The 2.0 throwdown thread

[BitcoinNational]

Where's Maid?

I think it deserves to be in this conversation...

It's not released, afaik. I am leaning towards removing both Syscoin (most advanced features not released) and Crypti (closed-source), as well. I'm skeptical MAID will ever see the light of day, honestly. Hasn't it been under development since like 2006?

SYS ... i don't get it ... what is it? what does it do?  show me don't tell me it's been along time dan-0
MAID  ... same ... what is it?  I get some large cap 'asset' that trades like wildfire but why?  And if Omni/Master are shutting down their exchange well that just doesn't bode well in the greater picture.
CRYPTI ... some asset created called 'Sia' seems popular ... so at least they've created an asset within that platform ... but why has the wallet on cryptsy been locked for about 15 months?

point is ... enough talking ... get to creating a working exchange/platform with assets of real value trading on it.

CP is the only one doing the walk AFIK.  NXT is a step behind, and it serves their interests to put some pressure on SYS.

The rest in mostly vapors in the ethere-sphere ... dan-0!

[crypti PR]

Where's Maid?

I think it deserves to be in this conversation...

It's not released, afaik. I am leaning towards removing both Syscoin (most advanced features not released) and Crypti (closed-source), as well. I'm skeptical MAID will ever see the light of day, honestly. Hasn't it been under development since like 2006?

CRYPTI ... some asset created called 'Sia' seems popular ... so at least they've created an asset within that platform ... but why has the wallet on cryptsy been locked for about 15 months?

What are you talking about? Crypyti is a crypto-currency and decentralized application platform. Sia is integrated into the user interface, to make it possible to use it as a storage method for decentralized applications.

You can develop any JavaScript decentralized application you want, each gets its own sidechain with its own consensus. We give the developers the necessary tools and make this whole process very easy.

Check out our testnet at http://testnet.crypti.me/ , if you click on Dapp Store you see that we have 2 example dapps in there already. 


And yes, Cryptsy isn't working. It's not our fault, it's the fault of Cryptsy. We are contacting them since months with no answers. They are going down, as you can read everywhere on the internet. Cryptsy is the next MtGox.

[BitcoinNational]

"And yes, Cryptsy isn't working. It's not our fault, it's the fault of Cryptsy. We are contacting them since months with no answers. They are going down, as you can read everywhere on the internet. Cryptsy is the next MtGox."

well ... pot calling kettle black ... we will see in time ... you guys have the means to raise a ruckus if that was the case for real ... but because of that minor detail ... i advise all a great deal of caution.  Still I give you credit where credit is due ... you have a platform and an actual market traded asset.

[crypti PR]

"And yes, Cryptsy isn't working. It's not our fault, it's the fault of Cryptsy. We are contacting them since months with no answers. They are going down, as you can read everywhere on the internet. Cryptsy is the next MtGox."

well ... pot calling kettle black ... we will see in time ... you guys have the means to raise a ruckus if that was the case for real ... but because of that minor detail ... i advise all a great deal of caution.  Still I give you credit where credit is due ... you have a platform and an actual market traded asset.

Then please say me how we can "raise a ruckus".

We wrote many tweets to BigVern and the CryptsyWallet dude, several PMs to BitJohn here on BTT, dozens of support tickets, asked on reddit, Cryptsy long-time-users asked trollbox moderators and got in contact with several individuals via email.. All for nothing.

[BitcoinNational]

If you want to be Crypto 2.0 then making NOISE is part of the .biz
Can't do that then don't ask me to take you seriously.

NXT
XMR
Digibyte
etc ... can cause a commotion ... free advice ... make sure Crypti media ... blogs in detail a full and complete report ... and make sure it gets published and SEO ranked for "Crypti vs. Cryptsy" ... you need a record to back up your claims ... so again .. show not tell.

[crypti PR]

If you want to be Crypto 2.0 then making NOISE is part of the .biz
Can't do that then don't ask me to take you seriously.

NXT
XMR
Digibyte
etc ... can cause a commotion ... free advice ... make sure Crypti media ... blogs in detail a full and complete report ... and make sure it gets published and SEO ranked for "Crypti vs. Cryptsy" ... you need a record to back up your claims ... so again .. show not tell.

