Bitcoin Forum
May 21, 2018, 09:33:58 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.0  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 [All]
  Print  
Author Topic: Communist Bitshares Wealth Redistribution IS THEFT!  (Read 28055 times)
DecentralizeEconomics
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1037


White Male Libertarian Bro


View Profile
January 07, 2015, 01:30:31 AM
 #1


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.

Quote
"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!

YOURCHAIN - MAKE CRYPTO YOURS AGAIN!
"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties." - Areopagitica
1526895238
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1526895238

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1526895238
Reply with quote  #2

1526895238
Report to moderator
"Your bitcoin is secured in a way that is physically impossible for others to access, no matter for what reason, no matter how good the excuse, no matter a majority of miners, no matter what." -- gmaxwell
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
testz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750
Merit: 1016


View Profile
January 07, 2015, 01:58:01 AM
 #2

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.  Smiley

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.  Smiley

Bisha
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 289
Merit: 250



View Profile
January 07, 2015, 02:21:21 AM
 #3

i loled  Cheesy

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.

Stratis: Same supply as Ethereum + Masternodes + ICOs + Bitcoin a Core Dev. 90% cheaper than Eth. Do the math.
gyhyq
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 36
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 07, 2015, 02:58:02 AM
 #4

nxt is not safe. i lost my nxt .
StanLarimer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 500


View Profile
January 07, 2015, 03:15:28 AM
 #5

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:


(If you like this sort of thing)

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

 Smiley
p2pbucks
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 652
Merit: 500


Evolution is the only way to survive


View Profile WWW
January 07, 2015, 03:29:17 AM
 #6

 Grin

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 550
Merit: 502


View Profile
January 07, 2015, 03:31:35 AM
 #7

Grin

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 652
Merit: 500


Evolution is the only way to survive


View Profile WWW
January 07, 2015, 03:43:54 AM
 #8

Grin

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  Roll Eyes
StanLarimer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 500


View Profile
January 07, 2015, 04:09:39 AM
 #9

Grin

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.  


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

p2pbucks
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 652
Merit: 500


Evolution is the only way to survive


View Profile WWW
January 07, 2015, 04:32:08 AM
 #10

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
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 571
Merit: 250



View Profile
January 07, 2015, 04:44:04 AM
 #11

this thread is amazing, please never let it die

                 ▄▄██████████████▄▄
             ▄███████████████████████▄
           █████████████████████████████
         ███▀▀█████▀▀ ██  ██  ▀▀██████████
        ██▀ ▄  ▀      ██  ██      ▀█████████
       █▀ ▄██▀        ██  ██        █████████
      ▀ ▄███▌      ███████████▄▄  ▄███████████
      ▄████▌        ▀██████████████████████████
    ▄██████     ██▄   ▀███████████████████████████▀
  ▄████████    █████▄▄  ▀███████████████████████▀
▄██████████    ████████▄  ▀███████████████████▀
    ███████    ██████████▄   ▀██████████████▀ ▄█
    ███████    ████████████▄▄  ▀██████████▀ ▄███
    ███████▌    ██████████████▄  ▀██████▀ ▄████
     ███████      ██████████████▄  ▀██▀ ▄██████
      ███████▄      ▀██████████▀      ████████
       ████████       ██  ██        █████████
        █████████▄    ██  ██     ▄██████████
          ██████████▄▄██▄▄██▄▄▄███████████
            ████████████████████████████
              ▀██████████████████████▀
                  ▀▀████████████▀▀
                   

LocalCoinSwap
   World's Most Inclusive 
         Cryptocurrency Marketplace
[]
██████████████
█████████████████
██░░░░░████████████
██░░░░░██████████████
█████████████████████
██░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░██
█████████████████████
██░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░██
█████████████████████
██░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░██
█████████████████████
█████████████████████
TELEGRAM
TWITTER
FACEBOOK
REDDIT
INSTAGRAM
MEDIUM
LINKED IN
STEEMIT
StanLarimer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 500


View Profile
January 07, 2015, 05:40:25 AM
 #12

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 500


View Profile
January 07, 2015, 05:56:45 AM
 #13

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.

