What 2.0 Currency will be the most successful?

[chennan]

I agree with you. It’s about time that crypto shows its true potential to Banks and the government by proving to be a fast and efficient system to handle transactions similar or greater than Visa. When Bitshares 2.0 comes out, it could totally rival Visa with its TPS. This is something that Bitcoin should’ve improved in the beginning, but it seems that after all there is going to be a next “Bitcoin 2.0” and that would be Bitshares 2.0 Just my opinion 

Absolutely... for one thing, I think there should always be a gold standard that currencies can judge their price on (Bitcoin). But along with that, there needs to be a coin that boast increased security features (Monero) and a coin that will literally put Visa out of business (Possibly eMunie?)... There can't be one coin that could "do it all", I think that would be impossible... but if those two entities were to work together, and allow more of a choice on which coin they want to get, based on what kind of transactions they want to do (fast or private) then cryptos could potentially have a chance to be reached by the masses.

[1715037391]

1715037391

[1715037391]

1715037391

[EvilDave]

I'm really going to have to start using the [sarcasm] and [/sarcasm] switches.......

 

[JReag]

It's starting to see like a race to the bottom for most projects :p

[RealBitcoin]

NXT and NEM are both good choices.
My vote is for the NEM blockchain platform with Proof-of-Importance, EigenTrust++, delegated harvesting and m-of-n multisig.

I dont get why is that so sophisticated to have that algorithm.

It may prove to be useful later, but at the moment they dont have lightweight client, which is a big down for me.

I like Supernet for NXT they made it very elegantly and it is really for small users.

[dearbesz]

NEM !!!

VC
INCUBATOR
MAKOTO!!!!
PhD Devs

the real deal!!!

[dearbesz]

NXT and NEM are both good choices.
My vote is for the NEM blockchain platform with Proof-of-Importance, EigenTrust++, delegated harvesting and m-of-n multisig.

editable m of n multisigs

[SydorFunk]

NEM !!!

VC
INCUBATOR
MAKOTO!!!!
PhD Devs

the real deal!!!

Their marketing head is also a professor in Korea.  NEM could very well be the most academic and credentialed team in crypto.

[Fuserleer]

I still think there are a lot of misconceptions/issues about Bitshares speed (even disregarding the crazy power box you need to sustain it) and that when it comes to the crunch, it won't perform anywhere near what is claimed.

What BTS are promising is a VISA level of tx speed in a decentralised peer-to-peer network.
This is like saying that you can make a Land Rover as fast as a Bugatti Veyron: maybe you can, but you may have to sacrifice a few safety features.

I agree with you. It’s about time that (BitShares) shows its true potential to Banks and the government by proving to be a fast and efficient system to handle transactions similar or greater than Visa. When Bitshares 2.0 comes out, it could totally rival Visa with its TPS. This is something that Bitcoin should’ve improved in the beginning, but it seems that after all there is going to be a next “Bitcoin 2.0” and that would be Bitshares 2.0 Just my opinion  

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18727.msg240918.html#msg240918

BitShares is only able to hit these incredible speeds (currently 1000tps on testnet) because they require the users to be policically active by making them vote on stuff like "block times" and "miner compensation"

Without taxing BTS users to secure the system with their opinions, these "Visa Speeds" would not be possible.

However, what sets the typical BitShares user apart from the rest is that BTS community members actually like having the ability to vote on things like:

What should the block time be?
How many miners should we allow?
What should we do with the mining profits: 1)let them keep some 2)burn some 3)reinvest some into new developments (and, of course, what should those new developments be?)?

The bottom line is that if you hate voting for stuff, then BitShares is probably not for you.

Didn't the network die after only a few peaks of ~1000 tps?  That is not very encouraging for a platform that is purported to support 100,000 tps and is being launched in a week!

Spam testing is something we've been doing since the start, not a week before launch...pushing the boundaries of where it breaks, making the network resilient to bursts and as such we can handle massive spikes (5k tps+ per channel) and continue on happily.

[testz]

I still think there are a lot of misconceptions/issues about Bitshares speed (even disregarding the crazy power box you need to sustain it) and that when it comes to the crunch, it won't perform anywhere near what is claimed.

What BTS are promising is a VISA level of tx speed in a decentralised peer-to-peer network.
This is like saying that you can make a Land Rover as fast as a Bugatti Veyron: maybe you can, but you may have to sacrifice a few safety features.

