Delegated Proof of Stake (DPOS) White Paper by Daniel Larimer

[bytemaster]

Can they collude?  Assuming they did collude the only thing they could do is block transactions and it would be instantly detected by all peers.   A fork would be launched immediately with these delegates stripped and the two chains would compete against each other in the market.  Assuming the delegates were just random people that attempted to screw with the system then consensus would be maintained.   

What happens if somebody sets up 51 delegates, provides incentives to get the votes, and then takes over? Its much easier than trying to get 51% of the mining power.

First of all someone with 51% of the delegates only has one power:  to exclude transactions or to stop producing blocks. 

If they gain 51% of the delegates and fail to include transactions that would vote them out then it will be very obvious to everyone on the network, the blockchain will be hard-forked by some developer and the network will continue to function.  You see what binds a network is not the software rules, but the social contract among the community.   It is almost inconceivable that in the event 51% of the delegates stop including transactions that the community would sit back and take it for long.   

Competition among chains and no barriers to entry or forking keeps people honest because there is NOTHING to gain by a 51% attack. 

Note that these 51 delegates would have to pretend not to see blocks from the other 49 delegates and thus the attack would be so obvious and disruptive that it wouldn't last more than 24 hours before community members took action. 

Is it just stop including transactions or putting in some dubious ones too? I can see how a 51% attack can benefit someone trying to manipulate big money. You will be running banks, lotto etc so the incentive is there.

wouldn't last for 24 hours doesn't look too good if bitshares is aspiring to replace the big financial institutions we all hate now.

They cannot produce dubious transactions... if they double sign then that is incontrovertible proof the delegate should be fired and is easily detected by all nodes on the network.  In less than 50 minutes every delegate should have confirmed your transaction and a 51% attack / double spend becomes impossible.  So large financial institutions have nothing to fear if they wait just 1 hour... not even bitcoin has this level of security... it takes 6 blocks and even then a fork could result in a doubles spend. 

All clients automatically recognize when a block has been missed and the 'confirmation window' is automatically lengthened and wallets are warned.   No one would lose money... everyone would immediately see that 49% of the blocks are being dropped despite being produced on time.    The client would view this as a network-split at least and automatically inform everyone to stop trading until the fork is resolved.  Under normal conditions the network would reconnect and all delegates would start producing blocks again and the fork will be considered resolved.   Under an attack the 'fork condition' will remain until the attacker can get enough votes to fire the other 49%.... this could take a while and may be impossible once people realize what was happening.    The minority (good) delegates and majority (good) clients would manually flag the attackers blocks to be ignored.  In a relatively short period of time the attacker's delegates would be voted out of the minority fork and it will quickly regain its title of being the longest chain.   

So as you can see there is a simple algorithm in place that allows the good majority of shareholders to quickly recover control from an attack.  No funds can be stolen in this process unless people choose to ignore the automatic chain fork detection warnings. 

[1713274994]

1713274994

[1713274994]

1713274994

[1713274994]

1713274994

[1713274994]

1713274994

[1713274994]

1713274994

[Fernandez]

Can they collude?  Assuming they did collude the only thing they could do is block transactions and it would be instantly detected by all peers.   A fork would be launched immediately with these delegates stripped and the two chains would compete against each other in the market.  Assuming the delegates were just random people that attempted to screw with the system then consensus would be maintained.  

What happens if somebody sets up 51 delegates, provides incentives to get the votes, and then takes over? Its much easier than trying to get 51% of the mining power.

First of all someone with 51% of the delegates only has one power:  to exclude transactions or to stop producing blocks.  

If they gain 51% of the delegates and fail to include transactions that would vote them out then it will be very obvious to everyone on the network, the blockchain will be hard-forked by some developer and the network will continue to function.  You see what binds a network is not the software rules, but the social contract among the community.   It is almost inconceivable that in the event 51% of the delegates stop including transactions that the community would sit back and take it for long.  

Competition among chains and no barriers to entry or forking keeps people honest because there is NOTHING to gain by a 51% attack.  

Note that these 51 delegates would have to pretend not to see blocks from the other 49 delegates and thus the attack would be so obvious and disruptive that it wouldn't last more than 24 hours before community members took action.  