 Smiley
tokeweed
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1017


Life, Love and Laughter...


View Profile
January 07, 2015, 06:05:44 AM
 #14

this thread is amazing, please never let it die

like the screen name and avatar.  Smiley

.FORTUNE.JACK.
      ▄▄███████▄▄
   ▄████▀▀ ▄ ██████▄
  ████ ▄▄███ ████████
 █████▌▐███▌ ▀▄ ▀█████
███████▄██▀▀▀▀▄████████
█████▀▄▄▄▄█████████████
████▄▄▄▄ █████████████
 ██████▌ ███▀████████
  ███████▄▀▄████████
   ▀█████▀▀███████▀
      ▀▀██████▀▀
         
         █
...FortuneJack.com                                             
...THE BIGGEST BITCOIN GAMBLING SITE
       ▄▄█████████▄▄
    ▄█████████████████▄
  ▄█████████████████████▄
 ▄██
█████████▀███████████▄
██████████▀   ▀██████████
█████████▀       ▀█████████
████████           ████████
████████▄   ▄ ▄   ▄████████
██████████▀   ▀██████████
 ▀██
█████████████████████▀
  ▀██
███████████████████▀
    ▀█████████████████▀
       ▀▀█████████▀▀
#JACKMATE
WIN 1 BTC
▄█████████████████████████▄
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
██████████▀█████▀██████████
███████▀░░▀░░░░░▀░░▀███████
██████▌░░░░░░░░░░░░░▐██████
██████░░░░██░░░██░░░░██████
█████▌░░░░▀▀░░░▀▀░░░░▐█████
██████▄░░▄▄▄░░░▄▄▄░░▄██████
████████▄▄███████▄▄████████

███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
▀█████████████████████████▀
FandangledGizmo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1001


View Profile
January 07, 2015, 06:15:03 AM
 #15

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1001


View Profile
January 07, 2015, 06:43:08 AM
 #16

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1037


White Male Libertarian Bro


View Profile
January 07, 2015, 09:31:44 AM
 #17

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.  Smiley

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.  Smiley

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:


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.

YOURCHAIN - MAKE CRYPTO YOURS AGAIN!
"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties." - Areopagitica
FandangledGizmo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1001


View Profile
January 07, 2015, 10:24:38 AM
 #18

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.  Smiley

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.  Smiley

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:


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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1037


White Male Libertarian Bro


View Profile
January 07, 2015, 10:39:48 AM
 #19

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.

YOURCHAIN - MAKE CRYPTO YOURS AGAIN!
"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties." - Areopagitica
Crestington
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 1020



View Profile
January 07, 2015, 10:48:15 AM
 #20

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:

Quote

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1001


View Profile
January 07, 2015, 10:48:52 AM
 #21

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1000


View Profile
January 07, 2015, 01:59:29 PM
 #22

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 500


View Profile
January 07, 2015, 02:51:40 PM
 #23

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


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"   Smiley

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.


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.   Smiley
TinEye
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 640
Merit: 500



View Profile
January 07, 2015, 02:53:10 PM
 #24

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750
Merit: 1016


View Profile
January 07, 2015, 02:58:13 PM
 #25

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 500


View Profile
January 07, 2015, 03:19:05 PM
 #26


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:


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!  

Smiley




bitcoin2.0
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 18
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 07, 2015, 03:30:22 PM
 #27

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
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 571
Merit: 250



View Profile
January 07, 2015, 05:25:00 PM
 #28

@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/

                 ▄▄██████████████▄▄
             ▄███████████████████████▄
           █████████████████████████████
         ███▀▀█████▀▀ ██  ██  ▀▀██████████
        ██▀ ▄  ▀      ██  ██      ▀█████████
       █▀ ▄██▀        ██  ██        █████████
      ▀ ▄███▌      ███████████▄▄  ▄███████████
      ▄████▌        ▀██████████████████████████
    ▄██████     ██▄   ▀███████████████████████████▀
  ▄████████    █████▄▄  ▀███████████████████████▀
▄██████████    ████████▄  ▀███████████████████▀
    ███████    ██████████▄   ▀██████████████▀ ▄█
    ███████    ████████████▄▄  ▀██████████▀ ▄███
    ███████▌    ██████████████▄  ▀██████▀ ▄████
     ███████      ██████████████▄  ▀██▀ ▄██████
      ███████▄      ▀██████████▀      ████████
       ████████       ██  ██        █████████
        █████████▄    ██  ██     ▄██████████
          ██████████▄▄██▄▄██▄▄▄███████████
            ████████████████████████████
              ▀██████████████████████▀
                  ▀▀████████████▀▀
                   

