A lot to read, but this is a decent debate. Basically r0ach is stating that BTC and NXT also have a delegate system, but not as efficient as BTS. DE counters with...
Out of that list, Bitshares has the best scaling due to DPoS. NXT, if it ever gets transparent forging working, would have less TPS and slower block times, but better than other coins except Bitshares. Transparent forging is kind of like recreating DPoS in a more Rube Goldberg approach:
DPoS is just a centralized version of NXT's PoS which was implemented so the Larimers and a select group of manipulators (aka the Communist Chinese Gov) can effectively rig the delegate elections through "approval voting" and control the platform. Also, Bitshares ridiculous claim of 100k tps requires hardware with 1TB of ram.
NXT didn't invent PoS, so you should probably stop lying about that. NXT will also not be worth buying until someone can demonstrate they can even get transparent forging working on the platform. I honestly can't believe you're dumb enough to claim Bitshares can't do 100k TPS. NXT, which would be using an inferior method of deterministic block validation claims similar numbers. That was also Dan Hughes of Emunie claiming it requires 1TB of RAM, a guy who doesn't even know how Bitshares works. Tendermint claims 40,000 TPS functionality as well. You think Tendermint is lying too? Bitshares can do whatever Tendermint can do or more, and NXT will likely do less than Bitshares while also having slower block times due to the way it's structured.
Bitshares is beating NXT to the market with both high scaling and stable market pegged assets, the two things actually required for crypto to go mainstream. Nobody wants to hold crypto until it has stability like the dollar.
NXT was first to implement PoS as it's accepted today. If you were involved in crypto when Bitshares was first being concieved, you'll remember that it was originally going to be PoW. Only after the Larimers and their backers (aka the Chicom gov) saw the success of NXT did they change Bitshares over to their highly centralized, rigable version of PoS which they termed DPoS. "Stable market pegged assets"? Really? You should stop lying about that. None of these so called "assets" are stable because they aren't one-hundred percent backed by their physical counterparts. Anybody with any sense knows that without full covertability you cannot have parity.
Yes, I'm extremely doubtful that Bitshares will be able to get anywhere close to 100ktps without having it centralized on a very small amount of very powerful servers which will of course be beyond the means of affordability for the average person.
rigable version of PoS which they termed DPoS
I guess I'll post my quote again below since you don't understand how standard PoS works. It's the same thing as DPoS, just less efficient, lower performance, more Rube Goldberg approach in implementation. PoW, PoS, and DPoS all use delegation and the act of voting for a delegate. Anyone who claims otherwise is flat out lying. If you don’t believe me or don’t get it, I don’t have time to try to convince you, sorry:
For standard proof of stake, the end game stake scenario results in people having to pool or lease their stake, otherwise there's no point to stake at all. They're delegating their vote power to determine the longest chain to the pool owner. The act of doing so results in two things. First, you've recreated the centralization of PoW pool mining, where most of the blocks are being validated by a handful of people and one out of million being done by some random guy. Secondly, you've also recreated DPoS, just a less efficient, less decentralized way of doing so. Most blocks being signed by a few pools vs larger number of block validators in DPoS.
rigable version of PoS which they termed DPoS
I guess I'll post my quote again below since you don't understand how standard PoS works. It's the same thing as DPoS, just less efficient, lower performance, more Rube Goldberg approach in implementation. PoW, PoS, and DPoS all use delegation and the act of voting for a delegate. Anyone who claims otherwise is flat out lying. If you don’t believe me or don’t get it, I don’t have time to try to convince you, sorry:
For standard proof of stake, the end game stake scenario results in people having to pool or lease their stake, otherwise there's no point to stake at all. They're delegating their vote power to determine the longest chain to the pool owner. The act of doing so results in two things. First, you've recreated the centralization of PoW pool mining, where most of the blocks are being validated by a handful of people and one out of million being done by some random guy. Secondly, you've also recreated DPoS, just a less efficient, less decentralized way of doing so. Most blocks being signed by a few pools vs larger number of block validators in DPoS.