Is it just stop including transactions or putting in some dubious ones too? I can see how a 51% attack can benefit someone trying to manipulate big money. You will be running banks, lotto etc so the incentive is there.

wouldn't last for 24 hours doesn't look too good if bitshares is aspiring to replace the big financial institutions we all hate now.

They cannot produce dubious transactions... if they double sign then that is incontrovertible proof the delegate should be fired and is easily detected by all nodes on the network.  In less than 50 minutes every delegate should have confirmed your transaction and a 51% attack / double spend becomes impossible.  So large financial institutions have nothing to fear if they wait just 1 hour... not even bitcoin has this level of security... it takes 6 blocks and even then a fork could result in a doubles spend.  

All clients automatically recognize when a block has been missed and the 'confirmation window' is automatically lengthened and wallets are warned.   No one would lose money... everyone would immediately see that 49% of the blocks are being dropped despite being produced on time.    The client would view this as a network-split at least and automatically inform everyone to stop trading until the fork is resolved.  Under normal conditions the network would reconnect and all delegates would start producing blocks again and the fork will be considered resolved.   Under an attack the 'fork condition' will remain until the attacker can get enough votes to fire the other 49%.... this could take a while and may be impossible once people realize what was happening.    The minority (good) delegates and majority (good) clients would manually flag the attackers blocks to be ignored.  In a relatively short period of time the attacker's delegates would be voted out of the minority fork and it will quickly regain its title of being the longest chain.  

So as you can see there is a simple algorithm in place that allows the good majority of shareholders to quickly recover control from an attack.  No funds can be stolen in this process unless people choose to ignore the automatic chain fork detection warnings.  

Sounds quite good. Do you have anything running or is this all just hypothetical at the moment? You speak as if you have the algorithm working and have survived through attacks.

[delulo]

Can they collude?  Assuming they did collude the only thing they could do is block transactions and it would be instantly detected by all peers.   A fork would be launched immediately with these delegates stripped and the two chains would compete against each other in the market.  Assuming the delegates were just random people that attempted to screw with the system then consensus would be maintained.  

What happens if somebody sets up 51 delegates, provides incentives to get the votes, and then takes over? Its much easier than trying to get 51% of the mining power.

First of all someone with 51% of the delegates only has one power:  to exclude transactions or to stop producing blocks.  

If they gain 51% of the delegates and fail to include transactions that would vote them out then it will be very obvious to everyone on the network, the blockchain will be hard-forked by some developer and the network will continue to function.  You see what binds a network is not the software rules, but the social contract among the community.   It is almost inconceivable that in the event 51% of the delegates stop including transactions that the community would sit back and take it for long.  

Competition among chains and no barriers to entry or forking keeps people honest because there is NOTHING to gain by a 51% attack.  

Note that these 51 delegates would have to pretend not to see blocks from the other 49 delegates and thus the attack would be so obvious and disruptive that it wouldn't last more than 24 hours before community members took action.  

Is it just stop including transactions or putting in some dubious ones too? I can see how a 51% attack can benefit someone trying to manipulate big money. You will be running banks, lotto etc so the incentive is there.

wouldn't last for 24 hours doesn't look too good if bitshares is aspiring to replace the big financial institutions we all hate now.

They cannot produce dubious transactions... if they double sign then that is incontrovertible proof the delegate should be fired and is easily detected by all nodes on the network.  In less than 50 minutes every delegate should have confirmed your transaction and a 51% attack / double spend becomes impossible.  So large financial institutions have nothing to fear if they wait just 1 hour... not even bitcoin has this level of security... it takes 6 blocks and even then a fork could result in a doubles spend.  

All clients automatically recognize when a block has been missed and the 'confirmation window' is automatically lengthened and wallets are warned.   No one would lose money... everyone would immediately see that 49% of the blocks are being dropped despite being produced on time.    The client would view this as a network-split at least and automatically inform everyone to stop trading until the fork is resolved.  Under normal conditions the network would reconnect and all delegates would start producing blocks again and the fork will be considered resolved.   Under an attack the 'fork condition' will remain until the attacker can get enough votes to fire the other 49%.... this could take a while and may be impossible once people realize what was happening.    The minority (good) delegates and majority (good) clients would manually flag the attackers blocks to be ignored.  In a relatively short period of time the attacker's delegates would be voted out of the minority fork and it will quickly regain its title of being the longest chain.  

