Bitcoin is already as fast as swiping a credit card, employing 0-confirmations.
This doesn't mean much when you need at least one confirmation in your wallet (and a hefty fee to the miners) in order to spend your incoming bitcoins
Huh? Who needs to spend their incoming funds that quickly? Not most scenarios.
And
real-time decentralized exchanges are essentially useless. (Non real-time DEX is probably important to have)
Afaics Dan did not paradigmatically improve on this. He created a centralized system which requires the coordination of whales, and thus all he did was essentially copy Visa. Perhaps we can argue that DPoS is more like federation.
I'm sorry but the 20 block producers in DPoS that each produces an equal amount of blocks are much more decentralized than the 2 and 4 mining pools in ethereum and bitcoin that control more than 50%, also it's much easier to remove/replace a bad actor in DPOS.
Nope. Basically a gentlemen’s club of “you scratch my back, then I will scratch yours”. And essentially of these systems end up being centrally controlled by an oligarchy.
Politics (i.e. voting for delegates a.k.a. a republic)
is always a power vacuum, not decentralization.
www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/#money-and-politicsAnd Vitalik has already explained why he zero transaction fees...
Vitalik?
give me a break!
Regardless, the points Vitalik made about collectivization of transaction fees are astute.
Feel free to ignore logic and reap what you sow. I will “I told you so” later. And I am much more knowledgeable than you about the technologies and facts involved. I am entirely uninterested in wasting time trying to convince you of that fact though.
I do not think anybody is refuting that Dan has created blockchains and accomplished a significant amount of development work. I certainly have never stated otherwise.
Happy to hear that but I honestly still believe that you are unfairly(imo) biased against him.
I am against his hair-brained stuff, illegal securities money grabs, and his incorrect technological claims, as I explained in my prior post. I commend and criticize to be best of my knowledge of the facts at hand.
That's why they switched (or switching?) to weighting that starts square and transitions to linear - best of both worlds - filtering and linear dependence.
Nope. Linear will be entirely gamed and thus centralized anew. Either way there is no possible mathematical solution.
Plus, each system was different by design:
OMG, here we go again with more of Dan’s collectivistic crap. So now we have community voting for which apps get funded? Another huge pot of money grab for whales.
dpos was down
Complete horseshit.
I did not write above quote. Stop lying. And readers must read the entire discussion between myself and @smooth to understand what was down.
Fact is that Steemit was down. If Facebook is down, billions have a problem.
And 20 delegates is not a lot for the national securities agencies to take down if ever they need to. I want something more bullet proof than that. Witnesses (which are not block producers) can’t produce blocks. And even 100 witnesses is not a lot (presuming witnesses have the emergency power to replace block producers).
And below I point out that the 20 or 100 may just be all the same entity hiding behind the curtain of sock puppet identities and nepotism/oligarchy.
[vitalik reference]
Vitalik is factually wrong about virtually everything about dpos
He is not wrong about the weaknesses of collectivised transaction fees. Nor is he wrong about the weaknesses of DPoS being that it is form of byzantine agreement (which has liveness threshold flaw) and which has not even been correctly formalized. There is not even a damn formal specification for DPoS! Cripes and you raise $300 million without disclosing the most basic material facts!
[ico = only a money grab]
This here means you did no effort to search the reasoning and just guess.
They don't need the ICO funding:
https://imgur.com/a/Zt9ezI already refuted that line of argument in the post of mine to which you are responding to.
It will be epic if all those funds get frozen and clawed back. Let’s see which “partners in the silicon valley” take the risk of receiving black money and risk
a 20 year felony prison sentence per the
money laundering laws in the USA for accepting funding that was obtained via illegal activity.
Vitalik spanked Dan, you’re presumably just too much of a technological ignoramus to know the difference.
Vitalik followed up.
Note though I agree Casper is flawed. I am not arguing that DPoS is not at least as good or better than Casper. I think they both suck, but it is okay to have the experimentation. At least DPoS is a fairly straightforward way to scale transaction volume and latency for experimentation on applications. In that way, I view it as somewhat wise way to move forward until something better is devised and proven.
Vitalik's comments about no fees in dpos 2-3 apply far more to eth than dpos. Plus, because eos has vested stake lending, you can have same fees as on eth in EOS by temporarily lending for a fee some resources if you want.
Irrelevant. But I expect you will not understand why so.
And here you can see how much more decentralized producers are in dpos:
The fact that you and Dan are making this argument, exemplifies how ignorant both of you are about byzantine agreement and the FLP theorem. You‘re trying compare proof-of-work systems which have probabilitistic finality and permissionless block producers, with no liveness theshold to permissioned byzantine agreement which has a 1/3 liveness threshold and permissioned number of block producers. A proof-of-work block chain is like a Whac-A-Mole game in that if you shut down all of the miners but one dude with a Rasberry PI, then system would continue functioning (not factoring in hash rate attacks just liveness).
Due to a Sybil attack and sock puppet identities, it is very easy to make it look like DPoS has distinct control, when in fact it can be (and per the iron law of political economics, it must be) just an oligarchy behind the curtain controlling it all.
That is not to say that proof-of-work does not have issues also, but to paint DPoS as some panacea is really deception and fraudulent misrepresentation of the material facts.
The above chart is purely an attempt to deceive investors of the token sale and is being archived for the securities regulators. As they will typically prioritize cases that also include fraud.
I was highly critical of Ethereum also, so arguing against Ethereum is not a refutation of my arguments about EOS.
Any other ICO format for a PoS coin would be literally idiocy.
