Communist Bitshares Wealth Redistribution IS THEFT!

[bitcreditscc]

Keyhotee   

[DecentralizeEconomics]

Posting the best one again because I KNOW YOU LOVE IT!  

Do you think they'll remove it for free or will you have to pay them again?

Probably forum mods doesn't like your posters, but we like them very much, please keep be creative and posts new posters  

I don't know if I can beat this one.  It's "Pure Genius".  I laugh every time I see it.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

It's become clear in this long thread that a year of "Fibs and Fud" from people who have little personal honor have left many fair minded folks with deep misunderstandings about BitShares.  Rather than continuing to answer them piecemeal, I've decided to author a series of pictures that explain everything from the beginning.  I hope some of you find this useful.

(To be continued...)

[DecentralizeEconomics]

http://bitsharesblocks.com/delegates

This picture really says it all.  The top delegate only has ~17% of the vote.  This is a perfect example to show how easy it is for the wealthiest stakeholders to control the delegates.

That's true that in all blockchains stakeholders/hashpower can collude, but they can only collude in a one-to-one proportion to their stake/hash.  Since approval voting is used in delegate elections, I maintain that large stakeholders can effectively collude to a multiple proportion of their stake.  Whereby, for example, 20% of colluding stake can disproportionately influence the elections of more than 20% of the delegates.  This leads to a coalition of a few wealthy stakeholders being able to determine the outcomes of the mass majority of the delegate elections.  This is especially true considering that voter turnout of smaller stakeholders will be lower than the voter turnout of larger stakeholders.  As I said previously, it would be the intention of the colluding wealthy stakeholders to not harm Bitshares, but to elect delegates from which they would derive monetary gain in excess to their proportion of stake in the system at the expense of all other stakeholders.

Let's give an example.  Remember, in "approval voting", voters do not just vote for one delegate.  They can select as many or as few delegates as they wish and the entire weight of their stake counts towards each delegate they choose.  Say for instance that the top delegate has 50% of the vote and the 101st delegate has 30% of the vote.  The voting spread percentage is 20% (50%-30%).  If the votes per delegate is a linear increase according to delegate rank, an additional 10% of the stake vote will move the 101st delegate to the 50th position.  Likewise, a removal of 10% of the stake vote from the lower 50 delegates will result in them losing their delegate position.  By strategically voting, a few wealthy stakeholders can influence a disproportionate number of delegate positions in relation to their actual stake.  In this example, a coalition of 10% stake was able to control 50% of the delegates.

Does this sound fair to you?!

[DecentralizeEconomics]

It's become clear in this long thread that a year of "Fibs and Fud" from people who have little personal honor have left many fair minded folks with deep misunderstandings about BitShares.  Rather than continuing to answer them piecemeal, I've decided to author a series of pictures that explain everything from the beginning.  I hope some of you find this useful.

(To be continued...)

[DecentralizeEconomics]

It's become clear in this long thread that a year of "Fibs and Fud" from people who have little personal honor have left many fair minded folks with deep misunderstandings about BitShares.  Rather than continuing to answer them piecemeal, I've decided to author a series of pictures that explain everything from the beginning.  I hope some of you find this useful.

(To be continued...)

[DecentralizeEconomics]

http://bitsharesblocks.com/delegates

This picture really says it all.  The top delegate only has ~17% of the vote.  This is a perfect example to show how easy it is for the wealthiest stakeholders to control the delegates.

That's true that in all blockchains stakeholders/hashpower can collude, but they can only collude in a one-to-one proportion to their stake/hash.  Since approval voting is used in delegate elections, I maintain that large stakeholders can effectively collude to a multiple proportion of their stake.  Whereby, for example, 20% of colluding stake can disproportionately influence the elections of more than 20% of the delegates.  This leads to a coalition of a few wealthy stakeholders being able to determine the outcomes of the mass majority of the delegate elections.  This is especially true considering that voter turnout of smaller stakeholders will be lower than the voter turnout of larger stakeholders.  As I said previously, it would be the intention of the colluding wealthy stakeholders to not harm Bitshares, but to elect delegates from which they would derive monetary gain in excess to their proportion of stake in the system at the expense of all other stakeholders.

