EOS is another centralized clusterfuck.

[Geraldo]

Dan Larimer introducing his project, probably the same they tried to collaborate with you with a couple of months ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uPzTk5f5w4

No worries it is the same DPoS governance crap:

https://youtu.be/4uPzTk5f5w4?t=797

Dan can not do what I am creating.

The EOS thread is here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1904415.20

(why did he name his project after a  camera. I worked on EOS Photomodeler in the 1990s)

To elaborate, DPoS is a winner-take-all clusterfuck of whales same as for Steemit. Dan has done nothing to solve the centralized problem, which is the same problem PoW has as right now the whales (which are the miners as I explained to @Dorky) are fighting over who will control Bitcoin (and Litecoin) and thus be able to raise the transaction fees exponentially with a constrained blocksize. For Steemit, the whales siphon off all the collectivized witness fees and collectivized voting rewards (I had explained in my Steemit article why the math makes it impossible for it be any other way for voting renumeration design). For Dash, PIVX, etc ... same centralized clusterfuck.

Dan's design does not charge transaction fees directly, but they are charged collectively.

Dan's designs will always be top-down controlled disasters, same as Steemit and can not be the world changing decenrtralized blockchain that Bitnet will be.

PoW, (D)Pos, and Ethereum's faulty consensus design... none of it is decentralized.

More ICO nonsense and more throwing our money away.

This will all be explained better and more exhaustively on Bitnet's documentation eventually.

Bitnet is coming... no ICO ...

I was right on Bitcoin.

No you are not. 2MB does not alleviate the exponential demand increase. And SegWit enables Lightning Networks which will put more demand for on chain transactions.

You will always be wrong. Sorry. Eventually you will respect me.

Also I hope you saw the Coindesk article that even the miners are sending transactions to themselves to bloat the blockchain and force the fees higher. The 2MB is a joke.

PoW is a centralized winner-take-all design. Satoshi designed it that.
[/quote]

[xiaohang07]

"Dan's design does not charge transaction fees directly, but they are charged collectively"
So the EOS has no fees because of the %5 inflation constantly dilutes one's share in the computational power of the network?

[mining1]

PoW, (D)Pos, and Ethereum's faulty consensus design... none of it is decentralized.

Depends what you understand by "decentralization" and how much of it you "need" to make your platform work. You need enough to make it trustless and extremely expensive to attack. Both POW and POS are oligopolies, aka several people / groups will end up controlling most of the wealth, because they invest most early, wether they buy it or mine it. If you build a system that aims to become money like bitcoin, it will become oligopoly because that is how the world works. That doesn't necessarely make it centralised. Bitcoin's mining became centralised in China because of the asics. Ethereum's mining is not centralised because you can even mine in EU with expensive electricity, for example, and still be profitable.

So, ethereum and other gpu based mining blockchains are decentralised enough. More than enough.

However, if you want close to perfect decentralization then you need to build a specific use case project, maybe a social website / blog like steemit but without an economic system turned into a piramid scheme.

You should stop seeing things in black and white. You can't possibly expect for bitcoin to have 16mil users with 1 bitcoin each, or 1 asic each and a full node to be perfectly decentralised. That's not how the world works. However bitcoin and other asic pow blockchains are a bit too centralised because of that, asics. Luckily ethereum doesn't support asics and the mining is not centralised ( unless you consider pools, but they're made of thousands of small miners ).