Topic: BitShares scam2.0, Still scamming - page 3. (Read 12188 times)

Actually, you can't remove them from power because Bitshares DPoS is vulnerable to Sybil attacks and even if it wasn't, you still don't know what potential voting alliances exist to manipulate the elections via strategic voting.  13% of stake in DPoS allows for them to control over 50% of the elections via strategic voting.


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.

They also continually attempt to market Bitshares as "Safer than a Swiss Bank" and "Your own Fort Knox!" when they know it is subject to the flaw mentioned below.


Preston Byrne's pieces aren't just his personal opinion.  He makes a very good point on why Bitshares is fundamentally flawed.  Nobody from Bitshares has ever addressed this because they know it is fatal.

http://prestonbyrne.com/2014/08/24/what-goes-up/

I'm saying that project run by people who haven't proven themselves to be unethical is a better investment than a project run by people who time and again have proven themselves to be unethical.

NuBits and any other cryptocoin also allow leverage. The Systematic risk i am referring to is the black swan 50% drop. This happens pretty often in the cryptocurrency scene. I think it is a major risk that is glossed over.

It is true that Nubit style assets are more difficult to create and maintain, but it really depends on the size of the crypto-marketplace. If things were to grow substantially to the size of main stream marketplace. then i could see 10s or 100s  of assets. the issue is that atm there simply isnt a strong demand so its not practical. I don't hold any of either. But i think for scalability Nubits is a much more elegant design.

Sorry, I am used to having to defend myself from trolls on here so often that I treat everyone as such until I know they are not a troll. I thought for certain you were a troll because the bolded is false, and shows either an attempt at FUD or a misunderstanding of how Nubits works. Nubits does indeed have systematic risks. The italicized is also an opinion, but it seemed you were stating it as fact.


I am not arguing that Nubits more closely maintains the peg, as it does. It also has liquidity better figured out. I think both solutions have different pros and cons and there is no one superior solution.

I see smartcoins' pros as allowing for the easy issuance of many different assets (gold, silver, nasdaq, s&p, etc.. unlimited), and that they are collateralized at least by 200% worth of BTS. To create many different Nubits-style assets is unrealistic and there is a reason they (NuShares) are only planning on releasing a few FIAT Nubit-style tokens. It also allows for leveraged trading among other things... Smartcoins can earn interest, etc...

I bet I can throw piles of shit at the glass also. Maybe even with the elegant rhetorical technique you display. Yet in the church of baghodlers i am fine with being a blasphemer. Maybe you can tone it down, maybe even have a civil conversation with me. Im not resorting to ad hominims yet (well maybe a little). Let us both settle this with intellect and grace not our dick size (cuz you know ill win ).

All cryptos have that problem.

A USD can be seized and taken from you with force. A bitUSD lives on the blockchain and can not be seized. Would you trust your BTC with a 3rd party that has control of it or in your wallet with a private key that only you have? That's the difference between USD and bitUSD. Your bitUSD can't be seized or taken from you.

A pegged asset by definition has 3rd party risk. A peg has to be enforce by something. Bitshares uses the free market to maintain the value. The others rely on some central authority to maintain. So you have to decide what do you trust more, the free market or group of individuals to fair and honest?

You are expose to 3rd party centralize risk with them. Where as with Bitshares it's in theory a system risk.  So you have to decide what's is more likely, Bitshares crashing and disappearing or some central players in the others system running away with the money.

Well, i think the real problem bitshare will have to face soon if this project conitues growing is the legal problem, there are not actually a clear legislation about cryptos, it is a real danger, some day we can wake up with financial authorities attacking Bitshares, probably the smart way for avoid it woul be look for a "friendly" jurisdiction if not it is only a time question

I do have a solution, but a dumb fucking pleb such as myself doesn't need you, but for everyone else:  it's called USD - yeah, they are new and come in both physical and digital form.  They are the perfect peg for those wanting to hedg their cryptocurrency holdings with fiat currencies such as the USD.



Now remind me why BitUSD isn't an inherently useless asset, that borderline a on scam, let alone running an unlicensed and uninsured securities exchange (because that's exactly what assets on BitShare are), and the fact we have no way of speaking with the team's lawyers to request LEGALLY REQUIRED paperwork upon request regarding an investor prospectus.

Kthbai.

It is as close to the real thing that exists without either:

A. Paying people to more closely maintain the peg like Nushares/Nubits does (and diluting Nushares stakeholders to do so)

or

B. Centralizing the process like Tether


The fact of the matter is the market pegs are working with a small spread. That spread is inevitable while maintaining the decentralized nature of Smartcoins/Nubits. Unless you have a better solution (do please share), then you are making much ado about nothing here. Congrats on making a few ridiculously ignorant posts (that are seemingly genuine) for your signature campaign though.

All cryptocurrencies trend towards centralization. PoW cryptocurrencies tend towards centralization due to the economies of scale that surround mining. PoS coins tend towards centralization to large stakeholders. Bitshares views centralization as an inevitability, and maintains it should be embraced and leveraged rather than fought. You obviously have an issue with this, but there is no scam involved as you state. This is out in the open and Daniel has admitted this since very early in Bitshares' existence.

You focus on one of the few shortcomings of dPoS while ignoring the numerous benefits. The stakeholders can hire employees. In other words, stakeholders can choose who profits off of (and how much) securing the blockchain. They can choose the people that provide the most value to stakeholders (support, development, advertising, documentation, web development, services, etc..) In Bitcoin and other forms of PoS, you have no control over who profits from securing the blockchain and whether their best interests are aligned with stakeholders (or not.) Since the 101 witnesses maintain consensus amongst themselves it allows for a highly scalable blockchain.. the most scalable blockchain that currently exists. We have reached over 500 TPS at peak and around 100 TPS stable. No other cryptocurrency that exists in the wild can claim that.