Stake leasing (centralization) isn't required in NXT's PoS. Delegation (centralization) is required in Bitshares DPoS. The centralization imposed upon Bitshares' users is deemed "necessary" and "an end game scenario" because of the flawed notion that you espouse that the cost of running a node is unaffordable to the masses. The reality of the situation is that the costs of running a PoS node is negligible and even more so if you are running a business that utilizes the platform. Being able to process 100ktps or even 1ktps on any crypto platform is total overkill at this stage in time. Bitshares is spinning this "DPoS centralization is necessary to increase tx speed" as an excuse to centralize forging away from the home user and into their grasp. At the time 1ktps or 100ktps is necessary, which will be years and years in the future, consumer grade, retail hardware will most likely be able to handle the load anyway, which will render their "DPoS centralization is necessary" mantra as null and void.
NXT was first to implement PoS as it's accepted today.
...
With all my respect to you as Nxt supporter, PoS was developed by SunnyKing in Peercoin, please don't try to mix everything into one big Nxt heap.
Nxt, BitShares and many others has different PoS implementation but all of them based at "Proof of Stake" idea.
Obviously, PoS started with Peercoin. There was a reason I ended the sentence with "as it's accepted today". You should and I know that Peercoin's PoS is inferior to NXT's PoS implementation.
Stake leasing (centralization) isn't required in NXT's PoS.
Of course it's required. That's like claiming pool mining in Bitcoin isn't required. It's only not required when the coin price is low per unit and it's being used for virtually nothing, with no widespread distribution or demand (i.e. now). Hey guys! I'm not centralized because it's possible to solo mine Bitcoin if I spend $10 million dollars!
With widespread adoption, you would need tons of cash to solo stake. Due to the way transparent forging would work, you would most likely not be able to allow hundreds of thousands of people to stake either. You would probably need to set a minimum stake amount required to be allowed in at all, while culling off all the others. In this manner you've recreated DPoS except with no sybil protection. With transparent forging, the need to pool your stake (delegated voting) increases even more as well.
Virtually
everything that you complain about for Bitshares claiming it's centralized also applies to NXT and Bitcoin. They are far more similar than not. The main difference is, DPoS starts off with the acknowledgement that PoW and PoS both use delegation and engineers the voting process to do so in the protocol itself. The other two are using a more Rube Goldberg approach to reach the same destination of delegation.
Here's your own hero, "come-from-beyond", telling you NXT isn't going to fit your definition of "decentralized" so you better sell off your NXT now:
See also:
The Bitcoin consensus mechanism is incorrectly labeled Proof of Workhttps://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1176835.0Satoshi didn't solve the Byzantine generals problemhttps://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1183043.0I dislike DPOS because of the necessity for people to vote on delegates. Now this may work perfectly fine in such an enclosed envirement that we're in right now where the userbase is very small but I doubt it'll work very well if any DPOS ever hit's mainstream.
DPoS actually scales to world reserve currency better than any other consensus mechanism. The first transition for DPoS voting would be people like exchange owners and businesses that utilize the platform would run as delegates to make sure the network they depend on is secure. From there, the actors would just keep scaling larger until you had every nation state as a delegate. Some people would think this sounds like a bad thing, but unless every nation was colluding with each other, it would get rid of fractional reserve banking at the very least, which is the real root of all problems.
Stake leasing (centralization) isn't required in NXT's PoS.
Of course it's required. That's like claiming pool mining in Bitcoin isn't required. It's only not required when the coin price is low per unit and it's being used for virtually nothing, with no widespread distribution or demand (i.e. now). Hey guys! I'm not centralized because it's possible to solo mine Bitcoin if I spend $10 million dollars!
With widespread adoption, you would need tons of cash to solo stake. Due to the way transparent forging would work, you would most likely not be able to allow hundreds of thousands of people to stake either. You would probably need to set a minimum stake amount required to be allowed in at all, while culling off all the others. In this manner you've recreated DPoS except with no sybil protection. With transparent forging, the need to pool your stake (delegated voting) increases even more as well.
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. How much does it cost to run a 30W computer 24/7 year round? At $0.1 USD / kWh it costs $26.28 USD not "$10 million dollars!" If you have 10k NXT, you'll generate ~3.15 blocks a year or a block every four months if all the stake is forging. 10k NXT costs $80 USD. Even if TF would require a minimum stake amount of 100k NXT, you would still have a potential of 10,000 forgers and it would only cost each forger $800 USD to acquire such a stake.
