Bitcoin Forum
April 27, 2018, 01:58:32 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.0  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 ... 105 »
  Print  
Author Topic: EOS - Asynchronous Smart Contract Platform - (Dan Larimer of Bitshares/Steem)  (Read 111094 times)
zeeman
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 589
Merit: 500


View Profile
October 18, 2017, 02:31:53 PM
 #761

Checked this after a week and the few holdings I have has dropped a lot in value, was this due to the kraken notification or why has EOS lost more than 50cents in a week

I've read around that price is expected to drop for a long while, during the distribution phase, before it will eventually starts to climb again.

That really depends on how much demand there is for EOS tokens. That's (as always) the big question. Qtum has a cap of 654 Million. Neo a cap of 1,4 billion. And these projects (just like EOS) are competition for Ethereum. The difference right now is that not all EOS tokens are distributed yet. They're around 50%.

So if EOS becomes as much wanted as Neo its cap should be 50% of Neo's cap which is 700 million. Or 1,69 dollar per EOS.
If EOS becomes as much wanted as Qtum is should be at 0.79 cents.

But my impression is that a lot of people don't have a clue. Just imagine 1 billion EOS tokens out there next year and think of a marketcap you think is possible in 2 years. I would say above 10 billion USD so around $10 per token. That's why I'm buying at these prices. Would even be cooler if EOS really kicked Ethereum's ass at 27 billion. Ethereum was a nice idea but nobody is using it for anything other than ICOs. That's because it's limited as hell with 15 ts./sec. EOS opens the door to big social media platforms and really fast decentralized exchanges.  
1524794312
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1524794312

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1524794312
Reply with quote  #2

1524794312
Report to moderator
1524794312
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1524794312

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1524794312
Reply with quote  #2

1524794312
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1524794312
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1524794312

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1524794312
Reply with quote  #2

1524794312
Report to moderator
1524794312
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1524794312

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1524794312
Reply with quote  #2

1524794312
Report to moderator
1524794312
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1524794312

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1524794312
Reply with quote  #2

1524794312
Report to moderator
Hyperme.sh
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10


View Profile
October 19, 2017, 04:51:48 AM
 #762

You have got to be kidding me. EOS is not even close to being a security. It promises nothing in return and is an open source software that will be released. You sure wasted a lot of words and don't even understand what EOS is.

The securities law is based on the profit expectations of investors, not what EOS writes in their legal documents which do not reflect the economic reality of the situation.

Do you see Blockone actively ensuring that the EOS tokens will not have any value? Did they sue the exchanges to prevent the tokens from being listed?

Open source does not help them avert the securities regulations, because for one thing they pooled the funds raised and are expected by investors to use those funds to develop the open source.

The investors expectations are proven by the comments in this thread. All the SEC has to do is capture this thread. Note I have archived this thread at archive.is to help the regulators.

As far as US buyers using VPN to get around getting EOS tokens, 99% of other ICO's have allowed the same loophole. They gave the same warnings with even stronger language discouraging US buyers

Nevertheless, the US buyers side-stepped the controls and thus EOS (i.e. blockone) has likely violated the law.

Disclaimer: IANAL. This is not legal advice.

Why the fuck then are you worrying and discussing and bitching about a subject on which you admittedly have neither expertise ie no fucking idea of what you are talking about nor any interest ie no money put on EOS?

Lol. Seems someone is worried that my posts might cause some greater fools to think before buying your empty bags.

“Why the fuck then are you worring and bitching about” my analysis about which you evidently have done not even 1/100th of the research that I have done, and in which you thus presumably have no knowledge to judge whether I know what I am talking about.

Note I recently became aware of the legal argument as presented in the SAFT whitepaper that when the market price of the token is dependent mostly on free market speculation and factors, then the token would not be a security despite ongoing activities of the issuer. Yet in this case, I have archived this thread where clearly the investors are citing the ongoing developments of Blockone (and Dan’s reputation) as the reasons to invest. So clearly this token fails to meet that legal theory.

And note upthread I stated that $300 million is not necessary to fund development of a blockchain. Had they raised $10 million I would not be complaining. They are presumably drawing the attention of the regulators due to the extreme amount raised in addition to the overt attempt to evade securities law with doublespeak while still apparently issuing a security.

Unlike you the Larimers know how to get [potentially illegal] shit done

Agreed.

Btw, the SEC presumably has their eye on you now:


Why don’t you post your identity and post from your real BCT account? Coward. You afraid of the SEC?

Transparency. Legality. This shit matters in the end.

There were those who were warning about Mt. Gox, yet many Legendary members here still lost money because they thought it was unlikely to fail.

Cryptocurrency (in addition to other epochal-shift potential) is a theft paradigm. Every Legendary I know has lost massive amounts of BTC due to scams and theft. This will continue to be the case.

Since many or perhaps most of you have become wiser about safeguarding your private keys and not leaving your BTC on exchanges, the Zionist bankster thieves need a more sophisticated method of taking your BTC from you gullible goyim.

