketed. These slogans have not been used for a long time, and Bitshares is more careful nowadays to be politically correct. Even still, you cannot fault a technology or a decentralized cryptocurrency because of the words said by a few of its stakeholders. If that is the case, you shouldn't be using any cryptocurrency because there are trolls, liars, cheaters, and thieves in any certain community. For instance, you are one of the most FUD-happy community members around, but I do not fault Nxt (.... a decentralized cryptocurrency ....) for the opinions, propaganda, and writings of one of their users. That is only the sane thing to do.

All cryptocurrencies are inherently risky. There is a risk that any cryptocurrency's value on any certain day can plummet to zero. To fault Bitshares specifically for this risk when all other cryptocurrencies share the same risks is blasphemous. The Bitshares community has addressed black swan events. It was discussed long before Preston brought it up inside the Bitshares community, he simply popularized everyone's knowledge of it. The Bitshares community admits that this risk exists, and as always no one should invest more than they can afford to lose. This goes with any investment.. cryptocurrencies, commodities, stocks, etc... and is common sense. Although the risk exists, it is in my opinion unlikely that it will ever happen. Cryptocurrencies with the volume, liquidity, and market cap of Bitshares simply do not lose over 50% of their value in one day. Smartcoins have worked well for approximately two years now, and have closely followed the value of their real life counterparts- even in a long time bear market Bitshares has experienced. It would take something catastrophic for a black swan event to happen, and again that risk is inherent with any investment- cryptocurrency or not. Hell, that risk even exists with FIAT and many traditionally "safe" holdings.


That is again your opinion passed off as fact. There are many in the Bitshares community that do not feel this way. Again, I'm sorry you don't like the direction that the Bitshares project has taken, but it is ridiculous to FUD it for the rest of its existence because of that. This is why I think you must have some ulterior motive, because no sane person would dedicate their life to doing so. You stated you were an early Bitshares investor, so I assume you dumped Bitshares at the top and now (since it closely competes with your large Nxt holdings) you have dedicated your life to discrediting it.... which is sad and pathetic. My apologies if you are simply insane.

Not in the usual sense of the term, and not in a decentralized manner with the amount of leverage provided by Smartcoins.

That's nice, but "systematic risk" is a blanket statement and that doesn't change the fact your proclamation that "Nubits doesn't have any systematic risk" is false. Go read the last paragraph of the Nubits whitepaper if you think there is no systematic risk, you still seem to have a gross misunderstand of how Nubits works. You need to trust someone will but a Nubit back for approximately $1, and there is a lot of systematic risk involved with that and the process that holds the peg.

It is likely to happen to coins that have low volume, adoption, and liquidity. However, Bitshares since its inception has been a top 5ish coin in regards to volume. Price drops of over 50% in a day do not "happen pretty often" to top 10 market cap, top 5 volume coins. A black swan is a risk that Smartcoins face, however all cryptocurrencies face this possibility. Any cryptocurrency's value can plummet on any certain day, so your problem seems to be with cryptocurrencies in general. Maybe you should simply use FIAT and forget about cryptocurrencies altogether if you want to avoid risk. Faulting Bitshares for being risky yet supporting other cryptocurrencies is hypocritical to say the least.


Smartcoins are wayyy easier to scale as far as the number of assets that can trade than Nubits. For Nubits to expand into many other assets would require a very convoluted network of custodians and voting systems. It would take a small army of people working to hold the peg to issue many different Nubits-styled assets, meanwhile with Bitshares' Smartcoins a small team could do so (and it would require 0 maintenance unlike Nubits' solution.) With smartcoins it takes a few minutes to launch new assets, and then a few more minutes to update the price feed scripts for delegates... after that there is no other work required.. delegates simply run price feed scripts and the free market does the rest. It is clear you still don't understand how Nubits works and the complexity of how it holds its peg if you think Nubits scales better.

I like both Nubits and Smartcoins for different reasons and each have their own weaknesses, but you seem to not know how either of them works (or are simply trolling.) Please go read up on it before responding because I'm not here to spoon feed you. I am spending way too much time in this thread than I would like already... I just hate to see all this FUD go uncontested.

Sorry, I am used to having to defend myself from trolls on here so often that I treat everyone as such until I know they are not a troll. I thought for certain you were a troll because the bolded is false, and shows either an attempt at FUD or a misunderstanding of how Nubits works. Nubits does indeed have systematic risks. The italicized is also an opinion, but it seemed you were stating it as fact.


I am not arguing that Nubits more closely maintains the peg, as it does. It also has liquidity better figured out. I think both solutions have different pros and cons and there is no one superior solution.

I see smartcoins' pros as allowing for the easy issuance of many different assets (gold, silver, nasdaq, s&p, etc.. unlimited), and that they are collateralized at least by 200% worth of BTS. To create many different Nubits-style assets is unrealistic and there is a reason they (NuShares) are only planning on releasing a few FIAT Nubit-style tokens. It also allows for leveraged trading among other things... Smartcoins can earn interest, etc...