I'm a long time member of Nxt, but if it would be able to create a big ruckus, then it wouldn't be at $6.xM marketcap. Down from over $70M.

[TPTB_need_war]

With all the hype surrounding Ethereum launch, I'd like to start putting together a comparison table of all the 2.0 platforms/coins/tokens/thingamajigs. The ones I have in mind are Bitshares, Burst, Nem, Nxt, Qora, Counterparty (Dogeparty/Clearinghouse), and Ethereum. I'm interested in mapping out their similarities and differences, particularly what each is capable and incapable of doing, but also other differences such as validation scheme (PoW or PoS), initial distribution, etc.

With that being said, here is the table:



Link to html version of table: http://myrcraft.com/2p0platformtable.html

I am going to be adding my comments about each of these coins in this post. Please check back on this post from time-to-time as I will be updating it as I complete my research gathering process. I will correct any incorrect information as I learn or it is pointed out to me. The statements below are what I think to be true based on the level of reading I've done to this point.

BitShares 2.0

• Any engineer should know the antithesis of reliability is lack of fault-tolerance, i.e. depending on only 1 node for each block validation. Variability in the network hiccups, DoS-resistance, hardware, and other aspects of witnesses will mean that some can't keep up with the 3s block time every time or they drop transactions and transactions need to propagated to further witnesses and blocks. So either will have unreliability on the real-time promise, and/or this will push approval voting for witnesses that are centralized by those who have the resources to defend their nodes and maintain uptime and performance loads. These issues don't matter as much with longer block times and/or lower expectation of tps, but if you are seriously expecting 1000s of tps in 3s block times sequenced (funneled) into a queue of witnesses then issues will amplify exponentially not just linearly.
• As far as I know, the 3s block time with 1000 tps will be vulnerable to DoS attacks in terms of incoming transactions, because it is known a priori which witness will be producing each block. All PoS shares system suffer this issue, but less of an issue until you start to go for very fast block times, very high tps rates, and very small transacted values for microtransactions with real-time dependency on performance. In PoW the winning witness is unknown a priori and is randomized. Thus if ever Bitshares becomes a serious competitor to a properly designed high tps system, you can probably expect DDoS attacks on Bitshares causing it to become unreliable and suffer outages that belie any claim of real-time performance. I am sure many users have noticed significant delays and downtime of the Bitcointalk.org site due to DoS attacks. The system could be (re-)designed so each witness delegates transaction verification to a large distributed group of transaction verification servers (e.g. perhaps the other witnesses) and only accepts connections from those servers blacklisting any that DoS, but this means the same transaction can be sent to all the servers thus exponentially increasing network bandwidth requirements and the cost that must be charged to fees. Complex coordination algorithms might be attempted but complexity is increasing, so normally resilience suffers and corner cases proliferate. As the transacted value of the valid microtransaction decreases, the DoS cost per transaction increases proportionally. Viewing this as an analogy, it is well known that in multithreaded systems that contention (coordination) load can starve actual throughput and even to the point of gridlock. This appears to me to be fundamental issue that can't be fixed within the design of round-robin rotation through preassigned order of witnesses. Typically all solutions to coordination and even in Bitcoin's case lead to increased centralization and I am sure Bitshares will find this to be true. They've already centralized by adopting reputation and voting schemes in order to get a deterministic node for each block in order to eliminate network coordination load that plagues PoW system but they just pushed the problem onto DoS and they will need to centralize more to address this fundamental issue.
• PoS systems are inherently more centralized because reputation and voting are power vacuum paradigms, meaning that power amasses more power and those who don't play the game theory for power lose power. Democracy is always corrupt for this reason. Thus these systems are the antithesis of the reason we are hear for crypto which is to have trustless protocols without power vacuums that can't be gamed by those who aggregate power. Now I am aware that PoW has analogous failure modes in that coordination load is driving centralization and the 25 - 51% attack exists, but just because that is so it doesn't mean PoS is a solution. And I maybe someone actually has a solution. We will have to wait for that solution to appear and make a choice between lesser evils in the meantime.
• DPOS claims[1] that by having the stakeholders in the system vote, that the controlling group which is the corporation comprising the developers is not in control. Well publicly listed entities allow shareholders to vote, and that doesn't absolve the classification of investment securities. Ostensibly Bitshares is trying to not run afoul of the criminal and civil liability that results from unregistered investment securities, but my interpretation of the law[2] is they may be still acting as a controlling group since investors depend on them to add value to the investment and the future performance of the investment (again I am not making any declaration that they are or are not, I am raising awareness on this issue for potential investors and participants).
  
