Bitcoin Forum
May 11, 2024, 01:37:19 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 [50] 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 ... 202 »
981  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: PoS is far inferior to PoW - why are so many people advocating switching to PoS on: November 12, 2014, 07:55:27 PM
How do you fix the past?

If someone had 51% of a Proof Of Waste coin's hash power, what can you do to prevent him forking the chain?
The same way as with Proof of Shit coins. So why are we discussing this aspect?
Duh. I was making fun of your question as any decentralized consensus algo is vulnerable to some type of 51% attack.

DPoS
We are discussing PoS versus PoW here, and why people support PoS specifically.
So.. you are going to cherry pick the version of PoS that best fits your argument? DPoS is PoS, it is just a variant of PoS. There are many PoS variants and people all too often wrongly refer to them as all having the same pros and cons. Misinformation on PoS is spread in an echo chamber around here.

Quote from: CoinHoarder link=topic=848440.msg9523003#date=1415819215
You would need to buy up 51% of the currency supply to use this attack vector.
Just as it happens for many coins an exchange owns more than 51% of the supply. They paid NOTHING to obtain it. You are entrusting them directly (or indirectly when they get "hacked") to not fork your coin.
Provide proof 51% of the currency supply of any PoS coin are on centralized exchanges. This seems like a wild claim that you cannot back up and I wouldn't be surprised if it is wrong. Volume on all coins is split amongst exchanges so this risk is mitigated, even if 51% of the currency supply did happen to be on exchanges (which it isn't.)

Let's consider Proof Of Waste for a second. 51% of Bitcoin's hash power is on 2 to 3 mining pools. The paid NOTHING to obtain it. You are entrusting them directly (or indirectly when they get "hacked") to not fork your coin. By the way... this statement I can back up with facts and readily available data. Wink

See how dumb this argument is? Proof Of Waste supporters grasp at straws all day every day. Yes, PoS has vulnerabilities, but so does Proof Of Waste. PoW supporters ignore its vulnerabilities when talking about PoS as if its shit doesn't stink, when in actuality a lot of the arguments they make can be applied to PoW.
982  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: PoS is far inferior to PoW - why are so many people advocating switching to PoS on: November 12, 2014, 07:06:55 PM
You just have to buy 51% of the currency or track down majority of stakeholders and compromise their private keys. Much cost free

lots of people seem to believe this (I think it's even mentioned in Sunny King's PPC paper), but it's not accurate: you need 51% of the actively staking coin-age. That's much, much, less than 51% of the currency.
I had some ideas to help fix this, I'm working on it.

Peercoin PoS is not the same as NXT PoS, the latter doesn't use coin-age.

it doesn't matter, it has the same probblem, just replace "coin-age" by "coins".
form their "whitepaper" (actually a wiki):

Quote
tokens must be stationary within an account for 1,440 blocks before they can contribute to the block generation process

this means all coins that are used for transfers cannot be staken and do not count toward the total of which you need 51%
moreover, lots of holders do not stake, so it's not 51% of coins, it's 51% of coins being actively at stake

...and it get worse if you consider NXT has punishments for not staking...

DPoS doesn't suffer from this problem. You would need to buy up 51% of the currency supply to use this attack vector.

Also the Bitshares community believes DPoS is immune to a NaS attack. No one has been able to prove us wrong yet.

More about DPoS: http://bitshares.org/delegated-proof-of-stake/
Even more about DPoS: http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/DPOS
Old discussions on DPoS: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4009.0
Discussions regarding "nothing at stake" attacks: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=6584.0
More discussion about NaS attack: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=6638.0
983  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: PoS is far inferior to PoW - why are so many people advocating switching to PoS on: November 12, 2014, 07:03:18 PM
If you reverse PoS and PoW in your post, then your post would be 100% accurate and correct Smiley
Doesn't it cost nothing to attack a PoS coin? While you must use actual resources to attempt to attack a PoW coin?

Exactly, I thought attacking PoS coin is much more cost free (next to nothing) than attacking PoW coin.

You just have to buy 51% of the currency or track down majority of stakeholders and compromise their private keys. Much cost free

lots of people seem to believe this (I think it's even mentioned in Sunny King's PPC paper), but it's not accurate: you need 51% of the actively staking coin-age. That's much, much, less than 51% of the currency.
I had some ideas to help fix this, I'm working on it.
How do you fix the past?

