What 2.0 Currency will be the most successful?

[DecentralizeEconomics]

You either don't know what your talking about or you're lying.  Stake leasing isn't required in NXT and the cost of running a node is minuscule.

All it takes is for anyone to look at your post history to tell you're a serial liar and your entire purpose on this forum is to shill for NXT.  You picked the wrong person to shill against who can easily demonstrate how NXT really functions:

Pooled staking is required in NXT for the exact same reason pooled mining is required in Bitcoin PoW.  Everything you claim, in reality, is already shown to be false because Bitcoin shows us the reasons.

You claim "anyone" can stake, yet that's like saying "anyone" can solo mine Bitcoin using a $5 USB miner.  Yes, you are technically "mining", but if you never validate any blocks, or one block a century, that does nothing to help the security model and you may as well not exist.  All that matters is how often the top block producers are validating blocks in relation to each other.

Due to the fact that it's already a given other people are going to be pooling stake for frequency of payouts in the endgame of standard PoS, the act of them doing so makes it even harder for you to solo stake (more like impossible), thus forcing you into pooling stake as well.  It's a textbook case of snowballing feedback loop.  It eventually turns into the exact same thing as Bitcoin PoW pool mining centralization.

Once again "pooled staking" isn't "required in NXT".  The rational for actors in PoW vs PoS is entirely different.  There is no depreciating assets that must ROI by a set date in PoS.  You are assuming a lot of false conditions in an attempt to rationalize your desire to force centralization on PoS.  If you have 10k NXT forging, you will always produce ~3.15 blocks per year assuming all stake is forging regardless of other actors.  You cannot compare PoW to PoS because they are entirely different systems.

DPoS is the mechanism that doesn't have any Sybil protection not NXT.

I'm not sure if the problem is you don't understand how PoW, PoS, and DPoS work, or if you're lying on purpose.  All three of those consensus mechanisms use delegation.  DPoS is the only consensus mechanism with Sybil protection built into the protocol because it forces you to manually audit each block validator and vote for them.  For example, when you use a mining pool in PoW, or lease your stake in standard PoS to a pool (which is required as it scales as shown above), if three big pools own all of the hashrate (or leased stake power), the protocol is only telling you to send your vote power to the smallest one to avoid 51% attack.  There is nothing in the protocol of PoS or PoW forcing you to audit all three pools to make sure they aren't owned or run by the same person, which they easily can be.

You then have no other option but to vote for one of the three pools (delegation) even though it's all the same guy because solo mining is useless.  Your other option is to create your own pool and run a political campaign to try and attract transient miners (or leased stake).  In doing so, you've just recreated a more inefficient version of DPoS with less block validators and 5 tps vs real DPoS with 100,000 TPS and 3s blocks.

You cannot "audit" private businesses who are delegates.  You cannot "audit" under the table dealings and secret arrangements between delegates.  It's been proven that a very small amount of the Bitshares' shareholders can effectively control the entire delegate selection process through strategic voting.  The problem with DPoS and the reason it's susceptible to sybil attacks is because you withdrew the requirement for owning stake and replaced with a political election with an unworkable ballot system.  Even if you made every single delegate submit ID, you still would be susceptible to political and business cronyism which would remain undetectable.  Collusion between delegates is also a form of sybil attack.

Furthermore, your insistence that PoS must accept arbitrary centralization to scale is absurd.  No platform is even close to reaching 100 tps let alone 1ktps or 100ktps.

There is no "arbitrary" centralization.  DPoS is engineered knowing what the end game of all these consensus mechanisms turn into, and forces a mandatory number of block validators instead of letting it dwindle down to 3 like in pooled mining or pooled staking.  Deterministic block validation is also required to run a 2.0 platform.  Any system without it shouldn't even be considered one.  You can't run things like exchanges and all this other stuff with 10 minute or even 1 minute blocks.

Yes, there is "arbitrary" centralization in DPoS.  You arbitrarily capped the max amount of forgers at 101.  You are again assuming PoS forgers will centralize in a similar manner to PoW miners, but the fact is that there are currently 216 forgers independently operating on the NXT network.  Your hypothesis isn't backed up by facts.