So as you can see there is a simple algorithm in place that allows the good majority of shareholders to quickly recover control from an attack.  No funds can be stolen in this process unless people choose to ignore the automatic chain fork detection warnings.  

Sounds quite good. Do you have anything running or is this all just hypothetical at the moment? You speak as if you have the algorithm working and have survived through attacks.

Invictus recommends to all developers using the Bitshares codebase to honor BTS PTS (aka Protoshares) holders with at least 10% as well as BTS AGS holders with at least 10%.
Bitshares XT is tested at the moment. You can look at it here and test it yourself https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4480.0;topicseen

[ChuckOne]

DPOS is all about creating a system that gives people financial incentive to do the right thing and maintains the ability to 'fire them' quickly if they don't with 100% certainty of getting caught.   The delegates have no power *BUT* to do the right thing.   

Can they collude?  Assuming they did collude the only thing they could do is block transactions and it would be instantly detected by all peers.   A fork would be launched immediately with these delegates stripped and the two chains would compete against each other in the market.  Assuming the delegates were just random people that attempted to screw with the system then consensus would be maintained.

Exactly, how Nxt will work.

[benjyz]

Hi bytemaster,

I think this is some good progress. The great weakness in PoS is that money gets distributed on the genesis block. This is potentially much more corrupt than the initial bitcoin distribution. Although coins can always be purchased on an open market, this process leads to mis-trust from the beginning. BCNext chose a rather fair distribution via the forums, but this was before the release of the code. It will be interesting to see how PoS clones will do on the market, because there is no hurdle of creating clones at all. Also what will be interesting is the relationship between corporations (Invictus LLC, ethereum GmbH, ...) and currencies. I think creating legal entities creates unnecessary attack surfaces.

[delulo]

Hi bytemaster,

I think this is some good progress. The great weakness in PoS is that money gets distributed on the genesis block. This is potentially much more corrupt than the initial bitcoin distribution. Although coins can always be purchased on an open market, this process leads to mis-trust from the beginning. BCNext chose a rather fair distribution via the forums, but this was before the release of the code. It will be interesting to see how PoS clones will do on the market, because there is no hurdle of creating clones at all. Also what will be interesting is the relationship between corporations (Invictus LLC, ethereum GmbH, ...) and currencies. I think creating legal entities creates unnecessary attack surfaces.

The facts are: The Bitshares donations period goes a long 200 days and everyone can participate!! That is more than half a year. Whenever a DAC is ready there is a snapshot. And the distribution will be a whole lot more equal than with Bitcoin and most POW altcoins. Also the code is completely open at ALL stages. Check it out on https://github.com/BitShares/bitshares_toolkit
The last question you raised is indeed interesting

[Fernandez]

Invictus recommends to all developers using the Bitshares codebase to honor BTS PTS (aka Protoshares) holders with at least 10% as well as BTS AGS holders with at least 10%.
Bitshares XT is tested at the moment. You can look at it here and test it yourself https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4480.0;topicseen

I knew Protoshares was the IPO coin, but didn't know about the other coin. The prices are much lower than what they used to be so its quite a good bargain being informed late

You are awarding 10% at the start as IPO. How are you distributing the remaining 90%? If you have another IPO for that I would be interested. Whatever you do, make it a fair one, even a proof of burn style process as Counterparty is the only new project which has any credibility. Look at what happens when you invest in a unfair distribution with greedy developers like that of Mastercoin, you get screwed as they try and make their money through deals with third party like Maidsafe.

[delulo]

Invictus recommends to all developers using the Bitshares codebase to honor BTS PTS (aka Protoshares) holders with at least 10% as well as BTS AGS holders with at least 10%.
Bitshares XT is tested at the moment. You can look at it here and test it yourself https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4480.0;topicseen

I knew Protoshares was the IPO coin, but didn't know about the other coin. The prices are much lower than what they used to be so its quite a good bargain being informed late

You are awarding 10% at the start as IPO. How are you distributing the remaining 90%? If you have another IPO for that I would be interested. Whatever you do, make it a fair one, even a proof of burn style process as Counterparty is the only new project which has any credibility. Look at what happens when you invest in a unfair distribution with greedy developers like that of Mastercoin, you get screwed as they try and make their money through deals with third party like Maidsafe.