If someone had 51% stake share at one point, what can you do to prevent him forking the chain?
How do you fix the past?

If someone had 51% of a Proof Of Waste coin's hash power, what can you do to prevent him forking the chain?
984  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Invest in OpenBazaar? on: November 08, 2014, 06:43:49 PM
Is it possible to invest in OpenBazaar now or in the future?  Are they going to disperse a coin?

No
985  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Dear Would Be Drug Marketplace Operators on: November 06, 2014, 07:54:13 PM
@OP - I will take your feedback into consideration.
















@FBI - Just kidding. Cheesy
986  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Bitshares Newsletter (October) - Bitshares Merger & Self Funded Growth on: November 05, 2014, 12:11:57 AM
I wanted to warn anyone that may feel like posting in this thread that you may receive negative trust feedback from TaunSew. He has been sending people negative trust feedback claiming they are my sock puppets or that they are "supporting a scam." I am sorry for the people that have been negatively affected by this, but obviously I have no control over what TaunSew says or does.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=230227
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=230227
987  Other / Archival / Re: RIP Coinsource on: November 04, 2014, 11:49:07 PM
Even less reputable than Coindesk's bias

At least they are infinitely more reputable than you are. Smiley

I don't own any sock puppets btw (see TaunSew's recent trust feedback.) I give the mods permission to confirm this if they like.

Your ridiculous accusations negatively affect your credibility even more so.
988  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [PRE-ANN][ZEN][Pre-sale] Zennet: Decentralized Supercomputer - Official Thread on: November 04, 2014, 09:39:14 PM
HI GATRA!

dpos has the drawbacks of pos while adding centralization.

I agree, and am/will-be trying to deter Ohad from going dpos over the course of our irc discussions.  I'm personally not as concerned with the "drawbacks of POS" (particularly in this case) as I am with the "adding centralization" but I understand that both concerns are quite valid.

@gatra - Can you describe what you consider to be "the drawbacks of PoS", because all PoS systems are different and have a different set of pros or cons. One drawback in one PoS algorithm may not be applicable to others.

@both of you - DPoS works under the realization that all forms of PoW tend towards centralization anyways, and it gives a way for stakeholders to manage that centralization. I see it as being better than PoW in terms of centralization.

PoW centralizes around centralized mining pools where users aggregate their hash power. For instance, with Bitcoin about 50% of the hash power is centralized to 3 Bitcoin pools. I would venture to say DPoS is less centralized than this, seeing as though there are 101 delegates that thus control less than 1% of the network's processing power. Furthermore, centralization is mitigated by being able to vote in and out delegates... stake holders choose who secures the block chain and if they are doing a poor job of it then they can be removed. This also provides another benefit as with PoW you cannot decide who profits off of securing the blockchain, but with DPoS you can vote in delegates that are developing code for the project, marketing, or building 3rd party services. It is a form of funding development for the cryptocurrency that uses DPoS.

If the PoW algorithm you choose, or you make a new one an Zennet is wildly successful, is a popular one then ASICs are sure to be made eventually as soon as it is economically feasible. This centralizes mining power to big mines which are setup in places where power is cheap and cold environments where the equipment can be cooled cheaply. Furthermore, people with deep pockets get advantages by developing their own hardware for a fraction of the cost consumers can purchase it and via bulk discounts. With DPoS this type of centralization will not occur.

Quote
If you had PoW, I see many cool forms of arbitrage happening: being a provider and "outsourcing" to cheaper providers, using coins to pay a provider to mine coins for you, etc.

Possibly, but it is likely that the system will be self-balancing such that the arbitrage smiles are very rare and short lived.  If a publisher could profitably mine with some providers' resource then rationally that provider would pull that resource from the network and instead apply it to the same mining process themselves for even greater profit - as they will not need to be paying some provider's fee on top.  In fact, this briefly came up in discussion just yesterday, after someone out there (and "out there", heh) mistakenly inferred that people might rent resource to mine bitcoins - in something of a decentralized cloud mining style - which is ofc highly irrational.
You guys bring up a good point here and this (although you don't seem to realize it) is another reason against PoW. Zennet will be renting out people's processing power, and it is foolish to think that the people renting out this processing power will not act in their best interests. The Zennet supercomputer could become unusable during times when mining is more profitable than renting out the processing power, rendering the service useless for a matter of time. With DPoS this would not be cause for concern.

