[ANN] [R3D] NEW UPDATES COMING SOON

[Zombier0]

Is this dead or what?

[wildduck]

No it isn`t dead still developing, we are waiting for the news and upadates

[twoturtles]

Hi folks,

     I just posted this in slack about 20 minutes ago and wanted to get those in the community here involved as well and their opinions.

The latest development has left us at a pivotal point as we've taken all suggestions, requests and comments into consideration from the community.  One topic that's been mentioned several times is PoW vs PoS.  We currently have PoW with auxpow and a fee-only reward system for good reason as it's a closed-loop and with auxpow it's easily chained onto existing merged configs and there's plenty of hash to go around.  However, if you have any opinion regarding PoS over PoW - we'd love to hear it as we can go in either direction.

     Best regards,

syntaks

[presstab]

Hi folks,

     I just posted this in slack about 20 minutes ago and wanted to get those in the community here involved as well and their opinions.

The latest development has left us at a pivotal point as we've taken all suggestions, requests and comments into consideration from the community.  One topic that's been mentioned several times is PoW vs PoS.  We currently have PoW with auxpow and a fee-only reward system for good reason as it's a closed-loop and with auxpow it's easily chained onto existing merged configs and there's plenty of hash to go around.  However, if you have any opinion regarding PoS over PoW - we'd love to hear it as we can go in either direction.

     Best regards,

syntaks

I would love the PoS route because it gives another reason to hold onto the coins, and because I don't PoW mine

[Erkallys]

As stated before, nice graphics. I'll dig deeper to your crypto because she seems promising  !

[yak]

Hi folks,

     I just posted this in slack about 20 minutes ago and wanted to get those in the community here involved as well and their opinions.

The latest development has left us at a pivotal point as we've taken all suggestions, requests and comments into consideration from the community.  One topic that's been mentioned several times is PoW vs PoS.  We currently have PoW with auxpow and a fee-only reward system for good reason as it's a closed-loop and with auxpow it's easily chained onto existing merged configs and there's plenty of hash to go around.  However, if you have any opinion regarding PoS over PoW - we'd love to hear it as we can go in either direction.

     Best regards,

syntaks

pos is probably better for """investors""", as well as perhaps even people using the technology depending on if there is a %apr or whatever.. (example im a blogger but im pretty poor.. if there is a high apr % i could buy some r3d and hold on to it and earn interest off of it until i can do something with it rather than having to buy x amount to do something)

auxpow is probably better from a tech standpoint.. but sometimes technology loses out to people (eg bluray).. and sometimes that is a good thing to have a winner and losers (eg the hd wars and exclusive titles for each format causing people to have to have both players).. and sometimes that is a bad thing (eg nearly all of 3m's technological innovations are years behind the shit they have in storage holding them back)

for me i would say pos is probably the smartest if you want to get more funding from """investors""" in the form of icos/cfcs...

if you want """investors""" you should probably think of a way to reward early adopters (higher interest rate etc early on or something)
there are probably other ideas out there as well for that too... thats probably what you should be asking.. what people *want*

[sidhujag]

What about dpos?

[yak]

What about dpos?

personally the more time that goes on the less viable dpos is shown to be, as recently seen by the bitshares delegate debacle

decent in theory, shit in practice

edit: dont get me wrong.. i'm just one person so if other people think its a good idea dont let me stop you.. just my two cents on dpos from what ive seen lately

[sidhujag]

What about dpos?

personally the more time that goes on the less viable dpos is shown to be, as recently seen by the bitshares delegate debacle

decent in theory, shit in practice

edit: dont get me wrong.. i'm just one person so if other people think its a good idea dont let me stop you.. just my two cents on dpos from what ive seen lately

What debacle? Dpos is probably the best we got right now.