[1715002524]

1715002524

[1715002524]

1715002524

[DecentralizeEconomics]

Bitshares is in fact a fractionally reserved system correct fact again. and that fraction is 3/1 or 300%

That right there is a blatant manipulation of the truth.  Bit"assets" aren't 300% reserved.  Bit"assets" are in fact a derivative of bitshares.  Claiming that this derivative is 300% secured is absurd.  Let me quote Preston Byrne as he explained it with such finesse.

The scenario described is sort of like buying a mortgage that’s secured on itself instead of a house. Except, when you buy this mortgage (the third mortgage) from the originator, you need to deposit two more mortgages on the same home with the originator that also secure themselves as collateral, which you bought and paid for already at par in dollars. After buying the third mortgage, which is actually lent to you, you have to pay the bank for the privilege of holding and trading it.

Put differently: these transactions make no commercial sense.

Btw, 3/1 isn't a fraction.  It's a whole number.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

With DPoS, you only have to convince others to vote you in.  correct DE. User control over miners and developers coupled with the freedom to join or leave the network at your own freewill is what makes BitShares unique

You may have "freewill" to join in or abstain from the delegate election process, but you can't claim that it's fair.

[r0ach]

Once again "pooled staking" isn't "required in NXT".

It is and I already explained why.  Claiming pooled staking isn't required in NXT is like claiming pooled mining isn't required in Bitcoin.  You can only claim it's not required while the coin is in it's infancy, not the endgame.

You cannot "audit" under the table dealings and secret arrangements between delegates.

That's called collusion and affects all three systems:  PoW, PoS, and DPoS.  Claiming collusion can only happen in DPoS is borderline comedy. Here's some differences for PoW vs DPoS collusion, which also affect PoS:

There are two kinds of attacks that apply to POW and DPOS:
(1) "Malicious campaigning": A mining pool can attract miners only in order to attack. Equally a delegate can attract stakeholder votes only in order to attack.
(2) "Bribing": One can try to bribe mining pool operators and delegates with the same potential for harm. In both cases stakeholders respectively miners can switch delegates respectively mining pools if the bribe attack becomes apparent.

The differences are:
(a) There are more delegates to bribe or campaign for than there are mining pools.
(b) Delegates have made a commitment to work in the interest of stakeholders whereas mining pool operators work in the interest of miners who's first interest is not necessarily the health of the Bitcoin network.
(c) Mining / POW is less efficient in terms of costs per security gained which in the end has to be paid by the user or by inflation / creating new coins although this is very difficult to estimate. What has to be compared is energy costs and mining hardware costs on the one side (POW) vs. voter attention costs minus the bigger number of block producers (more security), minus the extra security through the advantages of reputation and commitment, see above (DPOS)."

Source: http://consensus-analytics.com/

It's been proven that a very small amount of the Bitshares' shareholders can effectively control the entire delegate selection process through strategic voting.

http://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/why-approval-voting-is-unworkable-in-contested-elections/

Your ridiculous link is entirely based on examples of a single winner election, not several people.  It also goes onto state that all voting systems are flawed.  Try harder attempting to turn opinion into facts next time.

currently 216 forgers independently operating on the NXT network[/url].

Lol, what a distortion of reality.  You have the equivalent of a DPoS network of 20 people in that, while the rest are people who get blocks so infrequently they don't even matter because like I said earlier:  All that matters is how often the top block producers are validating blocks in relation to each other.

The further time goes by, the more that mining pool chart will look like the current Bitcoin pool chart as well.

But let's get to the real point of why you do so much NXT shilling:

[mixmaster]

HaH!. NEMM wIl $Ho ItselF 2 B da biggesT $cAmm yet. Ah Hv $een Daaa ReELL whItepApUH. Nwt DAA PHONayyy DeaYyy PosTEd. Nem IZ brOKen.    ... Peace.