DPoS is the mechanism that doesn't have any Sybil protection not NXT. With NXT, you actually have to pay for your stake. With DPoS, you only have to convince others to vote you in. There is no guarantee that the delegates are actually independent and nobody has any idea what type of deals are going on behind the scenes between delegates (aka collusion). DPoS is actually implemented with "approval voting" which is
known to be unworkable in contested elections because it allows strategic voting.
Virtually everything that you complain about for Bitshares claiming it's centralized also applies to NXT and Bitcoin. They are far more similar than not. The main difference is, DPoS starts off with the acknowledgement that PoW and PoS both use delegation and engineers the voting process to do so in the protocol itself. The other two are using a more Rube Goldberg approach to reach the same destination of delegation.
Wrong. NXT doesn't artificially cap the amount of forgers to an arbitrary number that is easily controllable by a very small amount of stakeholders. Why would Bitshares choose approval voting for their delegate selection mechanism when it is susceptible to this manipulation if this was not their intent?
Here's your own hero, "come-from-beyond", telling you NXT isn't going to fit your definition of "decentralized" so you better sell off your NXT now:
He's not my hero because he's not BCNext.
I dislike DPOS because of the necessity for people to vote on delegates. Now this may work perfectly fine in such an enclosed envirement that we're in right now where the userbase is very small but I doubt it'll work very well if any DPOS ever hit's mainstream.
DPoS actually scales to world reserve currency better than any other consensus mechanism. The first transition for DPoS voting would be people like exchange owners and businesses that utilize the platform would run as delegates to make sure the network they depend on is secure. From there, the actors would just keep scaling larger until you had every nation state as a delegate. Some people would think this sounds like a bad thing, but unless every nation was colluding with each other, it would get rid of fractional reserve banking at the very least, which is the real root of all problems.
First off let's clarify that Bitshares is in fact a fractionally reserved system because the
bit"assets" are not fully, 100% reserved and thus there is a lack of convertibility. Regardless of how many "gateways" are brought online, it will always be fractionally reserved because of the way bit"assets" are created. "Gateways" in Bitshares are entirely different than "gateways" in Ripple. All assets in Ripple are brought onto the network through the gateways and therefore the gateways should, in theory, have 100% reserves unless they are corrupt. Assets in Bitshares are merely created and the gateways serve only as a means of allowing a limited amount of bit"assets" to be redeemed for their physical counterparts for a fee. Since bit"assets" are fractionally reserved by the gateways, this allows a situation to develop where a lack of confidence in your prediction market will lead to a total collapse of the asset. This is why it is so irresponsible and in my opinion fraudulent, to describe bitshares as:
BitShares.
Safer than a Swiss Bank.
(Ask me why!)
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. The necessity of such tps throughputs are so far in the future that it borders on lunacy to state we must relinquish our decentralization
today in preparation for this future event. There's a good chance that 100ktps will never be required by any of these platforms and if it is most likely consumer grade hardware at that point will be able to handle it.
I find it much more likely that your insistence on forcing centralization on your userbase
today is an attempt to establish a stranglehold of control around your network which is impossible to break. You can say all day that the delegate numbers can change from 101 to 1001, but who controls this change is the delegates and when the delegate elections can be controlled by a limited amount of shareholders (because of approval voting), it's those limited shareholders who set the rules now and in the future.
You state you want to "rid the world of fractional reserve banking", but what you really want to do is "rid the world of fractional reserve banking" only to resurrect it via DPoS which is in fact its "second coming". Self admittedly, you refer to this as "corporate fascism" which it is, but it's also communism. There is no greater centralization than that which merges the bureaucracy of state and capital.
I vote that we stomp out this r0ach!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.
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.
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.
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.
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/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:
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.
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.
"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.
So... who's opinion is right? Personally, i don't give a shit. I'm not an investor, just a speculator. I'm speculating that BTS is sucking up to the mainstream, while NXT is sucking up to the crypto enthusiasts. You be the judge to which platform will be more useful.
