Bitshares-PTS to double/triple in price in the next 45 days!!?

[clout]

how is the centralization an issue? i want you to really think hard about that question. the point of the making these systems decentralized is so that there is no one point of failure and no one point of control. with dpos you get that since delegates have an easy task that can be audited by all clients on the network. delegates can not sign two blocks or they will be fired, so the cannot double spend. delegates cannot stop processing transactions or they will get voted out for a delegated that can. delegates are neither a central point of failure or control. the network is secured by the shareholders. as a result of this structure you have a more scalable system.

nxt is adding new features that will make the transaction sizes excessive. while i was generous to leave transactions per second at 3.4. the base transaction size is 160 bytes, but there are transaction types that can be as large as 10KiB, limiting the block to only 3 of these transaction - thats 0.05 tps. the largest transaction size for bitshares is 340 bytes.

both from a design and technical standpoint bitshares is more scalable than nxt. while you can say that nxt is more decentralized, bitshares is more secure.

if the comparison chart assumes anything at all it assumes the worst possible scenario for bitshares and the best possible scenario for competitors. everything in the bitshares column aside from market pegged assets has been tested on public test network.

[devphp]

how is the centralization an issue? i want you to really think hard about that question. the point of the making these systems decentralized is so that there is no one point of failure and no one point of control. with dpos you get that since delegates have an easy task that can be audited by all clients on the network. delegates can not sign two blocks or they will be fired, so the cannot double spend. delegates cannot stop processing transactions or they will get voted out for a delegated that can. delegates are neither a central point of failure or control. the network is secured by the shareholders. as a result of this structure you have a more scalable system.

nxt is adding new features that will make the transaction sizes excessive. while i was generous to leave transactions per second at 3.4. the base transaction size is 160 bytes, but there are transaction types that can be as large as 10KiB, limiting the block to only 3 of these transaction - thats 0.05 tps. the largest transaction size for bitshares is 340 bytes.

both from a design and technical standpoint bitshares is more scalable than nxt. while you can say that nxt is more decentralized, bitshares is more secure.

if the comparison chart assumes anything at all it assumes the worst possible scenario for bitshares and the best possible scenario for competitors. everything in the bitshares column aside from market pegged assets has been tested on public test network.

What if several delegates collude or are coerced? Especially if these several delegates each controls more than 1 node. That makes them a central point of failure. You can't fire old delegates and hire new ones dynamically, it takes time. If they collude or are coerced and do harm to the network, it will take time to recover from the damage. NXT doesn't have this limitation per design, hence NXT is more secure.

tx size and the 3.4 limit is temporary. Until TF is implemented, NXT is still in the bootstrapping phase. Until TF is implemented NXT is not what it's designed to eventually be. When TF is implemented, NXT will be more scalable.

[Cygnify]

Does anyone know when the next PTS snapshots are taking place and for which DACs?

[clout]

how is the centralization an issue? i want you to really think hard about that question. the point of the making these systems decentralized is so that there is no one point of failure and no one point of control. with dpos you get that since delegates have an easy task that can be audited by all clients on the network. delegates can not sign two blocks or they will be fired, so the cannot double spend. delegates cannot stop processing transactions or they will get voted out for a delegated that can. delegates are neither a central point of failure or control. the network is secured by the shareholders. as a result of this structure you have a more scalable system.

nxt is adding new features that will make the transaction sizes excessive. while i was generous to leave transactions per second at 3.4. the base transaction size is 160 bytes, but there are transaction types that can be as large as 10KiB, limiting the block to only 3 of these transaction - thats 0.05 tps. the largest transaction size for bitshares is 340 bytes.

both from a design and technical standpoint bitshares is more scalable than nxt. while you can say that nxt is more decentralized, bitshares is more secure.

if the comparison chart assumes anything at all it assumes the worst possible scenario for bitshares and the best possible scenario for competitors. everything in the bitshares column aside from market pegged assets has been tested on public test network.

