Topic: Bitshares-PTS to double/triple in price in the next 45 days!!? - page 11. (Read 15263 times)

can you create a plausible scenario for collusion? there is simply no incentive to collude. because this is designed around free market incentives collusion is not economically viable. there is an economic cost to collusion which in a free market economy with out the intervention of government makes it unfavorable for all individuals.

who's argument is reliant upon conjecture now? nxt is going to impliment this they are going to implement that. bitshares has already implemented a dividends system, it has already implemented all the features of nxt and is thus far substantially more scalable. bitshares has been in alpha testing for the past month and a half and has had 8 iterations of public test networks. the speed of development for Invictus Innovation and bitshares team is far greater than the speed of development for nxt

Does anyone know when the next PTS snapshots are taking place and for which DACs?

What if several delegates collude or are coerced? Especially if these several delegates each controls more than 1 node. That makes them a central point of failure. You can't fire old delegates and hire new ones dynamically, it takes time. If they collude or are coerced and do harm to the network, it will take time to recover from the damage. NXT doesn't have this limitation per design, hence NXT is more secure.

tx size and the 3.4 limit is temporary. Until TF is implemented, NXT is still in the bootstrapping phase. Until TF is implemented NXT is not what it's designed to eventually be. When TF is implemented, NXT will be more scalable.

how is the centralization an issue? i want you to really think hard about that question. the point of the making these systems decentralized is so that there is no one point of failure and no one point of control. with dpos you get that since delegates have an easy task that can be audited by all clients on the network. delegates can not sign two blocks or they will be fired, so the cannot double spend. delegates cannot stop processing transactions or they will get voted out for a delegated that can. delegates are neither a central point of failure or control. the network is secured by the shareholders. as a result of this structure you have a more scalable system.

nxt is adding new features that will make the transaction sizes excessive. while i was generous to leave transactions per second at 3.4. the base transaction size is 160 bytes, but there are transaction types that can be as large as 10KiB, limiting the block to only 3 of these transaction - thats 0.05 tps. the largest transaction size for bitshares is 340 bytes.

both from a design and technical standpoint bitshares is more scalable than nxt. while you can say that nxt is more decentralized, bitshares is more secure.

if the comparison chart assumes anything at all it assumes the worst possible scenario for bitshares and the best possible scenario for competitors. everything in the bitshares column aside from market pegged assets has been tested on public test network.

Yes, I've seen it.
This comparison makes many early assumption and should be taken with a grain of salt.
First of all, the 15 seconds block time confirms it's a centralized system, as truely decentralized systems can't have that small of a block time and achieve decent reliability with that.

The whitepaper says there will be 101 delegated nodes, which in theory should make it less centralized.
But in practise it'll work out to 20 people managing all 101 nodes, which makes it more centralized than it should be by design, because running a ddos-protected fault-tolerant node would require quite a bit of skills. 20 people is a rough number, could be 30, you get the idea, but I don't believe it can be 101 different persons each running 1 node, not in the first year at least.

By the time when there are 101 different persons each running 1 BitShares node only (if that is achievable at all, since some may not stop running more nodes than they should), NXT will have TF which will remove the requirement for 720 blocks blockchain reorganization + other features will be added like Dividends (planned for 1.3.xx), etc., hence that comparison table will change. NXT has been battle tested for 8 months now as a truely decentralized system. BitShares is only running on testnet without everybody and their mother attacking it on live net and has been planned as a centralized distributed system. Distributed != decentralized. Ripple can also achieve a few seconds block time, because it is also a centralized distributed system, but it has issues with distribution of shares. Bitshares improved on distribution of shares, but left the centralization issue a concern.

Please don't get me wrong, I am not saying that people won't use BitShares. But the goals of BitShares and NXT are different, hence it's really hard to compare them. After all, many people use banks, and they are as centralized as can be. BitShares stands somewhere between banks and NXT in that aspect

Top 10 reasons to be excited about BitShares right now

 http://bitshares.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/News-Letter-08-July-2014.pdf

Reason 10:  BitShares Toolkit 1.0

Reason 9: DPOS

Reason 8: TITAN (Transfer invisibility to a name)

Reason 7: AGS

Reason 6: Next PTS Snapshots

Reason 5: Delegate Election Campaigns

Reason 4: Developers are co-located

Reason 3: Six Third Party Developers now honor PTS and AGS

Reason 2: Snapshots and ProtoDAC releases will happen every few weeks beginning… now

Reason 1:  BitShares X!

A lot more detail in the newsletter. Check it out!

