you not have focking idea what you talking about bitcoin 2.0 .... or are you afraid of bitshares potential ?
ah you scary because Bitshares has own stable assets with value pegged to real money USD EURO GOLD ect... working fine .
not, you are scary for 10 second transations¿
नहीं, maybe you afraid for free public own bitshares tools for developers to create his own DACs
не, sure you are celous because Bitshares protocol DPOS have no inflation/dilution by miners and is energy efficient ?
nicht, problably is that for send money with Bitshares you can send to a name not need big adress ?
不, the big thing is that holding bitshares you will obtain shares on future dacs for free ?
niet, i start to think that you burned cose is so easy to use than your mom can use it without read nothing¿
لا, sure is the BitShares Scalabilty to grow that offer you exponential reward for your invest.
ない, is because the reputation system has value and where being honorable may work for you and trolls are penaliced.
no, your throuble go with 101 nodes (scalables) vs mining pools. why? have your own industrial mining town? you can mine on http://pool.minebitshares.com/
but sure you are pissed off for big global talented comunity working arround a social consensus and not for an state or bank. .. just for people ... this is comunist for you?
apologies for my English
you will find everything here https://bitsharestalk.org/
Topic: Communist Bitshares Wealth Redistribution IS THEFT! - page 16. (Read 28375 times)
This is some of the dumbest stuff i've read. If you don't like the coin, don't invest in it. FUDing is just dumb
The reason we don't want to get hung up too much on unproductive implementation and semantics debates is because, quite frankly, we have bigger fish to fry!
While BitShares values privacy and plans a comprehensive set of tools to protect privacy, we also recognize the value of being able to establish and maintain an honorable reputation. So you'll see just as much emphasis on establishing and protecting your good name. And we are building a system that rewards that too. Small town folks don't lock their doors at night for one reason: because everybody knows your name.
BitShares is a Community
A piece of software powering a distributed network is worthless without people coming together to give value to the BTS on the ledger entries. Each and every person that joins the BitShares community adds value to the ledger and gains value from the fellow community members. All things start small with just a few people. Over the past year and a half, BitShares has grown from an idea to a global community with thousands of people.
Communities are brought together around common values and principles. They support each other through thick and thin. As the founder of BitShares, this community is largely brought together by the principles I espouse on this blog: Creating decentralized, market-based solutions to secure life, liberty, and property for all.
BitShares is a Country
Countries are what communities become when they become large enough and powerful enough. Countries are sovereign and issue their own currency. Countries are run by elected governments, usually with some kind of senate or parliament like BitShares’ delegates. While we have a long way to go, it is my vision to grow BitShares to the point where the ecosystem is able to make governments irrelevant to our daily lives. This means all dispute resolution and law enforcement will be managed by the BitShares community in an entirely non-violent manner by leveraging smart contracts, bonds, insurance, and other systems on the BitShares ledger.
BitShares is an Idea…
…whose time has come. The specific software, network, and ledger that BitShares is today has very real limitations. But the idea behind BitShares, BitAssets, and non-violent self governance is so powerful that all the forces in the world cannot stop it. The idea will live on in one form or another. The entire concept of numbers on a ledger having value exists entirely in the collective mind of the BitShares community. It doesn’t matter what form that ledger takes, what matters is that we all share a common idea regarding who owns what. We no longer rely on governments to be the arbiter of property rights. BitShares, the software, is just a tool that enables our community to reach unambiguous consensus on property rights. In many ways, it is no different than Rai stones which are large immovable stones used as money which were valued because of community consensus.
BitShares is a small town on global scale.
While BitShares values privacy and plans a comprehensive set of tools to protect privacy, we also recognize the value of being able to establish and maintain an honorable reputation. So you'll see just as much emphasis on establishing and protecting your good name. And we are building a system that rewards that too. Small town folks don't lock their doors at night for one reason: because everybody knows your name.
Sometimes you want to go
Where everybody knows your name,
and they're always glad you came.
You wanna be where you can see,
our troubles are all the same
You wanna be
where everybody knows your name.
Where everybody knows your name,
and they're always glad you came.
You wanna be where you can see,
our troubles are all the same
You wanna be
where everybody knows your name.