I agree with your statement "decentralized crypto currency (including Bitcoin) is a delusion".

This is a quote by Dan Larimer that has stuck with me for a while and was part of the reason I got into supporting alternatives to PoW:

This is part of the main ideology behind dPoS... all consensus algorithms eventually tend towards centralization, so it provides for a method for shareholders to decide who produces blocks (ideally whoever best benefits stakeholders.) A few articles you might find interesting:

http://bytemaster.github.io/article/2015/01/12/Decentralization-Scalability-and-Fault-Tolerance-of-Bitcoin/
https://web.archive.org/web/20150428162046/http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/bitshares/2015/01/04/Delegated-Proof-of-Stake-vs-Proof-of-Work/

This is a similar issue along the same lines involving cryptocurrency trading, the centralization of liquidity/volume, where trading eventually centralizes around the exchange(s) with the most volume and liquidity: http://bytemaster.github.io/article/2015/01/05/The-Future-of-Crypto-Currency-Exchanges/

I think Bytemaster has some of the most sound ideological blog posts on consensus algorithms, and is one of the reasons why I originally got into Bitshares.. sorry to plug Bitshares but I feel the things I brought up are applicable to the conversation.


I feel like there may be some way to do this using oracles and recurring auctions: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=675333.0

I like your idea and I wish you would come back some day. I mostly liked your ideas and ideology. I think you found out the hard way making a successful cryptocurrency is hard work...

A thread on Bitsharestalk made me think of this thread. I think I may of thought of an idea that could make this work. I had abandoned this idea after the (in hindsight it was quite obvious) realization that if there was a recurring IPO, this could have a largely negative effect on the market price during each recurring IPO. I think I have come up with a way to mitigate that issue... instead of having a recurring IPO, have a recurring auction for tokens. Here is the idea as I currently conceive it:

A. Far advance warning of an altcoin's distribution/fundraising, with a clear objective and roadmap for the project, and a set timeframe for the distribution/fundraising
B. A working closed source beta, to be open-sourced after the original distribution period
C. PoW distribution (50% of the genesis stake)
Ca. Use several different mining algorithms, with each having an their own separate difficulty and the same chance to find the next block (implemented in several coins.. MyriadCoin was the first)
Cb. Use at least one algorithm per different types of mining hardware (one for Scrypt ASICs, one for SHA256 ASICs, one for CPUs, one for ATI GPUs, one for NVIDIA GPUs, etc..)
Cc. The point of this is to allow people with all types of minin hardware to participate so it is inclusive of everyone.
D. A regular IPO distribution (50% of the genesis stake)
Da. This is to allow people to participate in the initial distribution that do not want to hassle with mining equipment.
E. Launch said closed source beta into the wild after the distribution/fund-raising has occurred and switch to PoS
F. To mitigate claims of having an unfair PoS distribution to early insiders...
Fa. Have an annual auction governed by smart contracts
Fb. The amount of tokens sold in the annual auctions should be reduced each year until eventually there are no more auctions or coins released
Fc. This is intended to mimic the block reduction scheme and distribution of most PoW currencies

Instead of recurring IPOs, I now think recurring auctions would be better. This way the auction would tend towards the current market price while allowing a small discount for new investors. I think this would have less impact on the market price during the recurring auctions. You could use different types of auctions.. I haven't really thought of which kind would be best. IE. dutch auction, smart market, sealed-bid, auction market etc...

Keep scrolling to see different types of auctions: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dutchauction.asp?layout=infini&v=3A

It is as close to the real thing that exists without either:

A. Paying people to more closely maintain the peg like Nushares/Nubits does (and diluting Nushares stakeholders to do so)

or

B. Centralizing the process like Tether


The fact of the matter is the market pegs are working with a small spread. That spread is inevitable while maintaining the decentralized nature of Smartcoins/Nubits. Unless you have a better solution (do please share), then you are making much ado about nothing here. Congrats on making a few ridiculously ignorant posts (that are seemingly genuine) for your signature campaign though.

All cryptocurrencies trend towards centralization. PoW cryptocurrencies tend towards centralization due to the economies of scale that surround mining. PoS coins tend towards centralization to large stakeholders. Bitshares views centralization as an inevitability, and maintains it should be embraced and leveraged rather than fought. You obviously have an issue with this, but there is no scam involved as you state. This is out in the open and Daniel has admitted this since very early in Bitshares' existence.