* I should mention as this thread is about PTS that BitShares X was already allocated on 28/02/2014.

please see the following comparison of the bitshares blockchain vs other platforms. it will serve to better elucidate why pts & ags are good investments.

http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/Why_choose_Bitshares%3F#Comparison_of_BitShares_and_Other_Platforms

Thats because the forum has been flooded with junk. BitShares was announced a year ago. you can still donate funds to the ecosystem through BitShares AGS . BitShares has the longest and most open funding model of any of the next generation projects. I suggest you acquire AGS while they are still cheap and available. The AGS crowdfunding ends in less than two weeks.

It's a fair point. From a pure trading perspective, the stability of PTS and low volatility/downside potential also has to be taken into the equation.

For the last 80 days it's been trading in the $3.4-$4.5 range. For the last 30 days $4.1-$4.6.

So even the potential to double/triple from a very stable base is appealing to me.

Other:

BitShares X (Which buying PTS now won't get you a stake in) is being released real soon. The average of the 79 votes sees a starting market CAP of $65 000 000. (Which will put in no.3 on coinmarketcap) https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=5404.0


If the CAP is anywhere near that it will create a lot of interest in the potential of their future DAC's especially as they see their new DPOS blockchain in action too.  It all points to a big shift up imo.
 

I am mostly a fan of BTS/PTS/AGS - but with how much has been invested (10,000+ BTC) already, situation / upside seems limited as in the case of XCP and MaidSafe.

Hard to multiply 10 million dollars overnight.

& now -


Unless you're being sarcastic, is it fair to say you've looked into what they're doing lately and you've changed your mind?

Would be great if that's the case!

Yeah I would agree with that.

I'm one of the people who think decentralisation is a means not an end. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3923.0

Any increased decentralisation starts to add significant cost and time delay to the network. For me it's about .Gov or the banks/corporations trying to interfere with my liberty. 'If' DPOS achieves security against that & attack/compromise, (Other than making me wealthy with a buyout) then I'm OK with that.

It means BitShares will have the most competitive blockchains, and I know most end customers generally want the best products at the best price. So we should be able to outperform both centralised systems and ones that are more decentralised.

Though I think there will still be a market for people who like more decentralised systems on principle.
 

BITSHAREZ TO THE STARS

~CfA~

My opinion would be called biased if I said it's NXT.
I see BitShares has achieved a pretty good decentralization level compared to Bitcoin.
Will it be good enough in the future? Only time can tell.
Certainly, 101 delegated nodes are far more difficult to compromise than just 2 biggest Bitcoin pools. It's not 100% decentralization, but I guess many people will find it decent enough to use.

It's a good question. I'm not technical, so I'd rather wait for someone like Clout to describe it better. Also feel free to go ask questions in the thread. Personally I'd like be interested in seeing more of the ways it could be compromised or attacked. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4009.0

As it stands at the moment, my understanding is -

They call Bitcoin decentralised, and we pay at least $100 per $1000 of every Bitcoin we own to miners via inflation per year, for the security and advantages decentralisation is supposed to provide. Yet in Bitcoin you only have to get to two people to attack and significantly damage Bitcoin, (Pool owners of Ghash.io & Discus fish atm.) - I still keep 1/2 my crypto-equity in BTC, but it does seem like one of the most vulnerable systems possible.

BitShares has 101 delegates voted for by users in paid roles, they are assigned blocks randomly and they only have the power to process and include/exclude transactions, the system automatically detects bad behaviour and fires them and they can also be easily voted off by users. So in BitShares you'd need to get to at least 52 elected delgates located all around the world (In different jurisdictions) on normal computers. This would be very hard for a Gov/Nefarious entity to do. This could be done by buying up 52% of the stake but this would make shareholders extremely wealthy. (It's hard to buy even a small stake, like 30K Bitcoins, 0.2% without moving the market.) This attack would also be pretty transparent, unlike acquiring ASICS which doesn't make Bitcoin holders richer and can be done discreetly.

Also Bitcoin & all the stuff that will come on top of it is running on 1 Base blockchain. In BitShares there will be bespoke blockchains tweaked for different companies needs as well as variants of them. So as I understand it, it's a system that is much harder to attack/compromise than any existing system. At attack should be very transparent, even if you did gain control your options would be limited and you would only have 1 Blockchain out of hundreds that would just be forked.

The advantages of the above system is that are transactions can be processed multiple times faster, for a fraction of the cost and at volumes that rival the biggest clearing houses in the world.

Given the huge cost savings, privacy benefits,  our banks based on blockchains should be able to overtake the exisiting status quo, and there's nothing they can do about it, besides make shareholders very wealthy.

Again some of that may be incorrect. Just as non-technical investor that was my view, there is an intro to DPOS on their website.

http://bitshares.org/intro-to-delegated-proof-of-stake/

"BitShares isn't a distributed system, it is more like coordinated synchronized time shared centralized system."

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=5402.msg72829#msg72829

another Ripple in the way it establishes network consensus? Not decentralized?

At least you managed to get in their private party. I am quite regular on this forum and completely missed it.