Topic: Communist Bitshares Wealth Redistribution IS THEFT! - page 19. (Read 28375 times)

Bitshares requires more trust than NXT. Whether its more/less decentralised boils down to percentage of blocks forged per forger.

Bitshares splits this evenly over 101 delegates/forgers, whereas NXT takes a trustless approach with higher stake owners forging more blocks, but I don't have data to hand on the distribution of blocks forged by forger in NXT.

So did you concede Bitshares isn't decentralised? I stopped reading at the first plug for the forum.

So math is logic.

Perfect = 100%

Well, BitShares is not perfect (we went over this forever last year, please don't make me look up the links at the BitShares forum man (don't make me be lame)).  Dan tried for perfection and failed, but so did Satoshi and every dev.  Vitalik is the last Mohican because he don't want to throw in the towel, but his yearning for perfection has finally run up against some serious venture capital and now it's time for him to build something, but he still can't decide which imperfections to embrace (google it)

And Bitcoin is not perfect, and NXT, and every other Satoshi blockchain based tech out there in the land of Bitcoin 1.0
2.0
3.0
etc.

So on all crypto coins, you could do a double spend if you had enough time and money to kill, but the rest of the decentralized community around you would simply create a new fork, kick you out because on the blockchain, you are not perfectly invisible.  Then the new community would compensate the victims like the good little Doggies we all are, and life would go on brighter than ever knowing that evil had been thwarted.

That's what Satoshi did for us.  The blockchain is a robot superhero dispersing justice and exposing injustice.  

I'm just trying to keep the same party vein as the OP, who has created what is obviously (as of Jan 7th) the thread of the new year!

Come over to the BitShares forum and meet the craziest (because they are paid (by the blockchain) comedians) devs and miners on the planet.  We have a Ron Burgundy look alike named “meatmaster” who gets paid by the blockchain to fly around the world and offer ridiculous BTC bounties to any hacker who can double spend BitShares (can't find the youtube link, it's hilarious).  He is obviously a rich early adopter.  But the real King of Bling is the Legendary Million Dollar Brian Page “the world's first BitShares milionaire”.  Just like Max Keiser likes to brags about being a bitcoin millionaire (it gets us publicity, and that's good for all shareholders:)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_t39jCXXIrY

He will be releasing his YouTube spoof soon (complete with Mr. T gold ropes as he competes for the heavyweight title of “Bling King”) because he is a great marketer who knows the network effect of fun and comedy.

And if you buy BitShares now, and the its price rises, then you just gave this guy a raise.  Why should we pay him?  Just because he didn't want to be a “government worker”?!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yrif9uThwSY

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/16/googles_secret_nsa_alliance_the_terrifying_deals_between_silicon_valley_and_the_security_state/

I don't know, you decide, but the fun and drama continues as Big Daddy Dan will scare the share price down 10% at any moment when he spouts off in mighty Turret tone:
“Lets hardcode my paycheck into the blockchain!”

And we all say, no, sorry Dad, but you have to campaign like everyone else in order to keep people from getting jealous.  So we got him a surrogate delegate whom Dan pays to mine BitShares for him.  

Seriously, though that's what we love about our main dev, he is an honest man.  Brutally, and well... he says what he feels without thinking:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wcKpoAQKj4

(I hope this is the Puff Daddy version of this song)

So Don't listen too much to Dan because he will make you want to sell your BitShares as fast as you would rush to unload all your prescious Paycoin if you saw that the bid was a buy wall at $25.

So who else is in the BitShares community?  Basically all the altcoin hardcore miners that got one last good profitable run with their mining rigs before the big guys pushed out all the little guys.  Bitcoin 2.0 is proof of stake coin.  It's sad, but POW got old, and after it did what it had to do with the Western Unions, it was ready to take on Wall St (among other industries), which is what BitCoin 2.0 is all about.

Onceuponatime (another cool Bithead), a miners task was just to play records what more could you ask

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m496Zv-YKNo

But then came remixing (script feeds), scratching (coding) and cuts (advertising), which was just too much to ask to be a Bitcoin2.0 miner.  

The blockchain of the future is a little more competitive for the miners, and it's just nature guys, life adapts and gets tougher.

It's harder to survive as a miner in 2015 than in 2012.  

The BitShares miners are paid to code, advertise, write, perform, or put out a show (and mine), which is why Dan has to pay a miner to mine for him (because mining BitShares is so lucrative (because it's so useful for hedging the volatility swings)).  You see, BitShares basically tracks Bitcoin.

After an initial spike of volatility in Bitcoin last November, and in BitShares a few months ago, the prices of these 2 coins basically tracks price rise for rise and fall for fall.  So trading BitShares today is just like trading Bitcoin (without inviting Markples).  The forces that make Bitcoin go up, make BitShares go up, and vice versa.  What other coin allows you to basically trade bitcoin for fiat on a blockchain without BitStamp or Mtgox playing with you?

Bitcoin 2.0 will go back to playing jokes on the established big business like Bitcoin 1.0 did to Western Union.  