Quote
Quote
The coin is degined for micropayments. I'm not sure (yet don't know) if it'll be economic or convenient or safe for other uses.
what does this mean? I can't think of any design decision that would be influenced by that, because... aren't micropayments handled off-chain?
You may want a fast block generation rate, but, what else?

No, the micropayments will be on-chain!  Precisely the reason that this system uses zencoin instead of bitcoin or othercoin is because it will require a chain specifically oriented toward facilitating continual micro-payments for accounted resource.

This was one of the most difficult points for Ohad to get across to me, but since he has I now agree with him... the particular nature of this coin/network likely makes it of lesser utility for general purpose use.  I'm sure it will still see general purpose use, especially for things like services/add-ons related to zennet itself but the architecture is being assembled explicitly without this being a design goal, unlike most coins.
It is ironic that all of these topics can be tied into DPoS... DPoS is more suited for micro payments than Bitcoin... as I said it is a fast and efficient consensus algorithm. Block times can be reduced to as fast as 10 seconds with an average confirmation time of 5 seconds, and each confirmation is more secure than one Bitcoin confirmation (or any other coin that is based off of Bitcoin's PoW). In the time it takes Bitcoin to produce a single block a DPOS system can have your transaction verified by 20% of the shareholders and by the time Bitcoin claims the transaction is almost irreversible (6 blocks, 1 hour) your transaction under DPOS has been verified by 100% of the shareholders through their delegates.

I don't think DPoS should be written off as a valid option until all of the details are discussed. There is a lot of misinformation that exists about it and some are "set in their ways" so to speak around these forums as to PoW being the only answer for consensus. I know there are a lot of other people that disagree with this sentiment, although they might not be here posting in this needle in the haystack.
989  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [PRE-ANN][ZEN][Pre-sale] Zennet: Decentralized Supercomputer - Official Thread on: November 04, 2014, 08:14:18 AM
I think DPoS is a nice choice of consensus algorithms. It is very fast and efficient, and would be perfect for a project like this. You should look into using the "Bitshares toolkit" to see if it might give you a head start on what you are trying to accomplish.

This is a very ambitious and interesting project.. I will be following along and I wish you luck!

Here is more info on the Bitshares Toolkit:

Wiki: https://github.com/BitShares/bitshares/wiki
Github Repo: https://github.com/BitShares/bitshares
990  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Darknet markets choose Dark coin on: November 03, 2014, 09:16:08 PM
Exchanges won't be allowed to trade that stuff forever.

Decentralized exchanges are coming...

An exchange on the deep web would work as well.. they can't regulate it if they can't find the exchange's servers or owners.
991  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Service Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: CoinMarketCap.com - Market Cap Rankings of All Cryptocurrencies! on: November 03, 2014, 03:35:19 AM
Hi Gliss.

Great work with coin market cap, I am sure you get a ton of web traffic. I have a couple suggestions for you.

After clicking on a certain currency the graph of the market cap and price is very nice and easy to read. Once you get down to the graph on the volume though, it leaves a little to be desired. If there was large fluctuations in volume for the time period you have selected, the volume chart can sometimes be pretty useless as it's hard to tell what the volume is. This is due to the lines being so small in some cases, the range on the left not being detailed enough, and because when you hover over the lines no number value pops up (like on the market cap/price graph). I think it would go a long ways towards the usefulness of the volume graph to at the very least make it to where the numbers will pop up when the volume lines are hovered over. Perhaps you can think of some other way of making it easier.. there are not a lot of places that track historical volume or at least historical volume aggregated from multiple exchanges so I think this would be a nice feature of the website.

I also request that Nubits and bitUSD be treated similarly. Nubits is currently listed as a currency and bitUSD is listed as an asset, yet they both share their blockchain with their main tokens.. NuShares and BitsharesX respectively. Nubits and bitUSD are both cryptos whose values are pegged to the US dollar, and share block chains with other tokens. It is contradictory to have both Nubits and Nushares as separate listings under Currencies when bitUSD, bitBTC, etc, are listed under Assets but BitsharesX is listed under Currencies. I think some sort of policy should be set for tokens that share block chains as to which should be listed as Currencies and which should be listed as Assets. That way everything is fair & organized.