Not too sure what you are trying to say, but there is only one "whitepaper" for NEM. Actually it is more a technical reference: http://nem.io/NEM_techRef.pdf

[bram_vnl]

please add Gulden

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=554412

[tombstone2]

Bitshares 2.0

[Tuck Fheman]

I was recently asked by Testz to address this topic:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1196533.msg12563741#msg12563741

ell seeing as Larimer himself said the solution is to "...keep everything in RAM..."  how much RAM to do think is required to keep up with a sustained 100,000 tps if it is indeed true?

You don't need to know anything about how that system works when these statements have been, 120 bytes per transaction * 100,000 transactions per second * 86400 seconds in a day = 1,036,800,000,000 bytes (almost 1TB) per day of data.  However you cut it that is a lot of data to manage efficiently in a vertically scaled system (which Bitshares is).  

If you have to go to disc even the fastest PCI SSDs will struggle to do 100,000 random reads per second after some moderate use, unless you are doing very aggressive and efficient disc management at a low level to ensure they are stored sequentially.  Even without considering transactions arriving out of order from the network, that in itself is no trivial task.  

Even batch writing large blocks of transactions to reduce the required IOPs might not cut it, as you have no guarantee that the SSD controller is going to (or even can) write them in one consecutive chunk.  If the controller wants to move data around so it can do this, that is additional overhead and your max IOPs will drop anyway.

If the RAM requirements are low, then you will be swapping out those transactions in RAM constantly, so then you are asking an already utilized IO stream to do 100,000 reads AND 100,000 writes each second on top of processing.

My issue isn't that 100,000 transactions can not be processed per second, my issue is that sustaining that processing capability with RAM and IO limitations is not as trivial as is being made out, and anyone with even a basic understanding of IO systems should be able to see it.

I believe this 100,000 tps relates to the systems ability to order match as he mentioned that specifically in the videos relating to this topic, and NOT a sustained network load of new transaction processing capability.

I want to address the MAJOR misconception and that is that we keep all transactions in RAM and that we need access to the full transaction history to process new transactions.

The default wallet has all transactions expiring just 15 seconds after they are signed which means that the network only has to consider 1,500,000 * 20 byte (trx id) => 3 MB of memory to protect against replay attacks of the same transaction.

The vast majority of all transactions simply modify EXISTING data structures (balances, orders, etc).   The only type of transaction that increases memory use permanently are account creation, asset creation, witness/worker/committee member creation. These particular operations COST much more than operations that modify existing data.  Their cost is derived from the need to keep them in memory for ever.  

So the system needs the ability to STREAM 11 MB per second of data to disk and over the network (assuming all transactions were 120 bytes).  

If there were 6 billion accounts and the average account had 1KB of data associated with it then the system would require 6000 GB or 6 TB of RAM... considering you can already buy motherboards supporting 2TB of ram and probably more if you look in the right places (http://www.eteknix.com/intels-new-serverboard-supports-dual-cpu-2tb-ram/)  I don't think it is unreasonable to require 1 TB per BILLION accounts.  

I seem to have lost my bitcointalk login password, so can someone please cross-post this for me.  Thanks.

[RealBitcoin]

NEM is a cheap copycat of NXT, i just find NXT to be the solely 2.0 currency out there. Nothing else comes close.

Ethereum fanboys will be butthurt but sorry. NXT is the big deal here only

[DecentralizeEconomics]

Once again "pooled staking" isn't "required in NXT".

It is and I already explained why.  Claiming pooled staking isn't required in NXT is like claiming pooled mining isn't required in Bitcoin.  You can only claim it's not required while the coin is in it's infancy, not the endgame.

"Pooled staking" isn't required now in NXT nor will it be required in the future.  Running a node will only cost ~$30 a year regardless of your stake.  There is no mining hardware that must ROI in a set amount of time that would force people into pools to ensure they can pay off their investment.  What don't you get about this?

You cannot "audit" under the table dealings and secret arrangements between delegates.

