Communist Bitshares Wealth Redistribution IS THEFT!

[FandangledGizmo]

I see one of the largely NXT supporters from this thread, Daedelus has created a poll, around his interpretation of the BitShares model in the main Bitcoin discussion area

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=920621.new#new

[1714012605]

1714012605

[1714012605]

1714012605

[Daedelus]

Which parts of my description don't you agree with and I can adjust it.

There was only one useful comment back from my round up (testz, (s)he seems to be the only one interested in the tech rather than hollow evangelism (presumably on the promise of continued revenue)) so where did I go so wrong?

[hack_]

BitShares        , and then people realize

[DecentralizeEconomics]

[hack_]

Surprisingly accurate

[hack_]

Wow, ok who is that?

[DecentralizeEconomics]

Wow, ok who is that?

Premier Stanlin

[jrossIV]

If the network is protected by actual stake ownership (like NXT), it is impossible to attack it by creating a large network of stakeless nodes.  The number of allowed forgers in a system should be regulated by market forces and not capped at some arbitrary amount.  "Decentralization" means everyone should be allowed to participate without the consent of an authority.  I believe this is a better system and less prone to abuse.  By adding voting (delegation) to PoS, you are adding a "social contruct" which allows a hierarchical system to develop.

If you had 10 Billion participates that forged 1% of the blocks and 1 individual who forged 99% of the blocks, I'd would say that is a fair and decentralized system as long as the one individual with 99% of the stake didn't have the means to levy a tax on the smaller stakeholders.  If the one individual with 99% of the stake dropped out of the network, the remaining 1% of the stake forging would then compromise 100% of the active stake forging.  Since the amount of available stake would be reduced by 99%, it would not make the network more susceptible to attack as long as that stake didn't fall into malicious hands.  Everyone should have the right to forge in proportion to his stake.

This is of course a ridiculous example that would never develop in any natural system.

So a person should only be able to forge proportional to their stake and not proportional to their effort?  And somehow this is superior according to your world view?

If you had 1 guy forging 99% of your blocks then he would have tremendous power and you would be far from decentralized. The number of partipants are important as long as their power is relatively equal, otherwise the power is too centralized.  Plenty of communistic societies had tons of "participants" and most of the wealth was centralized at the top.


NXT mining allows you to be able to do something like rental forging.  My understanding is it is the equivalent to voting and adds a "social construct".  

I like crypto-currencies but at my age it just gives me a headache arguing bizarro semantics.

You argue that DPOS will actually evolve into a meritocracy when in fact it won't.  Those in the Communist bureaucracy that DPoS creates will maintain their power through deceit, corruption, manipulation, and quid pro quo politics.  It's a system ripe for abuse and IMO the delegates were intentionally limited to 101 because that was a number that the Bitshares' elite believed they could successful manipulate while still claiming "decentralization".  Don't ask me to rationalize how they claim "decentralization" when Bytemaster is stating that they are programming centralization into Bitshares to make it more efficient and economical.

True, if one individual had 99% of the stake, he would have tremendous power over such a system, but that is not a realistic scenario.  Why don't you support your arguments with rational examples.

What matters is not how MUCH stake any individual possesses, but how those with the most are or aren't able to disenfranchise everyone else.  All systems will evolve into 20% of the group owning 80%.  If you attempt to redistribute forging rights, regardless of the reason, you are effectively redistributing wealth and will create a system where those in power will maintain their power through manipulation and not because they earned it.  NXT is in fact the true meritocracy, not the BTSSR.

NXT allows leased forging which is like voting or pooling.  The difference is it is NOT forced on stakeholders.  Leased forging was implemented to allow stakeholders to forge safely.  The first account holds your NXT and is kept offline.  The second account is empty and is kept online.  You lease the balance from your first account to your second account.

I argue that those who are upkeeping the network get paid an equal amount for doing an equal amount of work.  If they wish to be paid more then they have to do work to be paid more. You argue those with the most stake should get paid more for the same amount of work.