LocalCoinSwap
   World's Most Inclusive 
         Cryptocurrency Marketplace
[]
██████████████
█████████████████
██░░░░░████████████
██░░░░░██████████████
█████████████████████
██░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░██
█████████████████████
██░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░██
█████████████████████
██░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░██
█████████████████████
█████████████████████
TELEGRAM
TWITTER
FACEBOOK
REDDIT
INSTAGRAM
MEDIUM
LINKED IN
STEEMIT
Newmine
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 100


View Profile
January 07, 2015, 06:16:11 PM
 #29

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.  Smiley

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.  Smiley

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:


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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 500


View Profile
January 07, 2015, 09:50:37 PM
 #30

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,


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
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 18
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 07, 2015, 10:56:47 PM
 #31

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1037


White Male Libertarian Bro


View Profile
January 08, 2015, 03:52:31 AM
 #32

@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.

YOURCHAIN - MAKE CRYPTO YOURS AGAIN!
"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties." - Areopagitica
StanLarimer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 500


View Profile
January 08, 2015, 04:52:38 AM
 #33

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:


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:  

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288
Merit: 1002


Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


View Profile
January 08, 2015, 06:23:46 AM
 #34


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




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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750
Merit: 1016


View Profile
January 08, 2015, 06:56:43 AM
 #35


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




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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 500



View Profile
January 08, 2015, 08:19:37 AM
 #36

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 500



View Profile
January 08, 2015, 09:19:36 AM
 #37

Now this is much better.

...
*snipped full post*

Good side step.


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

Quote
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  Grin



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
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 18
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 08, 2015, 02:37:15 PM
 #38

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 500



View Profile
January 08, 2015, 03:47:03 PM
 #39

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

Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000


View Profile
January 08, 2015, 04:34:46 PM
 #40

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288
Merit: 1002


Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


View Profile
January 08, 2015, 04:51:07 PM
 #41


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




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
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 280
Merit: 250


View Profile
January 08, 2015, 04:53:18 PM
 #42

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

fuckin' propaganda  Grin

StanLarimer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 500


View Profile
January 08, 2015, 04:57:14 PM
 #43

...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:


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:  
Quote
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
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 280
Merit: 250


View Profile
January 08, 2015, 04:58:42 PM
 #44

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

Daedelus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 500



View Profile
January 08, 2015, 06:53:52 PM
 #45

... and fewer plugs for Bytemasters blog posts.

I'm an answer questions asked guy. Call me old fashioned...
FandangledGizmo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1001


View Profile
January 08, 2015, 08:00:08 PM
 #46

... 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?  Tongue

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 500



View Profile
January 08, 2015, 08:11:04 PM
 #47

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1001


View Profile
January 08, 2015, 09:15:19 PM
 #48

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 500



View Profile
January 08, 2015, 09:27:26 PM
 #49

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1001


View Profile
January 08, 2015, 09:32:25 PM
 #50

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 500



View Profile
January 08, 2015, 09:36:09 PM
 #51

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

Daedelus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 500



View Profile
January 08, 2015, 09:38:41 PM
 #52

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1037


White Male Libertarian Bro


View Profile
January 08, 2015, 09:46:38 PM
 #53

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.

YOURCHAIN - MAKE CRYPTO YOURS AGAIN!
"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties." - Areopagitica
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288
Merit: 1002


Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


View Profile
January 08, 2015, 09:49:47 PM
 #54

... 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?  Tongue

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
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 46
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 08, 2015, 09:51:58 PM
 #55

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1037


White Male Libertarian Bro


View Profile
January 08, 2015, 09:59:01 PM
 #56

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.