You focus on one of the few shortcomings of dPoS while ignoring the numerous benefits. The stakeholders can hire employees. In other words, stakeholders can choose who profits off of (and how much) securing the blockchain. They can choose the people that provide the most value to stakeholders (support, development, advertising, documentation, web development, services, etc..) In Bitcoin and other forms of PoS, you have no control over who profits from securing the blockchain and whether their best interests are aligned with stakeholders (or not.) Since the 101 witnesses maintain consensus amongst themselves it allows for a highly scalable blockchain.. the most scalable blockchain that currently exists. We have reached over 500 TPS at peak and around 100 TPS stable. No other cryptocurrency that exists in the wild can claim that.

You say the Larimers are in control, yet in actuality Bitshares stakeholders are happy to have CNX in control. This is evidenced by witness voting, as CNX can be overruled at any time if the stakeholders so choose (since they own less than a 13% stake.) Bitshares stakeholders trust CNX to do the right thing and deliver because they have in the past and have proven themselves, and in the event they do not then stakeholders can remove them from power. That is the beauty of delegated proof of stake, and how it is supposed to work. That's cool if you don't like that, but to call them liars and thieves and/or Bitshares a scam because of that is disingenuous in the least considering everything is out in the open and done transparently.

Preston Byrne is an idiot FUDer that just wanted attention like you, and he has been proven wrong thus far since SmartCoins (formerly bitAssets) have maintained their peg for almost two years now. Linking to those blog posts, which are heavily weighted in personal opinion, as definitive proof that Smartcoins are broken is hilarious. Especially considering there is factual data that proves Smartcoins have closely resembled the value of their real life counterparts for almost 2 years. Yet, those opinion pieces are obviously correct so lets disregard all of the factual data and base our opinion on someone else's opinion.  

Synereo is largely unproven at this point. So you're telling me you've read the source code line for line and understand it already? LOL. You should probably give it more than a few months before declaring that there are no backdoors.. no one reputable has been able to review the source code yet. Let's wait and see if they deliver before championing them, because at this point it's vaporware. Many projects have released open sourced code and have yet to launch after years of development. Stating vaporware is a better investment than a cryptocurrency that is battle and time tested, has built a network effect, community, services, supporting companies and ecosystem, etc... is a ridiculous statement in which rationality is negated by your personal vendetta against Bitshares.

It is impossible to directly peg a token exactly to the value of any asset while still remaining decentralized. However, Nushares/Nubits and Bitshares' Smartcoins have closely held their peg for years now. They are not exact pegs, but they are close enough for the value to remain stable. Bitshares has been in a bear market for over a year now, however 1 bitUSD is still within approximately 5% value of a US dollar with an approximately 3% spread on the bid/ask sides. bitUSD is designed to closely resemble the value of a dollar, while at the same time being worth at least one US dollar. In a bear market, people can expect to pay a small premium by design.

https://bitshares.org/technology/price-stable-cryptocurrencies/


I do not understand how you can call Smartcoins a failure unless you too are simply FUDing or trolling here.

I can't read your mind, so unless you explain your point there's no way for me (or anyone else) to refute or understand it. Interesting debate tactic though.  

I am an investor in both Nushares and Bitshares. I don't own more than 6% of my portfolio in any certain ALT cryptocurrency. I just like to defend Bitshares because it is a great project and there aren't many people to defend it on here and a lot of religious Bitshares' FUDers.

With that being said, your "arguments" are hilariously ridiculous. Unfortunately, you make me FUD something of which I am a shareholder. Don't get me wrong... I like Nushares/Nubits for certain reasons, but some of your statements are delusional, and both Nushares/Nubits solution and Bitshares solution both have their pros and cons.


I never said there was an exact peg, I said that a smartcoins' value closely resembles that of their real life counterparts. That is not a very big amount of variance, especially considering people are willing to buy that bitUSD back from you above $1. Currently the highest ask is $1.0322775, so that's less than a 2% spread. Pretty impressive really for a fully decentralized derivative.


Yes, centralized solutions can hold a tighter peg. What is your point? Bitshares is a decentralized solution...

While it is true that Nubits more closely maintains its peg and has more volume/liquidity, Smartcoins will improve in those categories over time as they are more widely adopted. Nubits dilutes Nushares' shareholders to provide that liquidity, so their added liquidity comes at a cost.

Furthermore, Smartcoins are better suited for trading numerous assets- with the Nushares/Nubits it is a PITA to peg different smart contracts to different assets. There is a reason they are only planning on expanding into several currencies- EUR, CNY, and the basket FIAT index.. whatever it's called. With Smartcoins you can easily issue a derivative that closely resembles the value of anything without much effort- Oil, Potatoes, Silver, Gold, S&P, Nasdaq, any FIAT, etcetra. This is not possible with Nushares/Nubits solution without setting up an elaborate network of market makers which do indeed introduce systematic risks contrary to your statement below (among other systematic risks involved with Nubits/Nushares.)

