Communist Bitshares Wealth Redistribution IS THEFT!

[StanLarimer]

Ok, what do you think were the actual reasons?

[1714140349]

1714140349

[jonald_fyookball]

Now we are getting somewhere.  We simply disagree on philosophy.  

People who think like you do will simply not be owners in BitShares.  They aren't interested in that kind of product. That's ok.  Find something else that works for you.

BitShares appeals to those who understand and appreciate the company metaphor. Companies are formed to make profits and share them according to the percent of ownership.  Every share gets the same percent of the profits.  If you own more shares you get more profits.  That's how companies are supposed to work.  

I get what you're saying.  My intuition tells me that these kinds of
ideas are just not scalable enough for a global currency.  Just
my own little opinion -- I'm much happier trusting in the protocol
of Bitcoin.   But good luck.

Thanks.  But, if you change your metaphor from "global currency" to "global company that produces stable smart currency derivatives" then what you have to compare it against is international companies like Alibaba or Google. There, the idea of stakeholders electing a board of directors to appoint management and hire employees is a well established model. We just aim to extend block chain technology to make global businesses transparent, incorruptible, efficient and profitable.

Those are the main reasons we started with POW, switched to POS, and then extended it to DPOS.

Ok...and what difference do you see
between the Federal Reserve and
Google?

I thought the whole point of cryptocurrencies
is to get away from central authorities.

[Crestington]

Now we are getting somewhere.  We simply disagree on philosophy.  

People who think like you do will simply not be owners in BitShares.  They aren't interested in that kind of product. That's ok.  Find something else that works for you.

BitShares appeals to those who understand and appreciate the company metaphor. Companies are formed to make profits and share them according to the percent of ownership.  Every share gets the same percent of the profits.  If you own more shares you get more profits.  That's how companies are supposed to work.  

I get what you're saying.  My intuition tells me that these kinds of
ideas are just not scalable enough for a global currency.  Just
my own little opinion -- I'm much happier trusting in the protocol
of Bitcoin.   But good luck.

Thanks.  But, if you change your metaphor from "global currency" to "global company that produces stable smart currency derivatives" then what you have to compare it against is international companies like Alibaba or Google. There, the idea of stakeholders electing a board of directors to appoint management and hire employees is a well established model. We just aim to extend block chain technology to make global businesses transparent, incorruptible, efficient and profitable.

Those are the main reasons we started with POW, switched to POS, and then extended it to DPOS.

Ok...and what difference do you see
between the Federal Reserve and
Google?

I thought the whole point of cryptocurrencies
is to get away from central authorities.

You can't get away from central authorities in general because people are inherently lazy and want other people to do the work for them so are willing to trust something they think will work for their benefit, same thing as outsourcing to India for customer service representative's.

[StanLarimer]

Ok...and what difference do you see between the Federal Reserve and Google?

I thought the whole point of cryptocurrencies is to get away from central authorities.

I don't quite get where you are going with the first question, but ok:

Google is a company organized by a group of people who pooled their capital to earn shared profits and to obtain certain protections under the laws of the jurisdictions in which it is incorporated.  The Federal Reserve is cartel of bankers that managed to con the US government into giving them the monopolistic authority to manage the US money supply to the benefit of those bankers and the eventual enslavement of all mankind.  It is neither Federal nor a Reserve.  

Your second question, however, is extremely interesting!

Block chain technologies enable transparent, decentralized, immutable public records.
They are useful for many things you have not dreamed of.

You can use them to implement a crypto currency that is
immune from the corruption of central authorities or
completely controlled by central authorities, or
engaged in a negotiated truce with central authorities.

You can use it to implement other things than currencies - like unmanned companies.
These also can exist on a continuum from completely sovereign to completely subject to central authorities.

BitShares is engineered to be completely sovereign from any of the world's other governments and yet able to interact peacefully with other entities that are still subject to those central authorities.  It has been released into the wild and is now on its own. There is no central organization which runs it.  It lives in international waters as a creature of Free Space. Whether it achieves its design goals or not depends upon the will of its current and future owners.  The BitShares community is as decentralized as its software.  So where it will go is up to their independent, collective efforts.  I merely point out what is possible.