Read https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171109.0;topicseen

[yak]

What about dpos?

personally the more time that goes on the less viable dpos is shown to be, as recently seen by the bitshares delegate debacle

decent in theory, shit in practice

edit: dont get me wrong.. i'm just one person so if other people think its a good idea dont let me stop you.. just my two cents on dpos from what ive seen lately

What debacle?

the fact that its basically just a circlejerk... go read about the delegates that are no longer contributing to bitshares yet are still delegates.....
think of dpos as a rigged election... thats the best way to look at it.. here is some reading material to show you why what i say is the truth

DPoS is a plutocracy where people use (but, neither spend {“democracy”}, nor risk {“capitalism”}) their money to elect 100 senators, who sign blocks in a sequence and thus secure a nearly-P2P network.

As usual, we’re going to ignore all of the problems with this (that plutocracy implies same-wealthy-idiots-on-every-decision and inevitable decadence [unlike “rule of the experts” capitalism], that DPoS strongly concentrates wealth [and, therefore, protocol-control], that voters [even at the more-efficient corporate governance level] never seem to know or care about the issues they’re voting on, and that any conspiracy of 67 delegates can profitably double-spend without getting caught).

Instead, I’m just going to show that (again, for the Bitcoin issuance schedule) it is consequentially the same as Proof of Work.
In Theory

Theoretically, what is attempted is: [1] “Every non-attacker will know which 100 delegates are right for the job…”, [2] “…in a way that is not reliably subverted by human ‘work’…”, [3] “…and, since, attackers wouldn’t ever own >50% of the total money supply…”, [Conclusion] “…the network will always be safe.”

Obviously [2] is the deal-breaker, and [1] isn’t helping.

If you “get it” by now, I suggest you skip this section (to “The Coinbase-Rot Paradox”). However, because it happens to be a personal interest of mine, I’m going to write several paragraphs about how “voting” is only effective when it is cheap to cast an informed vote (which isn’t the case in DPoS).
Money and Politics

Votes are bought. Not directly (this would challenge the voter’s treasured self-delusions, and be a focal point for coordinated outrage), but indirectly through tax breaks, welfare, military action, subsidies, research grants, licenses, etc. Loudly, it is claimed that these all serve civic purposes (the reality is “some”), but the quieter subtext is: “a vote for Candidate X is good for your bottom line”. On top of that, there’s ad-spending and professional campaign management. Because election-competition is zero-sum, these activities cancel each other out and are net “wasted work” for society.

Is vote-buying a bad thing? Who really knows (considering the long-run coordination problems facing this species…)? For today’s post, who cares?
I’m not arguing that this is “good” or “bad”, I’m just arguing that it’s “true”.

Votes become easier to buy as the number of voters increases. Though it may seem innocuous to say “the more voters there are, the less each individual vote counts”, the statement is in fact a grave paradox. Eventually, the sheer quantity of voters guarantees that each individual voter is irrelevant – a balloon inflated to such a grand size, that the stretched plastic simply vanishes altogether. If 3 people vote, a single vote can swing a possible tie, but if 10,000,001 people vote, a tie probably won’t even occur (making each individual vote completely irrelevant). The voting process can be defeated entirely, by taking a small “critical mass of uninformed voters” and, to it, adding some self-fulfilling expectations of hopelessness.

If informed voting were cheap, these self-fulfilling expectations would be expensive to generate. Unfortunately, voting is not cheap, voting costs energy that most people won’t spend. This small detail means that any politician who can quietly use public resources to finance their bribes will always have an overwhelming advantage.
Wealth Isn’t Unequal Enough

What about the fact that DPoS votes with wealth instead of per capita? The improvement is insufficient: while wealth does distribute non-uniform (instead: lognormal or power law) a project aspiring to “world wide ledger” status will eventually have a very high quantity of people in each wealth-class; so many that casting an informed vote will still be (for each individual) a waste of time.

Voter apathy reliably strikes the more optimistic scenario of modern corporate governance. There, each share gets a vote, and disinterested parties can sell and abandon their need to vote altogether (impossible in DPoS). The ability of shareholders to elect the board of directors makes almost no difference; most shareholders don’t care enough to vote, and certainly not enough to learn-or-do-anything-about obviously corrupt phenomena such as executive pay, poison pills, empire building, golden parachutes, etc.

