Topic: BitShares scam2.0, Still scamming - page 2. (Read 12188 times)

Hmm.. OK, one more post before I go on my hiatus... just because I like you TPTB. I am done wasting my time in this thread for at least a week, but I may post in your thread TPTB because it is actually intellectually stimulating.

Sorry, I haven't had time to read the whole thread although I read parts of it... maybe by not posting in this thread for a while I can catch up on yours. It would be a much better use of my time, that's for sure!

I am not saying dPoS or PoS is perfect, and I admittedly am not as well versed as you in the technologies to understand all of the attack vectors associated with them. I was just stating that the attack vectors DE is bringing up cannot bring Bitshares to its knees and have been mostly (or eventually will be) mitigated. As you state, all variants of PoS and PoW that currently exist are imperfect, and I'm not sure that a perfect solution will ever be found... as you state you are trying to remove those flaws from PoW. Which consensus algorithm is better than the other is highly debatable, and had been unendingly debated for years now. Each has its own set of pros and cons, and who is anyone to decide which pros or cons should be more or less important than others.

You, and the other posted in this thread, seem to be focused on the shortcomings of every facet of Bitshares without considering (or mentioning) the positives that come along with the different technologies that Bitshares is composed of. Give me an example of any latest-greatest technology, and I will make it look like a pile of crap by focusing on and detailing all of its shortcomings.

I do not think Bitshares is getting a fair shake on these forums and is unfairly singled out regarding a lot of issues that other coins have as well, and I seem to be one of the few that is willing to waste their time defending it (even though the Bitshares token is less than 6% of my holdings.) I am also a stakeholder of all the coins that the trolls seem to have derived from, which ironically makes me have to FUD my own holdings just to point out the stupidity in their statements. I own Nubits, Nushares, and Nxt... all coins that are being championed as much better than Bitshares for random reasons ITT. I see the pros and the cons of each coin/technology with as much of an unbiased approach as possible. I just wish everyone else could do the same.

I do not think the following is possible in dPoS (I'm not sure about other forms of PoS), because delegates cannot change or set transaction fees by themselves. Transaction fees can only be changed by committee members which are elected by stakeholder vote. Not including a transaction because it doesn't have a certain amount in transaction fees seems silly, because the next honest delegate will do so and the honest delegate will get whatever fees are associated with the transaction. They would basically be giving up free money, putting a big red flag on their witness campaign, and it would be very likely that would get them voted out. Part of the incentive for delegates to stay honest is the future income of blocks produced in the future, although as I stated earlier... even if they are dishonest there is not much they can do other than withhold transactions from blocks (and the transaction would be included in the next block produce by an honest delegate.) The way I understand it, DPoS' main weakness is that all consensus algorithms suffer from.. a 51% attack.

I thought you were also reading my thread because you posted in it. There is a worst they can do to a PoS coin (including DPOS):


Also you seem to not acknowledge that PoS coins can be shorted, so the risk of losing the value of the stake is not really valid argument.

I understood that PoS was motivated by the flaws in PoW. In my thread, I am working on trying to remove those flaws from PoW.  We will have to see what emerges from that.

I will be taking a break from this thread for a week or so. This is my last free week before school starts, and I want to get some work done on a web application I am programming. Arguing with agenda-determined idiots is a huge waste of my time. I am not entirely convinced the users posting in this thread are more than one person using multiple sock puppets any ways. FUD away guy(s)... although beware of what you say, I will be back in about a week to prove you wrong.

As I said, anyone gaming the system by making multiple delegates will eventually found out and voted out. You kind of just proved my point. Over time it will be less and less likely that numerous delegate spots are controlled by one person. Furthermore, even if someone is able to gain multiple delegate spots without the knowledge of shareholders it is not a huge deal. The worst they can do is exclude transactions from a block (which would quickly be noticed by stakeholders anyway) which would delay the confirmation of a transaction until the next honest delegate produces a block.

That is not true. Delegates are chosen by what they can provide to stakeholders. Those that can provide the better services/development/marketing/etc will be the ones voted in.

Follow the links next to each delegates name: http://cryptofresh.com/witnesses

You will see that all of them are doing something for stakeholders. Running some service, programming, marketing, user support, documentation, etc... if this is one or even a few people, then these people are doing an inhumanly possible amount of work. Delegate pay is not enough for one person to hire a team to do this work for them, along with each delegates forum, social media, and in-person presence. It is simply not possible to hold many delegate spots unknowingly to stakeholders for an extended amount of time. Maybe Dan Larimer truly is a robot though and holds all of the delegate spots himself...  