What if several delegates collude or are coerced? Especially if these several delegates each controls more than 1 node. That makes them a central point of failure. You can't fire old delegates and hire new ones dynamically, it takes time. If they collude or are coerced and do harm to the network, it will take time to recover from the damage. NXT doesn't have this limitation per design, hence NXT is more secure.

tx size and the 3.4 limit is temporary. Until TF is implemented, NXT is still in the bootstrapping phase. Until TF is implemented NXT is not what it's designed to eventually be. When TF is implemented, NXT will be more scalable.

can you create a plausible scenario for collusion? there is simply no incentive to collude. because this is designed around free market incentives collusion is not economically viable. there is an economic cost to collusion which in a free market economy with out the intervention of government makes it unfavorable for all individuals.

who's argument is reliant upon conjecture now? nxt is going to impliment this they are going to implement that. bitshares has already implemented a dividends system, it has already implemented all the features of nxt and is thus far substantially more scalable. bitshares has been in alpha testing for the past month and a half and has had 8 iterations of public test networks. the speed of development for Invictus Innovation and bitshares team is far greater than the speed of development for nxt

[devphp]

Colluded is less likely than coerced, I admit that. Same argument goes for Bitcoin by the way.

BitShares hasn't launched yet. Test net is so much different than live net. It's too premature to talk about the speed of development of BitShares until they have launched real trading and have been attacked by real hackers who exploit for profit. Not many hackers would exploit the test net, because they can't profit from it.

[clout]

Does anyone know when the next PTS snapshots are taking place and for which DACs?

They have not officially been announced yet. Snapshots for Bitshares Me, Bitshares DNS and Bitshares Lotto will be announced shortly after the launch of the Bitshares X network, which should be sometime this week. Important to note that Bitshares X will not be launched with features for trading BitAssets. The network is being launched to make shares in Bitshares X tradable.

[clout]

Colluded is less likely than coerced, I admit that. Same argument goes for Bitcoin by the way.

BitShares hasn't launched yet. Test net is so much different than live net. It's too premature to talk about the speed of development of BitShares until they have launched real trading and have been attacked by real hackers who exploit for profit. Not many hackers would exploit the test net, because they can't profit from it.

collusion and coercion have no impact on the delegated system. if a delegate is compromised they will be voted out

how is it premature to talk about the speed of development? look at their github . i would say look at the nxt github but they don't have one. this team is more productive than any other team in the space, i encourage you to look at the githubs of other open source crypto-currency projects.

i would not argue that the system has to be tested more, but the team has demonstrated that they can improve vulnerabilities quickly and efficiently. on the current test network someone flooded the network with 22 tps and the network forked. the next day the devs fixed the code and attempted to flood the network with 1000 tps to no avail.

[devphp]

What if 51% of BitShares delegate nodes are compromised or some other large enough number? Wouldn't that cause disruption to the network? Not even temporary?

Github is github, live net is live net. I believe BitShares devs are knowledgeable enough to fix bugs. So, BitShares prevents spamming of the network with enforcing limits on txs in the software. NXT takes a different, fee-based approach to prevent spamming of the network.

[bitcoinpaul]

Burned Invested 0.5 BTC in January. I am rich now, right?

[clout]

What if 51% of BitShares delegate nodes are compromised or some other large enough number? Wouldn't that cause disruption to the network? Not even temporary?

Github is github, live net is live net. I believe BitShares devs are knowledgeable enough to fix bugs. So, BitShares prevents spamming of the network with enforcing limits on txs in the software. NXT takes a different, fee-based approach to prevent spamming of the network.

transactions have fees in the bitshares network as well. all of these networks use fees to stop spam.

if 51% of the delegates are compromised - that is more than 51% of delegates are not producing blocks - then the network would require greater confirmation time. delegate participation on the test network has rebounded from 30% to 90% after the fork i referred to.

[devphp]

if 51% of the delegates are compromised - that is more than 51% of delegates are not producing blocks - then the network would require greater confirmation time. delegate participation on the test network has rebounded from 30% to 90% after the fork i referred to.

'Compromised' can mean much more than just 'not producing blocks'. And even in that scenario, that would signify some damage to the network. Anyway, BitShares seems like a system designed to function well in normal conditions. It hasn't been tested in battle conditions yet, only time will tell if it's good enough for those.

[clout]

if 51% of the delegates are compromised - that is more than 51% of delegates are not producing blocks - then the network would require greater confirmation time. delegate participation on the test network has rebounded from 30% to 90% after the fork i referred to.

'Compromised' can mean much more than just 'not producing blocks'. And even in that scenario, that would signify some damage to the network. Anyway, BitShares seems like a system designed to function well in normal conditions. It hasn't been tested in battle conditions yet, only time will tell if it's good enough for those.

No you have misunderstood. Compromised does not mean anything more than not producing a block. That is the only way a delegate can be comprised. Delegates don't have any role other than producing blocks. If a delegate filters transactions they will automatically lose approval as each client can detect this action and each subsequent transaction will remove approval until the delegated is ultimately voted out of his or her position. And the next capable delegate will include the transactions.

[devphp]

No you have misunderstood. Compromised does not mean anything more than not producing a block. That is the only way a delegate can be comprised. Delegates don't have any role other than producing blocks. If a delegate filters transactions they will automatically lose approval as each client can detect this action and each subsequent transaction will remove approval until the delegated is ultimately voted out of his or her position. And the next capable delegate will include the transactions.

Ah ok, I see, thank you for clarifying. This doesn't completely eliminate the attack vector, as this can still cause damage to the network, but gives it less chance to be successful.

[FandangledGizmo]

BitShares.p2p will be snap-shotting off PTS in a few months

A secure alternative to todays domain name system that eliminates domain name squatting while providing security against government seizures & man-in-the-middle attacks.

Just reading an article on ZH that makes me think it can't come too soon!

Internet Censorship Explodes - Google Receives 250,000 "Removal" Requests.

 So it appears Orwell’s feared “memory hole” has begun to emerge in Europe. The way censorship is gaining a foothold in the region is through something known as a “right to be forgotten” ruling issued by the European Court of Justice. This ruling states that Google must essentially delete “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant” data from its results when a member of the public requests it.

Of course this is incredibly vague, and who is to decide what it “no longer relevant” anyway? Seems quite subjective. This is clearly an attempt to take a tool designed to decentralize information flow (the internet) and centralize and censor it. As such, it must be resisted at all costs.

So far, we know of two major media organizations that have been informed of deleted or censored articles, the BBC and the Guardian. The BBC story is the one that has received the most attention because the content related to former ex-Merrill Lynch CEO Stan O’Neal, who received a $161.5 million golden parachute compensation package after running the Wall Street firm into the ground and playing a key role in destroying the U.S. economy.

Which means that to all intents and purposes the article has been removed from the public record, given that Google is the route to information and stories for most people.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-06/internet-censorship-explodes-google-receives-250000-removal-requests

[bitcoincal]

Top 10 reasons to be excited about BitShares right now


Reason 6: Next PTS Snapshots

Next PTS Snapshots for new DACS? That's what you get by donating to PTS now? Any idea what those new DACS those will be?

[clout]

Top 10 reasons to be excited about BitShares right now


Reason 6: Next PTS Snapshots

Next PTS Snapshots for new DACS? That's what you get by donating to PTS now? Any idea what those new DACS those will be?

BitShares Me - user issued assets and exchange (this is already implemented on BitShares X so I'm not too sure how they will be making the distinction)
BitShares DNS (.p2p)
BitShares Lotto 
BitShares Vote
BitShares Music
BitShares Insurance

you can find specific information at bitsharestalk.org or wiki.bitshares.org

[FandangledGizmo]

Top 10 reasons to be excited about BitShares right now


Reason 6: Next PTS Snapshots

Next PTS Snapshots for new DACS? That's what you get by donating to PTS now? Any idea what those new DACS those will be?

Yes the three main ones I'm focusing on are the BitShares.p2p domain system, a lottery DAC called BitShares Lotto & BitShares Music. But there's more in the pipeline at various stages. (I noticed a third party is putting this site together Bitsharesmarket.com which covers a lot of the DAC's.)

To be honest the tough part is valuing their effect on PTS. Say I estimate those three DAC's are probably worth a combined 50 mil. BitShares only commits to give PTS a minimum of 10% of the equity. (However in BitShares X which should be trading in a week or two they gave PTS 50%) So personally I'm hoping for more average equity. Either way PTS is undervalued in my opinion and will jump to reflect the value of whatever the announcements are.

[bitcoincal]

Top 10 reasons to be excited about BitShares right now


Reason 6: Next PTS Snapshots

Next PTS Snapshots for new DACS? That's what you get by donating to PTS now? Any idea what those new DACS those will be?

Yes the three main ones I'm focusing on are the BitShares.p2p domain system, a lottery DAC called BitShares Lotto & BitShares Music. But there's more in the pipeline at various stages. (I noticed a third party is putting this site together Bitsharesmarket.com which covers a lot of the DAC's.)

To be honest the tough part is valuing their effect on PTS. Say I estimate those three DAC's are probably worth a combined 50 mil. BitShares only commits to give PTS a minimum of 10% of the equity. (However in BitShares X which should be trading in a week or two they gave PTS 50%) So personally I'm hoping for more average equity. Either way PTS is undervalued in my opinion and will jump to reflect the value of whatever the announcements are.

BitShares X is going to be trading where?

Sorry, for all the questions. This seems promising. I'm just not exactly sure where the best entry is?

Donating to AGS in the next few days you get a higher share value of the other DACS.
PTS is undervalued and could double/triple in value.
Bitshares-X has an amazing potential and is almost ready to launch.

[clout]

Top 10 reasons to be excited about BitShares right now


Reason 6: Next PTS Snapshots

Next PTS Snapshots for new DACS? That's what you get by donating to PTS now? Any idea what those new DACS those will be?

Yes the three main ones I'm focusing on are the BitShares.p2p domain system, a lottery DAC called BitShares Lotto & BitShares Music. But there's more in the pipeline at various stages. (I noticed a third party is putting this site together Bitsharesmarket.com which covers a lot of the DAC's.)

To be honest the tough part is valuing their effect on PTS. Say I estimate those three DAC's are probably worth a combined 50 mil. BitShares only commits to give PTS a minimum of 10% of the equity. (However in BitShares X which should be trading in a week or two they gave PTS 50%) So personally I'm hoping for more average equity. Either way PTS is undervalued in my opinion and will jump to reflect the value of whatever the announcements are.

BitShares X is going to be trading where?

Sorry, for all the questions. This seems promising. I'm just not exactly sure where the best entry is?

Donating to AGS in the next few days you get a higher share value of the other DACS.
PTS is undervalued and could double/triple in value.
Bitshares-X has an amazing potential and is almost ready to launch.

BitShares X is going to be made liquid in the next two weeks. It will probably be picked up by every major exchange. Currently pts is traded on bter and crypsty and i would expect xts (bitshares x symbol) to be traded on these exchanges initially and then traded on other exchanges. the api is very simple there is good documentation on how to compare its uses with use of the bitcoin api. since blocktimes are 15 seconds and confirmation takes 1 block i would expect as many exchanges as possible will adopt its use.

I would say of the three possible investment vehicles ags, pts and xts, xts will probably provide the best return although there is the minor possibility of the network being reset given some unforeseen bugs. bitshares x is in active alfa testing and the probability of a reset is minimal but there is always that risk. pts is a good strategy since you can get equity in new dacs while still maintaining a liquid asset. pts is going to get upgrade to the dpos blockchain, so that in and of itself can lead to a great value proposition. ags shares are not liquid but they are probably more undervalued by the market than even pts.

in terms of the three different investment vehicles xts has the greatest possible return, ags has the second greatest and pts comes in third. it is all about preferences and risks.

[devphp]

BitShares X is going to be made liquid in the next two weeks.

Is BitShares X the one that was snapshot on Feb 28, initially called Protoshares?
I am confused with all the terminology