Thanks for the great website!
992  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Are Etherum and Emunie scamcoins? on: November 03, 2014, 02:19:11 AM
9 months after the poll was started and neither of the coins have launched yet. Has anyone's opinions changed?

I think it's too early to tell, but I am leaning towards no on both. I'm not saying they are a good investment, just that I don't think they are a scam.

Unfortunately, they both are taking forever to launch and pretty much lost the first mover advantage. There are a few coins that have implemented or are planning on implementing Turing complete scripting, and there are a few coins that have a lot of features and a new code base a la eMunie.

They could still be successful but the competition is much harder now than when they announced their projects.
993  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Bitshares Newsletter (October) - Bitshares Merger & Self Funded Growth on: November 03, 2014, 02:07:36 AM
Thanks for posting this CoinHoarder!
 Grin

No worries. I am glad so many people enjoy the newsletter. I will make sure to update the thread monthly. The Newsletters should of been cross posted a long time ago.
994  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Crypto ICO's are killing Bitcoin. on: November 03, 2014, 02:03:27 AM
I think ICOs would not be as popular if Bitcoin would be more open minded towards making changes, improving the ease of use, and adding features. Bitcoin drove me to alternative currencies due to its shortcomings. Using Bitcoin is like playing Nintendo 64 in 2014.
995  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Bitshares Newsletter (October) - Bitshares Merger & Self Funded Growth on: November 02, 2014, 04:37:27 PM
That's one good copywriter!!!

I am a pro at using copy & paste.  Cool

I am even more excited than in november LAST year Smiley

+5%
996  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Will change legal name to Dogecoin on: November 02, 2014, 04:14:17 PM
Bro, you got too much time on your hand. And stop the drinking!  Cheesy

It worked for this guy: http://buymylastname.com/

Good luck OP Smiley

Judging by the $50k USD Jason SurfrApp was paid, the OP's price is actually a bargain.
997  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Bitshares Newsletter (October) - Bitshares Merger & Self Funded Growth on: November 02, 2014, 03:25:49 PM
Note: I did not write this and I am simply the messenger. The newsletters are released monthly. I will quote the prior month's version of the newsletter and update the OP/title with the new versions as they are released. You may sign up to receive the newsletter directly here: http://bitshares.org/stay-tuned/

BitShares Reloaded

Now that the enabling technology behind BitShares is proven and we have settled in to a comfortable pre-launch point at Number 4 on the charts, it is time to Reimagine Everything as we approach next month’s epic assault on Number 2.  Everything about BitShares has been simplified and streamlined in preparation for its introduction to the Outside World.  We have a focused vision, an elegant story, a consolidated product, a solid legal framework and a decentralized organization all wrapped up in one revolutionary self-funding juggernaut.

And you won’t want to miss its
PTS Anniversary Snapshot
on November 5, 2014

The biggest news is that we will be combining BitShares X, DNS, and VOTE into a single powerful product to be known simply as BitShares (BTS).  And, BitShares will extend its currency and company metaphors to become the first block chain to fully integrate its human resources as a self-governing community.  Then, each of us can decide whether we think that “C” in DAC stands for Decentralized Autonomous Community, Company, or Currency.  

BitShares will have many faces.  The users of a BitShares debit card, or its wallets, or its voting booths, or its day-trader's consoles won't need to know what is behind the digital tokens they are using.   But, there will be times when a bigger metaphor is needed to inform design decisions, communicate the vision, or explain the legal theory of operation.  

So pick your favorite.  BitShares is a manned community supporting an unmanned company that produces innovative currencies. And, it will soon be optimally decentralized at all three levels.  Most of what you have learned about BitShares still applies.  But, it is now easier to explain and more compelling than ever.  Let’s have a look!  