Many blockchains are implementing stakeholder voting features, yet you pick out Bitshares to take the brunt of your FUD. Even Nxt, your crowned champion of a cryptocurrency has enabled a voting feature. As I said earlier, if someone forms strategic voting blocks to go against the will of other stakeholders, then that is a really stupid thing to do. The other stakeholders will catch on and sell their stake, hugely and negatively affecting the price per coin. It doesn't make much sense to form strategic voting blocks against the will of the community because of that.

This is intended. In PoS and PoW, stakeholders are unable to choose who benefits from securing the blockchain. dPoS allows stakeholders to choose who profits from the act of securing the blockchain, that way the blockchain can hire employees. Whoever can provide the most value or do the most work for the stakeholders will win the job. This allows stakeholders to "hire employees" who do development, marketing, documentation, user support on the forums, web development, etc.

As I said earlier, it is silly to judge an entire cryptocurrency by one or a few people in its userbase. I could go down the list of crazy/stupid Nxt users, Bitcoin users, users, and use that as a reason to not like the cryptocurrency, but that is stupid to stereotype an entire user base. Do you always stereotype people in general, or do you just stereotype Bitshares users because it fits in your agenda?

Also, who are you to decide what the "original intent" of crypto is or isn't? Technology is opinion and religious agnostic.

Quote from: DecentralizeEconomics on January 10, 2016, 01:44:29 AM

Quote from: CoinHoarder on January 09, 2016, 01:47:00 PM

Quote from: DecentralizeEconomics on January 09, 2016, 02:43:02 AM

I call them liars, cheaters and thieves because they have changed the terms on their investors so many times that I've lost count.  The change of terms is always to their benefit.  If you can't see this, you're deluding yourself.

All changes needed stakeholder approval. It is unfortunate you didn't get your way and don't agree with the direction the project has gone, however it is ridiculous that you cry about it for the rest of Bitshares' existence. There are many people that have been around since day one that do not feel this way, so the fact that you think they are "liars, cheaters and thieves" is your personal opinion that you are trying to convey as fact.

All changes didn't get "stakeholder approval".  A lot of them were unanimously declared by the Larimers.

You don't understand how it works if you think one person with less than 50% stake can make any changes they want.

Quote from: DecentralizeEconomics on January 10, 2016, 01:44:29 AM

Regardless of the exact terminology they use, they portray Bitshares as "safer" than traditional methods of storing your USD (or other assets) when it is in fact extremely dangerous for individuals to do so.  If the marketcap of Bitshares ever drops below the entire market capitalization of all the bitAssets, the holders of such bitAssets will not be able to redeem them at face value, because the contracts will be under-collateralized.  This means there will be a run on all assets as people attempt to recover 70 cents on the dollar, 60 cents on the dollar, 50 cents on the dollar, 30 cents on the dollar, 10 cents on the dollar, all the way down to zero.  They market Bitshares as such because they only care about their own bottom line and not the risk that they are inducing to others.

Quote from: CoinHoarder on January 09, 2016, 01:47:00 PM

All cryptocurrencies are inherently risky. There is a risk that any cryptocurrency's value on any certain day can plummet to zero. To fault Bitshares specifically for this risk when all other cryptocurrencies share the same risks is blasphemous. The Bitshares community has addressed black swan events. ... Although the risk exists, it is in my opinion unlikely that it will ever happen. Cryptocurrencies with the volume, liquidity, and market cap of Bitshares simply do not lose over 50% of their value in one day.

All cryptocurrencies do not expose their holders the same systematic risk that exists in Bitshares' bitAssets.  That's right Bitshares simply does not lose over 50% of its value in one day.  It loses 34% of its value in one day like we just saw a few days ago.

You are being hypocritical here. Many cryptocurrencies have introduced features which have inherent "systematic risks", yet you are not attacking them. Even the cryptocurrency you champion, Nxt has introduce systematic risks in a number of features it has implemented. You couldn't be more hypocritical by pushing this point. Nxt's asset exchange, monetary system, and marketplace expose their shareholders to systematic risks. I see very little to no caveats published along with Nxt's marketing of said features. Bitshares must put a caveat on any and all features that expose shareholders to risk, but Nxt (and all other cryptocurrencies that have similar features that you are not trolling) do not have to make sure these caveats are know. This is just supposed to be common sense, right? Nxt users are so much smarter than Bitshares users, so they automatically know the risks involved and no caveats are needed, right? right?