  

  [1]

  https://bitshares.org/technology/delegated-proof-of-stake-consensus/ This design was chosen to ensure that delegates technically have no direct power and that all changes to the network parameters are ultimately approved by the stakeholders. This is done to protect the delegates against regulations that may apply to managers or administrators of cryptocurrencies. Under DPOS, we can truly say that the administrative authority rests in the hands of the users, rather than either the delegates or witnesses.

  [2]

  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1211093.msg12739508#msg12739508 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1211093.msg12722193#msg12722193

• The new anonymity features in Bitshares are incomplete and not at the level[1] of Cryptonote combined with hiding values which was independently invented by both myself and separately Monero's Shen-Noether.
  
  

  [1]	https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1211093.msg12711191#msg12711191 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1211093.msg12711400#msg12711400

• This thread has been created to try to provide a no-hype summary of critical information you might just want to know about.
  
  At launch, the big gold-rush excitement will be about signing up new users since those who do will receive up to 80% of the lifetime fees generated by every user they sign up.  (So you can get a share of the blockchain's profits without owning any of the BitShares yourself.)
  

  
  Is this a decentralized coin or a gymcountry club membership?
  
  Sounds like a top-down corporation to me.
  
  

  
  

  Oh it is sort of like Amway but anyone can buy direct, no MLM pyramid.
  
  Ah okay I thought I was a crypto-currency. Now I understand you guys are into [small niche] marketing schemes instead. Good luck.
  

[jwinterm]

...

Link to html version of table: http://myrcraft.com/2p0platformtable.html

I am going to be adding my comments about each of these coins in this post. Please check back on this post from time-to-time as I will be updating it as I complete my research gathering process. I will correct any incorrect information as I learn or it is pointed out to me. The statements below are what I think to be true based on the level of reading I've done to this point.

BitShares 2.0

• ...These issues don't matter as much with longer block times and/or lower expectation of tps, but if you are seriously expecting 1000s of tps in 3s block times sequenced (funneled) into a queue of witnesses then issues will amplify exponentially not just linearly.
• As far as I know, the 3s block time with 1000 tps will be vulnerable to DoS attacks in terms of incoming transactions, because it is known a priori which witness will be producing each block. All PoS shares system suffer this issue, but less of an issue until you start to go for very fast block times, very high tps rates, and very small transacted values for microtransactions with real-time dependency on performance. ...
  Now I am aware that PoW has analogous failure modes in that coordination load is driving centralization and the 25 - 51% attack exists, but just because that is so it doesn't mean PoS is a solution. And I maybe someone actually has a solution. We will have to wait for that solution to appear and make a choice between lesser evils in the meantime.
• DPOS claims[1] that by having the stakeholders in the system vote, that the controlling group which is the corporation comprising the developers is not in control. Well publicly listed entities allow shareholders to vote, and that doesn't absolve the classification of investment securities. Ostensibly Bitshares is trying to not run afoul of the criminal and civil liability that results from unregistered investment securities, but my interpretation of the law[2] is they may be still acting as a controlling group since investors depend on them to add value to the investment and the future performance of the investment (again I am not making any declaration that they are or are not, I am raising awareness on this issue for potential investors and participants).
  
  ...

I will try to update it once a week or two, I appreciate your (and everyone else's) input on the matter.

I generally agree with most of your points. I'm not a big fan of PoS, especially this delegated variety where users of the system are expected to constantly monitor the block signers, and especially the latest updates with all the membership and referral bullshit. They do apparently have very high fees now (20 BTS I think but couldn't confirm this), so that may help mitigate DoS.