YOURCHAIN - MAKE CRYPTO YOURS AGAIN!
"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties." - Areopagitica
FandangledGizmo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1001


View Profile
January 08, 2015, 10:11:38 PM
 #57

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 500



View Profile
January 08, 2015, 10:12:46 PM
 #58

Worst case of selective blindness I've ever seen...  Undecided
FandangledGizmo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1001


View Profile
January 08, 2015, 10:23:25 PM
 #59

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

Perhaps, anyway I'll leave it to people that understand it better than me to discuss.
StanLarimer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 500


View Profile
January 08, 2015, 10:27:07 PM
 #60

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!  Smiley

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1037


White Male Libertarian Bro


View Profile
January 08, 2015, 10:39:18 PM
 #61

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.

YOURCHAIN - MAKE CRYPTO YOURS AGAIN!
"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties." - Areopagitica
monsterer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000


View Profile
January 08, 2015, 10:44:38 PM
 #62

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
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 46
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 08, 2015, 11:42:27 PM
 #63

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750
Merit: 1016


View Profile
January 09, 2015, 09:35:36 AM
 #64

...
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

Quote
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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 500



View Profile
January 09, 2015, 10:48:02 AM
 #65

...
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

Quote
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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 500


View Profile
January 09, 2015, 03:21:04 PM
 #66

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 500



View Profile
January 09, 2015, 03:31:37 PM
 #67

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 500


View Profile
January 09, 2015, 03:49:02 PM
 #68

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:


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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750
Merit: 1016


View Profile
January 09, 2015, 04:05:10 PM
 #69

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 500



View Profile
January 09, 2015, 04:12:13 PM
 #70

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 500


View Profile
January 09, 2015, 04:23:59 PM
 #71

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.  Smiley

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 882
Merit: 1000



View Profile
January 09, 2015, 04:35:18 PM
 #72

The us federal reserve is also decentralized as it is made up of the 13 illuminati families.
Daedelus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 500



View Profile
January 09, 2015, 04:42:53 PM
 #73

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.  Smiley


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
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 18
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 09, 2015, 04:46:29 PM
 #74

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  Grin
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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 500


View Profile
January 09, 2015, 04:54:16 PM
 #75

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 500



View Profile
January 09, 2015, 05:03:22 PM
 #76

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.  Smiley

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 500


View Profile
January 09, 2015, 05:19:16 PM
 #77



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

 Smiley
Daedelus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 500



View Profile
January 09, 2015, 05:26:11 PM
 #78

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750
Merit: 1016


View Profile
January 09, 2015, 05:28:41 PM
 #79

"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  Smiley

bitcreditscc
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 500



View Profile
January 09, 2015, 05:35:10 PM
 #80



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

 Smiley

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750
Merit: 1016


View Profile
January 09, 2015, 05:35:55 PM
 #81

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  Smiley, 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
Quote
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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 500



View Profile
January 09, 2015, 05:37:44 PM
 #82

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  Smiley, 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
Quote
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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 500



View Profile
January 09, 2015, 05:39:56 PM
 #83

"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  Smiley

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 500



View Profile
January 09, 2015, 05:42:11 PM
 #84

"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  Smiley

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750
Merit: 1016


View Profile
January 09, 2015, 05:45:20 PM
 #85

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 500



View Profile
January 09, 2015, 05:48:43 PM
 #86

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:

Quote
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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750
Merit: 1016


View Profile
January 09, 2015, 05:50:39 PM
 #87

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 500



View Profile
January 09, 2015, 05:53:08 PM
 #88

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  Smiley, 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
Quote
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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 500



View Profile
January 09, 2015, 05:55:40 PM
 #89

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 500


View Profile
January 09, 2015, 06:00:31 PM
 #90


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...

Smiley
StanLarimer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 500


View Profile
January 09, 2015, 06:15:04 PM
 #91

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:


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


testz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750
Merit: 1016


View Profile
January 09, 2015, 06:40:06 PM
 #92

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:
Quote
Because BitShares aims to be a profitable company.