[…]

So we're already entering nosebleed terroritory, but perhaps we need to hit $10,000+ or some level ($50,000?) where my nose is bleeding profusely before we finally get the SegWit attack, the SEC crackdown on major ICOs such as EOS, and perhaps also the failure of TetherUSD, Bitfinex, and perhaps Poloniex also.

Something like a contagion is on my radar but I do not know when. Perhaps some time in 2018.

[…]

Well I might say that ETH has had a few years and produced nothing tangible, but ETH was the enabler for ERC-20 ICOs. And the recent EOS token sale to me was an indicator of a fever where afaics suitable legal precautions were deemed unnecessary, but it could be that we are only in the middle innings (baseball analogy) yet.



I don't think it's a scam. These are all things that were stated or implied before the ICO.

It’s not strictly necessary for it to be fraudulent for it to be illegal under securities law.

But I bet the SEC can find some fraud and misrepresentation of material facts any way. They’re quite expert at digging out that stuff and even offer huge $millions bounties to those who will provide inside information to them.

Also given that they’re attempting to claim the token sale is not a security issuance, then they will also be subject to consumer protection laws as well. Those complicit in selling MLM bags to greater fools could I guess also possibly be culpable.

I mean basically get involved with something shady and do not be surprised when you end up in some troublesome shit.

And I hope nobody is spending their profits from all these token sales as clawbacks are potentially a threat. And then if you can’t pay back, you’re in deep shit.

So if you’re living in some banana or former-USSR republic, then completely disregard my statements and carry on suckering those in the first world nations into these hot potatoes.
NaissuR
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 100



View Profile
October 19, 2017, 05:34:20 AM
 #763

Didnt this dan larimer left his old projects?

Hyperme.sh
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10


View Profile
October 19, 2017, 05:39:37 AM
 #764

Didnt this dan larimer left his old projects?

Always needs more money apparently. He seems to be increasing the size of his sales of (in Blockone’s own words) “useless tokens” on each attempt. They really went for it this time, bagging apparently $300 million in ETH thus far.

How much crack and prostitutes does the man need, lol. Seriously though, I imagine buying the regulators in every nation-state could get quite expensive.

No srsly, these are Internep moguls.

zeeman
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 589
Merit: 500


View Profile
October 19, 2017, 02:04:30 PM
 #765

Didnt this dan larimer left his old projects?

Yes, although he still jumps in now and then to help them technically when there's an issue. Not that weird though as he really now how this stuff works.
Daniel was talking in the early days with Satoshi here on this forum. And he came up with Bitshares. After a while they created Bitshares 2.0 which can handle quite
some transactions per second. He used that technology to create Steem and the steemit website. It looks like a normal website but on the background it does use a blockchain.

And now the cool part: EOS will provide that technology to all app-makers out there. Not so strange that Daniel left these older projects, there wasn't that much left to do from bug-fixes.
EOS will bring us over a million transactions per second on 1 blockchain only. They use Delegated Proof Of Stake:

https://steemit.com/dpos/@dantheman/dpos-consensus-algorithm-this-missing-white-paper

Give it a read, this one is not so hard.

 
key_z
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 65
Merit: 10


View Profile
October 19, 2017, 03:39:41 PM
 #766


Hi Hyperme.sh. Having nothing to do with any of the conversation you've participated in within this thread, I'm curious whether you've read this 2015 thought-piece put forth by the Urbit team with regards to digital republics. Given that you seem to possess analytical prowess and put forth staunch assertions, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this subject...

Design of a Digital Republic (Medium)
Hyperme.sh
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10


View Profile
October 20, 2017, 12:56:56 AM
 #767

Daniel was talking in the early days with Satoshi here on this forum.

Satoshi politely slapped Daniel back down:

The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale.  That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server.  The design supports letting users just be users.  The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be.  Those few nodes will be big server farms.  The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate.

Besides, 10 minutes is too long to verify that payment is good.  It needs to be as fast as swiping a credit card is today.

See the snack machine thread, I outline how a payment processor could verify payments well enough, actually really well (much lower fraud rate than credit cards), in something like 10 seconds or less.  If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry.

http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=423.msg3819#msg3819

However:

satashoi in 2010 telling Steem creator Daniel Larimer that he's dumb.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CpbDqv0UEAAQCWO.jpg

Tone Vays is apparently not an expert. Apparently he has somewhat average or slightly above understanding of blockchain tech.

Afaics, Satoshi was incorrect:

The payment processor has connections with many nodes.  When it gets a transaction, it blasts it out, and at the same time monitors the network for double-spends.  If it receives a double-spend on any of its many listening nodes, then it alerts that the transaction is bad.  A double-spent transaction wouldn't get very far without one of the listeners hearing it.  The double-spender would have to wait until the listening phase is over, but by then, the payment processor's broadcast has reached most nodes, or is so far ahead in propagating that the double-spender has no hope of grabbing a significant percentage of the remaining nodes.

This is a good start, but still not impermeable.

I didn't say impermeable, I said good-enough.  The loss in practice would be far lower than with credit cards.

A selfish miner with 33% of the network hash rate would simply withhold the double-spend transaction and release it when it wins the next block, thus reverting innumerable instant transactions.

