EOS - Asynchronous Smart Contract Platform - (Dan Larimer of Bitshares/Steem)

[Hyperme.sh]

dpos was down

Complete horseshit.

I did not write above quote.

Yes you did

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!

[1714813031]

1714813031

[1714813031]

1714813031

[1714813031]

1714813031

[1714813031]

1714813031

[1714813031]

1714813031

[John Titor]

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.

[Hyperme.sh]

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.

Specifically what I wrote in the post you quoted is:

Steemit’s DPoS was offline for over an hour

I am referring to Steemit there, not DPoS in isolation. Thus you’re being disingenuous to claim I am lying. I may have thought that “DPoS” (as a term referring to the ledger as a whole) might be down because I presumed that Steemd.com was accessing the ledger directly. I do not think I was referring any where to whether the block producing nodes stopped functioning. Can you find any quote where I claimed that?

Your second link is where I pointed out to @smooth that any attempt to frame the issue around whether the block producing nodes were still active, was more or less a diversionary tactic trying to discredit the point that Steem/Steemit was down.

I stand by this account of what transpired:

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.

Refute that.

I am not lying. I never wrote “dpos was down”. That is an attempt to put words in my mouth taken out-of-context. I clearly explained that the Steem/Steemit was down from my perpective (and presumably 1000s of others given I verified those were down via numerous proxies all over the globe) and that Steemd.com gave an error which lead me to believe that the blockchain might not be communicating to Steemd. If you’re going to quote someone, then quote what they wrote. Do not insert some words they never wrote verbatim taken out-of-context, purely as an attempt to draw attention away from all the correct claims being made on various issues. And the point below potentially links the periphery being down to the design of DPoS and collectivized transaction fees.

Indeed Steem (as perceived by 1000s of users) was down. That is fact.

It is an entire system. Those of you who are trying to obfuscate what was discussed, are just conveniently trying to weasel your way out of culpability for the system being down.

I am sorry for you John if you bought this token and now feel you have to defend it, if that is the case. Certainly you are not being objective about the full scope of the discussion about Steem/Steemit being down. It was down! None of you have denied that the sites I checked were down and that busy.org was unable to load content from (caches of) the “blockchain”.

What do we mean by “blockchain”? Okay so we put hashes of content on the data stored by block producers and then we grab cached content that matches that content from other nodes/servers. So if it is possible to DDoS attack those nodes which serve up data that users expect to come from the “blockchain” then is the blockchain down yes or no?

It is a matter of perspective. That is what @smooth and I discussed. You read only what you want to read into the discussion which is from my perspective an incorrect summary of the discussion and what transpired.

If Steemit has 1 billion users and it goes down and you tell them, “oh but it is really isn’t down”, they are going to say you are either a liar or have lost your mind.

The fact that they have not been able to yet scale the entire system out such that it can’t be DDoS’ed attacked is I think perhaps relevant to the discussion about whether EOS can scale. As Vitalik pointed out, the collectivized transaction fee scheme has  not been tested at smart contract scale yet. Moreover I should have pointed out in my discussions with @smooth that perhaps the reason the cache servers were insufficient to defend against the DDoS attack might have something to do with the fact that presumably no transaction fees are being paid directly to them (they presumably depend on residual income that somehow trickles down from the collectivized circle-jerk). The collectivization of fees works perhaps to fund the inner whale circle-jerk for the 100 witnesses, but it apparently does not scale out decentralized in the ecosystem, which was the point I been trying to articulate to @smooth over the past weeks in several facets that DPoS can’t scale the ecosystem from an economic analysis. And apparently also the point Vitalik was making. When I refer to circle-jerk, I mean in many facets including that the last time I checked there was still no formal specification of DPoS nor sufficiently organized documentation so that any one could even know where the fuck to look in terms of knowing whether the circle-jerk DPoS “ledger” thingy was still functioning whilst the GUI user-level access points of the ledger data were down due to DDoS attack.

DDoS attacks will happen and they can be a learning experience that can possibly be adequately defended against by making some changes. I am not expecting them to never have an incident as they grow and learn. Steemit was also DDoS attacked in 2016 much more frequently. Yet I also stand by my skepticism about whether a centralized ledger of 100 (potentially sock puppet) witnesses can be a robust system against more powerful attackers. Also if the whales start attacking each other is another possibility I worry about. Yet I also was willing to tolerate it as a scaling mechanism to test out new ideas, but my main objection thus far is that the systems seem to be whale money grabs. Even the voting on Steem/Steemit seems to be “if you scratch my back and help us money grab, then we will give you a cut of the action”. My interest in supporting a decentralized ledger is I want my ROI to not depend on kissing any one else’s ass or corruption. I want to be able to go build things based on the merits of the followers I can create, the value to others out there of the products/apps I create, etc.. I am not going to support any system where the ROI is subjective on whether I support things I do not think are correct.

I am pointing out about Dan potentially enticing securities regulators to look more closely at our ecosystem. And I am not happy about some whales raping the ecosystem and squandering it on illegal shit. 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. Centralizing a huge pot of money is going to raise angst in our ecosystem because it leads to massive failure, e.g. Mt. Gox, the DAO, etc.. EOS illegal securities might be the next black swan that takes our ecosystem into another crypto winter (not sure about that though). And $300 million is not actually that huge any more as the market caps have increased significantly over the past year.