Pheonike
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 46
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 09, 2015, 07:32:37 PM
 #93

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 500


View Profile
January 09, 2015, 07:33:39 PM
 #94

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:


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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 500



View Profile
January 09, 2015, 07:43:37 PM
 #95

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:


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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 500


View Profile
January 09, 2015, 08:12:37 PM
 #96


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:

Quote
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.

Quote
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
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 18
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 09, 2015, 11:43:14 PM
 #97

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:
http://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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 500


View Profile
January 10, 2015, 02:03:13 AM
 #98

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
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10


View Profile
January 10, 2015, 02:18:22 AM
 #99

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

▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ SATOSHIBTCET 100% Provably Fair Bitcoin Video Poker & Casino Games » In-Game Faucet ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
infovortice2013
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1000



View Profile WWW
January 10, 2015, 03:05:10 AM
 #100

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

не, 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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1001


View Profile
January 10, 2015, 04:30:17 AM
 #101

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  Smiley, 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
Quote
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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 500



View Profile
January 10, 2015, 05:28:17 AM
 #102

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1001


View Profile
January 10, 2015, 05:48:47 AM
 #103

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750
Merit: 1016


View Profile
January 10, 2015, 08:08:21 AM
 #104

...
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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750
Merit: 1016


View Profile
January 10, 2015, 08:22:51 AM
 #105

...
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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1037


White Male Libertarian Bro


View Profile
January 10, 2015, 08:39:58 AM
 #106


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...

Smiley


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.

YOURCHAIN - MAKE CRYPTO YOURS AGAIN!
"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties." - Areopagitica
jrossIV
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 10, 2015, 09:25:35 AM
 #107

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1001


View Profile
January 10, 2015, 09:45:58 AM
 #108

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1037


White Male Libertarian Bro


View Profile
January 10, 2015, 10:13:24 AM
 #109

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."

YOURCHAIN - MAKE CRYPTO YOURS AGAIN!
"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties." - Areopagitica
FandangledGizmo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1001


View Profile
January 10, 2015, 10:58:15 AM
 #110

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 500


View Profile
January 10, 2015, 03:23:17 PM
 #111

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 500



View Profile
January 10, 2015, 04:54:42 PM
 #112

@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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 500



View Profile
January 10, 2015, 05:30:38 PM
 #113

(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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1001


View Profile
January 10, 2015, 05:59:30 PM
 #114

@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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 500



View Profile
January 10, 2015, 06:08:00 PM
 #115

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750
Merit: 1016


View Profile
January 10, 2015, 06:29:11 PM
 #116

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  Smiley

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 500



View Profile
January 10, 2015, 06:37:55 PM
 #117

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750
Merit: 1016


View Profile
January 10, 2015, 06:51:26 PM
 #118

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.  Smiley
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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 500



View Profile
January 10, 2015, 07:00:46 PM
 #119

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

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

 
Daedelus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 500



View Profile
January 10, 2015, 07:03:22 PM
 #120

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


Is this Stanlarimer? stan.delegate.xeldal
StanLarimer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 500


View Profile
January 10, 2015, 07:06:11 PM
 #121

N.B. I see you are a current delegate  Cheesy Why am I not surprised Grin 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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750
Merit: 1016


View Profile
January 10, 2015, 07:09:46 PM
 #122

N.B. I see you are a current delegate  Cheesy Why am I not surprised Grin 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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 500



View Profile
January 10, 2015, 07:10:19 PM
 #123

N.B. I see you are a current delegate  Cheesy Why am I not surprised Grin 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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750
Merit: 1016


View Profile
January 10, 2015, 07:12:22 PM
 #124

N.B. I see you are a current delegate  Cheesy Why am I not surprised Grin 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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750
Merit: 1016


View Profile
January 10, 2015, 07:18:13 PM
 #125

I switched to this question first

Quote
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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 500



View Profile
January 10, 2015, 07:20:14 PM
 #126

I switched to this question first

Quote
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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 500