Thus the loss rate could hypothetically be egregiously worse than the 5% chargeback rate on credit cards.

What Satoshi didn't account for is a systemic attack where the attacker has a game theory to bring down the Bitcoin price, e.g. is shorting it.

I am not saying that case is likely near-term, but when you are talking about the politics of who controls the world's transaction system, the Satoshi's design loses the key quality of it being impervious to control. Thus it is a power vacuum, which is precisely what we are trying to eliminate with blockchains.

Satoshi apparently didn't account well for the systemic risks that come from the natural centralization of mining due to economics of ASIC farms. He seemed to think these parties would be ruled by the Nash equilibrium that says if they attack the network, then they destroy the value of their own investment, but he forgot about shorting and also that ASIC hardware can be fungible and used to mine other coins.

Also bytemaster (Daniel Larimer) was correct about the bandwidth and computational resources being a problem, but he didn't emphasize that the problem was scaling without centralization of the full nodes. But that centralization is coming to Satoshi's design any way due to the (even political, e.g. subsidies in China) economics of ASIC mining farms.

I suspect Satoshi knew this weakness and didn't emphasize it on purpose.

Note Dan's DPoS "solution" is centralized control as well, so it is not like Dan found a solution. He just made the centralization more efficient before Bitcoin does. One could argue that DPoS with a competitive distribution is at least the same as democracy (unlike Steem which is authoritarianism), but democracy is what we were trying to eliminate with blockchains, because it is a power vacuum.

Note wrote the above before writing the following and realizing that proof-of-work was designed by Satoshi to become centralized:

https://gist.github.com/shelby3/e0c36e24344efba2d1f0d650cd94f1c7

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2251762.msg22889412#msg22889412

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2259054.0;viewResults


I’m trying to speed read it now because I have to leave in a moment. I do not agree with their presumption that a 51% attack never happened or that it is necessarily self-destructive. SegWit is a 51% attack on Bitcoin (see my links above), and I expect a 51% attack to destroy SegWit by stealing it back in the future, but I do not think that will be self-destructive. I think it will strengthen the immutability of Bitcoin.

I do not agree that digital land has scarcity. Digital money has scarcity because of the coordination problem which can’t be removed because money has to be fungible. The coordination problem of digital land is always being removed, e.g. IPv6 will have virtually unlimited quantity of addresses. Urbit can try to make moat around their digital land, but they will ultimately fail.

Note in my blog about the coming world currency, I rebuked some of Curtis Yarvin’s (aka Moldbug’s) past theories about money.

Republics are what we are trying to kill with decentralization, but so far nobody has been able to design a ledger that is truly decentralized. So thus far, the axioms stated hold. I will propose a new decentralized ledger technology (which scales even better than DPoS) which I posit can remain decentralized if the majority of the participants are not politically motivated to defect or who can’t be manipulated. So what I expect is the the intelligent minority will fork off and run their own decentralized ledger on this technology. If the majority attacks it and necessarily raising its value, the intelligent majority will take the gains and fork off again. By eliminating the mining, I make this plausible. More on this is coming soon…
chryspano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 906
Merit: 1000



View Profile
October 20, 2017, 07:45:04 AM
 #768

Satoshi politely slapped Daniel back down:

You are blind, more than 7 years have passed since then and bitoin still remains the slow retarded coin it was back then, how many years do we need to wait until we see a solution ? another decade? In the meantime banks are becoming CHEAPER and FASTER than bitcoin is today (at least in EU with SEPA transfers), but yeah shitoshi "politely slaped" Daniel because Daniel 7 years ago could foresee a problem that still hasn't been solved yet!

In the meantime Dan is building scalable blockchains with governance systems that are years ahead of any "competition" while others cling to the past and are showing their envy with FUD, no, FUD is not the right word, BS is!
pasmas
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 100
Merit: 10


View Profile
October 20, 2017, 10:03:49 AM
 #769

I wonder when is right time to buy eos.. It is dropping 3 months in a row, but from where is see this was initial ico price, maybe will last..

▬▬▬▬ Lendoit ▮ P2P Cross Border Lending ▮ Lendoit ▬▬▬▬
All You Need Is Loan ▰▰ Revolutionizing the Lending Industry
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬[TGE on December 2017]▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
sangus
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 140
Merit: 10


View Profile
October 20, 2017, 04:48:31 PM
 #770

EOS now listed on Sangus ICO Info at 92%: https://sangus.org/ico/162
baby222
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798
Merit: 500



View Profile WWW
October 20, 2017, 06:19:32 PM
 #771

I really like bitshares, EOS and other great stuff but why is EOS having to use Ethereum for its ICO? There may be reasons beyond my understanding!