While I may have lost all faith whatsoever in BitShares, I do respect your articulated response.  I may not agree fully with it, but it's a welcome change.

I see the sock puppets are out in full force today, wonderful!  


Maybe you missed what happened in Cyprus when many innocent people had the funds stored in banks stolen?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012%E2%80%9313_Cypriot_financial_crisis

Civil Forfeiture is practically government-sanctioned stealing for the "greater good", and there are many silly laws that governments can use to steal your money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States

Governments forcing citizens to pay for services they don't wish to fund, and/or they don't agree with, and/or is against their religion... is stealing from innocent people. Such as Obamacare, Catholics paying for birth control, paying for someone to sit around and drink beer or do drugs all day while you have to work your ass off (welfare), etc...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

You do not have to be a criminal to have your money stolen by your government, private entities or other people. The examples I listed are only instances of government theft of innocent people's money, not even one instance of private entities or people doing or causing that as well. I could go on and on all day, but my job is not to educate the uneducated, and you guys are wasting enough of my time already having to refute your idiocy-laden posts. Furthermore, Phoenike only mentioned one benefit of Smartcoins, of which there are many. Although, this thread only focuses on negative things about Bitshares so I won't mention them... and as I said, you can do your own research as I'm already wasting too much time here (or just don't do the research and keep FUDing along with your agenda... whatever.)

I understand you are salesman and you have to do the sales pitch, but can we stop such nonsense on this forum please ?

You are quite correct in saying that the banking system as well as the stock market is absolutely corrupt, but how does the corrupt banking system makes viable and feasible the fundamentally flawed "decentralized" crypto currency concept? The latest never ever was safe, decentralized nor allows anonymous transactions and most likely never will be. Bitcoin and in fact all crypto currencies a God given gift of tool for government to expose more control on society, to have the perfect financial monitoring system that records even the smallest 0.0000001 BTC/NXT/BitShares/ETH/etc spending. More importantly, Bitcoin and the blockchain are the perfect tool to implement the ultimate tax collection regime (go and check out why this is happening, Martin Armstrong, David Stockman etc. explain that). No wonder all big banks and central banks have been slowly but surely embracing the blockchain and more or less Bitcoin and perhaps Ethereum. If you understand the concept at least on basic level - and I know you do - you must know that the government CAN expose full control on all digital currencies including but not limited to control the access to the blockchains, control mining as well as trace all transactions, which latest by definition is the main attribute of the blockchain anyway.

Only a delusional 17 years old enthusiasts (see above that opinion about confiscation of cash vs. crypto currency) think that the current implementation of digital currencies terms of confiscability are safer than having cash or gold. No wonder government so keen to move away from cash, eliminate cash forever and to implement an electronic transaction only finance system. Bitcoin and perhaps a few other crypto currencies will be the crown jewellery top on that totalitarian, absolutely government controlled system.

Now, I guess you understand this. You expect that such centralization by goverment is coming, otherwise you wouldn't role out your centralized system a few months ago. Which is fine, business wise it make sense to comply with laws and regulations and to build a system/business that provides financial regulators, law enforcement and tax departments with full control on the blockchain. But in this case please don't spread the BS about the myth of safe and decentralized digital currency.

On the note of inflation, of course that's another myth. In order to increase the supply or go to PoS the BTC protocol - just as any other protocols that will be big enough at the time and important enough for the government - will be modified in a heartbeat when the government and central banks will request such modification, and miners as well as users will be happily using the hard fork. No other way around that government control.

The only hope if some idealistic but super intelligent individual like TPTB_need_war will build a system that solve the decentralization issue as well as eliminate the CAP theorem flaw, Byzantine generals problem and many other issues that needs to be solved in order to implement a safe and decentralized system. Personally, I doubt such system can be designed, Satoshi, Szabo, etc have not even tried to design such system, but lets hope some smart people are capable to do that.

= bitshares 2.0 NOT safer the a swiss bank..

But as you all know bitshares 3.0 will be safer then a bank on the moon.

Who wants some mooncheese points?

It is safer than a Swiss Bank when it comes to all the corruption associated with the modern banking system.


