What caused Bitshares to lose it's shine?

[cryptohunter]

I've not heard much about that project lately?

Was very popular not long ago?

[StanLarimer]

Lots of activity on BitSharestalk.org now that the community is running everything.

Bytemaster's 90 minute weekly press conferences are usually mind blowing.  Last Friday was about a new breakthrough in side chains.

You can find them here.

BitShares is one of the highest performance industrial grade blockchain platforms and lots of people are building on it.   We just had the Maker from Ethereum list two assets on BitShares, for example.  It just takes time for those applications to build up and gain traction.

Current discussions:

We just dropped transfer and market fees to negligible and shareholders will soon get free transactions proportional to their stake.

Shareholders are busy discussing which new project proposals to sponsor.

Stealth privacy is about to be added.  The list goes on...

The only reason you haven't heard much lately is because, frankly, I've been delightfully too busy to come by here to shill
(and the usual trolls haven't goaded me into it lately.)

[TPTB_need_war]

We just dropped transfer and market fees to negligible and shareholders will soon get free transactions proportional to their stake.

So "we" are in control and not the market. Centralization always leads to failure.

[TPTB_need_war]

Also the fact that Bitshares (and Ethereum and Monero) hypes shit that doesn't do what they say it will do:

Bitcoin-NG: A Scalable Blockchain Protocol

http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.02037

Their design lacks several of the key features of my design wherein I can (in theory) attain confirmations in seconds or less with real world network performance far in excess of Visa scale with current hardware and internet connections. I did see one key element of my design in their design, but Dash Evolution sort of has this same element too, so this one element is not the key epiphany to get to my design.

The following criticisms of Factom appear to apply to this Bitcoin-NG proposal as well:

• Since Factom uses the Bitcoin block chain, it doesn't defeat selfish mining.
• Since Factom uses the Bitcoin block chain, it doesn't fix mining so that proof-of-work is unprofitable for ASICs and thus only the users mine.
• Factom transactions don't become irreversible for 10 minutes, whereas my design is on the order of a second or seconds to become irreversible.

In Bitcoin-NG, the winner of a block solution does not propagate a block of transactions. Instead that node wins the right to propagate smaller micro-blocks of transactions at shorter intervals than 10 minutes. The next winner of a block solution signs the last micro-block seen, thus tying that (and preceding) micro-blocks into the block chain. The economic incentives to propagate these micro-blocks seems not well designed, and it certainly doesn't solve the selfish-mining nor the 51% attack.

The advantage is of Bitcoin-NG's design is that micro-blocks can propagate more frequently; and thus one huge block doesn't have to propagate instantaneously every roughly 10 minutes. This is essentially eliminates the transient spike of the Satoshi design; and thus improving aliasing error which takes the form of propagation delay and orphan rate in Satoshi's design. However these micro-blocks are not confirmed until the next 10 minute block is won; and thus afaics Bitcoin-NG does not speed up transaction confirmation speed. Blockchain-NG enables the block chain to scale to the rate at which the prior block winning node can process transactions and propagate them to the network; and scales without requiring all nodes to have the same capabilities nor delegate to more powerful nodes such as Gavin's proposed IBLT design.

However, the same criticism I leveled again BitShare's 2.0 design applies, in that the performance will vary every 10 minutes depending on which node has won each successive block.

BitShares 2.0

• Any engineer should know the antithesis of reliability is lack of fault-tolerance, i.e. depending on only 1 node for each block validation. Variability in the network hiccups, DoS-resistance, hardware, and other aspects of witnesses will mean that some can't keep up with the 3s block time every time or they drop transactions and transactions need to propagated to further witnesses and blocks. So either will have unreliability on the real-time promise, and/or this will push approval voting for witnesses that are centralized by those who have the resources to defend their nodes and maintain uptime and performance loads. These issues don't matter as much with longer block times and/or lower expectation of tps, but if you are seriously expecting 1000s of tps in 3s block times sequenced (funneled) into a queue of witnesses then issues will amplify exponentially not just linearly.

[noobtrader]

Also the fact that Bitshares (and Ethereum and Monero) hypes shit that doesn't do what they say it will do:

Bitcoin-NG: A Scalable Blockchain Protocol

http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.02037

Their design lacks several of the key features of my design wherein I can (in theory) attain confirmations in seconds or less with real world network performance far in excess of Visa scale with current hardware and internet connections. I did see one key element of my design in their design, but Dash Evolution sort of has this same element too, so this one element is not the key epiphany to get to my design.

The following criticisms of Factom appear to apply to this Bitcoin-NG proposal as well:

• Since Factom uses the Bitcoin block chain, it doesn't defeat selfish mining.
• Since Factom uses the Bitcoin block chain, it doesn't fix mining so that proof-of-work is unprofitable for ASICs and thus only the users mine.
• Factom transactions don't become irreversible for 10 minutes, whereas my design is on the order of a second or seconds to become irreversible.

In Bitcoin-NG, the winner of a block solution does not propagate a block of transactions. Instead that node wins the right to propagate smaller micro-blocks of transactions at shorter intervals than 10 minutes. The next winner of a block solution signs the last micro-block seen, thus tying that (and preceding) micro-blocks into the block chain. The economic incentives to propagate these micro-blocks seems not well designed, and it certainly doesn't solve the selfish-mining nor the 51% attack.

The advantage is of Bitcoin-NG's design is that micro-blocks can propagate more frequently; and thus one huge block doesn't have to propagate instantaneously every roughly 10 minutes. This is essentially eliminates the transient spike of the Satoshi design; and thus improving aliasing error which takes the form of propagation delay and orphan rate in Satoshi's design. However these micro-blocks are not confirmed until the next 10 minute block is won; and thus afaics Bitcoin-NG does not speed up transaction confirmation speed. Blockchain-NG enables the block chain to scale to the rate at which the prior block winning node can process transactions and propagate them to the network; and scales without requiring all nodes to have the same capabilities nor delegate to more powerful nodes such as Gavin's proposed IBLT design.

However, the same criticism I leveled again BitShare's 2.0 design applies, in that the performance will vary every 10 minutes depending on which node has won each successive block.

BitShares 2.0

• Any engineer should know the antithesis of reliability is lack of fault-tolerance, i.e. depending on only 1 node for each block validation. Variability in the network hiccups, DoS-resistance, hardware, and other aspects of witnesses will mean that some can't keep up with the 3s block time every time or they drop transactions and transactions need to propagated to further witnesses and blocks. So either will have unreliability on the real-time promise, and/or this will push approval voting for witnesses that are centralized by those who have the resources to defend their nodes and maintain uptime and performance loads. These issues don't matter as much with longer block times and/or lower expectation of tps, but if you are seriously expecting 1000s of tps in 3s block times sequenced (funneled) into a queue of witnesses then issues will amplify exponentially not just linearly.

LOL....
lot of ppl hate you 

[TPTB_need_war]

lot of ppl hate you 

People that hate the truth aren't valuable.

[Bisha]

We just dropped transfer and market fees to negligible and shareholders will soon get free transactions proportional to their stake.

So "we" are in control and not the market. Centralization always leads to failure.

It was voted in. When he said "we", he meant the shareholders.

[StanLarimer]

And I see someone has posted a nice summary of other cool stuff going on a parallel thread in this forum.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1389426.msg14115561#msg14115561


I can't keep track of it all any more because so many other people are running their own things.

And that doesn't even count the stuff going on behind the scenes at Cryptonomex that my dog Ellie Mae ain't talkin' about!

Stan

Oh and BitShares Blockchain News