Communist Bitshares Wealth Redistribution IS THEFT!

[jonald_fyookball]

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

Nothing at Stake, Nothing to Fear

Sorry but this article is rubbish.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1713874749]

1713874749

[1713874749]

1713874749

[1713874749]

1713874749

[1713874749]

1713874749

[cassius69]

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

fuckin' propaganda 

[StanLarimer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to Measure the Decentralization of Bitcoin

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

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

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

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

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

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

[cassius69]

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

[Daedelus]

... and fewer plugs for Bytemasters blog posts.

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

[FandangledGizmo]

... and fewer plugs for Bytemasters blog posts.

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

Have you seen Bytemater's latest blog post?  

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

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

[Daedelus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

It costs the node operator 8.4 cents per day.

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

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

4.94 / 5095 = 0.000969808

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[FandangledGizmo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

It costs the node operator 8.4 cents per day.

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

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

4.94 / 5095 = 0.000969808

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From your post it seems

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

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

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

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

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





 

[Daedelus]

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

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

[FandangledGizmo]

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

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

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

[bitcreditscc]

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

[Daedelus]

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

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

[DecentralizeEconomics]

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

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

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

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

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

You forge to protect your existing investment.

[jonald_fyookball]

... and fewer plugs for Bytemasters blog posts.

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

Have you seen Bytemater's latest blog post?  

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

Yes, I saw it.  

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

Here's why:

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

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

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

[Pheonike]

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

[DecentralizeEconomics]

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

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

[FandangledGizmo]

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

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

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

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

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

You forge to protect your existing investment.

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

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

[Daedelus]

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

[FandangledGizmo]

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

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

[StanLarimer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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