Agree! (Perceived) Fairness correlates with how many people know about the possibilities, that is why the principle is to be as transparent as possible and make threads also here on BTT like this one. Everyone is welcome to join on our forums. Also Daniel and the whole team goes to conferences regularly to make Bitshares known as much as possible. We also head a lot of mainstream media coverage.
The rule is to give at least 10% to PTS/AGS. It is up to the developer of a DAC that uses Bitshares codebase to decide which allocation gets him the most support for his project. Mostly it is more than 10% for PTS/AGS... With Bitshares X it was even 50/50. The snapshot for Bitshares X took place on the 28. February. There where delays due to problems with Bitshares X out of which DPOS came out as a solution.
We discussed the Maidsafe fiasco here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4090.0

[Fernandez]

Invictus recommends to all developers using the Bitshares codebase to honor BTS PTS (aka Protoshares) holders with at least 10% as well as BTS AGS holders with at least 10%.
Bitshares XT is tested at the moment. You can look at it here and test it yourself https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4480.0;topicseen

I knew Protoshares was the IPO coin, but didn't know about the other coin. The prices are much lower than what they used to be so its quite a good bargain being informed late

You are awarding 10% at the start as IPO. How are you distributing the remaining 90%? If you have another IPO for that I would be interested. Whatever you do, make it a fair one, even a proof of burn style process as Counterparty is the only new project which has any credibility. Look at what happens when you invest in a unfair distribution with greedy developers like that of Mastercoin, you get screwed as they try and make their money through deals with third party like Maidsafe.

Agree! (Perceived) Fairness correlates with how many people know about the possibilities, that is why the principle is to be as transparent as possible and make threads also here on BTT like this one. Everyone is welcome to join on our forums. Also Daniel and the whole team goes to conferences regularly to make Bitshares known as much as possible. We also head a lot of mainstream media coverage.
The rule is to give at least 10% to PTS/AGS. It is up to the developer of a DAC that uses Bitshares codebase to decide which allocation gets him the most support for his project. Mostly it is more than 10% for PTS/AGS... With Bitshares X it was even 50/50. The snapshot for Bitshares X took place on the 28. February. There where delays due to problems with Bitshares X out of which DPOS came out as a solution.
We discussed the Maidsafe fiasco here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4090.0

Finally the real reason for all the sudden interest comes out. You and your group awarded all to yourselves and are now promoting it. I don't know whether you really believe what you wrote in that post is it part of the act.

I don't think you developers should work for free, but you should be honest. If you want to award even 50%, state that clearly and others will still support. Trying to keep it hidden, awarding yourselves all and claiming it was fair later on won't fool us here. We have seen enough to spot when it happens. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised as Bitshares are closely linked to the Ethereum group who even with all their advertising efforts couldn't fool the community with their IPO.

Good luck with your project. Its very interesting and anything which can emerge as an alternative to the cartel has my support. I will just wait for a Counterparty equivalent of your project.

[clout]

Invictus recommends to all developers using the Bitshares codebase to honor BTS PTS (aka Protoshares) holders with at least 10% as well as BTS AGS holders with at least 10%.
Bitshares XT is tested at the moment. You can look at it here and test it yourself https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4480.0;topicseen

I knew Protoshares was the IPO coin, but didn't know about the other coin. The prices are much lower than what they used to be so its quite a good bargain being informed late

You are awarding 10% at the start as IPO. How are you distributing the remaining 90%? If you have another IPO for that I would be interested. Whatever you do, make it a fair one, even a proof of burn style process as Counterparty is the only new project which has any credibility. Look at what happens when you invest in a unfair distribution with greedy developers like that of Mastercoin, you get screwed as they try and make their money through deals with third party like Maidsafe.

Agree! (Perceived) Fairness correlates with how many people know about the possibilities, that is why the principle is to be as transparent as possible and make threads also here on BTT like this one. Everyone is welcome to join on our forums. Also Daniel and the whole team goes to conferences regularly to make Bitshares known as much as possible. We also head a lot of mainstream media coverage.
The rule is to give at least 10% to PTS/AGS. It is up to the developer of a DAC that uses Bitshares codebase to decide which allocation gets him the most support for his project. Mostly it is more than 10% for PTS/AGS... With Bitshares X it was even 50/50. The snapshot for Bitshares X took place on the 28. February. There where delays due to problems with Bitshares X out of which DPOS came out as a solution.
We discussed the Maidsafe fiasco here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4090.0

Finally the real reason for all the sudden interest comes out. You and your group awarded all to yourselves and are now promoting it. I don't know whether you really believe what you wrote in that post is it part of the act.

I don't think you developers should work for free, but you should be honest. If you want to award even 50%, state that clearly and others will still support. Trying to keep it hidden, awarding yourselves all and claiming it was fair later on won't fool us here. We have seen enough to spot when it happens. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised as Bitshares are closely linked to the Ethereum group who even with all their advertising efforts couldn't fool the community with their IPO.

Good luck with your project. Its very interesting and anything which can emerge as an alternative to the cartel has my support. I will just wait for a Counterparty equivalent of your project.

I think you have misunderstood. The Bitshares X  (the first family of DAC's) allocation is 50% to pts holders and 50% to ags holders. The developers are not directly being allocated equity. The only equity that the developers receive is that which they have paid for through pts or ags like everyone else. This "crowdfunding" method is without a doubt more transparent and fair than any of the alternatives. You can still buy or mine pts very cheaply, and you can still donate to ags addresses. Ags is particularly fair since the daily allocation of 10,000 ags split among donators proportional to their donations encourages those with greater funding capital to spread their donations over several days, which serves to increase the stake accumulated by smaller investors per day. 

There won't be a Counterparty equivalent to the project. Bitshares DAC's use their own blockchains which allows for greater flexibility in what these DAC's can do.  DPOS as explained before is a faster method of coming to consensus than pow mining. Any counterparty "equivalent" would be subject to the same slow transaction speeds as bitcoin. Additionally, its not feasible for counterparty to implement a bank an exchange like bitshares x on top of the bitcoin blockchain. Lastly, counterparty doesn't have enough funding because they decided to go with a proof of burn allocation model which is counterproductive.

[Agent86]

Finally the real reason for all the sudden interest comes out. You and your group awarded all to yourselves and are now promoting it. I don't know whether you really believe what you wrote in that post is it part of the act.

I don't think you developers should work for free, but you should be honest. If you want to award even 50%, state that clearly and others will still support. Trying to keep it hidden, awarding yourselves all and claiming it was fair later on won't fool us here. We have seen enough to spot when it happens. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised as Bitshares are closely linked to the Ethereum group who even with all their advertising efforts couldn't fool the community with their IPO.

Good luck with your project. Its very interesting and anything which can emerge as an alternative to the cartel has my support. I will just wait for a Counterparty equivalent of your project.

Fernandez, I think you are wrong in your understanding of the fairness of distribution.  I honestly think bytemaster/invictus have been ridiculously fair and beyond reproach.

The developers themselves took 0% of the IPO as profit.  They first released an asic resistant POW coin as a means of doing an IPO with NO premine, it was announced well in advance and the developers competed along with everyone else to mine or buy coins.  You can't really say the distribution is worse than a POW coin if the distribution was done using a POW coin.

Then, they realized that people were spending/burning tons of money on mining to get PTS which is kind of silly considering the project and everyone invested in it can benefit from funding.

So they started a 200 day IPO for AGS shares announced in advance.  They have always said they support a "social consensus" that the initial distribution for "DACs" should favor a bare minimum of 10% for PTS holders and 10% for AGS holders but higher percentages are encouraged and would likely have more market acceptance.

Invictus takes none of the IPO funds from AGS donations as profit or personal gain.  It is all used to growing the crypto-equity industry and is independently audited/accounted for (they have a spreadsheet showing every transaction on the blockchain and what it was for.)  AGS is used to pay salaries that are way below market rate for developers such as bytemaster.

Bytemaster and the other core developers have personally had to compete with everyone else to buy AGS shares to invest in their own project!

They could have said 10% or more of Bitshares X goes to developers/insiders but they didn't; they gave it all to investors.  Every investor was on equal footing.   The only reason the Feb 28th snapshot happened so soon was because they had promised to give at least 2 weeks notice before doing a snapshot and they felt they were nearing completion of bitshares X so they didn't want to delay it.

Bitshares X is just the first profitable Decentralized Autonomous Company (DAC) that they are releasing.  There is much more to come.  One blockchain to rule them all does not work.  AGS is a steal at the moment, PTS is cheap.  You have plenty of time to get in.  The pre snapshot price of Bitshares X was actually pretty high (look at PTS market cap @ end of Feb) so when it is released you quite likely will be able to buy in at a similar price.

I think you will find that clones/copies that try to cut out the people that made this happen will not be a good investment.
Let me know if you have questions.

[delulo]

Invictus recommends to all developers using the Bitshares codebase to honor BTS PTS (aka Protoshares) holders with at least 10% as well as BTS AGS holders with at least 10%.
Bitshares XT is tested at the moment. You can look at it here and test it yourself https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4480.0;topicseen

I knew Protoshares was the IPO coin, but didn't know about the other coin. The prices are much lower than what they used to be so its quite a good bargain being informed late

You are awarding 10% at the start as IPO. How are you distributing the remaining 90%? If you have another IPO for that I would be interested. Whatever you do, make it a fair one, even a proof of burn style process as Counterparty is the only new project which has any credibility. Look at what happens when you invest in a unfair distribution with greedy developers like that of Mastercoin, you get screwed as they try and make their money through deals with third party like Maidsafe.

Agree! (Perceived) Fairness correlates with how many people know about the possibilities, that is why the principle is to be as transparent as possible and make threads also here on BTT like this one. Everyone is welcome to join on our forums. Also Daniel and the whole team goes to conferences regularly to make Bitshares known as much as possible. We also head a lot of mainstream media coverage.
The rule is to give at least 10% to PTS/AGS. It is up to the developer of a DAC that uses Bitshares codebase to decide which allocation gets him the most support for his project. Mostly it is more than 10% for PTS/AGS... With Bitshares X it was even 50/50. The snapshot for Bitshares X took place on the 28. February. There where delays due to problems with Bitshares X out of which DPOS came out as a solution.
We discussed the Maidsafe fiasco here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4090.0

   

Finally the real reason for all the sudden interest comes out. You and your group awarded all to yourselves and are now promoting it. I don't know whether you really believe what you wrote in that post is it part of the act.

I don't think you developers should work for free, but you should be honest. If you want to award even 50%, state that clearly and others will still support. Trying to keep it hidden, awarding yourselves all and claiming it was fair later on won't fool us here. We have seen enough to spot when it happens. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised as Bitshares are closely linked to the Ethereum group who even with all their advertising efforts couldn't fool the community with their IPO.

Good luck with your project. Its very interesting and anything which can emerge as an alternative to the cartel has my support. I will just wait for a Counterparty equivalent of your project.

Sorry for the confusion. I invested in "after BTS X Snaphot AGS" when AGS prices where twice as high as atm. So you can get twice a better deal than I got. I think that is pretty fair.
The reason for the "social consensus" and its "at least 20% to AGS and PTS together" rule is that the Bitshares code can be use as a code base for many profitable DACs by 3rd party developers and it's open source so you can not force anyone to honour PTS/AGS. The rule for any developer using the Bitshares code base therefore is that giving 20% to AGS/PTS (combined) gives you the support (marketing, legal advice, coding consulting with Bytemaster etc) of Invictus and the support of the Bitshares community which has proven to see value in DAC business models. The allocation is up to the developer that launches the DAC. Invictus just recommends doing at least 10%/10% to get the support but that reasoning is finally up the developer. Here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=2876.0 is a more theoretical and more detailed outline of the approach and its background.
Bitshares X has been promoted many times on Bitcointalk before the Snapshot. I am not a developer. Just an investor in the Bitshares ecosystem like many others.
Bitshares is trying to accomplish something similar as Ethereum but with major design differences. Bitshares is nor closely related to Ethereum! See https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4460.0;all
There is a lot more documentation on the Bitshares forum.

[Fernandez]

When I said counterparty equivalent I meant something with a fair distribution. If you see all the next generation projects you find the underlying theme, greed of the developers. I think developers should be greedy but they shouldn't be dishonest and try to claim they are not. NXT, MSC, Ripple, Ethereum has all shown this tendency and Bitshares is following the same path.

You all awarded awarded yourselves all the Bitshares X 2-3 months back even though there is nothing there even now. Why would you do that, except to maximise your share? You have a silent fundraiser with your buddies, award yourselves all the shares and now say keep donating to us in the hope that some others will honour it and you will get something.

I don't know if you all seriously believe in what you seeing. It would be difficult for you to realise the con your developers are pulling out because you all will profit a lot from it. You all are doing your part now by trying to promote now. In the past few weeks I have heard quite a bit about this DPOS, and it seems thats because you now need others to know to increased demand.

I think you will find that clones/copies that try to cut out the people that made this happen will not be a good investment.
Let me know if you have questions.

clones/copies which aim for a fair distribution and don't aim to award themselves everything with an underhanded distribution will be a good investment. I am not saying there will definitely be a counterparty equivalent, but I will be fully behind one if it happens.

As I said, good luck with your project. It is very innovative and has the potential to show a viable alternative to the cartel which is ruining Bitcoin. Its just sad that you all fell into the same greed trap.

[benjyz]

this thread is about the DPOS paper, please stay on-topic.

[clout]

 

When I said counterparty equivalent I meant something with a fair distribution. If you see all the next generation projects you find the underlying theme, greed of the developers. I think developers should be greedy but they shouldn't be dishonest and try to claim they are not. NXT, MSC, Ripple, Ethereum has all shown this tendency and Bitshares is following the same path.

How is counterparty more fair? Because it used proof of burn? That doesn't make anything about their crowd funding model more fair that just means that the developers can't use any of that money to help with development. How is the bitshares fundraiser not the most fair? It was announce well in advance and the duration of the fundraiser is longer than any other to date. You can mine pts, you can buy pts, you can donate btc, you can donate pts. There are so many ways to get an allocation in the snapshot. And as previously mentioned the daily allocation of 10,000 allows smaller players to accumulate more stake than they might otherwise.

You all awarded awarded yourselves all the Bitshares X 2-3 months back even though there is nothing there even now. Why would you do that, except to maximise your share? You have a silent fundraiser with your buddies, award yourselves all the shares and now say keep donating to us in the hope that some others will honour it and you will get something.

Bitshares X is a year in the making. There have been several posts here at bitcointalk regarding the Feb 28th snapshot for Bitshares X. Its not a silent fundraiser simply because you did not take the time to look into bitshares. Bitsharestalk.org is the second most active forum only after bitcointalk.org. Theres a huge community of supporters and it continues to grow.  

I don't know if you all seriously believe in what you seeing. It would be difficult for you to realise the con your developers are pulling out because you all will profit a lot from it. You all are doing your part now by trying to promote now. In the past few weeks I have heard quite a bit about this DPOS, and it seems thats because you now need others to know to increased demand.

In the past few weeks you should have heard quite a bit about DPOS its revolutionary and the concept only came out about a month ago. The reason for the delay in the bitshares x software is largely due to the newly found realization of how to secure the block chain at the lowest cost.

[delulo]

When I said counterparty equivalent I meant something with a fair distribution. If you see all the next generation projects you find the underlying theme, greed of the developers. I think developers should be greedy but they shouldn't be dishonest and try to claim they are not. NXT, MSC, Ripple, Ethereum has all shown this tendency and Bitshares is following the same path.

You all awarded awarded yourselves all the Bitshares X 2-3 months back even though there is nothing there even now. Why would you do that, except to maximise your share? You have a silent fundraiser with your buddies, award yourselves all the shares and now say keep donating to us in the hope that some others will honour it and you will get something.

I don't know if you all seriously believe in what you seeing. It would be difficult for you to realise the con your developers are pulling out because you all will profit a lot from it. You all are doing your part now by trying to promote now. In the past few weeks I have heard quite a bit about this DPOS, and it seems thats because you now need others to know to increased demand.

I think you will find that clones/copies that try to cut out the people that made this happen will not be a good investment.
Let me know if you have questions.

clones/copies which aim for a fair distribution and don't aim to award themselves everything with an underhanded distribution will be a good investment. I am not saying there will definitely be a counterparty equivalent, but I will be fully behind one if it happens.

As I said, good luck with your project. It is very innovative and has the potential to show a viable alternative to the cartel which is ruining Bitcoin. Its just sad that you all fell into the same greed trap.

... it should stay on topic true.
But seeing Bitshares described having an unfair distribution and greedy developers is ridiculous. It probably has the most flat distribution of all the Bitcoin 2.0 projects. Because many people (also outside of the crypto space) know about it. Bitshares had a great amount of media coverage and was introduced at the Miami, the Texas and the NY conference. I am pretty sure there are more PTS and AGS holders than there where Counterparty burners (I burned some BTC as well and I think Counterparty is among the most innovative and trustworthy projects out there). And like it was said above the developers do not take ANY AMOUNT of the stake for themselves other than the stake they got through mining / buying PTS and donating to AGS, just like with Counterparty. The donations from AGS are not theirs and are used to develop the bitshares ecosystem only! There is a spread sheet somewhere where all the expenses are listed.

If you want to compare the fairness with Counterparty:
Presence on Bitcointalk? About equal, there was only one thread about Counterparty during burn period but a few about Protoshares, Angelshares, Bitshares etc. Most Bitshares threads were less instructional though.  
Length of donation period? 30 days with Counterparty vs. 60 days for BTS X and up to 200 days for most other DACs.  
How many people know/knew about it during the coin distribution phase? Way more people know about bitshares, 10,000 people fourm, mainstream media coverage, presence on conferences to introduce ideas.
How do devs profit compared to the community/other investors? Counterparty and Bitshares are equally fair here. Same principle: Devs have the same conditions for getting stake like everyone else and only profit if the project is successful.
Counterparty has branded itself as being fair, and rightfully so, because it was the most fair Bitcion 2.0 project and especially way more fair than it's competitor Mastercoin. But Bitshares is at least as fair as Counterparty.
Also important: Fairness is not about how many Bitcoinalk people know about possibilities but about how many people in general do. Because, later on people could say. All those projects were only announced on these forums and the average guy that more consumes main stream media had no chance know it. Bitshares had media coverage (during stake distribution phase not after like Counterparty) with The economist, Bloomberg, Business Week, Tech Crunch and a local general news paper. 

Most importantly, there was only one snapshot yet (the one for Bitshares X). There are at least half a dozen of DACs to have a Snapshot and you can be part of it and even profit from it twice as much as I will. PTS/AGS prices are ridiculously low atm. I bought earlier and will profit less than late investors... So please be fair.  

[coininaction]

http://www1.agsexplorer.com/

here you can check, hwo funds are used to cover development costs etc.
Stay tuned...but guess we should come back to OP and DPOS ..

Google sheets -- AGS funds used for development
__________
BTC: Fund Usage
__________
PTS: Fund Usage
__________

[DonnyMontana]

Very smart indeed !!
This is going to revolutionize next generation cryptoequities.

[digitalindustry]

I wouldn't be as forthright about it as AnonyMint but I have to agree with him .

It is the random expodential nature of PoW that is the key here .

But I'm never against trying new things.

This is why also the EQ reward simply solves another more basic economic problem and utilizes PoW to do so.


When the NSA hashed out their white paper you will notice it had not just mathematical input but broard sociological also.

Economics has nothing to do with Math what does the EQ reward do?


This is a new economic system.

[digitalindustry]

You know credit has to be given because in a perfect world even BTC harsh inflation would work even combined with ASIC because in an equilibrium the BTC price would continually crash and let new decentralized energy in.

But the world is not perfect or an equilibrium it's a monopoly capitalist system just one step away from communism.

So because of both the sociological aspect that the world is in a slow motion "crisis" at the fundamental level and monopoly capitalists working to control it.

BTC is part propped and part propped by the free market.

Cryptocurrency will find the equilibrium but BTC will have to fork.