I agree with you. It’s about time that (BitShares) shows its true potential to Banks and the government by proving to be a fast and efficient system to handle transactions similar or greater than Visa. When Bitshares 2.0 comes out, it could totally rival Visa with its TPS. This is something that Bitcoin should’ve improved in the beginning, but it seems that after all there is going to be a next “Bitcoin 2.0” and that would be Bitshares 2.0 Just my opinion  

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18727.msg240918.html#msg240918

BitShares is only able to hit these incredible speeds (currently 1000tps on testnet) because they require the users to be policically active by making them vote on stuff like "block times" and "miner compensation"

Without taxing BTS users to secure the system with their opinions, these "Visa Speeds" would not be possible.

However, what sets the typical BitShares user apart from the rest is that BTS community members actually like having the ability to vote on things like:

What should the block time be?
How many miners should we allow?
What should we do with the mining profits: 1)let them keep some 2)burn some 3)reinvest some into new developments (and, of course, what should those new developments be?)?

The bottom line is that if you hate voting for stuff, then BitShares is probably not for you.

Didn't the network die after only a few peaks of ~1000 tps?  That is not very encouraging for a platform that is purported to support 100,000 tps and is being launched in a week!

Spam testing is something we've been doing since the start, not a week before launch...pushing the boundaries of where it breaks, making the network resilient to bursts and as such we can handle massive spikes (5k tps+ per channel) and continue on happily.

Where I can buy eMunie? 

Yes, BitShares test network has a problems but as I know it's not connected to the peaks of transactions, it's more connected to transactions itselfs, if you interesting about what happened, you can check here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18717.0.html

If not, just read BitShares thread here and you will be updated about all fails and successes of BitShares 

[StanLarimer]

BitShares will launch on schedule with enough throughput to support all current needs plus all of Bitcoin and most altcoins combined (if they wanted to move onto our platform for some fiendishly wise reason).

We are still optimizing the network code, which is not part of the blockchain itself, so that in coming months we can continue to scale up to full design specs of 100,000 TPS without even a hard fork.

The test net is where we are doing this optimization, so when you hear about a test "fail" is has nothing to do with what is launching on October 13.  We will have many more such fails on the test net side as we tune up to light speed, but the production blockchain where everybody's funds reside will hum along without breaking a sweat.

[patmast3r]

BitShares will launch on schedule with enough throughput to support all current needs plus all of Bitcoin and most altcoins combined (if they wanted to move onto our platform for some fiendishly wise reason).

We are still optimizing the network code, which is not part of the blockchain itself, so that in coming months we can continue to scale up to full design specs of 100,000 TPS without even a hard fork.

The test net is where we are doing this optimization, so when you hear about a test "fail" is has nothing to do with what is launching on October 13.  We will have many more such fails on the test net side as we tune up to light speed, but the production blockchain where everybody's funds reside will hum along without breaking a sweat.

From what I read on the blog the benches were done without signature verification. Why would you bench without verification of signatures ?
The actuall speeds will prob be much less impressive unless I missed something (just skimmed the post) or all delegates have an absurd hardware requirements. Even then you'll have a great time putten all those data onto the wire. I'll believe those 100k TPS when I see them. Luckily we probably won't see them anytime soon since there isn't really a need for it.  

[StanLarimer]

BitShares will launch on schedule with enough throughput to support all current needs plus all of Bitcoin and most altcoins combined (if they wanted to move onto our platform for some fiendishly wise reason).

We are still optimizing the network code, which is not part of the blockchain itself, so that in coming months we can continue to scale up to full design specs of 100,000 TPS without even a hard fork.

The test net is where we are doing this optimization, so when you hear about a test "fail" is has nothing to do with what is launching on October 13.  We will have many more such fails on the test net side as we tune up to light speed, but the production blockchain where everybody's funds reside will hum along without breaking a sweat.

From what I read on the blog the benches were done without signature verification. Why would you bench without verification of signatures ?
The actuall speeds will prob be much less impressive unless I missed something (just skimmed the post) or all delegates have an absurd hardware requirements. Even then you'll have a great time putten all those data onto the wire. I'll believe those 100k TPS when I see them. Luckily we probably won't see them anytime soon since there isn't really a need for it.  

Signature verification is parallelizable.  The benchmark is for the One Thread that must remain serial.  With that thread running at warp speed as demonstrated, we can add parallel feeders as the network scales and generates the revenues needed to pay for it.

I'll remind you of the quote often attributed to Bill Gates that, "640 kB ought to be enough for anybody". 