View Profile
January 10, 2015, 07:22:46 PM
 #127

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750
Merit: 1016


View Profile
January 10, 2015, 07:24:12 PM
 #128

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 500



View Profile
January 10, 2015, 07:25:54 PM
 #129

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 500


View Profile
January 10, 2015, 07:34:34 PM
 #130

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 500



View Profile
January 10, 2015, 07:36:19 PM
 #131

Ok, I got to go soon but I am gonna recap what I have learned...
testz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750
Merit: 1016


View Profile
January 10, 2015, 07:38:12 PM
 #132

N.B. I see you are a current delegate  Cheesy Why am I not surprised Grin 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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050
Merit: 1000



View Profile
January 10, 2015, 07:49:32 PM
 #133

N.B. I see you are a current delegate  Cheesy Why am I not surprised Grin 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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 500



View Profile
January 10, 2015, 08:15:32 PM
 #134

"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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 500


View Profile
January 10, 2015, 08:48:32 PM
 #135

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.

Smiley
jrossIV
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 10, 2015, 09:01:38 PM
 #136

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750
Merit: 1016


View Profile
January 10, 2015, 09:02:28 PM
 #137

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1037


White Male Libertarian Bro


View Profile
January 10, 2015, 09:45:31 PM
 #138

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).

YOURCHAIN - MAKE CRYPTO YOURS AGAIN!
"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties." - Areopagitica
DecentralizeEconomics
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1037


White Male Libertarian Bro


View Profile
January 10, 2015, 10:04:12 PM
 #139

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.

YOURCHAIN - MAKE CRYPTO YOURS AGAIN!
"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties." - Areopagitica
DecentralizeEconomics
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1037


White Male Libertarian Bro


View Profile
January 10, 2015, 10:10:00 PM
 #140

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.  Roll Eyes  Don't you think requiring payment in the hopes of participating in the forging process is wrong and leads to the disenfranchisement of stakeholders?

YOURCHAIN - MAKE CRYPTO YOURS AGAIN!
"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties." - Areopagitica
StanLarimer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 500


View Profile
January 10, 2015, 10:12:59 PM
 #141

... 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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 500


View Profile
January 10, 2015, 10:25:08 PM
 #142

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.  Roll Eyes  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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1120
Merit: 1044


Transforming the Global Shipping Industry


View Profile WWW
January 10, 2015, 10:33:13 PM
 #143

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.

         ▄███████▄▀▄         
     ▄██▌████████▀▀ ▄██▄     
    █████▐███▀▀▄▄██▄▀█████   
 ▄█ ▄▄▀▀██▄▀▀▄██████▌▀███▀▀ 
 ██▌████▄ ▄▄ ▀██████▄ ▄▄▄███▄
▀▀██▌▀█▀▐█████▄▀██████▐██████
██▄▄▀  █████████▄▄▀▀█▀▐██▀▀▄▄
▐▄▀██  ▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀████▄  ▄▄███▀
 ▀█` ▐█▄▀███████▄▄▄▄▄▐█▄▀███
  ▀▌█▄▄▀▀ ▀▀████████▀▐███▄▀ 
    ▀█████▄ ▄▄▄▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀   
      ▀▀████▄▀████ ▄██▀     
          ▀▀▀▀ ▀▀ ▀         
]   GSCP TM

.Blockshipping.
▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅


 
▄██
███
███
███
███

.TRANSFORMING. THE GLOBAL

CONTAINER SHIPPING INDUSTRY
 
▄██
███
███
███
███
███
███
■  Enables Savings

■  Global Adoption

■  Reduces Emission
         ▄███████▄▀▄         
     ▄██▌████████▀▀ ▄██▄     
    █████▐███▀▀▄▄██▄▀█████   
 ▄█ ▄▄▀▀██▄▀▀▄██████▌▀███▀▀ 
 ██▌████▄ ▄▄ ▀██████▄ ▄▄▄███▄
▀▀██▌▀█▀▐█████▄▀██████▐██████
██▄▄▀  █████████▄▄▀▀█▀▐██▀▀▄▄
▐▄▀██  ▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀████▄  ▄▄███▀
 ▀█` ▐█▄▀███████▄▄▄▄▄▐█▄▀███
  ▀▌█▄▄▀▀ ▀▀████████▀▐███▄▀ 
    ▀█████▄ ▄▄▄▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀   
      ▀▀████▄▀████ ▄██▀     
          ▀▀▀▀ ▀▀ ▀         
]   GSCP TM
DecentralizeEconomics
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1037


White Male Libertarian Bro


View Profile
January 10, 2015, 10:47:04 PM
 #144

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."