BitShares is a Community
A piece of software powering a distributed network is worthless without people coming together to give value to the BTS on the ledger entries. Each and every person that joins the BitShares community adds value to the ledger and gains value from the fellow community members. All things start small with just a few people. Over the past year and a half, BitShares has grown from an idea to a global community with thousands of people.
Communities are brought together around common values and principles. They support each other through thick and thin. As the founder of BitShares, this community is largely brought together by the principles I espouse on this blog: Creating decentralized, market-based solutions to secure life, liberty, and property for all.
BitShares is a Country
Countries are what communities become when they become large enough and powerful enough. Countries are sovereign and issue their own currency. Countries are run by elected governments, usually with some kind of senate or parliament like BitShares’ delegates. While we have a long way to go, it is my vision to grow BitShares to the point where the ecosystem is able to make governments irrelevant to our daily lives. This means all dispute resolution and law enforcement will be managed by the BitShares community in an entirely non-violent manner by leveraging smart contracts, bonds, insurance, and other systems on the BitShares ledger.
BitShares is an Idea…
…whose time has come. The specific software, network, and ledger that BitShares is today has very real limitations. But the idea behind BitShares, BitAssets, and non-violent self governance is so powerful that all the forces in the world cannot stop it. The idea will live on in one form or another. The entire concept of numbers on a ledger having value exists entirely in the collective mind of the BitShares community. It doesn’t matter what form that ledger takes, what matters is that we all share a common idea regarding who owns what. We no longer rely on governments to be the arbiter of property rights. BitShares, the software, is just a tool that enables our community to reach unambiguous consensus on property rights. In many ways, it is no different than Rai stones which are large immovable stones used as money which were valued because of community consensus.
BitShares is a small town on global scale.
Excerpt taken from What is BitShares?
However, has your system not already been proven to be insecure and not really decentralized because one guy ended up controlling a lot of nodes? Ands he'snjust the one that got caught
No double spend has occurred on a top 10 crypto ever (BTS and NXT included). Was Bitcoin hacked when Kerfuffle made off like Madoff? No, and neither was BitShares. NXT guys throw around the term "hacked" in the same haphazard fashion as Stan throws around the term "decentralized" when describing BitShares. The truth is that just like when NXT first launched in the first few weeks, the node structure was delicate, but it has strengthened over time, and the next stage in the game requires delegated miners to make their identity known if they even want to be considered to run a node. The next guy who gets to run several nodes will be well known. Eventually, the identity of everyone responsible for a node in the 101 will be known to the public because we will vote for
Dan Larimer for delegate
Toast for Delegate
Vikram for delegate
Argentina Matt for delegate
Max Youtube for delegate
Vitalik for delegate (I would vote to offer him several nodes if he would agree to accept the position with honor):
http://bitshares.tv/vitalik-buterin-bitshares-dpos/
He seems to be on the fence, care to attempt to sway him?
I'd vote to offer Jamie Dimon 51 nodes just for the publicity (then vote him out just as soon as the price of BitShares approaches the moon)
Or how about:
Ashton Kutcher for delegate (he already pumps BTC)(he can get paid for wearing a BTS hat)
http://newsbtc.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Ashton-Kutcher-Bitcoin-Mod-Disrupt-890x395.jpg
or how about Kanye West for delegate:
http://blurblogs2014.s3.amazonaws.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/04164757/Kanye-624x389.jpg
Snoop-delegate:
http://i.imgur.com/56bpy8M.jpg
on and on. it is now much harder to become a delegate miner than it was just a few months ago, and good luck convincing the paranoid public and becoming a delegate next year unless your name is:
Andreas delegate
Gavin delegate
The competition is heating up for a coveted BitShares mining job. Get in early and establish your reputation before you are competing with:
Oprah delegate
Obama delegate
good luck..may the best miners win!
why a put a cap (the total number 101 delegated miners) on at all?