DPoS, like all voting, is not capitalistic. Capitalism is not about “one dollar, one vote”, it is instead “one dollar risked, one vote”. Capitalism requires the potential for gain as well as the risk of loss. With voting, gains for “good votes” are public, and equally and widely dispersed (no potential for private gain), and voting is free (no private risk of loss).

[Erkallys]

It may seems stupid but I don't care : what's is DPoS ?

[sidhujag]

What about dpos?

personally the more time that goes on the less viable dpos is shown to be, as recently seen by the bitshares delegate debacle

decent in theory, shit in practice

edit: dont get me wrong.. i'm just one person so if other people think its a good idea dont let me stop you.. just my two cents on dpos from what ive seen lately

What debacle?

the fact that its basically just a circlejerk... go read about the delegates that are no longer contributing to bitshares yet are still delegates.....
think of dpos as a rigged election... thats the best way to look at it.. here is some reading material to show you why what i say is the truth

DPoS is a plutocracy where people use (but, neither spend {“democracy”}, nor risk {“capitalism”}) their money to elect 100 senators, who sign blocks in a sequence and thus secure a nearly-P2P network.

As usual, we’re going to ignore all of the problems with this (that plutocracy implies same-wealthy-idiots-on-every-decision and inevitable decadence [unlike “rule of the experts” capitalism], that DPoS strongly concentrates wealth [and, therefore, protocol-control], that voters [even at the more-efficient corporate governance level] never seem to know or care about the issues they’re voting on, and that any conspiracy of 67 delegates can profitably double-spend without getting caught).

Instead, I’m just going to show that (again, for the Bitcoin issuance schedule) it is consequentially the same as Proof of Work.
In Theory

Theoretically, what is attempted is: [1] “Every non-attacker will know which 100 delegates are right for the job…”, [2] “…in a way that is not reliably subverted by human ‘work’…”, [3] “…and, since, attackers wouldn’t ever own >50% of the total money supply…”, [Conclusion] “…the network will always be safe.”

Obviously [2] is the deal-breaker, and [1] isn’t helping.

If you “get it” by now, I suggest you skip this section (to “The Coinbase-Rot Paradox”). However, because it happens to be a personal interest of mine, I’m going to write several paragraphs about how “voting” is only effective when it is cheap to cast an informed vote (which isn’t the case in DPoS).
Money and Politics

Votes are bought. Not directly (this would challenge the voter’s treasured self-delusions, and be a focal point for coordinated outrage), but indirectly through tax breaks, welfare, military action, subsidies, research grants, licenses, etc. Loudly, it is claimed that these all serve civic purposes (the reality is “some”), but the quieter subtext is: “a vote for Candidate X is good for your bottom line”. On top of that, there’s ad-spending and professional campaign management. Because election-competition is zero-sum, these activities cancel each other out and are net “wasted work” for society.

Is vote-buying a bad thing? Who really knows (considering the long-run coordination problems facing this species…)? For today’s post, who cares?
I’m not arguing that this is “good” or “bad”, I’m just arguing that it’s “true”.

Votes become easier to buy as the number of voters increases. Though it may seem innocuous to say “the more voters there are, the less each individual vote counts”, the statement is in fact a grave paradox. Eventually, the sheer quantity of voters guarantees that each individual voter is irrelevant – a balloon inflated to such a grand size, that the stretched plastic simply vanishes altogether. If 3 people vote, a single vote can swing a possible tie, but if 10,000,001 people vote, a tie probably won’t even occur (making each individual vote completely irrelevant). The voting process can be defeated entirely, by taking a small “critical mass of uninformed voters” and, to it, adding some self-fulfilling expectations of hopelessness.

If informed voting were cheap, these self-fulfilling expectations would be expensive to generate. Unfortunately, voting is not cheap, voting costs energy that most people won’t spend. This small detail means that any politician who can quietly use public resources to finance their bribes will always have an overwhelming advantage.
Wealth Isn’t Unequal Enough

What about the fact that DPoS votes with wealth instead of per capita? The improvement is insufficient: while wealth does distribute non-uniform (instead: lognormal or power law) a project aspiring to “world wide ledger” status will eventually have a very high quantity of people in each wealth-class; so many that casting an informed vote will still be (for each individual) a waste of time.