                                                                                                   ▄███████████▄
     ▄▄████████████▄▄        █████████████████    █████████████████▄        █████████████████    ▄██▀         ▀██▄
   ▄██▀▀          ▀▀██▄                           ██              ▀▀██                           ▄▄▄           ▄▄▄
  ██▀                ▀██▄                         ██                 ██                           ▀██▄       ▄██▀
 ██                    ██                         ██                  ██                            ▀██▄   ▄██▀
██▀                                               ██                   ██                             ▀██▄██▀
██                           ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄     ██                   ██   ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄            ▀█▀
██                           ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀     ██                   ██   ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀             ▄
██▄                    ██                         ██                   ██                              ▄███▄
 ██                    ██                         ██                  ██                             ▄██▀ ▀██▄
  ██▄                ▄██▀                         ██                 ██                            ▄██▀     ▀██▄
   ▀██▄▄          ▄▄██▀                           ██              ▄▄██                           ▄██▀         ▀██▄
     ▀▀████████████▀▀        █████████████████    █████████████████▀        █████████████████  ▄██▀             ▀██▄

    ▄██████████████▄
   ▄████████████████▄
  ▄██████████████████▄
 ▄████████████████████▄
▄██
████████████████████▄
 ▀████████████████████▀
  ▀██████████████████▀
    ▀██████████████▀
      ████████████
       ▀████████▀
        ▀██████▀
          ▀██▀
           
The 1st Ever Certified Blockchain
Based Diamond Exchange ❱ ❱ ❱ ❱


█ █
█ █
█ █
█ █
█ █
█ █
█ █
█ █
█ █
  █
  █
 
  █
█ █
█ █
█ █
█ █
█ █
█ █
█ █
█ █
█ █
█ 
daniweb
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350
Merit: 250



View Profile
October 20, 2017, 06:59:11 PM
 #772

When Satoshi Nakamoto launched the Bitcoin Genesis Block, Satoshi included some esoteric stuff in it such as text from a headline from a periodical of the era. Will the EOS Genesis Block include esoteric stuff or "easter eggs" in it as well?

5thangel
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 507


The P2P Marketplace For Digital Content


View Profile WWW
October 21, 2017, 05:23:47 AM
 #773

EOS still holding very strong compared to many other altcoins  Wink

███▄       ██████████████████       ▄███
 ███▄       ███▄        ▄███       ▄███
  ▀███       ▀███      ███▀       ███▀
   ▀███▄      ▀███▄  ▄███▀      ▄███▀
    ▀███▄      ▀███▄▄███▀      ▄███▀
      ████       ██████       ████
       ▀███▄      ▀███▄     ▄███▀
        ▀███▄   ▄▄ ▀███▄   ▄███▀
          ████▄████  ████▄████
           ▀█████▀    ▀█████▀
            ▀███▀      ▀███▀
              ▀          ▀



▄▄    ▄▄▄    ▄▄    ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄     ▄▄          ▄▄           ▄▄           ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄       ▄▄      ▄▄▄
▐█▌  ▐███▌  ▐█▌    ██▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀     ███▄      ▄███         ▄████▄         ██▀▀▀▀▀▀██▄     ██    ▄██▀
 ██  ██ ██  ██     ██▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄      ██▀██▄  ▄██▀██        ▄██ `██▄        ██      ▄██     ██  ▄██▀  
 ▐█▌▐█▌ ▐█▌▐█▌     ██▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀      ██  ▀████▀  ██       ▄██ ▄▄▄██▄       ████████▀▀      ██ █▀▀██▄ 
  ██ █   ████      ██▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄     ██    ▀▀    ██      ██▀ ▀▀▀▀▀▀██      ██    ▀██▄      ██     ▀██▄
   ▀      ▀▀       ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀     ▀▀          ▀▀     ▀▀▀        ▀▀▀     ▀▀      ▀▀▀     ▀▀       ▀▀

TM

█ █
█ █
█ █
█ █
█ █
.BLOCKCHAIN-BASED. MARKETPLACE
      FOR .DIGITAL CONTENT.
 
█ █
█ █
█ █
█ █
█ █
  █
Transact directly with

no middleman involved
────────────────────
      ▄▄▄▄ ▄█████████▄       
   ▄▄███████████████▀ ▄▄▄▄▄  
  ▐█ ▐█████████████▌▄███████▄
  ███████████▀▀██████████████▌
  █████████████ ▀████████████▌
 ▄█▀▀███████████ ▐███████████▌
██    ▀█████████▌ ███████████▌
█▌     ▐████████▌ ███████████▌
▐█      ███████▀ ███████████▀
 ▀█▄  ▄███▀▀▀   ▀▀████████▀  
   ▀▀▀▀▀             ▀▀▀     
Hyperme.sh
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10


View Profile
October 21, 2017, 06:06:37 AM
 #774

Satoshi politely slapped Daniel back down:

You are blind, more than 7 years have passed since then and bitoin still remains the slow retarded coin it was back then, how many years do we need to wait until we see a solution ? another decade?

Bitcoin is already as fast as swiping a credit card, employing 0-confirmations. The problem with Bitcoin is scaling, not Visa level speed (although nanotransaction speed of Bitcoin is a problem but that wasn’t what Satoshi was refuting). The quote I provided spoke about speed of confirmation, not scaling.

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.

Of course it is possible to scale to Visa speed with a centralized system. Duh. But scaling to billions of users requires decentralization, because coordination of whales turns in a clusterfuck as the collectivized pie for fighting over becomes larger.