I've updated the BTS column of the table to question a little bit their tps, fees, reflect that they've made 2.0 transition, stealth and confidential transfers, and their multisig.

[TPTB_need_war]

Everything I have written about Bitshares 2.0 needs to be subject to discussion. I will just add that in terms of putting a caveat on your table, the high TPS rate claimed is what the CPU can do (per an interview I listened to of Daniel on Letstalkbitcoin). To get a real world test must stress this network with real DoS attacks to claim with confidence what the real throughput will be. They funnel the network into one node every 3s. It will be required to have many nodes involved to solve this scaling problem and if they all must to talk to each other to propagate every transaction, then may have network communication scaling issues at that high TPS. If they instead make the propagation of transaction data hierarchical then may have DoS issues. This is not an easy thing to solve and must stress it under all these conditions to start to see the issues holistically.

I do believe they can get higher TPS than Bitcoin can do currently but they have issues to work out or detail how they already worked them out. And they need to explain more details and have more testnet modeling revealed. If they were claiming 100 TPS with 10s blocks, I might be more prone to accept that they've actually modeled all the major issues. But that 3000s in 3s looks like hype and lack of actual real world modeling. I haven't actually gone digging in the Bitshares forum threads looking for more information. Perhaps someone else can enlighten me with more details.

[rdnkjdi]

Ahhh - I'm very interested to see where this thread goes.

There is some guy claiming VISA level transactions by using "partions" with nodes. 

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1191535.0

It seems like this is a project that's been in the pipeline for years with the dev trying to do a presale at one point?  Has anyone looked into it much that feels like doing a good tl;dr

[EvilDave]

Here's me giving BTS grief on the TPS issue:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1084460.msg12620412#msg12620412

Some useful information contained there....looks to me like BTS are throwing security and stability out the window to get close to the 100,000 TPS they've been hyping, though it turns out that the 100,000 TPS figure is based on running a lab benchmark, and will only be achievable in the real world on next-genreration hardware and infrastructure.

@rdnkjdi: Yeps, that's Emunie, which has been in development for a very, very long time.

[Bassica]

Thanks for starting and contributing to this thread guys. Interesting read, I have lots to study.

[TPTB_need_war]

Here's me giving BTS grief on the TPS issue:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1084460.msg12620412#msg12620412

Some useful information contained there....looks to me like BTS are throwing security and stability out the window to get close to the 100,000 TPS they've been hyping, though it turns out that the 100,000 TPS figure is based on running a lab benchmark, and will only be achievable in the real world on next-genreration hardware and infrastructure.

Reading through the comments on the linked page, and given I felt 100 TPS would be more believable and I never even was aware that Bitshares admitted 100 TPS, I urge the OP to edit his chart and put 100 TPS (TX/s) for Bitshares. Also I believe that 100 TPS is not a figure in the wild with DDoS attacks. I suspect the actual figure "not in a controlled environment" will be even lower than 100 TX/s.

Also by the way Stan Larimar writes about the 100,000 TX/s goal, it sounds like their figures come from assuming that all the witness nodes are being run by the corporation with a consistent level of hardware.

I don't trust any of this. Pushing everything through one node has issues.

Also I don't think any of this addressed block chain scaling. This is about TX/s only.

[monsterer]

Also by the way Stan Larimar writes about the 100,000 TX/s goal, it sounds like their figures come from assuming that all the witness nodes are being run by the corporation with a consistent level of hardware.

That number was just transaction verifications per second, as in blockchain sync. They very carefully omitted the definition of what they were actually describing.

[sidhujag]

Where's Maid?

I think it deserves to be in this conversation...

It's not released, afaik. I am leaning towards removing both Syscoin (most advanced features not released) and Crypti (closed-source), as well. I'm skeptical MAID will ever see the light of day, honestly. Hasn't it been under development since like 2006?