Voter apathy reliably strikes the more optimistic scenario of modern corporate governance. There, each share gets a vote, and disinterested parties can sell and abandon their need to vote altogether (impossible in DPoS). The ability of shareholders to elect the board of directors makes almost no difference; most shareholders don’t care enough to vote, and certainly not enough to learn-or-do-anything-about obviously corrupt phenomena such as executive pay, poison pills, empire building, golden parachutes, etc.

DPoS, like all voting, is not capitalistic. Capitalism is not about “one dollar, one vote”, it is instead “one dollar risked, one vote”. Capitalism requires the potential for gain as well as the risk of loss. With voting, gains for “good votes” are public, and equally and widely dispersed (no potential for private gain), and voting is free (no private risk of loss).

All of these concerns have been thought about in the early days of bts.. I suggest you post on that thread to be informed. You seem to have a good grasp on the concept do perhaps some enlightenment on either side may be beneficial to all involved.

[yak]

It may seems stupid but I don't care : what's is DPoS ?

asking questions like that is never stupid

dpos stands for delegated proof of stake... its a modified proof of stake where the people who 'stake' are 'elected' or 'chosen' in some fashion

think of it like paid officials that are elected in... and then think about why it doesnt work in practice (as is proven now) also read my last post

[sidhujag]

It may seems stupid but I don't care : what's is DPoS ?

asking questions like that is never stupid

dpos stands for delegated proof of stake... its a modified proof of stake where the people who 'stake' are 'elected' or 'chosen' in some fashion

think of it like paid officials that are elected in... and then think about why it doesnt work in practice (as is proven now) also read my last post

You haven't refuted anything that a thousand other people haven't thought about, instead you should get clarification on your misconceptions by posting in a relevant section.. If the Devs dont respond maybe you have something there but until that think of it as thoughts that float around that no one cares for.

You may be right that it essentially leads to the same paradox, but it is still a mile better than pow centralized mining pools. In the next version you can essentially have dynamic number of delegates above 101 if the market demands for it.

Anyways if it does achieve global ledger status then I'd see esch country represented as a delegate and voted in or out via shareholders of bts. If you wish to buy votes go ahead, it will cost you commensurate the amount of voting power you wish to acquire, and they will probably learn that it is simply not an efficient method of retaining/achieving power. Today coercion leads to votes aswell as persuasion and some buying votes from people, however it becomes a smaller problem on a token based system incentivized to be following generally acceptable policies for society in general.

Again it's like someone trying to mount a 51% attack by buying all the coins on a pos system and which we understand is never going to happen on a relevant scale. By the time that the powers to be understand it to be a problem buying 51% of the voting power will not be economically feasible.

[yak]

It may seems stupid but I don't care : what's is DPoS ?

asking questions like that is never stupid

dpos stands for delegated proof of stake... its a modified proof of stake where the people who 'stake' are 'elected' or 'chosen' in some fashion

think of it like paid officials that are elected in... and then think about why it doesnt work in practice (as is proven now) also read my last post

You haven't refuted anything that a thousand other people haven't thought about, instead you should get clarification on your misconceptions by posting in a relevant section.. If the Devs dont respond maybe you have something there but until that think of it as thoughts that float around that no one cares for.

its cool for you to spout out nonsense like this (it isnt really but whatever) but to blindly follow people without using your own set of logical patterns is ridiculous.. think for 1 second how bad actors can work on dpos... i get it.. you have an agenda.. we all get it.. but because you have an agenda doesnt make you or anyone else who has an agenda correct? get it? good

tell me in YOUR words why dpos is good, because i can and have told you why in PRACTICE dpos is horrible.... which is funny because some of us can change our minds about things, others just like to be stuck in their ways, which seems to be you.... i used to be a huge proponent of dpos until the reality of the situation that dpos is highly flawed in practice came to light....
sometimes things in theory are better than they are in practice.. deal with it