And Vitalik has already explained why the zero transaction fees is collectivized nonsense and will be attacked to hell once you put in a system with $billions riding on it and not some underutilized toy like Steemit.

And worse yet, he launches his money grabs in ways which arguably are getting closer and closer to securities law violations and enforcement actions.

In the meantime banks are becoming CHEAPER and FASTER than bitcoin is today (at least in EU with SEPA transfers), but yeah shitoshi "politely slaped" Daniel because Daniel 7 years ago could foresee a problem that still hasn't been solved yet!

Many of us saw the problems. And I was also one of those in discussions on this form with Dan back in 2013 about potential solutions and Dan was always proposing weird collectivized shit that did not adhere to the principles of decentralization. And he was working on pegs, which are nonsense because pegs are never sustainable.

Lots of hair-brained Rube Goldberg machine type ideas. But Dan did come up with at least two or three really good ideas and I commend him (e.g. TaPoS, locking up onboarded tokens for a period of time, and onboarding users by awarding tokens although this last one was also my idea). But the money grabs and the obfuscation of centralization (and even falsely claiming he solved decentralized budgeting when he mathematically did not) does not impress me. And then the “useless token” sold to non-accredited USA persons raising some $300 million seems to me as if he (as a USA citizen) is taking some huge legal risks. If you’re impressed then go forth and reap what you sow. We can agree to disagree about priorities.

In the meantime Dan is building scalable blockchains with governance systems that are years ahead of any "competition" while others cling to the past and are showing their envy with FUD, no, FUD is not the right word, BS is!

There is no envy son. Is your head so big that you‘ve become delusional. Just giving readers another perspective so they can make their own informed decisions.

Sounds like you’re envious of my standing? If I was nobody, you would not bother to attack me so vehemently. I do try to be fair in my assessments and when @smooth came here then I acquiesced to factual corrections.

I almost became a supporter of Steem (even contemplated talking with the founders about joining as a developer) and actually I do still continue to comment positively about the facet of Steemit providing censorship resistant blogging (which is one of the reasons why I continued to blog there and not Medium), but as I analysed it I realized the centralization makes it not what I want to be involved in trying to spread out of to the world and invest 5 - 10 years of my life in.

Hopefully I won’t start a project in haste, make some catastrophic errors (e.g. launching an illegal security, designing the onboarding to subject to the political whims of some leftist whales[1], etc), and then leave to go do another money grab. I would intend to stick with my project and see it reach its maximum potential.

I smirked when Dan stated he will not have to move on from EOS because he does not think it will run out of funding, and the reason for my smirk is if the regulators come after Blockone and seize their assets. Dan might end up causing huge problems for himself which exceed the problems from his ex-wife, which apparently launched his passion in this space (see below).

Dan argues for a more incremental approach of creating a project and then leaving to make changes. Actually that would make sense if he offered an airdrop to his former project token hodlers. So excuse me if I am somewhat skeptical about whether Dan’s intentions are really more about money grabs. We’re all here hoping to make some money from our efforts, yet I believe the profit should come from the results not $300 million up front. I repeat that if Dan had raised $10 million to fund his ongoing efforts, I would be less skeptical.

Btw, if Daniel is creating governance systems and whale controlled clusterfucks then he is deceiving someone (maybe himself):

Finding Free Market Solutions to Secure Life, Liberty, and Property

About 5 years ago I came to a realization that the solution to the organized crime syndicate commonly referred to as government must be born from the free market. Furthermore, any free market alternative to government that is unable to free us from the current government will not be strong enough to prevent a new government from taking over.

Btw, Dan’s outcome with an ex-wife is similar to my experience in discovering I was a slave if I stayed in the USA, which is one reason I left and ended up in the Philippines which ended up being also a huge mistake because I caught Tuberculosis which apparently infected my gut and lymph nodes. So it appears that to similar to myself in the past when I was younger, Dan may have thrown caution to the wind in retaliation:

Meditation

It was at the depth of this despair that I learned how to let go. Holding on to anger and resentment was only holding me back. I started meditating and learning who I really was. I learned the joy of living in the moment and not dwelling on my story and the injustice of it all. I had to let go of things I could not change and focus on what I can do. This experience gave me the strength to be calm in any storm.


Renewed Commitment

Not wanting to give up, I became more determined than ever to find a way to get justice. I started getting back into Bitcoin and attempting to figure out ways to organize society that did not depend upon violence. More specifically, I started looking for ways that everyone could work together to defend ourselves against this organized, family destroying, crime syndicate.

And then he began to slip down that slippery slope of rationalizing collectivistic clusterfucks (it is interesting because it somewhat parallels the decline I went through after I left the USA and started rationalizing various mistakes in judgement I made because underlying I was still so angry about being a slave in my home country due to an immigrant wife I stupidly brought to the USA):

I also learned that my capitalist mindset was too short-sighted. I began to see how building a community around the selfish motives of earning income by charging fees on transactions limited adoption. I learned that "inflation" isn't theft if it is done to compensate those who bring value. I learned that true theft is expecting people to work for free without getting a share in the product. This maturing perspective caused me to diverge from many of people who were originally attracted to BitShares.