Our New Competitive Edges

The new BitShares (BTS) will have significant competitive edges over the several DACs it replaces.  In fact, when the developers of X, DNS, and VOTE saw how competitive BTS would become, they surrendered immediately.  Resistance was futile.  We have all been assimilated – not as a centralized collective of mere followers, but as decentralized community of cooperating entrepreneurs.  We can now work together while competing more effectively in an increasingly crowded industry.  We expect much of that competition to surrender soon too.  Here’s why:

Competitive Edge #1:  Shared Network Effect Features

As individual DACs, each of our developers would have had to duplicate the hardest parts of the job – growing network effect, generating critical mass, and building market depth.  By combining onto one blockchain, we could share the fruits of our combined efforts.  BitShares will integrate the following common services that would be much less effective if they weren’t common services:

•   A unified basket of stable, robust global currencies (BitAssets)
•   A unified set of well-compensated, best-of-breed delegates
•   A unified name and reputation system
•   A unified secure messaging system
•   A unified set of on and off ramps – portals to the fiat world.
•   A unified marketing umbrella – attracting attention to each other
•   A unified consensus-based governing system
•   A unified family of tools and wallets and interfaces
•   A unified way to attract and fund the best developers and marketing talent.

BitShares BTS moves our whole ecosystem into one DAC friendly free-trade zone with all the services that benefit from network effect already in place.

It offers new developers instant network effect.  Built in.

While the BitShares Toolkit is open source software that anyone is free to adopt, the network effect doesn’t come with the Toolkit!  You get that by joining our community.  You still run your own business with its own custom storefront and Internet presence.  You just skipped a year or two of trying to get traffic to stop by!

Competitive Edge #2:  Self-Funded Growth

Metaphors matter.  If BitShares were a currency, we would want it to have a limited supply.  If BitShares were a company, it would happily issue new shares to propel growth by attracting new infusions of cash, services, or intellectual capital.  What should BitShares the community do?   We think it should fairly recognize the contributions of all of its members – past, present, and future.  Fast-growing companies recognize that, as long as the value infused from new sources exceeds the value of shares issued, the future value of everybody’s shares will increase.   The BitShares community will therefore use the company metaphor, not the currency metaphor, to inform its growth policy decisions.

How will this work?  Well, Bitcoin has for years issued 50 new bitcoin “shares” every block to incentivize its mining “employees” to do the work required to secure its network.  This policy gradually increases the supply of its shares but does nothing to increase their value because the work done has no residual benefit.  The net cost of this wasteful work is about a half billion dollars per year.  If that new money didn’t have to be spent on outrageously expensive security, it could grant 101 small businesses an annual budget of 5 million dollars each to do something useful, something to promote Bitcoin’s growth.

BitShares is able to use its DPOS technology to do exactly that!  It will also offer up to 50 BTS per block to incentivize 101 employees (delegates) to secure the network PLUS do something useful to grow stakeholder value.  Since its DPOS security mechanism is so efficient, almost all of the BTS issued will go toward software, marketing, and infrastructure.  Stakeholders must approve new issuances by explicitly approving any new-hires that they are convinced will add more value than they consume.  They may choose to issue zero new shares; and, there is a hard-coded limit of 50 BTS per block (~6.3% annually).  It will likely be half that – far below Bitcoins ~10% inflation.
 
BitShares is the first blockchain that can hire its own staff.

The BitShares community, viewed as a company, will soon have 101 job openings for people who can help grow the business.  These will be highly competitive elected positions subject to approval of the stakeholders.  Each of these openings is able to pay employees with stake in the enterprise, just like any successful startup would do.   This is a huge competitive advantage; and, it is what will allow BitShares to fund the technology and user base growth needed to penetrate all sectors of the global economy.   It is a true a game changer that will ultimately attract the best and brightest talent to join our community. This is the competitive advantage that may well propel BitShares beyond Bitcoin in the next few years.

Why the Sudden Change?

Once BitSharesX was nicely tracking its market pegs and preparing for the coming marketing push, Bytemaster turned his attention to BitShares VOTE.  As he applied all the lessons learned from BitSharesX, VOTE began to look a lot like the BTS DAC we have just described.  There were compelling reasons for it to incorporate the features of X and DNS and it was clear that self-funding DACs were an enormous competitive advantage.

This would have made VOTE a far better investment than BTSX and forced BTSX and DNS to incorporate all the same features just to compete.  The net effect would be a complete fragmentation of all the network effect each DAC was trying to build.  This would split the best available delegates, the registration of new users, the number of traders available to make the markets, and the depth of the markets themselves.