That's called collusion and affects all three systems:  PoW, PoS, and DPoS.  Claiming collusion can only happen in DPoS is borderline comedy. Here's some differences for PoW vs DPoS collusion, which also affect PoS:

There are two kinds of attacks that apply to POW and DPOS:
(1) "Malicious campaigning": A mining pool can attract miners only in order to attack. Equally a delegate can attract stakeholder votes only in order to attack.
(2) "Bribing": One can try to bribe mining pool operators and delegates with the same potential for harm. In both cases stakeholders respectively miners can switch delegates respectively mining pools if the bribe attack becomes apparent.

The differences are:
(a) There are more delegates to bribe or campaign for than there are mining pools.
(b) Delegates have made a commitment to work in the interest of stakeholders whereas mining pool operators work in the interest of miners who's first interest is not necessarily the health of the Bitcoin network.
(c) Mining / POW is less efficient in terms of costs per security gained which in the end has to be paid by the user or by inflation / creating new coins although this is very difficult to estimate. What has to be compared is energy costs and mining hardware costs on the one side (POW) vs. voter attention costs minus the bigger number of block producers (more security), minus the extra security through the advantages of reputation and commitment, see above (DPOS)."

Source: http://consensus-analytics.com/

Collusion doesn't affect PoW or PoS like it effects DPoS.  By removing the requirement that miners/forgers purchase hardware/stake and replacing it with a corrupt voting mechanism, you have made it much easier for a small group of manipulators to control the entire network by effectively rigging the delegate elections through strategic voting.

It's been proven that a very small amount of the Bitshares' shareholders can effectively control the entire delegate selection process through strategic voting.

http://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/why-approval-voting-is-unworkable-in-contested-elections/

Your ridiculous link is entirely based on examples of a single winner election, not several people.  It also goes onto state that all voting systems are flawed.  Try harder attempting to turn opinion into facts next time.

Approval voting is still flawed for multiple winner elections too.  I've conclusively shown how a small amount of stakeholders can determine the outcome of the majority of the delegate elections.  Everybody should ask themselves why wasn't a fair voting system implemented which only allowed one vote per stake instead of "approval" voting which allows one vote per stake for each and every delegate election?

currently 216 forgers independently operating on the NXT network[/url].

Lol, what a distortion of reality.  You have the equivalent of a DPoS network of 20 people in that, while the rest are people who get blocks so infrequently they don't even matter because like I said earlier:  All that matters is how often the top block producers are validating blocks in relation to each other.

The further time goes by, the more that mining pool chart will look like the current Bitcoin pool chart as well.

The whole reason approval voting was chosen was so that Stan, Dan, and a select group of manipulators could effectively rig all the delegate elections so they can control the entire network.  I highly suspect that almost all of the delegates are under the influence of these said manipulators.  DPoS has the equivalent of one PoW pool.  NXT will get more and more block producers as time goes on and the percentage of blocks produced by each individual will diminish the more the currency is distributed.

But let's get to the real point of why you do so much NXT shilling:

I'm not any of those people on NXT's forums.  TF is already implemented except for economic clustering.  Economic clustering isn't needed now because the network tps isn't high enough.  Just like DPoS isn't needed because your network tps isn't high enough but you insist on implementing it anyway and the only rational conclusion one can draw is that it was implemented to centralize PoS.

None of this really matters anyway.  Nobody with any common sense will use bitshares because it requires 300% collateral and as Preston Byrne puts it: "These transactions make no commercial sense."

I seem to have lost my bitcointalk login password, so can someone please cross-post this for me.  Thanks.

Like anybody really believes that.  You just don't want to come on this forum and be confronted with questions you don't want to answer.

[r0ach]

"Pooled staking" isn't required now in NXT nor will it be required in the future

You can stop repeating the same lie over and over NXT shill.  Since other people are going to be pooling stake for frequency of payouts in the endgame of standard PoS, the act of them doing so makes it harder for you to solo stake (more like impossible), thus forcing you into pooling stake as well.  The general public is not going to stake with frequency of payouts set to like once every 10 years.  In that situation, either everyone will pool stake, or very few people will stake at all except for the largest holders (banks).

Collusion doesn't affect PoW or PoS like it effects DPoS.  By removing the requirement that miners/forgers purchase hardware/stake and replacing it with a corrupt voting mechanism, you have made it much easier for a small group to control the entire network by controlling the delegates.