My point about 1 guy containing 99% of the stake was an example to make it clear that your decentralization metrics are screwed up.  It could be 1 guy containing 93% of the stake, and 159 guys containing the other 7%.  The problem is just as bad. Participants matter even less than distribution of block creation power in the block-signing process.

Quoting the Pareto Principle is so incorrect I do not know where to start.  I've seen that 80/20 stuff misapplied to so many things. This particular one is close to the top.

Communism is a form of government that one has is not given the opportunity to opt-in to.  BitShares is more like a corporation.  You can buy stock or not.  The reality is your same arguments could readily be applied against any modern corporation and claim it is Communist.  The Board of Directors would be the "communist elite".  *THAT* is how weak your arguments are.

BTW I thought most of the leased forging had people voting with their stake by placing it in pools where they could gather their fees. This was done because the economics of it didn't really make it worth the hassle to keep a wallet up and going. So in effect, people are voting and your argument works just as strongly against NXT.

[jonald_fyookball]

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

[DecentralizeEconomics]

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

Exactly.

Communism is a form of government that one has is not given the opportunity to opt-in to.  BitShares is more like a corporation.  You can buy stock or not.  The reality is your same arguments could readily be applied against any modern corporation and claim it is Communist.  The Board of Directors would be the "communist elite".  *THAT* is how weak your arguments are.

The problem with your example is that your "Board of Directors" is RUNNING THE ECONOMY!  THAT IS STATE CAPITALISM WHICH IS COMMUNISM!

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

If a single corporation ran the entire economy, then yes, it would be Communism.  Communism is a highly elitist, hierarchical, centralized system of control which disenfranchises the people (aka stakeholders) to empower the ruling party (aka 101 delegates).  Communism is best described as STATE CAPITALISM.  I agree with Stan that Bitshares is a company, but it is a company that commands complete control over the Bitshares' economy.  This is why Bitshares is Communist.

As Vladimir Lenin stated:

"We recognise and will continue to recognise only state capitalism, and it is we — we conscious workers, we Communists — who are the state. That is why we should brand as good-for-nothing Communists those who have failed to understand their task of restricting, curbing, checking and catching red-handed and inflicting exemplary chastisement on any kind of capitalism that goes beyond the framework of state capitalism in our meaning of the concept and tasks of the state."

Bitshares is identical to Communism.  Unless you are a part of the "ruling class" (aka 101 delegates), you are subject to taxation via inflation.  "The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation." - Vladimir Lenin  These 101 delegates use their power to maintain a stranglehold on the system by taxing competing businesses and shareholders.  Lenin once again describes such a system as “nothing but state capitalist monopoly made to benefit the whole people."  The fallacy of such a statement is that it only benefits the "new master class" (aka 101 delegates).

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

Bitshares is a centrally administered corporation which controls the entire economy.  As I have said before, the delegates use their stake to maintain their position and form a monopoly over the system.  This is not a system which promotes free enterprise, but is the very definition of Supercapitalism (aka Crony Capitalism).

BTW I thought most of the leased forging had people voting with their stake by placing it in pools where they could gather their fees. This was done because the economics of it didn't really make it worth the hassle to keep a wallet up and going. So in effect, people are voting and your argument works just as strongly against NXT.

You're wrong.  NXT doesn't force stakeholders to participate in leased forging.  Bitshares forces the stakeholders to ELECT privileged individuals.

[testz]

You're wrong.  NXT doesn't force stakeholders to participate in leased forging.  Bitshares forces the stakeholders to ELECT privileged individuals.

You think you need to force someone to take profit? 
Nxt stakeholders can forging alone, at least this 15 individuals: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2015/01/13/Decentralization-of-Nxt-vs-BitShares

[jonald_fyookball]

You're wrong.  NXT doesn't force stakeholders to participate in leased forging.  Bitshares forces the stakeholders to ELECT privileged individuals.