YOURCHAIN - MAKE CRYPTO YOURS AGAIN!
"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties." - Areopagitica
bitcreditscc
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 500



View Profile
January 10, 2015, 10:48:39 PM
 #145

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
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 10, 2015, 10:53:09 PM
 #146


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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 500


View Profile
January 10, 2015, 11:04:31 PM
 #147

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.   Smiley
StanLarimer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 500


View Profile
January 10, 2015, 11:11:10 PM
 #148


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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1037


White Male Libertarian Bro


View Profile
January 10, 2015, 11:25:38 PM
 #149


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.

YOURCHAIN - MAKE CRYPTO YOURS AGAIN!
"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties." - Areopagitica
StanLarimer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 500


View Profile
January 10, 2015, 11:43:31 PM
 #150

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...

Smiley

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1037


White Male Libertarian Bro


View Profile
January 10, 2015, 11:51:39 PM
 #151


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.  Smiley

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

YOURCHAIN - MAKE CRYPTO YOURS AGAIN!
"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties." - Areopagitica
jrossIV
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 11, 2015, 12:42:38 AM
 #152

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 500


View Profile
January 11, 2015, 02:01:11 AM
 #153

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1037


White Male Libertarian Bro


View Profile
January 11, 2015, 04:49:27 AM
 #154

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...

Smiley

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

YOURCHAIN - MAKE CRYPTO YOURS AGAIN!
"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties." - Areopagitica
testz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750
Merit: 1016


View Profile
January 11, 2015, 05:08:18 AM
 #155

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...

Smiley

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1037


White Male Libertarian Bro


View Profile
January 11, 2015, 05:17:28 AM
 #156

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...

Smiley

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.

YOURCHAIN - MAKE CRYPTO YOURS AGAIN!
"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties." - Areopagitica
DecentralizeEconomics
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1037


White Male Libertarian Bro


View Profile
January 11, 2015, 05:42:05 AM
 #157

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.

YOURCHAIN - MAKE CRYPTO YOURS AGAIN!
"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties." - Areopagitica
FandangledGizmo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1001


View Profile
January 11, 2015, 09:47:47 AM
 #158

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...

Smiley

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

Quote
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.

Quote
"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
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 18
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 11, 2015, 12:28:23 PM
 #159

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
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 266
Merit: 250


View Profile
January 11, 2015, 01:18:51 PM
 #160

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1001


View Profile
January 11, 2015, 02:43:51 PM
 #161

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 500



View Profile
January 11, 2015, 03:01:52 PM
 #162

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_
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 494
Merit: 500


View Profile
January 11, 2015, 10:50:53 PM
 #163

BitShares    Cheesy  Cheesy  Cheesy, and then people realize
DecentralizeEconomics
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1037


White Male Libertarian Bro


View Profile
January 12, 2015, 09:56:43 PM
 #164


YOURCHAIN - MAKE CRYPTO YOURS AGAIN!
"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties." - Areopagitica
hack_
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 494
Merit: 500


View Profile
January 12, 2015, 10:12:33 PM
 #165



Surprisingly accurate
hack_
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 494
Merit: 500


View Profile
January 12, 2015, 10:24:43 PM
 #166


Wow, ok who is that?
DecentralizeEconomics
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1037


White Male Libertarian Bro


View Profile
January 12, 2015, 10:43:49 PM
 #167


Wow, ok who is that?

Premier Stanlin

YOURCHAIN - MAKE CRYPTO YOURS AGAIN!
"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties." - Areopagitica
jrossIV
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 12, 2015, 11:40:06 PM
 #168

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288
Merit: 1002


Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


View Profile
January 13, 2015, 01:37:44 AM
 #169

Apples and oranges.  A corporation makes no claim of being decentralized and doesnt need to be.