If we declined to build the best DAC possible in each case by leaving out features so that they would compete less, then some other competitor would simply seize the opportunity to do so anyway.  Darwinian forces would rule.  There was no choice but to build the most competitive DAC we know how.  And, we keep learning; so, every new DAC in the future would be more competitive than those before it.  This would set up an inevitable boom and bust cycle as shiny new DACs killed off their predecessors.

On top of that, our big marking push for BTSX was looming; and, all the promotional materials for it were being finalized.  If we were going to switch our strategic plan to a single hypercompetitive DAC, we were going to have to move quickly.  

 
Finding the Right Formula

We now had the problem of moving all stakeholders into one tent and giving them a fair share of the combined stake.  This was not easy.  The interests of stakeholders had to be defended for BTSX, DNS, VOTE, PTS, and AGS.   Collectively, these represented developed, developing, and future DACs.  Some had begun to trade independently and had widely varying value metrics including market cap, liquidity, risk taken, future potential, likely overlapping membership in other categories, specifics to be negotiated with each individual developer. Several proposals were discussed. Everybody had his own idea of what constituted a fair weighting and expressed it energetically at bitsharestalk.org.

Finally, we decided to simply treat BTS like a new DAC and do a “normal” share drop distribution to various snapshots for the various constituency groups.  BTSX would map directly 1:1 into BTS shares and represent 80% of the initial BTS supply.  The remaining 20% would go those with interests in not-yet-operational DACs including PTS/AGS holders and the developers who had been working on those new DACs.

It is every DAC developer’s responsibility to define the initial share allocation in such a way as to maximize the success and support for their DAC.  Here is how we have done that duty for the planned BTS share drop in late November.

[Updated Table and Caption]


The percentage numbers in this table trace the snapshot shares back to where they originally came from for the purposes of demonstrating indirect honoring of PTS/AGS. DNS sold prior to proposal announcement still benefited the sellers and the buyers before that date will receive a small adjustment from other funds.

As in all grand compromises, everybody had to give a little:  

•   BTSX holders have to accept a 20% dilution phased in linearly over two years.  In return, they become the super DAC they would have had to compete against and gain the support of two great development teams.

•   AGS and PTS holders (at various points in time) had to accept a 6% dilution of their stake in merged future DACs (9.4% instead of 10%) but the growth potential of being participants as owners on the BTS Main Chain is a far, far better deal.  They also remain compelling demographics for third party developers to target in their share drops.

•   Developers of DNS and VOTE had to settle for a smaller stake (1.2%) in a much bigger DAC.  Given the combined potential, this was also a great trade.

•   Non-BTSX stakeholders had their expected value potential phase in gradually over the next two years to avoid shocking the BTSX market and to account for the rate at which they would have likely taken to reach maturity anyway.  Now a much bigger potential will phase in, as their BTS shares vest over that time.

•   BitShares MUSIC and BitShares PLAY developers have elected to remain independent from BTS and will continue to honor their proposed share distributions.  Other third party developers are expected to emerge in the coming months as well.

Summary

Despite the stress and confusion of these negotiations, we are all far better off than we were a week ago.

•   The unified development team can now focus on making one insanely great product.
•   The marketing teams can now focus on one clean, easy to tell story.
•   We will have a single large market cap that will continue to grow as new features are added.
•   Users attracted to one service will now discover them all.
•   Day traders and speculators can now focus on one deeper and more robust market.
•   Users of BitAssets will enjoy tighter pegs and greater liquidity.
•   Everything will operate with a common basket of currencies, one set of global account names, and a unified reputation management system.
•   Secure communications will connect all businesses on the chain.
•   Smart contracts will soon be possible between businesses on the chain and any mix of their customers.
•   Everybody’s efforts will be directed to achieving one big network effect.

And that should make all the difference!


[Updated Cautionary Notes]

Be sure to have your PTS & DNS out of the exchanges
and back in your wallets on Nov 5th.

BTER and BTC38 will honor DNS
but will have to stay in business two years to issue them as they vest.

The hard fork from BTSX to BTS will happen later in the month.
This will require nothing but a normal wallet update.