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.

Btw Daniel admitted that Bitshares governance was not working as Paul Sztorc explained, but Dan claims Steem solved decentralized budgeting but I have pointed out it is mathematically impossible that it did or could.

[1] Note that Dan has always been (since I first knew of him in 2013) on this theme of “non-violence”. That exhibits an unrealistic fantasy bubble type of mentality. And a leftist leaning lie to oneself. Some of the whales who were attracted to Steem seem to have a similar attitude based on my interactions with them over there.

As someone who attempts to follow the silver rule, "Don't do unto others what you don't want others doing to you.", I concluded that initiating violence against others is not an option. I know that I cannot remain rationally consistent while violating this rule.

The logical outcome of this belief is that using threats of violence to extort money from others for any purpose is something that is off of the table. This means taxes and everything taxes pays for is off the table. This means war and violent revolution is off the table, but that doesn't mean I want to sit back and do nothing!




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..



I see Dan is making a legal argument for the EOS token sale not being a security, so he is essentially arguing that because they did not use the pooled funds for developing the software (which he claims are revenue for a software sale, not an investment in the future value of tokens). The Howey test will look beyond such obfuscations of the economic reality. The economic reality is the investors are depending on Blockone to provide the profit expectation for the tokens. I suppose analogous to the arguments for the SAFT, they’re thinking that the pre-functional tokens are securities (although they claim they’re not and are revenue) and the functional tokens at the time when Blockone is not running the nodes are not securities because Blockone as the common enterprise will have ceased doing the significant efforts. Even if courts and regulators agree with that logic, the pre-functional tokens are clearly securities (as are the shares of a SAFT) and they have clearly been promoted to and sold to USA investors. Also the USA is not the only country with securities laws. And the funds invested were pooled with Blockone regardless whether they used the funds or used prior funds. One of the arguments for the SAFT is that because the pre-functional shares are treated as securities, then the public-at-large (i.e. the non-accredited investors) are protected from the sort of fraud and insufficient disclosure that securities law is designed to protect. So Blockone did not adhere to the protections that would make the SAFT concept worthy to society and regulators, and instead sold the pre-functional token (as an investment contract!) willy-nilly. Dan was asked why they made the pre-functional token tradeable which adds evidence that investors buy it to distribute it as underwriters, and Dan basically gave a nonsense response. This sort of hair-brained stuff from Dan is what boggles my mind. I presume he is thinking that if they have enough money they can afford attorneys and buy off regulators or perhaps even lead an overthrow of the powers that be? In that case, even a $billion is not enough.

Dan’s response to the question about what assurances do buyers of the token have is very incriminating in my opinion. Basically he is admitting they have to obfuscate the economic reality to attempt to evade securities law. In the prior response he stated that they needed to create a distribution, so this implies there is an expectation that some group will launch the live network honoring that distribution, and then they mention they will use the $300 million to develop ecosystem infrastructure and apps, yet then they somehow disclaim that that will be connected with this spontaneous formation of a live network that honors the distribution of the formerly “useless token”. Dan tries to imply that the distribution is distinct from the Blockone common enterprise (which issued the distribution in a token sale) and that the common enterprise is just selling open source software token which anyone might or might launch into a live network, and thus implying Blockone would not be the issuer of the eventual live network tokens and also claiming they are not issuing a security for the pre-functional ERC-20 token. This is clearly a premeditated obfuscation of the economic reality. Buyers of the EOS ERC-20 tokens are clearly expecting the live network to honor their share and they are clearly basing their profit expectation on the efforts of Blockone to develop the software that will form the live network. The current speculative trading on EOS ERC-20 tokens on exchanges is clearly based around those expectations of the ongoing efforts Blockone must complete. What are their lawyers smoking? I want some of that shit.

My understanding is that the securities law attorneys who advise for example Blockone, are paid to provide a legal OPINION. This means their culpability is limited as long as they provided a reasonable justification for their opinion. Yet the culpability for breaking the law will rest on the principals of Blockone, not on the attorney. The attorneys could be fined or in the worst case dis-barred, but the criminal and culpability for returning the $300 million rests on the principals of Blockone and possibility any affiliates and underwriters complicit in the scheme which might include some of you shills in this thread.

Disclaimer: IANAL. This is not legal nor investing advice.
chryspano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 906
Merit: 1000



View Profile
October 21, 2017, 08:43:54 AM
 #775

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, when it's faster and cheaper to transfer fiat in to an exchange than it is to transfer bitcoin, then you know that something is really wrong here.



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.



And Vitalik has already explained why he zero transaction fees...

Vitalik?  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy give me a break!





And worse yet, he launches his money grabs...
That's why it's hard for someone to take you seriously.



Hopefully I won’t start a project...

I believe there is some truth in this  Grin
/Trolling



So excuse me if I am somewhat skeptical about whether Dan’s intentions are really more about money grabs.

It seems you repeteatly focus your FUD and slander on Dan, you miss the point that EOS is not just Dan, there is a whole Team, more than 13 devs working and I don't really know how large the whole team is!