Let's give an example.  Remember, in "approval voting", voters do not just vote for one delegate.  They can select as many or as few delegates as they wish and the entire weight of their stake counts towards each delegate they choose.  Say for instance that the top delegate has 50% of the vote and the 101st delegate has 30% of the vote.  The voting spread percentage is 20% (50%-30%).  If the votes per delegate is a linear increase according to delegate rank, an additional 10% of the stake vote will move the 101st delegate to the 50th position.  Likewise, a removal of 10% of the stake vote from the lower 50 delegates will result in them losing their delegate position.  By strategically voting, a few wealthy stakeholders can influence a disproportionate number of delegate positions in relation to their actual stake.  In this example, a coalition of 10% stake was able to control 50% of the delegates.

Does this sound fair to you?!

Make your own conclusion, but imho from the evidence Stan presented, the only logical conclusion is that Bitshares was intentionally designed to centralize the control of the blockchain into the hands of the wealthiest stakeholders.  It is obvious that we no longer see Stan in here trying to defend his position because there is no rebuttal against such evidence.  The silence is damning.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

Now, since I have defeated the Bitshares' corporatists (aka communists) and they no longer dare to come into this thread and vainly defend their monstrosity, we can have a REAL conversation about Bitshares, how it is designed to enslave its users and how its sole purpose is to implement corporatism / communism on the blockchain.  Those who attempt to cast the truth as fiction and the truth-bearers as falsifiers, shall be routed from their speech.  May the light of rational thought and truth shine upon them and obliterate the shadows of falsehood which cover them.

Those who slander the spirit of crypto and corrupt its original ideology shall be brought to judgment.  Those who attempt to pass off injustice as justice, mock true decentralization, and obfuscate the truth will bear the fury of my words.  May they fear my words as they fear the truth.  I will expose them for what they are and nothing will stop the truth.  Every word they utter in defense, I will break down and expose it for its true nature.  If I am the only one who stands against the assault on free crypto, then so be it; I will do so just the same.  I will make sure all who come to crypto knows of their intentions.  For what is hidden, I will expose.  What is unjust, I will make just.

In the coming days, I will pick apart Bitshares' voting system, their primary control mechanism.  It is a system which imo is intentionally designed to be confusing, manipulative and in opposition to all assumptions.  I will make this thread the most viewed Bitshares' thread on Bitcointalk.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

May the light of rational thought and truth shine

they fear the truth.

and nothing will stop the truth.  

BitShares has never fallen from the Top 5 on www.coinmarketcap.com




and never will...

FAMOUS LAST WORDS

[HalFinneysBrain]

Now, since I have defeated the Bitshares' corporatists (aka communists) and they no longer dare to come into this thread and vainly defend their monstrosity, we can have a REAL conversation about Bitshares, how it is designed to enslave its users and how its sole purpose is to implement corporatism / communism on the blockchain.  Those who attempt to cast the truth as fiction and the truth-bearers as falsifiers, shall be routed from their speech.  May the light of rational thought and truth shine upon them and obliterate the shadows of falsehood which cover them.

DecentralizedEconomics, you seem to be under the impression that if you call Bitshares enough words that people associate to negative things, that you can make reality bend to your will, and the Bitshares codebase will somehow morph into some monstrosity.

I am not sure what your gameplan is, whether you are an NXT supporter who desires to hurt Bitshares as a perceived competitor, or what.  Personally NXT and Bitshares are my two favorites, and I wish both communities could get along better.  They are the most similar coins to each other, and yet we bicker, when we should all be ganging up against Ripple!


Anyway, a corporation governed by the vote of its shareholders is hardly "communist".  Calling it such is a misrepresentation of Orwellian terms, like saying 'slavery is freedom'.   You claim to want to have a rational discussion of Bitshares, and yet your choice of terms reveals a very strong and clear bias against it.  Wouldn't it be much more productive to analyze the Bitshares consensus system in a fair and balanced, academic way?  (Of course, on the other side Stan Larimer is not exactly an impartial voice here either.  I'm pretty sure the truth lies somewhere in between you two).




If Bitshares is a successful implementation of a corporate voting structure on a blockchain, then that is an important innovation!  It is important just like NXT's asset exchange is an important innovation.