because:
BitShares only pay 101 miners. Why? Because we want to make them the next bitcoin millionaires. Do you think that the world wants to give these guys more money?:
https://www.google.com/search?q=bitcoin+millionaires&client=ubuntu&hs=eqw&channel=fs&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=d-GvVMu0HNWEyQSTmoC4BA&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAw&biw=1535&bih=805
No, we would rather see Argentina Matt save thousands from:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2014/12/16/370979773/argentinas-approach-to-inflation-ditch-the-peso-hoard-u-s-dollars
(40% annual fiat devaluation)
So buy bitcoin if you want to listen to Taaki talk, Verr preach, Keiser laugh, Gavin babble, Levine plug, and the Winklevii ...well, whatever the Voss twins do in public. Buy BitShares if you want to see rich miners change the world positively (because they won't get rich otherwise). We pay only hungry miners and devs who have the eye of the Tiger, not the rich early adopters who sit on their high IPO percentage and make the highest mining money percentage for doing nothing but pay their electric bill:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGGN_7mMRfU
(we want Balboa (Bitcoin))
This is how BitShares works. We choose who we pay. Can you ever give the NXT founders a pay cut? Well good for them. I love players.
https://www.google.com/search?q=bitcoin+millionaires&client=ubuntu&hs=eqw&channel=fs&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=d-GvVMu0HNWEyQSTmoC4BA&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAw&biw=1535&bih=805
No, we would rather see Argentina Matt save thousands from:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2014/12/16/370979773/argentinas-approach-to-inflation-ditch-the-peso-hoard-u-s-dollars
(40% annual fiat devaluation)
So buy bitcoin if you want to listen to Taaki talk, Verr preach, Keiser laugh, Gavin babble, Levine plug, and the Winklevii ...well, whatever the Voss twins do in public. Buy BitShares if you want to see rich miners change the world positively (because they won't get rich otherwise). We pay only hungry miners and devs who have the eye of the Tiger, not the rich early adopters who sit on their high IPO percentage and make the highest mining money percentage for doing nothing but pay their electric bill:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGGN_7mMRfU
(we want Balboa (Bitcoin))
This is how BitShares works. We choose who we pay. Can you ever give the NXT founders a pay cut? Well good for them. I love players.
But the truth is that BitShares has a lot of haters. BitShares dudes don't dwell on the condition that the NXT network was in moments after it launched (it was more centralized than it is today agreed?). Why do the NXT people only seem to want to talk about only the earliest developed phases of the BitShares blockchain? It is now 2015, and there was no double spend on either coin ever. Do you think it is getting easier or harder to control the BitShares network now that we need to see proof of ID if you want to be a BitShares miner?
Marketing it as decentralized is misleading, trying to make comparisons with satoshi based models of complete decentralization is misleading if you do not clarify that you threw out one of the most important factors. The numbers posted on how much it costs to run a node are misleading, its much cheaper.
For now maybe, but when you are competing against Snoop D O double G, then your cost for running a node will increase. Yeah it only costs $30 per year for running a node, but in the future, when competition for exclusive high paying delegate slots heats up, and when you have to give out your name and address to the community in order to even be considered for a BitShares forger, then tell me that it is not getting a little more expensive now Mr Nakamoto. If running a delegate only consumes 10 hours of your time annually, and you are competing with Bill Gates, then how much of his opportunity cost are you paying to overcome:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpyBfz7zzXc
(here's the math concept of economic relativity explained)
1) is it a company or is it a currency? It cannot be feasibly both since the rules of either can have conflicts.
2) Find a new word to describe the system, tiered-decentralization wont work because all who know the word will know you are misleading them
1) it is a unit of exchange within Satoshi's low friction invention2) Find a new word to describe the system, tiered-decentralization wont work because all who know the word will know you are misleading them
2) forget “decentralized” we can call it “competitive” (you know like nature, free markets, and survival of the fittest)
So yeah, the dark anonymous meme of crypto is not what BitShares is going for here. We are going for a big small town vibe where everyone knows everyone else (and exactly how far we can trust them) based on their public actions. The more transparent you are, the better chance you have of becoming a rich Bitcoin2.0 miner.
Are any of you beginning to see why BitShares was born in the top 5 on coinmarketcap? When the "rules changed" the price should have risen not fallen because the market could not understand that BitShares was making moves to become more competitive in the relentless doge eat doge world that we all are subject to. Call us doge eat dogecoin or darwincoin, or something to impact upon the principle of how we threw our founders out on the cold street and made them work for living (mine at a minimum wage like the rest of us poor people). Don't you wish you could make your politicans work for the same minimum wage as you make. Well at BitShares we, the poor people, took the power back!