Market Pegged Assets (MPA) can autonomously track the value of fiat currencies and commodities subject to other legal jurisdictions. They exist outside the current fiat framework.

User Issued Assets (UIA) can be implemented to be fully compliant with the laws in the jurisdiction of each UIA issuer, or entities of Free Space.

MPAs and UIAs can trade freely in the international waters of BitShares Free Space.  You should think about what that means!

So, everything you have learned about crypto currency theory and lore is still applicable inside the BitShares Free Space universe. But it is only a small subset of what is actually possible.

You don't have to give up what you like about Bitcoin.  But BitShares gives the Bitcoin ecosystem a whole bunch of exciting new possibilities.  It does not seek to replace Bitcoin.  It aims to extend the Bitcoin vision.

[jonald_fyookball]

you were the one the suggested I replace 'global currency' with 'global company' hence the comparison.  I would trust neither of those two institutions with control of money.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

you were the one the suggested I replace 'global currency' with 'global company' hence the comparison.  I would trust neither of those two institutions with control of money.

That's COMMUNISM!   

[StanLarimer]

you were the one the suggested I replace 'global currency' with 'global company' hence the comparison.  I would trust neither of those two institutions with control of money.

That's COMMUNISM!   

Companies are a capitalist construct for voluntarily pooled property rights. 
They can still have global scope as long as participation is voluntary.
 
Communism oversimplified is non-voluntary seizure of property rights by the state.
And the viewpoint that all people do not have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property.

The key difference is the word voluntary.

[StanLarimer]

you were the one the suggested I replace 'global currency' with 'global company' hence the comparison.  I would trust neither of those two institutions with control of money.

Precisely.  The chief goal of most crypto-projects is the removal or reduction of the need to trust.   This has not been perfectly achieved yet.  To date, we have had to be content with tolerating some residual trust in those who have effective control over what software gets executed.

We seek to explicitly place that control in the hands of the owners.  Others allow it to emerge somewhere by default.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

I never said that the delegates the wealthiest stakeholders would elect would be unproductive.  On the contrary, I think the wealthiest stakeholders would "support" business delegates which they have a vested interest in and who would maximize their investment, but at the same time, these businesses would be financed at the expense of all stakeholders.  While the smaller stakeholders might obtain an increase on their BTS investment, the wealthiest stakeholders would get the most benefit.  The wealthiest stakeholders would not only receive the appreciation on their BTS, but would also receive the business profit off the delegate businesses which they had a vested interest.  This is not "free enterprise", but instead, it is big business financed at the expense of all for the personal gain of the wealthiest stakeholders.  Any other startup business, which posed as competition to a business delegate backed by the wealthiest stakeholders, would be denied a delegate position and be forced to finance their competition.  DPoS creates a "government of the wealthy" and monopolizes the entire Bitshares' economy.  Such a system is NOT "decentralized" in any true sense of the word.

Now we are getting somewhere.  We simply disagree on philosophy.

That's probably a gross understatement.

you were the one the suggested I replace 'global currency' with 'global company' hence the comparison.  I would trust neither of those two institutions with control of money.

That's COMMUNISM!   

Companies are a capitalist construct for voluntarily pooled property rights. 
They can still have global scope as long as participation is voluntary.
 
Communism oversimplified is non-voluntary seizure of property rights by the state.
And the viewpoint that all people do not have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property.

The key difference is the word voluntary.

A company is a capitalist construct for voluntarily pooled property rights in a free market economy.  (The key difference is the phrase "free market economy".)

Communism is the centralized control of all companies by the wealthy elite funded via non-voluntary seizure of property rights by the wealthy.  (The key difference is the phrase "centralized control of all companies by the wealthy elite".)

There is no "free market economy" in Bitshares.  A small group of the wealthiest stakeholders are able to control the mass majority of delegate positions / businesses and they are funded by the "non-voluntary seizure of property".  Bitshares is a Supercapitalist / Communist state attempting to pass itself off as a populist representative government.