If you bought the first 10 Bitcoin 1.0 coins when they first came out, then you would have had at least one opportunity to make some coin.  So why are you not buying the first 10 Bitcoin 2.0 coins to come out.  If Bitcoin 1.0 can hold a multi billion dollar market cap for over a year and not one greedy hacker was able to doublespend, then I'd say that we don't need to worry about a doublespend on Bitcoin 2.0 technology, which is just based on Satoshi's blockchain at heart.

So, yeah, I'm all in BTC2.0 coins, and why not.. But you know which one I use to trade blockchain coins for fiat without inviting Kerpl?  It's fast, and has good depth so I get a great price (better if I'm patient).  I'm not trying to brag, but I've tried them all, and I absolutely can't wait for Ethereum!

Just like Vitalik loves us, we love him (and did we mention that he is down with BitShares):

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=12545.0

http://bitshares.tv/vitalik-buterin-bitshares-dpos/

So you see, I don't know the real names of the many around here, but I do know that people like this are legit.

The double spend is but one small aspect of the whole bitcoin story, and I guess that since you are here then that means that you are already invested in Satoshi's blockchain technology one way or another.  So if you win, then I win, and we all win.  

And by all means, carry on your doublespending conversation, it's just that people like Vitalik have moved on to more 2015-types of topics:

http://bitcoinmagazine.com/18587/vitalik-buterin-wins-the-2014-world-technology-network-award/

Good side step.


But a point the OP keeps making in this thread is based around...


Neither does the OP. You should have realised his objection is that he sees Pepsi is saying it tastes like Diet Coke > Bitshares is saying it is decentralised. Not that Bitshares and x can't exist together.


In fact Bitshares is claiming Pepsi tastes more like Diet Coke than Diet Coke > Bitshares is more decentralised than x  



The way I see it, this represents the spectrum of Bitshares/POS holders and stakes



As it is impossible for them all to stake/forge/mint/mine themselves in Bitshares, then they have no choice but to choose between...



...to represent them and their stake.


I have read the arguments and find it hard to accept a POS system that caps the number of stakers to a small percentage of users can be called decentralised. It is distributed, a la Ripple. The claims of being more decentralised... that is definitely a leap too far.

I would also like to see a response to DE calcs and fewer plugs for Bytemasters blog posts.

The last post by DE raised a lot of questions, this is looking less and less like the FUD that was claimed, can either Stan, Dan or testz answer his post.

The "nothing at stake" assumption is based on the small data sample of existing PoS economies, which in their child state are not worth much. Substitute the value of BTC into the equation, and tell me that there is nothing at stake. The original concept and implementation is simple, one's overall value is maintained by controlled inflation that produces security.  You lose out on value if you do not participate in securing the network and proving your STAKE.

The problem with these so called experts is that they create a bizarre cross between Micro and Macro concepts, in the world of decentralization, such fuzzy philosophy and economics is unacceptable.

Do no mistake me for an NXT fan, or a Bitshares fan either, i have interest in the technical aspects as they have great bearing on the concept of PoS. And if the previous posts are anything to go by, controlled/regulated  delegated PoS systems are a form of centralization open very much to manipulation and attacks.

I'd be most grateful to see a response from the BTS side to the last post by DE.

To be able to broadcast fake block history you should create it's first, to be able to create blocks you should have your fake delegates, to have fake delegates, you should have fake funds to elect them at fake chain.

It's will be helpful if you publish algo of attacker starting from beginning, electing fake delegates at fake chain. Thanks in advance.

Sorry but this article is rubbish.

The author proposes the use of rolling checkpoints,
which do NOT solve the fundamental problem of
broadcasting a fake block history at no cost. 

All they do is set a limit on how deep a re-org
could be, which I suppose has some small benefit,
although at the risk of splitting the blockchain.

...And the case of new clients connecting to the network
is a strawman argument because the nothing at
stake attack applies regardless.

Now this is much better.

Other than the unsupported ad hominum attacks in the middle, you have put together a perfectly good set of arguments, one technical and one philosophical.  This is what discourse should be like in these forums.

Similarly, Bytemaster has outlined his technical design rationale and the philosophical objectives he is trying to achieve on his blog at Bytemaster's Blog.  Many competent people find him credible.

For example, his latest post addresses a common concern that all POS lovers will enjoy having in their hip pockets:


Now, we can have lots of fun arguing technological and philosophical preferences.  Bytemaster and, for example, Vitalik do that in a friendly way all the time - and BitShares and Ethereum are both getting stronger because of it.

But in the end, they are both building products they hope the market will like.  Each is making design tradeoffs based on their overall goals and personal judgement.  I think both will succeed.  There is not only one answer.   As a result of those design decisions, each product will be adapted to survive in a different ecological niche.  I expect both to survive.  (Especially if their developers keep adapting to those environments and applying lessons learned.)

What both Bytemaster and Vitalik do is write prolifically about what they are thinking and doing.  They are both truly open books. Those who follow their work closely have formed favorable opinions about their motives and integrity. Thus, they both have attracted quite a following.