It used to be, back in the Day, that Swiss Banks were famous for their privacy and immunity from unscrupulous acts by governments and the global banksters.  Not anymore.  All the Swiss banking laws have been updated to comply with The Global System which no longer recognizes a banking customer's privacy or even property rights.

Nowhere am I saying that there are zero risks.  BitShares (and other cryptos) just provide a new form of safety that consumer's should consider for diversification against these risks.  And since the "Safer than a Swiss Bank" is aiming to get the attention of non-crypto-savvy consumers, it is a perfectly reasonable attention getting headline.  Naturally, when used, it is important to make sure that the other risks are clearly stated.

But we haven't used this slogan yet in any advertisement anywhere.  We just discussed it on bitsharestalk.org as a possible way to reach the unwashed masses.  A few of The Usual Suspects grabbed it from there and tried to make something of it out of context here.  Nice try.

Just like the general public knows (or should know) that they should diversify against the risk of any single investment vehicle, crypto's provide diversification from many the common mode risks of the Global Financial System.

Surely you know all this.

Very simple, because Swiss Bank doesnt safe at all.

Stan, why is BitShares safer than a Swiss Bank?

Glad to see that you still endorse this message Stan.


Stan just used it again about thirty-six minutes ago.  You better reset the clock.

While I was at it, I found this one right beside it that I kind of liked...

Actually, If you are going to quote me, you ought to quote the whole thing...  

"Sybil has been MOSTLY mitigated"  Lol  Except for that one time when one person convinced everybody he was five independent delegates/witnesses... Except for that one time when god knows who else has managed to convince everyone he was multiple independent parties.  The fact is that it is impossible to mitigate Sybil attacks in Bitshares without requiring every single delegate/witness to submit their government ID.  Even with this enacted you cannot prevent multiple individuals from forming strategic voting blocks.  These strategic voting blocks will always be present in Bitshares and everybody won't catch on to their existence.  This is the inherit problem with DPoS verses PoS.  With PoS, you actually have to own the stake to control the chain.  With DPoS, you only have to convince others with stake to vote you into power to control the chain.  This makes Bitshares' DPoS susceptible to these types of strategic voting attacks which are bound to happen.  The fact that some members of your community, like Roach, think that "corporate fascism" existing on Bitshares' blockchain is a good thing just shows how removed the system really is from the original intent of crypto.


All changes didn't get "stakeholder approval".  A lot of them were unanimously declared by the Larimers.


What is a long time to you?  Nine months ago?


Regardless of the exact terminology they use, they portray Bitshares as "safer" than traditional methods of storing your USD (or other assets) when it is in fact extremely dangerous for individuals to do so.  If the marketcap of Bitshares ever drops below the entire market capitalization of all the bitAssets, the holders of such bitAssets will not be able to redeem them at face value, because the contracts will be under-collateralized.  This means there will be a run on all assets as people attempt to recover 70 cents on the dollar, 60 cents on the dollar, 50 cents on the dollar, 30 cents on the dollar, 10 cents on the dollar, all the way down to zero.  They market Bitshares as such because they only care about their own bottom line and not the risk that they are inducing to others.


All cryptocurrencies do not expose their holders the same systematic risk that exists in Bitshares' bitAssets.  That's right Bitshares simply does not lose over 50% of its value in one day.  It loses 34% of its value in one day like we just saw a few days ago.

What are you selling sex slaves?  Who the fuck is the evil empire coming for your precious USD which you claim are useless and collapsing.

Luckily you can keep BitUSD's that continuously lose value as a whole overtime by the requirement to transfer via BTS into BTC.

Jesus, you do realize transactions on any blockchain are by definition public.  That same boogie man could come anyway.  Hide yo kids, hide yo wife, you conspiracy boner.

13% stake can be easily overruled by the remaining 87% of stakeholders. Most delegates are known people in the community and Sybil has been mostly mitigated. If someone formed a strategic alliance to rig the voting then that would be dumb on their part, because it would greatly and negatively affect the value of their stake once the other shareholders caught on. They would certainly catch on eventually.. secrets are impossible to keep secret if they involve multiple parties.

All changes needed stakeholder approval. It is unfortunate you didn't get your way and don't agree with the direction the project has gone, however it is ridiculous that you cry about it for the rest of Bitshares' existence. There are many people that have been around since day one that do not feel this way, so the fact that you think they are "liars, cheaters and thieves" is your personal opinion that you are trying to convey as fact.