What "power" is that you say? The power to dictate who gets all the mining money. How much in BTC was mined into existence last year? Well, money is power, and we are in control now. This is no longer 2014. Bitcoin 2.0 is here now with a multimillion market cap and no successful double spend has ever happened. Now under the spotlight of Hollywood:
Let the games begin!
The first part if we talk in a strictly DAC context makes sense, the rest is you propaganding again.
However, has your system not already been proven to be insecure and not really decentralized because one guy ended up controlling a lot of nodes? Ands he'snjust the one that got caught
Propaganda has negative connotations. I prefer "evangelism". How else can we communicate our ideas?
I posted these answers to your second question on another local thread, quoted here for you convenience:
Quote
Since 101 delegates is just an arbitrary number that could have been 50 or 150, the fact that the number of independent delegates might vary if shareholders allow it is not a big deal. To become a delegate, you really have to work to convince people to vote for you. You have to develop a reputation. You can destroy that reputation in 10 seconds by misbehaving - because everyone can see what you are doing. We all instantly know if you signed a bad block - and we know who did it.
As for Bitcoin, there's no way to know how much hash power is controlled by one individual. We do know that too much is controlled by too few. There is no way to know if a couple of the big pools or mining farms are colluding either. In fact, they openly do it when a problem comes up. And we do know that the only way to unseat them is to acquire a huge amount of hashing power from somewhere. The only way to acquire similar power in BitShares is to drive everybody's price up trying to acquire a large stake. We like those kinds of attacks.
With BitShares, a misbehaving delegate is instantly flagged to all shareholders who immediately wake up, vote him out, and go back to sleep. It only takes one person paying attention to raise the alarm. Then it takes several more trusted experts to verify the problem and post their opinion. Then the rank and file owners respond and the problem is gone. You can't do that with Bitcoin without inciting a damaging fork war - at huge cost to enforce any discipline at all.
That's the big difference. We know who did it.
As for Bitcoin, there's no way to know how much hash power is controlled by one individual. We do know that too much is controlled by too few. There is no way to know if a couple of the big pools or mining farms are colluding either. In fact, they openly do it when a problem comes up. And we do know that the only way to unseat them is to acquire a huge amount of hashing power from somewhere. The only way to acquire similar power in BitShares is to drive everybody's price up trying to acquire a large stake. We like those kinds of attacks.
With BitShares, a misbehaving delegate is instantly flagged to all shareholders who immediately wake up, vote him out, and go back to sleep. It only takes one person paying attention to raise the alarm. Then it takes several more trusted experts to verify the problem and post their opinion. Then the rank and file owners respond and the problem is gone. You can't do that with Bitcoin without inciting a damaging fork war - at huge cost to enforce any discipline at all.
Quote
The key innovation is, IMHO,
using the voting stake of all owners to select delegates
that can then be held accountable
by observable performance and public reputation.
using the voting stake of all owners to select delegates
that can then be held accountable
by observable performance and public reputation.
The event where one person got 5 delegates briefly points to a period in our early history where delegates did not get enough vetting because... it was early in our history. Back then, some delegates got elected without proper vetting since it wasn't hard to get into the top 101. Now it is increasingly harder to get elected as a delegate and every time a new vetted delegate takes her slot, a less vetted delegate is bumped. So it's an on-going Darwinian distillation process where over time the delegates that survive at the top get vetted better and better and have reputations that are worth more and more, making them unlikely to risk those hard-earned reputations on misbehavior that can instantly be detected. A Sybil attack at the delegate level would produce a candidate with no reputation from vetting. Who would vote for it? Right now our star developers have taken days or even weeks to accumulate enough votes. Further, it costs two week's non-refundable salary (about $1100 right now) to apply to be vetted as a delegate, making any attempt to flood the system with nefarious delegates impractical and unaffordable.
Finally, because of the competition, every delegate gets challenged from time to time by people who want their job.