Your claim that Bitshares inflaiton is "theft" does not pass the test of reason.  Were participation in the Bitshares blockchain compulsory, then you could claim that taxation is theft and make this case.  But being a Bitshares holder and using the Bitshares blockchain is an entirely voluntary act.  One can choose to take their business elsewhere and use NXT or Bitcoin or anything else if one desires.  Thus, even in the very worst case, in which Bitshares delegates have locked themselves in place and issue themselves free BTS, one could not make the case that it was "theft", only that this inflation was a fee that a user would need to voluntarily pay in order to use the service of BTS.  

In reality, most delegates are probably going to be providing value to Bitshares.  If delegates act as parasites and shareholders cannot remove them, then that is a flaw in Bitshares, and would make it clearly worse than NXT, but it would be no more of a flaw than Bitcoin inflating itself 10% a year for miners.   Until we see such parasitical behavior, we should not assume it will be the case, rather we should treat Bitshares as an experiment, which might work or might not.  So far Bitshares voters have already kicked out one paid delegate who didnt provide updates on their progress.  That seems to be a positive sign.

Yes, things would be better if a greater percentage of the total stake was voting.  18% for top delegate and 8% for 101st delegate is too low, and this means that one could execute an attack with only 10% of stake or so, whereas ideally we would want it to require 51%.  But is that better than in the alternatives?  What percentage of NXT are used to forge?  

These numbers have been rising slowly over time.  A few months back it was around 12% for top delegate and 5% for the bottom.  The Bitshares system scales up as people care more.  If the price rises, if the market cap were to grow by an order of magnitude, how much more would people care?  



I definitely feel that the Bitshares team has made some mistakes.  Their product is too complicated and difficult to explain, they have not delivered on time on some promises, and they hurt their community with the 'merger'.  But I do not see them as malevolent as you imply.  Rather, I think they are too idealistic, they lack a get it done type who pressures them to execute on their schedule and meet deadlines.  The Bitshares devs are too fond of dreaming up new ideas when they haven't finished the old ones yet.

To refer to such libertarian idealists as 'communist' is unfair and absurd.  Few coin developers embody libertarian ideals as much as Bytemaster does on his blog.  It would be much more reasonable to accuse the Bitshares devs of being libertarian dreamers than 'communists'.   Perhaps some day they will succeed in actually getting a product released that is as usable as NXT.  I find it strange sometimes that Bitshares has a higher market cap than NXT when I think NXT is further along in its development, but I still invest in it because I can see the potential and I believe in diversification.  Bitshares is more highly valued only because it is popular among the chinese, I think, but as a result it has the potential to catch on in china which would make it huge.


At the very least we should be fair to each coin and rationally analyze their strengths and weaknesses.  Being a communist engine of oppression is not Bitshares' weakness, it is simply a gross misrepresentation.  

[DecentralizeEconomics]

DecentralizedEconomics, you seem to be under the impression that if you call Bitshares enough words that people associate to negative things, that you can make reality bend to your will, and the Bitshares codebase will somehow morph into some monstrosity.

I don't have to morph it into anything.  It's already a monstrosity.  You can call it whatever you want, but that doesn't change its fundamental mode of operation.

I am not sure what your gameplan is, whether you are an NXT supporter who desires to hurt Bitshares as a perceived competitor, or what.  Personally NXT and Bitshares are my two favorites, and I wish both communities could get along better.  They are the most similar coins to each other, and yet we bicker, when we should all be ganging up against Ripple!

My gameplan is to expose Bitshares' consensus mechanism for what it really is.  I3 keeps marketing Bitshares as some type of Libertarian free market platform.  It is nothing of the sort.  Imo, Bitshares' delegate voting was intentionally made to be confusing and susceptible to covert manipulation by the wealthiest stakeholders.  I don't think the majority of people truly understand "approval voting" and its implications on blockchain control.  I intend on making it clear how easy it is for a coalition of wealthy stakeholders to completely control Bitshares' blockchain.

Anyway, a corporation governed by the vote of its shareholders is hardly "communist".  Calling it such is a misrepresentation of Orwellian terms, like saying 'slavery is freedom'.   You claim to want to have a rational discussion of Bitshares, and yet your choice of terms reveals a very strong and clear bias against it.  Wouldn't it be much more productive to analyze the Bitshares consensus system in a fair and balanced, academic way?  (Of course, on the other side Stan Larimer is not exactly an impartial voice here either.  I'm pretty sure the truth lies somewhere in between you two).