The BTSX markets will not be affected and will continue trading like any other upgrade.
Then you can import your PTS and AGS credits at your leisure.
998  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Speculation (Altcoins) / Re: BTSX+BitUSD vs NuShares+NuBits - which will win the USD peg war? on: October 18, 2014, 10:03:47 PM
This is a whole lotta text with a whole lotta nothing in it.
It had a whole lot more substance than your retort.

Coinhoarder. Look at me. Put your face to your monitor. Imagine my eyes on the other side.

Do you genuinely, honestly believe the Nu network is intended to be a scam or ponzi scheme? I mean seriously? The Peercoin community and be extension the Nu commmunity is probably one of the least scam like communities in the entire cryptocurrency space. I'm not saying this as  PPC fan, or a NBT fan, just as a genuine fact. Thousands of posts over a year to confirm this. You are seriously deluded my friend.
I don't think you are intentionally running a Ponzi scheme, you just don't realize how flawed the Nubits model is and the inevitability of its failure. Bailouts will only keep it afloat for so long before it dies. It says so in the Nubits Whitepaper...

Quote
When Nu Is Obsolete

While Bitcoin is a first generation cryptoasset, Peercoin was the beginning of the second generation defined by proof of stake. Nu heralds a third generation of cryptoassets featuring stable value managed by shareholders. Will there be a fourth generation? Likely. I do not yet know what will be its defining characteristics, when it will arrive or whether it will make Nu obsolete. Nu is more adaptable than Bitcoin or Peercoin with its voting mechanisms and shareholders are likely to devote considerable revenues to updating it as well as research and development. While I believe the system can likely be sustained for a very long time, it would be foolish to believe it could last forever, as in century after century. Someday it will be replaced by a superior system based on technology not foreseeable today.

When this occurs, NuBit demand will decline permanently. The end of the currency will be marked by interest rates rising to unprecedented highs and then going still higher until the vast majority of NuBits are parked. When market participants reach a unanimous consensus that NuBits are worthless, then they will suddenly drop to zero value from one USD. As long as a small group of speculators believe there is even a small chance NuBit demand will reach a new all time high the price will remain one USD. As the currency shows signs of stress and serious decline in levels of use NuBits will pass from ordinary businesses and people to speculators willing to take large risks for large rewards. Ownership of NuBits will centralize somewhat as the currency shows signs of stress. Failure of the currency is not synonymous with failure of the network. If there are other currencies offered by Nu, they will continue to be unaffected.

In the space between now and obsolescence, there is much that Nu can do to benefit shareholders and its users.

Finally, it should be noted that Nu is experimental software at this point. It may not work as intended. However, shareholders will be tenacious in repairing any defects that are found.
999  Other / Meta / Re: I can has banned? on: October 18, 2014, 09:44:23 PM

I stuck up for her myself, but I didn't get banned. Must be because I'm a born-and-raised Canadian equipped with the customary deference to authority. Grin

He didn't get banned for "sticking up for her", he got banned because he and a few others were attempting to get a thread closed by hosting or participating in a giveaway. That's spam, and a blatant attempt at trying to manipulate us and the rules.



Lol... "Participating in a giveaway"

The address I posted wasn't even a valid Nxt address, I made it up... I don't own any Nxt. Wink

Still, you guys are fucked up and have no conscious to let people get harassed like that and ban people that stick up for someone because you guys are too incompetent to do your jobs properly. I don't care if you were following the rules to the letter... it shows what kind of people you guys are to allow things like that to happen.
1000  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: shits about to get real ladies and gentlemen. the new economy starts now. on: October 18, 2014, 12:38:50 PM
There are too many snr and hero members who talk like trolls here, if you don't know sh** than better don't talk and make fun of yourself. NEM clone of NXT lol Troll Harder...
I don't think that was fud.. Just missinformation that stems from nems earliest days.. You will probably find many people think the same but not know that things have changed.

Sorry but the opinion of these Senior and Hero Members matter a lot and if they start talking without any research than we cant blame the newbie trolls. FUD is a FUD and one should always talk with full responsibility but the problem is here no one cares about that.

You've never been wrong about something in your life?

Please teach us to be as perfect as you are.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 [50] 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 ... 202 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!