I went through such an aggressive rectal exam myself a few days ago:
"The worth of Stan's contribution to BitShares"
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=12851.msg169114#msg169114
"The worth of Stan's contribution to BitShares"
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=12851.msg169114#msg169114
Thus, we have engineered a system where it is very competitive to become a delegate, and only the most trusted best of the best survive. Thus BitShares grows stronger every day.
I guess it comes down to this in my mind:
Definition. "A system is sufficiently decentralized if there is no likely to be reached number of individuals who can collude or be coerced or seduced into acting successfully against the interests of its owners without detection."
(It would be good to reach a consensus on this definition - I just made up this straw man on the fly.)
I think we are evolving away from the idea that the only way to achieve this definition is by brute force node maximization. The bleeding edge of research in this industry is in systems that achieve sufficient decentralization more efficiently. I summarized how BitShares aims to do this in an earlier post on this thread:
So a better discussion to be having is whether a particular implementation has achieved adequate protection from bad actors, recognizing that further efforts to decentralize beyond "good enough" has other costs that must be traded against whatever else the design must sacrifice to decentralize beyond that threshold.
This will enable block chain businesses to be profitable sooner. And that will be good for overall industry growth!
Definition. "A system is sufficiently decentralized if there is no likely to be reached number of individuals who can collude or be coerced or seduced into acting successfully against the interests of its owners without detection."
(It would be good to reach a consensus on this definition - I just made up this straw man on the fly.)
I think we are evolving away from the idea that the only way to achieve this definition is by brute force node maximization. The bleeding edge of research in this industry is in systems that achieve sufficient decentralization more efficiently. I summarized how BitShares aims to do this in an earlier post on this thread:
So a better discussion to be having is whether a particular implementation has achieved adequate protection from bad actors, recognizing that further efforts to decentralize beyond "good enough" has other costs that must be traded against whatever else the design must sacrifice to decentralize beyond that threshold.
This will enable block chain businesses to be profitable sooner. And that will be good for overall industry growth!
This just in from wildpig in China: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=13093.msg171679#msg171679
"Sufficiently Decentralization is a state which the system will not be compromised significantly by any illicit parties , since they are not likely to gain enough power to reach the critical point without facing counter measure from other distributed owners of the system."
I like this because it highlights another one of the tools for engineering "smart decentralization". Specifically, built-in countermeasure support to the owners.
Anyone else want to help refine the definition?
the first part if we talk in a strictly DAC context makes sense, the rest is you propaganding again.
However, has your system not already been proven to be insecure and not really decentralized because one guy ended up controlling a lot of nodes? Ands he'snjust the one that got caught
I guess it comes down to this in my mind:
Definition. "A system is sufficiently decentralized if there is no likely to be reached number of individuals who can collude or be coerced or seduced into acting successfully against the interests of its owners without detection."
(It would be good to reach a consensus on this definition - I just made up this straw man on the fly.)
I think we are evolving away from the idea that the only way to achieve this definition is by brute force node maximization. The bleeding edge of research in this industry is in systems that achieve sufficient decentralization more efficiently. I summarized how BitShares aims to do this in an earlier post on this thread:
So a better discussion to be having is whether a particular implementation has achieved adequate protection from bad actors, recognizing that further efforts to decentralize beyond "good enough" has other costs that must be traded against whatever else the design must sacrifice to decentralize beyond that threshold.
This will enable block chain businesses to be profitable sooner. And that will be good for overall industry growth!
Definition. "A system is sufficiently decentralized if there is no likely to be reached number of individuals who can collude or be coerced or seduced into acting successfully against the interests of its owners without detection."
(It would be good to reach a consensus on this definition - I just made up this straw man on the fly.)
I think we are evolving away from the idea that the only way to achieve this definition is by brute force node maximization. The bleeding edge of research in this industry is in systems that achieve sufficient decentralization more efficiently. I summarized how BitShares aims to do this in an earlier post on this thread:
So a better discussion to be having is whether a particular implementation has achieved adequate protection from bad actors, recognizing that further efforts to decentralize beyond "good enough" has other costs that must be traded against whatever else the design must sacrifice to decentralize beyond that threshold.
This will enable block chain businesses to be profitable sooner. And that will be good for overall industry growth!