If Bitshares is a successful implementation of a corporate voting structure on a blockchain, then that is an important innovation!  It is important just like NXT's asset exchange is an important innovation.

If Bitshares was just a company using the blockchain, then of course, it would not be Communist, but this is not the case.  Bitshares' delegates run the blockchain.  This is different.  Since approval voting allows multiple delegates to be covertly controlled by a small coalition of the wealthiest stakeholders, it creates a blockchain monopoly.  Monopoly is the menace of free enterprise.  Communism is simply a state monopoly.

It is entirely different than companies on the NXT blockchain.  Companies on the NXT blockchain do NOT control chain security.  They cannot impose taxation upon other business to create a monopoly.

Your claim that Bitshares inflaiton is "theft" does not pass the test of reason.  Were participation in the Bitshares blockchain compulsory, then you could claim that taxation is theft and make this case.  But being a Bitshares holder and using the Bitshares blockchain is an entirely voluntary act.  One can choose to take their business elsewhere and use NXT or Bitcoin or anything else if one desires.  Thus, even in the very worst case, in which Bitshares delegates have locked themselves in place and issue themselves free BTS, one could not make the case that it was "theft", only that this inflation was a fee that a user would need to voluntarily pay in order to use the service of BTS.  

Granted, no one is forced to own Bitshares and be subject to "taxation without representation".  (It's taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION because approval voting allows coalitions of the wealthy to strategically vote giving them an unfair advantage effectively disenfranchising individual actors.)  Because, imo, people who participate in Bitshares have flawed notions of how delegate voting really works, they participate under a ruse.  When Stan Larimer starts quoting the US Constitution, the voting process is represented and analogized to the political voting process used to select politicians in representative government.  Bitshares' approval voting system is in no way, shape or form akin to representative politics.  It is a known fact that approval voting is unworkable in contested elections.

In reality, most delegates are probably going to be providing value to Bitshares.  If delegates act as parasites and shareholders cannot remove them, then that is a flaw in Bitshares, and would make it clearly worse than NXT, but it would be no more of a flaw than Bitcoin inflating itself 10% a year for miners.   Until we see such parasitical behavior, we should not assume it will be the case, rather we should treat Bitshares as an experiment, which might work or might not.  So far Bitshares voters have already kicked out one paid delegate who didnt provide updates on their progress.  That seems to be a positive sign.

Yes, things would be better if a greater percentage of the total stake was voting.  18% for top delegate and 8% for 101st delegate is too low, and this means that one could execute an attack with only 10% of stake or so, whereas ideally we would want it to require 51%.  But is that better than in the alternatives?  What percentage of NXT are used to forge?  

These numbers have been rising slowly over time.  A few months back it was around 12% for top delegate and 5% for the bottom.  The Bitshares system scales up as people care more.  If the price rises, if the market cap were to grow by an order of magnitude, how much more would people care?  

With 18% of the vote for the top delegate and 8% of the vote for the bottom delegate, it requires only 10% of the vote to completely control all delegate elections.  I imagine that I3 owns at least 10% and I suspect they own a lot more than that.  You don't even have to have 10% to completely dominate the blockchain, if you can convince others to unwittingly vote in accordance with your coalition.

NXT has over 40% of the stake forging, but NXT is not susceptible to this type of manipulation.  NXT is truly a representative form of blockchain governance.  One NXT = One Vote.

I definitely feel that the Bitshares team has made some mistakes.  Their product is too complicated and difficult to explain, they have not delivered on time on some promises, and they hurt their community with the 'merger'.  But I do not see them as malevolent as you imply.  Rather, I think they are too idealistic, they lack a get it done type who pressures them to execute on their schedule and meet deadlines.  The Bitshares devs are too fond of dreaming up new ideas when they haven't finished the old ones yet.

To refer to such libertarian idealists as 'communist' is unfair and absurd.  Few coin developers embody libertarian ideals as much as Bytemaster does on his blog.  It would be much more reasonable to accuse the Bitshares devs of being libertarian dreamers than 'communists'.   Perhaps some day they will succeed in actually getting a product released that is as usable as NXT.  I find it strange sometimes that Bitshares has a higher market cap than NXT when I think NXT is further along in its development, but I still invest in it because I can see the potential and I believe in diversification.  Bitshares is more highly valued only because it is popular among the chinese, I think, but as a result it has the potential to catch on in china which would make it huge.