You think you need to force someone to take profit? 

Non-sequitor.

The fact that stakeholders must necessarily vote
on representatives has nothing to do with the
fact that everyone likes to profit (including
those that would be elected).

You just worded it in a clever way to make
the original argument appear questionable... but
I think you know that.

[testz]

You're wrong.  NXT doesn't force stakeholders to participate in leased forging.  Bitshares forces the stakeholders to ELECT privileged individuals.

You think you need to force someone to take profit? 

Non-sequitor.

The fact that stakeholders must necessarily vote
on representatives has nothing to do with the
fact that everyone likes to profit (including
those that would be elected).

You just worded it in a clever way to make
the original argument appear questionable... but
I think you know that.

Yes, it's was rhetorical question.
I just want to show that "Bitshares forces the stakeholders to ELECT privileged individuals" ~= "Nxt shareholders should forging"

As you can see here http://bitsharesblocks.com/delegates even Bitshares "forces" the stakeholders the only 16% of them voted.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

You're wrong.  NXT doesn't force stakeholders to participate in leased forging.  Bitshares forces the stakeholders to ELECT privileged individuals.

You think you need to force someone to take profit? 

Non-sequitor.

The fact that stakeholders must necessarily vote
on representatives has nothing to do with the
fact that everyone likes to profit (including
those that would be elected).

You just worded it in a clever way to make
the original argument appear questionable... but
I think you know that.

Yes, it's was rhetorical question.
I just want to show that "Bitshares forces the stakeholders to ELECT privileged individuals" ~= "Nxt shareholders should forging"

As you can see here http://bitsharesblocks.com/delegates even Bitshares "forces" the stakeholders the only 16% of them voted.

You're arguing semantics.  You and I both know that Bitshares' stakeholders can't forge on their own.

[mrkavasaki]

bitshares will overtake bitcoin soon

[FandangledGizmo]

Apologies it doesn't seem to let me quote from the thread you locked Daedalus, I hope this suffices...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=920621.msg10135356#msg10135356

FandangledGizmo:

http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2015/01/13/Decentralization-of-Nxt-vs-BitShares/

60% of all blocks are produced by just 15 people

I wish NXT luck with their model and I hope it scales well in the future but NXT doesn't seem currently very decentralized imo.

Daedalus: Thank you, I think you have been listening. With all crypto still in bootstrapping, it is the future picture that counts.

Imo BitShares doesn't try to maximize decentralization but optimize decentralization.

Despite a year's worth of bootstrapping,  NXT with it's 2 minute average block times and 15 accounts signing  60% of blocks appears to be currently both an inferior performance and more centralized blockchain.

If another blockchain can offer more optimal performance and large gains in useful decentralization then BitShares holders are able to change their model including the 101 number.

As Toast said in the same locked thread...

Toast: Maybe one day BTS stakeholders will do a cost/benefit analysis and realize that spending 10x on validation is worth the perceived extra decentralization. Heck maybe even spending a few thousand a year for anyone to opt-in to a mailing list that says "you, too, are helping secure the network" - equivalent to what small-time miners or forgers are experiencing right now.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=920621.msg10127852#msg10127852

[Daedelus]

Apologies it doesn't seem to let me quote from the thread you locked Daedalus, I hope this suffices...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=920621.msg10135356#msg10135356

FandangledGizmo:

http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2015/01/13/Decentralization-of-Nxt-vs-BitShares/

60% of all blocks are produced by just 15 people

I wish NXT luck with their model and I hope it scales well in the future but NXT doesn't seem currently very decentralized imo.

Daedalus: Thank you, I think you have been listening. With all crypto still in bootstrapping, it is the future picture that counts.

Imo BitShares doesn't try to maximize decentralization but optimize decentralization.

Despite a year's worth of bootstrapping,  NXT with it's 2 minute average block times and 15 accounts signing  60% of blocks appears to be currently be both an inferior performance and more centralized blockchain.