SYS ... i don't get it ... what is it? what does it do?  show me don't tell me it's been along time dan-0
MAID  ... same ... what is it?  I get some large cap 'asset' that trades like wildfire but why?  And if Omni/Master are shutting down their exchange well that just doesn't bode well in the greater picture.
CRYPTI ... some asset created called 'Sia' seems popular ... so at least they've created an asset within that platform ... but why has the wallet on cryptsy been locked for about 15 months?

point is ... enough talking ... get to creating a working exchange/platform with assets of real value trading on it.

CP is the only one doing the walk AFIK.  NXT is a step behind, and it serves their interests to put some pressure on SYS.

The rest in mostly vapors in the ethere-sphere ... dan-0!

Check out the shade release of syscoin.. You get a builtin decentralized exchange into the wallet.

[sidhujag]

With all the hype surrounding Ethereum launch, I'd like to start putting together a comparison table of all the 2.0 platforms/coins/tokens/thingamajigs. The ones I have in mind are Bitshares, Burst, Nem, Nxt, Qora, Counterparty (Dogeparty/Clearinghouse), and Ethereum. I'm interested in mapping out their similarities and differences, particularly what each is capable and incapable of doing, but also other differences such as validation scheme (PoW or PoS), initial distribution, etc.

With that being said, here is the table:



Link to html version of table: http://myrcraft.com/2p0platformtable.html

I am going to be adding my comments about each of these coins in this post. Please check back on this post from time-to-time as I will be updating it as I complete my research gathering process. I will correct any incorrect information as I learn or it is pointed out to me. The statements below are what I think to be true based on the level of reading I've done to this point.

BitShares 2.0

• Any engineer should know the antithesis of reliability is lack of fault-tolerance, i.e. depending on only 1 node for each block validation. Variability in the network hiccups, DoS-resistance, hardware, and other aspects of witnesses will mean that some can't keep up with the 3s block time every time or they drop transactions and transactions need to propagated to further witnesses and blocks. So either will have unreliability on the real-time promise, and/or this will push approval voting for witnesses that are centralized by those who have the resources to defend their nodes and maintain uptime and performance loads. These issues don't matter as much with longer block times and/or lower expectation of tps, but if you are seriously expecting 1000s of tps in 3s block times sequenced (funneled) into a queue of witnesses then issues will amplify exponentially not just linearly.
• As far as I know, the 3s block time with 1000 tps will be vulnerable to DoS attacks in terms of incoming transactions, because it is known a priori which witness will be producing each block. All PoS shares system suffer this issue, but less of an issue until you start to go for very fast block times, very high tps rates, and very small transacted values for microtransactions with real-time dependency on performance. In PoW the winning witness is unknown a priori and is randomized. Thus if ever Bitshares becomes a serious competitor to a properly designed high tps system, you can probably expect DDoS attacks on Bitshares causing it to become unreliable and suffer outages that belie any claim of real-time performance. I am sure many users have noticed significant delays and downtime of the Bitcointalk.org site due to DoS attacks. The system could be (re-)designed so each witness delegates transaction verification to a large distributed group of transaction verification servers (e.g. perhaps the other witnesses) and only accepts connections from those servers blacklisting any that DoS, but this means the same transaction can be sent to all the servers thus exponentially increasing network bandwidth requirements and the cost that must be charged to fees. Complex coordination algorithms might be attempted but complexity is increasing, so normally resilience suffers and corner cases proliferate. As the transacted value of the valid microtransaction decreases, the DoS cost per transaction increases proportionally. Viewing this as an analogy, it is well known that in multithreaded systems that contention (coordination) load can starve actual throughput and even to the point of gridlock. This appears to me to be fundamental issue that can't be fixed within the design of round-robin rotation through preassigned order of witnesses. Typically all solutions to coordination and even in Bitcoin's case lead to increased centralization and I am sure Bitshares will find this to be true. They've already centralized by adopting reputation and voting schemes in order to get a deterministic node for each block in order to eliminate network coordination load that plagues PoW system but they just pushed the problem onto DoS and they will need to centralize more to address this fundamental issue.
• PoS systems are inherently more centralized because reputation and voting are power vacuum paradigms, meaning that power amasses more power and those who don't play the game theory for power lose power. Democracy is always corrupt for this reason. Thus these systems are the antithesis of the reason we are hear for crypto which is to have trustless protocols without power vacuums that can't be gamed by those who aggregate power. Now I am aware that PoW has analogous failure modes in that coordination load is driving centralization and the 25 - 51% attack exists, but just because that is so it doesn't mean PoS is a solution. And I maybe someone actually has a solution. We will have to wait for that solution to appear and make a choice between lesser evils in the meantime.
• DPOS claims[1] that by having the stakeholders in the system vote, that the controlling group which is the corporation comprising the developers is not in control. Well publicly listed entities allow shareholders to vote, and that doesn't absolve the classification of investment securities. Ostensibly Bitshares is trying to not run afoul of the criminal and civil liability that results from unregistered investment securities, but my interpretation of the law[2] is they may be still acting as a controlling group since investors depend on them to add value to the investment and the future performance of the investment (again I am not making any declaration that they are or are not, I am raising awareness on this issue for potential investors and participants).
  