[StanLarimer]

I would be interested in hearing
what changes you think the stakeholders of BitShares, DAC
would have to make to their Decentralized Autonomous Company
for it to meet your definition of a "free market" enterprise.

[jonald_fyookball]

you were the one the suggested I replace 'global currency' with 'global company' hence the comparison.  I would trust neither of those two institutions with control of money.

Precisely.  The chief goal of most crypto-projects is the removal or reduction of the need to trust.   This has not been perfectly achieved yet.  To date, we have had to be content with tolerating some residual trust in those who have effective control over what software gets executed.

We seek to explicitly place that control in the hands of the owners.  Others allow it to emerge somewhere by default.

yes but I would rather trust competent software engineers to inspect code than i would to delegate stake holders...that is one reason I'm not a bitshares advocate.

[StanLarimer]

you were the one the suggested I replace 'global currency' with 'global company' hence the comparison.  I would trust neither of those two institutions with control of money.

Precisely.  The chief goal of most crypto-projects is the removal or reduction of the need to trust.   This has not been perfectly achieved yet.  To date, we have had to be content with tolerating some residual trust in those who have effective control over what software gets executed.

We seek to explicitly place that control in the hands of the owners.  Others allow it to emerge somewhere by default.

yes but I would rather trust competent software engineers to inspect code than i would to delegate stake holders...that is one reason I'm not a bitshares advocate.

Interesting.  You obviously haven't looked into the awesome software talent that created BitShares and now work directly for the blockchain in funded delegate positions.  BitShares is the only DAC that has a mechanism to hire up to 101 professional software developers and even 101 software development companies to work for it as it approaches the size of Bitcoin. (There are already multiple established software companies working to support it.)   Further, since it is open source, independent parties can inspect the software.  Further still, there is a growing number other independent clone teams (PeerTracks, Play, Sparkle, PTS, etc.) that use (and therefore inspect) the BitShares Toolkit for their own purposes.

[jonald_fyookball]

Interesting.  You obviously haven't looked into the awesome software talent that created BitShares and now work directly for the blockchain in funded delegate positions. 

You're right, I haven't.

But it hasn't nothing to do with the talent.

As I alluded to earlier in the thread, I
don't think DPos "works" fundamentally.

Although, if its any consolation, I don't
think PoS works either.

[fuznutts]

Ha ha, this is great!

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

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

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

(If you like this sort of thing)

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

 

LOL.  This was the best post...ever.  The "Snopes of BitShares".  Yeh, BitShares and NXT are actually very similar except BitShares is provably more decentralized with respect to stake distribution and NXT basically has "contract periods" that you can lease your stake to transparent forgers while BitShares enables you to vote and take away that vote at the drop of a dime.  Both have valuable methods.  I prefer BitShares and NHZ (Horizon) over NXT though.

[bitcreditscc]

I can't get a handle on the DPOS system used in NewPTS and BitShares. 

This is my understanding...

Unlike most POS where my own holding stake after a while rewarding me for securing the network, under DPOS I spend some of my god damn holdings to vote in up to 101 other bastards that get all the rewards leaving me with less and less every time I participate. 

Sounds like a system where the majority of the individuals holding get worth less and less over time (both actual by voting cost, and %Total since they get none of newly minted coins) while a select few elite delegates get richer off everyone else's back. 

Please enlighten me if I have this confused.

[brekyrself]

I can't get a handle on the DPOS system used in NewPTS and BitShares. 

This is my understanding...

Unlike most POS where my own holding stake after a while rewarding me for securing the network, under DPOS I spend some of my god damn holdings to vote in up to 101 other bastards that get all the rewards leaving me with less and less every time I participate. 

Sounds like a system where the majority of the individuals holding get worth less and less over time (both actual by voting cost, and %Total since they get none of newly minted coins) while a select few elite delegates get richer off everyone else's back. 

Please enlighten me if I have this confused.

