Made new video: "Solving Bitcoin's Centralization: NXT vs Clam"

[smooth]

It has nothing to do with "right or wrong".  It has to do with the prerogative of the majority coin holders.  It's very true that stake can be centralized much further than hashpower.   All someone has to do to get more influence is purchase more stake.  I'm not sure about the argument of "Chinese Miners" competing... Is there any business in China that isn't controlled by the govt?  Is there anyone in China who has money that the govt doesn't want to have money?

I don't think it is really that simple. Obviously when the Chinese government imprisons or disappears someone or confiscates his or her assets, the previous day that person had money (and/or their freedom/life). The next day they don't.

Moreover the "Chinese Government" is not a unitary entity either.

Regarding the fact of minority stakeholders being taken advantage of by larger shareholders, I can only imagine a situation where the larger holders would destroy smaller holders currency.  This of course would destroy the currency and its value and would not be in their interest to do so.

I gave you an example straight from Bitcoin. Setting transaction fees. That obviously accrues to the advantage of some parties an disadvantage of others. It probably doesn't crash the world and destroy the currency value, but it means if you can't protect your interests in the game, your best choice is to leave the game. Thus the ownership contracts until you have private equity that isn't at risk of being disadvantaged by anyone.

It won't work as money, which by its nature becomes universal. It might works as some sort of narrow platform that delivers utility to customers, or possibly a cooperative that delivers utility to its owners, but the ownership will be narrow. That is inevitable.

(And I'd add that since I have serious doubts are there being a useful application for blockchains other than money, it may not work for anything, but that's another question really.)

[1714996068]

1714996068

[1714996068]

1714996068

[1714996068]

1714996068

[1714996068]

1714996068

[1714996068]

1714996068

[1714996068]

1714996068

[TPTB_need_war]

I'm not arguing that PoS honors the wishes of the tiny stakeholders.  PoS honors the wishes of the dominate stakeholders.  They set policy.

And what is the game theory of that then. There is an Iron Law of Political Economics which insures the dominate stakeholders will steal everything from the collective. And they are doing it right now to all you in Bitshares. Mark my word. I will be laughing at you later. There has NEVER be an exception throughout all human history for governance.

[smooth]

I'm not arguing that PoS honors the wishes of the tiny stakeholders.  PoS honors the wishes of the dominate stakeholders.  They set policy.

And what is the game theory of that then. There is an Iron Law of Political Economics which insures the dominate stakeholders will steal everything from the collective. And they are doing it right now to all you in Bitshares. Mark my word. I will laughing at you later.

Probably better to just ignore TPTB than laugh. They've been warned. What else can we do?

It's also not really fair to single out Bitshares, the other systems are no different.

[Hachoir]

Also PoS can't distribute new coins, thus eventually the coin supply shrinks asymptotically to 0.

You are wrong here. There are PoS variants that distribute new coins.

No variants can. And the last time you debated me, I defeated you on every single point. Are we going to have to do it again?

I thought you wrote last time that you were going to be busy with your university semester beginning. I am ~51 (50.7), you are in your early 20s I presume. I have been a software developer since before you were born.

You don't defeat someone by talking wtf just discuss your shit and that's all

[TPTB_need_war]

The world is not going to adopt a coin that is a corporation. Period.

Same for that shit OBITS.

I will take market capitalization of Apple for $200 Alex.

So you are arguing for global corporate-fascism? Have you youth been totally indoctrinated?

[DecentralizeEconomics]

It has to do with the prerogative of the majority coin holders.

No that is not what democracy does. Democracy doesn't honor the perogative of anyone other than those who can steal from the collective by amassing the most power and lying to the collective by promising everything and delivering nothing (while socializing losses). Get an education. Read my prior post.

Why the fuck would we even be working on crypto currency if governance worked. Crypto currency would be entirely unnecessary if democracy actually worked.

I don't think democracy works, but I do think representative government works.

I'm not arguing that PoS honors the wishes of the tiny stakeholders.  PoS honors the wishes of the dominate stakeholders.  They set policy.

And what is the game theory of that then. There is an Iron Law of Political Economics which insures the dominate stakeholders will steal everything from the collective. And they are doing it right now to all you in Bitshares. Mark my word. I will be laughing at you later. There has NEVER be an exception throughout all human history for governance.

Remember, I hate Bitshares, but I like NXT.

[TPTB_need_war]

Also PoS can't distribute new coins, thus eventually the coin supply shrinks asymptotically to 0.

You are wrong here. There are PoS variants that distribute new coins.

No variants can. And the last time you debated me, I defeated you on every single point. Are we going to have to do it again?

I thought you wrote last time that you were going to be busy with your university semester beginning. I am ~51 (50.7), you are in your early 20s I presume. I have been a software developer since before you were born.