  

  [1]

  https://bitshares.org/technology/delegated-proof-of-stake-consensus/ This design was chosen to ensure that delegates technically have no direct power and that all changes to the network parameters are ultimately approved by the stakeholders. This is done to protect the delegates against regulations that may apply to managers or administrators of cryptocurrencies. Under DPOS, we can truly say that the administrative authority rests in the hands of the users, rather than either the delegates or witnesses.

  [2]

  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1211093.msg12739508#msg12739508 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1211093.msg12722193#msg12722193

• The new anonymity features in Bitshares are incomplete and not at the level[1] of Cryptonote combined with hiding values which was independently invented by both myself and separately Monero's Shen-Noether.
  
  

  [1]	https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1211093.msg12711191#msg12711191 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1211093.msg12711400#msg12711400

• This thread has been created to try to provide a no-hype summary of critical information you might just want to know about.
  
  At launch, the big gold-rush excitement will be about signing up new users since those who do will receive up to 80% of the lifetime fees generated by every user they sign up.  (So you can get a share of the blockchain's profits without owning any of the BitShares yourself.)
  

  
  Is this a decentralized coin or a gymcountry club membership?
  
  Sounds like a top-down corporation to me.
  
  

  
  

  Oh it is sort of like Amway but anyone can buy direct, no MLM pyramid.
  
  Ah okay I thought I was a crypto-currency. Now I understand you guys are into [small niche] marketing schemes instead. Good luck.
  

In a controlled environment its already demonstrated 100k tps.. The bottleneck is the network capabilities rather than the core code which is what it demonstrates. Once network capabilities scale up naturally, then 100k comes possible as demand sees fit.

Your assumption which led to a dozen more about which witness is next to sign a block is incorrect, thus your derived assumptions also incorrect. Thus you really have no claim ablut bitshares and the tps without fully understanding the concepts behind the tests and feature itself.

[MikeCoin]

That article seems to be big on press releases and very light on detail. I think the network effect of Ethereum and the Ethereum DAPP ecosystem will render BTC and current Altcoins redundant.

You don't NEED SIDECHAINS in Ethereum so that counterparty press release appears to be complete bollocks.

BURST and QORA both have turing complete at's, capable of doing ANYTHING which eth can do.

You really need to go and dyor....

No they don't why are you lying?

Go away, you're the only one lying. Not gonna talk to you anymore. JWinterm, we need a moderated thread.

If you're not lying give me one shred of evidence. No actually you'll probably cook up one of your fake meaningless infographics

Yes i thought it was moderated

[TPTB_need_war]

In a controlled environment its already demonstrated 100k tps.. The bottleneck is the network capabilities rather than the core code which is what it demonstrates. Once network capabilities scale up naturally, then 100k comes possible as demand sees fit.

You are obscuring that what you just wrote effectively means, "this is how many TX/s a fast server CPU can process and we eliminated any sense of a real network from the test".

Once network capabilities scale up naturally, then 100k comes possible as demand sees fit.