At the very least we should be fair to each coin and rationally analyze their strengths and weaknesses.  Being a communist engine of oppression is not Bitshares' weakness, it is simply a gross misrepresentation.  

Anyone can claim or say anything, but that doesn't necessarily reveal their true intentions.  Ask yourself why did they choose to use an approval voting system to select delegates?  Why didn't they use "one stake = one vote" in a plurality voting system?

[nomoreheroes7]

Now, since I have defeated the Bitshares' corporatists (aka communists) and they no longer dare to come into this thread and vainly defend their monstrosity, we can have a REAL conversation about Bitshares, how it is designed to enslave its users and how its sole purpose is to implement corporatism / communism on the blockchain.  Those who attempt to cast the truth as fiction and the truth-bearers as falsifiers, shall be routed from their speech.  May the light of rational thought and truth shine upon them and obliterate the shadows of falsehood which cover them.

DecentralizedEconomics, you seem to be under the impression that if you call Bitshares enough words that people associate to negative things, that you can make reality bend to your will, and the Bitshares codebase will somehow morph into some monstrosity.

I am not sure what your gameplan is, whether you are an NXT supporter who desires to hurt Bitshares as a perceived competitor, or what.  Personally NXT and Bitshares are my two favorites, and I wish both communities could get along better.  They are the most similar coins to each other, and yet we bicker, when we should all be ganging up against Ripple!


Anyway, a corporation governed by the vote of its shareholders is hardly "communist".  Calling it such is a misrepresentation of Orwellian terms, like saying 'slavery is freedom'.   You claim to want to have a rational discussion of Bitshares, and yet your choice of terms reveals a very strong and clear bias against it.  Wouldn't it be much more productive to analyze the Bitshares consensus system in a fair and balanced, academic way?  (Of course, on the other side Stan Larimer is not exactly an impartial voice here either.  I'm pretty sure the truth lies somewhere in between you two).




If Bitshares is a successful implementation of a corporate voting structure on a blockchain, then that is an important innovation!  It is important just like NXT's asset exchange is an important innovation.


Your claim that Bitshares inflaiton is "theft" does not pass the test of reason.  Were participation in the Bitshares blockchain compulsory, then you could claim that taxation is theft and make this case.  But being a Bitshares holder and using the Bitshares blockchain is an entirely voluntary act.  One can choose to take their business elsewhere and use NXT or Bitcoin or anything else if one desires.  Thus, even in the very worst case, in which Bitshares delegates have locked themselves in place and issue themselves free BTS, one could not make the case that it was "theft", only that this inflation was a fee that a user would need to voluntarily pay in order to use the service of BTS. 

In reality, most delegates are probably going to be providing value to Bitshares.  If delegates act as parasites and shareholders cannot remove them, then that is a flaw in Bitshares, and would make it clearly worse than NXT, but it would be no more of a flaw than Bitcoin inflating itself 10% a year for miners.   Until we see such parasitical behavior, we should not assume it will be the case, rather we should treat Bitshares as an experiment, which might work or might not.  So far Bitshares voters have already kicked out one paid delegate who didnt provide updates on their progress.  That seems to be a positive sign.

Yes, things would be better if a greater percentage of the total stake was voting.  18% for top delegate and 8% for 101st delegate is too low, and this means that one could execute an attack with only 10% of stake or so, whereas ideally we would want it to require 51%.  But is that better than in the alternatives?  What percentage of NXT are used to forge?   

These numbers have been rising slowly over time.  A few months back it was around 12% for top delegate and 5% for the bottom.  The Bitshares system scales up as people care more.  If the price rises, if the market cap were to grow by an order of magnitude, how much more would people care? 



I definitely feel that the Bitshares team has made some mistakes.  Their product is too complicated and difficult to explain, they have not delivered on time on some promises, and they hurt their community with the 'merger'.  But I do not see them as malevolent as you imply.  Rather, I think they are too idealistic, they lack a get it done type who pressures them to execute on their schedule and meet deadlines.  The Bitshares devs are too fond of dreaming up new ideas when they haven't finished the old ones yet.