No one has used that terminology in a very long time, and your use of the word "continually" in that statement makes the statement a lie. It is simply an exaggeration of a past gripe you have with the way Bitshares was originally marketed. These slogans have not been used for a long time, and Bitshares is more careful nowadays to be politically correct. Even still, you cannot fault a technology or a decentralized cryptocurrency because of the words said by a few of its stakeholders. If that is the case, you shouldn't be using any cryptocurrency because there are trolls, liars, cheaters, and thieves in any certain community. For instance, you are one of the most FUD-happy community members around, but I do not fault Nxt (.... a decentralized cryptocurrency ....) for the opinions, propaganda, and writings of one of their users. That is only the sane thing to do.

All cryptocurrencies are inherently risky. There is a risk that any cryptocurrency's value on any certain day can plummet to zero. To fault Bitshares specifically for this risk when all other cryptocurrencies share the same risks is blasphemous. The Bitshares community has addressed black swan events. It was discussed long before Preston brought it up inside the Bitshares community, he simply popularized everyone's knowledge of it. The Bitshares community admits that this risk exists, and as always no one should invest more than they can afford to lose. This goes with any investment.. cryptocurrencies, commodities, stocks, etc... and is common sense. Although the risk exists, it is in my opinion unlikely that it will ever happen. Cryptocurrencies with the volume, liquidity, and market cap of Bitshares simply do not lose over 50% of their value in one day. Smartcoins have worked well for approximately two years now, and have closely followed the value of their real life counterparts- even in a long time bear market Bitshares has experienced. It would take something catastrophic for a black swan event to happen, and again that risk is inherent with any investment- cryptocurrency or not. Hell, that risk even exists with FIAT and many traditionally "safe" holdings.


That is again your opinion passed off as fact. There are many in the Bitshares community that do not feel this way. Again, I'm sorry you don't like the direction that the Bitshares project has taken, but it is ridiculous to FUD it for the rest of its existence because of that. This is why I think you must have some ulterior motive, because no sane person would dedicate their life to doing so. You stated you were an early Bitshares investor, so I assume you dumped Bitshares at the top and now (since it closely competes with your large Nxt holdings) you have dedicated your life to discrediting it.... which is sad and pathetic. My apologies if you are simply insane.

Not in the usual sense of the term, and not in a decentralized manner with the amount of leverage provided by Smartcoins.

That's nice, but "systematic risk" is a blanket statement and that doesn't change the fact your proclamation that "Nubits doesn't have any systematic risk" is false. Go read the last paragraph of the Nubits whitepaper if you think there is no systematic risk, you still seem to have a gross misunderstand of how Nubits works. You need to trust someone will but a Nubit back for approximately $1, and there is a lot of systematic risk involved with that and the process that holds the peg.

It is likely to happen to coins that have low volume, adoption, and liquidity. However, Bitshares since its inception has been a top 5ish coin in regards to volume. Price drops of over 50% in a day do not "happen pretty often" to top 10 market cap, top 5 volume coins. A black swan is a risk that Smartcoins face, however all cryptocurrencies face this possibility. Any cryptocurrency's value can plummet on any certain day, so your problem seems to be with cryptocurrencies in general. Maybe you should simply use FIAT and forget about cryptocurrencies altogether if you want to avoid risk. Faulting Bitshares for being risky yet supporting other cryptocurrencies is hypocritical to say the least.


Smartcoins are wayyy easier to scale as far as the number of assets that can trade than Nubits. For Nubits to expand into many other assets would require a very convoluted network of custodians and voting systems. It would take a small army of people working to hold the peg to issue many different Nubits-styled assets, meanwhile with Bitshares' Smartcoins a small team could do so (and it would require 0 maintenance unlike Nubits' solution.) With smartcoins it takes a few minutes to launch new assets, and then a few more minutes to update the price feed scripts for delegates... after that there is no other work required.. delegates simply run price feed scripts and the free market does the rest. It is clear you still don't understand how Nubits works and the complexity of how it holds its peg if you think Nubits scales better.

I like both Nubits and Smartcoins for different reasons and each have their own weaknesses, but you seem to not know how either of them works (or are simply trolling.) Please go read up on it before responding because I'm not here to spoon feed you. I am spending way too much time in this thread than I would like already... I just hate to see all this FUD go uncontested.