Luckily so far I am not censored at Steem/Steemit when I argue with whales. But I have had my entire awards (from 100s of voters) nullified by a couple of arrogant whales who abuse the downvote feature. It is not the loss of money but it is that I want a meritocracy. I want to have a decentralized ledger that I can invest my effort in and not feel like it is being wasted (potentially in a future fireball of securities regulation or DoS attacks) or gamed.

Mostly I just intended to write down some of my thoughts about balancing the disclosure about EOS so that readers can judge for themselves both sides.

Never have I stated that I thought EOS would be a bad speculation. I am not commenting about that other than to note most of these FOMO things tend to have their pumps eventually.

[scaryvirus]

Huh? Who needs to spend their incoming funds that quickly? Not most scenarios.

trading exchange for example, only the most common type of transaction probably.

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.

That's your opinion. Plus you might just view reliable witnesses being voted in consistently as an oligarchy - hard to say. You don't need any coins to be voted in.
Out of all the options it seems to be the least bad.

Also approval voting takes care of that in part: https://i.imgur.com/GmixVHd.png

Each coin and thus coin holder controls the system in the end - quite literally and formalized.

the points Vitalik made about collectivization of transaction fees are astute.

lets see what he said:

Code:

The poor, who are not interested in putting the entirety of their often very low savings into a funky new cryptoasset in order to be able to use a blockchain.

great, they won't have to, because there are no fees, so can take those out right after. can also borrow someone elses bandwidth for free (i.e. app host lending it to users) or pay a fee (just like in eth) to use someone's bandwidth (lending market) or not use at all. overall, a lot more options and giant fees in eth seem to be more important here.

Code:

nyone who wants to use the blockchain only a few times and then go away (they would need to buy coins and then sell them again)

same as above. so can do what he says and can do what eth does or even pay nothing if dapp pays for you (like amazon servers pay for you using amazon servers when  you're browsing)

Code:

Anyone who experiences prolonged unexpected spikes in demand (ie. pretty much eveyone); users will have to buy enough coins to cover perhaps the 99th percentile of their expected usage, so that they don't get stuck being "out of gas" and having to go to an exchange.

he has it backwards - you get coins to be guaranteed some bandwidth under maximum load, anything extra you get is free bonus when network is under lighter load. and again, can rent or borrow more.

Linear will be entirely gamed and thus centralized anew

being gamed isn't the issue, it's if system is usable by everyone -  honest or not. who cares what people use it for. point is they are distributed by honest participants to honest participants, losses to gaming are assumed by default.

So now we have community voting for which apps get funded? Another huge pot of money grab for whales.

That's why he focused so much on getting good distribution to make it too expensive to grab coins. Just think of whales getting more as staking. Honest people can still get what they need from honest participants.

Fact is that Steemit was down.

Steemit website is not relevant to steem. I don't even understand how little someone might know about blockchains to think a random website being up is important for any discussion. And the steem blockchain was not down. I do know of an instance when one dpos chain was down, and this isn't it or even close, and it wasn't a big deal.

And 20 delegates is not a lot for the national securities agencies to take down if ever they need to.

It's not 20, it's at least 100 in top 100 list and unknown numbers afterwards with only few minutes it takes to spin up a new witness node and get current state.

formal specification for DPoS

it's called github code. plus which one, there's like 20 versions continuously evolving. dan even wrote this recently.

weaknesses of DPoS being that it is form of byzantine agreement (which has liveness threshold flaw)

treshhold flaw is nonsense as mentioned in this comment. All his proposed weaknesses require 2/3+1 of witnesses to collude to fork, better than chance based in pow where even <50% can attack.

it was brought up in coversation about tendermint/cosmos liveness flaw, not dpos: "1/3+ can halt the consensus process" also mentioned here. It refers to LIB (optional guideline of when chance of  irreversibility is extremely high) but simply waiting for all witnesses instead of 2/3 to validate is enough.

There is one additional level of confirmation that could be implemented in DPOS: require 100% participation and 21 blocks. With 63 seconds of confirmation and 100% participation then you can be certain that you will never get “stuck” and that every transaction you receive is truly irreversible and globally accepted. source

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.

You can't refute an opinion lol. money grab or not, they have other funding, and it doesn't matter. if silicon valley doesn't want to buy, they don't have to.

Vitalik followed up.

I love how vitalik ignored all the major corrections and criticisms, like not knowing the basics about dpos. and focuses on obsurd things.

• pointless comment about parity syncing their light client fast with all that bloat
• ignores point about him being wrong about merkle trees
• some crap about physical ethereum coins - wtf
• a lot of power in hands of proxies comment - ignores that he got called out on using data from 2014 beta - as opposed to 2 mining pools in control of eth and, like what, 5 important nodes? every coin gets a say in dpos. lmao
• Ignores that there's vested money in dpos with nonsense comment like "That's the exchanges of today." that ignores that dpos can handle replacing all global exchanges. And once again, slashing rules cause centralization by punishing dissent - something ethereum does often
• critique on many delegates choosing to be public - not necessarily, and their actions are public too and get peer reviewed as well
• calls it subjective, yet first thing he does and cites in the bailout is a vote (w/ only 4% approval lmao)

I think they both suck, but it is okay to have the experimentation. At least DPoS is a fairly straightforward way to scale and experiment. In that way, I view it as somewhat wise way to move forward until something better is devised and proven.

I think everyone agrees with this. It's the least sucky thing I'm aware of.

Irrelevant. But I expect you will not understand why so.

It is relevant, because it was an irrational statement you cited,  so you don't understand why.

