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

[smoothie]

Bitshares has been off the radar for a bit and I wanted to let you know that it is set to explode soon!!!!

Thank you for letting us know.

Now is this an actual coin or like a stock in a company?

[1714211927]

1714211927

[1714211927]

1714211927

[1714211927]

1714211927

[xeroc]

Now is this an actual coin or like a stock in a company?

It's more like a share in the BitShares Ecosystem .. lots of innovation to come very soonish

[bitcoinpaul]

lots of innovation to come very soonish

MtGox CEO: We'll Have A New Statement Out 'Soon-ish'

 

[clout]

BitShares X if it eventually is able to do what it says on the tin, will have a system that's more decentralised but with enough trust (knowing who will produce next block) that they can handle MasterCard/Visa volumes and process them incredibly rapidly. More importantly you will 'hopefully' be able to hold BitUSD or BitGold on a blockchain. So it's not a shitcoin, more like the - 'could change everything coin' so I guess actually you could call it 'the shit' coin

Did you confuse something?

This actually sounds like Nxt.

 

Yeah sure, choose NXT - If you like a system that's >10X slower, >10X more expensive with <1/2 the features

http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/Why_choose_Bitshares%3F  

Check out the comparison chart - it's still a work in progress but I think BitShares' new DPOS Blockchain is superior.
(NXT is actually my third biggest holding after Bitcoin & BitShares related stuff though...)

Haha, you know that this table is of course in favor of BitShares? Well, obviously if considering the URI of the wiki.

It only lists features that exists BitShares but not those only available on Nxt.
Recommended confirmation time is of course the same as both use the same underlying technology. Here, I stick to the original.

About the other features:
for Nxt:
Anonymous Transactions - next major feature release
Profit Sharing - next major feature release
Market Pegged Assets - next major feature release
for BitShares:
well, no release yet; we will see if they deliver => actually the table should show a big red NO

when are these features to be released? are they already implemented and being used on active test nets? also, recommended confirmation time is not the same. even if you use one block confirmation, nxt blocks are produced every minutes as apposed to 15 seconds. there is very little latency in block production on the test net. block production could be sped up to 2 second interval.

[PL_CoinTrader]

Have I understood correctly that BitShares is not decentralised? I don't want to spread FUD so please correct me if I understood this wrong. If it's true then how would you response to someone who critizises centralisation?
I'm mainly into crypto because of the idea of decentralisation. In fact I think that's the only reason why we need crypto. Why should I invest in a coin that is not really decentralised?

[xeroc]

well, no release yet; we will see if they deliver => actually the table should show a big red NO

how is that? They have a running testnet .. I'd say they will for sure release .. no idea when but probably sooner than you think!

[xeroc]

Have I understood correctly that BitShares is not decentralised? I don't want to spread FUD so please correct me if I understood this wrong. If it's true then how would you response to someone who critizises centralisation?
I'm mainly into crypto because of the idea of decentralisation. In fact I think that's the only reason why we need crypto. Why should I invest in a coin that is not really decentralised?

it is decentralized as the network is dezentralized as a p2p network .. the security model is different ... atm 101 delegates produce the blocks .. and only they can produce block .. so in terms of decentralized block production bitshares not word decentralized .. however: as a proof-of-stake 'coin' you can vote for your delegates .. if you have enough approvals you can set up a delegate by your own ..
the list of delegates is (in contrast to ripple) dynamic .. if a delegate stops producing blocks or does not include transactions (those are the only two things delegates can do to harm the network) they get 'fired' as they loose approval by the users (stakeholders, all participants with >0 stake) ...
the advantage is: in contrast to NXT (also with transparent forging) the delegate that generates the next block is deterministically defined (randomized per round - 1 delegate = 1 block per round) and as such the network can confirm transactions very rapidly .. last testnet ran several days without major issues with 10 secs blocks ..

I recommend to read at wiki.bitshares.org

[FandangledGizmo]

Have I understood correctly that BitShares is not decentralised? I don't want to spread FUD so please correct me if I understood this wrong. If it's true then how would you response to someone who critizises centralisation?
I'm mainly into crypto because of the idea of decentralisation. In fact I think that's the only reason why we need crypto. Why should I invest in a coin that is not really decentralised?

It's a good question, earlier in this thread, there was a similar discussion with someone more involved in NXT, so this is the convo from there, but I'd wait for a more tech explanation from Clout too.

  

Cool, What would you say, in your opinion, is the best system in terms of decentralisation and performance out there at the moment?

My opinion would be called biased if I said it's NXT.
I see BitShares has achieved a pretty good decentralization level compared to Bitcoin.
Will it be good enough in the future? Only time can tell.
Certainly, 101 delegated nodes are far more difficult to compromise than just 2 biggest Bitcoin pools. It's not 100% decentralization, but I guess many people will find it decent enough to use.

Yeah I would agree with that.

I'm one of the people who think decentralisation is a means not an end. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3923.0

Any increased decentralisation starts to add significant cost and time delay to the network. For me it's about .Gov or the banks/corporations trying to interfere with my liberty. 'If' DPOS achieves security against that & attack/compromise, (Other than making me wealthy with a buyout) then I'm OK with that.

It means BitShares will have the most competitive blockchains, and I know most end customers generally want the best products at the best price. So we should be able to outperform both centralised systems and ones that are more decentralised.

Though I think there will still be a market for people who like more decentralised systems on principle.
 

   

If you want to read more about the system http://bitshares.org/delegated-proof-of-stake/

Edit: Yes read that link, it covers comparisons to all the other system in terms if 'decentralisation', attacks etc.

[PL_CoinTrader]

Have I understood correctly that BitShares is not decentralised? I don't want to spread FUD so please correct me if I understood this wrong. If it's true then how would you response to someone who critizises centralisation?
I'm mainly into crypto because of the idea of decentralisation. In fact I think that's the only reason why we need crypto. Why should I invest in a coin that is not really decentralised?

it is decentralized as the network is dezentralized as a p2p network .. the security model is different ... atm 101 delegates produce the blocks .. and only they can produce block .. so in terms of decentralized block production bitshares not word decentralized .. however: as a proof-of-stake 'coin' you can vote for your delegates .. if you have enough approvals you can set up a delegate by your own ..
the list of delegates is (in contrast to ripple) dynamic .. if a delegate stops producing blocks or does not include transactions (those are the only two things delegates can do to harm the network) they get 'fired' as they loose approval by the users (stakeholders, all participants with >0 stake) ...
the advantage is: in contrast to NXT (also with transparent forging) the delegate that generates the next block is deterministically defined (randomized per round - 1 delegate = 1 block per round) and as such the network can confirm transactions very rapidly .. last testnet ran several days without major issues with 10 secs blocks ..

I recommend to read at wiki.bitshares.org

Sounds pretty interesting, I'll read a little bit about it.

[devphp]

If you want to read more about the system http://bitshares.org/delegated-proof-of-stake/

Edit: Yes read that link, it covers comparisons to all the other system in terms if 'decentralisation', attacks etc.

That's a nice link, thank you.
In the section on NXT decentralization Daniel makes some assumptions, quoting:

2.5.3 Nxt

Nxt uses transparent forging where the next node is deterministically selected. It can be compared to using Delegated Proof of Stake where the only person you can delegate to is yourself and the frequency in which you have the opportunity to forge a block is directly related to your balance. In this sense Nxt is more decentralized than Peercoin and Bitcoin, but still suffers poor user participation due to security risks and the fact that most regular users do not leave their computers on all day to take advantage of the opportunity.

From this perspective we can conclude that the Nxt network is being secured by a small minority of the shareholders. In effect, if you don’t show up to vote you lose your vote. To resolve this issue some Nxt users pool their funds and trust a 3rd party to mine for them. This increases shareholder participation by being a form of Delegated Proof of Stake, but also risks their balance while they are participating in the pool.

In fact, there is no poor user participation in NXT. Analysis of the blockchain reveals that the total number of accounts generating new blocks in NXT is between 300 and 350. Which is better than 100 delegates in BitShares.

Here is the java code that can be used to calculate active (who have forged blocks) forgers in the NXT blockchain:

Code:

import java.sql.Connection;
import java.sql.DriverManager;
import java.sql.ResultSet;
import java.sql.SQLException;
import java.sql.Statement;
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.HashMap;
import java.util.Iterator;

public class inspectDB {

        public static void runQuery(int startHeight, int endHeight) {

                Connection conn = null;

                String dbUrl = "jdbc:h2:nxt_db/nxt;DB_CLOSE_ON_EXIT=FALSE";
                dbUrl += ";DB_CLOSE_ON_EXIT=FALSE";

                try {

                        Class.forName("org.h2.Driver");

                        conn = DriverManager.getConnection(dbUrl, "sa", "sa");

                        Statement stmt = conn.createStatement();
                        // generator_public_key
                        ArrayList<String> pubgenkeys = new ArrayList<String>();
                        String stmtStr = "SELECT generator_public_key, height, timestamp, total_amount FROM block where total_amount >= 0 and height > "
                                        + startHeight + " and height < " + endHeight;
                        ResultSet selectRS = stmt.executeQuery(stmtStr);// total_amount
                        while (selectRS.next()) {
                                String a = selectRS.getString(1);
                                pubgenkeys.add(a);

                        }

                        Iterator<String> it = pubgenkeys.iterator();
                        HashMap<String, Integer> occ = new HashMap<String, Integer>();
                        while (it.hasNext()) {
                                String cur = it.next();
                                // System.out.println(cur);
                                if (occ.containsKey(cur)) {
                                        int last = occ.get(cur).intValue();
                                        occ.remove(cur);
                                        occ.put(cur, new Integer(last + 1));
                                } else
                                        occ.put(cur, 1);
                        }

                        int numBlocks = endHeight - startHeight;
                        int numAddr = occ.values().size();

                        System.out.println("startBlock  " + startHeight
                                        + " generated by # addresses : " + numAddr
                                        + " (numBlocks: " + numBlocks + ")");

                        conn.close();

                } catch (SQLException e) {
                        e.printStackTrace();
                } catch (ClassNotFoundException e) {

                        e.printStackTrace();
                } finally {
                        if (conn != null)
                                try {
                                        conn.close();
                                } catch (SQLException e) {
                                        e.printStackTrace();
                                }
                }

        }

        public static void main(String[] args) {
                int maxh = 200000;
                int step = 10000;
                for (int bh = 0; bh < maxh; bh += step) {
                        runQuery(bh, bh + step);
                }

        }
}

Also, in the last paragraph last sentence he says users risk their balance with a pool. No, they don't. The feature called Leased Forging doesn't require sending your coins to a pool. It only helps to lease your effective balance for forging. But your coins are all in your possession, nobody but you has access to them.

Other sections of that link may be checked also for doubtful information. I outlined two most outstanding... eh, inconsistencies

[FandangledGizmo]

If you want to read more about the system http://bitshares.org/delegated-proof-of-stake/

Edit: Yes read that link, it covers comparisons to all the other system in terms if 'decentralisation', attacks etc.

That's a nice link, thank you.
In the section on NXT decentralization Daniel makes some assumptions, quoting:

2.5.3 Nxt

Nxt uses transparent forging where the next node is deterministically selected. It can be compared to using Delegated Proof of Stake where the only person you can delegate to is yourself and the frequency in which you have the opportunity to forge a block is directly related to your balance. In this sense Nxt is more decentralized than Peercoin and Bitcoin, but still suffers poor user participation due to security risks and the fact that most regular users do not leave their computers on all day to take advantage of the opportunity.

From this perspective we can conclude that the Nxt network is being secured by a small minority of the shareholders. In effect, if you don’t show up to vote you lose your vote. To resolve this issue some Nxt users pool their funds and trust a 3rd party to mine for them. This increases shareholder participation by being a form of Delegated Proof of Stake, but also risks their balance while they are participating in the pool.

In fact, there is no poor user participation in NXT. Analysis of the blockchain reveals that the total number of accounts generating new blocks in NXT is between 300 and 350. Which is better than 100 delegates in BitShares.

Here is the java code that can be used to calculate active (who have forged blocks) forgers in the NXT blockchain:

Code:

import java.sql.Connection;
import java.sql.DriverManager;
import java.sql.ResultSet;
import java.sql.SQLException;
import java.sql.Statement;
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.HashMap;
import java.util.Iterator;

public class inspectDB {

        public static void runQuery(int startHeight, int endHeight) {

                Connection conn = null;

                String dbUrl = "jdbc:h2:nxt_db/nxt;DB_CLOSE_ON_EXIT=FALSE";
                dbUrl += ";DB_CLOSE_ON_EXIT=FALSE";

                try {

                        Class.forName("org.h2.Driver");

                        conn = DriverManager.getConnection(dbUrl, "sa", "sa");

                        Statement stmt = conn.createStatement();
                        // generator_public_key
                        ArrayList<String> pubgenkeys = new ArrayList<String>();
                        String stmtStr = "SELECT generator_public_key, height, timestamp, total_amount FROM block where total_amount >= 0 and height > "
                                        + startHeight + " and height < " + endHeight;
                        ResultSet selectRS = stmt.executeQuery(stmtStr);// total_amount
                        while (selectRS.next()) {
                                String a = selectRS.getString(1);
                                pubgenkeys.add(a);

                        }

                        Iterator<String> it = pubgenkeys.iterator();
                        HashMap<String, Integer> occ = new HashMap<String, Integer>();
                        while (it.hasNext()) {
                                String cur = it.next();
                                // System.out.println(cur);
                                if (occ.containsKey(cur)) {
                                        int last = occ.get(cur).intValue();
                                        occ.remove(cur);
                                        occ.put(cur, new Integer(last + 1));
                                } else
                                        occ.put(cur, 1);
                        }

                        int numBlocks = endHeight - startHeight;
                        int numAddr = occ.values().size();

                        System.out.println("startBlock  " + startHeight
                                        + " generated by # addresses : " + numAddr
                                        + " (numBlocks: " + numBlocks + ")");

                        conn.close();

                } catch (SQLException e) {
                        e.printStackTrace();
                } catch (ClassNotFoundException e) {

                        e.printStackTrace();
                } finally {
                        if (conn != null)
                                try {
                                        conn.close();
                                } catch (SQLException e) {
                                        e.printStackTrace();
                                }
                }

        }

        public static void main(String[] args) {
                int maxh = 200000;
                int step = 10000;
                for (int bh = 0; bh < maxh; bh += step) {
                        runQuery(bh, bh + step);
                }

        }
}

Also, in the last paragraph last sentence he says users risk their balance with a pool. No, they don't. The feature called Leased Forging doesn't require sending your coins to a pool. It only helps to lease your effective balance for forging. But your coins are all in your possession, nobody but you has access to them.

Other sections of that link may be checked also for doubtful information. I outlined two most outstanding... eh, inconsistencies

Hi ya, yeah I like NXT, Yes I agree, the part about your leased forging needs to be updated. But there's a big difference between 300 or 3000 random accounts and 101 elected delegates. Those 300 accounts could link to very few people.

In BitShares a delegate position is very well remunerated. So people will be fighting over those positions to convince and prove to shareholders they are worthy. So we may well have 101 people spread across the four corners of the globe if shareholders think that's best for the DAC. They can also be voted off easily and even by the system if they delay blocks, don't include transactions etc. it's a very different proposition.

But I'm one of the least technical supporters, I think others could explain it better.

[devphp]

Hi ya, yeah I like NXT, Yes I agree, the part about your leased forging needs to be updated. But there's a big difference between 300 or 3000 random accounts and 101 elected delegates. Those 300 accounts could link to very few people.

In BitShares a delegate position is very well remunerated. So people will be fighting over those positions to convince and prove to shareholders they are worthy. So we may well have 101 people spread across the four corners of the globe if shareholders think that's best for the DAC. They can also be voted off easily and even by the system if they delay blocks, don't include transactions etc. it's a very different proposition.

But I'm one of the least technical supporters, I think others could explain it better.

You don't quite understand.

300-350 is the number of forgers who have successfully forged at least one block. But the number of forgers is larger than that, some are just not lucky yet. The number of successful forgers gradually increases with time as the distribution gets more even. For example, 6 months ago there were only 200 accounts that successfully forged blocks (you can verify that with the java code above), now there are 300-350.

There is no reliable way to calculate how many accounts are forging, you can only calculate how many have been successful at that by checking their public keys in the block chain.

Not sure what you mean by 'those 300 accounts could be linked to very few people'. If you mean the Sybil attack, well, can't delegates in BitShares also be linked to very few people? Can't one person run a few nodes? It's not like BitShares ask for government ID and allows to run only one

I understand the way it works in Bitshares now. Just explaining that that link by Daniel has a few things that need to be corrected.

[FandangledGizmo]

Not sure what you mean by 'those 300 accounts could be linked to very few people'. If you mean the Sybil attack, well, can't delegates in BitShares also be linked to very few people? Can't one person run a few nodes? It's not like BitShares ask for government ID and allows to run only one

I understand the way it works in Bitshares now. Just explaining that that link by Daniel has a few things that need to be corrected.

Cool. In BitShares they can only run more than one of the 101 delegate positions if shareholders are ok with that/they convince shareholders they are different people. Producing ID and various other assurances aren't out the question if that's what shareholders feel they need. When CAP & remuneration get big enough, they might even end up voting for people's whose integrity is extremely high. People the majority trust in the 2.0 space/Ron Paul/Who knows.

Personally I would probably vote for Andreas Antonopoulos to be a delegate if he wanted to for example, & once it's paying well, for little work, mainly high trust, maybe someone like him would be up for it etc.

[ChuckOne]

Cool. In BitShares they can only run more than one of the 101 delegate positions if shareholders are ok with that/they convince shareholders they are different people. Producing ID and various other assurances aren't out the question if that's what shareholders feel they need. When CAP & remuneration get big enough, they might even end up voting for people's whose integrity is extremely high. People the majority trust in the 2.0 space/Ron Paul/Who knows.

Personally I would probably vote for Andreas Antonopoulos to be a delegate if he wanted to for example, & once it's paying well, for little work, mainly high trust, maybe someone like him would be up for it etc.

I concur with devphp. No anonymity possible here?

[xeroc]

I concur with devphp. No anonymity possible here?

It is possible .. but difficult to get enough votes/trust

[FandangledGizmo]

Cool. In BitShares they can only run more than one of the 101 delegate positions if shareholders are ok with that/they convince shareholders they are different people. Producing ID and various other assurances aren't out the question if that's what shareholders feel they need. When CAP & remuneration get big enough, they might even end up voting for people's whose integrity is extremely high. People the majority trust in the 2.0 space/Ron Paul/Who knows.

Personally I would probably vote for Andreas Antonopoulos to be a delegate if he wanted to for example, & once it's paying well, for little work, mainly high trust, maybe someone like him would be up for it etc.

I concur with devphp. No anonymity possible here?

It's possible, some may make a valid case for saying,  'if a few delegates are anonymous they can't be targeted or compromised.'

I'd vote for known delegates, located in a range of jurisdictions and again personally I'd be voting for people who have established reputations of trust and integrity in this space/their field as well. But it's up to the majority of shareholders in each DAC.

[xeroc]

It's possible, some may make a valid case for saying,  'if a few delegates are anonymous they can't be targeted or compromised.'

You can only compromise the person maintaing the delegate ..
the machines wich run the delegates can be hidden behind tor or vpn proxies .. they are just broadcasting signed blocks ..
there are lot's of ways possible to hide those for net getting ddos'd

[FriendsOfBitshares]

Cool. In BitShares they can only run more than one of the 101 delegate positions if shareholders are ok with that/they convince shareholders they are different people. Producing ID and various other assurances aren't out the question if that's what shareholders feel they need. When CAP & remuneration get big enough, they might even end up voting for people's whose integrity is extremely high. People the majority trust in the 2.0 space/Ron Paul/Who knows.

Personally I would probably vote for Andreas Antonopoulos to be a delegate if he wanted to for example, & once it's paying well, for little work, mainly high trust, maybe someone like him would be up for it etc.

I concur with devphp. No anonymity possible here?

There is as much anonymity as one desires and no more.  Any crypto system can have no anonymity if the person decides to reveal who they are or they messages they've sent etc.  Block-signers aka delegates choose to become elected over the identity they publicly put forth.  This could be their real name or someone else's name.

So if for whatever reason the stake holders are wanting everyone to reveal their true identity to become elected then perhaps it would remove a lot of anonymity.  Realize though that the delegates could just as well choose to not reveal themselves and 101 delegates would be chosen anyway.

The fact of the matter is that a directionless equally weighted p2p network does not scale very well.  Thus we have DPOS and the future.

[ChuckOne]

Lol?

So, it is basically Nxt. Thanks again for clarifying.

[FriendsOfBitshares]

Lol?

So, it is basically Nxt. Thanks again for clarifying.

I'm not sure what is humorous or why you think it is "basically NXT".  For starters BitShares isn't attempting to be a currency.  After the exchange is released, the toolkit will be released.  The toolkit will allow creation of currencies, but there isn't a core currency being hyped like NXT.  Bitshares will also be completely open source from the beginning allowing a true free market approach by giving anyone the ability to fork.

Bitshares is an ecosystem.  NXT and Bitshares have more overlap than almost all other projects, but NXT is more like other coins than Bitshares.  Bitshares is unique in their approach.