You say the Larimers are in control, yet in actuality Bitshares stakeholders are happy to have CNX in control. This is evidenced by witness voting, as CNX can be overruled at any time if the stakeholders so choose (since they own less than a 13% stake.) Bitshares stakeholders trust CNX to do the right thing and deliver because they have in the past and have proven themselves, and in the event they do not then stakeholders can remove them from power. That is the beauty of delegated proof of stake, and how it is supposed to work. That's cool if you don't like that, but to call them liars and thieves and/or Bitshares a scam because of that is disingenuous in the least considering everything is out in the open and done transparently.

Preston Byrne is an idiot FUDer that just wanted attention like you, and he has been proven wrong thus far since SmartCoins (formerly bitAssets) have maintained their peg for almost two years now. Linking to those blog posts, which are heavily weighted in personal opinion, as definitive proof that Smartcoins are broken is hilarious. Especially considering there is factual data that proves Smartcoins have closely resembled the value of their real life counterparts for almost 2 years. Yet, those opinion pieces are obviously correct so lets disregard all of the factual data and base our opinion on someone else's opinion.  

Synereo is largely unproven at this point. So you're telling me you've read the source code line for line and understand it already? LOL. You should probably give it more than a few months before declaring that there are no backdoors.. no one reputable has been able to review the source code yet. Let's wait and see if they deliver before championing them, because at this point it's vaporware. Many projects have released open sourced code and have yet to launch after years of development. Stating vaporware is a better investment than a cryptocurrency that is battle and time tested, has built a network effect, community, services, supporting companies and ecosystem, etc... is a ridiculous statement in which rationality is negated by your personal vendetta against Bitshares.

Saying it's still within 5% and of course explaining that premiums occur during certain markets is by definition not a pegged asset.  The concept is incredibly simple.

It is impossible to directly peg a token exactly to the value of any asset while still remaining decentralized. However, Nushares/Nubits and Bitshares' Smartcoins have closely held their peg for years now. They are not exact pegs, but they are close enough for the value to remain stable. Bitshares has been in a bear market for over a year now, however 1 bitUSD is still within approximately 5% value of a US dollar with an approximately 3% spread on the bid/ask sides. bitUSD is designed to closely resemble the value of a dollar, while at the same time being worth at least one US dollar. In a bear market, people can expect to pay a small premium by design.

https://bitshares.org/technology/price-stable-cryptocurrencies/


I do not understand how you can call Smartcoins a failure unless you too are simply FUDing or trolling here.

1 USD != 1 BitUSD.

That is a fact and has been for months worth of data.

Your turn.

I can't read your mind, so unless you explain your point there's no way for me (or anyone else) to refute or understand it. Interesting debate tactic though.  

Well, for us plebs it means that it has never, yes the data in the charts proves this, been pegged to the USD.

A peg is a simple concept.  I'm not sure how else a pleb like me can elaborate on this concept so you understand.  Meanwhile the charts are staring you right in the face.

I am an investor in both Nushares and Bitshares. I don't own more than 6% of my portfolio in any certain ALT cryptocurrency. I just like to defend Bitshares because it is a great project and there aren't many people to defend it on here and a lot of religious Bitshares' FUDers.

With that being said, your "arguments" are hilariously ridiculous. Unfortunately, you make me FUD something of which I am a shareholder. Don't get me wrong... I like Nushares/Nubits for certain reasons, but some of your statements are delusional, and both Nushares/Nubits solution and Bitshares solution both have their pros and cons.


I never said there was an exact peg, I said that a smartcoins' value closely resembles that of their real life counterparts. That is not a very big amount of variance, especially considering people are willing to buy that bitUSD back from you above $1. Currently the highest ask is $1.0322775, so that's less than a 2% spread. Pretty impressive really for a fully decentralized derivative.


Yes, centralized solutions can hold a tighter peg. What is your point? Bitshares is a decentralized solution...

While it is true that Nubits more closely maintains its peg and has more volume/liquidity, Smartcoins will improve in those categories over time as they are more widely adopted. Nubits dilutes Nushares' shareholders to provide that liquidity, so their added liquidity comes at a cost.

Furthermore, Smartcoins are better suited for trading numerous assets- with the Nushares/Nubits it is a PITA to peg different smart contracts to different assets. There is a reason they are only planning on expanding into several currencies- EUR, CNY, and the basket FIAT index.. whatever it's called. With Smartcoins you can easily issue a derivative that closely resembles the value of anything without much effort- Oil, Potatoes, Silver, Gold, S&P, Nasdaq, any FIAT, etcetra. This is not possible with Nushares/Nubits solution without setting up an elaborate network of market makers which do indeed introduce systematic risks contrary to your statement below (among other systematic risks involved with Nubits/Nushares.)

Smartcoins are backed by at least 200% collateral worth of BTS tokens. Nubits is backed by a promise that the Nubits will be bought back for a little less than $1, and you say there is no systematic risks...  

You obviously do not understand how Nubits or Bitshares holds its peg if you think this. This statement is pure blasphemy I'm not even going to waste my time refuting it. Everyone can do their own research.

What an uneducated & baseless statement... what does "incompetent peg system" even mean? Please inform us commoners.

BitUSD has proven it's useless due to an incompetent peg system.