You don't defeat someone by talking wtf just discuss your shit and that's all

You missed the point. I don't have to defeat anything. The dominant stakeholders are stealing everything from you as we speak. Enjoy the ride.

And that includes Dash's masternode scheme and all of the PoS systems.

However, at this time PoW is also the same. The Chinese (professional miners) are stealing everything from Bitcoin investors (but not from Bitcoin users yet, while block rewards are still high!)

Thus the state of crypto is in crisis. So far it is a failure except some foundation work has been laid and some users have benefited from Bitcoin. Even PoS has funded some foundational work so from that standpoint I can't say it is a total failure.

[smooth]

Why the fuck would we even be working on crypto currency if governance worked. Crypto currency would be entirely unnecessary if democracy actually worked.

Good point. The same could be said for corporations. There is no need to blockchain the corporation; the current model works just fine for what it does. You only need a new model if you want to do actually accomplish something different.

[TPTB_need_war]

Why the fuck would we even be working on crypto currency if governance worked. Crypto currency would be entirely unnecessary if democracy actually worked.

Good point. The same could be said for corporations. There is no need to blockchain the corporation; the current model works just fine for what it does. You only need a new model if you want to do actually accomplish something different.

We are headed into the Knowledge Age where the individuals are their own bosses and so we need perhaps block chain contracts between individuals. No middleman as in the Theory of the Firm. In that theory, the corporation exists to handle risks and costs related to impedance mismatches when individuals interact, e.g. a key employee dies and no one else can work on the code he was doing. Or the inability to get focus and direction amongst a disparate group of individuals without the discipline of a manager.

We need to learn how to work together in open source, having contracts that reward all parties, yet also provide necessary redundancy, openness, etc.. For now that is a nebulous dream but I think we are working towards that. I hope.

[CoinHoarder]

You guys are ignoring that PoW has to be paid for by diluting shareholders. If you would like to argue that they can be upheld by transaction fees, that is yet to be determined and depends on many unknown factors. I have only seen one (or maybe a few) coin reduce or eliminate block rewards with expedited emission rates, and in turn people stopped mining it and it was attacked soon after.

You guys are ignoring the fact that a huge amount of energy needs to be consumed to secure PoW cryptocurrencies.

You guys are ignoring that PoW tends towards centralization too.

Most of what you're saying is true, but there is a reason why developers don't run companies, economists aren't in advisory positions in hedge funds, historians don't run the government, etc... There is much more to the puzzle than technical analysis. There is network effect, volume/liquidity, distribution methods, emission rates, inflation/deflation, number of coins, number of coins eventually, transactions per second, transaction fees, quality and dedication of developers, services... (mobile wallets, exchanges, block explorers,  hot wallets, payment processors), ease of use, utility of the cryptocurrency (how many places and things can you purchase with it).

By reading your postings, if I blindly believed the words you spit out, would lead me to believe that Bitcoin is a bad investment. However, after considering all of the factors I can be sure that is not the case. Bitcoin is hugely flawed, and it is (and will likely be for some time) the king of cryptocurrencies. Only geeks care about most of the issues you guys write off entire cryptocurrencies for. Speculators don't have time to research every caveat of decentralized technology.

[smooth]

Speculators don't have time to research every caveat of decentralized technology.

I will be the first to tell you that if you want to to engage in short term speculation, none of these issues matter at all. All that matters is supply and demand over your holding period.

When I speak of crypto trading as being a zero sum game that is not a pejorative.

[CoinHoarder]

Why the fuck would we even be working on crypto currency if governance worked. Crypto currency would be entirely unnecessary if democracy actually worked.

Good point. The same could be said for corporations. There is no need to blockchain the corporation; the current model works just fine for what it does.

That is an ignorant statement. You must not have ever worked in the corporate world. I work at the largest transfer agent in the world, that has been legally restricted from expanding its footprint, and does business on 5 continents and grosses millions. This company could literally be cut out of the loop with blockchain technology. In the immediate future it is unlikely because the silent generation and baby boomers are horrible with technology, but I see it being a real possibility in the coming decades.

Proxy voting is another costly (but necessary) endeavour for corporations, one that could be done completely on blockchains for pennies on the dollar similar to transfer agent services. I'm sure you've also read in the news about the ways blockchain technology can greatly speed up the time it takes to settle trades and at the same time cut the costs. The costs of accounting... etc...

[CoinHoarder]

Speculators don't have time to research every caveat of decentralized technology.

I will be the first to tell you that if you want to to engage in short term speculation, none of these issues matter at all. All that matters is supply and demand over your holding period.

When I speak of crypto trading as being a zero sum game that is not a pejorative.