Smartcoins are backed by at least 200% collateral worth of BTS tokens. Nubits is backed by a promise that the Nubits will be bought back for a little less than $1, and you say there is no systematic risks...  

You obviously do not understand how Nubits or Bitshares holds its peg if you think this. This statement is pure blasphemy I'm not even going to waste my time refuting it. Everyone can do their own research.

What an uneducated & baseless statement... what does "incompetent peg system" even mean? Please inform us commoners.

Compelling argument, you should sign up for the debate team at your elementary school.

You are not scared of Bitshares? To my knowledge you are a huge Nxt shill. You have to be jealous that Bitshares has one-upped Nxt in numerous ways... a better PoS implementation, a larger market cap than Nxt, more volume and liquidity than Nxt, more quality innovation than Nxt, more development than Nxt, more features than Nxt, a much prettier wallet than Nxt, etc... no, of course you're not scared.

You've only spent hours- no days- no weeks- trolling about how terrible Bitshares is because you have a heart of gold and want to play the white knight of alternative cryptocurrencies, saving the defenceless lambs that inhabit these subforums. You being the perfect little angel that you are have no ulterior motives. Get real... why else would you dedicate you entire existence to FUDing Bitshares any chance you can get? You must of spent days doing so, and you have no incentive, huh? You're just a stand up guy... Puh-leeeez.

People are using Bitshares right now, so your statement is at the very least misleading. "Greatly increasing systematic risks" is yet another exaggeration. Smartcoins have very closely resembled the value of their real life counter parts for almost 2 years. When will this systematic risk you speak of come into play? You probably shouldn't go outside because it greatly increases your chances of getting hit by lightning too.  

You champion Nxt, and at the same time ignore all of the systematic risk that their implementations of different features introduce. The "modern trading systems" introduce systematic risks as well yet you don't mention that. You are such a hypocrite, as further evidenced by you recently championing Synereo when they have yet to prove anything to anyone.. there is much more risk in Synereo at this point than an established cryptocurrency like Bitshares.

No one, because they can buy 1 bitUSD for $1.053 USD right now on Bitshares' decentralized exchange. All of your statements are grossly exaggerated with the purpose of spreading FUD about Bitshares. I'm not sure exactly what your motives are, and maybe I'm wrong about you trying to prop up your Nxt investment, but your intentions are crystal clear. I can see right through you and your sock puppets.

@altcoinUK

The cryptocurrencies that have been developed purely by volunteers at no cost to the stakeholders are years behind Bitshares on a technological level. Hell, the same could be said for almost all cryptocurrencies that have raised thousands to millions of dollars. Feel free to take a look... the feature set: https://bitshares.org/technology/ or the fully featured web wallet: https://bitshares.openledger.info/#/

Being on the cutting edge of technology has a price. Cryptocurrency speculators are historically used to the development of their cryptocurrency being funded by donations. Historically, a small percentage of stakeholders donate a measly fee and in return they get unimpressive development which is developed at a snails pace. Bitshares operates differently... and that frightens people. People are mostly afraid of change and cheap. Most are afraid to spend a dollar now to make ten dollars down the road.

It take big balls to be a Bitshares investor, as Bitshares has done things differently and refused to conform since its inception. We do not buy tokens and pray that a greater fool comes along and buys them at a higher price like most other cryptocurrencies. In Bitshares, stakeholders buy tokens and then donate a portion of said tokens to the development of a cutting edge cryptocurrency, which in turn has consequently positioned itself to thrive in the years to come of the "cryptocurrency wars".

Most cryptocurrencies can only dream of having the technological capabilities that Bitshares has already implemented, and the truly scary part... Bitshares stakeholders are not done yet. We are still funding the development of next generation features with both feet on the gas pedal. You feel free to bag hold your cryptocurrency that is developed at a snails pace with unimpressive results, and we will send rations down to your starving earthling population from the moon. The price is quite unimpressive right now and has been falling for quit some time, but that is because we are in the process of throwing the weak hands off the rocket ship so we can approach our final destination (the moon.)

People are intimidated by Bitshares, as evidenced by this thread and all of the sock puppets posting in it. We are real competitors in the cryptocurrency space, and they are scared of that. They have even gone so far as to penetrate our own forums to try and inject negativity into every conversation. Fear Bitshares bagholders, as the fools that play a part in the greater fool theory will eventually dry up and the quality blockchains will rise above the rest.

I would be lying if I said it wasn't a risky play, but I have put my money where my mouth is and I think Maidsafe will eventually deliver.

I also invested in SJCX and SIA though to mitigate the risk, as both of those coins are developing similar projects and/or going after similar markets.

Lately, I have been on a bit of a diversification kick.. the only coin in which I hold more than 6% of my portfolio in is Bitcoin (which sits at approximately 50% of my portfolio.)

Same, but with 0.4.8 beta

Sure! (Bitcointalk needs a tipping bot...)