PoW, PoS, and DPoS are all more similar than they are different.  You're trying to twist things around while shilling for NXT and pretending that only DPoS is an aristocracy when both PoS and PoW are as well.  Anything where you derive power by how much stake you hold is an aristocracy.  PoW is an aristocracy because nothing else matters besides what the richest pool operators do that hold most the hash power.  Standard proof of stake gets hit with a double penalty of aristocracy by giving power to stake, then by having centralized mining pools on top of that.  It's easy to see that standard proof of stake has the negatives of PoW plus more new negatives at the same time.

Economic clustering isn't needed now because the network tps isn't high enough.  Just like DPoS isn't needed now because your network tps isn't high enough

This is the first time I've ever seen someone try to turn a product deficiency into a feature.  Nobody will use a decentralized exchange with 1 minute block times when there's one with 3 second block times out.  The real reason transparent forging isn't working in NXT is because they're unsure how to implement it properly.

[mixmaster]

NEM is a cheap copycat of NXT

earth is a disc

[r0ach]

NEM is a cheap copycat of NXT

earth is a disc

I wonder if there's anyone who believes this poll wasn't rigged so far.  The only options in the list anyone has ever heard of are Ethereum, Bitshares, and NXT, yet the one nobody has heard of, NEM, somehow got to #1.  Can you say rigging the ballots?

[xeman34]

HaH!. NEMM wIl $Ho ItselF 2 B da biggesT $cAmm yet. Ah Hv $een Daaa ReELL whItepApUH. Nwt DAA PHONayyy DeaYyy PosTEd. Nem IZ brOKen.    ... Peace.

Not too sure what you are trying to say, but there is only one "whitepaper" for NEM. Actually it is more a technical reference: http://nem.io/NEM_techRef.pdf

YoyO  HAH! Dereee IZZ AA HonesT TEcHnIcaL papuh. DoNE Biii HOneStt IntEllIGnt Folkks. Nawt Da PhOnAyy paCK o''' LIes Yn DAt Link Chuu poSted.   

[tokeweed]

NEM is ahead of the poll.  That might count for something...

[tat123]

NEM is ahead of the poll.  That might count for something...

r0ach and DE are more interesting than some stupid poll that means nothing. My money is on r0ach... I mean BTS. Imo, DE is taking some hits right now. If he starts to throw a bunch of "isms"... it's over.

[BurstIncomeAsset]

What about BURST?

It is similar to NXT, yet totally different and with different features such as automatic transaction, escrow (smart contract), and HDD mining. It is worth a try, I think it can become big in the next months.

[mill0601]

NEM is a cheap copycat of NXT

earth is a disc

I wonder if there's anyone who believes this poll wasn't rigged so far.  The only options in the list anyone has ever heard of are Ethereum, Bitshares, and NXT, yet the one nobody has heard of, NEM, somehow got to #1.  Can you say rigging the ballots?

Lots of people have heard of nem.

[nzminer]

NEM is a cheap copycat of NXT

earth is a disc

I wonder if there's anyone who believes this poll wasn't rigged so far.  The only options in the list anyone has ever heard of are Ethereum, Bitshares, and NXT, yet the one nobody has heard of, NEM, somehow got to #1.  Can you say rigging the ballots?

Lots of people have heard of nem.

+1

Ignore the trolls! 

[patmast3r]

NEM is a cheap copycat of NXT

earth is a disc

I wonder if there's anyone who believes this poll wasn't rigged so far.  The only options in the list anyone has ever heard of are Ethereum, Bitshares, and NXT, yet the one nobody has heard of, NEM, somehow got to #1.  Can you say rigging the ballots?

Polls on BTT are completely useless but I wouldn't call them rigged. Like how is this one rigged ? It's useless as - as always - it's a popularity and sockpuppet contest but does that really qualify as rigged ?
Also stating that nobody has ever heared of NEM is imho quite ignorant. YOU haven't heared of NEM (or not much, seeing as you described it as a mere clone in the polo trollbox unless the r0ach there isn't you) but that doesn't mean noone else has.