Give me network effect and market cap first, then I can hire all the developers I need to take out whatever geek coin you're working on.  

Aeon has literally no chance at success because it is not a complete package. Many coins are better than Bitcoin, yet most will go the same way of copy and paste / pump and dump coins.

[TPTB_need_war]

Why the fuck would we even be working on crypto currency if governance worked. Crypto currency would be entirely unnecessary if democracy actually worked.

Good point. The same could be said for corporations. There is no need to blockchain the corporation; the current model works just fine for what it does.

That is an ignorant statement. You must not have ever worked in the corporate world. I work at the largest transfer agent in the world, that has been legally restricted from expanding its footprint, and does business on 5 continents and grosses millions. This company could literally be cut out of the loop with blockchain technology. In the immediate future it is unlikely because the silent generation and baby boomers are horrible with technology, but I see it being a real possibility in the coming decades.

Proxy voting is another costly (but necessary) endeavour for corporations, one that could be done completely on blockchains for pennies on the dollar similar to transfer agent services. I'm sure you've also read in the news about the ways blockchain technology can greatly speed up the time it takes to settle trades and at the same time cut the costs. The costs of accounting... etc...

I think smooth was referring to DACs (the term apparently invented by Daniel Larimer), or the concept that the corporation would be somehow decentralized and yet still be a corporation. If you have voting, directors, etc, then it will still behave as (by definition) a top-down corporation and thus is not decentralized. You can't replace corporate governance with a block chain and still have a corporation.

[smooth]

That, but anyway I think it is a myth that all those costs having to with stock transfers, accounting, voting, etc. will go away with blockchains. There are inefficient legacy systems for sure, but those legacy systems could be upgraded with or without blockchains (probably better without).

Most of the costs exist for legal (and often good economic) reasons and the legal framework will still exist and impose its overhead as long as the corporation has physical assets (or for that matter assets that exist as a legal fiction such as IP). Only in rare cases (money potentially being one of them or perhaps the only one) is it plausible to imagine that value exists without physical or legal assets.

Nevertheless the blockchain is a big fad now and many legacy systems may get upgraded with blockchains (though it probably won't be DAC blockchains, it will be chains run by banks, transfer agents, trust companies, etc.). Shrug.

I have not worked in the transfer agent business. I have worked in the corporate world, including finance. Although I probably shouldn't even respond to the ad hominem at all.

[TPTB_need_war]

You guys are ignoring that PoW has to be paid for by diluting shareholders.

My PoW design doesn't have that flaw. I am not assuming, but you are (as you didn't know what I have designed).

You guys are ignoring the fact that a huge amount of energy needs to be consumed to secure PoW cryptocurrencies.

Not in my PoW design.

You guys are ignoring that PoW tends towards centralization too.

Not in my PoW design.

Most of what you're saying is true, but there is a reason why developers don't run companies, economists aren't in advisory positions in hedge funds, historians don't run the government, etc... There is much more to the puzzle than technical analysis. There is network effect, volume/liquidity, distribution methods, emission rates, inflation/deflation, number of coins, number of coins eventually, transactions per second, transaction fees, quality and dedication of developers, services... (mobile wallets, exchanges, block explorers,  hot wallets, payment processors), ease of use, utility of the cryptocurrency (how many places and things can you purchase with it).

Yup. And that is why I have a chance to kick ass on everyone here. Because my breadth is very polymathy (much more than the Larimer clan). But one dev does not a global coin make.

By reading your postings, if I blindly believed the words you spit out, would lead me to believe that Bitcoin is a bad investment. However, after considering all of the factors I can be sure that is not the case. Bitcoin is hugely flawed, and it is (and will likely be for some time) the king of cryptocurrencies. Only geeks care about most of the issues you guys write off entire cryptocurrencies for. Speculators don't have time to research every caveat of decentralized technology.

Perhaps you need to read my posts more carefully:

Another perspective could be that Bitcoin will be centralized and the block chain size increased and that we've already seen the bottom at the V bottom dip to $150 before.

At this point I am trying to contemplate what is going to happen to Bitcoin given these issues revolving around scaling. I don't see any technical solutions for Bitcoin other than to centralize and then raise the block size. Maybe that is what will happen. At this time, I need to be focused on coding and not trying to analyze the complex possibilities of what might happen with Bitcoin from here forward.

[CoinHoarder]

I think smooth was referring to DACs (the term apparently invented by Daniel Larimer), or the concept that the corporation would be somehow decentralized and yet still be a corporation. If you have voting, directors, etc, then it will still behave as (by definition) a top-down corporation and thus is not decentralized. You can't replace corporate governance with a block chain and still have a corporation.