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.  Smiley


scaryvirus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 556
Merit: 500


View Profile
October 21, 2017, 09:06:16 AM
 #776

Quote
Btw Daniel admitted that Bitshares governance was not working as Paul Sztorc explained, but Dan claims Steem solved decentralized budgeting but I have pointed out it is mathematically impossible that it did or could.

That's why they switched (or switching?) to weighting that starts square and transitions to linear - best of both worlds - filtering and linear dependence.

Plus, each system was different by design: https://i.imgur.com/CGXS4B8.png

dpos was down

Complete horseshit. Really, fucking using website explorer being down as proof? lmao. did all 100 witnesses go down & the ones after that? Can ask Charlie Shrem, he's one of them. Because that's what would have to happen.

dpos was never down, it was ddos'ed because it was mentioned a lot on assange tweet which I guess made people attack it. I tested with steemdb (steemd sucks) dtube.video and steemstream.com

Even if the chain went down, which it didn't, thanks to irreversibility, there would be no danger to any user - much more preferable to chain splits.

Quote
vitalik reference


Vitalik is factually wrong about virtually everything about dpos & has done 0 reading on the subject starting with claiming dpos doesn't use merkle trees for security. He's also one of the biggest idiots in crypto.

Quote
Vitalik: there are a lot of protocol features that Ethereum has EOS doesn’t have. One of them, for example, was merkle trees. Dan: EOS does have a merkle tree over all the transactions within a block.

Quote
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/Zt9ez

Dan spanked Vitalik here: https://steemit.com/eos/@dan/response-to-vitalik-buterin-on-eos and here: https://steemit.com/eos/@dan/reponse-to-vitalik-s-written-remarks

Here he made more fun of Vitalik: https://i.imgur.com/BexilLT.png

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.

And here you can see how much more decentralized producers are in dpos: https://i.imgur.com/dFM3U79.jpg

And if we go by users influence via full nodes for ethereum (22,787 nodes) and users influence via tokens (37,906 holders for bts), even bitshares is more decentralized than eth.

Oh, note how it also applies Pareto breaking principles via approval voting and equal weight to all witnesses that ethereum and casper and cosmos fail at.

Oh, and current launch stats for EOS are in 10s of millions tx/sec with 0.5 sec block time, no fees, and <1 sec finality.

Meanwhile ethereum can't scale https://i.imgur.com/i6RWuVg.png

Ethereum was 72% premined so already failed at distribution, and then majority was sold in liquid ICO = both are distribution and security failures compared to BTC and EOS.

Ethereum later proved to have complete centralization during bailout, something not even remotely debatable, and ethereum now has 0 relevance to any discussion about decentralized blockchains.

Any other ICO format for a PoS coin would be literally idiocy.

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:

Quote
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/

I have no idea whether EOS will succeed, but Hyperme.sh seems to have 0 knowledge about this subject. Reminds me of those scammers trying to defend idiocy like trusted set-ups (backdoor) or lie about other projects like waves likes to do.
Hyperme.sh
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10


View Profile
October 21, 2017, 09:50:32 AM
 #777

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-politics

And Vitalik has already explained why he zero transaction fees...

Vitalik?  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy 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.  Smiley

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.



Btw Daniel admitted that Bitshares governance was not working as Paul Sztorc explained, but Dan claims Steem solved decentralized budgeting but I have pointed out it is mathematically impossible that it did or could.

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.


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/Zt9ez

I 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.

Oh, and current launch stats for EOS are in 10s of millions tx/sec with 0.5 sec block time, no fees, and <1 sec finality.

Meanwhile ethereum can't scale https://i.imgur.com/i6RWuVg.png

Ethereum was 72% premined so already failed at distribution, and then majority was sold in liquid ICO = both are distribution and security failures compared to BTC and EOS.

Ethereum later proved to have complete centralization during bailout, something not even remotely debatable, and ethereum now has 0 relevance to any discussion about decentralized blockchains.

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:

Quote
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..
chryspano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 906
Merit: 1000



View Profile
October 21, 2017, 12:40:52 PM
 #778


Yes you did, here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1994833.msg22648871#msg22648871

here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1983826.msg22648705#msg22648705

here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2004651.msg22648642#msg22648642

here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1558366.msg22648569#msg22648569

and here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2000232.msg22648492#msg22648492

Stop lying.
He is not lying, you are and it's not the first time!


Fact is that Steemit was down.

And yet you claimed that it was steems blockchain and DPoS that went offline in all the above threads! and now you insist that you did not say so? really? Does someone else have access to your account?
Hyperme.sh
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10


View Profile
October 21, 2017, 12:48:45 PM
 #779


No I did not. I certainly did not in the post he quoted. Neither did I in the new links you are providing (which he did not quote from). Learn to read. Go read it again and also read the context wherein I explained to smooth and you that Steem/Steemit is synonymous is the minds of many readers so the terms are often used interchangeably.

Broadcasting to numerous threads that others create to talk about EOS, Steem, and DPoS enabled systems, is I think consumerate to the level of the $300 million money grab and incorrect hype and snake oil salesmen obfuscations underway.