This just in from wildpig in China: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=13093.msg171679#msg171679
"Sufficiently Decentralization is a state which the system will not be compromised significantly by any illicit parties , since they are not likely to gain enough power to reach the critical point without facing counter measure from other distributed owners of the system."
I like this because it highlights another one of the tools for engineering "smart decentralization". Specifically, built-in countermeasure support to the owners.
Decentralization is a process that moves power outward from the center toward the individual owners.
If those owners have ultimate control over how the system functions and grows and defends itself, control is arguably decentralized.
Anyone else want to help refine the definition?
I'll catch up later, open to suggestions from the floor why BTS needs a cap if it can be changed and even be dynamic
Scaling delegates past 101 nodes would have diminishing returns. If you are assuming nodes are static servers that can't be upgraded to handle an increase in TPS then a dynamic delegate system would make sense. Since the nodes will feasibly scale and be upgraded as technology progresses the extra nodes just add extra cost with no real benefits. If a particular node can't handle the load they will be replaced by voting them out and 102nd delegate by votes will replace them.
I'll catch up later, open to suggestions from the floor why BTS needs a cap if it can be changed and even be dynamic
I'ts my opinion as well:
Quote
Because BitShares aims to be a profitable company.
I'll catch up later, open to suggestions from the floor why BTS needs a cap if it can be changed and even be dynamic
I wouldn't call it a cap.
That's just what the number is set at.
Because BitShares aims to be a profitable company.
And profitable companies manage their expenses.
There are diminishing returns beyond 101
as Bytemaster explains here:
...and as I tried to explain earlier in this thread.
I went to Subway and ordered a chopped salad.
Didn't enjoy it much though.
There was this guy sitting next to me
kept insisting that Subway had misleading advertising
because it wasn't chopped to atoms...
Didn't enjoy it much though.
There was this guy sitting next to me
kept insisting that Subway had misleading advertising
because it wasn't chopped to atoms...
I'll catch up later, open to suggestions from the floor why BTS needs a cap if it can be changed and even be dynamic
The internet is centralised. The poster assumes the internet will be centralised in the future. This is a false assumption so the road he is leading you down is a dead end.
I never assumes that Internet will stay centralized as today - but this is what we currently have.
What if the future internet infrastructure is decentralised with a decentralised software platform on top of it? Does the argument you were constructing still stack up? You would be unable to compare Bitshares to the infrastructure it is built on. And your post sounds like an argument for standing still, "Net in centralised, doesn't matter if Bitshares isn't any better", no?
How often can the number '101' be changed or is it hardcoded? I don't refer to voting, but to changing it to 1000 say.
It's a top secret
, but it's one constant at the code which you can change to any odd number, you even can make it's dynamic if you wish (for example from 101-100101 delegates based at pseudo random round hash) but this requires additional coding.http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/DPOS
Quote
If these chains assume 100 delegates is too centralized and start promoting they have 1000 validators, then their fees must be 10x those of DPOS. If such a chain grew to be the size of Bitcoin ($10 B) then only those with $1M worth of coin could validate profitably and most would consider that an elite club. If they reduce the minimum stake to be a validator to $1000, then their fees would be 10,000 times higher than DPOS.
Then why a put a cap on at all?
Bump
The internet is centralised. The poster assumes the internet will be centralised in the future. This is a false assumption so the road he is leading you down is a dead end.
I never assumes that Internet will stay centralized as today - but this is what we currently have.
To answer your question i pose a question. Define BTS, is it a company or a currency?
Personally I define for myself that BitShares it's a company.
Here the interesting vision http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/update/2014/12/18/What-is-BitShares
From your post:
Quote
BitShares is a distributed multi-user database
Maybe if you read it, you would have saved Stan and I a lot of time. Or do you have a differing definition from the rest of the cryptoworld to distributed too?
Do you call this technique funnelling? Where you constantly try to get people into your literature and thinking? It makes you look like a cult , constantly referring to the 'official' doctrine rather than explaining it yourself.
To answer your question i pose a question. Define BTS, is it a company or a currency?
Personally I define for myself that BitShares it's a company.
Here the interesting vision http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/update/2014/12/18/What-is-BitShares
"Bitshares is a centralised system, that uses 101 specially selected nodes.
drawing comparisons between Satoshi's blockchain and try to market it as an improvement should stop as this is now a different system.