[patmast3r]

BitShares will launch on schedule with enough throughput to support all current needs plus all of Bitcoin and most altcoins combined (if they wanted to move onto our platform for some fiendishly wise reason).

We are still optimizing the network code, which is not part of the blockchain itself, so that in coming months we can continue to scale up to full design specs of 100,000 TPS without even a hard fork.

The test net is where we are doing this optimization, so when you hear about a test "fail" is has nothing to do with what is launching on October 13.  We will have many more such fails on the test net side as we tune up to light speed, but the production blockchain where everybody's funds reside will hum along without breaking a sweat.

From what I read on the blog the benches were done without signature verification. Why would you bench without verification of signatures ?
The actuall speeds will prob be much less impressive unless I missed something (just skimmed the post) or all delegates have an absurd hardware requirements. Even then you'll have a great time putten all those data onto the wire. I'll believe those 100k TPS when I see them. Luckily we probably won't see them anytime soon since there isn't really a need for it.  

Signature verification is parallelizable.  The benchmark is for the One Thread that must remain serial.  With that thread running at warp speed as demonstrated, we can add parallel feeders as the network scales and generates the revenues needed to pay for it.

I'll remind you of the quote often attributed to Bill Gates that, "640 kB ought to be enough for anybody". 

You still could have benched it with signature verification (done in parallel) to give people an idea of the hardware requirements for such speeds. Now we know that you can process it on a mediocre CPU with signature verification disabled which really doesn't say anything about the real world and is imho mildly interesting at best.

[StanLarimer]

That's the process we are going through on the test net as we develop the network feeders (transaction stream aggregation processors) for increasing levels of performance.  The hard part is done and ready for October 13.  The other benchmarks you suggest will occur on our test network in the coming months and are only necessary for applications we have yet to announce.

There are two quoted transactions per second numbers:  "measured" and "at scale".  The 1000 TPS measured right now is limited first by our ability to load it, so we have everybody firing all they have at the test network which is running on ordinary commodity grade processors.  

The "at scale" benchmark of 100,000 TPS is based on lab tests of the main non-parallelizable serial thread which also achieved that rate on ordinary commodity grade hardware. However, the initial network will not start out paying for enough parallel front end (ordinary commercial grade) hardware to feed 100,000 transactions into the serial thread until we need it.  By that time, the fees that much traffic would generate would easily cover the costs of gradual addition of more transaction stream aggregation processors to keep Graphene's 100,000 TPS serial fire hose fed.  (And since any competent person that gets elected to sign blocks (solely based on reputation) will receive sufficient funds directly from system revenues to pay for their hardware at any scale, this can not be said to centralize on wealthy owners of specialized barrier-to-entry hardware farms in any way.  Anyone can lease the equipment they need while they remain elected and therefore receiving funds to cover their expenses.)

As it is, the current test system demonstrates that the Oct 13 release will start out with the ability to process the combined transaction rates of every coinmarketcap.com blockchain (including Bitcoin) if they all moved their ledgers onto the BitShares platform (which they, of course, should). This seems like it ought to be all the node hardware BitShares needs to pay for on Day One.

[Fuserleer]

BitShares will launch on schedule with enough throughput to support all current needs plus all of Bitcoin and most altcoins combined (if they wanted to move onto our platform for some fiendishly wise reason).

We are still optimizing the network code, which is not part of the blockchain itself, so that in coming months we can continue to scale up to full design specs of 100,000 TPS without even a hard fork.

The test net is where we are doing this optimization, so when you hear about a test "fail" is has nothing to do with what is launching on October 13.  We will have many more such fails on the test net side as we tune up to light speed, but the production blockchain where everybody's funds reside will hum along without breaking a sweat.

The initial benchmark you made that led to the claims of 100,000 tps was suspect at best.

Now, after your testing over the weekend where the test net died at a mere 1-2% of that claim (as I expected), and resulted in Dan posting a statement detailing that the platform will be limited to just 100 tps, that claim of 100,000 tps is now completely irrelevant.

A lot of your "hype" about BTS2.0 has been based around this 100,000 tps, but its now clear the claim can not be achieved, or anywhere close.  

It should be retracted until you have solved some of the issues with networking, and performed open load testing where those claims are at least viable.  Continuing to "sell" the platform from this point and stating that claim as fact is immoral IMO.

There is no shame in stating you over estimated the capabilities, in fact it deserves respect if anything.