This is like saying once we redesign our coin (or monopolize the DPOS witnesses with our own corporate funded super hardware because DPOS is really just a way to obscure that we are paying dividends to ourselves, analogous to how masternodes in Dash was ostensibly a way obscuring that those huge interest fees were going to those who owned the most coins), it will get faster. Let's rather talk about what a coin can do now, today, in the real world of decentralized witnesses of varying capabilities.

Obscuring instamines, and other means (cheap pre-sales of ProtoShares that were converted to Bitshares?) of having control over large percent of the coins and then setting up a paradigm where coins can be parked to earn dividends. Hmmm. How dumb are we. Hey more power to them if investors are gullible enough to buy it. But it all starts to fit together in terms of analyzing why they would even think they could have a uniform capability across all witnesses.

Your assumption which led to a dozen more about which witness is next to sign a block is incorrect, thus your derived assumptions also incorrect. Thus you really have no claim ablut bitshares and the tps without fully understanding the concepts behind the tests and feature itself.

If you would be kind enough, you are welcome to cite a reference document. I was working from the official description of DPOS at the official website. As I wrote, I will edit my post for corrections if any one provides information. You have not yet provided any information. So far I read only your (perhaps incorrect) spin on the matter.

[sidhujag]

In a controlled environment its already demonstrated 100k tps.. The bottleneck is the network capabilities rather than the core code which is what it demonstrates. Once network capabilities scale up naturally, then 100k comes possible as demand sees fit.

You are obscuring that what you just wrote effectively means, "this is how many TX/s a fast server CPU can process and we eliminated any sense of a real network from the test".

Once network capabilities scale up naturally, then 100k comes possible as demand sees fit.

This is like saying once we redesign our coin (or monopolize the DPOS witnesses with our own corporate funded super hardware because DPOS is really just a way to obscure that we are paying dividends to ourselves, analogous to how masternodes in Dash was ostensibly a way obscuring that those huge interest fees were going to those who owned the most coins), it will get faster. Let's rather talk about what a coin can do now, today, in the real world of decentralized witnesses of varying capabilities.

Obscuring instamines, and other means (cheap pre-sales of ProtoShares that were converted to Bitshares?) of having control over large percent of the coins and then setting up a paradigm where coins can be parked to earn dividends. Hmmm. How dumb are we. Hey more power to them if investors are gullible enough to buy it. But it all starts to fit together in terms of analyzing why they would even think they could have a uniform capability across all witnesses.

Your assumption which led to a dozen more about which witness is next to sign a block is incorrect, thus your derived assumptions also incorrect. Thus you really have no claim ablut bitshares and the tps without fully understanding the concepts behind the tests and feature itself.

If you would be kind enough, you are welcome to cite a reference document. I was working from the official description of DPOS at the official website. As I wrote, I will edit my post for corrections if any one provides information. You have not yet provided any information. So far I read only your (perhaps incorrect) spin on the matter.

Why not read the code?

Again the bottleneck is in the consensus code which was been optimized so that it is possible to do more than 100k tps, a bitcoin controlled environment cant do this because of the bottleneck outside of network constraints. By leveraging LMAX technology and applying it to blockchains they were able to increase efficiency in validating and signing blocks. Propogation is always an issue.. Which is where scaling up network parameters helps and is totally feasible which multiple markets are betting on and will benefit. Because there is no mining it is possible off the bat, and now optimized to create more tps. Dpos allows them to maximize decentralization while remaining anonymous and even so with bitshares following regulatory rules gives less incentive from a regulation attack than bitcoin.

With fiberoptic internet would bitcoin be able to do 100k tps? No.

Lmax does 100k in 1ms latency http://www.infoq.com/presentations/LMAX

On the use of lmax in bts https://bitshares.org/technology/industrial-performance-and-scalability/

Increasing network params will only help bitcoin by helping with the regulation attack but not scale up in tps as efficiently. Today btc is restricted to 7tps at 1mb so its orders of magnitudes off and id argue that dpos is still more decentralized than using LN to increase tps and use bitcoin as a settlement platform.

[jwinterm]

OK, bumped BTS down to 100 tx/s and left caveat. If someone has link to better info I'll be glad to check it out.