You could have at least done
the SAFT and limited it to accredited investors. Then at least you’d have some heavyweight legal research behind you.
But then of course you might not have received $300 million because you would need to know the identity of each person, do a background check, etc..
Uncapped real time traded slow release ICO is the only valid distribution method for an ICO for any blockchain where coins are used for consensus:
in other words, capped/uncapped token sales have the liquidity of the entire supply for buyers to enjoy still. By emitting new coins slowly, the exchange orderbooks provide the liquidity with far less coins available, and some even withheld by holders, thus making buying out order books more cost prohibitive.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/76hiqp/negativity_towards_eos_dan_is_unwarranted_not/The idea of making it so whales can not buy out all the tokens (as has been the case in some other ICOs) given that all the bids are pooled to determine the price for the tokens offered during each interval, is by itself an interesting one. But the problem is the fact that issuance appears to be an illegal security in some jurisdictions.
I read that EOS plans to show some auditing ostensibly to claim “proof” they were not buying token sales from themselves. But that can be subverted given that tokens were sold apparently without requiring identity checks. Thus it is easy to operate with ETH loans or other ETH the insiders have access to through sock puppets.
What I want to see and what I am aiming for with my project, is that tokens are awarded with some evidence in the community and on the decentralized ledger that those receiving the awards are actually helping to build the ecosystem. Something that can‘t be easily obfuscated by a sock puppet attack, i.e. achieving some reasonable level of independently verifiable objectivity. To get tokens into the hands of the most productive and ardent supporters (and not favoring any political ideology or what ever, but objective metrics of benefit for the project). Now the problem is that even issuing a token in exchange for effort from others is a security if the others have a profit expectation which depends on some common enterprise. So then you need another mechanism to make sure there is no profit expectation. Just writing in your prospectus to not expect a profit, is not sufficient. The actual reality must be that the recipients of tokens can not legally expect a profit. That was my epipheny and break through recently on the matter.
I have no idea whether EOS will succeed, but Hyperme.sh seems to have 0 knowledge about this subject
Lol. In your dreams.
I don’t know if you’re just willfully trolling with that absurd, ostentatious (and erroneous) claim, or if it is just a Dunning-Kruger effect.
Guys I hope we can wrap this up because I think I have completed my analysis here and any further effort here is wasting precious time. I think I understand now what I need to understand about this for the time being.
Service Should Pay
Lastly EOS is designed around the idea that service providers (DApp Developers) should cover network costs, not the users. A good application needs a monetization strategy that is fully independent of network operation.
I agree with this. But I have two additional thoughts:
- The network costs should approach epsilon any way. The huge fees in smart contracting ledgers is because every damn node has to re-run the smart contract. There may be clever solutions to this (such as STARKS, trusted computing environments, and statistical validation). The latter is likely to be my initial approach and thus augmented with the others later.
- Service providers can pay (by employing gamification) without the entire damn thing being collectivised which has some serious flaws as Vitalik pointed out:
You can do this in ethereum too. You can have applications that refund transaction fees to their users. And yet none of them do this, and moreover none of them want to. This is for good reason: the users are ultimately the ones that have the most control over how many transactions they send, and so they should be the ones that bear the marginal economic responsibility.
I also suspect that STEEM simply has not yet had enough interest to be the victim of a properly well-planned denial-of-service attack...
The bolded point above by Vitalik is that if transactions are free up to the burst limit, then the DoS attackers can avail of it. Thus the DPoS blockchain is attacked and not just the servers (nodes) on the periphery. A sock puppet attack can be employed to defeat any attempt by the block producers to fairly limit each user. This would have the effect of forcing all users to the minimum transaction bandwidth their stake will accord, because a significant portion of the stake is maxing out the bandwidth and compensation of the block producers.Vitalik‘s comment below is spot on. Relate it to what I pointed out near the end of my prior post, but most of you will not understand what he means thus it will fly right over your head:
If I had to summarize the reason why I dislike the DPOS philosophy I would say that it's waaaay too subjective. If you want to see why it's a bad idea, take a look at any bitcoiner's criticisms of Casper, and multiply them by ten. Casper uses subjectivity only as part of its very weak synchrony assumption, which it uses to reject long-range forks and resolve majority-offline attacks. This is a highly contained use of subjectivity, and it works totally fine as long as you or someone you trust logs on once a month - a rather trivial bar to pass. DPOS seems to rely heavily on users' subjective judgements for... pretty much everything.
And this following guy makes the same mistake that Dan makes which I pointed out near the end of my prior post:
Your argument that the DPOS philosophy is too subjective isn't very compelling given the objective nature of the blockchain and the fact that transaction processors have a simple job that can be automatically assessed on behalf of users that do not intend to actively vote.
I quote it again for easy reference:
Dan is still making technological mistakes. He
erroneously claimed that block producers in DPoS do not have the power to produce incorrect blocks. I understand he is thinking about verification of transactions, but he is continuing to making the mistake he made when I corrected him before. DPoS is Byzantine Agreement, and thus if more than 2/3 collude they can double-spend and it’s impossible to know which delegate block producers are lying and which are telling the truth about the ordering of transactions. He continues to not understand this. Yet he
seems to admit it. Additionally if more than 1/3 stop producing blocks, then there is no objectivity on the ordering of blocks, due to the liveness threshold being exceeded. That he does not acknowledge this and what can catastrophically happen by putting centralized power in the hands of a dozen delegates, exemplifies to me that he still doesn‘t quite grasp all the risks.
Just imagine if the government goes after these block producers with rubber hoses and national security gag orders.
Dan
even admits these delegated block producers can censor transactions, seize accounts, etc..