[StanLarimer]

The initial benchmark you made that led to the claims of 100,000 tps was suspect at best.

Now, after your testing over the weekend where the test net died at a mere 1% of that claim (as I expected), and has resulted in Dan posting a statement detailing that the platform will be limited to just 100 tps, that claim of 100,000 tps is now completely irrelevant.

A lot of your "hype" about BTS2.0 has been based around this 100,000 tps, but its now clear the claim can not be achieved, or anywhere close.  

It should be redacted until you have solved some of the issues with networking, and performed open load testing where those claims are at least viable.  Continuing to "sell" the platform from this point and stating that claim is immoral IMO.

There is no shame in stating you over estimated the capabilities, in fact it deserves respect if anything.

Perhaps you published this non-sequitur while I was posting the above?

Everything is as it has always been claimed at bitshares.org since the original announcement.

We have the flux capacitor and are building a Delorian around it.

We will continue to publish the two benchmarks (BitShares vs. Graphene) for all to track progress.  Meanwhile, the BitShareholders will vote for how much throughput they want to pay for in the active network which can grow to keep ahead of demand for the foreseeable future.

Meanwhile, Graphene has other application chains beyond BitShares that will also scale at different rates.  

[chennan]

Where I can buy eMunie? 

Yes, BitShares test network has a problems but as I know it's not connected to the peaks of transactions, it's more connected to transactions itselfs, if you interesting about what happened, you can check here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18717.0.html

If not, just read BitShares thread here and you will be updated about all fails and successes of BitShares 

You can't buy eMunie yet, they haven't released it and it's still in beta... If everything goes as planned and what transaction times they are boasting are actually true that has some privacy to it, then it will be the most revolutionary new crypto out there besides Monero IMO.

[EvilDave]

BitShares will launch on schedule with enough throughput to support all current needs plus all of Bitcoin and most altcoins combined (if they wanted to move onto our platform for some fiendishly wise reason).

We are still optimizing the network code, which is not part of the blockchain itself, so that in coming months we can continue to scale up to full design specs of 100,000 TPS without even a hard fork.

The test net is where we are doing this optimization, so when you hear about a test "fail" is has nothing to do with what is launching on October 13.  We will have many more such fails on the test net side as we tune up to light speed, but the production blockchain where everybody's funds reside will hum along without breaking a sweat.

The initial benchmark you made that led to the claims of 100,000 tps was suspect at best.

Now, after your testing over the weekend where the test net died at a mere 1-2% of that claim (as I expected), and resulted in Dan posting a statement detailing that the platform will be limited to just 100 tps, that claim of 100,000 tps is now completely irrelevant.

A lot of your "hype" about BTS2.0 has been based around this 100,000 tps, but its now clear the claim can not be achieved, or anywhere close.  

It should be retracted until you have solved some of the issues with networking, and performed open load testing where those claims are at least viable.  Continuing to "sell" the platform from this point and stating that claim as fact is immoral IMO.

There is no shame in stating you over estimated the capabilities, in fact it deserves respect if anything.

+1 to Fuserleer.....what BTS are doing is what is known in the car trade as  a 'bait and switch' :
You promise absolutely everything to the customer until they until come to the sales lot, then you suddenly 'discover' that the DeLorean you promised them has just been sold/evaporated/stolen by aliens................... and then pressure them to take a nice shiny Toyota instead.
It's a lot easier to sell crap to people when they've already walked in the door. 

[StanLarimer]

Not when your original announcement clearly explains
exactly what you have invented (including its limitations)
and what that implies for the future product line specs
and your testing program is an open book for all to observe progress toward that spec.

[Fuserleer]

Not when your original announcement clearly explains
exactly what you have invented (including its limitations)
and what that implies for the future product line specs
and your testing program is an open book for all to observe progress toward that spec.

What your original announcement clearly explains is that you took one important component of the system, tested it in isolation, then applied the result of that test to the system as a whole with a disregard for all other components and parameters.

Our balance calculation code can easily do what it needs to do in a couple of micro-seconds or less, its an important piece of the code and also runs in a single thread.  So taking your lead I can go around stating that eMunie can process up to 1M tps and plaster it all over our blurb....problem is, eMunie cant process 1M tps at a single node, and never will.

To put it in a differently, what you are doing is taking a 1litre 4 cylinder car, putting it on axle stands with the wheels in the air, planting the gas and telling everyone its capable of 150mph because the speedometer said so.