What's really interesting is that the flaws are in Ethereum. Not that much in the contract. If you can spam the network so easy that others get pushed away and you get your discount than something is really wrong with Ethereum.
Disagree for two reasons.
1. The flaw is in Dan’s ability/desire to do comprehensive game theory analysis (actually someone claimed on Twitter they had warned them about the propensity of such flaws). There are at least two or three instances of that already.
2. @smooth and I discussed upthread the potential for spamming EOS (DPoS) by whales and why the whales could still hypothetically profit even if the price catered. So ETH is more fair because perhaps more or less anybody can spam it, whereas potentially EOS will be even more totalitarian and only the whales can steal everything. Which is pretty much been my analysis and complaint against Steem and all of Dan’s designs. (Note I do not want to put words in @smooth’s mouth so please re-read his equivocations)
Of course they try to turn this bad news around and hype as some benefit of their technology. Another case of them distorting material facts which I believe are fraud under securities laws. But given they were willing to take $300 million from anonymous sources, I do not know how they expect to escape the 20 year felony (20 years for each instance!?!) in the USA for accepting money with a criminal lineage (even though the law does say they need to have knowledge of the criminality of the funds received, I believe the token sale to the public-at-large requires them to register a MSB). The only rationale I can think of is they’re running a criminal enterprise (buying off regulators, etc).
If I suddenly get suicided or assassinated, maybe I will realize I should not have posted in this thread, huh.Why didn’t Vitalik do an ICO to his own ETH base and collect several $billions into a huge money pot? Probably because he has been advised it is illegal. And note when we see serious looking investors at a recent conference listening to presentations by Brock Pierce and Block.one, afaik those attendees are there to see presentations by many entities and are not necessarily representative of who participated the EOS token sale.
Therefore, this is my last comment about the EOS token sale.
Good luck.
What experience does Dan have as a venture capitalist and picking winners and losers in terms of software applications.
It is somewhat analogous to giving the government a lot of money and then they spend $100,000 per public toilet.
“An elephant: A mouse built to government specifications.” — Lazarus Long
Instead why not allow the applications to compete in a free market which allocates the capital to the winners and losers. The free market is composed of many decentralized actors which each make localized decisions optimized by local information which the top-down entity can not accurately appraise. This why ice when cooled slowly has fewer cracks (related to simulated annealing) because the localized molecules are able to have more time to rearrange themselves optimally based on local gradients.
University of Sydney’s Red Belly Blockchain Scales 660,000 Transactions/Sec; 11.5x of Visa, 94,000x of Bitcoin.
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/university-sydneys-red-belly-blockchain-scales-660000-transactionssec/New trials from the University of Sydney’s Red Belly Blockchain have found that it can process financial transactions 50 times faster than originally thought, making it quicker than Visa for worldwide payments.
The next stage for the Red Belly Blockchain is to make it available to all Internet users and eos may no longer be needed.
Just like DPoS (EOS, Steem, Lisk, etc), Byteball, and Tendermint, this RBB also relies on a permissioned set of delegates,
aka a “consortium blockchain”.
What makes proof-of-work (and my upcoming decentralized ledger) different is they’re permissionless participation. This is important because we discussed upthread that selecting a set of permissioned delegates always implies an oligarchy or centralization due to the Iron Law of Political Economics.
Permissioned and centralized is what we’re trying to eliminate.
Whale controlled clusterfucks just puts us right back into all the corruption and failure that the world is collapsing into. If we’re going to innovate out of this, we need truly decentralized systems.
Also I have argued that centralized clusterfucks do not scale out economically due to the point about corruption, infighting between whales, lack of degrees-of-freedom and level playing field for non-whales.
The reason this matters is because ecosystems with centralized overlords who play favouritism
are not trusted and invested in generally.
Ian Grigg provides
another perspective on the distinction between permissioned and permissionless. His Constitution without walls is my decentralized ledger design, except he has a mistake. He wants to do it with voting, elections, delegates, but that is known to fail to be fair due to the Iron Law of Political Economics and the power vacuum. However, my solution is algorithmic and deals with this more effectively I think. To the extent that the Constitution is algorithmically objective then no forks are created. Also I think he is formulating a false dichotomy by concluding that win-lose is correlated to a permissionless decentralized ledger.
I tried listening that CEO of Block.one and Dan, but they bored the fuck out of me. The CEO dude appears to be a technological neophyte. And Dan speaks far too slowly for me (I was falling asleep). This Brock Pierce dude is quite articulate and seems astute, but unfortunately
he goes on about decentralization but doesn’t seem to factor in the impact that EOS’s consensus algorithm is centralized due to the political economics of voting. Brock Pierce is correct though to point out that potential for decentralization can in some cases be present at other scopes of a model.
That
Block.one CEO dude is nodding his head affirmatively when another person says the blockchain must track all our identities and by implication we should not have any privacy any more! Even if they refer to pseudonymous identity, it should still be optional in many cases.
Dan made an astute generative essence point that decentralized ledgers
enable an equity model instead of a debt model.