If another blockchain can offer more optimal performance and large gains in useful decentralization then BitShares holders are able to change their model including the 101 number.

As Toast said in the same locked thread...

Toast: Maybe one day BTS stakeholders will do a cost/benefit analysis and realize that spending 10x on validation is worth the perceived extra decentralization. Heck maybe even spending a few thousand a year for anyone to opt-in to a mailing list that says "you, too, are helping secure the network" - equivalent to what small-time miners or forgers are experiencing right now.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=920621.msg10127852#msg10127852

This is a problem. I discussed the problems in changing the 101 number waaay up thread. The incentives work against it. But I am getting tired of repeating myself. I will await Bytemaster's response to Come-from-Beyond.

[matt608]

If BitShares stakeholder numbers grow and there remain 101 delegates it becomes more centralised while remaining sufficiently decentralised.  The purpose of decentralisation is to protect the network from being shutdown.  It doesn't matter if there are thousands of stakeholders or millions, 101 delegates is sufficiently decentralised to protect the network.

It part of the incentive structure for the large stake holders to vote for delegates who bring value to the system, not to just vote themselves in.  That undermines their own investment.  If you look in the delegate proposal section on the bitsharestalk forum, you will see free market competition is thriving, we have multiple exchanges, marketers and developers competing for delegate spots.  

[Shuai]

At some point the amount of delegates will be increased. Most likely this will be as the network grows so incredibly large and valuable that adding diminishing amounts of increasing decentralization is worth the linear cost of adding extra block producing nodes. It could also be if NXT ever gets its shit together and manages to have more than 16 nodes controlling half the network. If NXT started approaching 51 block producers for half the blocks then bitshares voters will probably support doubling the amount of delegates for the sake of PR, just so BitShares continues being more decentralized than NXT.

One thing is for sure, NXT will NEVER have more independent block producers than bitshares because leased forging encourages centralization and the only way to get forgers to spread out will be by begging them to do so, the same way BTC users have to beg miners not to join GHASH and discus fish.

With bitshares you just vote for a hard fork that forces the amount of block producers to increase, and then you vote for delegates who are either old and trusted community members, who have revealed their identity, or who are blockchain employees doing quantifiable work (thus proving they are not a sockpuppet). No other blockchain even have any reliable methods to determine their degree of decentralization, which is the first step to systematically increase it in the long run. We'll never know if GHASH secretly controlled more than 51% of mining power all along, and we'll never know how many of the 16 NXT pools are controlled by the same person.

[jrossIV]

At some point the amount of delegates will be increased. Most likely this will be as the network grows so incredibly large and valuable that adding diminishing amounts of increasing decentralization is worth the linear cost of adding extra block producing nodes. It could also be if NXT ever gets its shit together and manages to have more than 16 nodes controlling half the network. If NXT started approaching 51 block producers for half the blocks then bitshares voters will probably support doubling the amount of delegates for the sake of PR, just so BitShares continues being more decentralized than NXT.

One thing is for sure, NXT will NEVER have more independent block producers than bitshares because leased forging encourages centralization and the only way to get forgers to spread out will be by begging them to do so, the same way BTC users have to beg miners not to join GHASH and discus fish.

With bitshares you just vote for a hard fork that forces the amount of block producers to increase, and then you vote for delegates who are either old and trusted community members, who have revealed their identity, or who are blockchain employees doing quantifiable work (thus proving they are not a sockpuppet). No other blockchain even have any reliable methods to determine their degree of decentralization, which is the first step to systematically increase it in the long run. We'll never know if GHASH secretly controlled more than 51% of mining power all along, and we'll never know how many of the 16 NXT pools are controlled by the same person.

And having more than 101 delegates might not be so great because the list of block-signers becomes so big that it has to be professionally managed which adds a different type of centralization.  (a type of centralization = attack vector)