Please don't try to pervert the meaning of decentralization to fit your needs. BTS is essentially centered around 101 nodes.
A decentralized system has no definable center, the center of BTS is those 101 identifiable nodes.
drawing comparisons between Satoshi's blockchain and try to market it as an improvement should stop as this is now a different system.
Please don't try to pervert the meaning of decentralization to fit your needs. BTS is essentially centered around 101 nodes.
A decentralized system has no definable center, the center of BTS is those 101 identifiable nodes.
Let's change a point of view again:
- Bitshares is a centralized system, that uses 101 specially selected nodes, connected over centralized Internet system that based on 75 Internet Exchange Points
- XYZ is a decentralized system, where nodes connected over centralized Internet system that based on 75 Internet Exchange Points
Can we call Internet decentralized enough to be able use it's for decentralized systems or Internet is centralized system?
Can we call decentralized the systems which use centralized communication?
List of Internet exchange points by size
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_exchange_points_by_size
PS: I like this discussion more and more
I am extremely interested in this conversation thus the steady stream of questions, i have no ill will against BTS, hell i probably ranked in the top 10 PTS holders until they started changing goal posts.
To answer your question i pose a question. Define BTS, is it a company or a currency?
The internet is centralised. The poster assumes the internet will be centralised in the future. This is a false assumption so the road he is leading you down is a dead end.
"Bitshares is a centralised system, that uses 101 specially selected nodes.
drawing comparisons between Satoshi's blockchain and try to market it as an improvement should stop as this is now a different system.
Please don't try to pervert the meaning of decentralization to fit your needs. BTS is essentially centered around 101 nodes.
A decentralized system has no definable center, the center of BTS is those 101 identifiable nodes.
drawing comparisons between Satoshi's blockchain and try to market it as an improvement should stop as this is now a different system.
Please don't try to pervert the meaning of decentralization to fit your needs. BTS is essentially centered around 101 nodes.
A decentralized system has no definable center, the center of BTS is those 101 identifiable nodes.
Let's change a point of view again:
- Bitshares is a centralized system, that uses 101 specially selected nodes, connected over centralized Internet system that based on 75 Internet Exchange Points
- XYZ is a decentralized system, where nodes connected over centralized Internet system that based on 75 Internet Exchange Points
Can we call Internet decentralized enough to be able use it's for decentralized systems or Internet is centralized system?
Can we call decentralized the systems which use centralized communication?
List of Internet exchange points by size
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_exchange_points_by_size
PS: I like this discussion more and more
I am extremely interested in this conversation thus the steady stream of questions, i have no ill will against BTS, hell i probably ranked in the top 10 PTS holders until they started changing goal posts.
To answer your question i pose a question. Define BTS, is it a company or a currency?
How often can the number '101' be changed or is it hardcoded? I don't refer to voting, but to changing it to 1000 say.
It's a top secret
, but it's one constant at the code which you can change to any odd number, you even can make it's dynamic if you wish (for example from 101-100101 delegates based at pseudo random round hash) but this requires additional coding.http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/DPOS
Quote
If these chains assume 100 delegates is too centralized and start promoting they have 1000 validators, then their fees must be 10x those of DPOS. If such a chain grew to be the size of Bitcoin ($10 B) then only those with $1M worth of coin could validate profitably and most would consider that an elite club. If they reduce the minimum stake to be a validator to $1000, then their fees would be 10,000 times higher than DPOS.
Then why a put a cap on at all?
How often can the number '101' be changed or is it hardcoded? I don't refer to voting, but to changing it to 1000 say.
It's a top secret
, but it's one constant at the code which you can change to any odd number, you even can make it's dynamic if you wish (for example from 101-100101 delegates based at pseudo random round hash) but this requires additional coding.http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/DPOS
Quote
If these chains assume 100 delegates is too centralized and start promoting they have 1000 validators, then their fees must be 10x those of DPOS. If such a chain grew to be the size of Bitcoin ($10 B) then only those with $1M worth of coin could validate profitably and most would consider that an elite club. If they reduce the minimum stake to be a validator to $1000, then their fees would be 10,000 times higher than DPOS.
Jump to: