Communist Bitshares Wealth Redistribution IS THEFT!

[DecentralizeEconomics]

The original ideology of Bitcoin, NXT and cryptocurrencies in general was one that was diametrically OPPOSED to the practice of wealth redistribution and forced subsidies to businesses and banks.

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
- Bitcoin Genesis Block

It has come to my attention that Bitshares, their developers and entrenched business interests are attempting to infiltrate our movement, which is founded on freedom and independence and perpetuate a forced wealth redistribution scheme under the guise of allegiance to our founding ideals.  Their plot is no less sinister than an intentional conspiracy to disenfranchise Bitshares' stakeholders while holding them liable to be taxed against their will to subsidize these aforementioned interest groups.  I hereby call on all persons who hold liberty in their heart to condemn this treacherous attempt at subterfuge against us!

In fact, by the time BitShares reaches Bitcoin's market cap, each delegate will be one of 101 small businesses, selected by the stakeholders, each using a revenue stream of several million dollars apiece to grow the ecosystem.  Powerful stuff to look forward to!

This is obviously some type of Communist conspiracy no doubt orchestrated at the highest levels of Bitshares(TM), the company.

The hierarchy of Bitshares(TM), the company, and their ungodly creation is best illustrated in the above picture.  The whole organization has an uncanny resemblance to pre-revolutionary France, circa 1789.  As you can see, the Bitshares' devs are the "FIRST ESTATE" and believe it is their right to be given a position of power over the stakeholders.  The "SECOND ESTATE" are entrenched business interests who are powerful enough to force stakeholders to subsidize their operations.  You may find an analogy to taxpayer bailouts for banks and corporations in recent times more understandable, but you can equally relate this situation to the clergy in the land of the Roi.  Regardless of which business you choose, you still must pay your dues to your masters.  Clearly, the "THIRD ESTATE" is the Bitshares' holders.  You can ascertain they are carrying the First and Second Estates on their backs and unduly burdened by their monstrous weight.

I FEEL IT IS MY DUTY, AS ONE WHO BELIEVES IN THE FOUNDING IDEALS OF BITCOIN, NXT AND DECENTRALIZATION, TO INFORM THOSE WHO ARE UNAWARE OF THIS PLOT.

I URGE YOU.  DO NOT LET SUCH AN ATROCITY CONTINUE TO MASQUERADE AS A CRYPTOCURRENCY.  IF ALLOWED TO FESTER, THIS SORE WILL UNDOUBTEDLY INFECT MORE UNWITTING INDIVIDUALS AND FACILITATE IN THE COMPLETE DOWNFALL OF OUR MOVEMENT!

[1715304351]

1715304351

[testz]

Be careful when you use word "communist", it's scary word only in USA, peoples in China, Russia and many other countries still love this word - this turns your post to BitShares propaganda and you to BitShares propagandist.  

PS: If you like you can fork BitShares to BitShares Communist Edition where everybody can be delegate and can select pay rate which he needs. 

[Bisha]

i loled 

also you got me here too:
AS ONE WHO BELIEVES IN THE FOUNDING IDEALS OF BITCOIN, NXT AND DECENTRALIZATION

I guess that explains it all.

[gyhyq]

nxt is not safe. i lost my nxt .

[StanLarimer]

Ha ha, this is great!

I knew that DE had talent, but we couldn't buy a more attention grabbing post.  Nice job.

We've also been having lots of fun point-counterpoint interactions with his various identities over here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=913075.msg10065220#msg10065220

(If you like this sort of thing)

I think I might start referring to it as "Snopes for BitShares"

 

[p2pbucks]

 

haha ... bts is just for innocent newbies , it's totally controlled by a company as your guys called bitshares' community .
What's the core spirit of bitcoin ? Just use your brain to think about it ! Yes !  No third party control ! No bullshit  redistribution ! No central authorities !
That why bitcoin & decentralized crypos (doges litcoins) exist .
Scam coins don't live long , so save your time and money on these

[brekyrself]

haha ... bts is just for innocent newbies , it's totally controlled by a company as your guys called bitshares' community .
What's the core spirit of bitcoin ? Just use your brain to think about it ! Yes !  No third party control ! No bullshit  redistribution ! No central authorities !
That why bitcoin & decentralized crypos (doges litcoins) exist .
Scam coins don't live long , so save your time and money on these

Not sure if sarcastic or simply purchased a "hero" account? 

[p2pbucks]

haha ... bts is just for innocent newbies , it's totally controlled by a company as your guys called bitshares' community .
What's the core spirit of bitcoin ? Just use your brain to think about it ! Yes !  No third party control ! No bullshit  redistribution ! No central authorities !
That why bitcoin & decentralized crypos (doges litcoins) exist .
Scam coins don't live long , so save your time and money on these

Not sure if sarcastic or simply purchased a "hero" account?  

For bitshares believers , happily accept the result of increasing total supply from 2 billion to 2.5 billion btsx or painfully admit your mistake & get out off the bitshares scam ?

If i  were u , i would choose the later  

[StanLarimer]

haha ... bts is just for innocent newbies , it's totally controlled by a company as your guys called bitshares' community .
What's the core spirit of bitcoin ? Just use your brain to think about it ! Yes !  No third party control ! No bullshit  redistribution ! No central authorities !
That why bitcoin & decentralized crypos (doges litcoins) exist .
Scam coins don't live long , so save your time and money on these

Invictus Innovations built the BitShares Toolkit over the past 18 months and then turned the software over to the BTS owners and disbanded.  Just like Satoshi, except the developers continue to support it as private citizens.  It's had one or more assets in the top 20, top 10, or top 5 on coinmarketcap.com for over a year.  Pretty long time to run a scam.

Now BitShares developers and marketers work for the blockchain and can be hired and fired in ten seconds by the coin holders.  And the innovations and opportunities keep coming.

Kinda cool.

Look at the depth of content in Bytemaster's blog at bytemaster.bitshares.org.  This one was on the reddit/r/bitcoin front page today.  All about how BitShares is a better decentralized alternative to Gox and BitStamp.  Pretty exciting stuff.  

http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2015/01/05/The-Future-of-Crypto-Currency-Exchanges/

Sometimes you want to go where everybody knows our real names:
bitsharestalk.org

[p2pbucks]

Bernard Madoff carefully maintained his scam biz about 20 years. Central Bank scam is even running more than hundred years and it's still working .
So ...
Sorry ! Let us face the truth , BTSX did change its total supply  whatever the reason . They break the rules .
You can say bitshares is like stock share which controlled by a company , yea , it's ok !
But be remember , it's not a currency , it's not decentralized , it's totally central controlled . You guys playing this at your own risk .

[toast]

this thread is amazing, please never let it die

[StanLarimer]

Bernard Madoff carefully maintained his scam biz about 20 years. Central Bank scam is even running more than hundred years and it's still working .
So ...
Sorry ! Let us face the truth , BTSX did change its total supply  whatever the reason . They break the rules .
You can say bitshares is like stock share which controlled by a company , yea , it's ok !
But be remember , it's not a currency , it's not decentralized , it's totally central controlled . You guys playing this at your own risk .

Our only rules are that we will continue to innovate and compete for the benefit of our stakeholders.
We ignore competitors who cry "no fair, you keep getting better, you're supposed to stop innovating!"

People get to participate with us in the design process so you get to see the design evolve over time.
Version 1 of the design is not a constraint on what Version 2, 3, and 500 will be.  
Upgrading a design in progress is hardly breaking the rules.  That's what we have always promised to do.

The opportunity is to watch the design evolve in broad daylight and invest accordingly.

The only other things we disagree about are:

It is a currency.  (A volatile coin containing an unmanned company that generates non-volitile smart coins, actually.)
It is decentralized.  Much more decentralized than Bitcoin's six major mining companies who control it all.
BitShares has zero central control other than those who lead by reputation and consensus.  
It's individual coin holders control who the blockchain pays to maintain and extend it.

BitShares was built by a private company which released it into the wild and disbanded.
Now anyone is free to work on it as an independent individual contributor.
You can get paid if the coinholders agree to elect you.
Five spinoffs are already out there using the Toolkit for a variety of other business models from music to gaming.

Our code and activities are an open book.  Show us the scam.

[StanLarimer]

Haven't i told and warned you about the people of Bitshares and Protoshares people ? Manipulating their coins to get their goals down is what they do.

But you can talk to Bytemaster himself every Friday when he opens the door to questions from a world wide live audience.

You can listen to his interviews on BitShares.TV and read his prolific articles at bytemaster.bitshares.org.

You can look him in the eye and get to know him personally at Bitcoin conferences.

Listen to his keynote address at Inside Bitcoin's Las Vegas conference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U44MujtVj00

Chat with his forum colleagues at bitsharestalk.org

Lots of ways to do your own due diligence.

 

[tokeweed]

this thread is amazing, please never let it die

like the screen name and avatar. 

[FandangledGizmo]

BitShares is free market capitalism that has given power to the people of their own property

I don't want miners to have power over me, they're my coins, give me a vote. Our community would have voted Ghash.io out in a few minutes and not let them get 40%+ control. Ghash.io is what happens when you give up your personal freedom to hashers. (Not that I don't like Bitcoin, but I believe we have better models now.)

Why does the OP think distribution of coins to miners is not re-distribution of wealth but distribution to development, infrastructure and marketing is?

How has the $80 million that Litecoin paid to miners last year helped LiteCoin? - That's a messed up system having no choice but to pay 30% tax a year and getting nothing in return. (In LTC's case miners actually earned more from new coins than LTC is even currently worth.)

In the same period, with a few million dollars, BitShares developed arguably the most advanced blockchain in crypto with a decentralised exchange & BitAssets which are a technological triumph. They are already at no.5 within 6 months of release.

I have small amounts of other coins and personally prefer no inflation,  but the pace of BitShares progress right now is crazy & their model means that trend is logically going to continue & leave other outdated blockchains behind.

OP's Pictures are quite funny though.

[FandangledGizmo]

BitShares is free market capitalism that has given power to the people of their own property

I don't want miners to have power over me, they're my coins, give me a vote. Our community would have voted Ghash.io out in a few minutes and not let them get 40%+ control. Ghash.io is what happens when you give up your personal freedom to hashers. (Not that I don't like Bitcoin, but I believe we have better models now.)

Why does the OP think distribution of coins to miners is not re-distribution of wealth but distribution to development, infrastructure and marketing is?

How has the $80 million that Litecoin paid to miners last year helped LiteCoin? - That's a messed up system having no choice but to pay 30% tax a year and getting nothing in return. (In LTC's case miners actually earned more from new coins than LTC is even currently worth.)

In the same period, with a few million dollars, BitShares developed arguably the most advanced blockchain in crypto with a decentralised exchange & BitAssets which are a technological triumph. They are already at no.5 within 6 months of release.

I have small amounts of other coins and personally I prefer no inflation but the pace of BitShares progress right now is crazy & their model means that trend is logically going to continue & leave other outdated blockchains behind.

OP's Pictures are quite funny though.

Writcoin™ creates a heterarchical monetary authority by permitting its end users to “spend” money into existence—approximating anarchist communism.

Though its coinbase transactions are, by their definition, unspendable, one’s mining efforts would still be appreciated.

Writcoin™ creates a heterarchical monetary authority by permitting its end users to “spend” money into existence—approximating anarchist communism.

In Writcoin™, every client “gets a say” in the deflation (achieved via the funding of unspendable transactions) and inflation (achieved via the defunding of spendable transactions) of the GEC supply.

There's an overlap of currency/company here.

If you want the best blockchain in the world & world class infrastructure to go with it, unfortunately that costs money. Only the market leader really gets a free pass there. That's why the next biggest decentralised alternative to Bitcoin, LiteCoin is 1/50th the size of BTC.

BitShares is the only model out there that can realistically become bigger than Bitcoin imo maybe even as soon as 12-24 months. All the other decentralised models look destined to stay 1/100th the size of BTC with only the miners making decent money because they can't fund competitive development, infrastructure and marketing.

At a few times Bitcoin's size the income from fees will be very large and cover all general needs. So ultimately I expect BitShares to have no inflation (my preference is no inflation) and holders to actually earn a dividend.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

Be careful when you use word "communist", it's scary word only in USA, peoples in China, Russia and many other countries still love this word - this turns your post to BitShares propaganda and you to BitShares propagandist. 

PS: If you like you can fork BitShares to BitShares Communist Edition where everybody can be delegate and can select pay rate which he needs. 

If the word "communism" doesn't horrify you, then replace it with the words "crony capitalism" and you will surely be mortified.

Ha ha, this is great!

I knew that DE had talent, but we couldn't buy a more attention grabbing post.  Nice job.

We've also been having lots of fun point-counterpoint interactions with his various identities over here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=913075.msg10065220#msg10065220

You assume incorrectly that I am "Newmine".

The only other things we disagree about are:

It is a currency.  (A volatile coin containing an unmanned company that generates non-volitile smart coins, actually.)

Of course.  BitShares is a company!  If the owning stakeholders think that will make them more profitable and grow faster, why can't a company decide to do that? 

In the short term, while shares are worth pennies

Remember, BitShares is a company, not a currency.  It is a unmanned, decentralized company that produces and trades interest-paying "smart currencies" as its product.  So judge it by whether it is a good idea and implementation for a company, not a currency.  Then you can get past all the accepted rules that (may or may not) apply to future currencies and see clearly what the investment opportunity truly is here.

Which is it?  A company or a currency?

It is decentralized.  Much more decentralized than Bitcoin's six major mining companies who control it all.

You cannot prove this because there is no way to verify delegates are independent.  You actually assert that an individual controlling multiple delegates is acceptable.

It is not "more decentralized" than NXT.

BitShares has zero central control other than those who lead by reputation and consensus.

Again, this is an assumption.  Please provide verifiable blockchain proof.  Oh wait... you can't.

BitShares is free market capitalism that has given power to the people of their own property

Wrong.  Bitshares forces its stakeholders to give their power to delegates.  Why would anyone want to hand over the security of their investment to anyone especially ones that are not verifiable to be independent.  If you want to give the power back to the people, you allow them to secure their own investment and not force them to delegate it to others.  The only logical rational for forcing people to centralize their forging power around delegates is to ensure that the system can be controlled by a select group individuals.

I don't want miners to have power over me, they're my coins, give me a vote. Our community would have voted Ghash.io out in a few minutes and not let them get 40%+ control. Ghash.io is what happens when you give up your personal freedom to hashers. (Not that I don't like Bitcoin, but I believe we have better models now.)

Why does the OP think distribution of coins to miners is not re-distribution of wealth but distribution to development, infrastructure and marketing is?

How has the $80 million that Litecoin paid to miners last year helped LiteCoin? - That's a messed up system having no choice but to pay 30% tax a year and getting nothing in return. (In LTC's case miners actually earned more from new coins than LTC is even currently worth.)

You failed to read these critical words:

The original ideology of Bitcoin

PoW was a different system when the currency holders used their own computers to secure the chain.  Now that the chain is mainly secured by profiteers it is no longer operating in the original design and spirit that Satoshi intended.

[FandangledGizmo]

Be careful when you use word "communist", it's scary word only in USA, peoples in China, Russia and many other countries still love this word - this turns your post to BitShares propaganda and you to BitShares propagandist.  

PS: If you like you can fork BitShares to BitShares Communist Edition where everybody can be delegate and can select pay rate which he needs.  

If the word "communism" doesn't horrify you, then replace it with the words "crony capitalism" and you will surely be mortified.

Ha ha, this is great!

I knew that DE had talent, but we couldn't buy a more attention grabbing post.  Nice job.

We've also been having lots of fun point-counterpoint interactions with his various identities over here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=913075.msg10065220#msg10065220

You assume incorrectly that I am "Newmine".

The only other things we disagree about are:

It is a currency.  (A volatile coin containing an unmanned company that generates non-volitile smart coins, actually.)

Of course.  BitShares is a company!  If the owning stakeholders think that will make them more profitable and grow faster, why can't a company decide to do that?  

In the short term, while shares are worth pennies

Remember, BitShares is a company, not a currency.  It is a unmanned, decentralized company that produces and trades interest-paying "smart currencies" as its product.  So judge it by whether it is a good idea and implementation for a company, not a currency.  Then you can get past all the accepted rules that (may or may not) apply to future currencies and see clearly what the investment opportunity truly is here.

Which is it?  A company or a currency?

It is decentralized.  Much more decentralized than Bitcoin's six major mining companies who control it all.

You cannot prove this because there is no way to verify delegates are independent.  You actually assert that an individual controlling multiple delegates is acceptable.

It is not "more decentralized" than NXT.

BitShares has zero central control other than those who lead by reputation and consensus.

Again, this is an assumption.  Please provide verifiable blockchain proof.  Oh wait... you can't.

BitShares is free market capitalism that has given power to the people of their own property

Wrong.  Bitshares forces its stakeholders to give their power to delegates.  Why would anyone want to hand over the security of their investment to anyone especially ones that are not verifiable to be independent.  If you want to give the power back to the people, you allow them to secure their own investment and not force them to delegate it to others.  The only logical rational for forcing people to centralize their forging power around delegates is to ensure that the system can be controlled by a select group individuals.

I don't want miners to have power over me, they're my coins, give me a vote. Our community would have voted Ghash.io out in a few minutes and not let them get 40%+ control. Ghash.io is what happens when you give up your personal freedom to hashers. (Not that I don't like Bitcoin, but I believe we have better models now.)

Why does the OP think distribution of coins to miners is not re-distribution of wealth but distribution to development, infrastructure and marketing is?

How has the $80 million that Litecoin paid to miners last year helped LiteCoin? - That's a messed up system having no choice but to pay 30% tax a year and getting nothing in return. (In LTC's case miners actually earned more from new coins than LTC is even currently worth.)

You failed to read these critical words:

The original ideology of Bitcoin

PoW was a different system when the currency holders used their own computers to secure the chain.  Now that the chain is mainly secured by profiteers it is no longer operating in the original design and spirit that Satoshi intended.

It's a company/currency hybrid for me. My personal preference from a pure currency POV is a no dilution defined currency like NXT. I don't hold NXT though because it's not very competitive.

For me the reason most alts are stagnant and 1/100 of BTC or less is because they have very limited development, usually down to 1/2 people. They can't hire by consensus.

The BitShares blockchain can hire the best development talent, pay for marketing and grow infrastructure all in a decentralised way by stakeholder consensus. I have more voting power and it's more decentralised than POW pools. I can vote out a Ghash.io.  Is DPOS more decentralised than POS?
I think that's what Daniel's latest blog post is about so I'll defer to that.

If NXT is happy with their system, great. I just don't think you can compete on development, marketing or infrastructure with a blockchain that can hire talent by consensus and you're going to really the see the gap widen at a rapid pace these next few months.

If anyone thinks they can add value to BitShares you can make a delegate proposal and get hired by the blockchain... Check it out - https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?board=61.0

[DecentralizeEconomics]

It's a company/currency hybrid for me. My personal preference from a pure currency POV is a no dilution defined currency like NXT. I don't hold NXT though because it's not very competitive.

For me the reason most alts are stagnant and 1/100 of BTC or less is because they have very limited development, usually down to 1/2 people. They can't hire by consensus.

The BitShares blockchain can hire the best development talent, pay for marketing and grow infrastructure all in a decentralised way by stakeholder consensus. I have more voting power and it's more decentralised than POW pools. I can vote out a Ghash.io.  Is DPOS more decentralised than POS?
I think that's what Daniel's latest blog post is about so I'll defer to that.

If NXT is happy with their system, great. I just don't think you can compete on development, marketing or infrastructure with a blockchain that can hire talent by consensus and you're going to really the see the gap widen at a rapid pace these next few months.

If anyone thinks they can add value to BitShares you can make a delegate proposal and get hired by the blockchain... Check it out - https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?board=61.0

Daniel's "theory" that all systems centralize at scale due to cost and therefore, we should design centralization into them is flawed.  This "theory" was debunked over on NXT's forum.

So basically you're saying that you're willing to sell your ideology, belief system and the original intent of the cryptocurrency movement, decentralization, down the river in the hopes of making a profit off a system that is designed to centralize.

[Crestington]

Again I'd like to point out....

How do you pay for innovation and new technology through volunteers alone?

Bitcoin technology moves at a snails pace and at it's current rate will collapse within 2 years. Why? because every person who comes to these forums are expecting that they will buy a Coin, hold it and it will be worth a million dollars without doing any work whatsoever. The last project that had any decent money coming in was DogeCoin during the big February pump but as there was no new updates since then and as the price began to drop, all those donations disappeared.

BitShares is upfront with the way it is run, shareholders have done quite well, new tech has been rolling out. I don't own any Bitshares but it addresses one of the biggest issues I have with CyptoCurrencies and if you really don't like it, there are a thousand other Coins to choose from.

Edit:

The original ideology of Bitcoin

An idea can be grand and work on paper but when put into practice it often has flaws. The original ideology of BitCoin was the decentralize the economy (which you can see with all the choices).

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them" - Albert Einstein

[FandangledGizmo]

It's a company/currency hybrid for me. My personal preference from a pure currency POV is a no dilution defined currency like NXT. I don't hold NXT though because it's not very competitive.

For me the reason most alts are stagnant and 1/100 of BTC or less is because they have very limited development, usually down to 1/2 people. They can't hire by consensus.

The BitShares blockchain can hire the best development talent, pay for marketing and grow infrastructure all in a decentralised way by stakeholder consensus. I have more voting power and it's more decentralised than POW pools. I can vote out a Ghash.io.  Is DPOS more decentralised than POS?
I think that's what Daniel's latest blog post is about so I'll defer to that.

If NXT is happy with their system, great. I just don't think you can compete on development, marketing or infrastructure with a blockchain that can hire talent by consensus and you're going to really the see the gap widen at a rapid pace these next few months.

If anyone thinks they can add value to BitShares you can make a delegate proposal and get hired by the blockchain... Check it out - https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?board=61.0

Daniel's "theory" that all systems centralize at scale due to cost and therefore, we should design centralization into them is flawed.  This "theory" was debunked over on NXT's forum.

So basically you're saying that you're willing to sell your ideology, belief system and the original intent of the cryptocurrency movement, decentralization, down the river in the hopes of making a profit off a system that is designed to centralize.

No I have stakes in two no inflation crypto-currencies PTS & RPCD (yet to be released) both are DPOS. I just don't have a stake in NXT because it's not competitive and POS is inferior imo.

Where you guys and others tend to be really centralised is on developers. If something happened to your two top developers (or those on other coins) then they'd really struggle. This is a huge centralised weakness. With DPOS, the blockchain is able to hire talent and fund itself.

[altcoinUK]

WHO BELIEVES IN THE FOUNDING IDEALS OF BITCOIN, NXT AND DECENTRALIZATION

NXT has nothing to do with fair distribution and therefore should not be mentioned together with Bitcoin as a positive sample in a discussion about decentralized digital currencies.

[StanLarimer]

All of the impolite accusations posted here have been patiently answered here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=913075.msg10065220#msg10065220

Since the OP's strategy is to spam such disinformation everywhere, we are forced to collect our answers to his erudite and edifying literary efforts in that one place.   It also collects his recurring accusations in one place so that his style and agenda become obvious.  Think of this link as an improvised "BitShares version of Snopes"  

Thanks for going to the effort of clicking over there if you care to know the truth.

Oh, and by the way, Bytemaster just put out a brand new article today explaining the reasoning behind why DPOS was developed after starting with POW, looking approvingly at POS, and then layering a couple rounds of improvement on that.

The Most Decentralized Proof of Stake System

We aim to please, so I'm sure the OP's global droppings will stimulate us to produce more great articles like this.

I guess that's a good thing.  OPer is certainly helping to call attention to the BitShares opportunity.  

[TinEye]

Amazing, but not surprising to see the BTS bagholders defending every decision here. I must have dreamed of all the crying and whining which happened on your forum.

I was saying earlier, they have already invested and now have no option other than to keep supporting.

[testz]

Amazing, but not surprising to see the BTS bagholders defending every decision here. I must have dreamed of all the crying and whining which happened on your forum.

I was saying earlier, they have already invested and now have no option other than to keep supporting.

Not truth, with today BTS exchange rate every old supporter which doesn't agree with changes can sell stake, take profit and run away easily.

[StanLarimer]

You failed to read these critical words:

The original ideology of Bitcoin

Actually, returning to the original ideology of Bitcoin was the theme of Bytemaster's keynote address at the Las Vegas Inside Bitcoin conference:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U44MujtVj00

His point is that most of us share the ideology of Bitcoin and are working to upgrade it for the long term success of the ideology, not the technology du jour.  No other industry's technology stands still these days, why should Bitcoin be stuck with its initial implementation forever?  A lot of technology has gone into aerospace since the Wright Brothers first flight. Should we still be using wing warping and pusher propellers?

Anyway, BitShares seeks to grow the Bitcoin ecosystem by providing a decentralized exchange to avoid what happened at Mt Gox and BitStamp.  The two can co-exist, and together with other serious block chains work to forge a solution to the real competitor: today's corrupt global financial system.

Guys, it's all open source.  

The best ideas will emerge and recombine until the Bitcoin ideology wins out over those who hold our freedom hostage today.

Why fight over scraps?  
The world is ours for the taking!  

[bitcoin2.0]

this thread is amazing, please never let it die

The OP knows a lot about BitShares, they must have read the manual:

http://cryptofresh.com/

The OP is helping teach people about Bitcoin 2.0 technology, they could come work for the BitShares blockchain and get paid like Methodx, Max Wright, Byte Master and hopefully someday:

http://bitshares.tv/vitalik-buterin-bitshares-dpos/
That guy has an opinion about weather or not BitShares is a scam, but I don't know if he quite "gets it" though:

This guy gets paid by the public blockchain to sit on his ass and pump what that last guy says is "the one".  What a cushy job:
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/57283183

Seriously OP, all those guys do is pump BitShares with words, pictures, and videos.  You could do that too, and I would vote for you (to pay you for your efforts).  That is how work is rewarded in a decentralized free economy.  Fair pay (in crypto) for your hard work.  Then you can take your paycheck and convert it into Bitcoin, Gold, Rubles, etc, (or not) (because you are free).

Bitcoin is to BitShares as Bitcoin 1.0 is to Bitcoin 2.0

Remember the mental hurdle you had jump in order to completely get Bitcoin?

Well mach 2 has a little mental resistance you need to overcome (learn) too just like you had to do a little learning and understanding in order to completely overcome your mental barriers before you fully reached mach 1.0

Don't worry, though, you are not late to this party by a long shot

It's just getting started:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVJYS1L1snA
"Welcome to the (BitShares) party" OP!

get long BTS

[toast]

@OP  you claim NXT is more decentralized, can you respond to specific points here?  http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2015/01/07/The-Most-Decentralized-Proof-of-Stake-System/

[Newmine]

Be careful when you use word "communist", it's scary word only in USA, peoples in China, Russia and many other countries still love this word - this turns your post to BitShares propaganda and you to BitShares propagandist. 

PS: If you like you can fork BitShares to BitShares Communist Edition where everybody can be delegate and can select pay rate which he needs. 

If the word "communism" doesn't horrify you, then replace it with the words "crony capitalism" and you will surely be mortified.

Ha ha, this is great!

I knew that DE had talent, but we couldn't buy a more attention grabbing post.  Nice job.

We've also been having lots of fun point-counterpoint interactions with his various identities over here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=913075.msg10065220#msg10065220

You assume incorrectly that I am "Newmine".

The only other things we disagree about are:

It is a currency.  (A volatile coin containing an unmanned company that generates non-volitile smart coins, actually.)

Of course.  BitShares is a company!  If the owning stakeholders think that will make them more profitable and grow faster, why can't a company decide to do that? 

In the short term, while shares are worth pennies

Remember, BitShares is a company, not a currency.  It is a unmanned, decentralized company that produces and trades interest-paying "smart currencies" as its product.  So judge it by whether it is a good idea and implementation for a company, not a currency.  Then you can get past all the accepted rules that (may or may not) apply to future currencies and see clearly what the investment opportunity truly is here.

Which is it?  A company or a currency?

It is decentralized.  Much more decentralized than Bitcoin's six major mining companies who control it all.

You cannot prove this because there is no way to verify delegates are independent.  You actually assert that an individual controlling multiple delegates is acceptable.

It is not "more decentralized" than NXT.

BitShares has zero central control other than those who lead by reputation and consensus.

Again, this is an assumption.  Please provide verifiable blockchain proof.  Oh wait... you can't.

BitShares is free market capitalism that has given power to the people of their own property

Wrong.  Bitshares forces its stakeholders to give their power to delegates.  Why would anyone want to hand over the security of their investment to anyone especially ones that are not verifiable to be independent.  If you want to give the power back to the people, you allow them to secure their own investment and not force them to delegate it to others.  The only logical rational for forcing people to centralize their forging power around delegates is to ensure that the system can be controlled by a select group individuals.

I don't want miners to have power over me, they're my coins, give me a vote. Our community would have voted Ghash.io out in a few minutes and not let them get 40%+ control. Ghash.io is what happens when you give up your personal freedom to hashers. (Not that I don't like Bitcoin, but I believe we have better models now.)

Why does the OP think distribution of coins to miners is not re-distribution of wealth but distribution to development, infrastructure and marketing is?

How has the $80 million that Litecoin paid to miners last year helped LiteCoin? - That's a messed up system having no choice but to pay 30% tax a year and getting nothing in return. (In LTC's case miners actually earned more from new coins than LTC is even currently worth.)

You failed to read these critical words:

The original ideology of Bitcoin

PoW was a different system when the currency holders used their own computers to secure the chain.  Now that the chain is mainly secured by profiteers it is no longer operating in the original design and spirit that Satoshi intended.

It's funny that they are so blind that they think only one person with multiple identities could be against them or see the truths.

I am not any other identity here, just newmine.

I am not an NXT supporter or holder and have never recommended anyone do so.

[StanLarimer]

The business about whether BitShares is a company or currency is a pedagogical metaphor selection issue which was asked and answered multiple places in this forum, for example,

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=913075.msg10059744#msg10059744

The best answer to this question was given by Bytemaster himself in his article What is BitShares? where he used TEN different nested metaphors to describe it.  It is eye-opening in its scope.

[bitcoin2.0]

Let us face the truth , BTSX did change its total supply  whatever the reason .

BTSX changed it's total supply because the coin holders ordered them to.  In BitShares, the coin holders are the boss.  The devs do what we say or we cut their pay! How much voting power does your coin give you?  Are you happy with your dev?  Would you prefer control over how much money your dev makes (or takes?).

The BitShare holders voted to increase the coin supply to merge the developers (and owners) of 4 coins together: DNS, VOTE, PTS, and BitShares.

BitShares is 4 coins in 1 now.

Amazing, but not surprising to see the BTS bagholders defending every decision here. I must have dreamed of all the crying and whining which happened on your forum.

I was saying earlier, they have already invested and now have no option other than to keep supporting.

I know right, the shareholders of BitShares were mad that BitShares went from over $100 million market cap to $35 million now!  boo hoo! hilarious.

And the DNS shareholders were mad that their market cap went from a significant fraction of Namecoin's to become addded to BitShares new market cap.

And PTS holders were mad that their $7 million market cap was assimilated into the BitShares brand.

And the VOTE shareholders, well, we didn't hear much about them because they were busy working on their new Bitcoin 2.0 project that is now part of BitShares.  

All those coins, and all those devs are now forced to work under one roof to combine their skills to bring their Ethereum type flexible grand Bitcoin 2.0 vision to life.  Because Ethereum is not trying to sell you 4 different coins, so why should BitShares.  Now you only need to buy one coin ("the one" as Vitalik said in the quote) and you are a member of the current Bitcoin 2.0 market cap leader (unless you consider a 100% centralized Ripple to be true Bitcoin 2.0 tech).

http://bitshares.tv/vitalik-buterin-bitshares-dpos/
I thought that NEO was "d'1"

The funniest losers were Dan and Stan Larimer though.  Ha ha ha !  Those guys' net worth plummeted within hours of mentioning the merger! Hilarious!  No wait, the funniest part is that Stan and Dan are not even the largest stakeholders because their rented Protoshares mining equipment did not show up until a week after their fair launch of the Protoshares coin (which became BitShares the following year) officially began.  So the main devs are not even the largest stakeholders in their own coin?!

Satoshi must be rolling over in his eazy chair!

And why are the devs working on a coin that they do not own a controlling interest in?

LOL, those POW miners who got the most BitShares (more than anybody else in the world) out of the fair launch sure got what they deserved:  A $35 million market cap coin for choosing to mine Protoshares when the zero premine fair launch of BitShares began last year.  

BitShares has zero premine and was born of a fair Proof of Work mining launch. Fun facts indeed.  How many zero premine fair launch POW coins are even still alive today, and why are devs who obviously suck at POW mining dedicated to this one?

BitShares is a coin that gives its owners personal freedom like the USA, while Bitcoin holders are at the mercy of the Bitcoin Foundation which as a form of government is more like..... I'm at a loss for words? Bitcoin is like a government that does not allow its citizens to vote on important matters, and BitShares does.....hmmmm.  All I know is that BitRUB has been more volatile than BitShares lately?  I wonder why.  Maybe we should ask the FED:

http://cointelegraph.com/news/113209/the-federal-reserve-publishes-another-paper-on-bitcoin

Or maybe we should send the FED this:

http://cryptofresh.com/

or maybe not, it's a free crypto, I mean country, and we can vote for whoever we want

[DecentralizeEconomics]

@OP  you claim NXT is more decentralized, can you respond to specific points here?  http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2015/01/07/The-Most-Decentralized-Proof-of-Stake-System/

Bytemaster's entire argument falls apart when you take into account that businesses using any payment platform will be running their hardware anyway and therefore, the cost of running a PoS node is negligible.

But, let's assume for argument's sake that a node will ONLY forge if it can recoup its operating cost off of transaction fees alone.

An intelligent node operator will use an energy-efficient device (~20W) to forge.  You can get some fairly powerful computers running at ~20W.  Let's say a forger uses a 35W computer.

35W * 24 hours / 1000w/kW * $0.10 kWh = $0.084

It costs the node operator 8.4 cents per day.

Currently, NXT is worth over 1.7 cents.  He needs to generate 8.4/1.7 = 4.94 NXT per day to breakeven.

NXT's current average daily transaction fees amount to 5,095 NXT.

4.94 / 5095 = 0.000969808

The node operator needs to forge 0.0969% of all blocks.  We can now calculate the amount of NXT he needs to have by multiplying by the total amount of NXT.

0.000969808 * 1,000,000,000 = 969,808 NXT

The node operator must own 969,808 NXT to breakeven forging on a 35W computer.

Now, let's calculate how many forgers the NXT network can support running 35W computers.

1,000,000,000 / 969,808 = 1031

The NXT network can currently support ONE THOUSAND AND THIRTY-ONE 35W nodes.

Bytemaster's argument that as the network scales profitability decreases is fallacious, because the number of transactions increase proportionally to the transaction fees per block.  Therefore, if a forger would be required to run a more computationally powerful node, he would be able to afford to do so.  Bytemaster takes his argument to ridiculous extremes claiming that to process 1000 tps, you would need a server with 256GB of RAM, 2TB of expendable hard drive space per week and a synchronous 64Mbps connection.  Most people in the developed world have asynchronous residential internet connections that are close to or above this speed.  I fail to see why such a connection would need to be synchronous as the nodes would be downloading 1000 tps per second, but would only need to publish ONE block if they managed to forge it.  2TB of blockchain space per week seems extreme.  Bitcoin's blockchain is only 31 GB after six years.  If blockchain sizes increased to such a size, I imagine some type of blockchain shrinking would be implemented.  As time goes on and Moore's law continues, computational power and ram get cheaper, more efficient and more powerful.  By the time any cryptocurrency reaches 1000 tps, which I imagine will take years, the hardware landscape will have completely changed and the cost/power ratios of hardware will be even more efficient.  If you take into account the ability for nodes to figure out who the next forger is (aka NXT Transparent Forging) and route transactions only to that node, it makes Bytemasters' node requirements even more asinine.

It seems limiting forgers to 101 necessitates that the forgers run more powerful hardware to handle the load.  Each forger has to produce 0.99% of all network blocks and therefore consumes more bandwidth and electricity.  It also seems to decrease the resiliency of the network by placing the ENTIRE load on 101 individuals/computers.  This make the network an easier target for DDOS attacks too.

I don't see the necessity in centralizing a PoS system.  As others have stated, DPoS is a solution in search of a problem.  When one considers that there is no such problem to solve, they must ask themselves why was such a "solution" introduced.  As I have stated before and will continue to ascertain, it is my belief that the ONLY reason DPoS was chosen for Bitshares was to force centralization on its stakeholders, disenfranchise them of their forging profits and subject them to tax via inflation.  In addition, since DPoS is vulnerable to Sybil attacks and Stan Larimer has stated that it is acceptable for multiple delegates to be controlled by one individual, one can assume that it is the intention of the Bitshares' developers and business interests, which they have a vested interest in, to establish a type of delegate monopoly over the system.  Whereby, they continue to increase their profits at the expense of existing shareholders.  One may ask, why do they need to strip tx fees from stakeholders and impose inflation on them when they already hold, I am sure, a great amount of stake themselves.  The only rational explanation I can give you is that it is unfettered greed and a desire to maintain total control over the system via a delegate monopoly under the guise of free elections.  Ask yourself, since the network can clearly support more than 101 forging nodes, why are elections necessary?

I could sit here all day and debate back and forth with Stan and others who support Bitshares, but in the end, everyone has to form their own opinion on what the Bitshares' devs and business interests are really trying to accomplish with this venture.  Some people might call me a "troll", but the fact is that I intentionally made this post inflammatory to draw attention to what I believe is a threat to the original movement of Bitcoin, NXT and decentralization.  There is no greater threat to decentralization than corporatization masquerading as such.  The corporatization of the Bitcoin movement is what destroyed it.  I don't want to see that same fate happen to the cryptocurrency scene in general.  I don't want to see people fall victim to what I believe are faux movements.  The day when corporations take over the blockchain is the day our freedom dies.  I will admit to being a holder of both BTC and NXT.  If you believe that has skewed my viewpoint, so be it; but believe me when I say, I supported these movements not only in the hopes of making profit, but also because I believed in the ideology behind them.  It is my contention that Bitshares' imposed inflation on stakeholders is nothing less than taxation without representation.  You may say, "I can vote for delegates.  How is it without representation?"  I argue it is without representation because you yourself do not forge on your own behalf and instead are forced to hand over the security of your investment to business interests and developers who believe it is their right to be forever delegates and can easily manipulate the vote to form a permanent monopoly over the system.  Monopoly is the nemesis of free enterprise.  Why should a select group of 101 businesses get stakeholder subsidies?  What about the smaller businesses users might want to start?  Such users are forced to pay a tax to their competitors and fund their operations without such an advantage.  Your "freedom to choose" really isn't freedom at all, because all your choices result in you becoming a tributary slave to the delegates.

[StanLarimer]

Now this is much better.

Other than the unsupported ad hominum attacks in the middle, you have put together a perfectly good set of arguments, one technical and one philosophical.  This is what discourse should be like in these forums.

Similarly, Bytemaster has outlined his technical design rationale and the philosophical objectives he is trying to achieve on his blog at Bytemaster's Blog.  Many competent people find him credible.

For example, his latest post addresses a common concern that all POS lovers will enjoy having in their hip pockets:

Nothing at Stake, Nothing to Fear

Now, we can have lots of fun arguing technological and philosophical preferences.  Bytemaster and, for example, Vitalik do that in a friendly way all the time - and BitShares and Ethereum are both getting stronger because of it.

But in the end, they are both building products they hope the market will like.  Each is making design tradeoffs based on their overall goals and personal judgement.  I think both will succeed.  There is not only one answer.   As a result of those design decisions, each product will be adapted to survive in a different ecological niche.  I expect both to survive.  (Especially if their developers keep adapting to those environments and applying lessons learned.)

What both Bytemaster and Vitalik do is write prolifically about what they are thinking and doing.  They are both truly open books. Those who follow their work closely have formed favorable opinions about their motives and integrity. Thus, they both have attracted quite a following.

People who like either product, and the design decisions and philosophies behind them, are free to choose whether they want to own them or not.  Both are going to be successful and therefore both represent good investments.  I would never argue passionately that Pepsi should not be marketed because I prefer Diet Coke.  Both products will find people who prefer them for a variety of reasons.  (And if one gets taken down in a twist of fate, the other will live on.  We need decentralization at this level too!)

As for your theories of potential dark ulterior motives, well, you are free to express them.  Many others have looked at the same set of facts and found them to be noble and commendable.  

I'll leave you with this quote:  

Why, you may take the most gallant sailor,
the most intrepid airman or the most audacious soldier,
put them at a table together - what do you get?
The sum of their fears.

—Sir Winston Churchill

[jonald_fyookball]

For example, his latest post addresses a common concern that all POS lovers will enjoy having in their hip pockets:

Nothing at Stake, Nothing to Fear

Sorry but this article is rubbish.

The author proposes the use of rolling checkpoints,
which do NOT solve the fundamental problem of
broadcasting a fake block history at no cost. 

All they do is set a limit on how deep a re-org
could be, which I suppose has some small benefit,
although at the risk of splitting the blockchain.

...And the case of new clients connecting to the network
is a strawman argument because the nothing at
stake attack applies regardless.

[testz]

For example, his latest post addresses a common concern that all POS lovers will enjoy having in their hip pockets:

Nothing at Stake, Nothing to Fear

Sorry but this article is rubbish.

The author proposes the use of rolling checkpoints,
which do NOT solve the fundamental problem of
broadcasting a fake block history at no cost. 

All they do is set a limit on how deep a re-org
could be, which I suppose has some small benefit,
although at the risk of splitting the blockchain.

...And the case of new clients connecting to the network
is a strawman argument because the nothing at
stake attack applies regardless.

To be able to broadcast fake block history you should create it's first, to be able to create blocks you should have your fake delegates, to have fake delegates, you should have fake funds to elect them at fake chain.

It's will be helpful if you publish algo of attacker starting from beginning, electing fake delegates at fake chain. Thanks in advance.

[bitcreditscc]

The last post by DE raised a lot of questions, this is looking less and less like the FUD that was claimed, can either Stan, Dan or testz answer his post.

The "nothing at stake" assumption is based on the small data sample of existing PoS economies, which in their child state are not worth much. Substitute the value of BTC into the equation, and tell me that there is nothing at stake. The original concept and implementation is simple, one's overall value is maintained by controlled inflation that produces security.  You lose out on value if you do not participate in securing the network and proving your STAKE.

The problem with these so called experts is that they create a bizarre cross between Micro and Macro concepts, in the world of decentralization, such fuzzy philosophy and economics is unacceptable.

Do no mistake me for an NXT fan, or a Bitshares fan either, i have interest in the technical aspects as they have great bearing on the concept of PoS. And if the previous posts are anything to go by, controlled/regulated  delegated PoS systems are a form of centralization open very much to manipulation and attacks.

I'd be most grateful to see a response from the BTS side to the last post by DE.

[Daedelus]

Now this is much better.

...
*snipped full post*

Good side step.


But a point the OP keeps making in this thread is based around...

I would never argue passionately that Pepsi should not be marketed because I prefer Diet Coke.

Neither does the OP. You should have realised his objection is that he sees Pepsi is saying it tastes like Diet Coke > Bitshares is saying it is decentralised. Not that Bitshares and x can't exist together.


In fact Bitshares is claiming Pepsi tastes more like Diet Coke than Diet Coke > Bitshares is more decentralised than x  



The way I see it, this represents the spectrum of Bitshares/POS holders and stakes



As it is impossible for them all to stake/forge/mint/mine themselves in Bitshares, then they have no choice but to choose between...



...to represent them and their stake.


I have read the arguments and find it hard to accept a POS system that caps the number of stakers to a small percentage of users can be called decentralised. It is distributed, a la Ripple. The claims of being more decentralised... that is definitely a leap too far.

I would also like to see a response to DE calcs and fewer plugs for Bytemasters blog posts.

[bitcoin2.0]

So math is logic.

Perfect = 100%

Well, BitShares is not perfect (we went over this forever last year, please don't make me look up the links at the BitShares forum man (don't make me be lame)).  Dan tried for perfection and failed, but so did Satoshi and every dev.  Vitalik is the last Mohican because he don't want to throw in the towel, but his yearning for perfection has finally run up against some serious venture capital and now it's time for him to build something, but he still can't decide which imperfections to embrace (google it)

And Bitcoin is not perfect, and NXT, and every other Satoshi blockchain based tech out there in the land of Bitcoin 1.0
2.0
3.0
etc.

So on all crypto coins, you could do a double spend if you had enough time and money to kill, but the rest of the decentralized community around you would simply create a new fork, kick you out because on the blockchain, you are not perfectly invisible.  Then the new community would compensate the victims like the good little Doggies we all are, and life would go on brighter than ever knowing that evil had been thwarted.

That's what Satoshi did for us.  The blockchain is a robot superhero dispersing justice and exposing injustice.  

I'm just trying to keep the same party vein as the OP, who has created what is obviously (as of Jan 7th) the thread of the new year!

Come over to the BitShares forum and meet the craziest (because they are paid (by the blockchain) comedians) devs and miners on the planet.  We have a Ron Burgundy look alike named “meatmaster” who gets paid by the blockchain to fly around the world and offer ridiculous BTC bounties to any hacker who can double spend BitShares (can't find the youtube link, it's hilarious).  He is obviously a rich early adopter.  But the real King of Bling is the Legendary Million Dollar Brian Page “the world's first BitShares milionaire”.  Just like Max Keiser likes to brags about being a bitcoin millionaire (it gets us publicity, and that's good for all shareholders:)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_t39jCXXIrY

He will be releasing his YouTube spoof soon (complete with Mr. T gold ropes as he competes for the heavyweight title of “Bling King”) because he is a great marketer who knows the network effect of fun and comedy.

And if you buy BitShares now, and the its price rises, then you just gave this guy a raise.  Why should we pay him?  Just because he didn't want to be a “government worker”?!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yrif9uThwSY

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/16/googles_secret_nsa_alliance_the_terrifying_deals_between_silicon_valley_and_the_security_state/

I don't know, you decide, but the fun and drama continues as Big Daddy Dan will scare the share price down 10% at any moment when he spouts off in mighty Turret tone:
“Lets hardcode my paycheck into the blockchain!”

And we all say, no, sorry Dad, but you have to campaign like everyone else in order to keep people from getting jealous.  So we got him a surrogate delegate whom Dan pays to mine BitShares for him.  

Seriously, though that's what we love about our main dev, he is an honest man.  Brutally, and well... he says what he feels without thinking:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wcKpoAQKj4

(I hope this is the Puff Daddy version of this song)

So Don't listen too much to Dan because he will make you want to sell your BitShares as fast as you would rush to unload all your prescious Paycoin if you saw that the bid was a buy wall at $25.

So who else is in the BitShares community?  Basically all the altcoin hardcore miners that got one last good profitable run with their mining rigs before the big guys pushed out all the little guys.  Bitcoin 2.0 is proof of stake coin.  It's sad, but POW got old, and after it did what it had to do with the Western Unions, it was ready to take on Wall St (among other industries), which is what BitCoin 2.0 is all about.

Onceuponatime (another cool Bithead), a miners task was just to play records what more could you ask

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m496Zv-YKNo

But then came remixing (script feeds), scratching (coding) and cuts (advertising), which was just too much to ask to be a Bitcoin2.0 miner.  

The blockchain of the future is a little more competitive for the miners, and it's just nature guys, life adapts and gets tougher.

It's harder to survive as a miner in 2015 than in 2012.  

The BitShares miners are paid to code, advertise, write, perform, or put out a show (and mine), which is why Dan has to pay a miner to mine for him (because mining BitShares is so lucrative (because it's so useful for hedging the volatility swings)).  You see, BitShares basically tracks Bitcoin.

After an initial spike of volatility in Bitcoin last November, and in BitShares a few months ago, the prices of these 2 coins basically tracks price rise for rise and fall for fall.  So trading BitShares today is just like trading Bitcoin (without inviting Markples).  The forces that make Bitcoin go up, make BitShares go up, and vice versa.  What other coin allows you to basically trade bitcoin for fiat on a blockchain without BitStamp or Mtgox playing with you?

Bitcoin 2.0 will go back to playing jokes on the established big business like Bitcoin 1.0 did to Western Union.  

If you bought the first 10 Bitcoin 1.0 coins when they first came out, then you would have had at least one opportunity to make some coin.  So why are you not buying the first 10 Bitcoin 2.0 coins to come out.  If Bitcoin 1.0 can hold a multi billion dollar market cap for over a year and not one greedy hacker was able to doublespend, then I'd say that we don't need to worry about a doublespend on Bitcoin 2.0 technology, which is just based on Satoshi's blockchain at heart.

So, yeah, I'm all in BTC2.0 coins, and why not.. But you know which one I use to trade blockchain coins for fiat without inviting Kerpl?  It's fast, and has good depth so I get a great price (better if I'm patient).  I'm not trying to brag, but I've tried them all, and I absolutely can't wait for Ethereum!

Just like Vitalik loves us, we love him (and did we mention that he is down with BitShares):

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=12545.0

http://bitshares.tv/vitalik-buterin-bitshares-dpos/

So you see, I don't know the real names of the many around here, but I do know that people like this are legit.

The double spend is but one small aspect of the whole bitcoin story, and I guess that since you are here then that means that you are already invested in Satoshi's blockchain technology one way or another.  So if you win, then I win, and we all win.  

And by all means, carry on your doublespending conversation, it's just that people like Vitalik have moved on to more 2015-types of topics:

http://bitcoinmagazine.com/18587/vitalik-buterin-wins-the-2014-world-technology-network-award/

[Daedelus]

So did you concede Bitshares isn't decentralised? I stopped reading at the first plug for the forum.

[monsterer]

So did you concede Bitshares isn't decentralised? I stopped reading at the first plug for the forum.

Bitshares requires more trust than NXT. Whether its more/less decentralised boils down to percentage of blocks forged per forger.

Bitshares splits this evenly over 101 delegates/forgers, whereas NXT takes a trustless approach with higher stake owners forging more blocks, but I don't have data to hand on the distribution of blocks forged by forger in NXT.

[jonald_fyookball]

For example, his latest post addresses a common concern that all POS lovers will enjoy having in their hip pockets:

Nothing at Stake, Nothing to Fear

Sorry but this article is rubbish.

The author proposes the use of rolling checkpoints,
which do NOT solve the fundamental problem of
broadcasting a fake block history at no cost. 

All they do is set a limit on how deep a re-org
could be, which I suppose has some small benefit,
although at the risk of splitting the blockchain.

...And the case of new clients connecting to the network
is a strawman argument because the nothing at
stake attack applies regardless.

To be able to broadcast fake block history you should create it's first, to be able to create blocks you should have your fake delegates, to have fake delegates, you should have fake funds to elect them at fake chain.

It's will be helpful if you publish algo of attacker starting from beginning, electing fake delegates at fake chain. Thanks in advance.

I don't have time to produce
an algorithm, sorry.

And I am not familiar with
the details of the Bitshares
implementation -- although
that appears irrelevant to
the specious points in the article.

If you control stake, or
delegates, in this case,
you simply keep trying to double
spend until successful. 

With "normal" PoS, the cost
would be the price of the stake,
although you can always sell it
after (or even before) you attack,
giving you a net 0 cost.
 
DPos seems even worse in the
sense that you're actually making
money as a delegate once you get
your security deposit back...
and you can then attempt your
double spends or reorgs.

[cassius69]

BitShares is free market capitalism that has given power to the people of their own property

fuckin' propaganda 

[StanLarimer]

...I stopped reading at the first plug for the forum.

As you can imagine, the number of opportunities to talk about something like BitShares is overwhelming.  It could take all our time if we let it, and that would be fun.

We realized we had to get organized and do our best to protect Bytemaster's time.
It is our most precious asset.

So we try to keep Bytemaster locked in his office, writing code, doing interviews, and working on general purpose articles that only he can write.  We do unleash him on Fridays to answer free-form questions from a world-wide live audience.  (He also generally takes time to scan every post at bitsharestalk.org and occasionally can't resist joining the discussion.  Fortunately this has only happened 7965 times to date.)

Then it's up to the rest of us to pitch in and help out.  Our strongest technical types generally hang out at bitsharestalk.org where we can get the necessary concentration of brainpower to thoroughly address questions.  If you really want to get proper attention on a juicy technical issue, that's the place to go to discuss it.  This has the added advantage of organizing all the collectively-derived consensus answers in one place, rather than scattering them across the internet where most will never find them.

Some of us also like to reach out and visit other forums to learn what the hot issues are and try to answer the easy questions on the spot.  The biggest service we can do it that capacity is to help people find where their questions are being discussed by posting links to articles and threads.  We also refer tough questions to Bytemaster who then tries to respond in one of his general purpose articles where more people can see it.  He has written three articles in response to this thread since it went live.  The latest, just out, is:

How to Measure the Decentralization of Bitcoin

Then there's me.  I seldom try to delve into individual technical questions.  I'm a big picture guy.  My main objective is to help people see the forest without getting hung up on individual trees.  

That was the purpose of the "side step" in my previous post here.  If I tried to answer it here, it would only be the product of one poor old aching brain - not good enough.  (And then we would be wasting everybody's time arguing about why Stan's answer isn't good enough.)

And in the process, my most important point would get lost:  

Seeking the optimal solution for every technical point should and will go on.  But when you are designing a product, the time comes when you must fish or cut bait.  You have to commit to an approach that you think will meet all of your design objectives the best.   Meeting all objectives good enough means that individual objectives may still leave room for optimization.  So there is little point in arguing about why some design parameter is not optimum.  In our community's judgement, the combination of all parameters are "optimum enough" to get on with fielding a real product.

Now, the BitShares dev team is focused with getting on with polishing, hardening, and extending the BitShares product.  Others can continue to research individual issues and adding to the general knowledge base - for use in future products.

But there are ways to get answers to your questions at all levels.   We try to point people to the right venue to get satisfaction. The rest is up to those who really want to know.

[cassius69]

^^^crypto creates un-bridaled arrogance for those with very meager achievements 

[Daedelus]

... and fewer plugs for Bytemasters blog posts.

I'm an answer questions asked guy. Call me old fashioned...

[FandangledGizmo]

... and fewer plugs for Bytemasters blog posts.

I'm an answer questions asked guy. Call me old fashioned...

Have you seen Bytemater's latest blog post?  

http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2015/01/09/How-to-Measure-the-Decentralization-of-Bitcoin

Bytemaster talks about decentralization of NXT too in this new post. I think the argument is that assuming NXT has a similar distribution of stake to Bitcoin then DPOS by BitShares is more decentralized.
As far as I know NXT has potentially a worse distribution than Bitcoin, so DPOS would be far more decentralized.

[Daedelus]

Yes, I think you missed this post. Not to worry, everyone else is ignoring it too...

@OP  you claim NXT is more decentralized, can you respond to specific points here?  http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2015/01/07/The-Most-Decentralized-Proof-of-Stake-System/

Bytemaster's entire argument falls apart when you take into account that businesses using any payment platform will be running their hardware anyway and therefore, the cost of running a PoS node is negligible.

But, let's assume for argument's sake that a node will ONLY forge if it can recoup its operating cost off of transaction fees alone.

An intelligent node operator will use an energy-efficient device (~20W) to forge.  You can get some fairly powerful computers running at ~20W.  Let's say a forger uses a 35W computer.

35W * 24 hours / 1000w/kW * $0.10 kWh = $0.084

It costs the node operator 8.4 cents per day.

Currently, NXT is worth over 1.7 cents.  He needs to generate 8.4/1.7 = 4.94 NXT per day to breakeven.

NXT's current average daily transaction fees amount to 5,095 NXT.

4.94 / 5095 = 0.000969808

The node operator needs to forge 0.0969% of all blocks.  We can now calculate the amount of NXT he needs to have by multiplying by the total amount of NXT.

0.000969808 * 1,000,000,000 = 969,808 NXT

The node operator must own 969,808 NXT to breakeven forging on a 35W computer.

Now, let's calculate how many forgers the NXT network can support running 35W computers.

1,000,000,000 / 969,808 = 1031

The NXT network can currently support ONE THOUSAND AND THIRTY-ONE 35W nodes.

Bytemaster's argument that as the network scales profitability decreases is fallacious, because the number of transactions increase proportionally to the transaction fees per block.  Therefore, if a forger would be required to run a more computationally powerful node, he would be able to afford to do so.  Bytemaster takes his argument to ridiculous extremes claiming that to process 1000 tps, you would need a server with 256GB of RAM, 2TB of expendable hard drive space per week and a synchronous 64Mbps connection.  Most people in the developed world have asynchronous residential internet connections that are close to or above this speed.  I fail to see why such a connection would need to be synchronous as the nodes would be downloading 1000 tps per second, but would only need to publish ONE block if they managed to forge it.  2TB of blockchain space per week seems extreme.  Bitcoin's blockchain is only 31 GB after six years.  If blockchain sizes increased to such a size, I imagine some type of blockchain shrinking would be implemented.  As time goes on and Moore's law continues, computational power and ram get cheaper, more efficient and more powerful.  By the time any cryptocurrency reaches 1000 tps, which I imagine will take years, the hardware landscape will have completely changed and the cost/power ratios of hardware will be even more efficient.  If you take into account the ability for nodes to figure out who the next forger is (aka NXT Transparent Forging) and route transactions only to that node, it makes Bytemasters' node requirements even more asinine.

It seems limiting forgers to 101 necessitates that the forgers run more powerful hardware to handle the load.  Each forger has to produce 0.99% of all network blocks and therefore consumes more bandwidth and electricity.  It also seems to decrease the resiliency of the network by placing the ENTIRE load on 101 individuals/computers.  This make the network an easier target for DDOS attacks too.

I don't see the necessity in centralizing a PoS system.  As others have stated, DPoS is a solution in search of a problem.  When one considers that there is no such problem to solve, they must ask themselves why was such a "solution" introduced.  As I have stated before and will continue to ascertain, it is my belief that the ONLY reason DPoS was chosen for Bitshares was to force centralization on its stakeholders, disenfranchise them of their forging profits and subject them to tax via inflation.  In addition, since DPoS is vulnerable to Sybil attacks and Stan Larimer has stated that it is acceptable for multiple delegates to be controlled by one individual, one can assume that it is the intention of the Bitshares' developers and business interests, which they have a vested interest in, to establish a type of delegate monopoly over the system.  Whereby, they continue to increase their profits at the expense of existing shareholders.  One may ask, why do they need to strip tx fees from stakeholders and impose inflation on them when they already hold, I am sure, a great amount of stake themselves.  The only rational explanation I can give you is that it is unfettered greed and a desire to maintain total control over the system via a delegate monopoly under the guise of free elections.  Ask yourself, since the network can clearly support more than 101 forging nodes, why are elections necessary?

I could sit here all day and debate back and forth with Stan and others who support Bitshares, but in the end, everyone has to form their own opinion on what the Bitshares' devs and business interests are really trying to accomplish with this venture.  Some people might call me a "troll", but the fact is that I intentionally made this post inflammatory to draw attention to what I believe is a threat to the original movement of Bitcoin, NXT and decentralization.  There is no greater threat to decentralization than corporatization masquerading as such.  The corporatization of the Bitcoin movement is what destroyed it.  I don't want to see that same fate happen to the cryptocurrency scene in general.  I don't want to see people fall victim to what I believe are faux movements.  The day when corporations take over the blockchain is the day our freedom dies.  I will admit to being a holder of both BTC and NXT.  If you believe that has skewed my viewpoint, so be it; but believe me when I say, I supported these movements not only in the hopes of making profit, but also because I believed in the ideology behind them.  It is my contention that Bitshares' imposed inflation on stakeholders is nothing less than taxation without representation.  You may say, "I can vote for delegates.  How is it without representation?"  I argue it is without representation because you yourself do not forge on your own behalf and instead are forced to hand over the security of your investment to business interests and developers who believe it is their right to be forever delegates and can easily manipulate the vote to form a permanent monopoly over the system.  Monopoly is the nemesis of free enterprise.  Why should a select group of 101 businesses get stakeholder subsidies?  What about the smaller businesses users might want to start?  Such users are forced to pay a tax to their competitors and fund their operations without such an advantage.  Your "freedom to choose" really isn't freedom at all, because all your choices result in you becoming a tributary slave to the delegates.

[FandangledGizmo]

Yes, I think you missed this post. Not to worry, everyone else is ignoring it too...

@OP  you claim NXT is more decentralized, can you respond to specific points here?  http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2015/01/07/The-Most-Decentralized-Proof-of-Stake-System/

Bytemaster's entire argument falls apart when you take into account that businesses using any payment platform will be running their hardware anyway and therefore, the cost of running a PoS node is negligible.

But, let's assume for argument's sake that a node will ONLY forge if it can recoup its operating cost off of transaction fees alone.

An intelligent node operator will use an energy-efficient device (~20W) to forge.  You can get some fairly powerful computers running at ~20W.  Let's say a forger uses a 35W computer.

35W * 24 hours / 1000w/kW * $0.10 kWh = $0.084

It costs the node operator 8.4 cents per day.

Currently, NXT is worth over 1.7 cents.  He needs to generate 8.4/1.7 = 4.94 NXT per day to breakeven.

NXT's current average daily transaction fees amount to 5,095 NXT.

4.94 / 5095 = 0.000969808

The node operator needs to forge 0.0969% of all blocks.  We can now calculate the amount of NXT he needs to have by multiplying by the total amount of NXT.

0.000969808 * 1,000,000,000 = 969,808 NXT

The node operator must own 969,808 NXT to breakeven forging on a 35W computer.

Now, let's calculate how many forgers the NXT network can support running 35W computers.

1,000,000,000 / 969,808 = 1031

The NXT network can currently support ONE THOUSAND AND THIRTY-ONE 35W nodes.

Bytemaster's argument that as the network scales profitability decreases is fallacious, because the number of transactions increase proportionally to the transaction fees per block.  Therefore, if a forger would be required to run a more computationally powerful node, he would be able to afford to do so.  Bytemaster takes his argument to ridiculous extremes claiming that to process 1000 tps, you would need a server with 256GB of RAM, 2TB of expendable hard drive space per week and a synchronous 64Mbps connection.  Most people in the developed world have asynchronous residential internet connections that are close to or above this speed.  I fail to see why such a connection would need to be synchronous as the nodes would be downloading 1000 tps per second, but would only need to publish ONE block if they managed to forge it.  2TB of blockchain space per week seems extreme.  Bitcoin's blockchain is only 31 GB after six years.  If blockchain sizes increased to such a size, I imagine some type of blockchain shrinking would be implemented.  As time goes on and Moore's law continues, computational power and ram get cheaper, more efficient and more powerful.  By the time any cryptocurrency reaches 1000 tps, which I imagine will take years, the hardware landscape will have completely changed and the cost/power ratios of hardware will be even more efficient.  If you take into account the ability for nodes to figure out who the next forger is (aka NXT Transparent Forging) and route transactions only to that node, it makes Bytemasters' node requirements even more asinine.

It seems limiting forgers to 101 necessitates that the forgers run more powerful hardware to handle the load.  Each forger has to produce 0.99% of all network blocks and therefore consumes more bandwidth and electricity.  It also seems to decrease the resiliency of the network by placing the ENTIRE load on 101 individuals/computers.  This make the network an easier target for DDOS attacks too.

I don't see the necessity in centralizing a PoS system.  As others have stated, DPoS is a solution in search of a problem.  When one considers that there is no such problem to solve, they must ask themselves why was such a "solution" introduced.  As I have stated before and will continue to ascertain, it is my belief that the ONLY reason DPoS was chosen for Bitshares was to force centralization on its stakeholders, disenfranchise them of their forging profits and subject them to tax via inflation.  In addition, since DPoS is vulnerable to Sybil attacks and Stan Larimer has stated that it is acceptable for multiple delegates to be controlled by one individual, one can assume that it is the intention of the Bitshares' developers and business interests, which they have a vested interest in, to establish a type of delegate monopoly over the system.  Whereby, they continue to increase their profits at the expense of existing shareholders.  One may ask, why do they need to strip tx fees from stakeholders and impose inflation on them when they already hold, I am sure, a great amount of stake themselves.  The only rational explanation I can give you is that it is unfettered greed and a desire to maintain total control over the system via a delegate monopoly under the guise of free elections.  Ask yourself, since the network can clearly support more than 101 forging nodes, why are elections necessary?

I could sit here all day and debate back and forth with Stan and others who support Bitshares, but in the end, everyone has to form their own opinion on what the Bitshares' devs and business interests are really trying to accomplish with this venture.  Some people might call me a "troll", but the fact is that I intentionally made this post inflammatory to draw attention to what I believe is a threat to the original movement of Bitcoin, NXT and decentralization.  There is no greater threat to decentralization than corporatization masquerading as such.  The corporatization of the Bitcoin movement is what destroyed it.  I don't want to see that same fate happen to the cryptocurrency scene in general.  I don't want to see people fall victim to what I believe are faux movements.  The day when corporations take over the blockchain is the day our freedom dies.  I will admit to being a holder of both BTC and NXT.  If you believe that has skewed my viewpoint, so be it; but believe me when I say, I supported these movements not only in the hopes of making profit, but also because I believed in the ideology behind them.  It is my contention that Bitshares' imposed inflation on stakeholders is nothing less than taxation without representation.  You may say, "I can vote for delegates.  How is it without representation?"  I argue it is without representation because you yourself do not forge on your own behalf and instead are forced to hand over the security of your investment to business interests and developers who believe it is their right to be forever delegates and can easily manipulate the vote to form a permanent monopoly over the system.  Monopoly is the nemesis of free enterprise.  Why should a select group of 101 businesses get stakeholder subsidies?  What about the smaller businesses users might want to start?  Such users are forced to pay a tax to their competitors and fund their operations without such an advantage.  Your "freedom to choose" really isn't freedom at all, because all your choices result in you becoming a tributary slave to the delegates.

From your post it seems

With less than 1 million or $17000 worth of NXT you're making a loss?

Even if you owned/pooled 1% of NXT or $170 000 worth it would only make you $328 a year or 0.02% interest even if you forged 365, 24/7?

I must have got the numbers wrong because if that's true you have an uneconomically viable business model.

With that model no-one will be incentivised to forge, they'd be doing it for charity/moral reasons and it would most likely end up with a handful of whales forging and distributing their stake to look decentralised. The incentives aren't there. I hope I'm wrong I didn't realise the situation was that bad.

Do you guys have a business plan for how you plan to make forging realistically profitable/attractive in the future?





 

[Daedelus]

I think you missed the first paragraph - cost of a node is negligible to a business. They already have servers running 24/7 for any payment processors they run. Nxt could also be bolted on to MMO games to run in the background of say skyrim. Bytemasters post is a strawman.

Forging is not designed for making profits, it is for securing the block chain only. This was very hard for people to accept.

[FandangledGizmo]

I think you missed the first paragraph - cost of a node is negligible to a business. They already have servrrs running 24/7 for any payment processors they run. Nxt could also be bolted on to MMO games to run in the background of say skyrim. Bytemasters post is a strawman.

Forging is not designed for making profits. This was very hard for people to grasp.

Ok so there's no profit incentive. Atm NXT is relying on goodwill essentially but in future NXT businesses will be running nodes as they already have servers. So NXT is designed to centralise around businesses without the people that own NXT really participating.

[bitcreditscc]

Please explain how limiting the number of nodes in any sense promotes decentralization.

[Daedelus]

Nxt could also be bolted on to MMO games to run in the background of say skyrim.

You missed this bit. No additional cost, many extra nodes. An encrypted messaging app or similar is more likely to take off though before this is finished development. Whatever the market decides.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

With less than 1 million or $17000 worth of NXT you're making a loss?

Even if you owned/pooled 1% of NXT or $170 000 worth it would only make you $328 a year or 0.02% interest even if you forged 365, 24/7?

I must have got the numbers wrong because if that's true you have an uneconomically viable business model.

With that model no-one will be incentivised to forge, they'd be doing it for charity/moral reasons and it would most likely end up with a handful of whales forging and distributing their stake to look decentralised. The incentives aren't there. I hope I'm wrong I didn't realise the situation was that bad.

Do you guys have a business plan for how you plan to make forging realistically profitable/attractive in the future?

You forge to protect your existing investment.

[jonald_fyookball]

... and fewer plugs for Bytemasters blog posts.

I'm an answer questions asked guy. Call me old fashioned...

Have you seen Bytemater's latest blog post?  

http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2015/01/09/How-to-Measure-the-Decentralization-of-Bitcoin
 

Yes, I saw it.  

Correct me if I'm wrong,
but pools don't really centralize
Bitcoin's Proof-of-Work consensus mechanism.

Here's why:

In order to attack the blockchain,
you have to build a chain several
blocks long onto the end of the
current blockchain.

If miners in the pool are all working
just to solve one block at the end
of the current chain, how would the
pool accomplish this?

EDIT: Apparently at the current
time, mostly pools feed the block
headers to miners, although there
are several ways for full node miners
to prevent 51% attacks by pools.

[Pheonike]

The law of diminishing returns. Why is 6 confirmations enough for a Bitcoin transaction to be deemed secure? It's because the difference from 6 to 7 or more confirmation doesn't add a significant amount more security. The same can be said with nodes, Unless you are making and exponential jump in nodes, the difference becomes mute. How much reliable is 99.999% vs 99.9999% in overall security?

[DecentralizeEconomics]

The law of diminishing returns. Why is 6 confirmations enough for a Bitcoin transaction to be deemed secure? It's because the difference from 6 to 7 or more confirmation doesn't add a significant amount more security. The same can be said with nodes, Unless you are making and exponential jump in nodes, the difference becomes mute. How much reliable is 99.999% vs 99.9999% in overall security?

Not when they are limited to 101, vulnerable to Sybil attack and multiple delegates are allowed to be controlled by one individual.

[FandangledGizmo]

With less than 1 million or $17000 worth of NXT you're making a loss?

Even if you owned/pooled 1% of NXT or $170 000 worth it would only make you $328 a year or 0.02% interest even if you forged 365, 24/7?

I must have got the numbers wrong because if that's true you have an uneconomically viable business model.

With that model no-one will be incentivised to forge, they'd be doing it for charity/moral reasons and it would most likely end up with a handful of whales forging and distributing their stake to look decentralised. The incentives aren't there. I hope I'm wrong I didn't realise the situation was that bad.

Do you guys have a business plan for how you plan to make forging realistically profitable/attractive in the future?

You forge to protect your existing investment.

Unfortunately this doesn't work well in the real world, the majority think it's an SEP, someone else's problem/responsibility. This incentive structure leads to very low participation and probably only a few whales forging but trying to appear decentralized.

To prevent this centralization of power you might want to consider maintaining a good level of decentralization via a 101 delegate system.

[Daedelus]

Worst case of selective blindness I've ever seen... 

[FandangledGizmo]

Worst case of selective blindness I've ever seen... 

Perhaps, anyway I'll leave it to people that understand it better than me to discuss.

[StanLarimer]

Please explain how limiting the number of nodes in any sense promotes decentralization.

It's really a case of quality vs. quantity: We would rather have 101 quality nodes than 100,001 unknown nodes. Especially when adding nodes increases operating costs linearly.   It's that simple.

• We added a node reputation component and the ability to detect node misbehavior and know who misbehaved.
• We added a way to uniformly distribute signing across nodes so that node influence is strictly limited.
• We added diligent discrimination.  People have to work hard to become a node and aren't likely to give that up when they are certain to get caught.

Decentralization occurs in the stage where delegates are selected by all owners.
Decentralization occurs in the stage where delegates are removed by all owners.

With nodes of this quality, it is our considered opinion that 101 is enough (especially with up to another hundred hot spares standing by to swap out any failures without missing a beat.)

Another big factor is network analyzability:  Our biggest fear is that there might be some latent attack vector or bug that our best efforts could not detect.  By engineering a very simple, easy to predict system where owners can observe node behavior and hold node operators accountable, it got a WHOLE lot easier to assure ourselves that the network was secure.  This is under-appreciated, but priceless.

You've got to get well known and trusted to get elected.  It's very hard to get well known and trusted in many different identities.  And even if you did, you can't get away with misbehavior without being detected.

You may say, "The idea is to be trustless!"  We say, all existing systems have trust placed somewhere.    
We merely make it explicit how it is being placed, give you control -- and decentralize that!

Having "just enough" trusted nodes determined by proof of stake gives BitShares other advantages, like a way for owners to directly influence how the network is run, what development and marketing initiatives are preferred, and if and when to upgrade to a new version of software.  It gives BitShares a way to fund itself by allowing employees to work for equity.  This is a long term competitive advantage we hope no one else copies any time soon!  

All of these considerations went together to form a design sweet spot that lets BitShares break new ground in many areas.  

The design was finalized because it satisfied all our design objectives better than all other options considered.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

With less than 1 million or $17000 worth of NXT you're making a loss?

Even if you owned/pooled 1% of NXT or $170 000 worth it would only make you $328 a year or 0.02% interest even if you forged 365, 24/7?

I must have got the numbers wrong because if that's true you have an uneconomically viable business model.

With that model no-one will be incentivised to forge, they'd be doing it for charity/moral reasons and it would most likely end up with a handful of whales forging and distributing their stake to look decentralised. The incentives aren't there. I hope I'm wrong I didn't realise the situation was that bad.

Do you guys have a business plan for how you plan to make forging realistically profitable/attractive in the future?

You forge to protect your existing investment.

Unfortunately this doesn't work well in the real world, the majority think it's an SEP, someone else's problem/responsibility. This incentive structure leads to very low participation and probably only a few whales forging but trying to appear decentralized. Extreme centralisation of forging stake.

To prevent this centralization of power you might want to consider maintaining a good level of decentralization via a 101 delegate system.

NXT has more forging participation than Bitshares' 101 delegates.  I have offered two rational reasons an individual would forge even if they were not profitable:

1 - To protect their investment
2 - Because their business uses the payment platform.

Let's be honest.  How much does it really cost to run a forging node 24/7/365?  AROUND $30 A YEAR!  Most users run their computers anyway and have unlimited bandwidth.  Even if a business cannot ROI forging with their stake, do YOU REALLY THINK $30 A YEAR WOULD STOP THEM?  That's simply considered a business expense.

In addition, it doesn't matter if a large stakeholder forges more blocks than a small stakeholder.  Each earns the same percentage return forging.  This does not mean the system is "centralized" it means it is "fair".  If you argue against this, you are heading down the road to Communism or Crony Capitalism.  Centralizing forging to 101 delegates and forcing all stakeholders to subsidize their operations is establishing a forging monopoly which disenfranchises all.

[monsterer]

NXT has more forging participation than Bitshares' 101 delegates.  

It does, but higher number of nodes != more decentralisation.

The key is the number of blocks forged by each node - bitshares makes it even between the 101 delegates, but NXT is stake based, so it *could* be that the majority control of the NXT blockchain consensus lies with well less than 101 / 2 nodes.

[Pheonike]

There is performance and economic cost to having more nodes than is reasonably necessary to ensure security. You pay a penalty in transaction speed. If it's gonna take minutes/hours to form a consensus to confirm a transaction because of the extra overhead then how useful is that? It's about about being efficient. PoW is like a gas guzzling 40 year old truck that gets 5 mpg and takes $100 or more to fill the tank. It may be reliable but I'm not buying one. I and most people only want/need an efficient modern sedan/suv that get 30+ mpg and only takes $40 or less to fill. That is what DPoS is, a more efficient motor for the masses.

[testz]

...
Let's be honest.  How much does it really cost to run a forging node 24/7/365?  AROUND $30 A YEAR!  Most users run their computers anyway and have unlimited bandwidth.  Even if a business cannot ROI forging with their stake, do YOU REALLY THINK $30 A YEAR WOULD STOP THEM?  That's simply considered a business expense.
...

Because DPOS - BitShares transaction takes ~10 sec to confirm (in case is 50 delegates in a row miss the blocks - 8 min), I hear that Nxt devs promise to implement something similar, do they do it? If not yet, try to think how it's possible to implement same transaction speed using current Nxt forging.
Can you share with us the current transaction confirmation time in Nxt?

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/28350/what-is-the-block-confirmation-time-for-nxt-coin

Transactions are being included into blocks in 1 minute in average. Longer you wait - higher a chance that a double-spending won't happen. There is no such a number that guarantees 100% irreversibility.

1 confirmation is not secure at all. 10 confirmations is recommended for small amounts, 720 confirmations - for big ones.

[Daedelus]

...
Let's be honest.  How much does it really cost to run a forging node 24/7/365?  AROUND $30 A YEAR!  Most users run their computers anyway and have unlimited bandwidth.  Even if a business cannot ROI forging with their stake, do YOU REALLY THINK $30 A YEAR WOULD STOP THEM?  That's simply considered a business expense.
...

Because DPOS - BitShares transaction takes ~10 sec to confirm (in case is 50 delegates in a row miss the blocks - 8 min), I hear that Nxt devs promise to implement something similar, do they do it? If not yet, try to think how it's possible to implement same transaction speed using current Nxt forging.
Can you share with us the current transaction confirmation time in Nxt?

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/28350/what-is-the-block-confirmation-time-for-nxt-coin

Transactions are being included into blocks in 1 minute in average. Longer you wait - higher a chance that a double-spending won't happen. There is no such a number that guarantees 100% irreversibility.

1 confirmation is not secure at all. 10 confirmations is recommended for small amounts, 720 confirmations - for big ones.

Security is based on time so ten 1 min Nxt blocks = one 10 min BTC block. It is an initial number to ensure Nxt is at least a secure as BTC. As it says in the post, there is no such a number that guarantees 100% irreversibility in a decentralised system. Until Instant Transaction, this is what all decentralised systems have to work with.

Bitshares uses Ripples distributed, less trustless system. The network only has to monitor 101 nodes rather than x that occur in an uncapped decentralised network so it allows faster transactions with less chance or reversal. That's great, but if I wanted that I would have bought into Ripple.

Ripple also doesn't cap the number of nodes in the network, AFAIK, so you could make a case that maybe Ripple's distributed system is closer to decentralisation than Bitshares distributed system. But neither are.

[StanLarimer]

Bitshares uses Ripples distributed, less trustless system. The network only has to monitor 101 nodes rather than x that occur in an uncapped decentralised network so it allows faster transactions with less chance or reversal. That's great, but if I wanted that I would have bought into Ripple.

Ripple also doesn't cap the number of nodes in the network, AFAIK, so you could make a case that maybe Ripple's distributed system is closer to decentralisation than Bitshares distributed system. But neither are.

It's hard to have a pure technology discussion without looking at what a chain is trying to do.   It would be like saying I prefer a Tessla Sports Car to a John Deer Tractor because I like the technology better.

Bitcoin is digital gold.  Ripple is a banking backbone.  BitShares is a decentralized exchange with unique financial products.  Its perfectly reasonable to want to use and own all three.

Technology is fun to discuss for its own sake, but when it comes down to deciding whether you want to have anything to do with a particular block chain, its more about asking these kinds of questions:

Do I want to use the services it provides?
Do I think it will yield a good return if I own it?
Is it easy to use, secure, and reliable?
Can I trust the people developing it or avoid having to trust them?

Most of the second generation block chains out there have only a small amount of overlap in their features and it is entirely possible for reasonable people to own several of them for the unique utility they provide.

As long as a particular chain is decentralized enough to be sufficiently immune from evil doers, it has checked that square and now we focus on the other questions.

That said, there are two noteworthy distinctions between the Ripple and BitShares in how they implement their limited node strategies.  

1.  Node "Election":  Existing Ripple insider nodes elect new nodes vs. BitShares nodes are elected by the general owner population after a long reputation building and vetting period.  
2.  Ripple is much more centrally held - BitShares was widely distributed by two wide-open mining contests.

[Daedelus]

BitShares is a decentralized exchange with unique financial products.

You keep saying this. Bytemaster keeps saying this. The problem is, it doesn't appear to be true.

Remember the colour charts above? How can a system that caps the number of nodes to a small percentage of participants be decentralised? Let alone, more decentralised than a network that can sustain 'n' nodes.


Maybe we can finish addressing this point before going onto others.

[StanLarimer]

I guess it comes down to this in my mind:

Definition.  "A system is sufficiently decentralized if there is no likely to be reached number of individuals who can collude or be coerced or seduced into acting successfully against the interests of its owners without detection."

(It would be good to reach a consensus on this definition - I just made up this straw man on the fly.)

I think we are evolving away from the idea that the only way to achieve this definition is by brute force node maximization.  The bleeding edge of research in this industry is in systems that achieve sufficient decentralization more efficiently.  I summarized how BitShares aims to do this in an earlier post on this thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=916696.msg10085453#msg10085453

So a better discussion to be having is whether a particular implementation has achieved adequate protection from bad actors, recognizing that further efforts to decentralize beyond "good enough" has other costs that must be traded against whatever else the design must sacrifice to decentralize beyond that threshold.

This will enable block chain businesses to be profitable sooner.  And that will be good for overall industry growth!

[testz]

BitShares is a decentralized exchange with unique financial products.

You keep saying this. Bytemaster keeps saying this. The problem is, it doesn't appear to be true.

Remember the colour charts above? How can a system that caps the number of nodes to a small percentage of participants be decentralised? Let alone, more decentralised than a network that can sustain 'n' nodes.


Maybe we can finish addressing this point before going onto others.

Let's look to this from your point of view, how you wish us to tell about BitShares decentralization?

• BitShares is centralized exchange
• BitShares is not decentralized exchange
• BitShares is semi decentralized exchange
• BitShares is decentralized exchange but not much decentralized as Nxt exchange

[Daedelus]

Maybe a distributed exchange?

It is easier than "Bitshares is a decentralized exchange, accepting that you agree with our definition of decentralization based on capping the nodes to a figure our founder believes gives 'enough' decentralization".

[StanLarimer]

Maybe a distributed system?

It is easier than "Bitshares is a decentralised system, accepting that you agree with our definition of decentralisation based on capping the nodes to a figure our founder believes gives 'enough' decentralisation".

That's a true statement but a bit awkward to say in a headline or a quick post. 

The key meaning to me of the word "decentralized" is "there is no longer a center" that has unfair control.

The only reason for saying this is not to concede the "who is most decentralized" argument, but to point out that it is not the most important thing to talk about.

That said, BitShares is very decentralized when you consider that ALL owners have control over who does the signing.  That's where decentralization really happens.  Looking at the 101 nodes they nominate to do some of the inner notary grunt work is not saying that control is capped at 101.  Any or all of those 101 can be changed in 10 seconds.  Maybe we should say "two-tiered decentralization" to make this point more clear.
 

[JohnnyBTCSeed]

The us federal reserve is also decentralized as it is made up of the 13 illuminati families.

[Daedelus]

Maybe a distributed system?

It is easier than "Bitshares is a decentralised system, accepting that you agree with our definition of decentralisation based on capping the nodes to a figure our founder believes gives 'enough' decentralisation".

That's a true statement but a bit awkward to say in a headline or a quick post.  

Then it is misleading at best or plain wrong at worst.

If I said...

"Bitshares has Smart Contracts, accepting you agree with our definition of having smart contracts based on the planned implementation our founder believes will be launched any day now".

...would you think it reasonable if I repeatedly posted..

"Bitshares has Smart Contracts" ? You have to accept my skewed definition for it to be true, but I also omit the definition I am using. It makes reasonable people believe you have Smart Contracts when you don't.


There are established definitions already, skewing them is misleading.


Two tiered in the sense that those with the stake has to cede control to a smaller minority. They can change the minority whenever they please but they will never be representing themselves in the network. See above about the use of decentralised.



I am not arguing who is the most decentralised, it is you who keeps trying to reframe the argument rather than answering it. I refer only to how Bitshares is described. I can't accept your definition of decentralised because it isn't, in any circles I have moved in in crypto. So you can understand why people (the OP) think you are misleading others.

[bitcoin2.0]

NXT WINS!!!

BitShares is a decentralized exchange

Chillax Kool Aid Fiend and start being more exact in your communication for those who sincerely want to learn.  It would be technically correct to say: “decentralized enough to make double-spending as mathematically unlikely as that on any Satoshi blockchain based coin technology.”  Saying “decentralized” implies 100% decentralization to us math geeks, and the only thing that us Einsteins can agree upon is that:  No Satishi blockchain based coin is 100% decentralized.  They just happen to all be decentralized enough for us to trade our fiat for them and sleep well at night.  So please be precise here, the last thing we need is a propaganda fart to clear the room:

BitShares is free market capitalism that has given power to the people of their own property

fuckin' propaganda  

F'n Fandango! WTF?!  Seriously dude, every Satoshi blockchain coin is really difficult to take from you.  BitShares is nothing special.  Lay off Dan's donk.  Everyone on this forum agrees on one thing:  double spending is unlikely enough to convince us all to put dollars into one Satoshi blockchain or another.  To be less ass-kissy you might say:
“Satoshi's block chain has given power to the people to own their own property”

it doesn't matter if a large stakeholder forges more blocks than a small stakeholder.  Each earns the same percentage return forging.  This does not mean the system is "centralized" it means it is "fair".  If you argue against this, you are heading down the road to Communism or Crony Capitalism.  Centralizing forging to 101 delegates and forcing all stakeholders to subsidize their operations is establishing a forging monopoly which disenfranchises all.

Yes, NXT is more decentralized based on the total number of active nodes being your major criteria for your definition of centralization (greater quantity).  So now the ButShares vs NXT discussion has evolved from which coin is easier to double spend on (NXT wins by .x%) to how they are distributed differently:  

NXT distribution is based on a de-regulated capitalist system, where the more coins that you have, the greater your percentage of your new foraged coin is.  So basically, a new miner who buys in today, can never get ahead of the guy in front of him because their forge percentages match their stake.  Like one of those Amway business models where if you are under the guy who introduced you to the business, then you will always be “under” him.  It is a multi-class system where it is impossible to climb the social ladder.
  
BitShares distribution is a meritocracy where the more value you bring to the party, the more money we give you.  You can climb the social ladder and get ahead of the fat lazy early adopter slob in front of you by working harder than him.  

If you think it's fair that the largest shareholders deserve to make the highest percentage of newly foraged inflation coins because they learned about the IPO  when it was cheap and bought a boat-load, then NXT is the coin for you.  Buy all you can.  

If you would like to invest in a coin where the hardest working miners get paid the most, no matter when they learned about the coin, then, BitShares might just be your flavor.
  
Dan Larimer makes just as much money mining BitShares as this poor guy who just heard about BitShares 2 months ago.  But we won't punish him for being broke and/or uninformed, instead, we will pay him as much as we are paying Dan Larimer (the creator of BitShares), and we will pay any dev as much as Dan Larimer if you come work for our blockchian:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11847.0

You don't even need to be that impressive.  This guy makes as much as Dan, and all he does is talk to Dan on TV:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzruOULgmng

Why should Dan make more money than Argentina Matt, who is sweating his ass off in the jungle?  Because Dan heard about BitShares a few months prior to Matt?  That's stupid, we choose to pay Matt a monthly wage that is equal to Dan's.  

Why are we doing this?  Because this is what a fair Bitcoin2.0 launch looks like.  Get a good look.  Recall all the "fair Bitcoin1.0 POW coin mining launches" last year (like the zero premine Protoshares POW coin launch which became BitShares)?  Well, this is what a fair launch looks like in 2015.  All miners are created equal, endowed by their creator with rights to life, liberty, etc...

BitShares only pay 101 miners.  Why?  Because we want to make them the next bitcoin millionaires.  Do you think that the world wants to give these guys more money?:

https://www.google.com/search?q=bitcoin+millionaires&client=ubuntu&hs=eqw&channel=fs&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=d-GvVMu0HNWEyQSTmoC4BA&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAw&biw=1535&bih=805

No, we would rather see Argentina Matt save thousands from:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2014/12/16/370979773/argentinas-approach-to-inflation-ditch-the-peso-hoard-u-s-dollars
(40% annual fiat devaluation)

So buy bitcoin if you want to listen to Taaki talk, Verr preach, Keiser laugh, Gavin babble, Levine plug, and the Winklevii ...well, whatever the Voss twins do in public.  Buy BitShares if you want to see rich miners change the world positively (because they won't get rich otherwise).  We pay only hungry miners and devs who have the eye of the Tiger, not the rich early adopters who sit on their high IPO percentage and make the highest mining money percentage for doing nothing but pay their electric bill:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGGN_7mMRfU
(we want Balboa (Bitcoin))
This is how BitShares works.  We choose who we pay.  Can you ever give the NXT founders a pay cut?  Well good for them.  I love players.  BitShares is a public blockchain for people who want to work hard for the money.  And we only pay the very best.  Dan had to mine Protoshares (now BitShares) at the start of the zero premine POW launch just like everyone else.  Therefore, BitShares is owned evenly by good old fashioned POW miners and investors who paid those miners.  This Bitcoin2.0 coin was born of true BitcoinPOW1.0 so we are true to our bitcoin mining roots.  Litecoin holders can only sit there begging Chuck to upgrade LTC to multisig, TITAN, escorow, turing complete scripting, voting, user issued assets, robohashes, or any other BTC2.0 upgrades that BitShares already has (or is testing).  We tell our devs what we want them to work on, and they do it.

We can vote to make our coin faster than fastcoin, more secure than securecoin, funner than Dogecoin, fairer than NXT, more squatter-proof than Namecoin, more talked about on the Keiser Report than Maxcoin, sexier than sexcoin, lighter than both feathercoin and litecoin, more charitable than Vaticancoin.  Just support the miner who is making an effort to improve the particular aspect of your blockchain that is most dear to your heart, and when they succeed, your soul is rewarded.  What is the most charitable thing your miners did to help make the planet more sustainable/inhabitable? (my doges know where I'm at) What was the last fun thing you did while playing with your coin's features? I traded Bitcoins for fiat without Mark Kerfuffle or BitStamp stealing my coins.  So to bring it back to Stan who was hemmoraging BitKoolAid here:

BitShares is a decentralized exchange

No Stan, sorry to burst your Kool Aid bubble, but BitShares is an exchange decentralized enough to where you can trade bitcoins all you want without dreaming of:









http://dealbreaker.com/uploads/2014/02/markkarpeles.jpg
at night

[StanLarimer]

Communicating with others is admittedly challenging.

Using the english language correctly does not constitute "misleading" - which has dishonesty implications.

de·cen·tral·i·za·tion noun \(ˌ)dē-ˌsen-trə-lə-ˈzā-shən\
1:  the dispersion or distribution of functions and powers;

So just because decentralization can now be divided into categories of "brute force decentralization" vs "smart decentralization" or "tiered decentralization" does not make use of the term "decentralization" belong exclusively to just one of those categories.

The important thing about the word "decentralized" in marketing crypto products and services is that "there is no center" like the current financial system has.  Everything else is about different ways of implementing that goal which should be fully disclosed to those who want to dig deeper.

[bitcreditscc]

Maybe a distributed system?

It is easier than "Bitshares is a decentralised system, accepting that you agree with our definition of decentralisation based on capping the nodes to a figure our founder believes gives 'enough' decentralisation".

That's a true statement but a bit awkward to say in a headline or a quick post.  

The key meaning to me of the word "decentralized" is "there is no longer a center" that has unfair control.

The only reason for saying this is not to concede the "who is most decentralized" argument, but to point out that it is not the most important thing to talk about.

That said, BitShares is very decentralized when you consider that ALL owners have control over who does the signing.  That's where decentralization really happens.  Looking at the 101 nodes they nominate to do some of the inner notary grunt work is not saying that control is capped at 101.  Any or all of those 101 can be changed in 10 seconds.  Maybe we should say "two-tiered decentralization" to make this point more clear.
 

"Bitshares is a centralised system, that uses 101 specially selected nodes.

drawing comparisons between Satoshi's blockchain and try to market it as an improvement should stop as this is now a different system.

Please don't try to pervert the meaning of decentralization to fit your needs. BTS is essentially centered around 101 nodes.

A decentralized system has no definable center, the center of BTS is those 101 identifiable nodes.

[StanLarimer]

I encourage every developer to describe their products and services
in whatever way they think will best communicate what they have to offer.

 

[Daedelus]

How often can the number '101' be changed or is it hardcoded? I don't refer to voting, but to changing it to 1000 say.

[testz]

"Bitshares is a centralised system, that uses 101 specially selected nodes.

drawing comparisons between Satoshi's blockchain and try to market it as an improvement should stop as this is now a different system.

Please don't try to pervert the meaning of decentralization to fit your needs. BTS is essentially centered around 101 nodes.

A decentralized system has no definable center, the center of BTS is those 101 identifiable nodes.

Let's change a point of view again:

• Bitshares is a centralized system, that uses 101 specially selected nodes, connected over centralized Internet system that based on 75 Internet Exchange Points
• XYZ is a decentralized system, where nodes connected over centralized Internet system that based on 75 Internet Exchange Points

Can we call Internet decentralized enough to be able use it's for decentralized systems or Internet is centralized system?
Can we call decentralized the systems which use centralized communication?

List of Internet exchange points by size
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_exchange_points_by_size

PS: I like this discussion more and more 

[bitcreditscc]

I encourage every developer to describe their products and services
in whatever way they think will best communicate what they have to offer.

 

Does that include misleading statements? I do not disagree with the model, for the kind of services that will be born of it, that is likely the best way to go until it can be safely completely decentralized. But i think honesty is an important thing since a lot of trust will be placed in that system.

Marketing it as decentralized is misleading, trying to make comparisons with satoshi based models of complete decentralization is misleading if you do not clarify that you threw out one of the most important factors. The numbers posted on how much it costs to run a node are misleading, its much cheaper. There is a lot of conflicting statements surrounding BTand it's DPoS, which when compiled together paint a misleading picture.

1) is it a company or is it a currency? It cannot be feasibly both since the rules of either can have conflicts.
2) Find a new word to describe the system, tiered-decentralization wont work because all who know the word will know you are misleading them

[testz]

How often can the number '101' be changed or is it hardcoded? I don't refer to voting, but to changing it to 1000 say.

It's a top secret  , but it's one constant at the code which you can change to any odd number, you even can make it's dynamic if you wish (for example from 101-100101 delegates based at pseudo random round hash) but this requires additional coding.

http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/DPOS

If these chains assume 100 delegates is too centralized and start promoting they have 1000 validators, then their fees must be 10x those of DPOS. If such a chain grew to be the size of Bitcoin ($10 B) then only those with $1M worth of coin could validate profitably and most would consider that an elite club. If they reduce the minimum stake to be a validator to $1000, then their fees would be 10,000 times higher than DPOS.

[Daedelus]

How often can the number '101' be changed or is it hardcoded? I don't refer to voting, but to changing it to 1000 say.

It's a top secret  , but it's one constant at the code which you can change to any odd number, you even can make it's dynamic if you wish (for example from 101-100101 delegates based at pseudo random round hash) but this requires additional coding.

http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/DPOS

If these chains assume 100 delegates is too centralized and start promoting they have 1000 validators, then their fees must be 10x those of DPOS. If such a chain grew to be the size of Bitcoin ($10 B) then only those with $1M worth of coin could validate profitably and most would consider that an elite club. If they reduce the minimum stake to be a validator to $1000, then their fees would be 10,000 times higher than DPOS.

Then why a put a cap on at all?

[bitcreditscc]

"Bitshares is a centralised system, that uses 101 specially selected nodes.

drawing comparisons between Satoshi's blockchain and try to market it as an improvement should stop as this is now a different system.

Please don't try to pervert the meaning of decentralization to fit your needs. BTS is essentially centered around 101 nodes.

A decentralized system has no definable center, the center of BTS is those 101 identifiable nodes.

Let's change a point of view again:

• Bitshares is a centralized system, that uses 101 specially selected nodes, connected over centralized Internet system that based on 75 Internet Exchange Points
• XYZ is a decentralized system, where nodes connected over centralized Internet system that based on 75 Internet Exchange Points

Can we call Internet decentralized enough to be able use it's for decentralized systems or Internet is centralized system?
Can we call decentralized the systems which use centralized communication?

List of Internet exchange points by size
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_exchange_points_by_size

PS: I like this discussion more and more 

I am extremely interested in this conversation thus the steady stream of questions, i have no ill will against BTS, hell i probably ranked in the top 10 PTS holders until they started changing goal posts.

To answer your question i pose a question. Define BTS, is it a company or a currency?

[Daedelus]

"Bitshares is a centralised system, that uses 101 specially selected nodes.

drawing comparisons between Satoshi's blockchain and try to market it as an improvement should stop as this is now a different system.

Please don't try to pervert the meaning of decentralization to fit your needs. BTS is essentially centered around 101 nodes.

A decentralized system has no definable center, the center of BTS is those 101 identifiable nodes.

Let's change a point of view again:

• Bitshares is a centralized system, that uses 101 specially selected nodes, connected over centralized Internet system that based on 75 Internet Exchange Points
• XYZ is a decentralized system, where nodes connected over centralized Internet system that based on 75 Internet Exchange Points

Can we call Internet decentralized enough to be able use it's for decentralized systems or Internet is centralized system?
Can we call decentralized the systems which use centralized communication?

List of Internet exchange points by size
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_exchange_points_by_size

PS: I like this discussion more and more  

I am extremely interested in this conversation thus the steady stream of questions, i have no ill will against BTS, hell i probably ranked in the top 10 PTS holders until they started changing goal posts.

To answer your question i pose a question. Define BTS, is it a company or a currency?

The internet is centralised. The poster assumes the internet will be centralised in the future. This is a false assumption so the road he is leading you down is a dead end.

[testz]

To answer your question i pose a question. Define BTS, is it a company or a currency?

Personally I define for myself that BitShares it's a company.
Here the interesting vision http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/update/2014/12/18/What-is-BitShares

[Daedelus]

To answer your question i pose a question. Define BTS, is it a company or a currency?

Personally I define for myself that BitShares it's a company.
Here the interesting vision http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/update/2014/12/18/What-is-BitShares

From your post:

BitShares is a distributed multi-user database

Maybe if you read it, you would have saved Stan and I a lot of time. Or do you have a differing definition from the rest of the cryptoworld to distributed too?

Do you call this technique funnelling? Where you constantly try to get people into your literature and thinking? It makes you look like a cult , constantly referring to the 'official' doctrine rather than explaining it yourself.

[testz]

The internet is centralised. The poster assumes the internet will be centralised in the future. This is a false assumption so the road he is leading you down is a dead end.

I never assumes that Internet will stay centralized as today - but this is what we currently have.

[Daedelus]

The internet is centralised. The poster assumes the internet will be centralised in the future. This is a false assumption so the road he is leading you down is a dead end.

I never assumes that Internet will stay centralized as today - but this is what we currently have.

What if the future internet infrastructure is decentralised with a decentralised software platform on top of it? Does the argument you were constructing still stack up? You would be unable to compare Bitshares to the infrastructure it is built on. And your post sounds like an argument for standing still, "Net in centralised, doesn't matter if Bitshares isn't any better", no?

How often can the number '101' be changed or is it hardcoded? I don't refer to voting, but to changing it to 1000 say.

It's a top secret  , but it's one constant at the code which you can change to any odd number, you even can make it's dynamic if you wish (for example from 101-100101 delegates based at pseudo random round hash) but this requires additional coding.

http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/DPOS

If these chains assume 100 delegates is too centralized and start promoting they have 1000 validators, then their fees must be 10x those of DPOS. If such a chain grew to be the size of Bitcoin ($10 B) then only those with $1M worth of coin could validate profitably and most would consider that an elite club. If they reduce the minimum stake to be a validator to $1000, then their fees would be 10,000 times higher than DPOS.

Then why a put a cap on at all?

Bump

[Daedelus]

I'll catch up later, open to suggestions from the floor why BTS needs a cap if it can be changed and even be dynamic

[StanLarimer]

I went to Subway and ordered a chopped salad.

Didn't enjoy it much though.

There was this guy sitting next to me
kept insisting that Subway had misleading advertising
because it wasn't chopped to atoms...

[StanLarimer]

I'll catch up later, open to suggestions from the floor why BTS needs a cap if it can be changed and even be dynamic

I wouldn't call it a cap.
That's just what the number is set at.
Because BitShares aims to be a profitable company.
And profitable companies manage their expenses.

There are diminishing returns beyond 101
as Bytemaster explains here:

The Most Decentralized Proof of Stake System

...and as I tried to explain earlier in this thread.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=916696.msg10085453#msg10085453

[testz]

I'll catch up later, open to suggestions from the floor why BTS needs a cap if it can be changed and even be dynamic

I'ts my opinion as well:

Because BitShares aims to be a profitable company.

[Pheonike]

I'll catch up later, open to suggestions from the floor why BTS needs a cap if it can be changed and even be dynamic

Scaling delegates past 101 nodes would have diminishing returns. If you are assuming nodes are static servers that can't be upgraded to handle an increase in TPS then a dynamic delegate system would make sense. Since the nodes will feasibly scale and be upgraded as technology progresses the extra nodes just add extra cost with no real benefits. If a particular node can't handle the load they will be replaced by voting them out and 102nd delegate by votes will replace them.

[StanLarimer]

I guess it comes down to this in my mind:

Definition.  "A system is sufficiently decentralized if there is no likely to be reached number of individuals who can collude or be coerced or seduced into acting successfully against the interests of its owners without detection."

(It would be good to reach a consensus on this definition - I just made up this straw man on the fly.)

I think we are evolving away from the idea that the only way to achieve this definition is by brute force node maximization.  The bleeding edge of research in this industry is in systems that achieve sufficient decentralization more efficiently.  I summarized how BitShares aims to do this in an earlier post on this thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=916696.msg10085453#msg10085453

So a better discussion to be having is whether a particular implementation has achieved adequate protection from bad actors, recognizing that further efforts to decentralize beyond "good enough" has other costs that must be traded against whatever else the design must sacrifice to decentralize beyond that threshold.

This will enable block chain businesses to be profitable sooner.  And that will be good for overall industry growth!

This just in from wildpig in China:  https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=13093.msg171679#msg171679

"Sufficiently Decentralization is a state which the system will not be compromised significantly by any illicit parties , since they are not likely to gain enough power to reach the critical point without facing counter measure from other distributed owners of the system."

I like this because it highlights another one of the tools for engineering "smart decentralization".  Specifically, built-in countermeasure support to the owners.  

Decentralization is a process that moves power outward from the center toward the individual owners.  

If those owners have ultimate control over how the system functions and grows and defends itself, control is arguably decentralized.

Anyone else want to help refine the definition?

[bitcreditscc]

I guess it comes down to this in my mind:

Definition.  "A system is sufficiently decentralized if there is no likely to be reached number of individuals who can collude or be coerced or seduced into acting successfully against the interests of its owners without detection."

(It would be good to reach a consensus on this definition - I just made up this straw man on the fly.)

I think we are evolving away from the idea that the only way to achieve this definition is by brute force node maximization.  The bleeding edge of research in this industry is in systems that achieve sufficient decentralization more efficiently.  I summarized how BitShares aims to do this in an earlier post on this thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=916696.msg10085453#msg10085453

So a better discussion to be having is whether a particular implementation has achieved adequate protection from bad actors, recognizing that further efforts to decentralize beyond "good enough" has other costs that must be traded against whatever else the design must sacrifice to decentralize beyond that threshold.

This will enable block chain businesses to be profitable sooner.  And that will be good for overall industry growth!

This just in from wildpig in China:  https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=13093.msg171679#msg171679

"Sufficiently Decentralization is a state which the system will not be compromised significantly by any illicit parties , since they are not likely to gain enough power to reach the critical point without facing counter measure from other distributed owners of the system."

I like this because it highlights another one of the tools for engineering "smart decentralization".  Specifically, built-in countermeasure support to the owners.  Decentralization moves power outward from the center toward the individual owners.  If those owners have ultimate control over how the system functions and grows and defends itself, control is arguably decentralized.

Anyone else want to help refine the definition?

the first part if we talk in a strictly DAC context makes sense, the rest is you propaganding again.

However, has your system not already been proven to be insecure and not really decentralized because one guy ended up controlling a lot of nodes? Ands he'snjust the one that got caught

[StanLarimer]

The first part if we talk in a strictly DAC context makes sense, the rest is you propaganding again.

However, has your system not already been proven to be insecure and not really decentralized because one guy ended up controlling a lot of nodes? Ands he'snjust the one that got caught

Propaganda has negative connotations.  I prefer "evangelism".  How else can we communicate our ideas?

I posted these answers to your second question on another local thread, quoted here for you convenience:

Since 101 delegates is just an arbitrary number that could have been 50 or 150, the fact that the number of independent delegates might vary if shareholders allow it is not a big deal.  To become a delegate, you really have to work to convince people to vote for you.  You have to develop a reputation.  You can destroy that reputation in 10 seconds by misbehaving - because everyone can see what you are doing.  We all instantly know if you signed a bad block - and we know who did it.

That's the big difference.  We know who did it.

As for Bitcoin, there's no way to know how much hash power is controlled by one individual.  We do know that too much is controlled by too few.  There is no way to know if a couple of the big pools or mining farms are colluding either.  In fact, they openly do it when a problem comes up.  And we do know that the only way to unseat them is to acquire a huge amount of hashing power from somewhere.  The only way to acquire similar power in BitShares is to drive everybody's price up trying to acquire a large stake.  We like those kinds of attacks.

With BitShares, a misbehaving delegate is instantly flagged to all shareholders who immediately wake up, vote him out, and go back to sleep.  It only takes one person paying attention to raise the alarm.  Then it takes several more trusted experts to verify the problem and post their opinion.  Then the rank and file owners respond and the problem is gone.  You can't do that with Bitcoin without inciting a damaging fork war - at huge cost to enforce any discipline at all.

The key innovation is, IMHO,
using the voting stake of all owners to select delegates
that can then be held accountable
by observable performance and public reputation.

The event where one person got 5 delegates briefly points to a period in our early history where delegates did not get enough vetting because... it was early in our history.  Back then, some delegates got elected without proper vetting since it wasn't hard to get into the top 101.  Now it is increasingly harder to get elected as a delegate and every time a new vetted delegate takes her slot, a less vetted delegate is bumped.  So it's an on-going Darwinian distillation process where over time the delegates that survive at the top get vetted better and better and have reputations that are worth more and more, making them unlikely to risk those hard-earned reputations on misbehavior that can instantly be detected.  A Sybil attack at the delegate level would produce a candidate with no reputation from vetting. Who would vote for it?  Right now our star developers have taken days or even weeks to accumulate enough votes. Further, it costs two week's non-refundable salary (about $1100 right now) to apply to be vetted as a delegate, making  any attempt to flood the system with nefarious delegates impractical and unaffordable.  

Finally, because of the competition, every delegate gets challenged from time to time by people who want their job.  

I went through such an aggressive rectal exam myself a few days ago:
"The worth of Stan's contribution to BitShares"
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=12851.msg169114#msg169114

Thus, we have engineered a system where it is very competitive to become a delegate, and only the most trusted best of the best survive.  Thus BitShares grows stronger every day.

[bitcoin2.0]

However, has your system not already been proven to be insecure and not really decentralized because one guy ended up controlling a lot of nodes? Ands he'snjust the one that got caught

No double spend has occurred on a top 10 crypto ever (BTS and NXT included).  Was Bitcoin hacked when Kerfuffle made off like Madoff?  No, and neither was BitShares.  NXT guys throw around the term "hacked" in the same haphazard fashion as Stan throws around the term "decentralized" when describing BitShares.  The truth is that just like when NXT first launched in the first few weeks, the node structure was delicate, but it has strengthened over time, and the next stage in the game requires delegated miners to make their identity known if they even want to be considered to run a node.  The next guy who gets to run several nodes will be well known.  Eventually, the identity of everyone responsible for a node in the 101 will be known to the public because we will vote for

Dan Larimer for delegate
Toast for Delegate
Vikram for delegate
Argentina Matt for delegate
Max Youtube for delegate
Vitalik for delegate (I would vote to offer him several nodes if he would agree to accept the position with honor):

http://bitshares.tv/vitalik-buterin-bitshares-dpos/

He seems to be on the fence, care to attempt to sway him?

I'd vote to offer Jamie Dimon 51 nodes just for the publicity (then vote him out just as soon as the price of BitShares approaches the moon)

Or how about:

Ashton Kutcher for delegate (he already pumps BTC)(he can get paid for wearing a BTS hat)

http://newsbtc.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Ashton-Kutcher-Bitcoin-Mod-Disrupt-890x395.jpg

or how about Kanye West for delegate:

http://blurblogs2014.s3.amazonaws.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/04164757/Kanye-624x389.jpg

Snoop-delegate:
https://i.imgur.com/56bpy8M.jpg


on and on.  it is now much harder to become a delegate miner than it was just a few months ago, and good luck convincing the paranoid public and becoming a delegate next year unless your name is:

Andreas delegate
Gavin delegate

The competition is heating up for a coveted BitShares mining job.  Get in early and establish your reputation before you are competing with:

Oprah delegate
Obama delegate

good luck..may the best miners win!

why a put a cap (the total number 101 delegated miners) on at all?

because:

BitShares only pay 101 miners.  Why?  Because we want to make them the next bitcoin millionaires.  Do you think that the world wants to give these guys more money?:

https://www.google.com/search?q=bitcoin+millionaires&client=ubuntu&hs=eqw&channel=fs&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=d-GvVMu0HNWEyQSTmoC4BA&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAw&biw=1535&bih=805

No, we would rather see Argentina Matt save thousands from:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2014/12/16/370979773/argentinas-approach-to-inflation-ditch-the-peso-hoard-u-s-dollars
(40% annual fiat devaluation)

So buy bitcoin if you want to listen to Taaki talk, Verr preach, Keiser laugh, Gavin babble, Levine plug, and the Winklevii ...well, whatever the Voss twins do in public.  Buy BitShares if you want to see rich miners change the world positively (because they won't get rich otherwise).  We pay only hungry miners and devs who have the eye of the Tiger, not the rich early adopters who sit on their high IPO percentage and make the highest mining money percentage for doing nothing but pay their electric bill:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGGN_7mMRfU
(we want Balboa (Bitcoin))
This is how BitShares works.  We choose who we pay.  Can you ever give the NXT founders a pay cut?  Well good for them.  I love players.  

But the truth is that BitShares has a lot of haters.  BitShares dudes don't dwell on the condition that the NXT network was in moments after it launched (it was more centralized than it is today agreed?).  Why do the NXT people only seem to want to talk about only the earliest developed phases of the BitShares blockchain?  It is now 2015, and there was no double spend on either coin ever.  Do you think it is getting easier or harder to control the BitShares network now that we need to see proof of ID if you want to be a BitShares miner?

Marketing it as decentralized is misleading, trying to make comparisons with satoshi based models of complete decentralization is misleading if you do not clarify that you threw out one of the most important factors. The numbers posted on how much it costs to run a node are misleading, its much cheaper.

For now maybe, but when you are competing against Snoop D O double G, then your cost for running a node will increase.  Yeah it only costs $30 per year for running a node, but in the future, when competition for exclusive high paying delegate slots heats up, and when you have to give out your name and address to the community in order to even be considered for a BitShares forger, then tell me that it is not getting a little more expensive now Mr Nakamoto.  If running a delegate only consumes 10 hours of your time annually, and you are competing with Bill Gates, then how much of his opportunity cost are you paying to overcome:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpyBfz7zzXc
(here's the math concept of economic relativity explained)

1) is it a company or is it a currency? It cannot be feasibly both since the rules of either can have conflicts.
2) Find a new word to describe the system, tiered-decentralization wont work because all who know the word will know you are misleading them

1) it is a unit of exchange within Satoshi's low friction invention
2) forget “decentralized” we can call it “competitive” (you know like nature, free markets, and survival of the fittest)

So yeah, the dark anonymous meme of crypto is not what BitShares is going for here.  We are going for a big small town vibe where everyone knows everyone else (and exactly how far we can trust them) based on their public actions.   The more transparent you are, the better chance you have of becoming a rich Bitcoin2.0 miner.

Are any of you beginning to see why BitShares was born in the top 5 on coinmarketcap?  When the "rules changed" the price should have risen not fallen because the market could not understand that BitShares was making moves to become more competitive in the relentless doge eat doge world that we all are subject to.  Call us doge eat dogecoin or darwincoin, or something to impact upon the principle of how we threw our founders out on the cold street and made them work for living (mine at a minimum wage like the rest of us poor people).  Don't you wish you could make your politicans work for the same minimum wage as you make.  Well at BitShares we, the poor people, took the power back!

What "power" is that you say?  The power to dictate who gets all the mining money.  How much in BTC was mined into existence last year?  Well, money is power, and we are in control now.  This is no longer 2014.  Bitcoin 2.0 is here now with a multimillion market cap and no successful double spend has ever happened.  Now under the spotlight of Hollywood:

Let the games begin!

[StanLarimer]

The reason we don't want to get hung up too much on unproductive implementation and semantics debates is because, quite frankly, we have bigger fish to fry!

While BitShares values privacy and plans a comprehensive set of tools to protect privacy, we also recognize the value of being able to establish and maintain an honorable reputation.  So you'll see just as much emphasis on establishing and protecting your good name.  And we are building a system that rewards that too.  Small town folks don't lock their doors at night for one reason: because everybody knows your name.  

Sometimes you want to go

Where everybody knows your name,
and they're always glad you came.
You wanna be where you can see,
our troubles are all the same
You wanna be
where everybody knows your name.

BitShares is a Community

A piece of software powering a distributed network is worthless without people coming together to give value to the BTS on the ledger entries. Each and every person that joins the BitShares community adds value to the ledger and gains value from the fellow community members. All things start small with just a few people. Over the past year and a half, BitShares has grown from an idea to a global community with thousands of people.

Communities are brought together around common values and principles. They support each other through thick and thin. As the founder of BitShares, this community is largely brought together by the principles I espouse on this blog: Creating decentralized, market-based solutions to secure life, liberty, and property for all.

BitShares is a Country

Countries are what communities become when they become large enough and powerful enough. Countries are sovereign and issue their own currency. Countries are run by elected governments, usually with some kind of senate or parliament like BitShares’ delegates. While we have a long way to go, it is my vision to grow BitShares to the point where the ecosystem is able to make governments irrelevant to our daily lives. This means all dispute resolution and law enforcement will be managed by the BitShares community in an entirely non-violent manner by leveraging smart contracts, bonds, insurance, and other systems on the BitShares ledger.

BitShares is an Idea…

…whose time has come. The specific software, network, and ledger that BitShares is today has very real limitations. But the idea behind BitShares, BitAssets, and non-violent self governance is so powerful that all the forces in the world cannot stop it. The idea will live on in one form or another. The entire concept of numbers on a ledger having value exists entirely in the collective mind of the BitShares community. It doesn’t matter what form that ledger takes, what matters is that we all share a common idea regarding who owns what. We no longer rely on governments to be the arbiter of property rights. BitShares, the software, is just a tool that enables our community to reach unambiguous consensus on property rights. In many ways, it is no different than Rai stones which are large immovable stones used as money which were valued because of community consensus.

BitShares is a small town on global scale.

Excerpt taken from What is BitShares?

[sethminer14]

This is some of the dumbest stuff i've read. If you don't like the coin, don't invest in it. FUDing is just dumb

[infovortice2013]

you not have focking idea what you talking about bitcoin 2.0 .... or are you afraid of bitshares potential ?



ah you scary because Bitshares has own stable assets with value pegged to real money USD EURO GOLD ect... working fine .

not, you are scary for 10 second transations¿

नहीं, maybe you afraid for free public own bitshares tools for developers to create his own DACs

нe, sure you are celous because Bitshares protocol DPOS have no inflation/dilution by miners and is energy efficient ?

nicht, problably is that for send money with Bitshares you can send to a name not need big adress ?

不, the big thing is that holding bitshares you will obtain shares on future dacs for free ?

niet, i start to think that you burned cose is so easy to use than your mom can use it without read nothing¿

لا, sure is the BitShares Scalabilty to grow that offer you exponential reward for your invest.

ない, is because the reputation system has value and where being honorable may work for you and trolls are penaliced.

no, your throuble go with 101 nodes (scalables) vs mining pools. why? have your own industrial mining town? you can mine on http://pool.minebitshares.com/

but sure you are pissed off for big global talented comunity working arround a social consensus and not for an state or bank. .. just for people ... this is comunist for you?

apologies for my English

you will find everything here https://bitsharestalk.org/

[FandangledGizmo]

How often can the number '101' be changed or is it hardcoded? I don't refer to voting, but to changing it to 1000 say.

It's a top secret  , but it's one constant at the code which you can change to any odd number, you even can make it's dynamic if you wish (for example from 101-100101 delegates based at pseudo random round hash) but this requires additional coding.

http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/DPOS

If these chains assume 100 delegates is too centralized and start promoting they have 1000 validators, then their fees must be 10x those of DPOS. If such a chain grew to be the size of Bitcoin ($10 B) then only those with $1M worth of coin could validate profitably and most would consider that an elite club. If they reduce the minimum stake to be a validator to $1000, then their fees would be 10,000 times higher than DPOS.

Then why a put a cap on at all?

Efficiency, profitability and perhaps counter-intuitively for you it actually increases effective decentralization imo.

http://bitsharesblocks.com/delegates

I want to have a good idea who is controlling those 101 positions. As the system matures we are able to make sure those are unique individuals and only doubles if we choose. When you raise that number much higher, the average shareholder can't verify 251 of 501 without centralized assistance. (BitShares holders can though if they want vote to raise the 101 number in future, it's up to a decentralized community of shareholders how many delegates there are.)

I expect over the year, more generally well known crypto people who have high reputations, trust & are more well known in crypto in general, will become delegates, then the average alt-coiner will recognize many of the delegates too.

NXT has more forging participation than Bitshares' 101 delegates.  

It does, but higher number of nodes != more decentralisation.

The key is the number of blocks forged by each node - bitshares makes it even between the 101 delegates, but NXT is stake based, so it *could* be that the majority control of the NXT blockchain consensus lies with well less than 101 / 2 nodes.

I also know the incentives are there for free market competition to be an individual BitShares delegate, with other POS systems the economic incentives just aren't there unfortunately https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=916696.msg10085323#msg10085323

The BitShares model is also efficient, I will be able to pay for goods in a store quicker than a credit card without the system centralizing around BitPay type services.

BitShares also has a large team of highly talented developers and the blockchain can hire more whenever required. Other coins are centralized around their developers - if something happened to two or three main guys, their progress would be seriously affected and they would lack the ability to hire new talent. I find that to be incredible centralization.

[bitcreditscc]

Once again, my interest is not based of a love for NXT, i actually have none. But as i pointed out i used to be one of the biggest supporters of  Invictus, from being in the top 10 PTS holders i was diluted down and sold half my holdings in disgust.

My interest is in the technical parts of this conversation not your "evangelism", some of us are very resistant to propaganda so save us the trouble and let there be technical point by point conversation. Support BTS by proving the arguments against it's system wrong and you'll even win people like me back.

Words about how it's great with no technical basis, really have no effect on the crowd here.

And as someone pointed out, throwing in a lot of links really isnt helping. The current discussion point is the limiting of nodes to 101 whethere this provides a secure model and whether it counts as true decentralization. How damaging could it be if three or more people in control of more than 3 nodes each started colluding?

[FandangledGizmo]

Once again, my interest is not based of a love for NXT, i actually have none. But as i pointed out i used to be one of the biggest supporters of  Invictus, from being in the top 10 PTS holders i was diluted down and sold half my holdings in disgust.

My interest is in the technical parts of this conversation not your "evangelism", some of us are very resistant to propaganda so save us the trouble and let there be technical point by point conversation. Support BTS by proving the arguments against it's system wrong and you'll even win people like me back.

Words about how it's great with no technical basis, really have no effect on the crowd here.

And as someone pointed out, throwing in a lot of links really isnt helping. The current discussion point is the limiting of nodes to 101 whethere this provides a secure model and whether it counts as true decentralization. How damaging could it be if three or more people in control of more than 3 nodes each started colluding?

I was also disappointed by some of the changes, I personally was a big fan of BTSX. I've come back in support of BitShares though as it's the best model out there in my opinion and really well positioned right now. I'm also seeing a trend in POW that tells me it's days are numbered. One reason is their high inflation, in a bear market that 1% a month can really eat into the buy wall,  but the main reason is their volatility, I believe the fact that businesses are immediately selling crypto is what is putting even more consistent selling pressure on the Bitcoin price. So I think you're going to see stable BitAssets like BitUSD really get big this year.

Regards how damaging collusion would be, I think you need 51 delegates to collude to have a material impact on the system, but hopefully more technical guys can answer the question in more detail.

I think the thing with the links is that forum is pretty big with 8000+ members, I think it's more busy than the alt-coin section of bitcointalk on a day to day basis, so when people come here, they usually link back to relevant articles or the forum etc.

[testz]

...
How damaging could it be if three or more people in control of more than 3 nodes each started colluding?

Delegates responsibility to create blocks, they can create or not create a blocks and can filter transactions which will included to the their created blocks.
If they stop producing blocks or not include transactions at their blocks, the time for some transactions can grow from 10 sec to 40-50 sec depends how many blocks will be missed.
The problems becomes if more than 50% (50 delegates) stop producing blocks or makes hidden fork (invisible to main network), the network will lost consensus but every single client on fork or not will notice what network has problems and can act accordingly, for example exchanges can disable deposit/withdraw operations, merchants can stop accepting the payments, etc until network consensus comes back.

Because network pay delegates for their job it's mostly unlikely that they will miss lots of the blocks because they want to do this, usually they get some sort of technical problems, hosting down, internet connection loses, etc.
The delegates which stop producing blocks for 12-24 hours or miss many blocks usually de-voted by shareholders.

All details about current network health you can see here http://bitsharesblocks.com or in regular BitShares client (Delegate Participation Rate, Forks in last 24hrs, etc)

Edit: Described situation already happened at the end of last year due to software bug in upgrade code, everybody (include exchanges) know how this looks and how to act in such situations.

[testz]

...
My interest is in the technical parts of this conversation
...

Join us at https://bitsharestalk.org and you will get all technical information from community and developers which you are looking.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

I went to Subway and ordered a chopped salad.

Didn't enjoy it much though.

There was this guy sitting next to me
kept insisting that Subway had misleading advertising
because it wasn't chopped to atoms...

Seriously, that's the worst analogy I've heard in a long time.

The reason we don't want to get hung up too much on unproductive implementation and semantics debates is because, quite frankly, we have bigger fish to fry!

Hahaha... nice way to avoid a real debate.  If anyone is wondering the REASON Stan won't let Dan (aka Bytemaster) come on here is because he knows he will get ripped apart.  His blog article was exaggerated to the point of absurdity.  It in NO WAY actually represents reality.  Right now, NXT marketcap is less than half of BTS and it is LESS PROFITABLE to run a NXT node than it is a Bitshares node.  BUT AMAZINGLY... THERE ARE CURRENTLY OVER TRIPLE THE AMOUNT OF NXT NODES ACTIVELY RUNNING!  Explain that Dan.

NXT distribution is based on a de-regulated capitalist system, where the more coins that you have, the greater your percentage of your new foraged coin is.  So basically, a new miner who buys in today, can never get ahead of the guy in front of him because their forge percentages match their stake.  Like one of those Amway business models where if you are under the guy who introduced you to the business, then you will always be “under” him.  It is a multi-class system where it is impossible to climb the social ladder.

If you own more stake, you produce more blocks and get more tx fees.  Good luck eliminating "classes" in society.  There will always be those with more of something.  A "fair" economic system should not redistribute wealth, but it should facilitate an even playing field and allow frictionless movement between classes.  NXT is not a rigid economic system.  Nothing is preventing you from going out, purchasing more NXT and forging.  You will never earn a greater percentage than the smallest forger.  That is the way it should be.

Bitshares on the other hand is a rigid economic system.  You must be in a certain "delegate class" to forge.  Everyone including the delegates (in theory) are subjected to inflation.  Now the delegates can effectively rid themselves of this inflation if they control a greater percentage of delegate positions than stake.  If an individual controls one delegate position, they will escape the taxation (inflation) imposed if they own less than 0.99% of the stake.  If an individual controls five delegate positions, they can own 4.95% of the stake and still not be subject to taxation.  Considering the fact that delegates will use their stake to vote themselves into power, this creates a system where they will never be subject to taxation (aka a forging monopoly).  Politics are going to play a major role in delegates voting for each other to maintain this monopoly.

If you think it's fair that the largest shareholders deserve to make the highest percentage of newly foraged inflation coins because they learned about the IPO  when it was cheap and bought a boat-load, then NXT is the coin for you.  Buy all you can.

There is no inflation in NXT, only Bitshares.  Everyone (large and small) should be allowed to earn the same ROI from forging.  That is fair.  In Bitshares, only a small group of individuals are allowed to ROI from forging.  That is unfair.

Once again, my interest is not based of a love for NXT, i actually have none. But as i pointed out i used to be one of the biggest supporters of  Invictus, from being in the top 10 PTS holders i was diluted down and sold half my holdings in disgust.

My interest is in the technical parts of this conversation not your "evangelism", some of us are very resistant to propaganda so save us the trouble and let there be technical point by point conversation. Support BTS by proving the arguments against it's system wrong and you'll even win people like me back.

Words about how it's great with no technical basis, really have no effect on the crowd here.

And as someone pointed out, throwing in a lot of links really isnt helping. The current discussion point is the limiting of nodes to 101 whethere this provides a secure model and whether it counts as true decentralization. How damaging could it be if three or more people in control of more than 3 nodes each started colluding?

I too was a large PTS holder.  I mined PTS from the very beginning on a substantial amount of computer hardware both owned and rented.  I always find it amazing how the biggest critics are usually those individuals who were involved from the beginning and witnessed how everything transpired.

[jrossIV]

Hahaha... nice way to avoid a real debate.  If anyone is wondering the REASON Stan won't let Dan (aka Bytemaster) come on here is because he knows he will get ripped apart.  His blog article was exaggerated to the point of absurdity.  It in NO WAY actually represents reality.  Right now, NXT marketcap is less than half of BTS and it is LESS PROFITABLE to run a NXT node than it is a Bitshares node.  BUT AMAZINGLY... THERE ARE CURRENTLY OVER TRIPLE THE AMOUNT OF NXT NODES ACTIVELY RUNNING!  Explain that Dan.

If I install and run the NXT wallet will that count as an active node ?  Will it count as an active node for bitshares?

[FandangledGizmo]

Hahaha... nice way to avoid a real debate.  If anyone is wondering the REASON Stan won't let Dan (aka Bytemaster) come on here is because he knows he will get ripped apart.  His blog article was exaggerated to the point of absurdity.  It in NO WAY actually represents reality.  Right now, NXT marketcap is less than half of BTS and it is LESS PROFITABLE to run a NXT node than it is a Bitshares node.  BUT AMAZINGLY... THERE ARE CURRENTLY OVER TRIPLE THE AMOUNT OF NXT NODES ACTIVELY RUNNING!  Explain that Dan.

You make a good point, NXT does have less than half the CAP of BTS.

What is your response to this DE?

NXT has more forging participation than Bitshares' 101 delegates.  

It does, but higher number of nodes != more decentralisation.

The key is the number of blocks forged by each node - bitshares makes it even between the 101 delegates, but NXT is stake based, so it *could* be that the majority control of the NXT blockchain consensus lies with well less than 101 / 2 nodes.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

Hahaha... nice way to avoid a real debate.  If anyone is wondering the REASON Stan won't let Dan (aka Bytemaster) come on here is because he knows he will get ripped apart.  His blog article was exaggerated to the point of absurdity.  It in NO WAY actually represents reality.  Right now, NXT marketcap is less than half of BTS and it is LESS PROFITABLE to run a NXT node than it is a Bitshares node.  BUT AMAZINGLY... THERE ARE CURRENTLY OVER TRIPLE THE AMOUNT OF NXT NODES ACTIVELY RUNNING!  Explain that Dan.

If I install and run the NXT wallet will that count as an active node ?  Will it count as an active node for bitshares?

Yes, if you run the NXT wallet consistently that will count as an active node.  The average is 257 nodes online and 307 currently online.  I would imagine the mass majority of these nodes are forging.

NXT has more forging participation than Bitshares' 101 delegates.  

It does, but higher number of nodes != more decentralisation.

The key is the number of blocks forged by each node - bitshares makes it even between the 101 delegates, but NXT is stake based, so it *could* be that the majority control of the NXT blockchain consensus lies with well less than 101 / 2 nodes.

What is your response to this DE?

I would argue that "true decentralization" isn't based on the percentage of blocks forged by each node, but instead based on participants in the system.  It is the right of all forgers to be allowed to forge independently and forge in equal proportion.  The goal of "decentralization" isn't to evenly redistribute forging power to a select group of individuals.

Alexander Berkman correctly asserted this regarding Communism in 1927:

"The role of industrial decentralisation in the revolution is unfortunately too little appreciated... Most people are still in the thraldom of the Marxian dogma that centralisation is 'more efficient and economical.' They close their eyes to the fact that the alleged 'economy' is achieved at the cost of the workers' limb and life, that the 'efficiency' degrades him to a mere industrial cog, deadens his soul, kills his body. Furthermore, in a system of centralisation the administration of industry becomes constantly merged in fewer hands, producing a powerful bureaucracy of industrial overlords. It would indeed be the sheerest irony if the revolution were to aim at such a result. It would mean the creation of a new master class."

I am going to apply his quote to cryptocurrencies:

"The role of decentralization in cryptocurrencies is unfortunately too little appreciated... Most people are still in the thraldom (slavery) of the idea that centralization is 'more efficient and economical.'  They close their eyes to the fact that the alleged 'economy' is achieved at the cost of the currency holders' rights, that the 'efficiency' degrades him to a mere tributary slave, deadens his ROI, kills his freedoms.  Furthermore, in a system of centralization the delegation of forging becomes constantly merged in fewer hands, producing a powerful bureaucracy of forging overlords.  It would indeed be the sheerest irony if the cryptocurrency movement were to aim at such a result.  It would mean the creation of a new master class."

[FandangledGizmo]

Hahaha... nice way to avoid a real debate.  If anyone is wondering the REASON Stan won't let Dan (aka Bytemaster) come on here is because he knows he will get ripped apart.  His blog article was exaggerated to the point of absurdity.  It in NO WAY actually represents reality.  Right now, NXT marketcap is less than half of BTS and it is LESS PROFITABLE to run a NXT node than it is a Bitshares node.  BUT AMAZINGLY... THERE ARE CURRENTLY OVER TRIPLE THE AMOUNT OF NXT NODES ACTIVELY RUNNING!  Explain that Dan.

If I install and run the NXT wallet will that count as an active node ?  Will it count as an active node for bitshares?

Yes, if you run the NXT wallet consistently that will count as an active node.  The average is 257 nodes online and 307 currently online.  I would imagine the mass majority of these nodes are forging.

NXT has more forging participation than Bitshares' 101 delegates.  

It does, but higher number of nodes != more decentralisation.

The key is the number of blocks forged by each node - bitshares makes it even between the 101 delegates, but NXT is stake based, so it *could* be that the majority control of the NXT blockchain consensus lies with well less than 101 / 2 nodes.

What is your response to this DE?

I would argue that "true decentralization" isn't based on the percentage of blocks forged by each node, but instead based on participants in the system.  It is the right of all forgers to be allowed to forge independently and forge in equal proportion.  The goal of "decentralization" isn't to evenly redistribute forging power to a select group of individuals.

Alexander Berkman correctly asserted this regarding Communism in 1927:

"The role of industrial decentralisation in the revolution is unfortunately too little appreciated... Most people are still in the thraldom of the Marxian dogma that centralisation is 'more efficient and economical.' They close their eyes to the fact that the alleged 'economy' is achieved at the cost of the workers' limb and life, that the 'efficiency' degrades him to a mere industrial cog, deadens his soul, kills his body. Furthermore, in a system of centralisation the administration of industry becomes constantly merged in fewer hands, producing a powerful bureaucracy of industrial overlords. It would indeed be the sheerest irony if the revolution were to aim at such a result. It would mean the creation of a new master class."

I am going to apply his quote to cryptocurrencies:

"The role of decentralization in cryptocurrencies is unfortunately too little appreciated... Most people are still in the thraldom (slavery) of the idea that centralization is 'more efficient and economical.'  They close their eyes to the fact that the alleged 'economy' is achieved at the cost of the currency holders' rights, that the 'efficiency' degrades him to a mere tributary slave, deadens his ROI, kills his freedoms.  Furthermore, in a system of centralization the delegation of forging becomes constantly merged in fewer hands, producing a powerful bureaucracy of forging overlords.  It would indeed be the sheerest irony if the cryptocurrency movement were to aim at such a result.  It would mean the creation of a new master class."

Yes but BitShares lets you have a say in who controls the nodes proportional to your stake. (We could also change the 101 number at some point.) Wouldn't that be a form of proportional representation government?

Public companies have shareholders vote on a board of directors, based on their stake. They manage the company on their behalf & they can be fired by shareholders.

Is your argument that the way a public company is run is communist?

Also what is your rebuttal to the fact that NXT is centralized around 2/3 developers. What would NXT do if something happened to them?

[StanLarimer]

Once again, my interest is not based of a love for NXT, i actually have none. But as i pointed out i used to be one of the biggest supporters of  Invictus, from being in the top 10 PTS holders i was diluted down and sold half my holdings in disgust.

...

And as someone pointed out, throwing in a lot of links really isnt helping. The current discussion point is the limiting of nodes to 101 whethere this provides a secure model and whether it counts as true decentralization. How damaging could it be if three or more people in control of more than 3 nodes each started colluding?

Those who held their PTS, or donated them to the project as recommended, wound up amplifying their stake by factors of 3x, 6x or even more.   Later they even got those PTS returned to them to sell or hold as future wild cards.  There has always been a clearly articulated growth path available to all and the only people who missed out are those who bailed prematurely, usually due to their own snap judgements or philosophical differences.  Everyone who followed the obvious recommended growth path has done very, very well.

You say posting a lot of links isn't helping.  I guess we could copy/paste their contents every time someone asks the same question, but that would just flood this forum with walls of content.   Surely you don't expect us to keep retyping the same explanations over and over again just for the fun of it?  You haven't even read the answers we did write out for you in this very thread, because you keep asking the same questions we have already answered.  

Our strategy is to work really hard on getting a good solid answer to recurring questions, publish it once, and help people find it. If following a link is too much trouble, the person wasn't really interested in learning the answer and there is no point in spoon feeding them.

One tl;dr spoonful anyway:  Colluding has no effect on network security until you get to 51% in which case it's called "the will of the stakeholders".  Any node(s) that get out of step get fired and the reputation that got them elected is burned.  They must start over and we know who they are.  Since delegate electability is tied to real-world reputations, sock puppets are not a worry. Reputation + certainty of discovery is what we have added to get the need for brute force nodes down and to make system security analysis practical.  We disagree that adding more nodes of unknown reputation is of any value whatsoever, much less when incremental cost is considered. Focusing on 101 notary employees is missing the source of decentralization.  All owners dynamically select those notaries so decentralization is among them, not the 101 pieces of machinery they choose to use at any point in time. As the owner of one single BTS token, I participate in selecting what globally distributed software the network will run in real time. Finally, we view all these arguments as moot.  We wish NXT great success.  We don't need to argue about its implementation.  We have nothing but good things to say about its developers.  BitShares is what it is.  It works. It can recover if it ever does break.  It is a fielded system and we are aggressively building on top of it.  People should ask if they find its services useful and if they think it will appreciate given its growing feature set, strong community and self-funding mechanism.  

Bytemaster takes live questions from a world wide audience every Friday at 10:00 AM Eastern Standard Time.  
We would love to discuss things with you there:
BitShares Global Teleconference

[Daedelus]

@FandangledGizmo, putting communism aside, companies are not decentralized either so comparing bitshares to them is counter productive of your claim that "Bitshares is Decentralised". It is evidence of "Bitshares is a company".

As the cap/"just a number it's set at" on delegates can be changed and can even be dynamic, I asked "Why set a cap at all?"

I think I got three answers but I have another question first.


What is the mechanism for changing the cap from 101 delegates?

[Daedelus]

(P.s. Nxt has 9 devs in the core dev team Jean-Luc Picard, lyaffe, kushti, MrV777, mess, Yustas, HolgerD77, jones and ChuckOne
https://nxtforum.org/general-discussion/core-dev-recognition-guide-and-donation-addresses/

Another team of devs joined a couple of days ago, but there are no details on them yet
https://nxtforum.org/general-discussion/price-speculation/msg146291/#msg146291 )

[FandangledGizmo]

@FandangledGizmo, putting communism aside, companies are not decentralized either so comparing bitshares to them is counter productive of you claim that "Bitshares is Decentralised". It is evidence of "Bitshares is a company".

As the cap/"just a number it's set at" on delegates can be changed and can even be dynamic, I asked "Why set a cap at all?"

I think I got three answers but I have another question first.


What is the mechanism for changing the cap from 101 delegates?

The comparison of BitShares to a public company was to demonstrate that unless you call a public company communist you cannot call BitShares communist and hence the propagandising basis of OP and much of this thread has been debunked, so I think it was productive to make that comparison.

This does not make BitShares centralized as 'Decentralized' and 'company' are not two mutually exclusive terms, that would be like arguing Bitcoin is centralized because the currencies preceding it were centralized.

Why 101 - I've briefly read the responses you were given, diminishing returns/profit/efficiency/quality vs. quantity/network analyzability - all valid reasons for why it's advantageous. This answer was particularly comprehensive - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=916696.msg10085453#msg10085453

Regards the mechanism for changing the 101 - I imagine shareholders would have to elect 51+ delegates who were explicitly in favour of raising the 101 number.
 

[Daedelus]

Regards the mechanism for changing the 101 - I imagine shareholders would have to elect 51+ delegates who were explicitly in favour of raising the 101 number.

Do you know for sure? I would hope that it is the shareholders and not the delegates themselves. Or worse, just Dan Larimer.

But under what circumstances would delegates be in favour raising the cap? I assume additional delegates would dilute the income of the remaining delegates.

[testz]

Regards the mechanism for changing the 101 - I imagine shareholders would have to elect 51+ delegates who were explicitly in favour of raising the 101 number.

Do you know for sure? I would hope that it is the shareholders and not the delegates themselves. Or worse, just Dan Larimer.

But under what circumstances would delegates be in favour raising the cap? I assume additional delegates would dilute the income of the remaining delegates.

Finally we come to very interesting point  

As you probably know BitSharesX was merged with Votes and DNS to BitShares http://bitshares.org/bitshares-reloaded
Vote functionality can be used to vote for hard forks as described here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10150

As example, extension from 101 delegate slots to N slots or make this dynamic can be done in following steps:
1. Developers preparing hard fork with option 1 (N slots), options 2 (N1 slots), ..., options Y (dynamic slots), option Z (keep as is)
2. Everybody move to this version but hard fork will occurs at specific block and will be based on shareholders votes, if option Z will get most votes of shareholders - nothing will changes, if they vote for option 1, network will move to hard fork with N delegate slots, etc.

Again, only shareholders can make decision which way to go - not delegates. Shareholders votes for hard fork options (using their funds) in same way how they voted for delegates.

[Daedelus]

What you have described, any POS can do. Nxt has already done it after the BTER hack: Forge Version A if you want to accept the hack and move on, Forge Version B if you want to roll back so the hack never happened. Everyone got 720 blocks to decide.

The majority chose to accept the hack, decentralised decision making. It isn't a unique feature.

How do shareholders force the dev to write the hardforks? Can the dev be a delegate? Can any dev introduce a hard fork?

[testz]

What you have described, any POS can do. Nxt has already done it after the BTER hack: Forge Version A if you want to accept the hack and move on, Forge Version B if you want to roll back so the hack never happened. Everyone got 720 blocks to decide.

The majority chose to accept the hack, decentralised decision making. It isn't a unique feature.

What I described here, even Bitcoin can do - it's called hard fork. BitShares just make it easier.  
In your example with Forge Version A and Version B - as I understand it's can be only 2 options at same time not Version A, B, C, D, E, right? If someone decide to move to Version B, but Version A will win, he need to goes back to Version A manually right?

I presume delegates get an even share of the transactions fees and the 1% annual inflation? For a reasonable period, say a year, the total of all this income is relatively a constant?

All fees is destroying (tx fees, account and asset creation fees, margin calls fees, etc) http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/bitshares/2014/12/30/BitShares-Fee-Schedule-Explained

Delegates has pay rate from 0% to 100% (http://www.bitsharesblocks.com/delegates), 100% payrate is 50 BTS per produced blocks, 10% - 5 BTS, etc.

Delegates can change pay rate but only downwards, if delegate want get back 100% pay rate he should create new account at blockchain with 100% pay rate and ask shareholders to elect him again.

[Daedelus]

What you have described, any POS can do. Nxt has already done it after the BTER hack: Forge Version A if you want to accept the hack and move on, Forge Version B if you want to roll back so the hack never happened. Everyone got 720 blocks to decide.

The majority chose to accept the hack, decentralised decision making. It isn't a unique feature.

In your example with Forge Version A and Version B - as I understand it's can be only 2 options at same time not Version A, B, C, D, E, right? If someone decide to move to Version B, but Version A will win, he need to goes back to Version A manually right?

I presume delegates get an even share of the transactions fees and the 1% annual inflation? For a reasonable period, say a year, the total of all this income is relatively a constant?

All fees is destroying (tx fee, account and asset creation fee, margin calls fee, etc).

Delegates has pay rate from 0% to 100% (http://www.bitsharesblocks.com/delegates), 100% payrate is 50 BTS per produced blocks, 10% - 5 BTS, etc.

Delegates can change pay rate but only downwards, if delegate want get back 100% pay rate he should create new account at blockchain and ask shareholders to elect him again.[/s]

I stepped back, I will come back to the second question later.

A,B,C,D,E...Z. However many you need can be done, majority will always win. If you end up on a minority chain, you are on a fork. To still have some coins of value, you have to rejoin the majority.

In my example, those who were hacked were left with 0 coins, naturally. They were trying to roll back so they could regain their x number of coins and the hacker was left with 0 instead. Network decided it wasn't its job to tidy up after sloppy security (simple password instead of 2FA was the cause IIRC) and continued on the original chain.


I switched to this question first

How do shareholders force the dev to write the hardforks? Can the dev be a delegate? Can any dev introduce a hard fork?

 

[Daedelus]

N.B. I see you are a current delegate   Why am I not surprised Who is init? They appear to be running 7 of the delegates.


Is this Stanlarimer? stan.delegate.xeldal

[StanLarimer]

N.B. I see you are a current delegate   Why am I not surprised Who is init? They appear to be running 7 of the delegates.


Is this Stanlarimer? stan.delegate.xeldal

That would be for me.  Xeldal is the delegate.  He runs on the platform of paying Stan Larimer to offload tasks from Bytemaster so he can do what only Bytemaster can do.  I get 4060 BTS ($55.22) from him like clockwork every day.

[testz]

N.B. I see you are a current delegate   Why am I not surprised Who is init? They appear to be running 7 of the delegates.


Is this Stanlarimer? stan.delegate.xeldal

Yes, I'm a "network" delegate (testz 3% pay rate), I also manage valzav.payroll.testz (100% pay) it's a dev delegate - details here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=12625.0

stan.delegate.xeldal it's a Stan 100% pay rate delegate managed by xeldal "network" delegate in same way as I manage valzav.payroll.testz
To be delegate it's responsible, to free dev - networks delegates manage their delegates.

[Daedelus]

N.B. I see you are a current delegate   Why am I not surprised Who is init? They appear to be running 7 of the delegates.


Is this Stanlarimer? stan.delegate.xeldal

That would be for me.  Xeldal is the delegate.  He runs on the platform of paying Stan Larimer to offload tasks from Bytemaster so he can do what only Bytemaster can do.

But Xeldal already runs 3 other nodes? Who got the $2600 from that node?


Are businesses intended to be delegates, rather than the devs?

[testz]

N.B. I see you are a current delegate   Why am I not surprised Who is init? They appear to be running 7 of the delegates.


Is this Stanlarimer? stan.delegate.xeldal

That would be for me.  Xeldal is the delegate.  He runs on the platform of paying Stan Larimer to offload tasks from Bytemaster so he can do what only Bytemaster can do.

But Xeldal already runs 3 other nodes?

Yes, shareholders trust him to do it and voted for this.

[testz]

I switched to this question first

How do shareholders force the dev to write the hardforks? Can the dev be a delegate? Can any dev introduce a hard fork?

Shareholders can propose dev(s) to do it, dev will do it and shareholders votes for hard fork. If some devs will not agree, shareholders can voted in the new devs which will do it and voted out devs which not want to do it.

[Daedelus]

I switched to this question first

How do shareholders force the dev to write the hardforks? Can the dev be a delegate? Can any dev introduce a hard fork?

Shareholders can propose dev(s) to do it, dev will do it and shareholders votes for hard fork. If some devs will not agree, shareholders can voted in the new devs which will do it and voted out devs which not want to do it.

Ok, is there intended to be separation between devs and any other businesses than run nodes? I guess not, as how would they be paid, right?

[StanLarimer]

Are businesses intended to be delegates, rather than the devs?

Our expectation is that, as the market cap grows, the value of each delegate stream will grow.  Right now, each stream handles only part time pay - so the devs are working at a fraction of what they are worth.  Over time, we expect each stream to grow to full time pay and eventually to pay for several people.

So, the end game when we reach Bitcoin Scale is to have each stream fund a small business with several million dollars annually.

At that point, each business will need to be competing to "land a deal" with the stakeholders by publishing a good proposal, performing well, and staying in the good graces of all BTS holders.

Of course it is still possible that one delegate slot could fund a single celebrity or even a single delegate who agrees to burn 99% of her pay (returning it to the stakeholders).

[testz]

But Xeldal already runs 3 other nodes? Who got the $2600 from that node?

stan.delegate.xeldal (which got $2600) it's Stan delegate operated by Xeldal, Stan gets paid from this delegate, xeldal get 5% as operational expenses, look here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11735.0
5% it's agreement between Stan and xeldal.

[Daedelus]

What do you mean by stream? It seems to mean 'income' in the first sentence, but then "each 'income' handles only part..." doesn't make sense in the second sentence.


So a vote for stan is a vote for xeldel? He is the one actually running the hardware/software that secures the network? Stan is just the one getting the money.

[StanLarimer]

What do you mean by stream? It seems to mean 'income' in the first sentence, but then "each 'income' handles only part..." doesn't make sense in the second sentence.


So a vote for stan is a vote for xeldel? He is the one actually running the hardware/software that secures the network? Stan is just the one getting the money.

Each time a delegate gets her turn to sign a block (every 17 minutes) she earns 50 BTS.  That's the max total stream size and every delegate runs for election based on what percent of that they are willing to work for.  People who just sign blocks work for 3% of that 50 BTS.  People who perform work (development, marketing, whatever) get paid some other percentage - usually 100% right now since the value of 50 BTS is still less than full time pay for most functions.

A vote for xeldel is a vote for his proposal to hire Stan for the blockchain.

Toast is a developer who runs his own delegate.  Guys like xeldel make it possible to hire marketers, celebrities, or old rocket scientists who don't have a clue how to run a delegate.

[Daedelus]

Ok, I got to go soon but I am gonna recap what I have learned...

[testz]

N.B. I see you are a current delegate   Why am I not surprised Who is init? They appear to be running 7 of the delegates.

Sorry, forgot to answer, init delegates it's a network bootstrap delegates it's was 101 init delegates, original BitSharesX network was launched by http://www.dacsunlimited.com, init it's their delegates. Some delegates stay in the 101 because shareholders was votes for it.

[sumantso]

N.B. I see you are a current delegate   Why am I not surprised Who is init? They appear to be running 7 of the delegates.

Sorry, forgot to answer, init delegates it's a network bootstrap delegates it's was 101 init delegates, original BitSharesX network was launched by http://www.dacsunlimited.com, init it's their delegates. Some delegates stay in the 101 because shareholders was votes for it.

They are getting slowly reduced as more and more paid delegates have started registering.

Regarding xeldel and others running multiples, its being allowed initially but we won't be supporting it in the future. Some of us already has several proposals outlining separation of block producers and employees, but we all agree this is not the biggest priority right now; getting a stable 1.0 protocol is.

[Daedelus]

"Bitshares is decentralised" was the starting point. It turns out this is true only if you accept Bitshares definition of being "sufficiently decentralised". I don't I believe it is decentralised, I believe it to be distributed. Bytemaster describes it as the same in his blogpost "What is Bitshares". What you call "unproductive semantics", a near full consensus would see it as being "the difference between true and false". I think you will find very few people on this forum who will accept Bitshares definition of decentralised, so you will continue to run into friction for as long as you describe it as such.

With regard to "diminishing returns" and "no real benefit" of increasing above 101 node current cap, most crypto enthusiasts would call this increasing decentralisation.


I learned the cap can be lifted/made dynamic, so why a cap at all? Well if there were an uncapped number of nodes, the limited amount of funds being shared around would be spread very thinly between x nodes and it could be unprofitable to run a node. It would find an equilibrium (or fail) but I strongly suspect it would be a small fraction of the incomes right now. So the cap protects the profitability of the delegates, it keeps income higher than it would otherwise be.


To change the cap, shareholders would have to convince a dev to propose a fork (or series of forks) to choose from. The devs are the delegates, and always will be as otherwise they won't get any income for their work. These are the guys you will have to convince to accept losing a lot of their income if you want to have 0.1% inflation or 500 nodes, otherwise there would be no forks to choose from. Sure, you can vote devs out and other devs in but who knows Bitshares better than Bytemaster et al. I find it hard to believe that these and others would ever be voted out or that the new devs would know bitshares as well to continue development.


If businesses do end up running nodes, they should plan not to have the stream as the main source of income. Businesses will have an annual forecast, with expected income and expenses. If shareholders vote to half the inflation, suddenly many nodes may become unviable as their expected income has significantly decreased. Or worse, they wake up and find they have been voted out and have no income at all. This will always be the case for those hovering around the bottom with a lower share of votes. Some may decide it is not worth the risk or become so battered and bruised in a chaotic and unstable environment of being node 93-98-105-101-99-107-105... that they don't bother at all.


The distribution of nodes seems to be more concentrated than presented. I presumed init0 etc. are "initial", the start up nodes and Bitshares doesn't yet have 101 candidates for voting? Still in the bootstrapping phase would be a reasonable defence. But this demolishes the "more decentralised" claim.


If there is friction in the growth of nodes in relation to the growth of the network, this leads to increasing centralisation. Let us say that today, there are 1000 Bitshares users and we know there are 101 nodes/delegates. In a year, there are 2000 users but if there are still only 101 nodes then this is increasing centralisation: more people being subject to a decreasing minority. And there is an incentive for there to be friction, as the existing delegates would be protecting their income.


The basics I know paint a picture of conflicting incentives. The shareholders are in charge but only if the devs let them be. The devs are delegates so unless altruism lasts forever, they will increasingly act in their own interests to protect their income. The shareholders could vote them out at this point but they would be shooting themselves in the foot. Would bitcoiners sack Gavin and Herne? Or would Nxters force out Jean-Luc or Kushti?

If you accept these conflicting interests as true, the result is likely to be a system that will slowly degenerate with time.

[StanLarimer]

I would say that most of the points you have made in this post are still fair game for discussion and on the leading edge of BitShares community thinking.

No doubt we will continue to discuss optimizations along any of these lines and we would welcome your participation.

There is always a tension between limits of ideal and practical decentralization and, as you point out, there are degrees of decentralization.  The U.S. House of Representatives is really too big and unwieldy already, yet every year each representative spans more and more people.  That said, it would be totally impractical to ask every American citizen to become informed on every decision that must be made.

Companies have annual shareholder meetings where they elect a board of directors who hire key staff to make day to day decisions.  It's how humans organize themselves.

We think that a vibrant economy of 101 small businesses,
selected by Darwinian market forces,
should make for a prosperous BitShares ecosystem for a long time.  
We are betting that, however imperfect,
it will yield a fine return
for those who have invested time and treasure in it.

The good news is that we are not afraid to innovate and make improvements over time.
It is what we get criticized for the most.
It is also our greatest strength.

[jrossIV]

Hahaha... nice way to avoid a real debate.  If anyone is wondering the REASON Stan won't let Dan (aka Bytemaster) come on here is because he knows he will get ripped apart.  His blog article was exaggerated to the point of absurdity.  It in NO WAY actually represents reality.  Right now, NXT marketcap is less than half of BTS and it is LESS PROFITABLE to run a NXT node than it is a Bitshares node.  BUT AMAZINGLY... THERE ARE CURRENTLY OVER TRIPLE THE AMOUNT OF NXT NODES ACTIVELY RUNNING!  Explain that Dan.

If I install and run the NXT wallet will that count as an active node ?  Will it count as an active node for bitshares?

Yes, if you run the NXT wallet consistently that will count as an active node.  The average is 257 nodes online and 307 currently online.  I would imagine the mass majority of these nodes are forging.

I ran the NXT wallet for some time.  In some ways it was better than Bitshares. Much faster synching it seems but in the end it still utilized too many resources in the background.  One time it appeared that I mined a block but then I realized it was only because I was on a fork! lol.

I guess my point would be that you guys have a lot of nodes just because every wallet is a node.  You posed this as a big question to Dan but that is basically the reason. We still don't know how many nodes control 51% of the network like the other guy brought up.

[testz]

The distribution of nodes seems to be more concentrated than presented. I presumed init0 etc. are "initial", the start up nodes and Bitshares doesn't yet have 101 candidates for voting?

According http://bitsharesblocks.com we have 5 381 registered delegates (delegate registration costs 2 weeks of delegate income, to register 100% pay rate delegate will costs is 59 881.19 BTS) and 1061 of them already has shareholders votes.

Number of accounts: 32 209
Number of sub-accounts: 499

[DecentralizeEconomics]

The comparison of BitShares to a public company was to demonstrate that unless you call a public company communist you cannot call BitShares communist and hence the propagandising basis of OP and much of this thread has been debunked, so I think it was productive to make that comparison.

If a single corporation ran the entire economy, then yes, it would be Communism.  Communism is a highly elitist, hierarchical, centralized system of control which disenfranchises the people (aka stakeholders) to empower the ruling party (aka 101 delegates).  Communism is best described as STATE CAPITALISM.  I agree with Stan that Bitshares is a company, but it is a company that commands complete control over the Bitshares' economy.  This is why Bitshares is Communist.

As Vladimir Lenin stated:

"We recognise and will continue to recognise only state capitalism, and it is we — we conscious workers, we Communists — who are the state. That is why we should brand as good-for-nothing Communists those who have failed to understand their task of restricting, curbing, checking and catching red-handed and inflicting exemplary chastisement on any kind of capitalism that goes beyond the framework of state capitalism in our meaning of the concept and tasks of the state."

Bitshares is identical to Communism.  Unless you are a part of the "ruling class" (aka 101 delegates), you are subject to taxation via inflation.  "The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation." - Vladimir Lenin  These 101 delegates use their power to maintain a stranglehold on the system by taxing competing businesses and shareholders.  Lenin once again describes such a system as “nothing but state capitalist monopoly made to benefit the whole people."  The fallacy of such a statement is that it only benefits the "new master class" (aka 101 delegates).

This does not make BitShares centralized as 'Decentralized' and 'company' are not two mutually exclusive terms, that would be like arguing Bitcoin is centralized because the currencies preceding it were centralized.

Bitshares is a centrally administered corporation which controls the entire economy.  As I have said before, the delegates use their stake to maintain their position and form a monopoly over the system.  This is not a system which promotes free enterprise, but is the very definition of Supercapitalism (aka Crony Capitalism).

[DecentralizeEconomics]

Hahaha... nice way to avoid a real debate.  If anyone is wondering the REASON Stan won't let Dan (aka Bytemaster) come on here is because he knows he will get ripped apart.  His blog article was exaggerated to the point of absurdity.  It in NO WAY actually represents reality.  Right now, NXT marketcap is less than half of BTS and it is LESS PROFITABLE to run a NXT node than it is a Bitshares node.  BUT AMAZINGLY... THERE ARE CURRENTLY OVER TRIPLE THE AMOUNT OF NXT NODES ACTIVELY RUNNING!  Explain that Dan.

If I install and run the NXT wallet will that count as an active node ?  Will it count as an active node for bitshares?

Yes, if you run the NXT wallet consistently that will count as an active node.  The average is 257 nodes online and 307 currently online.  I would imagine the mass majority of these nodes are forging.

I ran the NXT wallet for some time.  In some ways it was better than Bitshares. Much faster synching it seems but in the ended it still ended utilizing a lot of resources in the background.  One time it appeared that I mined a block but then I realized it was only because I was on a fork! lol.

I guess my point would be that you guys have a lot of nodes just because every wallet is a node.  You posed this as a big question to Dan but that is basically the reason. We still don't know how many nodes control 51% of the network like the other guy brought up.

Dan believes that nodes must be limited to 101 (centralized) because he claims it is "unprofitable" to run a node.  He bases this on ridiculous cost metrics and the flawed hypothesis that nodes must ROI from forging alone.  This is wrong because running a node is simply a minor expense for businesses.  I proved it is wrong because currently even though it is less profitable to run a NXT node than a Bitshares' node there are on average over two and a half times as many NXT nodes as Bitshares' delegates!

Again, you are basing "decentralization" on percentage of blocks forged by each node, not on participants in the system.

I would argue that "true decentralization" isn't based on the percentage of blocks forged by each node, but instead based on participants in the system.  It is the right of all forgers to be allowed to forge independently and forge in equal proportion.  The goal of "decentralization" isn't to evenly redistribute forging power to a select group of individuals.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

The distribution of nodes seems to be more concentrated than presented. I presumed init0 etc. are "initial", the start up nodes and Bitshares doesn't yet have 101 candidates for voting?

According http://bitsharesblocks.com we have 5 381 registered delegates (delegate registration costs 2 weeks of delegate income, to register 100% pay rate delegate will costs is 59 881.19 BTS) and 1061 of them already has shareholders votes.

Number of accounts: 32 209
Number of sub-accounts: 499

It costs 59,881.19 BTS to register in delegate elections?

59,881.19 BTS x $0.01369 = $7102.53 USD!

I assume this fee goes to the existing delegates.    Don't you think requiring payment in the hopes of participating in the forging process is wrong and leads to the disenfranchisement of stakeholders?

[StanLarimer]

... I agree with Stan that Bitshares is a company, but it is a company that commands complete control over the Bitshares' economy.  This is why Bitshares is Communist. ...

Watch out, I feel another metaphor shift coming on...

BitShares, as we've said above, is also a community.  Its an ecosystem of 101 small businesses that are building up a common infrastructure that, in turn, will support many other businesses.  Lots of birds will flock to nest in this tree.  

We hope it won't stop there.  We envision in the long term, perhaps not in our lifetimes, the evolution of a sovereign virtual "country" in the Free Space of international waters - leveraging blockchain technology to implement voluntary non-violent protection of individual rights to life, liberty, and property - making government by centralized force impractical, impotent, and irrelevant.  Couldn't be further away on the spectrum from collectivist schools of thought.

[StanLarimer]

The distribution of nodes seems to be more concentrated than presented. I presumed init0 etc. are "initial", the start up nodes and Bitshares doesn't yet have 101 candidates for voting?

According http://bitsharesblocks.com we have 5 381 registered delegates (delegate registration costs 2 weeks of delegate income, to register 100% pay rate delegate will costs is 59 881.19 BTS) and 1061 of them already has shareholders votes.

Number of accounts: 32 209
Number of sub-accounts: 499

It costs 59,881.19 BTS to register in delegate elections?

59,881.19 BTS x $0.01369 = $7102.53 USD!

I assume this fee goes to the existing delegates.    Don't you think requiring payment in the hopes of participating in the forging process is wrong and leads to the disenfranchisement of stakeholders?

Actually 100% delegate pay is 50 BTS every 17 minutes which works out at today's rates to $58.56 per day or $820 per fortnight which is the cost of registering to be a delegate.   Fees are burned and therefore distributed to all stakeholders.

BitShares fees are explained here:  BitShares Fee Schedule Explained.

It takes a lot of effort to vet a delegate so we can't simply swamp the shareholders with unlimited proposals.  A registration fee equaling 2 weeks pay forces a delegate to self-assess before applying.  Nothing stops them from polling the community to get a sense of what level of support there may be before applying.  There has been some discussion about proposing a delegate to serve as a recruiter who uses her revenue stream to help pay application fees for worthy candidates who can't afford them.  We'll see what the community decides about that.

Everything about BitShares is grounded in practical idealism.

[ruletheworld]

Bitshares is nothing different then Ripple and if you knew Protoshares you would already see that same stuff from their CEO's and devs.

Actually, I don't see many similarities between Ripple and Bitshares. Care to explain in what way you think they are the same stuff?

To the others, it is true that Bitshares hasn't done everything perfect since launch. There are also lots of legitimate complaints (even from me) about the way things are/were handled. However, it's one of the few cryptos with active development, a dedicated AND intelligent team which isn't afraid of thinking big. Also, if you believe in the technology but don't like other short-term aspects, then just convert your BTS to BitBTC/BitUSD, so you go short BTS and get some yield. If you think the project is going to dogs, just sell your BTS.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

Watch out, I feel another metaphor shift coming on...

BitShares, as we've said above, is also a community.  Its an ecosystem of 101 small businesses that are building up a common infrastructure that, in turn, will support many other businesses.  Lots of birds will flock to nest in this tree.  

We hope it won't stop there.  We envision in the long term, perhaps not in our lifetimes, the evolution of a sovereign virtual "country" in the Free Space of international waters - leveraging blockchain technology to implement voluntary non-violent protection of individual rights to life, liberty, and property - making government by centralized force impractical, impotent, and irrelevant.  Couldn't be further away on the spectrum from collectivist schools of thought.

It seems like you are replacing our old masters with 101 (maybe?) new ones.

Actually 100% delegate pay is 50 BTS every 17 minutes which works out to $58.56 per day or $820 per fortnight which is the cost of registering to be a delegate.   Fees are burned and therefore distributed to all stakeholders.

BitShares fees are explained here:  BitShares Fee Schedule Explained.

It takes a lot of effort to vet a delegate so we can't simply swamp the shareholders with unlimited proposals.  A registration fee equaling 2 weeks pay forces a delegate to self-assess before applying.  Nothing stops them from polling the community to get a sense of what level of support there may be before applying.  There has been some discussion about proposing a delegate to serve as a recruiter who uses her revenue stream to help pay application fees for worthy candidates who can't afford them.  We'll see what the community decides about that.

Everything about BitShares is grounded in practical idealism.

Don't you think that helps to consolidate the power of the delegates and form a type of blockchain Plutocracy?  I think you need some "delegate campaign finance reform."

[bitcreditscc]

DE has been pretty consistent , i am very interested in decentralized models and my own project requires such a system, if BTS model is so great, i'll fork it and have 1010101 delegates

[jrossIV]

Dan believes that nodes must be limited to 101 (centralized) because he claims it is "unprofitable" to run a node.  He bases this on ridiculous cost metrics and the flawed hypothesis that nodes must ROI from forging alone.  This is wrong because running a node is simply a minor expense for businesses.  I proved it is wrong because currently even though it is less profitable to run a NXT node than a Bitshares' node there are on average over two and a half times as many NXT nodes as Bitshares' delegates!

Again, you are basing "decentralization" on percentage of blocks forged by each node, not on participants in the system.

So if you have a system where any forger can forge the same amount of blocks then you can attack the network by creating a large yet cheap network of forgers.  Then at that point 51% attack is possible.  I'm confused why you think this is better than having stake-holders vote in some proportional system.

If you go by participants only, you can have 1 participant forge 99% of the blocks yet have 10000000000 participants.  How is this a better metric of decentralization?

You have confused me greatly.  Just when it starts to make sense to me.

I would argue that "true decentralization" isn't based on the percentage of blocks forged by each node, but instead based on participants in the system.  It is the right of all forgers to be allowed to forge independently and forge in equal proportion.  The goal of "decentralization" isn't to evenly redistribute forging power to a select group of individuals.

[/quote]

Your "rights" are a bit humorous but read my questions above for my concerns on your approach.

Honestly son, you need to lay off the drugs or perhaps see a shrink.  Decentralization is just a tactic which has a variety of downsides.  The commies aren't out to get your blockchain or any such nonsense.

[StanLarimer]

DE has been pretty consistent , i am very interested in decentralized models and my own project requires such a system, if BTS model is so great, i'll fork it and have 1010101 delegates

Cool.  Let us know how that works out for you.   

[StanLarimer]

It seems like you are replacing our old masters with 101 (maybe?) new ones.

Don't you think that helps to consolidate the power of the delegates and form a type of blockchain Plutocracy?  I think you need some "delegate campaign finance reform."

If I don't like them, I can:

1.  Sell.
2.  Fire Them.
3.  Fork a new country.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

[DecentralizeEconomics]

It seems like you are replacing our old masters with 101 (maybe?) new ones.

Don't you think that helps to consolidate the power of the delegates and form a type of blockchain Plutocracy?  I think you need some "delegate campaign finance reform."

If I don't like them, I can:

1.  Sell.
2.  Fire Them.
3.  Fork a new country.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Stan, your quote would be a just argument for DPOS if all stakeholders received equal votes not proportional to their stake.  Republican governments only work when one man gets one vote.  Bitshares is akin to a Corporate Republic where voting power is derived from wealth.  Corporate Republics are also Communist.  There is no difference between Big Government controlling business or Big Business controlling government.

[StanLarimer]

Wow.  I would love to hear a debate on this topic between you and Bytemaster!

Why don't you join one of Bytemaster's Friday Global Teleconference calls and just dangle that bait out there for him?  

Bytemaster takes live questions from a world wide audience every Friday at 10:00 AM Eastern Standard Time.  
I bet this topic would draw a large audience!
BitShares Global Teleconference

It would be recorded and published so everyone here could listen at their leisure...



Or we could get Max Wright to interview the two of you on one of his famous BitShares.TV episodes...

What do you say?

[DecentralizeEconomics]

Dan believes that nodes must be limited to 101 (centralized) because he claims it is "unprofitable" to run a node.  He bases this on ridiculous cost metrics and the flawed hypothesis that nodes must ROI from forging alone.  This is wrong because running a node is simply a minor expense for businesses.  I proved it is wrong because currently even though it is less profitable to run a NXT node than a Bitshares' node there are on average over two and a half times as many NXT nodes as Bitshares' delegates!

Again, you are basing "decentralization" on percentage of blocks forged by each node, not on participants in the system.

So if you have a system where any forger can forge the same amount of blocks then you can attack the network by creating a large yet cheap network of forgers.  Then at that point 51% attack is possible.  I'm confused why you think this is better than having stake-holders vote in some proportional system.

If you go by participants only, you can have 1 participant forge 99% of the blocks yet have 10000000000 participants.  How is this a better metric of decentralization?

You have confused me greatly.  Just when it starts to make sense to me.

If the network is protected by actual stake ownership (like NXT), it is impossible to attack it by creating a large network of stakeless nodes.  The number of allowed forgers in a system should be regulated by market forces and not capped at some arbitrary amount.  "Decentralization" means everyone should be allowed to participate without the consent of an authority.  I believe this is a better system and less prone to abuse.  By adding voting (delegation) to PoS, you are adding a "social contruct" which allows a hierarchical system to develop.

If you had 10 Billion participates that forged 1% of the blocks and 1 individual who forged 99% of the blocks, I'd would say that is a fair and decentralized system as long as the one individual with 99% of the stake didn't have the means to levy a tax on the smaller stakeholders.  If the one individual with 99% of the stake dropped out of the network, the remaining 1% of the stake forging would then compromise 100% of the active stake forging.  Since the amount of available stake would be reduced by 99%, it would not make the network more susceptible to attack as long as that stake didn't fall into malicious hands.  Everyone should have the right to forge in proportion to his stake.

This is of course a ridiculous example that would never develop in any natural system.

Honestly son, you need to lay off the drugs or perhaps see a shrink.

Thanks for the advice, but I don't partake in any form of intoxication.

Decentralization is just a tactic which has a variety of downsides.

That's not a very popular opinion around here.

The commies aren't out to get your blockchain or any such nonsense.

Don't be too sure. 

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[jrossIV]

If the network is protected by actual stake ownership (like NXT), it is impossible to attack it by creating a large network of stakeless nodes.  The number of allowed forgers in a system should be regulated by market forces and not capped at some arbitrary amount.  "Decentralization" means everyone should be allowed to participate without the consent of an authority.  I believe this is a better system and less prone to abuse.  By adding voting (delegation) to PoS, you are adding a "social contruct" which allows a hierarchical system to develop.

If you had 10 Billion participates that forged 1% of the blocks and 1 individual who forged 99% of the blocks, I'd would say that is a fair and decentralized system as long as the one individual with 99% of the stake didn't have the means to levy a tax on the smaller stakeholders.  If the one individual with 99% of the stake dropped out of the network, the remaining 1% of the stake forging would then compromise 100% of the active stake forging.  Since the amount of available stake would be reduced by 99%, it would not make the network more susceptible to attack as long as that stake didn't fall into malicious hands.  Everyone should have the right to forge in proportion to his stake.

This is of course a ridiculous example that would never develop in any natural system.

So a person should only be able to forge proportional to their stake and not proportional to their effort?  And somehow this is superior according to your world view?

If you had 1 guy forging 99% of your blocks then he would have tremendous power and you would be far from decentralized. The number of partipants are important as long as their power is relatively equal, otherwise the power is too centralized.  Plenty of communistic societies had tons of "participants" and most of the wealth was centralized at the top.


NXT mining allows you to be able to do something like rental forging.  My understanding is it is the equivalent to voting and adds a "social construct". 

I like crypto-currencies but at my age it just gives me a headache arguing bizarro semantics.

[StanLarimer]

Agreed. Sometimes we get so caught up in semantics that we can't see the forest for the trees.

What we all want is systems that are incorruptible.

Things that move power away from the center make it harder to corrupt.

Things that increase transparency also help - broad daylight not darkness.

Things that increase the number of people you have to coerce or seduce help,
But so do things that make it harder to coerce or seduce them.

Things that increase detectability - if you are certain you can't get away with it you are less likely to do it.

Things that allow correction of the problem - the ability to undo a wrong once detected.

Things that incentivize honorable behavior - and deter dishonorable behavior.

We are trying to engineer systems with these properties.

Decentralization is a useful tool to this end.

But it is only one tool in our toolkit.

Let us not constrain ourselves to using only one tool.

It causes us to do silly things like burning $500,000,000 a year for security.

And not looking for a way to solve the problem more efficiently.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

Wow.  I would love to hear a debate on this topic between you and Bytemaster!

Why don't you join one of Bytemaster's Friday Global Teleconference calls and just dangle that bait out there for him?  

Bytemaster takes live questions from a world wide audience every Friday at 10:00 AM Eastern Standard Time.  
I bet this topic would draw a large audience!
BitShares Global Teleconference

It would be recorded and published so everyone here could listen at their leisure...



Or we could get Max Wright to interview the two of you on one of his famous BitShares.TV episodes...

What do you say?

I'm sorry, but I don't want to be associated with a network that is IMO used to disseminate Communist propaganda.  Also, I do NOT want to be involved with a company, Bitshares(TM), whose "shares are worth pennies", who is IMO intentionally violating numerous US securities laws.

*DecentralizeEconomics thinks for a second.*

Yeah, I'm going to have to pass on that one.  LOL

[testz]

Wow.  I would love to hear a debate on this topic between you and Bytemaster!

Why don't you join one of Bytemaster's Friday Global Teleconference calls and just dangle that bait out there for him?  

Bytemaster takes live questions from a world wide audience every Friday at 10:00 AM Eastern Standard Time.  
I bet this topic would draw a large audience!
BitShares Global Teleconference

It would be recorded and published so everyone here could listen at their leisure...



Or we could get Max Wright to interview the two of you on one of his famous BitShares.TV episodes...

What do you say?

I'm sorry, but I don't want to be associated with a network that is IMO used to disseminate Communist propaganda.  Also, I do NOT want to be involved with a company, Bitshares(TM), whose "shares are worth pennies", who is IMO intentionally violating numerous US securities laws.

*DecentralizeEconomics thinks for a second.*

Yeah, I'm going to have to pass on that one.  LOL

"If our competitors criticize us - it means that we do everything correctly" LOL

[DecentralizeEconomics]

Wow.  I would love to hear a debate on this topic between you and Bytemaster!

Why don't you join one of Bytemaster's Friday Global Teleconference calls and just dangle that bait out there for him?  

Bytemaster takes live questions from a world wide audience every Friday at 10:00 AM Eastern Standard Time.  
I bet this topic would draw a large audience!
BitShares Global Teleconference

It would be recorded and published so everyone here could listen at their leisure...



Or we could get Max Wright to interview the two of you on one of his famous BitShares.TV episodes...

What do you say?

I'm sorry, but I don't want to be associated with a network that is IMO used to disseminate Communist propaganda.  Also, I do NOT want to be involved with a company, Bitshares(TM), whose "shares are worth pennies", who is IMO intentionally violating numerous US securities laws.

*DecentralizeEconomics thinks for a second.*

Yeah, I'm going to have to pass on that one.  LOL

"If our competitors criticize us - it means that we do everything correctly" LOL

Lol.  Yeah, probably not.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

If the network is protected by actual stake ownership (like NXT), it is impossible to attack it by creating a large network of stakeless nodes.  The number of allowed forgers in a system should be regulated by market forces and not capped at some arbitrary amount.  "Decentralization" means everyone should be allowed to participate without the consent of an authority.  I believe this is a better system and less prone to abuse.  By adding voting (delegation) to PoS, you are adding a "social contruct" which allows a hierarchical system to develop.

If you had 10 Billion participates that forged 1% of the blocks and 1 individual who forged 99% of the blocks, I'd would say that is a fair and decentralized system as long as the one individual with 99% of the stake didn't have the means to levy a tax on the smaller stakeholders.  If the one individual with 99% of the stake dropped out of the network, the remaining 1% of the stake forging would then compromise 100% of the active stake forging.  Since the amount of available stake would be reduced by 99%, it would not make the network more susceptible to attack as long as that stake didn't fall into malicious hands.  Everyone should have the right to forge in proportion to his stake.

This is of course a ridiculous example that would never develop in any natural system.

So a person should only be able to forge proportional to their stake and not proportional to their effort?  And somehow this is superior according to your world view?

If you had 1 guy forging 99% of your blocks then he would have tremendous power and you would be far from decentralized. The number of partipants are important as long as their power is relatively equal, otherwise the power is too centralized.  Plenty of communistic societies had tons of "participants" and most of the wealth was centralized at the top.


NXT mining allows you to be able to do something like rental forging.  My understanding is it is the equivalent to voting and adds a "social construct".  

I like crypto-currencies but at my age it just gives me a headache arguing bizarro semantics.

You argue that DPOS will actually evolve into a meritocracy when in fact it won't.  Those in the Communist bureaucracy that DPoS creates will maintain their power through deceit, corruption, manipulation, and quid pro quo politics.  It's a system ripe for abuse and IMO the delegates were intentionally limited to 101 because that was a number that the Bitshares' elite believed they could successful manipulate while still claiming "decentralization".  Don't ask me to rationalize how they claim "decentralization" when Bytemaster is stating that they are programming centralization into Bitshares to make it more efficient and economical.  Allow me to quote myself:

"The role of decentralization in cryptocurrencies is unfortunately too little appreciated... Most people are still in the thraldom (slavery) of the idea that centralization is 'more efficient and economical.'  They close their eyes to the fact that the alleged 'economy' is achieved at the cost of the currency holders' rights, that the 'efficiency' degrades him to a mere tributary slave, deadens his ROI, kills his freedoms.  Furthermore, in a system of centralization the delegation of forging becomes constantly merged in fewer hands, producing a powerful bureaucracy of forging overlords.  It would indeed be the sheerest irony if the cryptocurrency movement were to aim at such a result.  It would mean the creation of a new master class."

True, if one individual had 99% of the stake, he would have tremendous power over such a system, but that is not a realistic scenario.  Why don't you support your arguments with rational examples.

What matters is not how MUCH stake any individual possesses, but how those with the most are or aren't able to disenfranchise everyone else.  All systems will evolve into 20% of the group owning 80%.  If you attempt to redistribute forging rights, regardless of the reason, you are effectively redistributing wealth and will create a system where those in power will maintain their power through manipulation and not because they earned it.  NXT is in fact the true meritocracy, not the BTSSR.

NXT allows leased forging which is like voting or pooling.  The difference is it is NOT forced on stakeholders.  Leased forging was implemented to allow stakeholders to forge safely.  The first account holds your NXT and is kept offline.  The second account is empty and is kept online.  You lease the balance from your first account to your second account.

[FandangledGizmo]

Wow.  I would love to hear a debate on this topic between you and Bytemaster!

Why don't you join one of Bytemaster's Friday Global Teleconference calls and just dangle that bait out there for him?  

Bytemaster takes live questions from a world wide audience every Friday at 10:00 AM Eastern Standard Time.  
I bet this topic would draw a large audience!
BitShares Global Teleconference

It would be recorded and published so everyone here could listen at their leisure...



Or we could get Max Wright to interview the two of you on one of his famous BitShares.TV episodes...

What do you say?

I'm sorry, but I don't want to be associated with a network that is IMO used to disseminate Communist propaganda.  

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

Propaganda is a powerful weapon used in war; it is used to dehumanize and create hatred toward a supposed enemy, either internal or external, by creating a false image in the mind.

The only person engaging in dehumanising caricatures/encouraging hatred towards/false image creation is you imo...

The original ideology of Bitcoin, NXT and cryptocurrencies in general was one that was diametrically OPPOSED to the practice of wealth redistribution and forced subsidies to businesses and banks.

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
- Bitcoin Genesis Block

It has come to my attention that Bitshares, their developers and entrenched business interests are attempting to infiltrate our movement, which is founded on freedom and independence and perpetuate a forced wealth redistribution scheme under the guise of allegiance to our founding ideals.  Their plot is no less sinister than an intentional conspiracy to disenfranchise Bitshares' stakeholders while holding them liable to be taxed against their will to subsidize these aforementioned interest groups.  I hereby call on all persons who hold liberty in their heart to condemn this treacherous attempt at subterfuge against us!

In fact, by the time BitShares reaches Bitcoin's market cap, each delegate will be one of 101 small businesses, selected by the stakeholders, each using a revenue stream of several million dollars apiece to grow the ecosystem.  Powerful stuff to look forward to!

This is obviously some type of Communist conspiracy no doubt orchestrated at the highest levels of Bitshares(TM), the company.

The hierarchy of Bitshares(TM), the company, and their ungodly creation is best illustrated in the above picture.  The whole organization has an uncanny resemblance to pre-revolutionary France, circa 1789.  As you can see, the Bitshares' devs are the "FIRST ESTATE" and believe it is their right to be given a position of power over the stakeholders.  The "SECOND ESTATE" are entrenched business interests who are powerful enough to force stakeholders to subsidize their operations.  You may find an analogy to taxpayer bailouts for banks and corporations in recent times more understandable, but you can equally relate this situation to the clergy in the land of the Roi.  Regardless of which business you choose, you still must pay your dues to your masters.  Clearly, the "THIRD ESTATE" is the Bitshares' holders.  You can ascertain they are carrying the First and Second Estates on their backs and unduly burdened by their monstrous weight.

I FEEL IT IS MY DUTY, AS ONE WHO BELIEVES IN THE FOUNDING IDEALS OF BITCOIN, NXT AND DECENTRALIZATION, TO INFORM THOSE WHO ARE UNAWARE OF THIS PLOT.

I URGE YOU.  DO NOT LET SUCH AN ATROCITY CONTINUE TO MASQUERADE AS A CRYPTOCURRENCY.  IF ALLOWED TO FESTER, THIS SORE WILL UNDOUBTEDLY INFECT MORE UNWITTING INDIVIDUALS AND FACILITATE IN THE COMPLETE DOWNFALL OF OUR MOVEMENT!

Your OP is filled to the brim with conventional propaganda techniques, including exaggerated & caricatured poster propaganda. Nearly every post you make, maximises loaded, bolded and capitalized language to elicit an emotional rather than reasoned response. What you are doing is propagandanising imo.

[bitcoin2.0]

Once again, i used to be one of the 10 PTS holders  
i was diluted down and sold half my holdings.

Yeah, my PTS magically changed into BitShares too, just not as many as you my Khan.  You obviously hold a huge amount of BitShares, and if

My interest is in the technical parts of this conversation not your "evangelism", so save us the trouble and let there be technical point by point conversation. Support BTS by proving the arguments against it's system wrong and you'll even win people like me back.

LOL, how can I win you back when you never left.  I declare BS.  If you left, then please leave, and I hope to Satoshi, that you unload every last one of your BitShares.   If all that I have to do is “evangelize” about the second coming of Bitcoin1.0 in the absence of fact, and you'll sell me the rest of your shares at a penny apiece, then let's make a deal for your soul my son, and allow me to lock out my number keypad and summon the almighty god of Bitcoin2.0!

Born out of the fire and free launch of a lowly bitcoin1.0 mortal coin named PTS, BitShares dove head first into the fiery crucible by sacrificing a rib (a small fraction of its decentralization security by limiting its total number of nodes to 101) as Adam did before him.  And the lord accepted the sacrificial offering with the same reverence he holds for burnt incense offerings.  By sacrificing the total value of its decentralized security BitShares arose like Frankenstein with a human brain, now fortified with the power to hire and fire any human in the world that the new human swarm consciousness believes will keep Frankenstein-coin alive and growing in the absence of total artificial computer intelligence.

It was only because of this newly bestowed power (to hire and fire its own miners), that this once lifeless bitcoin 1.0 (PTS) coin was allowed an ability to secure freedom for humans by humans.  Now this computer program (named BitShares), has the dynamic creativity of the collective human conscious to power it through whatever changing obstacles the humans see ahead for it in this dimension.

Like other immortal swarms before it, Satoshi's son BitShares will endure for eternity:

https://www.google.com/search?q=menudo&client=ubuntu&hs=QHJ&channel=fs&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=lWiyVImOI8T8yQTTtYLQCQ&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1535&bih=805

And as someone pointed out, throwing in a lot of links really isnt helping.

thank god,

And just as I prophesied some thread back:  "he who is last shall be first and he who is first shall be last."

http://www.gotquestions.org/first-last-last-first.html

The meek will inherit the earth because the power of the human consensus can no longer be corrupted.  The meek determine the pay of the developers.  Now, for the first time in human history, not only cannot we not be scammed by the fiat printing press, but we are also immune to uncle Kerp's thievery as well.  

Satoshi can now protect us from big brother and little uncle asshole with BitShares



yours truly





you guessed it:




https://bitcoinstar.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/btc-ver-e1382525432756.jpg?w=960&h=260&crop=1
-Bitcoin2.0

[15Lemon714]

OP

You have gave me the biggest stonk on for BTS thank you for your hard work in bringing forward another investor on the ground floor,

I am so happy thank you <3

[FandangledGizmo]

I see one of the largely NXT supporters from this thread, Daedelus has created a poll, around his interpretation of the BitShares model in the main Bitcoin discussion area

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=920621.new#new

[Daedelus]

Which parts of my description don't you agree with and I can adjust it.

There was only one useful comment back from my round up (testz, (s)he seems to be the only one interested in the tech rather than hollow evangelism (presumably on the promise of continued revenue)) so where did I go so wrong?

[hack_]

BitShares        , and then people realize

[DecentralizeEconomics]

[hack_]

Surprisingly accurate

[hack_]

Wow, ok who is that?

[DecentralizeEconomics]

Wow, ok who is that?

Premier Stanlin

[jrossIV]

If the network is protected by actual stake ownership (like NXT), it is impossible to attack it by creating a large network of stakeless nodes.  The number of allowed forgers in a system should be regulated by market forces and not capped at some arbitrary amount.  "Decentralization" means everyone should be allowed to participate without the consent of an authority.  I believe this is a better system and less prone to abuse.  By adding voting (delegation) to PoS, you are adding a "social contruct" which allows a hierarchical system to develop.

If you had 10 Billion participates that forged 1% of the blocks and 1 individual who forged 99% of the blocks, I'd would say that is a fair and decentralized system as long as the one individual with 99% of the stake didn't have the means to levy a tax on the smaller stakeholders.  If the one individual with 99% of the stake dropped out of the network, the remaining 1% of the stake forging would then compromise 100% of the active stake forging.  Since the amount of available stake would be reduced by 99%, it would not make the network more susceptible to attack as long as that stake didn't fall into malicious hands.  Everyone should have the right to forge in proportion to his stake.

This is of course a ridiculous example that would never develop in any natural system.

So a person should only be able to forge proportional to their stake and not proportional to their effort?  And somehow this is superior according to your world view?

If you had 1 guy forging 99% of your blocks then he would have tremendous power and you would be far from decentralized. The number of partipants are important as long as their power is relatively equal, otherwise the power is too centralized.  Plenty of communistic societies had tons of "participants" and most of the wealth was centralized at the top.


NXT mining allows you to be able to do something like rental forging.  My understanding is it is the equivalent to voting and adds a "social construct".  

I like crypto-currencies but at my age it just gives me a headache arguing bizarro semantics.

You argue that DPOS will actually evolve into a meritocracy when in fact it won't.  Those in the Communist bureaucracy that DPoS creates will maintain their power through deceit, corruption, manipulation, and quid pro quo politics.  It's a system ripe for abuse and IMO the delegates were intentionally limited to 101 because that was a number that the Bitshares' elite believed they could successful manipulate while still claiming "decentralization".  Don't ask me to rationalize how they claim "decentralization" when Bytemaster is stating that they are programming centralization into Bitshares to make it more efficient and economical.

True, if one individual had 99% of the stake, he would have tremendous power over such a system, but that is not a realistic scenario.  Why don't you support your arguments with rational examples.

What matters is not how MUCH stake any individual possesses, but how those with the most are or aren't able to disenfranchise everyone else.  All systems will evolve into 20% of the group owning 80%.  If you attempt to redistribute forging rights, regardless of the reason, you are effectively redistributing wealth and will create a system where those in power will maintain their power through manipulation and not because they earned it.  NXT is in fact the true meritocracy, not the BTSSR.

NXT allows leased forging which is like voting or pooling.  The difference is it is NOT forced on stakeholders.  Leased forging was implemented to allow stakeholders to forge safely.  The first account holds your NXT and is kept offline.  The second account is empty and is kept online.  You lease the balance from your first account to your second account.

I argue that those who are upkeeping the network get paid an equal amount for doing an equal amount of work.  If they wish to be paid more then they have to do work to be paid more. You argue those with the most stake should get paid more for the same amount of work.

My point about 1 guy containing 99% of the stake was an example to make it clear that your decentralization metrics are screwed up.  It could be 1 guy containing 93% of the stake, and 159 guys containing the other 7%.  The problem is just as bad. Participants matter even less than distribution of block creation power in the block-signing process.

Quoting the Pareto Principle is so incorrect I do not know where to start.  I've seen that 80/20 stuff misapplied to so many things. This particular one is close to the top.

Communism is a form of government that one has is not given the opportunity to opt-in to.  BitShares is more like a corporation.  You can buy stock or not.  The reality is your same arguments could readily be applied against any modern corporation and claim it is Communist.  The Board of Directors would be the "communist elite".  *THAT* is how weak your arguments are.

BTW I thought most of the leased forging had people voting with their stake by placing it in pools where they could gather their fees. This was done because the economics of it didn't really make it worth the hassle to keep a wallet up and going. So in effect, people are voting and your argument works just as strongly against NXT.

[jonald_fyookball]

Apples and oranges.  A corporation makes no claim of being decentralized and doesnt need to be.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

Apples and oranges.  A corporation makes no claim of being decentralized and doesnt need to be.

Exactly.

Communism is a form of government that one has is not given the opportunity to opt-in to.  BitShares is more like a corporation.  You can buy stock or not.  The reality is your same arguments could readily be applied against any modern corporation and claim it is Communist.  The Board of Directors would be the "communist elite".  *THAT* is how weak your arguments are.

The problem with your example is that your "Board of Directors" is RUNNING THE ECONOMY!  THAT IS STATE CAPITALISM WHICH IS COMMUNISM!

The comparison of BitShares to a public company was to demonstrate that unless you call a public company communist you cannot call BitShares communist and hence the propagandising basis of OP and much of this thread has been debunked, so I think it was productive to make that comparison.

If a single corporation ran the entire economy, then yes, it would be Communism.  Communism is a highly elitist, hierarchical, centralized system of control which disenfranchises the people (aka stakeholders) to empower the ruling party (aka 101 delegates).  Communism is best described as STATE CAPITALISM.  I agree with Stan that Bitshares is a company, but it is a company that commands complete control over the Bitshares' economy.  This is why Bitshares is Communist.

As Vladimir Lenin stated:

"We recognise and will continue to recognise only state capitalism, and it is we — we conscious workers, we Communists — who are the state. That is why we should brand as good-for-nothing Communists those who have failed to understand their task of restricting, curbing, checking and catching red-handed and inflicting exemplary chastisement on any kind of capitalism that goes beyond the framework of state capitalism in our meaning of the concept and tasks of the state."

Bitshares is identical to Communism.  Unless you are a part of the "ruling class" (aka 101 delegates), you are subject to taxation via inflation.  "The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation." - Vladimir Lenin  These 101 delegates use their power to maintain a stranglehold on the system by taxing competing businesses and shareholders.  Lenin once again describes such a system as “nothing but state capitalist monopoly made to benefit the whole people."  The fallacy of such a statement is that it only benefits the "new master class" (aka 101 delegates).

This does not make BitShares centralized as 'Decentralized' and 'company' are not two mutually exclusive terms, that would be like arguing Bitcoin is centralized because the currencies preceding it were centralized.

Bitshares is a centrally administered corporation which controls the entire economy.  As I have said before, the delegates use their stake to maintain their position and form a monopoly over the system.  This is not a system which promotes free enterprise, but is the very definition of Supercapitalism (aka Crony Capitalism).

BTW I thought most of the leased forging had people voting with their stake by placing it in pools where they could gather their fees. This was done because the economics of it didn't really make it worth the hassle to keep a wallet up and going. So in effect, people are voting and your argument works just as strongly against NXT.

You're wrong.  NXT doesn't force stakeholders to participate in leased forging.  Bitshares forces the stakeholders to ELECT privileged individuals.

[testz]

You're wrong.  NXT doesn't force stakeholders to participate in leased forging.  Bitshares forces the stakeholders to ELECT privileged individuals.

You think you need to force someone to take profit? 
Nxt stakeholders can forging alone, at least this 15 individuals: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2015/01/13/Decentralization-of-Nxt-vs-BitShares

[jonald_fyookball]

You're wrong.  NXT doesn't force stakeholders to participate in leased forging.  Bitshares forces the stakeholders to ELECT privileged individuals.

You think you need to force someone to take profit? 

Non-sequitor.

The fact that stakeholders must necessarily vote
on representatives has nothing to do with the
fact that everyone likes to profit (including
those that would be elected).

You just worded it in a clever way to make
the original argument appear questionable... but
I think you know that.

[testz]

You're wrong.  NXT doesn't force stakeholders to participate in leased forging.  Bitshares forces the stakeholders to ELECT privileged individuals.

You think you need to force someone to take profit? 

Non-sequitor.

The fact that stakeholders must necessarily vote
on representatives has nothing to do with the
fact that everyone likes to profit (including
those that would be elected).

You just worded it in a clever way to make
the original argument appear questionable... but
I think you know that.

Yes, it's was rhetorical question.
I just want to show that "Bitshares forces the stakeholders to ELECT privileged individuals" ~= "Nxt shareholders should forging"

As you can see here http://bitsharesblocks.com/delegates even Bitshares "forces" the stakeholders the only 16% of them voted.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

You're wrong.  NXT doesn't force stakeholders to participate in leased forging.  Bitshares forces the stakeholders to ELECT privileged individuals.

You think you need to force someone to take profit? 

Non-sequitor.

The fact that stakeholders must necessarily vote
on representatives has nothing to do with the
fact that everyone likes to profit (including
those that would be elected).

You just worded it in a clever way to make
the original argument appear questionable... but
I think you know that.

Yes, it's was rhetorical question.
I just want to show that "Bitshares forces the stakeholders to ELECT privileged individuals" ~= "Nxt shareholders should forging"

As you can see here http://bitsharesblocks.com/delegates even Bitshares "forces" the stakeholders the only 16% of them voted.

You're arguing semantics.  You and I both know that Bitshares' stakeholders can't forge on their own.

[mrkavasaki]

bitshares will overtake bitcoin soon

[FandangledGizmo]

Apologies it doesn't seem to let me quote from the thread you locked Daedalus, I hope this suffices...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=920621.msg10135356#msg10135356

FandangledGizmo:

http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2015/01/13/Decentralization-of-Nxt-vs-BitShares/

60% of all blocks are produced by just 15 people

I wish NXT luck with their model and I hope it scales well in the future but NXT doesn't seem currently very decentralized imo.

Daedalus: Thank you, I think you have been listening. With all crypto still in bootstrapping, it is the future picture that counts.

Imo BitShares doesn't try to maximize decentralization but optimize decentralization.

Despite a year's worth of bootstrapping,  NXT with it's 2 minute average block times and 15 accounts signing  60% of blocks appears to be currently both an inferior performance and more centralized blockchain.

If another blockchain can offer more optimal performance and large gains in useful decentralization then BitShares holders are able to change their model including the 101 number.

As Toast said in the same locked thread...

Toast: Maybe one day BTS stakeholders will do a cost/benefit analysis and realize that spending 10x on validation is worth the perceived extra decentralization. Heck maybe even spending a few thousand a year for anyone to opt-in to a mailing list that says "you, too, are helping secure the network" - equivalent to what small-time miners or forgers are experiencing right now.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=920621.msg10127852#msg10127852

[Daedelus]

Apologies it doesn't seem to let me quote from the thread you locked Daedalus, I hope this suffices...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=920621.msg10135356#msg10135356

FandangledGizmo:

http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2015/01/13/Decentralization-of-Nxt-vs-BitShares/

60% of all blocks are produced by just 15 people

I wish NXT luck with their model and I hope it scales well in the future but NXT doesn't seem currently very decentralized imo.

Daedalus: Thank you, I think you have been listening. With all crypto still in bootstrapping, it is the future picture that counts.

Imo BitShares doesn't try to maximize decentralization but optimize decentralization.

Despite a year's worth of bootstrapping,  NXT with it's 2 minute average block times and 15 accounts signing  60% of blocks appears to be currently be both an inferior performance and more centralized blockchain.

If another blockchain can offer more optimal performance and large gains in useful decentralization then BitShares holders are able to change their model including the 101 number.

As Toast said in the same locked thread...

Toast: Maybe one day BTS stakeholders will do a cost/benefit analysis and realize that spending 10x on validation is worth the perceived extra decentralization. Heck maybe even spending a few thousand a year for anyone to opt-in to a mailing list that says "you, too, are helping secure the network" - equivalent to what small-time miners or forgers are experiencing right now.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=920621.msg10127852#msg10127852

This is a problem. I discussed the problems in changing the 101 number waaay up thread. The incentives work against it. But I am getting tired of repeating myself. I will await Bytemaster's response to Come-from-Beyond.

[matt608]

If BitShares stakeholder numbers grow and there remain 101 delegates it becomes more centralised while remaining sufficiently decentralised.  The purpose of decentralisation is to protect the network from being shutdown.  It doesn't matter if there are thousands of stakeholders or millions, 101 delegates is sufficiently decentralised to protect the network.

It part of the incentive structure for the large stake holders to vote for delegates who bring value to the system, not to just vote themselves in.  That undermines their own investment.  If you look in the delegate proposal section on the bitsharestalk forum, you will see free market competition is thriving, we have multiple exchanges, marketers and developers competing for delegate spots.  

[Shuai]

At some point the amount of delegates will be increased. Most likely this will be as the network grows so incredibly large and valuable that adding diminishing amounts of increasing decentralization is worth the linear cost of adding extra block producing nodes. It could also be if NXT ever gets its shit together and manages to have more than 16 nodes controlling half the network. If NXT started approaching 51 block producers for half the blocks then bitshares voters will probably support doubling the amount of delegates for the sake of PR, just so BitShares continues being more decentralized than NXT.

One thing is for sure, NXT will NEVER have more independent block producers than bitshares because leased forging encourages centralization and the only way to get forgers to spread out will be by begging them to do so, the same way BTC users have to beg miners not to join GHASH and discus fish.

With bitshares you just vote for a hard fork that forces the amount of block producers to increase, and then you vote for delegates who are either old and trusted community members, who have revealed their identity, or who are blockchain employees doing quantifiable work (thus proving they are not a sockpuppet). No other blockchain even have any reliable methods to determine their degree of decentralization, which is the first step to systematically increase it in the long run. We'll never know if GHASH secretly controlled more than 51% of mining power all along, and we'll never know how many of the 16 NXT pools are controlled by the same person.

[jrossIV]

At some point the amount of delegates will be increased. Most likely this will be as the network grows so incredibly large and valuable that adding diminishing amounts of increasing decentralization is worth the linear cost of adding extra block producing nodes. It could also be if NXT ever gets its shit together and manages to have more than 16 nodes controlling half the network. If NXT started approaching 51 block producers for half the blocks then bitshares voters will probably support doubling the amount of delegates for the sake of PR, just so BitShares continues being more decentralized than NXT.

One thing is for sure, NXT will NEVER have more independent block producers than bitshares because leased forging encourages centralization and the only way to get forgers to spread out will be by begging them to do so, the same way BTC users have to beg miners not to join GHASH and discus fish.

With bitshares you just vote for a hard fork that forces the amount of block producers to increase, and then you vote for delegates who are either old and trusted community members, who have revealed their identity, or who are blockchain employees doing quantifiable work (thus proving they are not a sockpuppet). No other blockchain even have any reliable methods to determine their degree of decentralization, which is the first step to systematically increase it in the long run. We'll never know if GHASH secretly controlled more than 51% of mining power all along, and we'll never know how many of the 16 NXT pools are controlled by the same person.

And having more than 101 delegates might not be so great because the list of block-signers becomes so big that it has to be professionally managed which adds a different type of centralization.  (a type of centralization = attack vector)

[DecentralizeEconomics]

If BitShares stakeholder numbers grow and there remain 101 delegates it becomes more centralised while remaining sufficiently decentralised.  The purpose of decentralisation is to protect the network from being shutdown.  It doesn't matter if there are thousands of stakeholders or millions, 101 delegates is sufficiently decentralised to protect the network.

It part of the incentive structure for the large stake holders to vote for delegates who bring value to the system, not to just vote themselves in.  That undermines their own investment.  If you look in the delegate proposal section on the bitsharestalk forum, you will see free market competition is thriving, we have multiple exchanges, marketers and developers competing for delegate spots.  

Yes, I keep trying to convince people that the Federal Reserve is "sufficiently decentralized" because it has seven governors, but no one believes me.

At some point the amount of delegates will be increased. Most likely this will be as the network grows so incredibly large and valuable that adding diminishing amounts of increasing decentralization is worth the linear cost of adding extra block producing nodes. It could also be if NXT ever gets its shit together and manages to have more than 16 nodes controlling half the network. If NXT started approaching 51 block producers for half the blocks then bitshares voters will probably support doubling the amount of delegates for the sake of PR, just so BitShares continues being more decentralized than NXT.

One thing is for sure, NXT will NEVER have more independent block producers than bitshares because leased forging encourages centralization and the only way to get forgers to spread out will be by begging them to do so, the same way BTC users have to beg miners not to join GHASH and discus fish.

With bitshares you just vote for a hard fork that forces the amount of block producers to increase, and then you vote for delegates who are either old and trusted community members, who have revealed their identity, or who are blockchain employees doing quantifiable work (thus proving they are not a sockpuppet). No other blockchain even have any reliable methods to determine their degree of decentralization, which is the first step to systematically increase it in the long run. We'll never know if GHASH secretly controlled more than 51% of mining power all along, and we'll never know how many of the 16 NXT pools are controlled by the same person.

Communist lies.  NXT doesn't force anyone to lease their forging power and it gives no added benefit except for more consistent payouts if you are impatient.  Leasing was only implemented to allow NXTers to keep their main wallets offline and safe, but still be able to forge with the balance by leasing their stakepower to an online account they also control.  Bitshares' forces you to elect 101 delegates to forge for the entire network.  Because you use "approval voting" the mass majority of the delegates can be voted in by a coalition of a few wealthy stakeholders.  Like all Communists, you want to redistribute wealth (forging power) under the illusion of "economy" and "efficiency".  A stakeholder should be allowed to forge in proportion to his investment.  That's not "centralization"; it's "free market capitalism".

And having more than 101 delegates might not be so great because the list of block-signers becomes so big that it has to be professionally managed which adds a different type of centralization.  (a type of centralization = attack vector)

Really?  Independent forgers need to be "professionally managed"?  How did you come up with that ridiculous idea?

[bitcreditscc]

It's hilarious, i read their forums. Much drinking of the cool-aidz.

And then there was the call to arms they actually held a forum rally to come and defendtheir broken system.

Oh but the discussions here had one good effect, Bytemaster got off his throne/blog where his acolytes worship and went back to coding.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

For all those interested in how a few of the wealthiest Bitshares' stakeholders can effectively rig the mass majority of the elections, here is how.

It doesn't matter if you collect delegates' SSNs, driver's licenses, birth certificates and thumbprints, Bitshares' DPoS mechanism will always be susceptible to manipulation.  You have introduced a "social construct" (aka voting) which turns Bitshares' delegates into a "government of the wealthy".  No one will ever know what type of "behind-the-scenes" politics is going on which results in which delegates are selected.

Because you have instituted this ridiculous charade into chain security, all your figures on "decentralization" and "speed of decentralization" are speculative and assume that all 101 delegates are unique, non-colluding individuals.  The fact is all these delegates are not going to compete against each other for a position.  Who will become a delegate and control the delegate selection process are the wealthiest stakeholders.  This will be accomplished in a quid pro quo manner.  This means that really Bitshares is less decentralized than NXT because they will be able to form political/business coalitions which imo will result in them dominating the delegate selection process.  The wealthiest stakeholders in Bitshares can do this very easily because it is an "Approval Voting" process.  This allows stakeholders to put the entire weight of their stake behind each and every delegate they approve. The Bitshares' devs will deny this to the very end because they are part of this "ruling elite".

I think I could make a pretty good argument that delegates' "real world" identities being known by the community doesn't really matter or prevent a "Sybil attack".  Imo, what would constitute a "Sybil attack" is the collusion of delegates' motives.  I'm also pretty positive that the colluding delegates wouldn't "harm" the Bitshares' ecosystem, but instead use their power to manipulate delegate elections to capitalize on the delegate positions.  Everybody can know everyones' name, but it's impossible to know their true intentions.

Any block chain has the problem that a few big players can collude, whether they are large stakeholders or large hashpoolers.  We dilute that down to under one percent influence per delegate, max.

Then there's the question of what they can collude about.  We can all observe whether they are performing their very limited block signing job to spec or not. We can look at their published price feeds. They have no other power.

That's true that in all blockchains stakeholders/hashpower can collude, but they can only collude in a one-to-one proportion to their stake/hash.  Since approval voting is used in delegate elections, I maintain that large stakeholders can effectively collude to a multiple proportion of their stake.  Whereby, for example, 20% of colluding stake can disproportionately influence the elections of more than 20% of the delegates.  This leads to a coalition of a few wealthy stakeholders being able to determine the outcomes of the mass majority of the delegate elections.  This is especially true considering that voter turnout of smaller stakeholders will be lower than the voter turnout of larger stakeholders.  As I said previously, it would be the intention of the colluding wealthy stakeholders to not harm Bitshares, but to elect delegates from which they would derive monetary gain in excess to their proportion of stake in the system at the expense of all other stakeholders.

Let's give an example.  Remember, in "approval voting", voters do not just vote for one delegate.  They can select as many or as few delegates as they wish and the entire weight of their stake counts towards each delegate they choose.  Say for instance that the top delegate has 50% of the vote and the 101st delegate has 30% of the vote.  The voting spread percentage is 20% (50%-30%).  If the votes per delegate is a linear increase according to delegate rank, an additional 10% of the stake vote will move the 101st delegate to the 50th position.  Likewise, a removal of 10% of the stake vote from the lower 50 delegates will result in them losing their delegate position.  By strategically voting, a few wealthy stakeholders can influence a disproportionate number of delegate positions in relation to their actual stake.  In this example, a coalition of 10% stake was able to control 50% of the delegates.

Does this sound fair to you?!

[StanLarimer]

"Fairness" has nothing to do with it.  The goal is to build a reliable blockchain company that will provide great service to it's customers and a rate of return to its owners.  Companies hire service providers to provide services, not as wealth distribution mechanism to "give everyone a chance to earn a little bit".  Reliability, integrity and profitability are our design objectives.  So any cost-effective implementation that reliably signs blocks correctly is acceptable.

For POW, POS, and DPOS systems large stakeholders control a disproportionately large portion of who signs the blocks unless the multitudes of small stakeholders are motivated to participate.

This generally does not happen for any of the systems because of a phenomenon known as rational ignorance.

Rational ignorance occurs when the cost of educating oneself on an issue exceeds the potential benefit that the knowledge would provide.  Ignorance about an issue is said to be "rational" when the cost of educating oneself about the issue sufficiently to make an informed decision can outweigh any potential benefit one could reasonably expect to gain from that decision, and so it would be irrational to waste time doing so. This has consequences for the quality of decisions made by large numbers of people, such as general elections, where the probability of any one vote changing the outcome is very small.   -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_ignorance

In a POW system, to make any impact a small hasher would need to remove herself from the hashing pool that she has had doing the signing for her (or at least make an independent decision about what software to run) - an act that requires becoming informed about that whole process.  Then, the impact is felt only in the very rare event that lightning strikes that node and her software actually gets to sign a single block.  To continue having any effect, she needs to keep running her node and staying informed - both of which involve large continuing costs.  The rational ignorance principle says she probably won't.  Most holders of POW coins buy them rather than mining them and thus have no say at all.

In a POS system, to make any impact a small forger would need to remove herself from the leasing pool that had been doing the signing for her (or at least make an independent decision about what software to run) - an act that requires becoming informed about that whole process.  Then, the impact is felt only in the very rare event that lightning strikes that node and her software actually gets to sign a single block.  To continue having any effect, she needs to keep running her node and staying informed - both of which involve continuing costs.  The rational ignorance principle says she probably won't.  

In a DPOS system, a small voter is still subject to the rational ignorance principle most of the time, but, when there is a problem, she can wake up and become informed on the source of the problem (probably by studying the forum debate and taking the advice from people there she trusts).  Then, in a few clicks she can vote in a new slate of delegates, change who is running the system, and go about her business - without needing to sustain her efforts or incur any further costs.  Her one time input takes place immediately and the problem is fixed.  

With the other systems, the vigilance of the masses will eventually fade and the problem can reemerge.

With POW and POS, large players have absolute power over what software gets run every time they get a turn.

With DPOS, large players may have the final say, but they must pick from a pool of candidates that already have the most approval from everybody else.  If the candidates preferred by the big players haven't done the reputation building work to attract enough voter attention from the masses to be close to getting elected, then those candidates are simply ineligible.

Bottom line is that the DPOS process only allows nodes that have reputations that are sufficiently trusted by the general population and those reputations can be burned out of contention by a jury of their peers at the slightest perception of misbehavior.  

Reputations are hard to earn and easy to burn.

And everybody has a fair say about whether they trust each and every candidate.

Thus DPOS is the only solution of the three discussed here, that has a way to ensure that all signing nodes have passed the threshold of generally acceptable reputations.  This means that every single DPOS block is signed by someone with an acceptable reputation to the owners of its tokens and never more than 1% of the blocks are signed by any one node.

That's all the typical small holder really cares about.

[TaunSew]

Bitshares Communist vs NxT free world?   

[testz]

Bitshares Communist vs NxT free world?  

This topic about BitShares Communist Edition, never seen Nxt Free World topic.  

[DecentralizeEconomics]

"Fairness" has nothing to do with it.

That's what I thought.  Thank you for admitting that to the community.

The wealthiest stakeholders will be able to field the most delegate candidates because you have to pay ~$1100 USD to run for a delegate position.  The only limitation on how many delegates you can run is the depth of your pockets.  The delegate candidates of the wealthy stakeholders will also have the financial backing to out campaign the delegate candidates which aren't part of the "coalition of the wealthy".  No one really knows what delegates are part of this scheme and what type of kickbacks the elected delegates are giving back to their "sponsors".  These "kickbacks" can potentially be paid off-chain to keep it a secret.  Because of this, it can be surmised that a very high percentage of all potential delegates will be owned by the "coalition of the wealthy".  Since, as shown previously, a very small percentage of stake can control the outcomes of a highly disproportionate amount of elections, the entire system is basically owned by these wealthy stakeholders.  Imo, this is a system intentionally designed to enrich the wealthiest stakeholders at the expense of everyone else.

[chryspano]

Oligarchs of nxt feel very uneasy lately, I wonder why   

[jonald_fyookball]

"Fairness" has nothing to do with it.  The goal is to build a reliable blockchain company that will provide great service to it's customers and a rate of return to its owners.  Companies hire service providers to provide services, not as wealth distribution mechanism to "give everyone a chance to earn a little bit".  Reliability, integrity and profitability are our design objectives.  So any cost-effective implementation that reliably signs blocks correctly is acceptable.

For POW, POS, and DPOS systems large stakeholders control a disproportionately large portion of who signs the blocks unless the multitudes of small stakeholders are motivated to participate.

This generally does not happen for any of the systems because of a phenomenon known as rational ignorance.

Rational ignorance occurs when the cost of educating oneself on an issue exceeds the potential benefit that the knowledge would provide.  Ignorance about an issue is said to be "rational" when the cost of educating oneself about the issue sufficiently to make an informed decision can outweigh any potential benefit one could reasonably expect to gain from that decision, and so it would be irrational to waste time doing so. This has consequences for the quality of decisions made by large numbers of people, such as general elections, where the probability of any one vote changing the outcome is very small.   -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_ignorance

In a POW system, to make any impact a small hasher would need to remove herself from the hashing pool that she has had doing the signing for her (or at least make an independent decision about what software to run) - an act that requires becoming informed about that whole process.  Then, the impact is felt only in the very rare event that lightning strikes that node and her software actually gets to sign a single block.  To continue having any effect, she needs to keep running her node and staying informed - both of which involve large continuing costs.  The rational ignorance principle says she probably won't.  Most holders of POW coins buy them rather than mining them and thus have no say at all.

In a POS system, to make any impact a small forger would need to remove herself from the leasing pool that had been doing the signing for her (or at least make an independent decision about what software to run) - an act that requires becoming informed about that whole process.  Then, the impact is felt only in the very rare event that lightning strikes that node and her software actually gets to sign a single block.  To continue having any effect, she needs to keep running her node and staying informed - both of which involve continuing costs.  The rational ignorance principle says she probably won't.  

In a DPOS system, a small voter is still subject to the rational ignorance principle most of the time, but, when there is a problem, she can wake up and become informed on the source of the problem (probably by studying the forum debate and taking the advice from people there she trusts).  Then, in a few clicks she can vote in a new slate of delegates, change who is running the system, and go about her business - without needing to sustain her efforts or incur any further costs.  Her one time input takes place immediately and the problem is fixed.  

With the other systems, the vigilance of the masses will eventually fade and the problem can reemerge.

With POW and POS, large players have absolute power over what software gets run every time they get a turn.

With DPOS, large players may have the final say, but they must pick from a pool of candidates that already have the most approval from everybody else.  If the candidates preferred by the big players haven't done the reputation building work to attract enough voter attention from the masses to be close to getting elected, then those candidates are simply ineligible.

Bottom line is that the DPOS process only allows nodes that have reputations that are sufficiently trusted by the general population and those reputations can be burned out of contention by a jury of their peers at the slightest perception of misbehavior.  

Reputations are hard to earn and easy to burn.

And everybody has a fair say about whether they trust each and every candidate.

Thus DPOS is the only solution of the three discussed here, that has a way to ensure that all signing nodes have passed the threshold of generally acceptable reputations.  This means that every single DPOS block is signed by someone with an acceptable reputation to the owners of its tokens and never more than 1% of the blocks are signed by any one node.

That's all the typical small holder really cares about.

Mt gox had a good reputation too, until it didn't.  So did Bernie Madoff and Enron.

[StanLarimer]

Reputation alone is insufficient.  

You must engineer a system that combines these features to avoid a Mt. Gox:

1.  Hard to earn / easy to lose reputation (BTS delegates must earn trust of most voters over time).
2.  Strict limitations on what the actors can do (all they can do is sign blocks, or not).
3.  Transparent visibility into actor behavior (improper blocks are obvious to all).
4.  Ability for owners to quickly fire bad actors (click to remove individual approval).
5.  Tracking approval on a transparent block chain (no way to cheat in electing delegates).
6.  Limit the max scope of any single actor (less than 1% nodes signed by any one actor).

[jonald_fyookball]

Reputation alone is insufficient.  

You must engineer a system that combines these features to avoid a Mt. Gox:

1.  Hard to earn / easy to lose reputation (BTS delegates must earn trust of most voters over time).
2.  Strict limitations on what the actors can do (all they can do is sign blocks, or not).
3.  Transparent visibility into actor behavior (improper blocks are obvious to all).
4.  Ability for owners to quickly fire bad actors (click to remove individual approval).
5.  Tracking approval on a transparent block chain (no way to cheat in electing delegates).
6.  Limit the max scope of any single actor (less than 1% nodes signed by any one actor).

Well there is nothing new about the fact that
in any cryptocurrency that there are limits
on what bad actors can do, and that there is a protocol that has
to be followed.  

Reputations generally ARE hard to earn and easy to lose.
However, if there is money at stake, people will go to
elaborate lengths to cheat.

Layering a social construct on top of cryptocurrency
a la Bitshares is not a panacea for security, at least
as far I've seen.

[StanLarimer]

Nothing is a panacea for security, especially not single-idea mathematical constructs. 

We are innovating to engineer a series of transparent, interlocking "trust but verify" mechanisms to protect the rights of all owners.  Each of these mechanisms was introduced into the design to help solve problems we discovered when attempting to leverage the open source code of the giants upon whose shoulders we now stand.  BitShares was delayed six months while we worked from POW to POS to TAPOS to DPOS in an effort to overcome these limitations.  We kept at it until we reached the design we have today.  We will continue to innovate as necessary and release the results for others to build still higher upon.  I expect that 10 years from now folks won't even recognize the new solutions that will have evolved.

But, for now, we have taken the approach that, since all crypto currencies ultimately fall back on some combination of their developers and their largest hashers/forgers as the ultimate authorities to appeal to when something goes wrong, we might as well make that role explicit and place control of who serves that role directly in the hands of the token owners.

In pure POW and POS systems the wealthy assign themselves that role and there is nothing the smaller owners can do about it.

In DPOS, the small owners can easily gang up on the larger stakeholders to dismiss unacceptable developers and marketers and block signers with one click -- from the comfort of their easy chairs, and still get back to the game by the end of the commercials.

Show me another leading chain that provides a better way to regulate the influence of the largest pools of power, and we will do our best to incorporate whatever best practices we can learn from them.

[jonald_fyookball]

In pure POW and POS systems the wealthy assign themselves that role and there is nothing the smaller owners can do about it.

In DPOS, the small owners can easily gang up on the larger stakeholders to dismiss unacceptable developers and marketers and block signers with one click  

How so?

Large stakeholders still hold stake power, and they can vote in who they want, so what's the difference?
 
Say you have a big fish who owns 40% of the stake.

In DPOS, the big fish still can vote in 40% of the delegates, controlling 40% of the blocks.
In POS, the big fish directly controls 40% of the blocks.

Don't see any advantage.

[StanLarimer]

How so?

Large stakeholders still hold stake power, and they can vote in who they want, so what's the difference?
 
Say you have a big fish who owns 40% of the stake.

In DPOS, the big fish still can vote in 40% of the delegates, controlling 40% of the blocks.
In POS, the big fish directly controls 40% of the blocks.

Don't see any advantage.

That's not how approval voting works.  Each candidate delegate runs in a separate election.  The top 101 vote getters are hired.  Lose a few votes one afternoon and you are fired.

If there ever was a fish with 40%, then it would indeed take 41% of the remaining stakeholders to agree on an alternative slate.  

But they could do it.  

If they all agree on that alternative slate, the big fish would get zero delegates.  To the extent they spread out their vote among more than 101 candidates he may get a few or more.

If enough shareholders don't disagree or don't care about the selected slate, then the wishes of the person who owned 40% should be honored - as the person with the most at stake and the biggest interest in its success (and perhaps the most likely to invest in other parts of the ecosystem that benefit everybody.)

Long before this, someone would fork BitShares into a competitor with a sharedrop on everybody but the big fish.
Or, if it was a problem in perceived risk or performance, the ultimate remedy for the little guy is to simply sell.

To acquire such a large stake, the big fish would have to drive the share price up very high - to the delight of the little guy - and then risk getting cut out by a competing fork that would honor everyone but himself.

So, with DPOS there are many remedies if such a problem ever escalates.

Or, shareholders may not care if Donald Trump owns 40% since they can monitor the behavior of his delegates to detect any funny business.

In fact, if Donald ever announced he was acquiring 40% of BitShares, I think I might be HODLing for dear life.  

[ThomasVeil]

If there ever was a fish with 40%, then it would indeed take 41% of the remaining stakeholders to agree on an alternative slate.  

But they could do it.  

If they all agree on that alternative slate, the big fish would get zero delegates.

Wait... ehm... didn't think of that before - but if you suggest that a good strategy can fully outsmart such a big stake, then this is much more likely to lead to an attack.
We can safely assume that a single owner of a big stake will vote much better coordinated than the rest. Add that this person could have also several delegates that get voted in by the rest of the stake. It follows: what you essentially did with the delegates is lower the amount of stake it takes for an attack.

This depends on two factors: clever math of an attacker, and stupid voting of the masses.
I would take those factors itself as a given. How low the necessary stake is, just depends on how bad they get.

[StanLarimer]

It is true that we can't empower the little guy while denying him his right to be stupid.  

But remember, we are not electing delegates with unlimited power to, um, vote for national health care or something.  All a delegate can do is sign blocks or not.  We can observe bad behavior in this very limited task and inform the less informed.  Then the community must arrive at a consensus of what to do about it - and hold the guilty accountable.

We know who they are.

The technical delegates hired by the blockchain publish their technical opinions.  All delegates, filtered by reputation, work to find a consensus themselves if bad blocks start showing up.  Failing that, individual investors can vote, sell, or fork a competitor.  All of these layers of defense deter bad behavior.  We are engineering a man-machine system and designing it to use all the resources and techniques at its disposal.

We view crypto tools as ways to assist humans in forming a real-time consensus and have embraced the idea that the ultimate control lies in humans handling the grave exceptions by consensus.  All other chains do this too.  We just admit it and design to manage it.

For example, if less than 90 delegates agree, all user wallets are given a yellow alert.  If below 80, the system automatically go to red alert. Worst case here is delegates declare a "bank holiday" and sort it all out until they get up above 90% consensus again.  Most banks are only open a small amount of time anyway - hence the term "bankers' hours".    So far, our up time has been nearly 24x7 since launch so we already beat the banks in that category.

The important thing is we that we achieve immunity from the corrupt abuses of the current financial system.

And that is our real competitor.

[jonald_fyookball]

How so?

Large stakeholders still hold stake power, and they can vote in who they want, so what's the difference?
 
Say you have a big fish who owns 40% of the stake.

In DPOS, the big fish still can vote in 40% of the delegates, controlling 40% of the blocks.
In POS, the big fish directly controls 40% of the blocks.

Don't see any advantage.

That's not how approval voting works.  Each candidate delegate runs in a separate election.  The top 101 vote getters are hired.  Lose a few votes one afternoon and you are fired.

If there ever was a fish with 40%, then it would indeed take 41% of the remaining stakeholders to agree on an alternative slate.  
 

I see.

Well if that is how it works, then
you would be correct that a big
stake holder could be overruled.

However...the trade-off comes in
the form of:

#1) as you pointed out, this kind
of scheme allows a large stakeholder
to control 100% of the blocks if
there isn't consensus among everyone
else, and it is hard to imagine there
wouldn't be some disagreement at
some point.
 
#2) it opens up attack for the 40%
fish to temporarily take 100%
control if he can create fake delegates
or bribe other stake holders.

and

#3) it incentives an arms
race in general for delegates slots
which could be competed for
more cheaply than acquiring
stake itself.

[fluxer555]

I may be off with my assessment here, but this is what I think.

Since there is virtually no cost to forking the chain and excluding offending stake, large stakeholders must be very careful with offending the majority of individuals, regardless of how little they hold. It may even be the case that being a large stakeholder is so risky that nobody would want to be one. This gives DPOS a kind of game-theory self-defense system whereby either large stakeholders are forced to appeal to the majority of individuals, do nothing at all, or only vote with a fraction of their stake. Meanwhile, the majority of individuals will be eager to exclude large stakeholders, as the larger they are, the more they have to gain by doing so.

Thinking of things this way, perhaps a bigger issue is: Can we trust consensus to not cryptographically murder the wealth of large stakeholders, whether they are offending them or not, for their own benefit? Stakeholders can currently vote out delegates that are not bringing any value to the system. Will voting stakeholders out and redistributing their stake also become standard?

If the USA could collectively collaborate to non-violently fork out the top 1% of individuals who own 99% of the country's wealth, how long would it take to achieve 51% consensus, considering each individual would receive many thousands of dollars? Does DPOS create a way to incentivize its economy to have a reasonable Gini coefficient?

[StanLarimer]

Well if that is how it works, then
you would be correct that a big
stake holder could be overruled.

However...the trade-off comes in the form of:

#1) hard to imagine there wouldn't be some disagreement at some point.
 
#2) if he can create fake delegates or bribe other stake holders.

#3)  delegates slots could be competed for more cheaply than acquiring stake itself.

Disagreements are fine.  Resolution is based on stake held.  If someone owns 99%, then its certainly within their rights to run the company however they see fit.  This is in fact how all public companies are run.  Minority shareholders have certain rights that are protected by the block chain, but the majority rules.  Otherwise, a worse situation occurs:  minority rules. 

Fake delegates bring us back to delegate reputations.  It's IMHO impossible to get a "fake" delegate elected.  (I've seen how hard it was to get even our most famous top developers elected.)  

If a bunch of people are getting elected that nobody else knows we have a flair lit tipoff that something is up!  Then somebody starts an uprising to organize the masses to vote them out.

Bribing other stakeholders sounds bad, but isn't it their right to use their assets to make money any way they can?

But bribing is a loser. How big a bribe do I need to do to get someone to risk their stake? And how do I make it stick? If someone is taking a bribe to vote for a nefarious agenda, they are probably immediately selling out before whatever happens happens.  As soon as they do, someone else is voting those shares, so it would be a pretty useless bribe.

We are counting on delegate slots becoming highly competitive to attract the best developers and marketers.  As they do, there is increased incentive to do the job honorably, to avoid losing the hard-won gig.  This works because they are sure to get caught if they produce a foul block.

Every delegate, myself included, gets subject to the "what have you done for us lately" question.  If there is a mystery delegate that no one knows you can bet that others are campaigning to take her place!  By raising up a lynch mob if necessary.  So the onus is on each delegate to do her job better than her competitors - and that includes producing blocks to spec.

In the end, every block that gets signed is traced back to the delegate who signed it.  If it doesn't meet spec, justice is swift and sure.

[StanLarimer]

I may be off with my assessment here, but this is what I think.

Since there is virtually no cost to forking the chain and excluding offending stake, large stakeholders must be very careful with offending the majority of individuals, regardless of how little they hold. It may even be the case that being a large stakeholder is so risky that nobody would want to be one. This gives DPOS a kind of game-theory self-defense system whereby either large stakeholders are forced to appeal to the majority of individuals, do nothing at all, or only vote with a fraction of their stake. Meanwhile, the majority of individuals will be eager to exclude large stakeholders, as the larger they are, the more they have to gain by doing so.

Thinking of things this way, perhaps a bigger issue is: Can we trust consensus to not cryptographically murder the wealth of large stakeholders, whether they are offending them or not, for their own benefit? Stakeholders can currently vote out delegates that are not bringing any value to the system. Will voting stakeholders out and redistributing their stake also become standard?

If the USA could collectively collaborate to non-violently fork out the top 1% of individuals who own 99% of the country's wealth, how long would it take to achieve 51% consensus, considering each individual would receive many thousands of dollars? Does DPOS create a way to incentivize its economy to have a reasonable Gini coefficient?

This is a fascinating line of thought and worthy of further discussion. 

Yes, but both sides need each other.  The big guys hold the market cap up and are likely to invest further in the ecosystem. The little guys keep the big guys honest.  Signers are those with the biggest consensus. The current system has network effect, so you don't fork off from it lightly.  If you abuse your influence, competition can arise and honor the stake of a subset of the stakeholders and take them away from you.

We are trying to form a balanced ecosystem with all the right feedback mechanisms to keep it balanced.  In some sense, this is a microcosm of the real world field of competition.  We are trying to engineer an incorruptibly fair playing field, at least much better than the current system. 

After that, let the market game theory begin!

[DecentralizeEconomics]

In DPOS, the small owners can easily gang up on the larger stakeholders to dismiss unacceptable developers and marketers and block signers with one click -- from the comfort of their easy chairs, and still get back to the game by the end of the commercials.

Show me another leading chain that provides a better way to regulate the influence of the largest pools of power, and we will do our best to incorporate whatever best practices we can learn from them.

Lol.  DPoS is worse at regulating the influence of the largest stakeholders.  As I showed previously, the largest stakeholders can pay to run the most delegate candidates and strategically vote in the elections to ensure that they control a disproportionate amount of the forging power compared to their actual stake.  Regardless who the smallest stakeholders choose, most likely they will be removing their vote from one "delegate of the wealthy" to vote for another "delegate of the wealthy".

Say you have a big fish who owns 40% of the stake.

In DPOS, the big fish still can vote in 40% can vote in SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN 40% of the delegates, controlling SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN 40% of the blocks.
In POS, the big fish directly controls 40% of the blocks.

FTFY


Stan keeps attempting to divert the conversation around delegates producing bad blocks.  That's not the issue.  The attack that will be carried out on DPoS is one of manipulation and profiteering by the wealthy stakeholders to the disadvantage of the other stakeholders.  The delegates elected by the wealthiest stakeholders are not going to collude to destroy Bitshares, their revenue stream, but instead they will attempt to covertly occupy as many delegate positions as possible to maximize their chain subsidies.

[jonald_fyookball]

they are both issues IMO.

regarding no fake delegates, I thought it already happened...some guy got in five times.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

they are both issues IMO.

regarding no fake delegates, I thought it already happened...some guy got in five times.

It did -> https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10937.0;all

To the extent that Bytemaster was asking everyone what delegates the offending individual, "sfinder", controlled.  The assertion that Bitshares is the most decentralized crypto is absurd.  All of Bytemaster's figures in his blog post inaccurately assume the 101 delegates have unique motives which is impossible to ascertain.

[StanLarimer]

The attack that will be carried out on DPoS is one of manipulation and profiteering by the wealthy stakeholders to the disadvantage of the other stakeholders.  The delegates elected by the wealthiest stakeholders are not going to collude to destroy Bitshares, their revenue stream, but instead they will attempt to covertly occupy as many delegate positions as possible to maximize their chain subsidies.

Nominal gains would be less than real losses.

If BitShares hired 100% unproductive staff, then it would be a less profitable investment and capital would flow away from it.  So large stakeholders have better incentives to hire great staff to attract capital and grow the value of their investment.

Expected growth rate is in the hundreds of percent.  Max revenue stream is capped at about 6 percent.  So the incentives are properly aligned for any big investor to grow her stake not siphon off a trickle and everyone else rides along on that growth.

Even in the worst case with 100% of all streams being pocketed unproductively the amount wasted would be less than Bitcoin is burning unproductively as we speak.  And the system would still serve its customers and earn a profit.

[StanLarimer]

they are both issues IMO.

regarding no fake delegates, I thought it already happened...some guy got in five times.

This was answered earlier...

During the startup phase, when it was relatively easy to get elected, so some delegates were not well vetted.  One guy got 5 slots which were quickly challenged. As competition heated up, it became harder and harder to get elected and required an increasingly well established reputation to get into the top 101.  Every day that goes by, a Darwinian competition is purging weaker reputations and replacing them with more and more well known and respected candidates.  Currently, even our best known developers have taken days or even weeks to get elected.  Every delegate gets challenged to show "what have you done for me lately."

[DecentralizeEconomics]

The attack that will be carried out on DPoS is one of manipulation and profiteering by the wealthy stakeholders to the disadvantage of the other stakeholders.  The delegates elected by the wealthiest stakeholders are not going to collude to destroy Bitshares, their revenue stream, but instead they will attempt to covertly occupy as many delegate positions as possible to maximize their chain subsidies.

Nominal gains would be less than real losses.

If BitShares hired 100% unproductive staff, then it would be a less profitable investment and capital would flow away from it.  So large stakeholders have better incentives to hire great staff to attract capital and grow the value of their investment.

Expected growth rate is in the hundreds of percent.  Max revenue stream is capped at about 6 percent.  So the incentives are properly aligned for any big investor to grow her stake not siphon off a trickle and everyone else rides along on that growth.

Even in the worst case with 100% of all streams being pocketed unproductively the amount wasted would be less than Bitcoin is burning unproductively as we speak.  And the system would still serve its customers and earn a profit.

I never said that the delegates the wealthiest stakeholders would elect would be unproductive.  On the contrary, I think the wealthiest stakeholders would "support" business delegates which they have a vested interest in and who would maximize their investment, but at the same time, these businesses would be financed at the expense of all stakeholders.  While the smaller stakeholders might obtain an increase on their BTS investment, the wealthiest stakeholders would get the most benefit.  The wealthiest stakeholders would not only receive the appreciation on their BTS, but would also receive the business profit off the delegate businesses which they had a vested interest.  This is not "free enterprise", but instead, it is big business financed at the expense of all for the personal gain of the wealthiest stakeholders.  Any other startup business, which posed as competition to a business delegate backed by the wealthiest stakeholders, would be denied a delegate position and be forced to finance their competition.  DPoS creates a "government of the wealthy" and monopolizes the entire Bitshares' economy.  Such a system is NOT "decentralized" in any true sense of the word.

[hack_]

The attack that will be carried out on DPoS is one of manipulation and profiteering by the wealthy stakeholders to the disadvantage of the other stakeholders.  The delegates elected by the wealthiest stakeholders are not going to collude to destroy Bitshares, their revenue stream, but instead they will attempt to covertly occupy as many delegate positions as possible to maximize their chain subsidies.

Nominal gains would be less than real losses.

If BitShares hired 100% unproductive staff, then it would be a less profitable investment and capital would flow away from it.  So large stakeholders have better incentives to hire great staff to attract capital and grow the value of their investment.

Expected growth rate is in the hundreds of percent.  Max revenue stream is capped at about 6 percent.  So the incentives are properly aligned for any big investor to grow her stake not siphon off a trickle and everyone else rides along on that growth.

Even in the worst case with 100% of all streams being pocketed unproductively the amount wasted would be less than Bitcoin is burning unproductively as we speak.  And the system would still serve its customers and earn a profit.

I never said that the delegates the wealthiest stakeholders would elect would be unproductive.  On the contrary, I think the wealthiest stakeholders would "support" business delegates which they have a vested interest in and who would maximize their investment, but at the same time, these businesses would be financed at the expense of all stakeholders.  While the smaller stakeholders might obtain an increase on their BTS investment, the wealthiest stakeholders would get the most benefit.  The wealthiest stakeholders would not only receive the appreciation on their BTS, but would also receive the business profit off the delegate businesses which they had a vested interest.  This is not "free enterprise", but instead, it is big business financed at the expense of all for the personal gain of the wealthiest stakeholders.  Any other startup business, which posed as competition to a business delegate backed by the wealthiest stakeholders, would be denied a delegate position and be forced to finance their competition.  DPoS creates a "government of the wealthy" and monopolizes the entire Bitshares' economy.  Such a system is NOT "decentralized" in any true sense of the word.

there is a rumor that 3 people control +20 delegates

[StanLarimer]

All of Bytemaster's figures in his blog post inaccurately assume the 101 delegates have unique motives which is impossible to ascertain.

The number 101 is for fault tolerance purposes (less than one percent loss of throughput per lost node) not decentralization.  Decentralization is in the selection of which nodes are going to be the active set of nodes.   These are selected by the combined voting power of all stakeholders. Even that doesn't really matter for security purposes. They could just as well be randomly selected from the set of candidates that pass some threshold minimum number of votes. There literally is nothing bad that a signer can do beyond failing to sign or omitting transactions for the next node to process instead.  Bad blocks are rejected, bad nodes are fired, and the system moves on.  As long as at least 90 of the delegates are signing acceptable blocks the system is running green and all is swell.

It doesn't matter if some of the delegates are run by the same person, in fact, shareholders are free to assign several streams to one person if it is a highly sought after employee.  All it does is decrease the distribution of nodes a bit, but even if several collocated nodes are taken out at once, the system switches in standby delegates on the fly.  Long term, our preference is for delegates to be independent, but the world won't end if that happens in some special cases.  The space shuttle had 5 redundant computers and that was considered good enough for space flight.  We have a self-healing, continuously reconfiguring redundancy level of 101.  That's way beyond plenty.

The main reason for going with the 101 most preferred delegates is it gives us a mechanism for the stakeholders to select who they want to hire to grow the company.  If they fail miserably at this, the worst that happens is that a smaller percentage of new supply is wasted than bitcoin burns on mining.

Anything better than our worst case is an improvement over other methods.  We don't need it to be 100% efficient for it to be effective in growing the company for all stakeholders and we don't need it to be 100% distributed for it to be secure. 

That said, we don't even care if we win the argument about "who's the best algorithm".  We are out to build a new kind of company that will serve its customers and owners well.  BitShares is competing on features and quality of service like our flesh and blood competitors.  It is in business to do business and it will be judged by the service it provides and the growth it achieves for its investors.

[StanLarimer]

I never said that the delegates the wealthiest stakeholders would elect would be unproductive.  On the contrary, I think the wealthiest stakeholders would "support" business delegates which they have a vested interest in and who would maximize their investment, but at the same time, these businesses would be financed at the expense of all stakeholders.  While the smaller stakeholders might obtain an increase on their BTS investment, the wealthiest stakeholders would get the most benefit.  The wealthiest stakeholders would not only receive the appreciation on their BTS, but would also receive the business profit off the delegate businesses which they had a vested interest.  This is not "free enterprise", but instead, it is big business financed at the expense of all for the personal gain of the wealthiest stakeholders.  Any other startup business, which posed as competition to a business delegate backed by the wealthiest stakeholders, would be denied a delegate position and be forced to finance their competition.  DPoS creates a "government of the wealthy" and monopolizes the entire Bitshares' economy.  Such a system is NOT "decentralized" in any true sense of the word.

Now we are getting somewhere.  We simply disagree on philosophy.  

People who think like you do will simply not be owners in BitShares.  They aren't interested in that kind of product. That's ok.  Find something else that works for you.

BitShares appeals to those who understand and appreciate the company metaphor. Companies are formed to make profits and share them according to the percent of ownership.  Every share gets the same percent of the profits.  If you own more shares you get more profits.  That's how companies are supposed to work.  

BitShares can be viewed many ways.  You can view it as a coin that contains a built decentralized exchange that that produces smart coin products that track the value of other assets.  (In fact, it took Bytemaster ten different nested metaphors to fully describe it in What is BitShares?) There is nothing else like it in the world.  But, by using a variety of different metaphors to describe different aspects of how it works, people can begin to understand and appreciate whether they want to own some of its tokens.

People who don't like traditional profit sharing metaphors won't participate.  Those who do will happily explore a whole new world of possibilities.

[StanLarimer]

there is a rumor that 3 people control +20 delegates

I don't think that is true, but if it was it would merely be suboptimal and temporary.  As the company grows, the intent is for all 101 to be verifiably independent.  However, this policy is totally controlled by the stakeholders so it's up to them.

[Crestington]

I like the resounces from Bitshares shillers, attack with logic!



Interesting stuff, lets see more discussion and where it takes us, this is turning into some good discussion about economics and long-term profitability. I think I support the position of the Bitshares holders myself because I think Delegates would always want to work altruistically towards development of the Coin and need to be tech oriented in the first place. There's a lot of people who like to get paid a monthly salary to work on building their favorite Coin and in a normal situation they would only work part time on it so this allows them to work full time on it.

[fluxer555]

This is a fascinating line of thought and worthy of further discussion. 

Yes, but both sides need each other.  The big guys hold the market cap up and are likely to invest further in the ecosystem. The little guys keep the big guys honest.  Signers are those with the biggest consensus. The current system has network effect, so you don't fork off from it lightly.  If you abuse your influence, competition can arise and honor the stake of a subset of the stakeholders and take them away from you.

We are trying to form a balanced ecosystem with all the right feedback mechanisms to keep it balanced.  In some sense, this is a microcosm of the real world field of competition.  We are trying to engineer an incorruptibly fair playing field, at least much better than the current system. 

After that, let the market game theory begin!

I want to clarify, when I said "large stakeholder" I meant holders owning something like 30%+. So "the big guys keep the market cap up", however with somebody owning 30% of all stake, that market cap doesn't mean as much for you (a holder of <0.1%) in relative terms. You have much more to gain by forking him out, assuming he is not contributing anything else besides holding.

You said 'the current system has network effect' in regards to forking out shareholders, however in many cases, you could effectively kick out that 30% shareholder on the main chain. You would just need 31% of shareholders to vote in delegates that are willing to do so. If current delegates saw they were about to lose their jobs unless they complied with that 31%, then they would also have high incentive to.

[StanLarimer]

This is a fascinating line of thought and worthy of further discussion.  

Yes, but both sides need each other.  The big guys hold the market cap up and are likely to invest further in the ecosystem. The little guys keep the big guys honest.  Signers are those with the biggest consensus. The current system has network effect, so you don't fork off from it lightly.  If you abuse your influence, competition can arise and honor the stake of a subset of the stakeholders and take them away from you.

We are trying to form a balanced ecosystem with all the right feedback mechanisms to keep it balanced.  In some sense, this is a microcosm of the real world field of competition.  We are trying to engineer an incorruptibly fair playing field, at least much better than the current system.  

After that, let the market game theory begin!

I want to clarify, when I said "large stakeholder" I meant holders owning something like 30%+. So "the big guys keep the market cap up", however with somebody owning 30% of all stake, that market cap doesn't mean as much for you (a holder of <0.1%) in relative terms. You have much more to gain by forking him out, assuming he is not contributing anything else besides holding.

You said 'the current system has network effect' in regards to forking out shareholders, however in many cases, you could effectively kick out that 30% shareholder on the main chain. You would just need 31% of shareholders to vote in delegates that are willing to do so. If current delegates saw they were about to lose their jobs unless they complied with that 31%, then they would also have high incentive to.

The little guys benefit from demand for their stake.  Any chain that just forked over a major investor would not likely see much further demand from major investors.  

Like I said, if Donald Trump tried to buy up 30% of BitShares, I'm thinking that would be insanely great.

Best thing to do in these thought experiments is to ask, "What happens in such situations for traditional companies?"

Presumably all the old human strategies apply.  It's just that now, it must happen transparently on a level playing field where all owners can see what's coming and make their next moves accordingly.

[bytemaster]

Under communism all means of production are owned in common by "all" rather than by individuals.  This is a non-voluntary arrangement which denies property rights.  
  
Under capitalism all means of production are owned privately.

There is a limit to how much capital an individual can acquire which means some people voluntarily pool capital in the form of companies.

Companies issue new shares all the time when new investor money comes it.  This isn't considered wealth redistribution, it is an equal trade of new shares for new capital.  

All companies are ultimately managed by their shareholders who elect a board of directors who appoint management who hires employees.  

All companies are vulnerable to a hostile takeover from someone who acquires a large enough stake.  They don't even have to gain 51% ownership because often times the small shareholders don't vote or they delegate their vote.  

Businesses have been operating like this successfully for hundreds of years and hostile takeovers of large companies are difficult to pull off.

What makes DAC companies even harder to attack is that the entire company can be "copied" and exclude the attacker if the masses of users, business partners, and merchants don't approve of the behavior of the new owners.   The network effect is not tied to the software per-se, but to the fair business operation as intended by the code and stakeholders.  

So it is true that BTS is vulnerable to all the attacks that a normal publicly traded business is.  

Does it matter if there is a single dictator, 10 directors, or 101 directors?   The business behaves the same and the current shareholders approve of how it is being run.   It is still serving its customers.    

If you are going to propose "attacks" on BitShares then you need to show how the attack is "profitable" and "sustainable".  It would cost millions of dollars to gain control of all 100 delegate positions "instantaneously".    If it is not "instantaneously" then you must organize a "long-con" where you get "honest looking" people to behave as promised until they all go rogue at once.   Perhaps bribing all of the existing delegates to serve your purposes.  

In any event all attacks not long lasting and can be resolved and the attacker is unlikely to make money.

Attackers aiming to simply "disrupt" the network without profit can probably use cheaper alternatives that will also work on all other systems including Nxt and BTC.

[Bit_Happy]

Voluntary participation in "communist" experiments is not a problem. Everyone is free to ignore or join the community.

[fluxer555]

This is a fascinating line of thought and worthy of further discussion. 

Yes, but both sides need each other.  The big guys hold the market cap up and are likely to invest further in the ecosystem. The little guys keep the big guys honest.  Signers are those with the biggest consensus. The current system has network effect, so you don't fork off from it lightly.  If you abuse your influence, competition can arise and honor the stake of a subset of the stakeholders and take them away from you.

We are trying to form a balanced ecosystem with all the right feedback mechanisms to keep it balanced.  In some sense, this is a microcosm of the real world field of competition.  We are trying to engineer an incorruptibly fair playing field, at least much better than the current system. 

After that, let the market game theory begin!

I want to clarify, when I said "large stakeholder" I meant holders owning something like 30%+. So "the big guys keep the market cap up", however with somebody owning 30% of all stake, that market cap doesn't mean as much for you (a holder of <0.1%) in relative terms. You have much more to gain by forking him out, assuming he is not contributing anything else besides holding.

You said 'the current system has network effect' in regards to forking out shareholders, however in many cases, you could effectively kick out that 30% shareholder on the main chain. You would just need 31% of shareholders to vote in delegates that are willing to do so. If current delegates saw they were about to lose their jobs unless they complied with that 31%, then they would also have high incentive to.

The little guys benefit from demand for their stake.  Any chain that just forked over a major investor would not likely see much further demand from major investors. 

Like I said, if Donald Trump tried to buy up 30% of BitShares, I'm thinking that would be insanely great.

Best thing to do in these thought experiments is to ask, "What happens in such situations for traditional companies?"

Presumably all the old human strategies apply.  It's just that now, it must happen transparently on a level playing field where all owners can see what's coming and make their next moves accordingly.

Right, this makes sense. In the event there is a clearly malicious 'investor' who is trying to attack the network, what will happen in practice is probably very hard to predict. If the attacker gets wind that he's going to be forked out, he'll then try to sell everything back as fast as possible. But, if an attacker knew that being forked out would be a possibility, he wouldn't even try attacking this way to start with.

I'm liking DPOS more and more. Another thought:

Protocol-wise, DPOS does not consider 'individuals'. It just keeps a balance-sheet of addresses, how much they own, and what delegates they are voting for. However, since "community forks" are determined extrinsically, perhaps by downloading a modified version of the client, it now indeed matters more as to how many individuals collaborate regardless of their total stake. Does this make sense?

[jonald_fyookball]

Now we are getting somewhere.  We simply disagree on philosophy.  

People who think like you do will simply not be owners in BitShares.  They aren't interested in that kind of product. That's ok.  Find something else that works for you.

BitShares appeals to those who understand and appreciate the company metaphor. Companies are formed to make profits and share them according to the percent of ownership.  Every share gets the same percent of the profits.  If you own more shares you get more profits.  That's how companies are supposed to work.  

I get what you're saying.  My intuition tells me that these kinds of
ideas are just not scalable enough for a global currency.  Just
my own little opinion -- I'm much happier trusting in the protocol
of Bitcoin.   But good luck.

[StanLarimer]

Right, this makes sense. In the event there is a clearly malicious 'investor' who is trying to attack the network, what will happen in practice is probably very hard to predict. If the attacker gets wind that he's going to be forked out, he'll then try to sell everything back as fast as possible. But, if an attacker knew that being forked out would be a possibility, he wouldn't even try attacking this way to start with.

I'm liking DPOS more and more. Another thought:

Protocol-wise, DPOS does not consider 'individuals'. It just keeps a balance-sheet of addresses, how much they own, and what delegates they are voting for. However, since "community forks" are determined extrinsically, perhaps by downloading a modified version of the client, it now indeed matters more as to how many individuals collaborate regardless of their total stake. Does this make sense?

We seek the ability of humans to join groups of people under a set of rules they all support.  That's why Bytemaster's vision of DACs grows from companies to communities to (maybe someday) countries that are joined by choice more than an accident of birth.  This means that you can decide whether you want a community where voting is per person vs. per share.  BitShares is modeled after collaboration based on pooled capital, where the votes are allocated based on what each individual has contributed to the capital pool (as Bytemaster outlined above).  But a home owner's association might prefer to allocate it on a per residence basis.  We like the ability to join a group with rules we can support.  If those rules are changed by the majority, we like being able to leave.

Which brings up another point:  any design that depends on assurances that some group of people can be prevented from collaborating, is a fragile design.  Humans collaborate and compete.  We collaborate to compete.  

Block chains are just a transparent way of keeping score.

Remember that famous quote from Milton Friedman?  "Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon."
I'm thinking up a fractured version of that quote:  "Collaboration is always and everywhere a human phenomenon."

We shouldn't think of block chains as a way to change human behavior.  It's just a way to transparently document what is happening.  What difference does it make if 51% of the owners independently or collaboratively or conspiratorially decide to vote in a particular way?  Do they not each have a right to base their actions on any combination of factors they choose?

A majority of shareholders of a traditional company can collaborate to change its by-laws.  
A majority of shareholders of a crypto company can collaborate to change its software equivalent.  

If they do so, the minority has the option to sell off.  So the majority must tread lightly.

Let humans continue to compete and collaborate as they always have.
I think many of them will prefer to do so on a robotically honest playing field.  

[StanLarimer]

Now we are getting somewhere.  We simply disagree on philosophy.  

People who think like you do will simply not be owners in BitShares.  They aren't interested in that kind of product. That's ok.  Find something else that works for you.

BitShares appeals to those who understand and appreciate the company metaphor. Companies are formed to make profits and share them according to the percent of ownership.  Every share gets the same percent of the profits.  If you own more shares you get more profits.  That's how companies are supposed to work.  

I get what you're saying.  My intuition tells me that these kinds of
ideas are just not scalable enough for a global currency.  Just
my own little opinion -- I'm much happier trusting in the protocol
of Bitcoin.   But good luck.

Thanks.  But, if you change your metaphor from "global currency" to "global company that produces stable smart currency derivatives" then what you have to compare it against is international companies like Alibaba or Google. There, the idea of stakeholders electing a board of directors to appoint management and hire employees is a well established model. We just aim to extend block chain technology to make global businesses transparent, incorruptible, efficient and profitable.

Those are the main reasons we started with POW, switched to POS, and then extended it to DPOS.

[bitcreditscc]

Now we are getting somewhere.  We simply disagree on philosophy.  

People who think like you do will simply not be owners in BitShares.  They aren't interested in that kind of product. That's ok.  Find something else that works for you.

BitShares appeals to those who understand and appreciate the company metaphor. Companies are formed to make profits and share them according to the percent of ownership.  Every share gets the same percent of the profits.  If you own more shares you get more profits.  That's how companies are supposed to work.  

I get what you're saying.  My intuition tells me that these kinds of
ideas are just not scalable enough for a global currency.  Just
my own little opinion -- I'm much happier trusting in the protocol
of Bitcoin.   But good luck.

Thanks.  But, if you change your metaphor from "global currency" to "global company that produces stable smart currency derivatives" then what you have to compare it against is international companies like Alibaba or Google.  There, the idea of electing a board of directors to appoint management and hire employees is a well established model.  We just aim to extend block chain technology to make businesses transparent, incorruptible, efficient and profitable.

Those are the main reasons we started with POW, switched to POS, and then extended it to DPOS.

 

Let's be honest about the actual reasons ok?

[StanLarimer]

Ok, what do you think were the actual reasons?

[jonald_fyookball]

Now we are getting somewhere.  We simply disagree on philosophy.  

People who think like you do will simply not be owners in BitShares.  They aren't interested in that kind of product. That's ok.  Find something else that works for you.

BitShares appeals to those who understand and appreciate the company metaphor. Companies are formed to make profits and share them according to the percent of ownership.  Every share gets the same percent of the profits.  If you own more shares you get more profits.  That's how companies are supposed to work.  

I get what you're saying.  My intuition tells me that these kinds of
ideas are just not scalable enough for a global currency.  Just
my own little opinion -- I'm much happier trusting in the protocol
of Bitcoin.   But good luck.

Thanks.  But, if you change your metaphor from "global currency" to "global company that produces stable smart currency derivatives" then what you have to compare it against is international companies like Alibaba or Google. There, the idea of stakeholders electing a board of directors to appoint management and hire employees is a well established model. We just aim to extend block chain technology to make global businesses transparent, incorruptible, efficient and profitable.

Those are the main reasons we started with POW, switched to POS, and then extended it to DPOS.

Ok...and what difference do you see
between the Federal Reserve and
Google?

I thought the whole point of cryptocurrencies
is to get away from central authorities.

[Crestington]

Now we are getting somewhere.  We simply disagree on philosophy.  

People who think like you do will simply not be owners in BitShares.  They aren't interested in that kind of product. That's ok.  Find something else that works for you.

BitShares appeals to those who understand and appreciate the company metaphor. Companies are formed to make profits and share them according to the percent of ownership.  Every share gets the same percent of the profits.  If you own more shares you get more profits.  That's how companies are supposed to work.  

I get what you're saying.  My intuition tells me that these kinds of
ideas are just not scalable enough for a global currency.  Just
my own little opinion -- I'm much happier trusting in the protocol
of Bitcoin.   But good luck.

Thanks.  But, if you change your metaphor from "global currency" to "global company that produces stable smart currency derivatives" then what you have to compare it against is international companies like Alibaba or Google. There, the idea of stakeholders electing a board of directors to appoint management and hire employees is a well established model. We just aim to extend block chain technology to make global businesses transparent, incorruptible, efficient and profitable.

Those are the main reasons we started with POW, switched to POS, and then extended it to DPOS.

Ok...and what difference do you see
between the Federal Reserve and
Google?

I thought the whole point of cryptocurrencies
is to get away from central authorities.

You can't get away from central authorities in general because people are inherently lazy and want other people to do the work for them so are willing to trust something they think will work for their benefit, same thing as outsourcing to India for customer service representative's.

[StanLarimer]

Ok...and what difference do you see between the Federal Reserve and Google?

I thought the whole point of cryptocurrencies is to get away from central authorities.

I don't quite get where you are going with the first question, but ok:

Google is a company organized by a group of people who pooled their capital to earn shared profits and to obtain certain protections under the laws of the jurisdictions in which it is incorporated.  The Federal Reserve is cartel of bankers that managed to con the US government into giving them the monopolistic authority to manage the US money supply to the benefit of those bankers and the eventual enslavement of all mankind.  It is neither Federal nor a Reserve.  

Your second question, however, is extremely interesting!

Block chain technologies enable transparent, decentralized, immutable public records.
They are useful for many things you have not dreamed of.

You can use them to implement a crypto currency that is
immune from the corruption of central authorities or
completely controlled by central authorities, or
engaged in a negotiated truce with central authorities.

You can use it to implement other things than currencies - like unmanned companies.
These also can exist on a continuum from completely sovereign to completely subject to central authorities.

BitShares is engineered to be completely sovereign from any of the world's other governments and yet able to interact peacefully with other entities that are still subject to those central authorities.  It has been released into the wild and is now on its own. There is no central organization which runs it.  It lives in international waters as a creature of Free Space. Whether it achieves its design goals or not depends upon the will of its current and future owners.  The BitShares community is as decentralized as its software.  So where it will go is up to their independent, collective efforts.  I merely point out what is possible.

Market Pegged Assets (MPA) can autonomously track the value of fiat currencies and commodities subject to other legal jurisdictions. They exist outside the current fiat framework.

User Issued Assets (UIA) can be implemented to be fully compliant with the laws in the jurisdiction of each UIA issuer, or entities of Free Space.

MPAs and UIAs can trade freely in the international waters of BitShares Free Space.  You should think about what that means!

So, everything you have learned about crypto currency theory and lore is still applicable inside the BitShares Free Space universe. But it is only a small subset of what is actually possible.

You don't have to give up what you like about Bitcoin.  But BitShares gives the Bitcoin ecosystem a whole bunch of exciting new possibilities.  It does not seek to replace Bitcoin.  It aims to extend the Bitcoin vision.

[jonald_fyookball]

you were the one the suggested I replace 'global currency' with 'global company' hence the comparison.  I would trust neither of those two institutions with control of money.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

you were the one the suggested I replace 'global currency' with 'global company' hence the comparison.  I would trust neither of those two institutions with control of money.

That's COMMUNISM!   

[StanLarimer]

you were the one the suggested I replace 'global currency' with 'global company' hence the comparison.  I would trust neither of those two institutions with control of money.

That's COMMUNISM!   

Companies are a capitalist construct for voluntarily pooled property rights. 
They can still have global scope as long as participation is voluntary.
 
Communism oversimplified is non-voluntary seizure of property rights by the state.
And the viewpoint that all people do not have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property.

The key difference is the word voluntary.

[StanLarimer]

you were the one the suggested I replace 'global currency' with 'global company' hence the comparison.  I would trust neither of those two institutions with control of money.

Precisely.  The chief goal of most crypto-projects is the removal or reduction of the need to trust.   This has not been perfectly achieved yet.  To date, we have had to be content with tolerating some residual trust in those who have effective control over what software gets executed.

We seek to explicitly place that control in the hands of the owners.  Others allow it to emerge somewhere by default.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

I never said that the delegates the wealthiest stakeholders would elect would be unproductive.  On the contrary, I think the wealthiest stakeholders would "support" business delegates which they have a vested interest in and who would maximize their investment, but at the same time, these businesses would be financed at the expense of all stakeholders.  While the smaller stakeholders might obtain an increase on their BTS investment, the wealthiest stakeholders would get the most benefit.  The wealthiest stakeholders would not only receive the appreciation on their BTS, but would also receive the business profit off the delegate businesses which they had a vested interest.  This is not "free enterprise", but instead, it is big business financed at the expense of all for the personal gain of the wealthiest stakeholders.  Any other startup business, which posed as competition to a business delegate backed by the wealthiest stakeholders, would be denied a delegate position and be forced to finance their competition.  DPoS creates a "government of the wealthy" and monopolizes the entire Bitshares' economy.  Such a system is NOT "decentralized" in any true sense of the word.

Now we are getting somewhere.  We simply disagree on philosophy.

That's probably a gross understatement.

you were the one the suggested I replace 'global currency' with 'global company' hence the comparison.  I would trust neither of those two institutions with control of money.

That's COMMUNISM!   

Companies are a capitalist construct for voluntarily pooled property rights. 
They can still have global scope as long as participation is voluntary.
 
Communism oversimplified is non-voluntary seizure of property rights by the state.
And the viewpoint that all people do not have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property.

The key difference is the word voluntary.

A company is a capitalist construct for voluntarily pooled property rights in a free market economy.  (The key difference is the phrase "free market economy".)

Communism is the centralized control of all companies by the wealthy elite funded via non-voluntary seizure of property rights by the wealthy.  (The key difference is the phrase "centralized control of all companies by the wealthy elite".)

There is no "free market economy" in Bitshares.  A small group of the wealthiest stakeholders are able to control the mass majority of delegate positions / businesses and they are funded by the "non-voluntary seizure of property".  Bitshares is a Supercapitalist / Communist state attempting to pass itself off as a populist representative government.

[StanLarimer]

I would be interested in hearing
what changes you think the stakeholders of BitShares, DAC
would have to make to their Decentralized Autonomous Company
for it to meet your definition of a "free market" enterprise.

[jonald_fyookball]

you were the one the suggested I replace 'global currency' with 'global company' hence the comparison.  I would trust neither of those two institutions with control of money.

Precisely.  The chief goal of most crypto-projects is the removal or reduction of the need to trust.   This has not been perfectly achieved yet.  To date, we have had to be content with tolerating some residual trust in those who have effective control over what software gets executed.

We seek to explicitly place that control in the hands of the owners.  Others allow it to emerge somewhere by default.

yes but I would rather trust competent software engineers to inspect code than i would to delegate stake holders...that is one reason I'm not a bitshares advocate.

[StanLarimer]

you were the one the suggested I replace 'global currency' with 'global company' hence the comparison.  I would trust neither of those two institutions with control of money.

Precisely.  The chief goal of most crypto-projects is the removal or reduction of the need to trust.   This has not been perfectly achieved yet.  To date, we have had to be content with tolerating some residual trust in those who have effective control over what software gets executed.

We seek to explicitly place that control in the hands of the owners.  Others allow it to emerge somewhere by default.

yes but I would rather trust competent software engineers to inspect code than i would to delegate stake holders...that is one reason I'm not a bitshares advocate.

Interesting.  You obviously haven't looked into the awesome software talent that created BitShares and now work directly for the blockchain in funded delegate positions.  BitShares is the only DAC that has a mechanism to hire up to 101 professional software developers and even 101 software development companies to work for it as it approaches the size of Bitcoin. (There are already multiple established software companies working to support it.)   Further, since it is open source, independent parties can inspect the software.  Further still, there is a growing number other independent clone teams (PeerTracks, Play, Sparkle, PTS, etc.) that use (and therefore inspect) the BitShares Toolkit for their own purposes.

[jonald_fyookball]

Interesting.  You obviously haven't looked into the awesome software talent that created BitShares and now work directly for the blockchain in funded delegate positions. 

You're right, I haven't.

But it hasn't nothing to do with the talent.

As I alluded to earlier in the thread, I
don't think DPos "works" fundamentally.

Although, if its any consolation, I don't
think PoS works either.

[fuznutts]

Ha ha, this is great!

I knew that DE had talent, but we couldn't buy a more attention grabbing post.  Nice job.

We've also been having lots of fun point-counterpoint interactions with his various identities over here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=913075.msg10065220#msg10065220

(If you like this sort of thing)

I think I might start referring to it as "Snopes for BitShares"

 

LOL.  This was the best post...ever.  The "Snopes of BitShares".  Yeh, BitShares and NXT are actually very similar except BitShares is provably more decentralized with respect to stake distribution and NXT basically has "contract periods" that you can lease your stake to transparent forgers while BitShares enables you to vote and take away that vote at the drop of a dime.  Both have valuable methods.  I prefer BitShares and NHZ (Horizon) over NXT though.

[bitcreditscc]

I can't get a handle on the DPOS system used in NewPTS and BitShares. 

This is my understanding...

Unlike most POS where my own holding stake after a while rewarding me for securing the network, under DPOS I spend some of my god damn holdings to vote in up to 101 other bastards that get all the rewards leaving me with less and less every time I participate. 

Sounds like a system where the majority of the individuals holding get worth less and less over time (both actual by voting cost, and %Total since they get none of newly minted coins) while a select few elite delegates get richer off everyone else's back. 

Please enlighten me if I have this confused.

[brekyrself]

I can't get a handle on the DPOS system used in NewPTS and BitShares. 

This is my understanding...

Unlike most POS where my own holding stake after a while rewarding me for securing the network, under DPOS I spend some of my god damn holdings to vote in up to 101 other bastards that get all the rewards leaving me with less and less every time I participate. 

Sounds like a system where the majority of the individuals holding get worth less and less over time (both actual by voting cost, and %Total since they get none of newly minted coins) while a select few elite delegates get richer off everyone else's back. 

Please enlighten me if I have this confused.

The cost of voting is a transaction fee of 0.5 bts.  At the current rate of bts = $0.01 usd, voting costs an incredible $0.005 usd.  I have seen discussions of lowering this to 0.1 bts etc...

[DecentralizeEconomics]

I can't get a handle on the DPOS system used in NewPTS and BitShares. 

This is my understanding...

Unlike most POS where my own holding stake after a while rewarding me for securing the network, under DPOS I spend some of my god damn holdings to vote in up to 101 other bastards that get all the rewards leaving me with less and less every time I participate. 

Sounds like a system where the majority of the individuals holding get worth less and less over time (both actual by voting cost, and %Total since they get none of newly minted coins) while a select few elite delegates get richer off everyone else's back. 

Please enlighten me if I have this confused.

Yeah, you guys pretty much got it.

[bitcreditscc]

I can't get a handle on the DPOS system used in NewPTS and BitShares. 

This is my understanding...

Unlike most POS where my own holding stake after a while rewarding me for securing the network, under DPOS I spend some of my god damn holdings to vote in up to 101 other bastards that get all the rewards leaving me with less and less every time I participate. 

Sounds like a system where the majority of the individuals holding get worth less and less over time (both actual by voting cost, and %Total since they get none of newly minted coins) while a select few elite delegates get richer off everyone else's back. 

Please enlighten me if I have this confused.

The cost of voting is a transaction fee of 0.5 bts.  At the current rate of bts = $0.01 usd, voting costs an incredible $0.005 usd.  I have seen discussions of lowering this to 0.1 bts etc...

So i am paying someone 0.005 so that they can stake thousands for themselves. so money out of my pocket to make someone else more money.

[brekyrself]

I can't get a handle on the DPOS system used in NewPTS and BitShares. 

This is my understanding...

Unlike most POS where my own holding stake after a while rewarding me for securing the network, under DPOS I spend some of my god damn holdings to vote in up to 101 other bastards that get all the rewards leaving me with less and less every time I participate. 

Sounds like a system where the majority of the individuals holding get worth less and less over time (both actual by voting cost, and %Total since they get none of newly minted coins) while a select few elite delegates get richer off everyone else's back. 

Please enlighten me if I have this confused.

The cost of voting is a transaction fee of 0.5 bts.  At the current rate of bts = $0.01 usd, voting costs an incredible $0.005 usd.  I have seen discussions of lowering this to 0.1 bts etc...

So i am paying someone 0.005 so that they can stake thousands for themselves. so money out of my pocket to make someone else more money.

Technically you are paying the network, who pays the delegates, who process and secure the network, who also happen to bring development into the bts eco system.  The delegates who a bunch are the developers should not be working for free.  They have quit their full time jobs, have bills to pay, all to help push crypto technology.  This obviously motivates delegates to make BTS the best they can.

You need to look at the bigger picture.

[bitcreditscc]

I can't get a handle on the DPOS system used in NewPTS and BitShares. 

This is my understanding...

Unlike most POS where my own holding stake after a while rewarding me for securing the network, under DPOS I spend some of my god damn holdings to vote in up to 101 other bastards that get all the rewards leaving me with less and less every time I participate. 

Sounds like a system where the majority of the individuals holding get worth less and less over time (both actual by voting cost, and %Total since they get none of newly minted coins) while a select few elite delegates get richer off everyone else's back. 

Please enlighten me if I have this confused.

The cost of voting is a transaction fee of 0.5 bts.  At the current rate of bts = $0.01 usd, voting costs an incredible $0.005 usd.  I have seen discussions of lowering this to 0.1 bts etc...

So i am paying someone 0.005 so that they can stake thousands for themselves. so money out of my pocket to make someone else more money.

Technically you are paying the network, who pays the delegates, who process and secure the network, who also happen to bring development into the bts eco system.  The delegates who a bunch are the developers should not be working for free.  They have quit their full time jobs, have bills to pay, all to help push crypto technology.  This obviously motivates delegates to make BTS the best they can.

You need to look at the bigger picture.

Bigger picture

[testz]

WHAT WOULD BITCOIN DO?
<Lot of letters, dots and commas>

LOL 
I could not even imagine that word 'communism' can do with people. Now I know! 

[bytemaster]

[/center]

This is hilarious given my very public stance in favor of non-violence, voluntary association, Non Aggression, and the Silver Rule.   *If* there was any threat of violence or *mandatory* adoption then I would be 100% against it.  

1) Everything is Opt-In, if you don't like it go get robbed by some miners.
2) Shareholder's can fire delegates without consequence, any delegate that pulled out a gun would get fired

Everyone has to take some "stance" and as soon as you take a stance then you are subject to attack.   Those who are attacking BitShares and taking the time to produce this hilarious propaganda art need to adopt a stance.

1) Pro Bitcoin?  
2) Pro Nxt?
3) Pro Ripple?

From where I sit, all three get the job done and produce a trustworthy irreversible public record.  
From where I sit, BitShares makes better use of its dilution than Bitcoin and both systems have the same long-term taper toward 0% inflation.
From where I sit, BitShares is the most efficient (speed, cost) at producing an irreversible public record.

Take a stance, then lets apply the logic of your arguments against your own position.  If you can do so without contradicting yourself I would be very impressed.

By the time BitShares is big enough as a top 10 national currency you can believe that the dilution rate will be far less than the rate of economic growth which means it will be a price-deflationary currency.  

[StanLarimer]

This is a much more accurate picture of how much power a delegate has.

[bytemaster]

This is a much more accurate picture of how much power a delegate has.

No one likes a smart ass. 

[StanLarimer]

In response those on this forum who speak with forked tongues (the oldest kind of fork in human history), I present for your edification and entertainment:

The Origin of BitShares
Part 1

ProtoShares (PTS) began mining on Guy Fawkes Day, Nov 5, 2013.

It was created by an independent developer known as FreeTrade as a mineable clone of Bitcoin in response to a bounty offered by Invictus.  The first block was mined by Super3 of Storj fame - who also had no affiliation with Invictus. There was no pre-mine.

ProtoShares was unique in that it was designed to be a prototype coin, a "protocoin" - something to allow supporters to begin mining before the much more complex BitShares Decentralized Exchange software was complete.  ProtoShares were conceived as coins that would be good for a free upgrade when BitShares was ready.

The initial deal was that ProtoShares holders would be honored with the first 10% of BitShares, giving that 10% the same "fair" mining distribution as the remaining 90% which, at the time, were planned to be mined in the same way.  A week later, Invictus sweetened the deal - ProtoShares would be good for free upgrades to all future Invictus products.

During the next few weeks, all the people who had been following Invictus Innovations since its birth on the Fourth of July, 2013 got a decent chance to mine Protoshares.  A classic mining lottery.  It was the best of times.  It was the worst of times.

Somewhere in the dark Land of Mordor (where the shadows lie) an all-seeing eye awoke.  It turned its evil gaze toward ProtoShares and directed its awful mining power into the competition.  All the ProtoShares miners saw the lights on their hobby rigs flicker and brown out.  Analysis showed that big professional mining rigs and pools were vacuuming up most of  the intended "fair" distribution and dumping them on the market.  The little guys, including Invictus, could still get ProtoShares, but they now had to buy them with bitcoins.  

Invictus quit mining ProtoShares a few weeks later, before much of its ordered mining equipment had even arrived.  It had become unprofitable to mine them with ordinary CPUs.

Instead of raising development funds from the sale of fairly mined ProtoShares, Invictus was forced to buy its own ProtoShares from the market.  All the bitcoins that were flooding to buy ProtoShares were now being burned in the fiery cracks of Mount Doom instead of funding development and marketing of BitShares.  

It was clear that the old bitcoin mining paradigm was completely broken.  What was intended as a fair lottery, had become a give away to Big Mining.  Mining had become centralized, wasteful, and unfair.  

Bytemaster announced that mining was dead and set out to invent a replacement.  This took him on a six month detour.  The dark forces of Mordor had no idea what was coming after them.

Necessity became the Mother of Invention

(To Be Continued)

[bitcreditscc]

So does Bytemaster still defend his calculated costs of running a node?

[bytemaster]

What most people don't get it is that the mayor Protoshares holders aka CEO/Wannabe-Devs  just made a new coin where they swapped their places 100% Protoshares coins --> to 250% Bitshares coins... Yes it is the best coin indeed just like Ripple which has problem to get their community to grow but why ?

Protoshares was also a fail coin where they payed their devs with their own "premined" coins and why the PoW "CPU based" was mined out they had to get a new plan vola Bitshares were created.

You have no idea what you are talking about. 

1. ProtoShares wasn't "premined" and was announced weeks prior and the first block wasn't even mined by a Dev.  It was mined by Super3
2. The plan was for ProtoShares to allow people to start mining BTS while BTS was under development.... BitShares were not created because it was "mined out". 

[bytemaster]

So does Bytemaster still defend his calculated costs of running a node?

Depends upon which costs you are referring to. 

If you own the hardware and have unlimited power and bandwidth then costs are effectively 0.

If you own no hardware and must rent a VPS with 4 GB of ram then you are talking $50 per month + labor.

What scale are you talking:  today's scale with less than 1 TPS or the future with 1000 TPS? 

Too many variables to estimate the cost.

Here is where I think it will ultimately end up for all crypto projects that grow to be the size of Twitter, Facebook, and Google.... bandwidth costs will dominate followed closely with storage costs.   I don't think the average home user will want to consume a large fraction of their bandwidth (at the expense of games, TV, and web browsing).    My home internet costs me $100 per month and would not be sufficient at 1000 TPS and it is really good internet.

So if you ever want crypto to be more than a hobby then you need plans to scale.

[bitcreditscc]

So does Bytemaster still defend his calculated costs of running a node?

Depends upon which costs you are referring to. 

If you own the hardware and have unlimited power and bandwidth then costs are effectively 0.

If you own no hardware and must rent a VPS with 4 GB of ram then you are talking $50 per month + labor.

What scale are you talking:  today's scale with less than 1 TPS or the future with 1000 TPS? 

Too many variables to estimate the cost.

Here is where I think it will ultimately end up for all crypto projects that grow to be the size of Twitter, Facebook, and Google.... bandwidth costs will dominate followed closely with storage costs.   I don't think the average home user will want to consume a large fraction of their bandwidth (at the expense of games, TV, and web browsing).    My home internet costs me $100 per month and would not be sufficient at 1000 TPS and it is really good internet.

So if you ever want crypto to be more than a hobby then you need plans to scale.

i think trying to predict that is a bad idea. the average connection gets better and better as well as storage.

Your BS move with AGS still stings. DPoS is a good idea in some cases but let's not try to make people believe it is better than other solutions. You just picked a way to skin the cat that puts money in some select pockets.

I'll be watching...

[jrossIV]

I never said that the delegates the wealthiest stakeholders would elect would be unproductive.  On the contrary, I think the wealthiest stakeholders would "support" business delegates which they have a vested interest in and who would maximize their investment, but at the same time, these businesses would be financed at the expense of all stakeholders.

Reading this, I thought you started to understand ... having everyone finance proportionally and avoids group trap

... but it isn't about understanding, it is about spreading nonsensical analogies and speaking falsehoods.




NXT needs to stop being so defensive.  Instead of trying to tear down their strongest competitor they should look at what BitShares has to offer and copy it.  Last I remember once Bitshares came out, NXT had dozens and dozens of developers interviewing....

[TaunSew]

I never said that the delegates the wealthiest stakeholders would elect would be unproductive.  On the contrary, I think the wealthiest stakeholders would "support" business delegates which they have a vested interest in and who would maximize their investment, but at the same time, these businesses would be financed at the expense of all stakeholders.

Reading this, I thought you started to understand ... having everyone finance proportionally and avoids group trap

... but it isn't about understanding, it is about spreading nonsensical analogies and speaking falsehoods.




NXT needs to stop being so defensive.  Instead of trying to tear down their strongest competitor they should look at what BitShares has to offer and copy it.  Last I remember once Bitshares came out, NXT had dozens and dozens of developers interviewing....

Maybe dozens but their skill varies 

[bytemaster]

So does Bytemaster still defend his calculated costs of running a node?

Depends upon which costs you are referring to. 

If you own the hardware and have unlimited power and bandwidth then costs are effectively 0.

If you own no hardware and must rent a VPS with 4 GB of ram then you are talking $50 per month + labor.

What scale are you talking:  today's scale with less than 1 TPS or the future with 1000 TPS? 

Too many variables to estimate the cost.

Here is where I think it will ultimately end up for all crypto projects that grow to be the size of Twitter, Facebook, and Google.... bandwidth costs will dominate followed closely with storage costs.   I don't think the average home user will want to consume a large fraction of their bandwidth (at the expense of games, TV, and web browsing).    My home internet costs me $100 per month and would not be sufficient at 1000 TPS and it is really good internet.

So if you ever want crypto to be more than a hobby then you need plans to scale.

i think trying to predict that is a bad idea. the average connection gets better and better as well as storage.

Your BS move with AGS still stings. DPoS is a good idea in some cases but let's not try to make people believe it is better than other solutions. You just picked a way to skin the cat that puts money in some select pockets.

I'll be watching...

And which pockets do you think deserve money?

[StanLarimer]

It's become clear in this long thread that a year of "Fibs and Fud" from people who have little personal honor have left many fair minded folks with deep misunderstandings about BitShares.  Rather than continuing to answer them piecemeal, I've decided to author a series of posts that explain everything from the beginning.  I hope some of you find this useful.

The Origin of BitShares
Part 2

In Bitcoin lore, there are two leading rationales for mining:
1.  To secure the network.
2.  To provide a "fair" initial distribution of coins.

We had just proven that mining was no longer able to provide a fair distribution.  Big Mining was lurking out there with their vacuum cleaners, just waiting for another coin to be announced so that they could suck it all up.    The days where everyone with a PC got a sip at the mining spigot were over.  Big Mining was always there, ready to gulp the spigot dry.  Chug-a-lug!

And even those miners didn't get all that much benefit from their advantage.  They were obligated to spend most of it on electricity and hardware doing barely useful work.  We knew that if we were going to develop profitable companies, we had to start by ruthlessly cutting costs.  The money the miners were obligated to burn should be going to grow the bitcoin ecosystem.  But, first, we had to overcome the self-defeating lessons that all newcomers to Bitcoin were being taught.  With almost religious zeal, it was considered heresy not to burn the industry's seed corn.  Why, Satoshi said we have to, don't you know?

This is tough.  Remember how Copernicus and Galileo had the same kind of trouble convincing the scientific community about the earth revolving around the sun?  Yeah, it was like that.

We resorted to humor:

Angel Miners
An Environmentally Friendly Solution.

in·cin·er·a·tor  (n-sn-rtr)  n.
… an apparatus, such as a furnace, for burning waste.

Remember the incinerator?  Every big box store used to have one for burning empty cardboard shipping boxes.  Now-a-days that would be considered “environmentally unfriendly”.  You’re supposed to recycle, don’t you know?  Its good for the ecosystem.

I think its time we talked about environmentally friendly crypto-equity mining.  At this very moment most BitShares PTS are being mined by sending money to outside companies to be burned up in high-tech incinerators.

Amazon rents them, for example.  You send Amazon your money once a month.  They burn it up in their incinerators and then send you PTS proportional to the amount of money they burned up for you.  They have all kinds of incinerators to choose from if you care about how they burn your money.  They have CPU incinerators and GPU incinerators and if you want, someone will burn your money up on a high-powered ASIC incinerator.  New incinerators are being developed every day.  Most people don’t care how their money is burned up, as long as they get their expected number of shares.

Invictus is researching a new kind of environmentally friendly incinerator replacement that we could make available to the crypto-equity community for any new DAC developer to use.  We call them “Angel Miners”.  As a black box, they work the same as all the others.  You send money to the incinerator operator and get back DACshares.  The difference is in how this incinerator disposes of your money.  Instead of burning it up and blowing the heat up a chimney, the money gets recycled into the ecosystem!

Yes, you heard that right, your money gets recycled into the ecosystem!

Its used for developing better wallets, and new kinds of DACs, and browsers, and tools.  It goes for support hot-lines, and better documentation, and promotional videos, and maybe even Super Bowl ads.  All things that grow the ecosystem and increase the value of all its crypto-equities.

Most people don’t care what kind of incinerator Amazon uses.  Now you have an environmentally responsible reason to choose!

DAC developers should clearly state in their promotional literature whether your mining software is eco-friendly or not.  Going green could make a difference in how the community embraces your product!

We had to let that soak in for a while while we worked on a better way to replace those two failing miner functions.

We started by inventing Angel Shares (AGS).

(To be continued...)

[StanLarimer]

It's become clear in this long thread that a year of "Fibs and Fud" from people who have little personal honor have left many fair minded folks with deep misunderstandings about BitShares.  Rather than continuing to answer them piecemeal, I've decided to author a series of posts that explain everything from the beginning.  I hope some of you find this useful.

The Origin of BitShares
Part 3

The biggest challenge for us was convincing our brand new ProtoShares-centric community that we needed to change the plan.  (We would become famous for this.)

Here's the argument I made to the BitSharesTalk.org community just six weeks after PTS was launched.  (You guys think you're a tough crowd?  Not even close!)  But we forged ahead anyway.  When you are out to change the world, you can't let yourselves be constrained by little things like how stupid you were last month!  Here's the case as presented:

The Ideal Mining Pool

During the past six weeks I have agonized while I watched my fellow PTS holders labor in the minefields. It breaks my heart. So much pain and suffering. So much uncertainty and frustration. So much wasted time and resources. So much for an incurable engineer to reinvent!

If I were going to design the ideal (objectively fair) mining pool what would it be like? Well, here’s my Top Ten wish list. How would yours be different?

Make it easy. I hate to see people shut out because they don’t have the technical expertise to configure a bunch of source code and IP addresses. Why can’t I just spend a millibitcoin to the pool’s Bitcoin wallet address and, boom, I’ve rented a mining node for a month? Spend a whole bitcoin and I’ve got 1000 miners working for me. Let all my earnings show up in my Keyhotee wallet automagically, without me lifting a finger.

Make it uniform. As long as mining is intended to be a fair lottery why can’t we have everyone use miners with the exact same performance? Who said this was supposed to turn into an engineering contest for miners? That whole circus is just a side effect allowed by the fact that we assume open source software is the only way to achieve transparency. Its not an end it itself. Homogeneous mining pools would implement the purest form of lottery if we just had a way to enforce such a rule.

Make it incorruptible. I hate seeing bot nets and proprietary pools running off with the lion’s share of a distribution intended for real stakeholders. Why leave the currency exposed to such abuses? This is not an engineering and hacking contest! Set up one official authorized pool and just audit its inputs and outputs to keep it honest. Let’s see, I rented 1 BTC worth of miners out of 100 total BTC paid to that public wallet address. I should get 1% of the total new shares created in the transparent block chain. If I did, I can tell its working fairly. Why does the lottery need to expose itself to hackers with a counter-productive agenda?

Uh, gee, I guess I don’t need ten wishes. I’ll settle for these three. Let the developer run a single simulated cloud pool. As long as we can prove it is honest by inspecting its transparent inputs and outputs, who cares? If it gives me the same percentage of its outputs as I gave to its inputs, what’s not to like? Why tie the developer’s hands by forcing her to open her well-intended lottery to unnecessary avenues of attack?

Take my money and give me my share. Done!

This, and other such posts, set our forum on fire.  This fire would blaze for two solid weeks (an eternity for a forum fire).  We listened and debated and reinvented.  

Then, on Christmas Eve, 2013 we announced the Angel Shares (AGS) campaign.

The wise and resilient supporters who survived the resulting forum fire (and several others that would follow) are the ones the shamelessly envious now place with disdain among the "wealthiest stakeholders".  Some of them have a significant fraction of 1% of the stake.  Believe me, they earned it!

(To be continued...)

[StanLarimer]

It's become clear in this long thread that a year of "Fibs and Fud" from people who have little personal honor have left many fair minded folks with deep misunderstandings about BitShares.  Rather than continuing to answer them piecemeal, I've decided to author a series of posts that explain everything from the beginning.  I hope some of you find this useful.

The Origin of BitShares
Part 4

On Christmas Eve, 2013 we proposed a revolutionary companion to ProtoShares (PTS) called AngelShares (AGS).  Just like PTS, AGS would be good for free upgrades to all future DACs.  We wanted it to be a pure virtual mining pool that would work just like a black box PTS mining pool except instead of burning the money it would put the money into a development fund to grow the industry.  It didn't conflict with PTS because it was upgradable to receive a separate 10% slice of the BitShares free samples pie.

PTS formed our community.  AGS would fund its development!

Sigh.  Nothing is ever easy.  While the concept of simulated, virtual, or "angel" mining had been easy to explain, its actual implementation was not.  Regulatory authorities are, as they say, happy to indict a ham sandwich.  The U.S. Supreme court ruled back in the world war era that you can't even sell somebody a row of orange trees if you also offer to maintain them and split the harvest.  Why, that would be creating an unlicensed security and we can't have that!

So, simply put, we couldn't implement something simple.  If you ever see us implement something that is not brain dead simple, it can only be for one of two reasons:  1) because regulations in over 250 jurisdictions around the world preclude doing anything simple, or 2) because we are hopeless geeks who inherently love complexity.

So, instead, we had to structure the Angel Shares as pure, no strings attached, donations to build the community.  We offered a proposed Social Consensus that suggested to developers of new DACs that it would be in their best interest to distribute their new shares to Angel Shares donors instead of Big Mining, but it had to be left entirely up to them.

After spending close to a hundred thousand dollars consulting several teams of crypto-space lawyers, here's how the deal turned out.   (In Stop the Crowd Sales! Bytemaster has since recommended against this approach as well as all forms of crowd sales because we've since found better ways. But at the time this was state of the art fund raising!)

Introducing Angel Shares

We are introducing a general AGS Consensus recommendation that mirrors the PTS Social Consensus except that wasteful mining is replaced with productive donations in either PTS or BTC.  

We are also recommending the share allocation of the first release of BitShares X to have 4 million total shares.  2 million will be allocated proportional to PTS holders and 2 million proportional to AGS donors. Developers are of course free to change the total in their ultimate releases as long as they do so proportionally.

How to Get Recognized as a Donor via Angel Shares

AGS is just a public ledger of donors you can get on by donating to a development trust,  
to build the industry and try to get targeted by developers
who see promotional advantages in a free airdrop of their new product samples
to a demographic of people who donate to developers!

Unlike PTS, AGS do not have their own block chain and are not actually issued as any form of asset.  They exist only notionally in that anyone can compute what the conceptual distribution would be using the proposed virtual mining algorithm below.  This algorithm is intended only for use by developers wishing to identify who has donated toward developing the BitShares industry for the purpose of targeting them as a demographic with free promotional tokens in their new DAC releases.  

AGS Virtual Mining Algorithm
Beginning New Year’s Day 2014,
the algorithm will allocate 10,000 new AGS in a new virtual mining competition every day for 200 days.
5000 of them will be allocated to PTS donors.
5000 of them will be allocated to Bitcoin donors.  
That's ultimately 2,000,000 total, just like PTS.

Those who donate bitcoins to this address will notionally split 5000 AGS proportionally:
1ANGELwQwWxMmbdaSWhWLqBEtPTkWb8uDc
Those who donate PTS to this address will notionally split 5000 AGS proportionally:
PaNGELmZgzRQCKeEKM6ifgTqNkC4ceiAWw
Every day the virtual shares are notionally divided among those who donated that day.

"What happens to all the donations?"

100% of the proceeds go to growing the crypto-equity industry.
Zero percent will be retained as profits by Invictus.

Funds will be used to encourage new developers with salaries, grants, contracts, and bounties to build everything from small components to entire new DACs.  They will be used provide a free high-quality Developer's Toolkit giving DAC developers a huge head start.  They will be used for advertisements, conferences, promotions and give-aways to stimulate interest in the new industry and to provide opportunities for everyone to contribute.  They will be used for legal advocacy for the ecosystem in many jurisdictions.  Anything is fair game that we believe will grow the value of PTS and all DACs that honor the contributions of PTS and AGS holders.  

That said, these are pure donations for which your only expectation must be
that we will use our best judgement to apply them toward these purposes.

It is beyond our control to prevent an unethical developer from forking our open source code in a way that fails to recognize your donations.  It is up to the market to reject this, or not.  If you do not like our recommended allocation, do not trust the market to reject copycats, or do not trust us to use your donations wisely, then please take your money, fund competition, and build your own DACs that fit your preferred allocation strategy.  

Remember - your donations are recorded in a public block chain which developers may or may not use to target 10% or more of their products as a promotion to gain your support for their projects.  It is their choice - we merely define the public ledger documenting your contributions and a recommended formula for computing a fair share proportional to everyone's contribution.  Our free open source genesis-block initialization software will implement the recommended formula, but we cannot prevent any developer from modifying or replacing this software with their own algorithms or none at all.

Why would a developer want to recognize your donations?
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3980.msg50093#msg50093
Learn more about targeted share give-aways in our blog article on BitShares Sharedrop Theory here
http://bitshares.org/bitshares-airdrop-theory/

Well, the donations came rolling in and over the entire year of 2014 the community spent them to develop the BitShares Toolkit and a whole family of DACs, including the BitShares Exchange, BitShares Music, BitShares Play, BitShares DNS and BitShares VOTE and several others.  An entire ecosystem has grown up that would never have existed without this innovation.

The Developers of each of these DACs did decide to follow the BitShares Social Consensus, and as a result owners of PTS and donors of AGS have received "share drops" of free samples from each of them.

We had done it!  We had eliminated the need for mining to get a fair initial distribution of tokens and had seen it used in all kinds of new block chains.  Now, instead of distributing your initial coins to the demographic of rich miners and technically savvy geeks, you could target any demographic you like.  Just like a mailing list to specialized zip codes.

It’s like dropping shares with terminal homing seekers for DAC-savvy supporters!

You could target dog lovers or mars colonizers or permaculture enthusiasts if you wanted to.  We recommended that developers target the PTS and AGS mailing lists because those demographics already understood DACs.  You would get an instant fan club of people more likely to hold your shares than dump them.

So that was it.  We had accomplished our goal of eliminating the need for mining in fair share distribution.  Now we just had to figure out how get rid of the need for it in securing the block chain.

The obvious answer was Proof of Stake!

(To be Continued)

[cipherking]

This looks like a good one to clone. Just invent a bureaucracy and convince people to join The Party.

What most people don't get it is that the mayor Protoshares holders aka CEO/Wannabe-Devs  just made a new coin where they swapped their places 100% Protoshares coins --> to 250% Bitshares coins... Yes it is the best coin indeed just like Ripple which has problem to get their community to grow but why ?

Protoshares was also a fail coin where they payed their devs with their own "premined" coins and why the PoW "CPU based" was mined out they had to get a new plan vola Bitshares were created.

[fluxer555]

bureaucracy |byo͝oˈräkrəsē| noun
1. A system of government in which most of the important decisions are made by state officials rather than by elected representatives.

This does not seem to describe the bitshares system very well.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

NXT needs to stop being so defensive.  Instead of trying to tear down their strongest competitor they should look at what BitShares has to offer and copy it.  Last I remember once Bitshares came out, NXT had dozens and dozens of developers interviewing....

Hey, I don't care.  Go ahead and buy up those Bitshares.  It's no skin off my back.  Lol

You just picked a way to skin the cat that puts money in some select pockets.

AND WE HAVE A WINNER!

During the next few weeks, all the people who had been following Invictus Innovations since its birth on the Fourth of July, 2013 got a decent chance to mine Protoshares.  A classic mining lottery.  It was the best of times.  It was the worst of times.

I don't know Stan... I remember mining PTS on the first day (the moment it came out!) and I remember a significant amount of guys complaining about getting disconnected from the network.  I'm not going to lie... I find that a little suspicious.

I also find it hard to believe that I3 didn't just rent servers from AWS to mine PTS like everybody else.

This is a much more accurate picture of how much power a delegate has.

A MORE ACCURATE PICTURE

[DecentralizeEconomics]

This looks like a good one to clone. Just invent a bureaucracy and convince people to join The Party.

What most people don't get it is that the mayor Protoshares holders aka CEO/Wannabe-Devs  just made a new coin where they swapped their places 100% Protoshares coins --> to 250% Bitshares coins... Yes it is the best coin indeed just like Ripple which has problem to get their community to grow but why ?

Protoshares was also a fail coin where they payed their devs with their own "premined" coins and why the PoW "CPU based" was mined out they had to get a new plan vola Bitshares were created.

bureaucracy |byo͝oˈräkrəsē| noun
1. A system of government in which most of the important decisions are made by state officials rather than by elected representatives.

This does not seem to describe the bitshares system very well.

Actually, I think it is quite apropos.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

Loving the graphix DE.  You are working harder at pumping bitcoin2.0 than some of our delegated miners I suspect!

Have you registered a BitShares name to calim your award yet?

I think the wealthiest stakeholders would "support" business delegates which would maximize their investment. While the smaller stakeholders obtain an increase on their BTS investment, the wealthiest stakeholders would get the most benefit.  

Congratulations DE, you have been awarded "BitShares Educator of the Week" (BEW is just another way the BitShares community helps those who teach crypto concepts to the world) for explaining complex core BTS concepts in a terse manner for the TL/DR crowd who has no time to learn BitShares.  Just post your BTS address, and you will receive your 1234 BTS compensation for a job well done.  That is how delegated mining works.  You teach people crypto econ/math concepts, and a delegated miner compensates you for your hard work.  You've done more to teach BitShares today than cryptofresh:

http://cryptofresh.com/    

Your graphics rule.  Can you do one with Vitalik showcasing how BitShares solved the bitcoin1.0 "greedy miner" problem.  He holds a lot of clout in the crypto space, and people trust his judgement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVsA2WGGAfo

(BitShares) just picked a way to skin the cat that puts money in some select pockets.

And which pockets do you think deserve money?

People who teach Bitcoin2.0 concepts to the world like DE deserve  money for their teaching efforts no doubt.  DE, you could offer your services on consignment.  This is exactly how the Bitcoin2.0 miners are required to pay people like you for teaching Bitcoin2.0 concepts, or else we vote them out of office.  The best part is that you make money as a delegate without even mining!

I wouldn't feel right taking money for my public service announcements.  I do this for the people and to protect the original ideology of Bitcoin.  Long live decentralization!

[Haruko]

nothing to say about bitshares Paly current IPO??

 

[StanLarimer]

nothing to say about bitshares Paly current IPO??

 

I assume you mean BitShares PLAY, or simply PLAY.  This is a DAC which uses the BitShares Toolkit to produce a currency for the gaming industry.  It is being developed independently in China by a team centered around Denny Wang.  Denny worked in Virginia for a few months last summer to get spun up and help develop the Toolkit.

Other than a rare communication about some technical issue, there is little day to day contact.  The BitShares and PLAY teams are completely independent and their devs each make their own decisions.

[StanLarimer]

nothing to say about bitshares Paly current IPO??

 

Actually I'm more pumped about the first unforkable crypto:

BitSharesMusic

https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/tbs-ep10-peertracks-eddie-corral-and-cdrik-cobban

"Unforkable" because they are just a store front website using the blockchain tech.  They could have used BitShares's blockchian and saved themselves a lot of headache IMO, but they are going to create an entirely separate DPOS (yes with 101 more mining gigs to pay all you hungry little Litecoin miners mucho dinero).  If anything, it may just force people to see past the imperfections of DPOS and just starting using it in their lives regardless of the doom and gloomers:

There won't be any time for: "OMG the doublespenders are going to get us!"

woah, chill out man, here's the slogan:  "DPOS:

Make a living from music and get paid by a blockchain"

http://peertracks.com/



Are you seeing the bigger picture yet:

DPOS:

Peertracks is iTunes

BitShares is Wall St. and accurate polling/voting

What will the next DPOS do?

of course bitcoin beat Western Union long ago but what where will the next dis-intermediation (computerizing the functions of once trusted third parties in business) take place?

Unforkable more so because of their contacts in the music industry, which are amazing.

[fritz]

Be careful when you use word "communist", it's scary word only in USA, peoples in China, Russia and many other countries still love this word - this turns your post to BitShares propaganda and you to BitShares propagandist.  

PS: If you like you can fork BitShares to BitShares Communist Edition where everybody can be delegate and can select pay rate which he needs. 

This is very true and it further proves how western people believe that their values are the only correct values!
Respect other people, only if their society and system of government is like the West's!

[StanLarimer]

Hey, I don't care.  Go ahead and buy up those Bitshares.  It's no skin off my back.  Lol

You sure spend a lot of time producing disinformational graphics for someone who doesn't care.  Must be at least a little skin off your back?


I don't know Stan... I remember mining PTS on the first day (the moment it came out!) and I remember a significant amount of guys complaining about getting disconnected from the network.  I'm not going to lie... I find that a little suspicious.

Let me get this straight:  You talked to a significant amount of guys on the first day who were having trouble connecting to a brand new decentralized network from an independent third party who provided a single download source that everybody was using and where a third party mined the first block.  Yeah, that's real suspicious.


I also find it hard to believe that I3 didn't just rent servers from AWS to mine PTS like everybody else.

Of course we rented servers when our hardware didn't arrive. It's part of the legend of those early weeks. The point is, we purchased hardware expecting a long run of mining over an extended two year period and instead found that due to the piling on from professional miners the utility of owning them was over in six weeks.

Of course, we aren't complaining.  Without those early problems we would never have been motivated to develop what we have today.  In retrospect, I wouldn't change a thing! 

[StanLarimer]

It's become clear in this long thread that a year of "Fibs and Fud" from people who have little personal honor have left many fair minded folks with deep misunderstandings about BitShares.  Rather than continuing to answer them piecemeal, I've decided to author a series of posts that explain everything from the beginning.  I hope some of you find this useful.

The Origin of BitShares
Part 5
POW to POS to TaPOS to DPOS!

While AngelShares was off and running we turned our attention to eliminating mining from the security component of BitShares. Our goal was to get BitShares launched by "The Ides of March", but Bytemaster was not yet satisfied with the technology.

During his analysis of all the POSsibilities, just four weeks after the launch of ProtoShares, he made this famous statement:

Nxt looks very interesting.

He read everything he could about Proof of Stake, but was unable to convince himself that he could cover all the attack vectors that still remained in the literature.  He wasn't saying there was anything provably wrong with POS.  But he couldn't convince himself it had all bases covered.  That's when he began pondering if it was possible to do an end-run around these issues.

So he started looking at ways to make the system more deterministic.  
More analyzable.  
What if he traded mathematical generality for engineering structure?

This led to his invention of Transactions as Proof of Stake which he presented for review here on bitcointalk.  
A similar, longer thread ran in parallel on bitsharestalk:  Transactions as Proof-of-Stake & The End of Mining

These links show the discussions for historical purposes.  I won't go into them here. I just link to them to show this community that a serious attempt was made to:

• Build on top of Proof of Stake
• Involve this forum in the discussions

So with all this effort, why did Bytemaster abandon his TaPOS invention?  Suffice it to say, when I asked him today, he simply said "It wasn't fast enough.  It took too long to confirm transactions. To support a decentralized trading exchange it needed to do that much, much faster."  For Bitcoin it can take an hour.  We needed it to take seconds.  TaPOS was faster, but not fast enough.

That was unfortunate.  He was going back to the drawing board and we weren't going to make our March 15th target.

It took another six weeks to invent DPOS and even longer to test and debug it.  Four precious months in this industry is a long painful time.  It delayed the launch of BitShares from March to August.  But we all feel it was absolutely necessary -- and well worth the wait.

DPOS solved both problems.  It was totally analyzable and lightning fast.  And best of all, it gave us a new commodity as a by product:  Distilled Trust!

Aaack!  Another Heresy!  
These are supposed to be trustless systems!  
What was he doing?!?

Yes!  He had recognized that residual trust lay scattered in dark corners all around existing systems.   We trusted the coin's self-hired developers.  We trusted their wallets with our keys.  We trusted its self-appointed big miners and big forgers to sign most of the blocks.  Come to think about it, we do a lot of trusting for supposedly trustless systems!

Bytemaster's crowning innovation was to collect all that trust, bring it out into the bright light, make it explicit, subject it to a competitive Darwinian reputation distillation process, and place control over it directly into the hands of the token owners.  

If we have to trust somebody, let's make sure we know who it is and how we can fire them!

But it get's better!  Once you have such a mechanism, you have a valuable commodity to exploit.  Having decentralized hiring and firing of people with trusted reputations as part of the system gives powerful new capabilities.  We can have them publish trusted price feeds which are invaluable for bootstrapping market pegs.  We can give them control over tunable system parameters - like what fees to charge and what thresholds to set.  Hard fork upgrades are now trivial to implement - but only with the approval of elected delegates.  The system can hire developers and marketeers using the same distilled reputation mechanism.  It can have built-in multi-sig escrow functions and other services that require trustworthy human judgment.  This was especially perfect for bytemaster's long term vision of transferring many of the traditional roles of government to the incorruptible block chain.

Systems without Distilled Trust must work very hard to limit the impact of unknown powers in dark places.  This makes them very rigid and unresponsive to changes in market conditions.  This may be ok if all you aim to make is a single unchanging currency like Bitcoin.  But rigidity and unresponsiveness are not exactly what you are looking for in a competitive company!

DPOS is the key enabling factor for highly competitive,
quick responding companies that can turn on a dime.
And that is why the BitShares family of unmanned companies are all built upon it.

If you are a developer and find they are handing out competitive edges in this industry, you want one!

Bytemaster carries this thinking to its logical conclusion in his latest blog article, just posted:

The Minimal Requirement for Decentralization

[jonald_fyookball]

re:  Building on top of PoS...

There's just the tiny issue of "Distributed Consensus from Proof of Stake is Impossible"
https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf

I have not seen a convincing rebuttal to this.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

Hey, I don't care.  Go ahead and buy up those Bitshares.  It's no skin off my back.  Lol

You sure spend a lot of time producing disinformational graphics for someone who doesn't care.  Must be at least a little skin off your back?

"Disinformational?"  Hey, it's not my fault your DPoS algo is easily rigged by the wealthiest stakeholders.  You guys chose it.  I didn't.  You're the one, Stan, who keeps trying to pass Bitshares' DPoS algo off as some type of "representative government" founded on the same principles as the United States Constitution.  I have news for you.  The US Constitution was not created to institute a "government of the wealthy".  The US Constitution is a document meant to DECENTRALIZE the power from the rulers to the governed and ensure EQUAL REPRESENTATION (per person regardless of wealth).  Bitshares' DPoS doesn't do either of these things.  In fact, it does the exact opposite.

Quite frankly, I don't have to do anything to make Bitshares fail.  Bitshares is built upon a flawed concept.  Anybody who has any experience in finance knows that no convertibility means no parity.  Bitshares will work fine until the system comes under stress and then it will break.  Imo, it will break very badly and hurt a lot of people.

I don't know Stan... I remember mining PTS on the first day (the moment it came out!) and I remember a significant amount of guys complaining about getting disconnected from the network.  I'm not going to lie... I find that a little suspicious.

Let me get this straight:  You talked to a significant amount of guys on the first day who were having trouble connecting to a brand new decentralized network from an independent third party who provided a single download source that everybody was using and where a third party mined the first block.  Yeah, that's real suspicious.

Yeah, I read about it on your forum.

[runpaint]

I have some Bitshares DNS at Poloniex, but they delisted it because "there are no active devs". 

I haven't been able to find any information about a wallet for Bitshares DNS.  Or PTS for that matter. 

I downloaded the regular Bitshares client, but it said I had to have some Bitshares to register an address before I could deposit any Bitshares, which means I can't deposit any, which means I can't register a deposit address.  So I didn't waste any more time on it, that was about a month ago.

[StanLarimer]

"Disinformational?"  Hey, it's not my fault your DPoS algo is easily rigged by the wealthiest stakeholders.  You guys chose it.  I didn't.  You're the one, Stan, who keeps trying to pass Bitshares' DPoS algo off as some type of "representative government" founded on the same principles as the United States Constitution.  I have news for you.  The US Constitution was not created to institute a "government of the wealthy".  The US Constitution is a document meant to DECENTRALIZE the power from the rulers to the governed and ensure EQUAL REPRESENTATION (per person regardless of wealth). Bitshares' DPoS doesn't do either of these things.  In fact, it does the exact opposite.

Actually, BitShares does have a built-in one-person-one-vote voting and polling system coming soon.  This is the legacy of BitShares VOTE which has recently merged with BitShares.  That's where you go to support representative government activities.  But BitShares delegates are its company Board of Directors.  Such boards are almost always elected by the shareholders in proportion to their shares.  The "constitution" of a company is its suite of bylaws.  People choose to become shareholders of any company only if those bylaws are acceptable to them.  BitShares bylaws are encoded in the software where they are certain to be enforced equally for everyone. 

Quite frankly, I don't have to do anything to make Bitshares fail.  Bitshares is built upon a flawed concept.  Anybody who has any experience in finance knows that no convertibility means no parity.  Bitshares will work fine until the system comes under stress and then it will break.  Imo, it will break very badly and hurt a lot of people.

Actually, we've had several great stress tests recently including the Great Bitcoin Recession that is hopefully bottoming out right now.  BitShares derivatives (BitUSD, BitEUR, BitCNY, BitBTC, BitGold, and BitSilver) have tracked their pegs wonderfully during what some would call a gut-wrenching down-draft.

Yeah, I read about it on your forum.

Well, it's all still there in the archives.  Give us a link and we'll all see what you are talking about.

[StanLarimer]

I have some Bitshares DNS at Poloniex, but they delisted it because "there are no active devs". 

I haven't been able to find any information about a wallet for Bitshares DNS.  Or PTS for that matter. 

I downloaded the regular Bitshares client, but it said I had to have some Bitshares to register an address before I could deposit any Bitshares, which means I can't deposit any, which means I can't register a deposit address.  So I didn't waste any more time on it, that was about a month ago.

Back in November the developers of BitShares DNS and BitShares VOTE merged their efforts with BitShares X to form a single Super DAC called simply BitShares.

So you use your BitShares wallet to claim BTS proportional to your share of DNS or VOTE.  There will not be separate DNS or VOTE wallets.

BitShares now comes with a built-in faucet to pay your registration for you if you have no funds of your own yet.  When you are looking at your newly created BitShares account you hit the blue Register button in the top right corner and a pop-up window lets you pick which account to pay your half-penny registration fee with.  If you have no such accounts then a faucet account appears and we'll pay the whole half-penny for you.  Just use that. 

BitShares PTS was recently upgraded from POW to DPOS by a third party.  So you'll need to import your old PTS wallets into the new one to continue trading them.  You can find that developer's web site here:  http://ptscrypto.com/

I'll be back later today with some more links you may find useful.

[runpaint]

I'll try it, thanks!

[runpaint]

Yeah, I just tried again and you have to have the url for a faucet.  I can go find a faucet, but it obviously isn't meant for regular people to be able to use.

The future of banking:  "Hello, welcome to our bank.  Before you can open an account, you have to have an account with us.  If you don't have an account, you can go on the internet and come back when you find a certain web address.  Maybe ask around on some forums."

[hack_]

When we were discussing AGS, it was meant to funnel funds into development, without the need to pay power companies.

However, you seem to be slowly going back to the model you rejected.

[StanLarimer]

When we were discussing AGS, it was meant to funnel funds into development, without the need to pay power companies.

However, you seem to be slowly going back to the model you rejected.

How do you mean?

[StanLarimer]

Yeah, I just tried again and you have to have the url for a faucet.  I can go find a faucet, but it obviously isn't meant for regular people to be able to use.

The future of banking:  "Hello, welcome to our bank.  Before you can open an account, you have to have an account with us.  If you don't have an account, you can go on the internet and come back when you find a certain web address.  Maybe ask around on some forums."

Absolutely!

Various independent developers have several wallets under development including a web wallet and a lite wallet for phones. These will present a much, much simpler user interface.

The BitShares web site will become first and foremost, a decentralized bank and exchange.  We are not even positioning it as a currency.  It is an exchange that produces stabilized smart currencies useful in trading.

The Future of Crypto Currency Exchanges

The user experiences between the two will be completely different.

Just like when you use the voting, you'll encounter yet another completely different "voting booth" interface.
Other "store fronts" are planned for other business models.

But they will all share the same block chain and benefit from an interchangeable set of BitAsset smart currencies.

All of these things are being developed in parallel and most will be coming out this quarter.

Most of the folks over on bitsharestalk.org have long since stopped talking about DPOS or the underlying technologies.
These days they are talking about new delegate businesses coming on line to grow the ecosystem and especially things like trading strategies!  For example:

I think people are underestimating how big it is, that all markets are opened now.

Example:

You can short bitusd against yourself at 0% interest now.
If you believe gold will keep on rallying, you can use your BitUSD to buy Bitgold.
After a profit you sell your Bitgold for BitUSD again, and close your short.

The only reason we are all putting up with the current wallet is because its a way to get in and get experienced early, before all this stuff hits the fan in the coming weeks and months.

[StanLarimer]

I have some Bitshares DNS at Poloniex, but they delisted it because "there are no active devs".  

I haven't been able to find any information about a wallet for Bitshares DNS.  Or PTS for that matter.  

I downloaded the regular Bitshares client, but it said I had to have some Bitshares to register an address before I could deposit any Bitshares, which means I can't deposit any, which means I can't register a deposit address.  So I didn't waste any more time on it, that was about a month ago.

Back in November the developers of BitShares DNS and BitShares VOTE merged their efforts with BitShares X to form a single Super DAC called simply BitShares.

So you use your BitShares wallet to claim BTS proportional to your share of DNS or VOTE.  There will not be separate DNS or VOTE wallets.

BitShares now comes with a built-in faucet to pay your registration for you if you have no funds of your own yet.  When you are looking at your newly created BitShares account you hit the blue Register button in the top right corner and a pop-up window lets you pick which account to pay your half-penny registration fee with.  If you have no such accounts then a faucet account appears and we'll pay the whole half-penny for you.  Just use that.  

BitShares PTS was recently upgraded from POW to DPOS by a third party.  So you'll need to import your old PTS wallets into the new one to continue trading them.  You can find that developer's web site here:  http://ptscrypto.com/

I'll be back later today with some more links you may find useful.

Here's a link to the newsletter which described the "merger" of BTSX, DNS, and VOTE:
BitShares October Newsletter

Good places to post questions:

Account Registration Faucet
Welcome to Newbies

Here's an example of a recent useful response to a newbie's question:
Questions and Insights
In it you will find lots of other helpful links. 

[jrossIV]

Yeah, I just tried again and you have to have the url for a faucet.  I can go find a faucet, but it obviously isn't meant for regular people to be able to use.

When I tried this there was a pulldown menu thing which had at least one faucet pre-loaded to use.  From there I was able to completely register an account and start trading.  The problem you had a month ago was there previously, but it has been fixed. 

[StanLarimer]

It's become clear in this long thread that a year of "Fibs and Fud" from people who have little personal honor have left many fair minded folks with deep misunderstandings about BitShares.  Rather than continuing to answer them piecemeal, I've decided to author a series of posts that explain everything from the beginning.  I hope some of you find this useful.

The Origin of BitShares
Part 6
Sharedrops and Snapshots

Sharedrops and Snapshots were another BitShares innovation - It was our replacement for mining as a fair share distribution mechanism.  (Actually, primitive sharedrops were also being tried by other coins, more on that next time)

snapshot - noun
A picture of the instantaneous ownership of all coins in a block chain at a specified point in time (i.e. at a specified block number).  Every block in any blockchain represents a snapshot of the evolving ownership record, and the entire blockchain can be viewed as a motion picture consisting of the ordered sequence of all snapshots.

sharedrop - noun
Distribution of shares in a new coin to holders of another coin by initializing the new genesis block with the same keys holding shares in the old block chain at a specified snapshot.  

The original PTS deal was that a minimum of 10% of new DAC shares would be sharedropped onto holders of ProtoShares on a snapshot date to be announced for each DAC.  Another minimum of 10% would be proportionally sharedropped onto AGS donors on that same date.  At the time, that left 80% to be mined.

Um, except that we were in the process of eliminating mining!

So what to do with the remaining 80%?

Over the coming months, our community developed the general consensus that it was up to each DAC developer to propose what to do with the remaining 80%.  If they wanted to, they could propose keeping the 80% for themselves, presumably to fund development and promotion of the new DAC.  But we also pointed out that, derived from the The Ten Natural Laws of the Crypto-Asset Universe, lay one particularly Inconvenient Truth:  If they did that, there was nothing to stop a competitor from cloning their DAC and offering everyone a better deal, like 20/20/60 or 30/30/40 or 40/40/20!

So it is important for a developer to pick a distribution that leaves a competitor no toe-hold.  

Since we already had funding from AGS, we saw no reason to reserve any developer funds in the BitShares distribution, so we simply made the BitShares distribution 50/50/0.  This is, of course the same as 10/10/0 where the 80% were simply viewed as burned (or never mined in the first place).  

This turned out to be a mistake.

We discovered there were lots of reasons to reserve some shares for use in developing and promoting the DAC.  In the months that followed, other developers continued to honor AGS and PTS with at least their minimum 10/10 shares while experimenting with other allocations for their discretionary 80%.  We actually developed a whole new school of thought we dubbed "BitShares Sharedrop Theory".  I'll cover that next time.

(To be continued...)

[StanLarimer]

It's become clear in this long thread that a year of "Fibs and Fud" from people who have little personal honor have left many fair minded folks with deep misunderstandings about BitShares.  Rather than continuing to answer them piecemeal, I've decided to author a series of posts that explain everything from the beginning.  I hope some of you find this useful.

The Origin of BitShares
Part 7
BitShares Sharedrop Theory

Albert Einstein spent most of his career in search of Unified Field Theory.  Today’s physicists are closing in on their Theory of Everything.  We, on the other hand will settle for nothing less than Grand BitShares Sharedrop Theory!

Each of these Grand Unification Theories seeks to describe their field with one simple explanation, preferably no bigger than
e = mc².  In our case, we’ve been seeking a simple way to explain BitShares PTS, AGS, BTS, snapshots and virtual mining all in one relaxing elevator ride.

And just like Newton’s apple, and Archimedes’s bathtub, or Fleming’s Petri dish,
we found our solution in one blazing flash of the obvious.

Our breakthrough in clarity came when a new altcoin decided to target its promotional coin give-away to a specific demographic: employees of leading firms in Silicon Valley.  Rather than give their coins to the general population, most of who would either ignore or quickly sell them, Silicon Valley Coin developers were trying to get them into the hands of people who might appreciate them more by targeting specific Silicon Valley postal codes.  This was much better than simply dropping them from a helicopter somewhere over southern California.  Targeted airdrops were the now obvious answer to getting a fair distribution to likely users!

“That’s it!  That’s what we’ve been doing all along!”  We have been designing coins to represent demographic groups that developers would rather give their promotional shares to than the general public.  There was now a new reason, perhaps the most important reason, for all altcoins to exist!

Enough altcoins have distributed their shares through, ahem, “fair” mining
that we no longer need to use mining to fairly distribute shares!

Instead, we can “sharedrop” them onto holders of one or more existing coins whose demographic profile matches the group of users we want to become our new customers. Whether your coin represented dog-lovers or permaculture enthusiasts or Mars colonizers, air dropping your coin to the holders of their coin represented the perfect bootstrap operation.  Just take a snapshot of the account balances in their block chain and use the same public keys for their corresponding accounts in your block chain.

An altcoin blockchain is a mailing list for reaching a specific demographic group.
(The group of people who, for whatever reason, are currently holding that coin.)

Now we could describe our first products using the targeted promotion paradigm:

ProtoShares
is just an altcoin you could mine or buy from others (not us)
to try to get targeted by developers
who see promotional advantages in a free airdrop of their new product samples
to a demographic of people who liked mining and understand DACs.

AngelShares
is just a public ledger of donors you got on by donating to a development trust,
to support the industry and maybe get targeted by developers
who see promotional advantages in a free airdrop of their new product samples
to a demographic of people who have donated to developers!

BitShares
is an unmanned company with a decentralized exchange as it's core business model.
You own it to share in the value it generates - like any traditional company.
And, as a bonus, try to get targeted by developers
who see promotional advantages in a free airdrop of their new product samples
to a demographic of people who are active customers/owners of a decentralized exchange!

We think these are three demographic “mailing lists” that every savvy developer will want to honor as airdrops replace mining as the preferred way to get a fair (but targeted) distribution of new give-away samples.  Targeted sharedrops to finely tuned demographics are far better than tossing your samples into a few zip codes or to all the uncaring masses of a typical currency.

Companies pay big money for focused mailing lists.

We have generated three outstanding lists – and make them available for free. Savvy developers want to give free promotional shares in their new digital companies to people who will appreciate them – the kind of people who will hold onto and promote them so their value goes up, rather than crashing prices by dumping them on the market.

These shares work like “sign-up lists” for more free shares

ProtoShares (PTS) – The original grandfather prototype .  Having PTS in your wallet means you are a “holder” not a “dumper” – presumably because you think long term and value owning a stake in the BitShares industry.  Whether you mined them or bought them on the market, the fact that you still have them proves you are a long-term supporter.

AngelShares (AGS) – The original grandmother prototype in reference to the patron “angels” who once funded the performing arts.   That’s why AGS are not liquid.  (No one can trade the proof that you were the one willing to donate to this cause.)  But you can imagine why developers will want to give an industry donor free shares more than anyone else!

BitShares (BTS) - The first child of ProtoShares and AngelShares.  It's a mailing list of people who are currently interested in DACs of this type - and actively engaged as its customers and/or owners.  

A final word that many altcoin developers know instinctively:

It’s not about imitating Bitcoin.  It’s about attracting an affinity group.  And once you’ve motivated that group to hold onto your coin, you have eyeballs to sell.  In this case, the value of your coin is tied to the value of your group as a target for other developers’ promotional shares. This is exactly what PTS, AGS, and BTS holders are:  A demographic MUCH more likely to be good supporters.  These block chains are like mailing codes that let you target your shares to the people you want to reach much, much, much more precisely than using Silicon Valley mailing codes!

You can see the control this gives a developer to build a reliable constituency and minimize the amount of shares wasted on people inclined to quickly sell them!  BitShares Sharedrop Theory offers a much better option than conventional mining for achieving a fair but smart distribution of  new coins or shares.  We think many clever targeting mixes will be devised and this will become a preferred initial share distribution approach in the days ahead.

The following block chains have or will be using this Sharedropping technique:  BitShares, LottoShares, MemoryCoin, PLAY, Music, RandPaulCoin, and Sparkle.

Ordinary altcoins now have a big new reason to exist:  to attract a particular sharedrop demographic!

We think this fair distribution method will be adopted widely in the next few years.  There are many possible options.  For example, here is the distribution chosen independently by the Chinese developers of the PLAY DAC:

35 % will go to BTS holders on December 8, 2014 12:00 PM (UTC).
10 % will go to AGS holders on July 18, 2014 12:00 PM (UTC).
10 % will go to PTS holders on November 5, 2014 12:00 PM (UTC).
15 % will go to the R & D team to cover development costs.
10% will be held in reserves
20% will go to a public PLS sale

You can read about other third party DACs here:   Third Party DACs Newsletter

(To be continued...)

[StanLarimer]

Something we're all pretty excited about at BitShares is Bytemaster's latest post on uses for BitGold and BitSilver.

Everyone who has been following the evolution of crypto currency exchanges has learned how expensive it is to comply with all of the regulations in the money transmission business. It can literally takes years and millions of dollars to get permission from the government to start an exchange that accepts dollars for crypto currencies. All alt-coin communities have experienced the frustration of having to go through two exchanges (dollars to bitcoin and bitcoin to alt-coin) just to enter or exit the ecosystem. This two step process is expensive and ultimately limits adoption. Today I would like to present the case for abandoning fiat all together and adopting a truly free market currency: gold, silver, and other metals.

...

If there existed $ 85 million dollars of BitGold within the BitShares ecosystem, then it would have a total collateral worth at least $ 255 million and would likely represent less than 10% of the BitShares supply (because not everyone would be willing to short) and because people would likely have an equal amount of value held in BitUSD, BitSilver, and BitCNY. In any event, we can conclude that if BitShares can gain the same adoption for BitGold that e-gold managed years ago then it would have a market cap of over $ 2.5 billion dollars and a price of $ 1 per BTS.

You can read the rest here:  Use Gold and Silver with BitShares to Bypass Fiat Regulations

[DecentralizeEconomics]

It's become clear in this long thread that a year of "Fibs and Fud" from people who have little personal honor have left many fair minded folks with deep misunderstandings about BitShares.  Rather than continuing to answer them piecemeal, I've decided to author a series of pictures that explain everything from the beginning.  I hope some of you find this useful.

[StanLarimer]

Nice, but I won't be happy till I get my picture on the cover of the Rolling Stone...

...I got my poor old gray-haired daddy,
Drivin' my limousine.
Now it's all designed to blow our minds
But our minds won't really be blown,
Like the blow that'll get ya
When you get your picture
On the cover of the Rolling Stone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ux3-a9RE1Q

[StanLarimer]

It's become clear in this long thread that a year of "Fibs and Fud" from people who have little personal honor have left many fair minded folks with deep misunderstandings about BitShares.  Rather than continuing to answer them piecemeal, I've decided to author a series of posts that explain everything from the beginning.  I hope some of you find this useful.

The Origin of BitShares
Part 8
Experimenting and Pivoting

I was skimming through one of the other threads on bitcointalk where I read with interest that Crypti was about to adopt DPOS.  
That's when I ran across this wonderful graphic:

"That's it!", I enthused,
"That's exactly what it's been like on every project I've worked on in the past 40 years!"

And it's certainly what we've experienced in the BitShares community since Invictus Innovations was founded on the Fourth of July, 2013. It's a good thing we put "Innovations" in our name, because we've certainly needed to innovate.

I especially liked the chart's Trough of Sorrow where "experimenting and pivoting" is said to go on.  Been there.  Done that!

In general, the market doesn't like it when you pivot.  Makes you look like you don't know what you're doing.  However, once you admit that to everybody, the pivot can be a devastating competitive move.  You'd be crazy not to use it in combat, if you can pull it off.

Michael Jordan's Pivot Moves

Of course, most investors would prefer it if you would simply run a fast break straight down the middle of the court for a lay-up.  We would too.  Why can't all those moving obstacles stay seated on the opposing bench?

So, that's what we're about.  We regret that we have lost some supporters along the way who expected us to dribble straight down the court. But our intention was to maneuver quickly around the obstacles and get on with the Grand Vision with all of our supporters against the challenges that ahead of us. Without the change, we would've lost eventually.

We do smile when our detractors point out each of our pivot moves.
I don't know why they want to keep playing our highlight reel, but ok...
For their convenience, I'll summarize them here:

Obstacle: Big Mining ProtoShares (PTS) built a fantastic community, but Big Mining sucked up all the shares before we could mine enough to fund development.  We played by the rules offering a "fair" mining lottery - and got our head handed to us.  We had to find another way to fund development.

Pivot:  We invented AngelShares (AGS) - a simulated mining lottery where people donated what they would otherwise have burned up in a traditional mining lottery.

Result:  We raised over $6 million dollars in donations.  Enough to fund our team for two years, produce a general purpose software toolkit, and spin off six new DACs (BitShares X, BitShares Music, BitShares Play, BitShares ME,  BitShares DNS, and BitShares VOTE).  Share growth in all of these DACs promised to fund continued development indefinitely.  Life was good.

Obstacle: Unprofitable Mining  Mining wasn't going to work for implementing a decentralized exchange.  It was too wasteful and too slow.  No market would wait for confirmations that could take up to an hour to lock down a transaction.  We needed trades to confirm as fast as users could specify them.  And we were trying to build a profitable company.  Burning the value of each issued share made no sense at all.

Pivot:  Read all about it in Part 5:  POW to POS to TaPOS to DPOS!

Result:  It delayed our release by over 4 months (a real Trough of Sorrow!).  But it gave us blazing fast 10 second confirmation times.  Bring on the traders!  As a byproduct, we had a system we could upgrade weekly under control of elected delegates - great for tuning market rules and parameters as we observed trading in live action. These delegates also became an amazing resource of reputation based distilled trust - highly useful in overcoming obstacles we didn't even know about yet!

Obstacle:  The Great Bitcoin Recession  For the sake of transparency, we left all the donated funds in BTC and PTS on the block chains where everyone could keep track of how we were spending them.  (Volatility-free BitAssets weren't available yet.)  PTS was supposed to drop as its value was transferred to new products.  But Bitcoin was supposed to hit $1200 by years end!  Instead it dropped like a rock all year long.  By the fall it was clear that our two year runway had been whittled down to one year - and that was about to end!

Pivot:  We rediscovered something every Silicon Valley startup knows well:  working for equity!  Why couldn't that work for block chain based companies?  Why not do the same thing as bitcoin - issue new shares at a slowly decreasing rate.  Except, unlike Bitcoin, we didn't have to burn them.  We could use them to pay employees!  What's a few percent annual dilution when we were expecting value to grow by hundreds of percent in the coming year?  All we had to do is bleed off a few percent of that growth and we could fund much faster growth!

Result:  If Bitcoin could do what we could now do, it could pay 101 small businesses several million dollars a year - each!  Instead Bitcoin gives all that new money to the electric companies to produce global warming.  Even at BitShares current scale, that same rate of token issuance could sustain our 2014 development budget into the future indefinitely.  With just a couple doublings of our market cap we would be looking at 101 full time developer and marketer positions working to grow the whole ecosystem.

Obstacle:  Promises, Promises  We had the solution to all our funding problems and a path to ever-accelerating growth right there within our grasp - and couldn't implement it for BitShares X!  Its Social Consensus and ownership distribution had already been defined.  No Dilution! You Promised! Remember a few posts back when I said that allocating zero shares for development and giving it all to PTS and AGS holders (50/50/0) had been a mistake?  Well that mistake had come home to roost.  BitShares X was boxed into a corner.  Bound by the same suicide pact as Bitcoin and most other chains - no way to fund developers and marketers!  Rats.

Pivot:  That's ok.  We'll just apply that lesson learned to all future DACs we develop.  MUSIC and PLAY had already spun off to their own independent developers, and ME had been merged into BitShares X, but we still had VOTE and DNS on the launch pads.  We would build them to be self-funding DACs - and they could pick up the development and marketing torch for the whole ecosystem.

Result:  Bytemaster turned his attention to VOTE and DNS.  These had to get up and operational and generating funds to pay salaries by the end of the year.  We were about out of railroad track and had to get them up to 88 miles per hour in a hurry!

Obstacle:  Fratricide!  There's just one problem.  Every new DAC we build has to be the best we can build - using all the past lessons learned - or some competitor will seize the opportunity to do it for us!  VOTE would need its own stable BitAsset currency.  To produce that it would need a full-scale decentralized exchange.  It would need its own name registration system.  It would need its own network effect and would be leveraging every poll, petition, and election registration to build it's own huge base of provably unique users.  It would need to become a SuperDAC, able to compete on all possible fronts for all important market depth and network effect.  And BitShares X would inevitably be in its cross-hairs!  Most importantly, BitShares VOTE would be self-funding - able to recycle a few percent of its growth every year into paying developers and marketeers.  We were creating our own BitShares X killer.

Does anyone know where the love of God goes
When the waves turn the minutes to hours?

-- Gordon Lightfoot, The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald.

Pivot: We had to go back and explain this to the BitShares community.  It wasn't pretty.  We explained that as long as we were building new DACs we would keep learning and applying those lessons to each new DAC.  And each new DAC would want to have its own BitAssets, domain names, and network effect.  Each would be forced to clone all its predecessors and fight for dominance over all our previous efforts.  If we tried to play nice and keep features separate, some outside competitor would come along and combine everything into a SuperDAC.  We couldn't leave that option on the table for them.  BitShares X would have to be upgraded, or face eventual extinction. There was wailing and gnashing of teeth.  

Result:  We merged all our DACs into one SuperDAC called simply BitShares.  For some, this was the last straw and they jumped ship.  But for those who patiently understood the reasons and the vision, the future is incredibly bright.  

They now own shares in a self-funding, hyper-competitive SuperDAC.

...and it will exclusively get the benefit of all our future innovations!

What good is a SuperDAC?  Why, that's the subject of Part 9!  

(To be continued...)

[StanLarimer]

Joint Project Between BitShares and Namecoin is Under Consideration.

One of Namecoin's developers has submitted a proposal for a joint venture to be funded in part by the BitShares delegate pay system.

I highlight it here primarily as an example of how crypto communities could and should cooperate and to give you an example of what I consider an outstanding delegate proposal.  

Too early to tell how it will be received by the voting stakeholders, but this will give you some insights about our inner delegate vetting process and what might be coming in the future.

The Road to Universal p2p Resolution

[robrigo]

Joint Project Between BitShares and Namecoin is Under Consideration.

One of Namecoin's developers has submitted a proposal for a joint venture to be funded in part by the BitShares delegate pay system.

I highlight it here primarily as an example of how crypto communities could and should cooperate and to give you an example of what I consider an outstanding delegate proposal.  

Too early to tell how it will be received by the voting stakeholders, but this will give you some insights about our inner delegate vetting process and what might be coming in the future.

The Road to Universal p2p Resolution

The RSA threshold crypto is something that I wasn't aware of. And it's also interesting how this proposal submits the idea of a subset of 7 trusted delegates for zonefile signing. That illustrates how the 101 BitShares delegates can also be regarded as trusted oracles for performing other tasks as well. Indolering's proposal is probably the best delegate proposal I have read to date.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

It's become clear in this long thread that a year of "Fibs and Fud" from people who have little personal honor have left many fair minded folks with deep misunderstandings about BitShares.  Rather than continuing to answer them piecemeal, I've decided to author a series of pictures that explain everything from the beginning.  I hope some of you find this useful.

(To be continued...)

[DecentralizeEconomics]

It's become clear in this long thread that a year of "Fibs and Fud" from people who have little personal honor have left many fair minded folks with deep misunderstandings about BitShares.  Rather than continuing to answer them piecemeal, I've decided to author a series of pictures that explain everything from the beginning.  I hope some of you find this useful.

(To be continued...)

[DecentralizeEconomics]

It's become clear in this long thread that a year of "Fibs and Fud" from people who have little personal honor have left many fair minded folks with deep misunderstandings about BitShares.  Rather than continuing to answer them piecemeal, I've decided to author a series of pictures that explain everything from the beginning.  I hope some of you find this useful.

(To be continued...)

[brekyrself]

DecentralizeEconomics with all the time you spend making meme's you could be having a constructive conversation...

With all the turmoil in Europe right now it's a perfect time for people to diversify into assets and even USD.  Between the Swiss dropping their peg and Greece electing a left winger the Euro is sure to come down even further.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

DecentralizeEconomics with all the time you spend making meme's you could be having a constructive conversation...

This is a constructive conversation.

I'm sorry you chose the wrong side of crypto.  Some of us still believe in free market capitalism and ACTUAL decentralization.  Crypto belongs to the people not corporations.

[chryspano]

An Aesop's Fable

One hot summer's day a Fox was strolling through an orchard till he came to a bunch of Grapes just ripening on a vine which had been trained over a lofty branch. "Just the thing to quench my thirst," quoth he. Drawing back a few paces, he took a run and a jump, and just missed the bunch. Turning round again with a One, Two, Three, he jumped up, but with no greater success. Again and again he tried after the tempting morsel, but at last had to give it up, and walked away with his nose in the air, saying: "I am sure they are sour communists!"

Moral of Aesops Fable: It is easy to despise what you cannot get

[StanLarimer]

I don't remember the exact quote, but I think it went something like this:

"I believe that this planet should commit itself to achieving the goal,
before this decade is out, of landing an unmanned company on the moon" 
- John F. Kennedy

[MisO69]

The last few posts from the op make this thread look like something from that conspiracy site, rense.com. I am beginning to think that OP is more like one of those "truthers" that keep repeating the same line over and over, louder and louder, until someone just clicks the x on the top right.

Even those last few memes, if thats what you want to call them, look like the artwork from those conspiracy sites. Maybe same guy? Just a thought...

[StanLarimer]

I would prefer that the discussion focus on the simple question:  If you own BitShares or any of its stabilized currency products or DAC spinoffs, are you likely to make money?  Not everything is about political labels.

But, if you insist, I'll give it a shot!

If you are willing to accept Wikipedia as an authoritative reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government

It is not a direct democracy, but might be thought of as a representative-democracy (people select representatives) who in turn must decide which group of technocrats to trust to provide software updates.

But one could argue that it is a democratically-elected-representative-technocracy, since the representatives effectively choose whether to accept software updates to the ruling blockchain LAW from one or more trusted technocrats.

A big difference is that it is vote-per-share, not vote-per-shareholder.  Strangely, out of the dozens of government types mentioned in this wiki, they don't have a name for the standard corporate model of government by the shareholder!  So I get to name it!  A "stakeocracy".

I note in passing that, all modesty aside, we seem to have elements of Geniocracy (rule by the intelligent), Meritocracy (rule by the meritorious), Timocracy (rule by the honorable), Technocracy (rule by technical experts) and Meekocracy (rule by the profoundly humble).

So, after considerable analysis, I believe we can safely say that our form of government is definately not a democracy.  It is a benevolant

paleo-neo-anarcho-merito-timo-genio-techno-meeko-representitive-stakeocracy.

There.  I feel better just knowing that.

[StanLarimer]

It's become clear in this long thread that a year of "Fibs and Fud" from people who have little personal honor have left many fair minded folks with deep misunderstandings about BitShares.  Rather than continuing to answer them piecemeal, I've decided to author a series of posts that explain everything from the beginning.  I hope some of you find this useful.

The Origin of BitShares
Part 9
What is a SuperDAC?

SuperDAC - noun - soup-er-dak
A Decentralized Autonomous Company (DAC) providing common services that support layering of other DAC business models onto a common public ledger for the sake of shared network effect.

The need to merge our various DACs into a single "SuperDAC" was based on the realization that they all needed a whole bunch of common services that are much less effective if they aren't common services:

• A unified basket of stable, robust global currencies (bitAssets)
  
• A unified set of well compensated, best-of-breed delegates.
• A unified name system.
• A unified secure messaging system.
• A unified set of on and off ramps - portals to the fiat world.
• A unified marketing message.
• A unified consensus-based governing system.
• A unified family of tools and wallets.
• A unified way for newcomers to make instant friends with everyone already there.
• A built-in venture capital system where you can compete for start-up funds - democratically.

New business developers (DAC engineers) shouldn't want to reinvent these things any more than I would want to reinvent my computer's device drivers and operating system.  And what sense would it make to have different competing operating systems, each with a subset of drivers and services?

Gee, I sure wish I could go back in time and invest in MS-DOS. 
Rats. 
An opportunity like that will never come around again.

BitShares took the whole ecosystem into one DAC friendly free-trade zone with all the services that benefit from network effect already in place.

Any developer who wants to build a business would be crazy to stay on the outside and try to replicate that.  Even if they can pick up the toolkit and get all the functions - the network effect doesn't come with the toolkit!  You get that by joining the club.  You still run your own business with its own custom storefront and Internet presence.  You just skipped a year or two of trying to get traffic to stop by!

Now do you begin to see why it wasn't hard for the VOTE and DNS developers to agree to a merger?

We offer instant network effect.  Built in.

If I were going to summarize the opportunity for other developers, I might put it this way:

Come build you business in our free trade zone mall.  Join us in free space.  We are the mall developers.  You can be a mall tenant.   We've got lots of real estate for you - all wired up with power, plumbing, internet and customers browsing the halls.  Add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own and get issued shares to match the value you have added to our free trade ecosystem.  And its growing network effect.

You'd be crazy to locate your business outside the mall.  Why start over?

When new entrepreneurs contact us about how to leverage the BitShares Toolkit,
these are some of the considerations we often discuss.

(To be continued...)

[DecentralizeEconomics]

It's become clear in this long thread that a year of "Fibs and Fud" from people who have little personal honor have left many fair minded folks with deep misunderstandings about BitShares.  Rather than continuing to answer them piecemeal, I've decided to author a series of pictures that explain everything from the beginning.  I hope some of you find this useful.

(To be continued...)

[StanLarimer]

DE, you need some more raw material.

Here, see what you can do with this... taken from a panel discussion at the Cryptolina Bitcoin Conference, shown front to back:

@storjproject @super3,
@_bitshares Dan Larimer,
@ethereumproject @VitalikButerin

[neurotypical]

Thats a funny picture. What do you think of Vitalik? Is he a trusteable individual or not? I was considering on dropping some BTC in the Ethereum IPO but eventully chickened out given so many damn IPO scams.

[StanLarimer]

Thats a funny picture. What do you think of Vitalik? Is he a trusteable individual or not? I was considering on dropping some BTC in the Ethereum IPO but eventully chickened out given so many damn IPO scams.

I like Vitalik very much.  Very smart, soft-spoken, considerate, and straight-talking.  You can hold a serious discussion with him and he is willing to agree on some things while disagreeing on others.  Very refreshing.  We view him with great respect.

Interestingly, it was Super3 who mined the very first ProtoShares (PTS) block - long before we ever knew him.

[StanLarimer]

Back in Part 7 I should have mentioned that there are many other sharedrop mixes - practically one for every developer who has embraced this initial share distribution method.

For example, here is the distribution chosen independently by the Chinese developers of the PLAY DAC:

35 % will go to BTS holders on December 8, 2014 12:00 PM (UTC).
10 % will go to AGS holders on July 18, 2014 12:00 PM (UTC).
10 % will go to PTS holders on November 5, 2014 12:00 PM (UTC).
15 % will go to the R & D team to cover development costs.
10% will be held in reserves
20% will go to a public PLS sale

You can read about other third party DACs here:  Third Party DACs Newsletter

[StanLarimer]

It's become clear in this long thread that a year of "Fibs and Fud" from people who have little personal honor have left many fair minded folks with deep misunderstandings about BitShares.  Rather than continuing to answer them piecemeal, I've decided to author a series of posts that explain everything from the beginning.  I hope some of you find this useful.

The Origin of BitShares
Part 10
BitShares Unleashed

In this industry, talk often turns to the virtues of decentralization.  This usually means distributed software, but we have aimed to decentralize the BitShares industry as well. And for good reasons!  What good is decentralized software if someone can attack the human organization that maintains it? How do we actually achieve the word “Autonomous” in the DAC acronym anyway?
 

Now that BitShares has become the world’s first self-funding DAC,
that vision is within reach.

Those who have been with us since the beginning will remember we emphasized that a critical stage in the life of a DAC would be when it is able to become unleashed from its developers.  Only then would it be truly emancipated and autonomous …even sovereign.  Barely sixteen months ago, we said it this way when we unveiled our the concept of a Decentralized Autonomous Company (DAC) in a LetsTalkBitcoin.com article entitled:

Bitcoin and the Three Laws of Robotics:

Ultimately, to achieve complete incorruptibility,
developers must be willing to let go of their own control.  
If there remains any centralized human control anywhere,
it will eventually be exploited to the detriment of the DAC’s stakeholders.  
DACs need to be free to be trusted.

We think we have now come close to achieving this vision.
 

BitShares will be the first fully automatic company.
It will employ humans, not the other way around.

BitShares will still have human owners; it will still serve human customers; and it will still hire human staff; but it will be managed by independent software agents that cannot be corrupted, seduced or coerced. Because it can be trusted in ways that manned companies cannot, it will be able to serve its owners and customers more reliably than any manned company you may still be inclined to trust.

So, as long planned, we have set BitShares free - releasing it into the wild!

Invictus Innovations Incorporated (I3) has ceased operations in the crypto currency space to ensure that there remains no central control over BitShares of any kind.  For a while, the corporation will continue to exist as a legal entity to handle any future regulatory inquiry, tax audits, or other government duties associated with its past existence.   But BitShares will no longer depend upon Invictus for anything.

Invictus has delivered BitShares to its owners as a self-funding, self-maintaining, self-promoting product.

Having accomplished that mission, Invictus can quietly ride off into the sunset in search of Satoshi Nakamoto.

Meanwhile BitShares, DAC (not BitShares, Inc.) has already begun hiring its own support, development, and promotional contractors. Most of us who have been employed by Invictus Innovations have sought employment directly with BitShares.   We have been hired by our own software!  And up to 101 delegate-based contractor slots are now open for other new talent of all kinds.

Whether we are familiar old-timers or newly arriving talent, each of us will have to make our case to the community of BitShares holders. They will make all hiring decisions. Based upon the indicated preferences of those voters on the blockchain, BitShares, DAC will automatically hire and pay the top 101 vote getters.  This will make elected delegates very competitive, responsive, open and transparent – since those same voters can just as easily fire us… in about ten seconds.

So now you are caught up.  The Vision first laid out in Bitcoin and the Three Laws of Robotics has been, at least partly, achieved.  There is still much work to do to grow BitShares, DAC into a Fortune 100 Unmanned Company. But the whole world can work on it together...and the path forward is clear.  

[bitcreditscc]

D.E == SL?

self trolling?
 

[StanLarimer]

D.E == SL?

self trolling?
 

It gets even better!

What if bitcreditscc == StanLarimer?

bitcreditscc could have been created by StanLarimer to quietly suggest that DE == SL!

(After all, what better way to neutralize a flamboyant and creative opponent than to convince the world that he is merely your own sock puppet - created as a rhetorical foil to make you look good by comparison?)

Hmmm... I wonder how deep this rabbit hole goes?    

[JBits]

nxt is not safe. i lost my nxt .

You lost your Nxt how?

[TaunSew]

nxt is not safe. i lost my nxt .

You lost your Nxt how?

Jeff Garzik says it's a scam and there's a backdoor.  Major monetary theft happened many times for NXT.  Only thing keeping NXT alive are the whales playing federal reserve with swindled Chinese money.

[StanLarimer]

Bytemaster just posted an interesting article on how BitShares handles Black Swan events.

BitAssets and Black Swan Events

In order to break BitUSD the value of BitShares would have to fall by 67% in a market where no one was willing to sell enough BitUSD to allow all existing shorts to cover. For all practical purposes this fall would have to occur over just a few days, in thin markets, with no expectation for a rebound in value. This kind of event is possible and could be triggered by any number of events: most likely bugs, hacked wallets, or government actions.

As much as we would like to pretend these things would never happen, we can be sure they will happen at some point with some BitAssets because even if BTS didn’t lose any value at all the value of gold or silver could grow by 300% while BitShares stays flat. So a Black Swan can occur due to no fault of BitShares or crypto currency in general.

If your not sure what BitAssets are, you might want to skim this first:

What are BitShares Market Pegged Assets?

Enjoy. 

[fluxer555]

These are actually really well done and hilarious. Keep 'em coming DE

The theory that SL == DE is going to keep me up wondering all night.

[StanLarimer]

Dang, if this keeps up, we're gonna be famous!

 

[StanLarimer]

BitSharesblocks.com has a nice page where you can check the status and performance of all delegates.
Seven of the ten most popular delegates are Chinese, two are German, and one is an American of Russian descent.
Bytemaster is currently number 17 and I am ranked number 23.

http://bitsharesblocks.com/delegates

[StanLarimer]

The BitShares stakeholders just fired their first paid delegate who wasn't performing. 
Here is the discussion thread that shows how the community reached a consensus.   

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=13809.msg179651#msg179651

One member summed it up this way:

I think it's an "iffy" proposition to vote in a delegate whose mission is just to develop one piece of interface technology as a small part of their overall work. For my vote, I want to see that person (or those people) firmly committed to BitShares rather than having a half-baked commitment. I was not convinced (from their own postings) this delegate really believed or wanted this to succeed; certainly they had other interests and commitments. Until the whole voting thing is more nimble and we can make quick changes/substitutions in a less clunky fashion, then I will refrain from voting for anyone who isn't 100% committed to BitShares.

[StanLarimer]

Due to addition of powerful new features, the dev team has decided to eliminate the 5% charge for margin calls.
Here's Bytemaster's announcement and the rationale:

We are adding an operation that will allow you to cover a short position using the collateral at any time.  We are doing this by giving the user the ability to set the "call price" to anything higher than the "minimum call price".   This feature makes it trivial to bypass the 5% fee by slightly increasing your call price, so this makes the 5% fee impossible to enforce.

In reality the 5% fee merely served to create a variable amount of additional collateral depending upon the risk tolerance of each individual shorter.  Considering we are raising the min collateral requirement from 1.5 to 2x the added benefit of the 5% fee is insignificant.  The fear of a short squeeze and being forced to buy at up to 10% above the feed if there are not enough orders at the feed means there is still plenty of incentive to avoid forced buying.

If you set your call price at or above the price feed then your order will be matched against any and all bids up to 10% above the feed.   So be careful or you might just walk the book. 

Overall this will simplify the explanation of BitShares and shorts and remove uncertainty over how shorts and fees will be calculated.

[StanLarimer]

You can learn more by downloading Max Wright's in-depth BitShares 101 ebook.
There's a link to it on Bytemaster's Blog

There's a nice set of wallet tutorials here:  BitShares Wallet Tutorial Videos

Check out Music and PLAY for their specific software releases.

You can find out about the other independent DACs at their own websites
as featured in this newsletter in our Newsletter Archive  

There's lots of folks happy to answer other questions at bitsharestalk.org

Bytemaster takes live questions from a worldwide on-line audience every Friday at 10 Eastern Time (UTC+5) here:
Talk With Bytemaster

BitShares Wiki

[StanLarimer]

Here's another nice set of tutorial videos
Riverhead plans many more, so check back here periodically.

http://whatisbitusd.com/tutorials/

[DecentralizeEconomics]

bump

[testz]

bump

bump
Your pictures with BitShares quite outdated - please add the logo of https://shapeshift.io to them. 

[DecentralizeEconomics]

bump

[DecentralizeEconomics]

Stan, how much did it cost you to get a forum mod to remove my informational posters?

I guess I hit a little too close to home huh?

Hahaha  Pathetic

[DecentralizeEconomics]

Posting the best one again because I KNOW YOU LOVE IT!   

Do you think they'll remove it for free or will you have to pay them again?

[testz]

Posting the best one again because I KNOW YOU LOVE IT!   

Do you think they'll remove it for free or will you have to pay them again?

Probably forum mods doesn't like your posters, but we like them very much, please keep be creative and posts new posters 

[bitcreditscc]

Keyhotee   

[DecentralizeEconomics]

Posting the best one again because I KNOW YOU LOVE IT!  

Do you think they'll remove it for free or will you have to pay them again?

Probably forum mods doesn't like your posters, but we like them very much, please keep be creative and posts new posters  

I don't know if I can beat this one.  It's "Pure Genius".  I laugh every time I see it.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

It's become clear in this long thread that a year of "Fibs and Fud" from people who have little personal honor have left many fair minded folks with deep misunderstandings about BitShares.  Rather than continuing to answer them piecemeal, I've decided to author a series of pictures that explain everything from the beginning.  I hope some of you find this useful.

(To be continued...)

[DecentralizeEconomics]

http://bitsharesblocks.com/delegates

This picture really says it all.  The top delegate only has ~17% of the vote.  This is a perfect example to show how easy it is for the wealthiest stakeholders to control the delegates.

That's true that in all blockchains stakeholders/hashpower can collude, but they can only collude in a one-to-one proportion to their stake/hash.  Since approval voting is used in delegate elections, I maintain that large stakeholders can effectively collude to a multiple proportion of their stake.  Whereby, for example, 20% of colluding stake can disproportionately influence the elections of more than 20% of the delegates.  This leads to a coalition of a few wealthy stakeholders being able to determine the outcomes of the mass majority of the delegate elections.  This is especially true considering that voter turnout of smaller stakeholders will be lower than the voter turnout of larger stakeholders.  As I said previously, it would be the intention of the colluding wealthy stakeholders to not harm Bitshares, but to elect delegates from which they would derive monetary gain in excess to their proportion of stake in the system at the expense of all other stakeholders.

Let's give an example.  Remember, in "approval voting", voters do not just vote for one delegate.  They can select as many or as few delegates as they wish and the entire weight of their stake counts towards each delegate they choose.  Say for instance that the top delegate has 50% of the vote and the 101st delegate has 30% of the vote.  The voting spread percentage is 20% (50%-30%).  If the votes per delegate is a linear increase according to delegate rank, an additional 10% of the stake vote will move the 101st delegate to the 50th position.  Likewise, a removal of 10% of the stake vote from the lower 50 delegates will result in them losing their delegate position.  By strategically voting, a few wealthy stakeholders can influence a disproportionate number of delegate positions in relation to their actual stake.  In this example, a coalition of 10% stake was able to control 50% of the delegates.

Does this sound fair to you?!

[DecentralizeEconomics]

It's become clear in this long thread that a year of "Fibs and Fud" from people who have little personal honor have left many fair minded folks with deep misunderstandings about BitShares.  Rather than continuing to answer them piecemeal, I've decided to author a series of pictures that explain everything from the beginning.  I hope some of you find this useful.

(To be continued...)

[DecentralizeEconomics]

It's become clear in this long thread that a year of "Fibs and Fud" from people who have little personal honor have left many fair minded folks with deep misunderstandings about BitShares.  Rather than continuing to answer them piecemeal, I've decided to author a series of pictures that explain everything from the beginning.  I hope some of you find this useful.

(To be continued...)

[DecentralizeEconomics]

http://bitsharesblocks.com/delegates

This picture really says it all.  The top delegate only has ~17% of the vote.  This is a perfect example to show how easy it is for the wealthiest stakeholders to control the delegates.

That's true that in all blockchains stakeholders/hashpower can collude, but they can only collude in a one-to-one proportion to their stake/hash.  Since approval voting is used in delegate elections, I maintain that large stakeholders can effectively collude to a multiple proportion of their stake.  Whereby, for example, 20% of colluding stake can disproportionately influence the elections of more than 20% of the delegates.  This leads to a coalition of a few wealthy stakeholders being able to determine the outcomes of the mass majority of the delegate elections.  This is especially true considering that voter turnout of smaller stakeholders will be lower than the voter turnout of larger stakeholders.  As I said previously, it would be the intention of the colluding wealthy stakeholders to not harm Bitshares, but to elect delegates from which they would derive monetary gain in excess to their proportion of stake in the system at the expense of all other stakeholders.

Let's give an example.  Remember, in "approval voting", voters do not just vote for one delegate.  They can select as many or as few delegates as they wish and the entire weight of their stake counts towards each delegate they choose.  Say for instance that the top delegate has 50% of the vote and the 101st delegate has 30% of the vote.  The voting spread percentage is 20% (50%-30%).  If the votes per delegate is a linear increase according to delegate rank, an additional 10% of the stake vote will move the 101st delegate to the 50th position.  Likewise, a removal of 10% of the stake vote from the lower 50 delegates will result in them losing their delegate position.  By strategically voting, a few wealthy stakeholders can influence a disproportionate number of delegate positions in relation to their actual stake.  In this example, a coalition of 10% stake was able to control 50% of the delegates.

Does this sound fair to you?!

Make your own conclusion, but imho from the evidence Stan presented, the only logical conclusion is that Bitshares was intentionally designed to centralize the control of the blockchain into the hands of the wealthiest stakeholders.  It is obvious that we no longer see Stan in here trying to defend his position because there is no rebuttal against such evidence.  The silence is damning.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

Now, since I have defeated the Bitshares' corporatists (aka communists) and they no longer dare to come into this thread and vainly defend their monstrosity, we can have a REAL conversation about Bitshares, how it is designed to enslave its users and how its sole purpose is to implement corporatism / communism on the blockchain.  Those who attempt to cast the truth as fiction and the truth-bearers as falsifiers, shall be routed from their speech.  May the light of rational thought and truth shine upon them and obliterate the shadows of falsehood which cover them.

Those who slander the spirit of crypto and corrupt its original ideology shall be brought to judgment.  Those who attempt to pass off injustice as justice, mock true decentralization, and obfuscate the truth will bear the fury of my words.  May they fear my words as they fear the truth.  I will expose them for what they are and nothing will stop the truth.  Every word they utter in defense, I will break down and expose it for its true nature.  If I am the only one who stands against the assault on free crypto, then so be it; I will do so just the same.  I will make sure all who come to crypto knows of their intentions.  For what is hidden, I will expose.  What is unjust, I will make just.

In the coming days, I will pick apart Bitshares' voting system, their primary control mechanism.  It is a system which imo is intentionally designed to be confusing, manipulative and in opposition to all assumptions.  I will make this thread the most viewed Bitshares' thread on Bitcointalk.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

May the light of rational thought and truth shine

they fear the truth.

and nothing will stop the truth.  

BitShares has never fallen from the Top 5 on www.coinmarketcap.com




and never will...

FAMOUS LAST WORDS

[HalFinneysBrain]

Now, since I have defeated the Bitshares' corporatists (aka communists) and they no longer dare to come into this thread and vainly defend their monstrosity, we can have a REAL conversation about Bitshares, how it is designed to enslave its users and how its sole purpose is to implement corporatism / communism on the blockchain.  Those who attempt to cast the truth as fiction and the truth-bearers as falsifiers, shall be routed from their speech.  May the light of rational thought and truth shine upon them and obliterate the shadows of falsehood which cover them.

DecentralizedEconomics, you seem to be under the impression that if you call Bitshares enough words that people associate to negative things, that you can make reality bend to your will, and the Bitshares codebase will somehow morph into some monstrosity.

I am not sure what your gameplan is, whether you are an NXT supporter who desires to hurt Bitshares as a perceived competitor, or what.  Personally NXT and Bitshares are my two favorites, and I wish both communities could get along better.  They are the most similar coins to each other, and yet we bicker, when we should all be ganging up against Ripple!


Anyway, a corporation governed by the vote of its shareholders is hardly "communist".  Calling it such is a misrepresentation of Orwellian terms, like saying 'slavery is freedom'.   You claim to want to have a rational discussion of Bitshares, and yet your choice of terms reveals a very strong and clear bias against it.  Wouldn't it be much more productive to analyze the Bitshares consensus system in a fair and balanced, academic way?  (Of course, on the other side Stan Larimer is not exactly an impartial voice here either.  I'm pretty sure the truth lies somewhere in between you two).




If Bitshares is a successful implementation of a corporate voting structure on a blockchain, then that is an important innovation!  It is important just like NXT's asset exchange is an important innovation.


Your claim that Bitshares inflaiton is "theft" does not pass the test of reason.  Were participation in the Bitshares blockchain compulsory, then you could claim that taxation is theft and make this case.  But being a Bitshares holder and using the Bitshares blockchain is an entirely voluntary act.  One can choose to take their business elsewhere and use NXT or Bitcoin or anything else if one desires.  Thus, even in the very worst case, in which Bitshares delegates have locked themselves in place and issue themselves free BTS, one could not make the case that it was "theft", only that this inflation was a fee that a user would need to voluntarily pay in order to use the service of BTS.  

In reality, most delegates are probably going to be providing value to Bitshares.  If delegates act as parasites and shareholders cannot remove them, then that is a flaw in Bitshares, and would make it clearly worse than NXT, but it would be no more of a flaw than Bitcoin inflating itself 10% a year for miners.   Until we see such parasitical behavior, we should not assume it will be the case, rather we should treat Bitshares as an experiment, which might work or might not.  So far Bitshares voters have already kicked out one paid delegate who didnt provide updates on their progress.  That seems to be a positive sign.

Yes, things would be better if a greater percentage of the total stake was voting.  18% for top delegate and 8% for 101st delegate is too low, and this means that one could execute an attack with only 10% of stake or so, whereas ideally we would want it to require 51%.  But is that better than in the alternatives?  What percentage of NXT are used to forge?  

These numbers have been rising slowly over time.  A few months back it was around 12% for top delegate and 5% for the bottom.  The Bitshares system scales up as people care more.  If the price rises, if the market cap were to grow by an order of magnitude, how much more would people care?  



I definitely feel that the Bitshares team has made some mistakes.  Their product is too complicated and difficult to explain, they have not delivered on time on some promises, and they hurt their community with the 'merger'.  But I do not see them as malevolent as you imply.  Rather, I think they are too idealistic, they lack a get it done type who pressures them to execute on their schedule and meet deadlines.  The Bitshares devs are too fond of dreaming up new ideas when they haven't finished the old ones yet.

To refer to such libertarian idealists as 'communist' is unfair and absurd.  Few coin developers embody libertarian ideals as much as Bytemaster does on his blog.  It would be much more reasonable to accuse the Bitshares devs of being libertarian dreamers than 'communists'.   Perhaps some day they will succeed in actually getting a product released that is as usable as NXT.  I find it strange sometimes that Bitshares has a higher market cap than NXT when I think NXT is further along in its development, but I still invest in it because I can see the potential and I believe in diversification.  Bitshares is more highly valued only because it is popular among the chinese, I think, but as a result it has the potential to catch on in china which would make it huge.


At the very least we should be fair to each coin and rationally analyze their strengths and weaknesses.  Being a communist engine of oppression is not Bitshares' weakness, it is simply a gross misrepresentation.  

[DecentralizeEconomics]

DecentralizedEconomics, you seem to be under the impression that if you call Bitshares enough words that people associate to negative things, that you can make reality bend to your will, and the Bitshares codebase will somehow morph into some monstrosity.

I don't have to morph it into anything.  It's already a monstrosity.  You can call it whatever you want, but that doesn't change its fundamental mode of operation.

I am not sure what your gameplan is, whether you are an NXT supporter who desires to hurt Bitshares as a perceived competitor, or what.  Personally NXT and Bitshares are my two favorites, and I wish both communities could get along better.  They are the most similar coins to each other, and yet we bicker, when we should all be ganging up against Ripple!

My gameplan is to expose Bitshares' consensus mechanism for what it really is.  I3 keeps marketing Bitshares as some type of Libertarian free market platform.  It is nothing of the sort.  Imo, Bitshares' delegate voting was intentionally made to be confusing and susceptible to covert manipulation by the wealthiest stakeholders.  I don't think the majority of people truly understand "approval voting" and its implications on blockchain control.  I intend on making it clear how easy it is for a coalition of wealthy stakeholders to completely control Bitshares' blockchain.

Anyway, a corporation governed by the vote of its shareholders is hardly "communist".  Calling it such is a misrepresentation of Orwellian terms, like saying 'slavery is freedom'.   You claim to want to have a rational discussion of Bitshares, and yet your choice of terms reveals a very strong and clear bias against it.  Wouldn't it be much more productive to analyze the Bitshares consensus system in a fair and balanced, academic way?  (Of course, on the other side Stan Larimer is not exactly an impartial voice here either.  I'm pretty sure the truth lies somewhere in between you two).

If Bitshares is a successful implementation of a corporate voting structure on a blockchain, then that is an important innovation!  It is important just like NXT's asset exchange is an important innovation.

If Bitshares was just a company using the blockchain, then of course, it would not be Communist, but this is not the case.  Bitshares' delegates run the blockchain.  This is different.  Since approval voting allows multiple delegates to be covertly controlled by a small coalition of the wealthiest stakeholders, it creates a blockchain monopoly.  Monopoly is the menace of free enterprise.  Communism is simply a state monopoly.

It is entirely different than companies on the NXT blockchain.  Companies on the NXT blockchain do NOT control chain security.  They cannot impose taxation upon other business to create a monopoly.

Your claim that Bitshares inflaiton is "theft" does not pass the test of reason.  Were participation in the Bitshares blockchain compulsory, then you could claim that taxation is theft and make this case.  But being a Bitshares holder and using the Bitshares blockchain is an entirely voluntary act.  One can choose to take their business elsewhere and use NXT or Bitcoin or anything else if one desires.  Thus, even in the very worst case, in which Bitshares delegates have locked themselves in place and issue themselves free BTS, one could not make the case that it was "theft", only that this inflation was a fee that a user would need to voluntarily pay in order to use the service of BTS.  

Granted, no one is forced to own Bitshares and be subject to "taxation without representation".  (It's taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION because approval voting allows coalitions of the wealthy to strategically vote giving them an unfair advantage effectively disenfranchising individual actors.)  Because, imo, people who participate in Bitshares have flawed notions of how delegate voting really works, they participate under a ruse.  When Stan Larimer starts quoting the US Constitution, the voting process is represented and analogized to the political voting process used to select politicians in representative government.  Bitshares' approval voting system is in no way, shape or form akin to representative politics.  It is a known fact that approval voting is unworkable in contested elections.

In reality, most delegates are probably going to be providing value to Bitshares.  If delegates act as parasites and shareholders cannot remove them, then that is a flaw in Bitshares, and would make it clearly worse than NXT, but it would be no more of a flaw than Bitcoin inflating itself 10% a year for miners.   Until we see such parasitical behavior, we should not assume it will be the case, rather we should treat Bitshares as an experiment, which might work or might not.  So far Bitshares voters have already kicked out one paid delegate who didnt provide updates on their progress.  That seems to be a positive sign.

Yes, things would be better if a greater percentage of the total stake was voting.  18% for top delegate and 8% for 101st delegate is too low, and this means that one could execute an attack with only 10% of stake or so, whereas ideally we would want it to require 51%.  But is that better than in the alternatives?  What percentage of NXT are used to forge?  

These numbers have been rising slowly over time.  A few months back it was around 12% for top delegate and 5% for the bottom.  The Bitshares system scales up as people care more.  If the price rises, if the market cap were to grow by an order of magnitude, how much more would people care?  

With 18% of the vote for the top delegate and 8% of the vote for the bottom delegate, it requires only 10% of the vote to completely control all delegate elections.  I imagine that I3 owns at least 10% and I suspect they own a lot more than that.  You don't even have to have 10% to completely dominate the blockchain, if you can convince others to unwittingly vote in accordance with your coalition.

NXT has over 40% of the stake forging, but NXT is not susceptible to this type of manipulation.  NXT is truly a representative form of blockchain governance.  One NXT = One Vote.

I definitely feel that the Bitshares team has made some mistakes.  Their product is too complicated and difficult to explain, they have not delivered on time on some promises, and they hurt their community with the 'merger'.  But I do not see them as malevolent as you imply.  Rather, I think they are too idealistic, they lack a get it done type who pressures them to execute on their schedule and meet deadlines.  The Bitshares devs are too fond of dreaming up new ideas when they haven't finished the old ones yet.

To refer to such libertarian idealists as 'communist' is unfair and absurd.  Few coin developers embody libertarian ideals as much as Bytemaster does on his blog.  It would be much more reasonable to accuse the Bitshares devs of being libertarian dreamers than 'communists'.   Perhaps some day they will succeed in actually getting a product released that is as usable as NXT.  I find it strange sometimes that Bitshares has a higher market cap than NXT when I think NXT is further along in its development, but I still invest in it because I can see the potential and I believe in diversification.  Bitshares is more highly valued only because it is popular among the chinese, I think, but as a result it has the potential to catch on in china which would make it huge.

At the very least we should be fair to each coin and rationally analyze their strengths and weaknesses.  Being a communist engine of oppression is not Bitshares' weakness, it is simply a gross misrepresentation.  

Anyone can claim or say anything, but that doesn't necessarily reveal their true intentions.  Ask yourself why did they choose to use an approval voting system to select delegates?  Why didn't they use "one stake = one vote" in a plurality voting system?

[nomoreheroes7]

Now, since I have defeated the Bitshares' corporatists (aka communists) and they no longer dare to come into this thread and vainly defend their monstrosity, we can have a REAL conversation about Bitshares, how it is designed to enslave its users and how its sole purpose is to implement corporatism / communism on the blockchain.  Those who attempt to cast the truth as fiction and the truth-bearers as falsifiers, shall be routed from their speech.  May the light of rational thought and truth shine upon them and obliterate the shadows of falsehood which cover them.

DecentralizedEconomics, you seem to be under the impression that if you call Bitshares enough words that people associate to negative things, that you can make reality bend to your will, and the Bitshares codebase will somehow morph into some monstrosity.

I am not sure what your gameplan is, whether you are an NXT supporter who desires to hurt Bitshares as a perceived competitor, or what.  Personally NXT and Bitshares are my two favorites, and I wish both communities could get along better.  They are the most similar coins to each other, and yet we bicker, when we should all be ganging up against Ripple!


Anyway, a corporation governed by the vote of its shareholders is hardly "communist".  Calling it such is a misrepresentation of Orwellian terms, like saying 'slavery is freedom'.   You claim to want to have a rational discussion of Bitshares, and yet your choice of terms reveals a very strong and clear bias against it.  Wouldn't it be much more productive to analyze the Bitshares consensus system in a fair and balanced, academic way?  (Of course, on the other side Stan Larimer is not exactly an impartial voice here either.  I'm pretty sure the truth lies somewhere in between you two).




If Bitshares is a successful implementation of a corporate voting structure on a blockchain, then that is an important innovation!  It is important just like NXT's asset exchange is an important innovation.


Your claim that Bitshares inflaiton is "theft" does not pass the test of reason.  Were participation in the Bitshares blockchain compulsory, then you could claim that taxation is theft and make this case.  But being a Bitshares holder and using the Bitshares blockchain is an entirely voluntary act.  One can choose to take their business elsewhere and use NXT or Bitcoin or anything else if one desires.  Thus, even in the very worst case, in which Bitshares delegates have locked themselves in place and issue themselves free BTS, one could not make the case that it was "theft", only that this inflation was a fee that a user would need to voluntarily pay in order to use the service of BTS. 

In reality, most delegates are probably going to be providing value to Bitshares.  If delegates act as parasites and shareholders cannot remove them, then that is a flaw in Bitshares, and would make it clearly worse than NXT, but it would be no more of a flaw than Bitcoin inflating itself 10% a year for miners.   Until we see such parasitical behavior, we should not assume it will be the case, rather we should treat Bitshares as an experiment, which might work or might not.  So far Bitshares voters have already kicked out one paid delegate who didnt provide updates on their progress.  That seems to be a positive sign.

Yes, things would be better if a greater percentage of the total stake was voting.  18% for top delegate and 8% for 101st delegate is too low, and this means that one could execute an attack with only 10% of stake or so, whereas ideally we would want it to require 51%.  But is that better than in the alternatives?  What percentage of NXT are used to forge?   

These numbers have been rising slowly over time.  A few months back it was around 12% for top delegate and 5% for the bottom.  The Bitshares system scales up as people care more.  If the price rises, if the market cap were to grow by an order of magnitude, how much more would people care? 



I definitely feel that the Bitshares team has made some mistakes.  Their product is too complicated and difficult to explain, they have not delivered on time on some promises, and they hurt their community with the 'merger'.  But I do not see them as malevolent as you imply.  Rather, I think they are too idealistic, they lack a get it done type who pressures them to execute on their schedule and meet deadlines.  The Bitshares devs are too fond of dreaming up new ideas when they haven't finished the old ones yet.

To refer to such libertarian idealists as 'communist' is unfair and absurd.  Few coin developers embody libertarian ideals as much as Bytemaster does on his blog.  It would be much more reasonable to accuse the Bitshares devs of being libertarian dreamers than 'communists'.   Perhaps some day they will succeed in actually getting a product released that is as usable as NXT.  I find it strange sometimes that Bitshares has a higher market cap than NXT when I think NXT is further along in its development, but I still invest in it because I can see the potential and I believe in diversification.  Bitshares is more highly valued only because it is popular among the chinese, I think, but as a result it has the potential to catch on in china which would make it huge.


At the very least we should be fair to each coin and rationally analyze their strengths and weaknesses.  Being a communist engine of oppression is not Bitshares' weakness, it is simply a gross misrepresentation. 

*Applause*

(Everything)

*Double applause*

[DecentralizeEconomics]

[DecentralizeEconomics]

INTRODUCING BITPINKUNICORN!

BitShares BitPinkUnicorn is currently at 195 on coinmarketcap in traditional ranking.  This is misleading.

Since it trades against BitShares and all the other assets shown above on the #4 BitShares blockchain, its status is more a reflection of the desire people currently have to lock against pink unicorns vs some other commodity or fiat currency.  Interest may pick up this spring when we expect companies start offering direct off-ramps from BitPinkUnicorn and BitInvisibleLeprechaun to the physical pink unicorns and invisible leprechauns themselves.  Ever try to buy pink unicorns and wait for days for your wire to get there to lock in the price?  Would you like to be able to lock physical it in ten seconds?  

Yeah, I though so.

At different times the global market will perceive each of these pegs as a safe haven.  Right now, pink unicorns are seen as more volatile than the USD or CNY and therefore not where most people want to park risk-off money.  When the world fiat currencies start misbehaving, we'll see the mix adjust in about ten seconds.

Its best to look at the sum of all these BitAssets when assessing how they are catching on, since they form a common set of options inside a single "Smart Coin" implemented as the decentralized exchange known as BitShares.

You can program your Smart Coins to track any basket of BitAssets.
 -- Roll your own custom risk mix. --  

That is the real power of BitSnares.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

[DecentralizeEconomics]

Quote from: DesertWind on February 13, 2015, 07:22:09PM

Exactly. BTS pegs will work until they don't. 3-4 sigma volatility will blow it all up.

Hedging your assets is as old as financial markets and ubiquitous. Nothing remotely new.

For example, I'm in Canada but trade in US funds...
So to "peg" or lock in the my recent 20% gains in the CAD is trivial...
You (a) buy CAD by shorting USD.CAD in forex cash market or (b) buy CAD futures contracts on CME....
Once you have a 1:1 ratio of USD and CAD you are 100% hedged/pegged.

In the Forex cash market, I have regulated billion $$$ banks and dealers as my counterparty...
On the CME, my highly regulated counterparty must deliver CAD on a specific date.

With BTS all I have is a crypto Asset Bubble on the other side...
They may claim "no counterparty risk" on a complicated and disingenuous basis...
But there is massive "systemic risk" because of the fragility of the BTS Bubble.

There no use for BTS or their primitive hedging schemes in the Real World, it's kid stuff...
And US regulators are watching closely cheered on by the most influential man on Wall St Jamie Dimon...
"Incredulous" because crypto minus decentralization and privacy has negative value.

If you share the purity of Satoshi's vision... Nxt is the only game in town right now.

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/the-us-government-closes-in-on-bitcoin-and-some-bitcoiners-are-smiling

[DecentralizeEconomics]

[DecentralizeEconomics]

[achimsmile]

So in summary class, what is Bitcoin2.0?


"A BITCOIN THAT PAYS YOU TO HOLD IT"
(BitBTC)

Cool, the fiat that I hold in my bank account is fiat 2.0 , since it pays me to hold it.

So my crypto has to be inflationary to be a 2.0 coin

[achimsmile]

No, it just has to be profitable for the users.  Inflation is just an option.

an option that is in currently use by bitUSD

BTC/NXT/BTS all crete new coins.

supply of Nxt is fixed

[achimsmile]

Close, an option that currently in use by BitShares

Hm ok, do you mean BitUSD is not inflationary, but BitShares is? I thought both were.
So by holding BitUSD you get an interest of an equivalent of 5% paid in Bitshares?

Cool, so NXT forgers just collect transaction costs, and the reason why the whales forge for pennies is because they have the most vested interest in the success of the entire platform?  That is a pretty slick model if I am correct.

Is that right?

Yes.

[robrigo]

Close, an option that currently in use by BitShares

Hm ok, do you mean BitUSD is not inflationary, but BitShares is? I thought both were.
So by holding BitUSD you get an interest of an equivalent of 5% paid in Bitshares?

Cool, so NXT forgers just collect transaction costs, and the reason why the whales forge for pennies is because they have the most vested interest in the success of the entire platform?  That is a pretty slick model if I am correct.

Is that right?

Yes.

bitUSD yield isn't paid via inflation, it is paid by collecting market fees / short interest into a reserve fund. When bitUSD is transferred (i.e. to oneself), the accrued yield is paid to the bitUSD holder.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

[DecentralizeEconomics]

[DecentralizeEconomics]

[PenguinFire]

Haha, the OP is great! 

[DecentralizeEconomics]

[DecentralizeEconomics]

[DecentralizeEconomics]

[DecentralizeEconomics]

[Crestington]

Is this guy FUDDing Nxt and BitShares or promoting them?

[Damelon]

Is this guy FUDDing Nxt and BitShares or promoting them?

I'm actually enjoying the saga, FUD or not

[cloudboy]

Looking forward to the next installment!

[testz]

Is this guy FUDDing Nxt and BitShares or promoting them?

Yes, the DecentralizeEconomics well known BitShares "promoter and supporter" 

[DecentralizeEconomics]

[DecentralizeEconomics]

[DecentralizeEconomics]

[cloudboy]

Great story, if only it weren't so true 

[DecentralizeEconomics]

[DecentralizeEconomics]

[chryspano]

[Daedelus]

[benthach]

so many overnight millionaires in this game. get your game on or left homeless

[DecentralizeEconomics]

I didn't "lose" the debate.  Stan is the one that stopped posting because it became impossible for him to refute fact.  It's not "slander" if it's true.

so many overnight millionaires in this game. get your game on or left homeless

As I have said before, of course, everyone is here to make money.  What you have to decide is who is trying to make money legitimately and who is trying to make money by other means.  You are witnessing the "battle for the blockchain" against the Corporatists / Communists who have overrun and destroyed everything else in society.

[kitarohotono]

Why cry here, just don't buy that bitshares crap 

[solid12345]

The whole thing is a fugazzi anyway, what is Bitshares buy support on poloniex, 11 btc? Yet we're told this is a 26 million dollar asset?

[TaunSew]

The whole thing is a fugazzi anyway, what is Bitshares buy support on poloniex, 11 btc? Yet we're told this is a 26 million dollar asset?

Even on day #1 most of the volume came from China.  It's probably just that investment fund in Shanghai manipulating left and right.  No real user adoption at all.

[vlight]

The whole thing is a fugazzi anyway, what is Bitshares buy support on poloniex, 11 btc? Yet we're told this is a 26 million dollar asset?

Even on day #1 most of the volume came from China.  It's probably just that investment fund in Shanghai manipulating left and right.  No real user adoption at all.

The main market for BTS/BTC was on bter.com which recently was hacked. NXT and Nubits also were hurt by this badly in terms of volume. If you look at bitsharestalk.org forum, there are quite a lot Chinese members, so it's probably not just some fund manipulation, but the actual people buying and selling BTS.

[runpaint]

I have some Bitshares DNS at Poloniex, but they delisted it because "there are no active devs". 

I haven't been able to find any information about a wallet for Bitshares DNS.  Or PTS for that matter. 

I downloaded the regular Bitshares client, but it said I had to have some Bitshares to register an address before I could deposit any Bitshares, which means I can't deposit any, which means I can't register a deposit address.  So I didn't waste any more time on it, that was about a month ago.

Back in November the developers of BitShares DNS and BitShares VOTE merged their efforts with BitShares X to form a single Super DAC called simply BitShares.

So you use your BitShares wallet to claim BTS proportional to your share of DNS or VOTE.  There will not be separate DNS or VOTE wallets.

I went online and found the faucet, then pasted that into the bitshares client, and now my client sometimes says "registration pending" and sometimes "not registered on the blockchain". 

Anyway, now Poloniex is telling me my DNS can't be sent.  So if my bitshares account does get registered, how can I claim BTS proportional to my share of DNS?

[runpaint]

Poloniex is telling me that the DNS blockchain is "defunct", and therefore the DNS can't be withdrawn even though they told me to withdraw it.

If the blockchain doesn't exist, then the coins don't exist.  I know Poloniex wouldn't intentionally sell me something that doesn't exist, so maybe it's just a misunderstanding.

The Bitshares devs are telling me that DNS was merged with Bitshares in November, before I bought the DNS from Poloniex.  But then they also said that I could use my DNS to claim Bitshares with my Bitshares wallet.

If that is not the case, and the DNS I bought at Poloniex was in fact non-existent at the time it was sold to me at Poloniex, then the sale would have been a mutual misunderstanding between both parties.  My understanding was that I was buying something I could withdraw, and clearly Poloniex also thought it could be withdrawn since they told me to withdraw it. 

Therefore, in the case of a mutual misunderstanding, the sale could possibly be considered void under certain legal precedents, and I could simply be refunded the btc I spent on the DNS.  I am currently awaiting a response from Poloniex about it.

[muhrohmat]

well as we know its pattented as communism soo the coin that is equal for every one no matter how long you mine or wokr or bussiness it means that comuninsm its leveling equal for evey one its a idea but never works people are difrent and all qeual but intelegence and efforts are difrent to that can be called as a thief coin

[TaunSew]

well as we know its pattented as communism soo the coin that is equal for every one no matter how long you mine or wokr or bussiness it means that comuninsm its leveling equal for evey one its a idea but never works people are difrent and all qeual but intelegence and efforts are difrent to that can be called as a thief coin

Equal for all but some are more equal than others.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

Why cry here, just don't buy that bitshares crap  

Personally, it doesn't affect me if everyone and their brother goes out and buys Bitshares.  Everyone has to do their own research and come to their own conclusions.  I started this thread as a warning to those who, imo, are being misled by false statements.

Non-existent, non-redeemable digital tokens masquerading as "assets" which are REALLY derivatives contracts are NOT "Safer than a Swiss Bank Account" as Bitshares repeatedly claims.  It's not "decentralized" when the wealthiest stakeholders can manipulate the delegate elections through the approval voting process, which imo is the REAL reason they chose "approval voting", a voting system known to be unfair.  It IS Corporatism / Communism because Bitshares(TM), the company, (as Stan puts it) controls the ENTIRE Bitshares' economy.  That is in fact the VERY definition of "Corporatism".  There is no difference between "State Capitalism" and "State Socialism".  You can clearly see this Communist / Corporatist dynamic playing out as they now have officially instituted a policy of blocking the flow of information to the community, retaining all information to themselves, with imo the intention of capitalizing off this "insider information".

I don't like seeing people get scammed and I don't want to see the crypto-currency movement, which was founded on the premise of economic freedom regardless of socioeconomic status, become another Corporatist stronghold like it seems everything has become these days.  I'm drawing the line here.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

I felt the need to post this here as well.

Dan is a coward for freedom to bow to his new Chinese overlords.

I like how Stan, Dan and the Bitshares' team attempts to portray themselves as Libertarians, but then the next thing you know, they're gagging everybody and hiring a PR firm to do all their talking for them.  Maybe I'm mistaken but I thought Libertarians believed in free speech.  What a complete joke.

You're right, that is a bit confusing.  They should simply claim to be the employees of a company that is for sale to the highest bidder.  A purely capitalist enterprize.  If Hitler's spawn bought $10k in BitShares and told Dan to __________________insert non-Libertarian action__________ then precident dictates that he would continue to sell his soul.

So in order to eliminate investor confusion Stan, I believe that both you and Dan should quit confusing your investors with your political ideologies and either shut up about your political opinions or align them with those of the top shareholders because you are no longer men, but corporate slaves like the rest of us who toil for big business.

Your free market coin was bought by corpratists, and you will tow the line.  Speaking of Libertarianism from here on out is no different than you releasing insider information about a merger before your PR release officially happens.  In other words:

If you are going to shut your mouth on important stuff, then keep it shut!  Your wants, hopes, and dreams for the future of BitShares and your Libertarian Utopia will no longer be taken seriously.  They would only be hypocracy. 

In a Libertarian free market Utopia, he would be fired for such brazen treason to core ideals, however, in this corporatocracy, I don’t see how he could lose his highest paid delegate status because he has supported his Chinese lords (who obviously have voting power) plans to create a sub-class of individuals who are to be kept without knowledge until the upper class (those with the knowledge) decides to give the knowledge to the lower class sub-humans.

So now we have Libertarian Stan who was getting paid to spout Libertarian ideals, but can’t anymore because the strategic political direction of the company has obviously changed.  Will Stan continue to collect the largest possible paycheck (which he was already collecting at the shareholders expense).

YES

Having a rational discussion where everyone can expand his understanding is what convinces me in the end not some some emotional and fear* driven ideology! Maybe that is wishful thinking

* fear driven because it needs to humiliate other / other groups to show own achievements (see all the humiliating memes about Daniel Larimer).

I think that you are straying from the topic of the OP which is a simple reporting of the fact, not fear, that the planet can now be divided into 2 distinct types of people:

1. Those who know the BitShares news before the official PR report is published.  The OP refers to this group affectionately as the "Oligarchs," but the term "capitalist insider" could fit as well, or you could call them simply "the informed," or "keepers of secrets," whatever, but it does not change the fact that these particular humans are now permanently distinguished as different if not more privileged (who would not want to be like them?) than the other class of humans that has now been created which is conversely:

2. Everybody else, or the uninformed, or ____insert "discriminatory" (not to be confused with "derogatory") term to effectively (or unaffectionately) label this particular type of human being as being "different" than the first class___.

Nobody is disputing or afraid of this simple fact that some BitShares holders are now "different" than others, and I do believe that everybody who learns of this fact will intuitively understand exactly which class of people that they belong to.  The message has been clearly portrayed.  If you want to discuss something pertaining to the topic of the OP, then why don't you tell me what name you will give to this class of humans (should we still refer to them as humans?) who are now considered "different"

Please  discuss, I would love to hear what clever marketing you have up your sleeve.

This class of shareholder will henceforth be referred to as _________________________.

I will personally send 1000 BTS as a marketing bounty to my favorite answer

Incidentally, an ancient definition of the word "fear" is "that which is created the moment something is named or labelled," that is why the Dao or Tao is nameless.  That which is nameless cannot be possessed.  Slave class citizens are property. 

Speaking of fun facts, the market cap of all USA Slaves prior to emancipation exceeded that of all USA real estate, or USA bank balance sheets, or total capital sunk into any USA business sector.  The total capital business book value of all the USA slaves was larger than the total capital book value of any other industry in the US.  Therefore, it is not without free market capitalist precedent that some anonymous BitShare holders (no community vote occurred) have voted to harvest a new slave class of __________(insert 1000 BTS prizewinner)_____.  Now that BitShares, the corporation, has harnessed the power of corporate slavery which has been proven most lucrative, its market cap will surely be sustained at these levels, but at what cost?  The cost of freeing the slaves would be that there would have been some cheap shares on the market as soon as the slave driving Chinese sold their shares in disgust at Dan's refusal to create 2 separate classes of shareholder. 

I would have bought some of those cheap shares and stood proudly beside you my fearless freedom fighter, but instead, you sold me into slavery my friend, and I'm sitting here ralphing my guts out regretting the time I wasted fighting for a coward.  My own personal historical horror show will endlessly loop within my subconscious afterlife as the sinister realization of the heinous punchline that not only did I condone slavery, but championed the whip as well.  What a soul sucking learning experience this has been for me.

I thought that we would fight fearlessly to the death together, but instead, I'm betrayed.  Such is my destiny.

The topic of this thread is not weather or not anybody is embarrassed by this fact, or intends to do anything about the perfectly legal insider trading that can now occur prior to an "official BitShares PR"; this thread is simply designed to enlighten the world to this freshly created crypto fact.

"Back in the day, buying a slave was like buying a Ferrari.  Congratulations on your purchase BitShare holders.  Drive it with pride!"

OMG STAN!  THE SLAVES ARE WAKING UP!!! THE SLAVES ARE WAKING UP!!!!11111

BitcoinJesus2.0 used to be a very strong advocate of Bitshares.  It's understandable why he is upset over the situation.  Everyone invested in Bitshares, imo, is getting sold down the river to line Stan, Dan, and I3's pockets.

Everyone wants to make money to provide better for themselves and their families, but at what cost?  Do we turn from our morals and start selling each other out for a measly dollar?  I hope not.  I can write this and honestly say, I have never made a dime from illegitimate means, fooling others, taking advantage of the uninformed or betraying my ideals.  This is what is most important.  Corporatism has no place on the blockchain and anyone participating in corporatist schemes will only get betrayed and enslaved.

[testz]

If you communism expert you should be aware of:

If enemies scold us, we do everything correctly. If praise - we should look for, where we screwed up... (c) Stalin

PS: Looking forward for new posters. 

[achimsmile]

BitShares has never fallen from the Top 5 on www.coinmarketcap.com


and never will...

Your claim lasted 1 month + 1 day

[DecentralizeEconomics]

May the light of rational thought and truth shine

they fear the truth.

and nothing will stop the truth.  

BitShares has never fallen from the Top 5 on www.coinmarketcap.com




and never will...

It seems BItshares is suffering a catastrophic collapse.  It has plunged in value over the last few days and fallen to #6.  I suspect this is due to multiple reasons.

Imo, the main cause of this is because Bitshares(TM), the company, is in fact a "company" in the truest sense of the word.  Look at how many "companies" fail in the first few years of operation.  The mass majority fail.  Now compare this to decentralized movements.  If Bitshares(TM), the company, fails, then the current Bitshares' blockchain becomes entirely worthless.  In comparison to a truly decentralized movement, there is no "company" that controls the blockchain and imo, this removes the inherent risk of the "company" failing and taking the blockchain down with it.

I don't bring up Bitshares losing its #5 marketcap spot to gloat, but instead to reinforce, imo, the risk of "investing" in centralized systems.  I started this thread in the hope that it would prevent people from losing money.  It doesn't make me happy to see this occurring.

[vlight]

It seems BItshares is suffering a catastrophic collapse.  It has plunged in value over the last few days and fallen to #6.  I suspect this is due to multiple reasons.

Imo, the main cause of this is because Bitshares(TM), the company, is in fact a "company" in the truest sense of the word.  Look at how many "companies" fail in the first few years of operation.  The mass majority fail.  Now compare this to decentralized movements.  If Bitshares(TM), the company, fails, then the current Bitshares' blockchain becomes entirely worthless.  In comparison to a truly decentralized movement, there is no "company" that controls the blockchain and imo, this removes the inherent risk of the "company" failing and taking the blockchain down with it.

I don't bring up Bitshares losing its #5 marketcap spot to gloat, but instead to reinforce, imo, the risk of "investing" in centralized systems.  I started this thread in the hope that it would prevent people from losing money.  It doesn't make me happy to see this occurring.

And all these "truly decentralized movements" don't fail.. ever . Besides, the collapse is not catastrophic . It's just the whole crypto is in a bear market and all coins/assets suffer. BitShares got the largest hit, because it was overvalued the most, and relied on chinese market heavily.

How is BitShares more centralized than any other Bitcoin 2.0 project?

[StanLarimer]

We would like to  invite you to be the Guest of "Honor" at our next BitShares Skunk Hunt.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

We would like to  invite you to be the Guest of "Honor" at our next BitShares Skunk Hunt.

Hmm... A small group of instigators with pitchforks attempting to rally support for their cause... Clearly, this is some type of Communist rally.

I urge anyone who witnesses these traitors to immediately report them to the authorities!

[Djentriser]

Buddhist culture - communism exists succsefully for 2500 years. Its only system without bubbles and crashes. All capitalistic societies always ended up in chaos and run by despotic - "god chosen" oligarchs.  

USA is going down. Buddhist will exist another 2500 years no problem. Also China - socialists are doing much better than capitalistic societies, and their economy is centralized, they make 5 years plans. Just because people who ruled in ZSSR were stupid and made mistakes and bad decision, doesnt mean such society is impossible. On the contrary with rise of technology and software, it is much probabile that future societies when everything will be run by math and smart computers wil be more similar to communist ideals than to social darwinism.

P.S. When ZSSR went bankrupt, their public debt was 0. If USA - most capitalistic country in the world should have debt of zero, it would be history.

[vlight]

P.S. When ZSSR went bankrupt, their public debt was 0. If USA - most capitalistic country in the world should have debt of zero, it would be history.

USA is not a capitalistic country as it once was in 19th century. The question is how to sustain that freedom and freemarket so that it will not mutate towards dictatorship.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

The Communists steal everything for themselves and make everyone animals to subjugate them.

[ApexEvo]

The Communists steal everything for themselves and make everyone animals to subjugate them.

LOL. Then in human history, every society was clearly communistic.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

[DecentralizeEconomics]

WILL TOMORROW BE TOO LATE?!!!

If you are a "BItassets" (derivatives contract) holder, ask yourself this.  What happens when the market capitalization of BTS is too low to fully collateralize all the outstanding "Bitassets" (derivatives contract)?  It's not "Safer than a Swiss Bank Account" - Stan Larimer, Bitshares(TM) Head of Operations.

[testz]

If you are a "BItassets" (derivatives contract) holder, ask yourself this.  What happens when the market capitalization of BTS is too low to fully collateralize all the outstanding "Bitassets" (derivatives contract)?

Hmm, you really understand how BitAssets works!?

[DecentralizeEconomics]

If you are a "BItassets" (derivatives contract) holder, ask yourself this.  What happens when the market capitalization of BTS is too low to fully collateralize all the outstanding "Bitassets" (derivatives contract)?

Hmm, you really understand how BitAssets works!?

Do you?  If the marketcap of all outstanding "bitassets" exceeds the marketcap of BTS, how do you propose to settle all of the outstanding derivatives contracts?  All "Bitasset" derivatives contracts are settled in BTS.

[testz]

If you are a "BItassets" (derivatives contract) holder, ask yourself this.  What happens when the market capitalization of BTS is too low to fully collateralize all the outstanding "Bitassets" (derivatives contract)?

Hmm, you really understand how BitAssets works!?

Do you?  If the marketcap of all outstanding "bitassets" exceeds the marketcap of BTS, how do you propose to settle all of the outstanding derivatives contracts?  All "Bitasset" derivatives contracts are settled in BTS.

Today marketcap of all BitAssets $300 000, how much should cost BTS in order to this happened?
BTW if all contracts will be closed by peoples the marketcap of BitAssets will be 0 as at beginning.

[Chew Kok]

Maybe DE should ask question we all want to know.






"A bleeh, bleeh, bleeh... Thats All Folks"!

[Chew Kok]

[DecentralizeEconomics]

If you are a "BItassets" (derivatives contract) holder, ask yourself this.  What happens when the market capitalization of BTS is too low to fully collateralize all the outstanding "Bitassets" (derivatives contract)?

Hmm, you really understand how BitAssets works!?

Do you?  If the marketcap of all outstanding "bitassets" exceeds the marketcap of BTS, how do you propose to settle all of the outstanding derivatives contracts?  All "Bitasset" derivatives contracts are settled in BTS.

Today marketcap of all BitAssets $300 000, how much should cost BTS in order to this happened?
BTW if all contracts will be closed by peoples the marketcap of BitAssets will be 0 as at beginning.

Let's take the following example.  If the marketcap of BTS falls below the entire marketcap of all the outstanding "BitAssets", then how can BTS fully collateralize the "BitAssets"?  It is my understanding that "BitAsset" long positions are 100% collateralized with BTS and "BitAsset" short positions are 200% collateralized.  The answer I'm expecting to get to this question is if all the "BitAsset" holders of a certain class, say BitUSD, want to liquidate their position then they will exert buying pressure on BTS thus driving the price of BTS higher allowing all the "BitAsset" holders of that class to successfully exit their position.  But, what happens if this buy pressure on BTS/BitUSD doesn't cause a price increase do to greater sell pressure on the BTC/BTS side of the trade?  It seems that in this scenario a falling overall BTS price would prevent 100% collateralization of the "BitAssets" resulting in a situation where the there isn't enough BTS in existence to cover all the open positions.

[testz]

If you are a "BItassets" (derivatives contract) holder, ask yourself this.  What happens when the market capitalization of BTS is too low to fully collateralize all the outstanding "Bitassets" (derivatives contract)?

Hmm, you really understand how BitAssets works!?

Do you?  If the marketcap of all outstanding "bitassets" exceeds the marketcap of BTS, how do you propose to settle all of the outstanding derivatives contracts?  All "Bitasset" derivatives contracts are settled in BTS.

Today marketcap of all BitAssets $300 000, how much should cost BTS in order to this happened?
BTW if all contracts will be closed by peoples the marketcap of BitAssets will be 0 as at beginning.

Let's take the following example.  If the marketcap of BTS falls below the entire marketcap of all the outstanding "BitAssets", then how can BTS fully collateralize the "BitAssets"?  It is my understanding that "BitAsset" long positions are 100% collateralized with BTS and "BitAsset" short positions are 200% collateralized.  The answer I'm expecting to get to this question is if all the "BitAsset" holders of a certain class, say BitUSD, want to liquidate their position then they will exert buying pressure on BTS thus driving the price of BTS higher allowing all the "BitAsset" holders of that class to successfully exit their position.  But, what happens if this buy pressure on BTS/BitUSD doesn't cause a price increase do to greater sell pressure on the BTC/BTS side of the trade?  It seems that in this scenario a falling overall BTS price would prevent 100% collateralization of the "BitAssets" resulting in a situation where the there isn't enough BTS in existence to cover all the open positions.

Today all shorts force to cover every 30 days, it's makes buy pressure.
http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2015/01/27/BitAssets-and-Black-Swan-Events

[DecentralizeEconomics]

If you are a "BItassets" (derivatives contract) holder, ask yourself this.  What happens when the market capitalization of BTS is too low to fully collateralize all the outstanding "Bitassets" (derivatives contract)?

Hmm, you really understand how BitAssets works!?

Do you?  If the marketcap of all outstanding "bitassets" exceeds the marketcap of BTS, how do you propose to settle all of the outstanding derivatives contracts?  All "Bitasset" derivatives contracts are settled in BTS.

Today marketcap of all BitAssets $300 000, how much should cost BTS in order to this happened?
BTW if all contracts will be closed by peoples the marketcap of BitAssets will be 0 as at beginning.

Let's take the following example.  If the marketcap of BTS falls below the entire marketcap of all the outstanding "BitAssets", then how can BTS fully collateralize the "BitAssets"?  It is my understanding that "BitAsset" long positions are 100% collateralized with BTS and "BitAsset" short positions are 200% collateralized.  The answer I'm expecting to get to this question is if all the "BitAsset" holders of a certain class, say BitUSD, want to liquidate their position then they will exert buying pressure on BTS thus driving the price of BTS higher allowing all the "BitAsset" holders of that class to successfully exit their position.  But, what happens if this buy pressure on BTS/BitUSD doesn't cause a price increase do to greater sell pressure on the BTC/BTS side of the trade?  It seems that in this scenario a falling overall BTS price would prevent 100% collateralization of the "BitAssets" resulting in a situation where the there isn't enough BTS in existence to cover all the open positions.

Today all shorts force to cover every 30 days, it's makes buy pressure.
http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2015/01/27/BitAssets-and-Black-Swan-Events

While forcing shorts to cover every thirty days does exert buying pressure, it doesn't necessarily prevent a situation like I described from occurring.  There is a significant amount of BTS sitting on the sidelines not invested into any "BitAsset" class.  If these BTS are sold and the sell pressure this creates overwhelms the buy pressure exerted from "BitAsset" holders exiting their position, it seems that potentially a situation could develop if BTS drops low enough that there simply wouldn't be enough BTS to allow everyone to exit from their "BitAsset" positions without taking a loss.

[testz]

While forcing shorts to cover every thirty days does exert buying pressure, it doesn't necessarily prevent a situation like I described from occurring.  There is a significant amount of BTS sitting on the sidelines not invested into any "BitAsset" class.  If these BTS are sold and the sell pressure this creates overwhelms the buy pressure exerted from "BitAsset" holders exiting their position, it seems that potentially a situation could develop if BTS drops low enough that there simply wouldn't be enough BTS to allow everyone to exit from their "BitAsset" positions without taking a loss.

I understand what you're talking about, if BTS price will drop to near 0.
To cover your old positions you can always short BitAsset for yourself at current price and cover your old positions. It's like when you get new loan to cover or pay percentages for your old loan in real life.

[qiwoman2]

Can anyone here point me to the current Bitshares thread please? I can't find it anywhere as I only can see the old protoshares one, thanks in advance.

[testz]

Can anyone here point me to the current Bitshares thread please? I can't find it anywhere as I only can see the old protoshares one, thanks in advance.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=940298.msg11542512#new
Or even better (if you want to know everything about BitShares): https://bitsharestalk.org

[DecentralizeEconomics]

Can anyone here point me to the current Bitshares thread please? I can't find it anywhere as I only can see the old protoshares one, thanks in advance.

This IS the official Bitsnares thread.

[Trouble821]

Can anyone here point me to the current Bitshares thread please? I can't find it anywhere as I only can see the old protoshares one, thanks in advance.

This IS the official Bitsnares thread.

This quoted post gives a fairly comprehensive list of bitshares links, but I cannot find an official bitshares bitcointalk thread in it. I never looked for one before and now I have it seems strange that there doesn't appear to be one.

I'll use this spot to post useful links and try to keep them up to date.

Our main website is bitshares.org.

Bytemaster takes live questions from a worldwide on-line audience every Friday at 10 Eastern Time (UTC+5) here:
Talk With Bytemaster

Media Point of Contact!

Max Wright, the author of Bitshares101 and the host on BitShares.tv,
has agreed to be a contact person for media contact/inquiries.
You could forward his contact info to them:

max@bitshares.org
skype:max.bitshares.btc

You can learn more by downloading Max Wright's in-depth BitShares 101 ebook or watching Max's great interviews on BitShares.TV.
There's are links to both on Bytemaster's Blog

chapter 6 and 7 both have updates.

they can be found at

www.bitshares.tv/chapter6
www.bitshares.tv/chapter7

They contain videos which are also helpful.

Max Wright's #1 best-selling book is now available in video form.

BitShares 101 the Movie

If you can only watch one video, start with Max's Chapter 3 in the above series.  Awesome.

There's a nice set of wallet tutorials here:  BitShares Wallet Tutorial Videos

Check out Music and PLAY for their specific software releases.

You can find out about the other independent DACs at their own websites
as featured in this newsletter in our Newsletter Archive  

There's lots of folks happy to answer other questions at
bitsharestalk.org

Las Vegas Inside Bitcoin Conference Keynote Address - Dan Larimer

Here's a series of articles I wrote for this forum to provide some background on The Origin of BitShares:

Part 1   - It Began with ProtoShares
Part 2   - The Death of Mining
Part 3   - The Ideal Mining Pool
Part 4   - AngelShares and Virtual Mining
Part 5   - POW to POS to TaPOS to DPOS!
Part 6   - Sharedrops and Snapshots
Part 7   - BitShares Sharedrop Theory
Part 8   - Experimenting and Pivoting
Part 9   - What is a SuperDAC?
Part 10 - BitShares Unleashed

BitShares Wiki

Here's a nice set of tutorial videos
Riverhead plans many more, so check back here periodically.

http://whatisbitusd.com/tutorials/

Another great source of info on BitShares - Google's BitShares Community

And here is another site chock full of BitShares news:  http://bitsharesblog.com/beyond-bitcoin-show-talks-with-bytemaster-about-bitshares-development/

List of websites/blogs from forum members that have something to do with bitshares.)

http://beyondbitcoinshow.com/
http://abelljefrry.tumblr.com/post/104919639158/commissioned-work-for-bitshares-marketing
http://www1.agsexplorer.com/
http://bitsapphire.com/
http://bitshares.org/
http://bitsharesblocks.com/
http://bitsharesbreakout.com/
http://www.btsx.me/
http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/
http://digitalgaia.io/
http://freebit.lofter.com/
https://rgcrypto.wordpress.com/
http://thecomingbitsharesrevolution.website/
http://tuckfheman.com/tagged/Bitshares
http://whatisbitusd.com/
http://www.bitshares.kr/
http://www.bitshares.tv/
http://www.bitshares2.blogspot.com.es/
http://www.bts.hk/
http://www.btsabc.org/
http://www.btswolf.com/
http://www.galtreport.com/
http://www.isg3d.com/
http://www.letstalkbitcoin.com/
http://www.minebitshares.com/
http://www.roseebit.com/
http://www.scoop.it/t/bitshares
http://www.xfund.fund/
https://sites.google.com/site/38ptswarrior/

i skipped all the newbies because that would have killed me  

Finally, here is a nice product brochure that you can download and print...

English flyer in A4 print size (front):
https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1T3mDxaa7U0IOaD251yNwNiqI_9Fier7QgtnBm3hCzyI/edit
 
English flyer in A4 print size (back):
https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/10mf7scN4ldCoXy8alz7UCkzt7N3tTQwJWS81zXfNMxs/edit
 

Troll Chest

Finally, lest they be lost forever, we add links to our favorite troll graveyard.
In addition to some outrageous (even funny) troll FUD, these contain some serious discussions among the foul droppings.

Communist BitShares Wealth Redistribution is Theft
BitShares? interesting ! bullish
Even though BTS devs are greedy, it's still better tech than NXT and NuBits
Is BitShares a Blog or a Bitcoin 2.0 project?
Nubits vs Bitshares vs Bitbay
BitShares is Dead
Where are those Bitshares' Shills?
JOIN OR DIE! United We Stand... Divided We Fall!

[testz]

Can anyone here point me to the current Bitshares thread please? I can't find it anywhere as I only can see the old protoshares one, thanks in advance.

This IS the official Bitsnares thread.

No, this IS DecentralizeEconomics communists dream thread