[sidhujag]

It may seems stupid but I don't care : what's is DPoS ?

asking questions like that is never stupid

dpos stands for delegated proof of stake... its a modified proof of stake where the people who 'stake' are 'elected' or 'chosen' in some fashion

think of it like paid officials that are elected in... and then think about why it doesnt work in practice (as is proven now) also read my last post

You haven't refuted anything that a thousand other people haven't thought about, instead you should get clarification on your misconceptions by posting in a relevant section.. If the Devs dont respond maybe you have something there but until that think of it as thoughts that float around that no one cares for.

its cool for you to spout out nonsense like this (it isnt really but whatever) but to blindly follow people without using your own set of logical patterns is ridiculous.. think for 1 second how bad actors can work on dpos... i get it.. you have an agenda.. we all get it.. but because you have an agenda doesnt make you or anyone else who has an agenda correct? get it? good

tell me in YOUR words why dpos is good, because i can and have told you why in PRACTICE dpos is horrible.... which is funny because some of us can change our minds about things, others just like to be stuck in their ways, which seems to be you.... i used to be a huge proponent of dpos until the reality of the situation that dpos is highly flawed in practice came to light....
sometimes things in theory are better than they are in practice.. deal with it

Check my edit.

That's the last I'll say about that here.. The rest I'll leave for you to respond perhaps in the right thread. I understand your concerns and those are probably the first things I thought about when lesrning about dpos but I've come around to seeing it in a different light, opposite of yourself.
The fact of tye matter remains that it is a better consensus implementation than pow in trying to achieve the same goal. It is not perfect but it is a step in the right direction imo. Even Gaven Anderson is starting to realize this recently in his reddit posts, tslking about prediction markets to come to decisions or usimg oracles that are trusted to do them.

[yak]

That's the last I'll say about that here..

hopefully you keep your word this time :/

[sidhujag]

That's the last I'll say about that here..

hopefully you keep your word this time :/

talking to a monkey here it seems.  I'll let this team decide if dpos is right or not, all im saying its a valid option now. Your oppinion has been given albeit an misinformed one.

[yak]

That's the last I'll say about that here..

hopefully you keep your word this time :/

talking to a monkey here it seems.  I'll let this team decide if dpos is right or not, all im saying its a valid option now. Your oppinion has been given albeit an misinformed one.

thats what i thought

[sidhujag]

It may seems stupid but I don't care : what's is DPoS ?

asking questions like that is never stupid

dpos stands for delegated proof of stake... its a modified proof of stake where the people who 'stake' are 'elected' or 'chosen' in some fashion

think of it like paid officials that are elected in... and then think about why it doesnt work in practice (as is proven now) also read my last post

You haven't refuted anything that a thousand other people haven't thought about, instead you should get clarification on your misconceptions by posting in a relevant section.. If the Devs dont respond maybe you have something there but until that think of it as thoughts that float around that no one cares for.

its cool for you to spout out nonsense like this (it isnt really but whatever) but to blindly follow people without using your own set of logical patterns is ridiculous.. think for 1 second how bad actors can work on dpos... i get it.. you have an agenda.. we all get it.. but because you have an agenda doesnt make you or anyone else who has an agenda correct? get it? good

tell me in YOUR words why dpos is good, because i can and have told you why in PRACTICE dpos is horrible.... which is funny because some of us can change our minds about things, others just like to be stuck in their ways, which seems to be you.... i used to be a huge proponent of dpos until the reality of the situation that dpos is highly flawed in practice came to light....
sometimes things in theory are better than they are in practice.. deal with it

You still haven't told me in YOUR words why you think dpos is bad other than ripping off a section of Paul's blog without reference, yet you want others to write some in depth analysis for you to try to explain what's already explained to monkeys a thousand times?
YOU haven't told me anything but the fact that you were a dpos bull until you read things you don't understand and got brainwashed.. I guess that happens when your iq is that low.

So much for blindly following people without using your own set of logical patterns hey?