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

dpos doesn't have that treshhold, it literally has no liveness issues unless 2/3+1 collude, so you're clearly out of scope. you're thinking tendermint.

probabilistic finality is an issue with PoW making those mining pools less secure than 50% treshhold, and 2/3+1 requirement makes witness system more secure than 50% treshhold. so that chart is actually too nice to PoW approach.

A proof-of-work block chain is like a Whac-A-Mole game in that if you shut down all of the miners

That's true, you would have to shut down 2/3 of witnesses at same time to cause manual intervention. Any delay and you get countless runner up witnesses replacing the others.

And again, liveness or security tradeoff - pow just keeps going no matter what, dpos keeps going unless 2/3+1 are compromised + plenty of runner ups, and tendermint keeps going until 1/3 are compromised

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.

I made that for lols just to shit on waves, wasn't made with EOS in mind. And you're right, all of them can be sybil attacked, hell every color on every coin can be same person in control. what I'm saying is that dpos relatively has best attempt to remedy wealth concentration.

You could have at least done the SAFT and limited it to accredited investors.

p.s. I hate ICO's and think they are all securities too no matter what.

my solution was to burn all proceeds tbh, but I'd rather entire supply of eth be used to pay for maximum frequency of transactions on eth blockchain for as long as possible to demonstrate its fee based flaw.

another solution they found is not even launching the public blockchain, there can be multiple public ones, and they are not voting for which one is main. only thing sold is right to distribution that might or might not be used by someone and it won't be block.one. kinda brilliant. I'm not even sure if profit expectation comes from work of block.one or random internet people launching chain by copying block.one code that happen to use the distribution.

wait your solution for distribution issue is to make it permissioned? lmao. that's literally limiting how many can get coins and puts huge barrier to entry for everyone - worst thing you can do in any stake based coin & security issue.

no matter what you do, even if you ID everyone, it can still be real life sock puppets - doesn't help anything and only limits width of spread by requiring some id standard. so you solved no issue, and only made it worse (e.g. omg failed at this)

given that all the bids are pooled to determine the price for the tokens offered during each interval

you have it backwards. because liquidity is likely higher on exchanges than in each individual day pool, price is determined by exchanges with ICO price being an afterthought for arbitrage and inflation.

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.

Besides I have explained how DPoS is vulnerable to transaction spam attack per Vitalik’s point

nonsense.

No one should expect any more than amount guaranteed by vests, borrowed or owned. Network assumes being spammed to full capacity, with some benefits when it's not.

It doesn't really cause an issue because maximum global rate is always limited.

Using network to full capacity is not an attack, it's standard assumption.

DPoS is Byzantine Agreement

it's not.

Yet he seems to admit it.

link doesn't say anything that admits incorrect blocks. he literally says the blockchain can see the blocks are not correct (i.e. how slashing conditions kick in), and all they did is not use slashing conditions because those mistakes can be done by honest players accidentally.

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.

well, at least you're not claiming it goes to a halt then. and it's not an issue if people only use blocks once witnesses are replaced.

Dan even admits these delegated block producers can censor transactions, seize accounts, etc..

that's true everywhere under attack. difference being dpos provides review for such actions with significant costs - permissioned producers and but completely decentralized permissionless review.

anyway, nothing is perfect. i only argue for dpos cause it's most shit on.

[Hyperme.sh]

Huh? Who needs to spend their incoming funds that quickly? Not most scenarios.

trading exchange for example, only the most common type of transaction probably.

Day trading you mean. Most traders I know do not day trade crypto. And those who do day trade do it on centralized exchanges thus offchain.

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.

That's your opinion. Plus you might just view reliable witnesses being voted in consistently as an oligarchy - hard to say. You don't need any coins to be voted in.
Out of all the options it seems to be the least bad.

Well it is not just an opinion, but rather the generative essence of the matter which is argued to be inviolable. That is why cited this comment from the 160 IQ genius who created the term “open source” and the other very astute blog from the highly intelligent Paul Sztorc.

And just because you have not thought of other options, doesn’t mean you can logically conclude there can’t exist possible better options. You’re not omniscient. For example, do you know the design of my decentralized ledger? If you do, I must ask you how you obtained such top secret information?

I hope to entirely eliminate voting! I think Dan is wrong where he claimed in that all decentralized ledger consensus is equivalent to voting. Wrong. Voting is subjective. Objectivity requires that votes do not matter. That is what proof-of-work attempts to accomplish. No one in theory gets a vote on the outcome with PoW, presuming that hash rate is decentralized. The nothing-at-stake problem was in theory avoided by burning external hard resources such as electricity, so as to avoid the problems of voting, sock puppets and other forms of political manipulation and the power vacuum thereof. That was the epiphany of PoW as idealized in the original Bitcoin white paper (although it apparently has fallen apart in practice for various reasons). Seems Dan missed the entire point, which is perhaps the generative essence of why Satoshi was politely slapping him back down (although I have my suspicions about whether Satoshi’s true intentions were for the ideal of decentralization, yet still he would be expected to pretend so).

Dan is afaics a neophyte (relatively speaking to Vitalik et al) when it comes to some facets of the research and theory of Byzantine systems. He is evidently an applied expert on building certain aspects of systems. But he is evidently not an expert of all facets of the theory. Vitalik is much more skilled in that theory area (and too much so I think so much time was lost on theoretical cul-de-sacs), but Vitalik is weaker in applied aspects and depends on others for that. I straddle both areas of focus to some more or less degree (^{but a chronically ill person who can’t recall where the door is due to liver induced brain fog, thus can’t code, that is just a fact of nature, but when a person has become healthy then others might expect he can’t do something which is quite capable of doing and I like that very much}).