It is decentralized enough to where the government can't easily or cheaply shut it down. In turn it can offer services that are highly regulated much more efficiently and cheaply than legacy corporations. DACs can reduce hosting costs by utilizing nodes of the network and users, and costs of employment by utilizing smart contracts.

Sure, it is "controlled" by large stakeholders and management which is elected by such, but that's just how corporations work. To say there is no benefit to "decentralizing" or using blockchain technology for corporations is silly.

[smooth]

Give me network effect and market cap first, then I can hire all the developers I need to take out whatever geek coin you're working on.  

There is only one coin with network effect and market cap that eclipses all the others into insignificance. It is USD.

[TPTB_need_war]

Speculators don't have time to research every caveat of decentralized technology.

I will be the first to tell you that if you want to to engage in short term speculation, none of these issues matter at all. All that matters is supply and demand over your holding period.

When I speak of crypto trading as being a zero sum game that is not a pejorative.

Give me network effect and market cap first, then I can hire all the developers I need to take out whatever geek coin you're working on.  

No you can't. I can easily defeat you all by myself. Because it takes vision and the coders you hire will expect the vision to come from you, but you don't have the depth and breadth to lead them. And partially because you need to understand both technology deeply and also economics and also practical business. I have done all those. Very few people can claim the skills I have. I have marketed software to what would be 10 million netizens in todays internet population size.

You see smooth has worked in corporate world where he was a contractor. So he is expert at some aspects such as for example server work. But he isn't expert at marketing nor GUIs directly to end users. I bring a skill set that is very unique. Many people don't realize that. I have been very ill and this has really limited what I could accomplish.

Aeon has literally no chance at success because it is not a complete package. Many coins are better than Bitcoin, yet most will go the same way of copy and paste / pump and dump coins.

Ditto Bitshares, Dash, Ethereum, OBITS, etc.

There is nothing in Altcoin space that has any chance right now.

But who are we to tell them that? They might have something up their sleeve or who knows maybe their technology gets adopted for another purpose and smooth gets awarded a lucrative contract.

We are laying down experimental foundations at this time.

That is why I think we devs need to be more friendly with each other. And the speculators need to stop creating these wars and pitting us devs against each other in time wasting political discord. If speculators would stop putting 5% of their networth into altcoins, this place might be a lot more cooperative instead of combative.

I would love to see more reason and less emotion. When inexperienced speculators have significant vestment riding on an altcoin, they become irrational and combative (or let's say rational trying to pump and defend but irrational overall since that was a stupid move to become a bagholder).

Investing say 0.5% of your networth in altcoin will keep your reason intact. You can be on the lookout for better investments and obtain more if there is actual user adoption and not just a bunch of plans.

[CoinHoarder]

You guys are ignoring that PoW has to be paid for by diluting shareholders.

My PoW design doesn't have that flaw. I am not assuming, but you are (as you didn't know what I have designed).

You guys are ignoring the fact that a huge amount of energy needs to be consumed to secure PoW cryptocurrencies.

Not in my PoW design.

You guys are ignoring that PoW tends towards centralization too.

Not in my PoW design.

Most of what you're saying is true, but there is a reason why developers don't run companies, economists aren't in advisory positions in hedge funds, historians don't run the government, etc... There is much more to the puzzle than technical analysis. There is network effect, volume/liquidity, distribution methods, emission rates, inflation/deflation, number of coins, number of coins eventually, transactions per second, transaction fees, quality and dedication of developers, services... (mobile wallets, exchanges, block explorers,  hot wallets, payment processors), ease of use, utility of the cryptocurrency (how many places and things can you purchase with it).

Yup. And that is why I have a chance to kick ass on everyone here. Because my breadth is very polymathy (much more than the Larimer clan). But one dev does not a global coin make.

By reading your postings, if I blindly believed the words you spit out, would lead me to believe that Bitcoin is a bad investment. However, after considering all of the factors I can be sure that is not the case. Bitcoin is hugely flawed, and it is (and will likely be for some time) the king of cryptocurrencies. Only geeks care about most of the issues you guys write off entire cryptocurrencies for. Speculators don't have time to research every caveat of decentralized technology.

Perhaps you need to read my posts more carefully:

Another perspective could be that Bitcoin will be centralized and the block chain size increased and that we've already seen the bottom at the V bottom dip to $150 before.

At this point I am trying to contemplate what is going to happen to Bitcoin given these issues revolving around scaling. I don't see any technical solutions for Bitcoin other than to centralize and then raise the block size. Maybe that is what will happen. At this time, I need to be focused on coding and not trying to analyze the complex possibilities of what might happen with Bitcoin from here forward.

"Not in my PoW design"... you mean your vaporware? Give me a break... you just reminded me that I've solved all the issues with PoS in my yet to be published or developed alt coin. Therefore, all of you arguments are invalid....