Topic: Communist Bitshares Wealth Redistribution IS THEFT! - page 13. (Read 28350 times)

OP

You have gave me the biggest stonk on for BTS thank you for your hard work in bringing forward another investor on the ground floor,

I am so happy thank you <3

Yeah, my PTS magically changed into BitShares too, just not as many as you my Khan.  You obviously hold a huge amount of BitShares, and if
LOL, how can I win you back when you never left.  I declare BS.  If you left, then please leave, and I hope to Satoshi, that you unload every last one of your BitShares.   If all that I have to do is “evangelize” about the second coming of Bitcoin1.0 in the absence of fact, and you'll sell me the rest of your shares at a penny apiece, then let's make a deal for your soul my son, and allow me to lock out my number keypad and summon the almighty god of Bitcoin2.0!

Born out of the fire and free launch of a lowly bitcoin1.0 mortal coin named PTS, BitShares dove head first into the fiery crucible by sacrificing a rib (a small fraction of its decentralization security by limiting its total number of nodes to 101) as Adam did before him.  And the lord accepted the sacrificial offering with the same reverence he holds for burnt incense offerings.  By sacrificing the total value of its decentralized security BitShares arose like Frankenstein with a human brain, now fortified with the power to hire and fire any human in the world that the new human swarm consciousness believes will keep Frankenstein-coin alive and growing in the absence of total artificial computer intelligence.

It was only because of this newly bestowed power (to hire and fire its own miners), that this once lifeless bitcoin 1.0 (PTS) coin was allowed an ability to secure freedom for humans by humans.  Now this computer program (named BitShares), has the dynamic creativity of the collective human conscious to power it through whatever changing obstacles the humans see ahead for it in this dimension.

Like other immortal swarms before it, Satoshi's son BitShares will endure for eternity:

https://www.google.com/search?q=menudo&client=ubuntu&hs=QHJ&channel=fs&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=lWiyVImOI8T8yQTTtYLQCQ&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1535&bih=805


thank god,

And just as I prophesied some thread back:  "he who is last shall be first and he who is first shall be last."

http://www.gotquestions.org/first-last-last-first.html

The meek will inherit the earth because the power of the human consensus can no longer be corrupted.  The meek determine the pay of the developers.  Now, for the first time in human history, not only cannot we not be scammed by the fiat printing press, but we are also immune to uncle Kerp's thievery as well.  

Satoshi can now protect us from big brother and little uncle asshole with BitShares



yours truly





you guessed it:




https://bitcoinstar.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/btc-ver-e1382525432756.jpg?w=960&h=260&crop=1
-Bitcoin2.0

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.  Allow me to quote myself:


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.

Lol.  Yeah, probably not.

"If our competitors criticize us - it means that we do everything correctly" LOL

I'm sorry, but I don't want to be associated with a network that is IMO used to disseminate Communist propaganda.  Also, I do NOT want to be involved with a company, Bitshares(TM), whose "shares are worth pennies", who is IMO intentionally violating numerous US securities laws.

*DecentralizeEconomics thinks for a second.*

Yeah, I'm going to have to pass on that one.  LOL

Agreed. Sometimes we get so caught up in semantics that we can't see the forest for the trees.

So a person should only be able to forge proportional to their stake and not proportional to their effort?  And somehow this is superior according to your world view?

If you had 1 guy forging 99% of your blocks then he would have tremendous power and you would be far from decentralized. The number of partipants are important as long as their power is relatively equal, otherwise the power is too centralized.  Plenty of communistic societies had tons of "participants" and most of the wealth was centralized at the top.


NXT mining allows you to be able to do something like rental forging.  My understanding is it is the equivalent to voting and adds a "social construct". 

I like crypto-currencies but at my age it just gives me a headache arguing bizarro semantics.

If the network is protected by actual stake ownership (like NXT), it is impossible to attack it by creating a large network of stakeless nodes.  The number of allowed forgers in a system should be regulated by market forces and not capped at some arbitrary amount.  "Decentralization" means everyone should be allowed to participate without the consent of an authority.  I believe this is a better system and less prone to abuse.  By adding voting (delegation) to PoS, you are adding a "social contruct" which allows a hierarchical system to develop.