Hey IOHK is also working on smart contracts and they have a formerly verified secure PoS with a delegated option as well. And they are proving they can do applied work and have launched a blockchain. There’s also NEO but I do not know much about it yet. Dan and Vitalik are not the only horses in this race.

Also approval voting takes care of that in part: https://i.imgur.com/GmixVHd.png

Each coin and thus coin holder controls the system in the end - quite literally and formalized.

“approval voting” apparently means that each voter can vote multiple times, one vote each for each of the 21 slots for block producers or the 100 witnesses. Thus no whale with less than a majority of the stake could ensue winning a slot.

Yet that does nothing to ameliorate the winner-take-all power vacuum of voting which inviolably leads to an oligarchy in control. Again I refer to the aforementioned two links on the political-economics issues with voting.

Anyone who experiences prolonged unexpected spikes in demand (ie. pretty much eveyone); users will have to buy enough coins to cover perhaps the 99th percentile of their expected usage, so that they don't get stuck being "out of gas" and having to go to an exchange.

he has it backwards - you get coins to be guaranteed some bandwidth under maximum load, anything extra you get is free bonus when network is under lighter load. and again, can rent or borrow more.

No he has it correct. You’re not factoring in his point about a DoS attack which I elaborated for those of you with a slow mind. Again refer to the blue highlighted text in my post to which you are replying to.

The rest of your quotes and comments about Vitalik were nonsensical because you took them out of the context of his argument and point, which you apparently did not grasp. Again read the blue text in my post to which you are replying.

It is quite hilarious the Dunning-Kruger replies I get here. You all think Vitalik is wrong because you do not even understand what is writing. His IQ is too high for you all to even understand.

Linear will be entirely gamed and thus centralized anew

being gamed isn't the issue, it's if system is usable by everyone -  honest or not. who cares what people use it for. point is they are distributed by honest participants to honest participants, losses to gaming are assumed by default.

Now you have proved to me that you in Dunning-Kruger or lazy mode.

You do not even understand what you are writing about.

The entire point is that if it can be gamed, then it means it is a power vacuum where the honest are destroyed. Did you not read my blog which I linked for you?

Voters could vote for their own posts as the maximum profit strategy because the imparted reward per voter is not tied to any risk of popularity, so those who vote their conscience would eventually over time have their wealth redistributed via debasement to those who always voted for themselves.

So now we have community voting for which apps get funded? Another huge pot of money grab for whales.

That's why he focused so much on getting good distribution to make it too expensive to grab coins. Just think of whales getting more as staking. Honest people can still get what they need from honest participants.

Can you please turn off the nonsense noise box and turn on your brain.

Fact is that Steemit was down.

Steemit website is not relevant to steem. I don't even understand how little someone might know about blockchains to think a random website being up is important for any discussion. And the steem blockchain was not down. I do know of an instance when one dpos chain was down, and this isn't it or even close, and it wasn't a big deal.

This nonsense type of reply was blown to smithereens in my prior post. If you can’t comprehend it, it is not my job to explain it to you further.

And 20 delegates is not a lot for the national securities agencies to take down if ever they need to.

It's not 20, it's at least 100 in top 100 list and unknown numbers afterwards with only few minutes it takes to spin up a new witness node and get current state.

I also stated 100 is not a lot. And again the entire point is that voting == centralization. Dan says he hates the corruption and violence of governments, yet then he goes and creates voting and governance. Lol.

And no you do not spin up new things out of thin air without voting for them in DPoS. And the oligarchy in control of voting behind their sock puppets is always going to be in control of all the replacements in any voting arrangement. The government only needs to rubber hose Dan and his money grabbing comrade whales.

formal specification for DPoS

it's called github code. plus which one, there's like 20 versions continuously evolving. dan even wrote this recently.

Source code is not a specification.

And putting specifications on Steemit under a personal account name is not the correct way to disseminate documentation for the repository to which it applies. And the linked blog is still not a formal specification.

I should be able to go to one official resource and read everything I need to know.

Cripes you are fundraising $300+ million from non-accredited investors and you expect them to go hunting around in source code.  

And the following is incorrect!

All blockchains are fundamentally a deterministic state machine acted upon by transactions.

Note that this “rule” is similar to the 6-block confirmation “rule” for Bitcoin.

Proof-of-work is probabilistic, not deterministic. DPoS if formally specified as Byzantine agreement is deterministic if the liveness threshold is met, but it comes with the disadvantages I mentioned before such as not being permissionless and can be entirely stalled.

And again he repeats the same mistake, even I had already taught him this is incorrect (he forgot apparently):

Like all consensus algorithms, the most harm the block producers can cause is censorship. All blocks must be valid according to the deterministic open source state machine logic.

Here is how I explained in a prior post which you apparently did not comprehend:

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..

The following is incorrect! There is no way to get back an objective state once the liveness threshold is not met. The only way is to hardfork this blockchain. We already had this debate and discussion over in the Cosmos and Tendermint threads which Dan participated in.

Lack of Quorum of Producers

In the unlikely event that there is no clear quorum of producers, it is possible for the minority to continue producing blocks. In these blocks stakeholders can include transactions that change their votes. These votes can then select a new set of producers and restore block production participation to 100%. Once this happens the minority chain will eventually overtake all other chains operating with less than 100% participation.

[…]

Unlike some competing algorithms, DPOS can continue to function when a majority of producers fail. During this process the community can vote to replace the failed producers until it can resume 100% participation. I know of no other consensus algorithm that is robust under such a high and varied failure conditions.

Dan even linked to the discussions where I had explained to him and them about this.

The following is also incorrect! OMG, and this is the guy you are giving $300 million to. Dan needs to read the research on Byzantine agreement systems which starts from decades ago. With 2/3 control a Byzantine agreement system never has any objectivity. This is really troublesome that this guy is being entrusted the way he is given he does not even know basic fundamentals.

Corruption of Majority of Producers

If the majority of producers become corrupt then they can produce an unlimited number of forks, each of which will appear to be advancing with 2⁄3 majority confirmation. In this case the last irreversible block algorithm reverts to longest chain algorithm. The longest chain will be the one approved by the largest-majority which will be decided by the minority of remaining honest nodes.

The following is also incorrect! With 2/3 control over block producers it is possible to make it appear that block producers were lied to and were forced to sign conflicting forks and it will be impossible to prove which producers are lying and which are honest. Thus the 2/3 majority can continue on signing the fork and nobody can prove which of the 2/3 are complicit, so they would not know which ones to vote out and destroy. If they destroy the honest ones also, then the system is dyfunctional. The reason Dan does not understand this is because he has never studied the research on Byzantine agreement. Thus he is speaking out of his asshole. This is pitiful. And all you n00bs fall for this. I did the research! That is what I was explained at the Cosmos/Tendermint thread but they decided they wanted me to leave so I left. And then Dan continued on with his neophyte misunderstanding summarized as follows.

My attitude was never interrupt the enemy when he is in the process of destroying himself.

If the majority of the block producers collude to produce a longer chain in an attempt to fork beyond the last irreversible block, then no exchange, block explorer, merchant, or other validator would switch to that fork. The entire world will agree on the "first fork seen".

This means that the only way to effect a double spend / reversal beyond last irreversible block is to isolate your victim and partition the network + collusion of producers.

[…]

I believe I have proven the the block producers cannot defraud 1000's of independent validators without partitioning the network

[…]

The blockchain will remain live (advancing the last irreversible block) so long as at least 1 block producer is able to process enough pending transactions to elect a new set of witnesses who then start producing the last irreversible block.

weaknesses of DPoS being that it is form of byzantine agreement (which has liveness threshold flaw)

treshhold flaw is nonsense as mentioned in this comment. All his proposed weaknesses require 2/3+1 of witnesses to collude to fork, better than chance based in pow where even <50% can attack.

it was brought up in coversation about tendermint/cosmos liveness flaw, not dpos: "1/3+ can halt the consensus process" also mentioned here. It refers to LIB (optional guideline of when chance of  irreversibility is extremely high) but simply waiting for all witnesses instead of 2/3 to validate is enough.

Sorry as I mentioned above, all of that is incorrect. Dan needs to go read the research.

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

dpos doesn't have that treshhold, it literally has no liveness issues unless 2/3+1 collude, so you're clearly out of scope. you're thinking tendermint.

You’re confused on multiple levels. The liveness threshold (1/3-1) is not the limit of collusion (2/3+1). And DPoS and Tendermint are both Byzantine agreement. And apparently Dan does not realize this fact.

I love how vitalik ignored all the major corrections and criticisms, like not knowing the basics about dpos. and focuses on obsurd things.

You are not capable of even understanding what Vitalik is writing. And I am not going to waste my time trying to unravel your bizarre interpretations[hallucinations] about what Vitalik wrote.

I think everyone agrees with this. It's the least sucky thing I'm aware of.

Well perhaps that argument could be made in terms of production ready blockchains. I would need to think about this some more though. I am willing to concede that point for now.

Byteball with a few tweaks is superior. That is once we discard the nonsense claims Dan made as quoted above which are incorrect. And mine will improve on Byteball in a way that is I think unexpected. Both of which are not block chains.

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.

[…] And you're right, all of them can be sybil attacked, hell every color on every coin can be same person in control. what I'm saying is that dpos relatively has best attempt to remedy wealth concentration.

I don’t think I can agree it is clearly superior for “remedy wealth concentration”. I currently see pretty much everything in blockchains is all about wealth concentration from greater fools to snakes.

You could have at least done the SAFT and limited it to accredited investors.

p.s. I hate ICO's and think they are all securities too no matter what.

I am willing to tolerate a minimal amount of fundraising to advance progress (e.g. $5 - 10 million) if it does not sell the majority of the token supply. I want the token supply to be awarded for onboarding but unfortunately the Steem voting method seems insolubly flawed so I tried to find another way that would be legal.

I will not respond to your other comments about alternative issuance and launch strategies.

wait your solution for distribution issue is to make it permissioned? lmao.

I do not think it is possible to make distribution permissionless. Proof-of-work is competitive but the problem is that most people can’t compete thus the onboarding is very narrow and the token stays mired as a speculation and HODLER coin.

What I hope is that it is possible to convince the market that the distribution is meritorious and objective (not biased, no nepotism and kickbacks). Then the permissioned aspect has to be dealt with in terms of securities laws, which can be an orthogonal issue to the perceived objectivity of the distribution. Ongoing the decentralized ledger can be permissionless if it is proof-of-work, except that PoW has apparently flaws that it becomes permissioned eventually. So thus I intend to bring an entirely new consensus algorithm and we’ll see how it holds up to peer review. But I do not expect a panacea. And I will not fight nonsensically/ignorantly to obfuscate any flaws like the other clowns do around there.

no matter what you do, even if you ID everyone, it can still be real life sock puppets

Real production can’t be a sock puppet. Marketing companies know how to measure metrics about what is creating value and what is not. This is a science and a craft.

given that all the bids are pooled to determine the price for the tokens offered during each interval

you have it backwards. because liquidity is likely higher on exchanges than in each individual day pool, price is determined by exchanges with ICO price being an afterthought for arbitrage and inflation.

What I wrote was correct. Just because the price that the participants target is dictated by external factors, does not make my statement false. Learn logic.

DPoS is Byzantine Agreement

it's not.

You would not even know how to make that determination. Read the research. I am not being paid to explain this to people who do not know.

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.

well, at least you're not claiming it goes to a halt then

The objectivity does halt if the liveness threshold is exceeded. That is unless there is objective bounded synchronisation of the block producers (which is what IOHK’s Ouroboros is about but the majority of the stake has to remain online at all times). Again I am just going to tell you and Dan to read the research.

It’s all because propagation is not proof of fault in an asynchronous network. The is what the FLP theorem and other research is about.

[John Titor]

No fucking way Shelby, you said dPoS was down, not the website, you linked the sentence in your own comment!  You are now claiming they are synonymous to readers which is a bullshit statement, you cannot speak for the readers.  You could argue you misspoke and that you meant to refer to the website, but instead you try to deny reality AND call me disingenuous on top of it.  Your statement implied that dpos was down and was not ambiguous, Smooth inferred your writings the same way, I am not alone here.

You are making excuses to defend your ego (and fyi despite your claims to the contrary you have one of the biggest egos on BTCT), and now you hide your mistake under a wall of text.  You made a mistake, and are now lobbing insults at people to shirk away from it.

edit: for the record I would agree Dan Larimer is a scam artist, not trying debate that, just the clear error you made in your analysis when Steemit was down.

[Hyperme.sh]

No fucking way Shelby, you said dPoS was down, not the website, you linked the sentence in your own comment!

You were already refuted. You’ve lost all credibility in my evaluation of your ability to comprehend. Don’t let the door hit you in ass on the way out. I do not need dumb people with us. Go for the dumb projects.

You can not seem to comprehend the subject matter. The point is that is the distinction between made by @smooth is an entirely meaningless diversionary tactic. All I can do is suggest you re-read my prior explanation after you’ve let your pride and emotions settle down and you are ready to read objectively. But perhaps you may simply lack the understanding of the subject matter to understand the argument entirely.

If you would like to talk on Skype about this, I would be more than happy to take the extra time to explain to you your error, given you had supported me in the past. Just Pm me a contact number or Skype account and I can call you now. Frankly it is disappointing, because I thought you were more astute and smart guy.

I understand you feel you are trying to call a spade a spade, but you are simply incorrect here.

I am always willing to admit when I make a mistake. I readily accepted that not all the block producing nodes were down and afair I never claimed they were. I do not remember claiming that the block producing nodes had been directly DDoS’ed. Even I reminded @smooth that I had not forgotten he had told me in the past that the block producing delegates have secret IP addresses (so why would I think they had been directly DDoS’ed). Your thought process does not make any sense. Again I challenge you to find a quote where I said they were. My point was the system as a ledger and a holistic economic system was down. And I was correct. The terminology around what means what specifically for Steem/DPoS/Graphene/Steemit is not well defined. There was not even a damn specification for this stuff. I was clearly referring to the fact that the sites I accessed were down and that the data from the ledger was not loading (which one would presume to be decentralized). There was never a specification on which terms we are supposed to use to refer to the data of the blockchain as separate from the block producing nodes. I wrote “Steemit DPoS was offline” as a way of expressing not just block producing nodes. I did not write “dpos was down”. It is quite clear who was lying.

Btw, we should add the point that I should have made to @smooth that secrecy (about IP addresses) is not security. Damn he knows that! He can’t possibly be a server guru if he does not know that. The asymmetry that the block producing nodes have is afforded to them because they trust their immediate connections to the outside word who feed them data. If that trust is violated, then they can be DDoS’ed. The vulnerability that could fail someday is still having these permissioned nodes in a privileged state. I am confident @smooth would not disagree with that. And I am confident that the collectivized transaction fees will also play into a vulnerability for the entire system in numerous facets.

You decide to read it the way you want to so that can find fault, but you are just injecting your own subjectivity into the analysis.

You are now claiming they are synonymous to readers which is a bullshit statement, you cannot speak for the readers.  You could argue you misspoke and that you meant to refer to the website, but instead you try to deny reality AND call me disingenuous on top of it.  Your statement implied that dpos was down and was not ambiguous, Smooth inferred your writings the same way, I am not alone here.

Afair I did not write “Steem is down” instead I wrote “Steemit DPoS is”. And even if I had written that, it is not quite clear in terms of definitions of names (e.g. Steem) where the demarcation is between data that has to be fetched from the ledger and block producing node activity. My prior reply to you explained that if the former is not funded, then the ”Steem” ledger is not really functional. So the design of DPoS with its for example permissioned and collectivized transaction fee mechanism is pertinent to whether the ledger was down from the perspective of needing to obtain the data from the ledger. Cripes man. Where is your comprehension level?

You are too focused on ambiguous vocabulary (as explained in the context why it is ambiguous) and not on comprehending the holistic nature of the issue and subject matter.

In short, @smooth was incorrect[imo pointing out a fact which I have explained is not germane to my intended point about the centralized clusterfuck of DPoS as pertains to genuine economic scaling], but I did not want to drive a stake through him nor beat a dead horse when in fact he was not trying to push his point beyond merely pointing out the fact that he did. You are the one who is forcing me to attack @smooth in order to defend myself. So who has the big ego here?

If it makes you feel validated somehow, just continue on with your interpretation. No big deal. Go your way and I will go mine.

Yet my holistic point is very very relevant and yet it gets lost in the nonsense about definitions of terms.

just the clear error you made in your analysis when Steemit was down.

There was no error in my analysis. Never did I claim I had inspected the block producing nodes and concluded they were down. WTF  

Never did I claim that because Steemd.com was down it meant certainly that block production had ceased. I dare you to find anything I wrote that was even remotely insinuating that. I did claim that it meant some aspects of the (access to the) ledger seemed to be offline.

What are you smoking.

P.S. Honestly I am still not even knowledgeable (due to lack of a specification and not wanting to waste my scarce time to go digging in their source code) about whether the data written to the blockchain is retained by the P2P network full nodes (or whether just a hash is retained) and whether these nodes can supply the data or just the hash. And whether the sites that access this data have their own private caches or whether they use some feedthrough web servers which get the data from the full nodes (possibly caching it for efficiency). And how these web servers are funded so there is a sufficient network of them to be resilient against DDoS attacks. And that all ties back into my point that if the sites are down, then in effect the ledger is also down, unless we assume that these sites will have their own funding and fund private web servers not shared with the overall ledger, but in that case where is the funding coming from given there are no transaction fees? Is Steemit displaying advertising or some other form of revenue to pay for private web servers? Well I know Steemit, Inc. sneakymined a shit load of coins (50%?) so but then how is this distinct from the DPoS ledger given it is the same whales who control both and who take their funding from the various collectivized schemes for whale money grabbing. @smooth has a tendency of making pigeon-holed argumentation which just does not make much since from a helicopter perspective where you look at the entire thing holistically.

Oh and another point I did not make but would have if I was trying to really argue it as if someone was going to think @smooth slapped me down (geez you guys are always so damn focused on that aren’t you like chest thumping baboons), is that DDoSing the web servers is the low hanging fruit, thus in effect it is an attack on the ledger. Strengthen the web servers then the incentive to attack the core block producing nodes increases.

[scaryvirus]

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.

Here's the blue part you highlighted, and it's going off wrong assumptions. he assumes minimum transaction bandwidth is bad.

Calling it "minimum" makes it sound bad, better name is guaranteed bandwidth

It's literally your expected transaction bandwidth. Anything else is just nice luck and not important. And no spam attack can take away your guaranteed bandwidth. This is not the case on fee based blockchains.

Blockchain operates under assumption of 100% spam attack and has 0 issues. There is no burst limit, it's lucky free bandwidth no one cares about.

A sock puppet attack would do nothing since bandwidth is divided from maximum bandwidth per vested coin, not per account, so irrelevant.

You didn't have any good points this time around and didn't read my points, so not worth addressing.

[Wekkel]

I love the EOS woodwork, but the price is less stellar  At least the project generates a lot of debate. That means it is very much alive in the minds of the public.

[chryspano]

dpos was down

Complete horseshit.

I did not write above quote.

Yes you did

No I did not.

You lied about the facts and you now lie again,  Lying Piece of S$!#


It makes no surprise to me that you have been banned so many times from this forum, but I'm sure it has nothing to do with you now, has it?

Go find some other way to feed your stupid ego.

[Hyperme.sh]

dpos was down

Complete horseshit.

I did not write above quote.

Yes you did

No I did not.

You lied about the facts and you now lie again,  Lying Piece of S$!#


It makes no surprise to me that you have been banned so many times from this forum, but I'm sure it has nothing to do with you now, has it?

Go find some other way to feed your stupid ego.

That clearly says I am referring to the “user data” as seen “by busy.org”.

I have already explained that by “blockchain” I was referring to the holistic concept of a ledger and it’s data being accessible. I was not focused on the narrow point about whether the block producing nodes were still running or not. Y’all are trying to reframe it into that narrow point, so you can divert the attention away from the fact the ledger was down as perceived by 1000s of users all over the world. Deny that!

Try again to make some more of your diversionary lies and obfuscations. You’re learning from your master of that Dan.

And again I am clearly explaining in my other posts here that it is centralized shit, just as I stated.

Y’all try to spin and obfuscate to put lipstick on a pig. But now I have caught Dan making several egregious incorrect technological claims.

[chryspano]

That clearly says...

... that you are a f@(king liar!

Not to mention that you copy pasted your lies in every fud thread that was out there, you have some very serious issues bro, try this kind of attitude out in the street and see how it will work out

Read again @$$hole

[Hyperme.sh]

... that you are a f@(king liar!

Nope. You’re just trying to see what you want to see (or to convince others to be irrational), because you’ve lost your ability to be objective. My best guess is money grabbing fever turned you into a zealot lunatic.

You and @smooth jumped on the interpretation of my statement that you wanted to attack. I explained myself to @smooth and yet you refuse to accept my explanation of what was my intent and what my words meant. What I was thinking. What is my holistic point. Etc..

To further demonstrate how nonsensical your stance is, consider that if the websites which feed data to the block producers are down because they can’t download historic blockchain data to clients, then in effect the block producing clients have been isolated and are not functioning. The ledger is a holistic concept.

try this kind of attitude out in the street and see how it will work out

What street and when do we meet? I know you’re not serious, but I wish you were.