Moreover, I stated exactly what was down for me (and 1000s of others!) in my follow up. Never did I write that I was 100% sure that all block producers stopped communicating with any other node! I challenge you to find any place where I claimed I had verified that block producers were not communicating with any other node. I wrote specifically what I had checked (steemd.com, Steemit.com, and busy.org). And then it was discussed. And I explained that the distinction between the web/cache ledger servers/nodes being down for most users and the blockchain being down for some whales who happen to run full nodes is another deception. Steem does not encourage users to run full nodes. Steem encourages users to employ client-server driven GUIs. There is not even any complete technical documentation that I could readily find last time I visited steem.org. Besides I have explained how DPoS is vulnerable to transaction spam attack per Vitalik’s point, especially more so when we start looking at smart contract transaction costs which will presumably be orders-of-magnitude more costly than Steem’s transactions.

Who the fuck cares if DPoS block producers were still communicating to a small circle-jerk of whales? And given that even that inner core can perhaps be DOS’ed by transaction spam attack on EOS and/or some strong power attacking the small group of money grabbers behind the curtain who control all these entities of DPoS.

You’re grasping at straws trying to discredit me, Vitalik, and anyone else who exposes Dan’s money grabbing scams which you’re apparently complicit in.


I see Dan is making a legal argument for the EOS token sale not being a security, so he is essentially arguing that because they did not use the pooled funds for developing the software (which he claims are revenue for a software sale, not an investment in the future value of tokens). The Howey test will look beyond such obfuscations of the economic reality. The economic reality is the investors are depending on Blockone to provide the profit expectation for the tokens. I suppose analogous to the arguments for the SAFT, they’re thinking that the pre-functional tokens are securities (although they claim they’re not and are revenue) and the functional tokens at the time when Blockone is not running the nodes are not securities because Blockone as the common enterprise will have ceased doing the significant efforts. Even if courts and regulators agree with that logic, the pre-functional tokens are clearly securities (as are the shares of a SAFT) and they have clearly been promoted to and sold to USA investors. Also the USA is not the only country with securities laws. And the funds invested were pooled with Blockone regardless whether they used the funds or used prior funds. One of the arguments for the SAFT is that because the pre-functional shares are treated as securities, then the public-at-large (i.e. the non-accredited investors) are protected from the sort of fraud and insufficient disclosure that securities law is designed to protect. So Blockone did not adhere to the protections that would make the SAFT concept worthy to society and regulators, and instead sold the pre-functional token (as an investment contract!) willy-nilly. Dan was asked why they made the pre-functional token tradeable which adds evidence that investors buy it to distribute it as underwriters, and Dan basically gave a nonsense response. This sort of hair-brained stuff from Dan is what boggles my mind. I presume he is thinking that if they have enough money they can afford attorneys and buy off regulators or perhaps even lead an overthrow of the powers that be? In that case, even a $billion is not enough.

Dan’s response to the question about what assurances do buyers of the token have is very incriminating in my opinion. Basically he is admitting they have to obfuscate the economic reality to attempt to evade securities law. In the prior response he stated that they needed to create a distribution, so this implies there is an expectation that some group will launch the live network honoring that distribution, and then they mention they will use the $300 million to develop ecosystem infrastructure and apps, yet then they somehow disclaim that that will be connected with this spontaneous formation of a live network that honors the distribution of the formerly “useless token”. Dan tries to imply that the distribution is distinct from the Blockone common enterprise (which issued the distribution in a token sale) and that the common enterprise is just selling open source software token which anyone might or might launch into a live network, and thus implying Blockone would not be the issuer of the eventual live network tokens and also claiming they are not issuing a security for the pre-functional ERC-20 token. This is clearly a premeditated obfuscation of the economic reality. Buyers of the EOS ERC-20 tokens are clearly expecting the live network to honor their share and they are clearly basing their profit expectation on the efforts of Blockone to develop the software that will form the live network. The current speculative trading on EOS ERC-20 tokens on exchanges is clearly based around those expectations of the ongoing efforts Blockone must complete. What are their lawyers smoking? I want some of that shit.

My understanding is that the securities law attorneys who advise for example Blockone, are paid to provide a legal OPINION. This means their culpability is limited as long as they provided a reasonable justification for their opinion. Yet the culpability for breaking the law will rest on the principals of Blockone, not on the attorney. The attorneys could be fined or in the worst case dis-barred, but the criminal and culpability for returning the $300 million rests on the principals of Blockone and possibility any affiliates and underwriters complicit in the scheme which might include some of you shills in this thread.

Disclaimer: IANAL. This is not legal nor investing advice.

Oh but he grabbed the money to help starving Africans!
John Titor
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 128
Merit: 100


View Profile
October 21, 2017, 01:08:04 PM
 #780

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1904415.msg22651949#msg22651949

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1904415.msg22654086#msg22654086

Shelby you are lying.  I read your discussions with Smooth, you straight up were referring to the blockchain, and not the website, Smooth corrected you.  We have 7 links now of you making that point, and yet you still try to deny it?  You always claim ego is for little people but when you make a mistake you get defensive, the hypocrisy is palpable.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 ... 105 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!