The cost of voting is a transaction fee of 0.5 bts.  At the current rate of bts = $0.01 usd, voting costs an incredible $0.005 usd.  I have seen discussions of lowering this to 0.1 bts etc...

[DecentralizeEconomics]

I can't get a handle on the DPOS system used in NewPTS and BitShares. 

This is my understanding...

Unlike most POS where my own holding stake after a while rewarding me for securing the network, under DPOS I spend some of my god damn holdings to vote in up to 101 other bastards that get all the rewards leaving me with less and less every time I participate. 

Sounds like a system where the majority of the individuals holding get worth less and less over time (both actual by voting cost, and %Total since they get none of newly minted coins) while a select few elite delegates get richer off everyone else's back. 

Please enlighten me if I have this confused.

Yeah, you guys pretty much got it.

[bitcreditscc]

I can't get a handle on the DPOS system used in NewPTS and BitShares. 

This is my understanding...

Unlike most POS where my own holding stake after a while rewarding me for securing the network, under DPOS I spend some of my god damn holdings to vote in up to 101 other bastards that get all the rewards leaving me with less and less every time I participate. 

Sounds like a system where the majority of the individuals holding get worth less and less over time (both actual by voting cost, and %Total since they get none of newly minted coins) while a select few elite delegates get richer off everyone else's back. 

Please enlighten me if I have this confused.

The cost of voting is a transaction fee of 0.5 bts.  At the current rate of bts = $0.01 usd, voting costs an incredible $0.005 usd.  I have seen discussions of lowering this to 0.1 bts etc...

So i am paying someone 0.005 so that they can stake thousands for themselves. so money out of my pocket to make someone else more money.

[brekyrself]

I can't get a handle on the DPOS system used in NewPTS and BitShares. 

This is my understanding...

Unlike most POS where my own holding stake after a while rewarding me for securing the network, under DPOS I spend some of my god damn holdings to vote in up to 101 other bastards that get all the rewards leaving me with less and less every time I participate. 

Sounds like a system where the majority of the individuals holding get worth less and less over time (both actual by voting cost, and %Total since they get none of newly minted coins) while a select few elite delegates get richer off everyone else's back. 

Please enlighten me if I have this confused.

The cost of voting is a transaction fee of 0.5 bts.  At the current rate of bts = $0.01 usd, voting costs an incredible $0.005 usd.  I have seen discussions of lowering this to 0.1 bts etc...

So i am paying someone 0.005 so that they can stake thousands for themselves. so money out of my pocket to make someone else more money.

Technically you are paying the network, who pays the delegates, who process and secure the network, who also happen to bring development into the bts eco system.  The delegates who a bunch are the developers should not be working for free.  They have quit their full time jobs, have bills to pay, all to help push crypto technology.  This obviously motivates delegates to make BTS the best they can.

You need to look at the bigger picture.

[bitcreditscc]

I can't get a handle on the DPOS system used in NewPTS and BitShares. 

This is my understanding...

Unlike most POS where my own holding stake after a while rewarding me for securing the network, under DPOS I spend some of my god damn holdings to vote in up to 101 other bastards that get all the rewards leaving me with less and less every time I participate. 

Sounds like a system where the majority of the individuals holding get worth less and less over time (both actual by voting cost, and %Total since they get none of newly minted coins) while a select few elite delegates get richer off everyone else's back. 

Please enlighten me if I have this confused.

The cost of voting is a transaction fee of 0.5 bts.  At the current rate of bts = $0.01 usd, voting costs an incredible $0.005 usd.  I have seen discussions of lowering this to 0.1 bts etc...

So i am paying someone 0.005 so that they can stake thousands for themselves. so money out of my pocket to make someone else more money.

Technically you are paying the network, who pays the delegates, who process and secure the network, who also happen to bring development into the bts eco system.  The delegates who a bunch are the developers should not be working for free.  They have quit their full time jobs, have bills to pay, all to help push crypto technology.  This obviously motivates delegates to make BTS the best they can.

You need to look at the bigger picture.

Bigger picture