To refer to such libertarian idealists as 'communist' is unfair and absurd.  Few coin developers embody libertarian ideals as much as Bytemaster does on his blog.  It would be much more reasonable to accuse the Bitshares devs of being libertarian dreamers than 'communists'.   Perhaps some day they will succeed in actually getting a product released that is as usable as NXT.  I find it strange sometimes that Bitshares has a higher market cap than NXT when I think NXT is further along in its development, but I still invest in it because I can see the potential and I believe in diversification.  Bitshares is more highly valued only because it is popular among the chinese, I think, but as a result it has the potential to catch on in china which would make it huge.


At the very least we should be fair to each coin and rationally analyze their strengths and weaknesses.  Being a communist engine of oppression is not Bitshares' weakness, it is simply a gross misrepresentation. 

*Applause*

(Everything)

*Double applause*

[DecentralizeEconomics]

[DecentralizeEconomics]

INTRODUCING BITPINKUNICORN!

BitShares BitPinkUnicorn is currently at 195 on coinmarketcap in traditional ranking.  This is misleading.

Since it trades against BitShares and all the other assets shown above on the #4 BitShares blockchain, its status is more a reflection of the desire people currently have to lock against pink unicorns vs some other commodity or fiat currency.  Interest may pick up this spring when we expect companies start offering direct off-ramps from BitPinkUnicorn and BitInvisibleLeprechaun to the physical pink unicorns and invisible leprechauns themselves.  Ever try to buy pink unicorns and wait for days for your wire to get there to lock in the price?  Would you like to be able to lock physical it in ten seconds?  

Yeah, I though so.

At different times the global market will perceive each of these pegs as a safe haven.  Right now, pink unicorns are seen as more volatile than the USD or CNY and therefore not where most people want to park risk-off money.  When the world fiat currencies start misbehaving, we'll see the mix adjust in about ten seconds.

Its best to look at the sum of all these BitAssets when assessing how they are catching on, since they form a common set of options inside a single "Smart Coin" implemented as the decentralized exchange known as BitShares.

You can program your Smart Coins to track any basket of BitAssets.
 -- Roll your own custom risk mix. --  

That is the real power of BitSnares.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

[DecentralizeEconomics]

Quote from: DesertWind on February 13, 2015, 07:22:09PM

Exactly. BTS pegs will work until they don't. 3-4 sigma volatility will blow it all up.

Hedging your assets is as old as financial markets and ubiquitous. Nothing remotely new.

For example, I'm in Canada but trade in US funds...
So to "peg" or lock in the my recent 20% gains in the CAD is trivial...
You (a) buy CAD by shorting USD.CAD in forex cash market or (b) buy CAD futures contracts on CME....
Once you have a 1:1 ratio of USD and CAD you are 100% hedged/pegged.

In the Forex cash market, I have regulated billion $$$ banks and dealers as my counterparty...
On the CME, my highly regulated counterparty must deliver CAD on a specific date.

With BTS all I have is a crypto Asset Bubble on the other side...
They may claim "no counterparty risk" on a complicated and disingenuous basis...
But there is massive "systemic risk" because of the fragility of the BTS Bubble.

There no use for BTS or their primitive hedging schemes in the Real World, it's kid stuff...
And US regulators are watching closely cheered on by the most influential man on Wall St Jamie Dimon...
"Incredulous" because crypto minus decentralization and privacy has negative value.

If you share the purity of Satoshi's vision... Nxt is the only game in town right now.

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/the-us-government-closes-in-on-bitcoin-and-some-bitcoiners-are-smiling

[DecentralizeEconomics]

[DecentralizeEconomics]

[achimsmile]

So in summary class, what is Bitcoin2.0?


"A BITCOIN THAT PAYS YOU TO HOLD IT"
(BitBTC)

Cool, the fiat that I hold in my bank account is fiat 2.0 , since it pays me to hold it.

So my crypto has to be inflationary to be a 2.0 coin

[achimsmile]

No, it just has to be profitable for the users.  Inflation is just an option.

an option that is in currently use by bitUSD

BTC/NXT/BTS all crete new coins.

supply of Nxt is fixed