Topic: Communist Bitshares Wealth Redistribution IS THEFT! - page 12. (Read 28384 times)

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.

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

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10135356



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...


https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10127852

FandangledGizmo:

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


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.

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.

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.

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.

You think you need to force someone to take profit? 

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

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.

Wow, ok who is that?