[chryspano]

You would be surprised to know how many people behave like wet cats when the authorities knock on their door, or when their "wish" is granted. So, be carefull not to cross the thin red line.

[smooth]

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.

The burst capacity is of limited use to spammers. There is a burst limit that is some moderate multiple of your minimum allocation, I think currently 10x. If you have 0.1% of the stake then you can use up to 1% of the bandwidth, burst capacity permitting. Even if you spam at the max rate, that still leaves 99% available for others to share. If the blocks start to fill up then the overcommit ratio drops. A 0.1% stakeholder would then only be able to fill up hypothetically 0.5% if the overcommit ratio were cut in half.  (I don't know the exact algorithm governing it.)

You would need to own a meaningfully large portion of the stake (10% or more) to force users to burst at their minimum allowance, and even then the overcommit ratio would dynamically drop and then you would only effectively limit them to a smaller multiple of their minimum allowance.

[Hyperme.sh]

Besides I have explained how DPoS is vulnerable to transaction spam attack per Vitalik’s point

nonsense. […]

Here's the blue part you highlighted, and it's going off wrong assumptions. he assumes minimum transaction bandwidth is bad.

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.

The burst capacity is of limited use to spammers. There is a burst limit that is some moderate multiple of your minimum allocation, I think currently 10x. If you have 0.1% of the stake then you can use up to 1% of the bandwidth, burst capacity permitting. Even if you spam at the max rate, that still leaves 99% available for others to share. If the blocks start to fill up then the overcommit ratio drops. A 0.1% stakeholder would then only be able to fill up hypothetically 0.5% if the overcommit ratio were cut in half.  (I don't know the exact algorithm governing it.)

You would need to own a meaningfully large portion of the stake (10% or more) to force users to burst at their minimum allowance, and even then the overcommit ratio would dynamically drop and then you would only effectively limit them to a smaller multiple of their minimum allowance.

I do not understand why both of you guys seem to be ignoring Vitalik’s point.

As I understood his point to be that as spammers max out the utilization (presuming they have significant stake, not the 0.1% in your contrived example) then users no longer have that reserve of burst capacity available, thus they have to buy exactly what they may need in their 99th percentile usage pattern and this is thus more expensive than just paying transaction fees.

Granted that Vitalik’s scenario does require the attacker to control significant stake (and spread it around in sock puppets), and you might retort that why would those who own a majority of the state want to destroy the value of their own coins. Yet you @smooth afair used to argue exactly the opposite against proof-of-stake arguing that since nothing is at stake they can short the market, profit, rinse, buy low, the market rebounds on their pump, then repeat. Unless I am somehow misstating your past stance on proof-of-stake.

Sorry the inconsistency around here is wasting my time.

I wasn’t paid to explain Vitalik’s thinking. I get paid to produce an altcoin. And so please excuse me if I exit from this never ending series of explaining everything.

I have no beef with @smooth. I appreciate very much our interactions (we’ve had our instances of strife which can be due to numerous factors but overall is dominated by rational dialogue). I have a beef with those who use @smooth as some battering ram against me.

A sock puppet attack would do nothing since bandwidth is divided from maximum bandwidth per vested coin, not per account, so irrelevant.

The point is that if any attempt was added to try to filter by account, it could then be subverted with a sock puppet attack.

[Hyperme.sh]

You would be surprised to know how many people behave like wet cats when the authorities knock on their door, or when their "wish" is granted. So, be carefull not to cross the thin red line.

Bring it mofo. WTF is wrong with you! You act like a fucking child. We are discussing important technological topics here and you want to turn the discussion into some stupid diversion.

Just bring it and stop the fucking useless words.

Hey there is no such red negative trust rating on my profile. You’re effectively “Photoshopping” lies. You make some lies on my Trust rating but you’re not in the default list for Trust, so most or nearly all users do not see that red crap that you created by lying. The purpose of the Trust ratings are not for settling debates in the forum. You’re a very abusive person and you will be dealt with accordingly.

[Wekkel]

Can we have a discussion about EOS, please?

[key_z]

I love the EOS woodwork, but the price is less stellar  At least the project generates a lot of debate. That means it is very much alive in the minds of the public.

IMO, the price is great and only getting better... 

[Hyperme.sh]

I love the EOS woodwork, but the price is less stellar   At least the project generates a lot of debate. That means it is very much alive in the minds of the public.

IMO, the price is great and only getting better...  

Btw, I could careless about the price. I was not posting in this thread to try to collapse the price or with any delusions about having any impact at all on the eventual FOMO outcome.

I post mainly to share what I know when I observe no one else is sharing similar to my perspective, and to learn from any discussions which are spawned. It is a way of testing my analysis to it if passes mustard, so that my decisions will rely on somewhat vetted analysis.

There are rare instances where I observe someone else making the arguments I would want to make or the arguments are not important enough to lose time making, so I just remain silent or perhaps add a terse +1 post.

I would say this post is very close to borderline being “not important enough to lose time making”, yet I think it is important to note that I have no objective other than what I stated above and to rail against our ecosystem incentivizing bad disclosure by rewarding $300+ million to a guy who is making technological (and potentially legal/criminal) blunders and obfuscating/hyping/overstating/omitting material facts.

Edit: out of curiosity I looked at the price chart of the first time ever, and it appears to me it is in the long bottom fishing period where the whales accumulate before the FOMO pump.