If you had 10 Billion participates that forged 1% of the blocks and 1 individual who forged 99% of the blocks, I'd would say that is a fair and decentralized system as long as the one individual with 99% of the stake didn't have the means to levy a tax on the smaller stakeholders.  If the one individual with 99% of the stake dropped out of the network, the remaining 1% of the stake forging would then compromise 100% of the active stake forging.  Since the amount of available stake would be reduced by 99%, it would not make the network more susceptible to attack as long as that stake didn't fall into malicious hands.  Everyone should have the right to forge in proportion to his stake.

This is of course a ridiculous example that would never develop in any natural system.


Thanks for the advice, but I don't partake in any form of intoxication.


That's not a very popular opinion around here.


Don't be too sure. 

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Wow.  I would love to hear a debate on this topic between you and Bytemaster!

Why don't you join one of Bytemaster's Friday Global Teleconference calls and just dangle that bait out there for him?  


It would be recorded and published so everyone here could listen at their leisure...



Or we could get Max Wright to interview the two of you on one of his famous BitShares.TV episodes...

What do you say?

Stan, your quote would be a just argument for DPOS if all stakeholders received equal votes not proportional to their stake.  Republican governments only work when one man gets one vote.  Bitshares is akin to a Corporate Republic where voting power is derived from wealth.  Corporate Republics are also Communist.  There is no difference between Big Government controlling business or Big Business controlling government.

If I don't like them, I can:

1.  Sell.
2.  Fire Them.
3.  Fork a new country.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Cool.  Let us know how that works out for you.   

So if you have a system where any forger can forge the same amount of blocks then you can attack the network by creating a large yet cheap network of forgers.  Then at that point 51% attack is possible.  I'm confused why you think this is better than having stake-holders vote in some proportional system.

If you go by participants only, you can have 1 participant forge 99% of the blocks yet have 10000000000 participants.  How is this a better metric of decentralization?

You have confused me greatly.  Just when it starts to make sense to me.


[/quote]

Your "rights" are a bit humorous but read my questions above for my concerns on your approach.

Honestly son, you need to lay off the drugs or perhaps see a shrink.  Decentralization is just a tactic which has a variety of downsides.  The commies aren't out to get your blockchain or any such nonsense.

DE has been pretty consistent , i am very interested in decentralized models and my own project requires such a system, if BTS model is so great, i'll fork it and have 1010101 delegates

It seems like you are replacing our old masters with 101 (maybe?) new ones.


Don't you think that helps to consolidate the power of the delegates and form a type of blockchain Plutocracy?  I think you need some "delegate campaign finance reform."

Actually, I don't see many similarities between Ripple and Bitshares. Care to explain in what way you think they are the same stuff?

To the others, it is true that Bitshares hasn't done everything perfect since launch. There are also lots of legitimate complaints (even from me) about the way things are/were handled. However, it's one of the few cryptos with active development, a dedicated AND intelligent team which isn't afraid of thinking big. Also, if you believe in the technology but don't like other short-term aspects, then just convert your BTS to BitBTC/BitUSD, so you go short BTS and get some yield. If you think the project is going to dogs, just sell your BTS.

Actually 100% delegate pay is 50 BTS every 17 minutes which works out at today's rates to $58.56 per day or $820 per fortnight which is the cost of registering to be a delegate.   Fees are burned and therefore distributed to all stakeholders.

BitShares fees are explained here:  BitShares Fee Schedule Explained.

It takes a lot of effort to vet a delegate so we can't simply swamp the shareholders with unlimited proposals.  A registration fee equaling 2 weeks pay forces a delegate to self-assess before applying.  Nothing stops them from polling the community to get a sense of what level of support there may be before applying.  There has been some discussion about proposing a delegate to serve as a recruiter who uses her revenue stream to help pay application fees for worthy candidates who can't afford them.  We'll see what the community decides about that.

Watch out, I feel another metaphor shift coming on...

BitShares, as we've said above, is also a community.  Its an ecosystem of 101 small businesses that are building up a common infrastructure that, in turn, will support many other businesses.  Lots of birds will flock to nest in this tree.  

We hope it won't stop there.  We envision in the long term, perhaps not in our lifetimes, the evolution of a sovereign virtual "country" in the Free Space of international waters - leveraging blockchain technology to implement voluntary non-violent protection of individual rights to life, liberty, and property - making government by centralized force impractical, impotent, and irrelevant.  Couldn't be further away on the spectrum from collectivist schools of thought.