People who like either product, and the design decisions and philosophies behind them, are free to choose whether they want to own them or not.  Both are going to be successful and therefore both represent good investments.  I would never argue passionately that Pepsi should not be marketed because I prefer Diet Coke.  Both products will find people who prefer them for a variety of reasons.  (And if one gets taken down in a twist of fate, the other will live on.  We need decentralization at this level too!)

As for your theories of potential dark ulterior motives, well, you are free to express them.  Many others have looked at the same set of facts and found them to be noble and commendable.  

I'll leave you with this quote:  

Bytemaster's entire argument falls apart when you take into account that businesses using any payment platform will be running their hardware anyway and therefore, the cost of running a PoS node is negligible.

But, let's assume for argument's sake that a node will ONLY forge if it can recoup its operating cost off of transaction fees alone.

An intelligent node operator will use an energy-efficient device (~20W) to forge.  You can get some fairly powerful computers running at ~20W.  Let's say a forger uses a 35W computer.

35W * 24 hours / 1000w/kW * $0.10 kWh = $0.084

It costs the node operator 8.4 cents per day.

Currently, NXT is worth over 1.7 cents.  He needs to generate 8.4/1.7 = 4.94 NXT per day to breakeven.

NXT's current average daily transaction fees amount to 5,095 NXT.

4.94 / 5095 = 0.000969808

The node operator needs to forge 0.0969% of all blocks.  We can now calculate the amount of NXT he needs to have by multiplying by the total amount of NXT.

0.000969808 * 1,000,000,000 = 969,808 NXT

The node operator must own 969,808 NXT to breakeven forging on a 35W computer.

Now, let's calculate how many forgers the NXT network can support running 35W computers.

1,000,000,000 / 969,808 = 1031

The NXT network can currently support ONE THOUSAND AND THIRTY-ONE 35W nodes.

Bytemaster's argument that as the network scales profitability decreases is fallacious, because the number of transactions increase proportionally to the transaction fees per block.  Therefore, if a forger would be required to run a more computationally powerful node, he would be able to afford to do so.  Bytemaster takes his argument to ridiculous extremes claiming that to process 1000 tps, you would need a server with 256GB of RAM, 2TB of expendable hard drive space per week and a synchronous 64Mbps connection.  Most people in the developed world have asynchronous residential internet connections that are close to or above this speed.  I fail to see why such a connection would need to be synchronous as the nodes would be downloading 1000 tps per second, but would only need to publish ONE block if they managed to forge it.  2TB of blockchain space per week seems extreme.  Bitcoin's blockchain is only 31 GB after six years.  If blockchain sizes increased to such a size, I imagine some type of blockchain shrinking would be implemented.  As time goes on and Moore's law continues, computational power and ram get cheaper, more efficient and more powerful.  By the time any cryptocurrency reaches 1000 tps, which I imagine will take years, the hardware landscape will have completely changed and the cost/power ratios of hardware will be even more efficient.  If you take into account the ability for nodes to figure out who the next forger is (aka NXT Transparent Forging) and route transactions only to that node, it makes Bytemasters' node requirements even more asinine.

It seems limiting forgers to 101 necessitates that the forgers run more powerful hardware to handle the load.  Each forger has to produce 0.99% of all network blocks and therefore consumes more bandwidth and electricity.  It also seems to decrease the resiliency of the network by placing the ENTIRE load on 101 individuals/computers.  This make the network an easier target for DDOS attacks too.

I don't see the necessity in centralizing a PoS system.  As others have stated, DPoS is a solution in search of a problem.  When one considers that there is no such problem to solve, they must ask themselves why was such a "solution" introduced.  As I have stated before and will continue to ascertain, it is my belief that the ONLY reason DPoS was chosen for Bitshares was to force centralization on its stakeholders, disenfranchise them of their forging profits and subject them to tax via inflation.  In addition, since DPoS is vulnerable to Sybil attacks and Stan Larimer has stated that it is acceptable for multiple delegates to be controlled by one individual, one can assume that it is the intention of the Bitshares' developers and business interests, which they have a vested interest in, to establish a type of delegate monopoly over the system.  Whereby, they continue to increase their profits at the expense of existing shareholders.  One may ask, why do they need to strip tx fees from stakeholders and impose inflation on them when they already hold, I am sure, a great amount of stake themselves.  The only rational explanation I can give you is that it is unfettered greed and a desire to maintain total control over the system via a delegate monopoly under the guise of free elections.  Ask yourself, since the network can clearly support more than 101 forging nodes, why are elections necessary?

I could sit here all day and debate back and forth with Stan and others who support Bitshares, but in the end, everyone has to form their own opinion on what the Bitshares' devs and business interests are really trying to accomplish with this venture.  Some people might call me a "troll", but the fact is that I intentionally made this post inflammatory to draw attention to what I believe is a threat to the original movement of Bitcoin, NXT and decentralization.  There is no greater threat to decentralization than corporatization masquerading as such.  The corporatization of the Bitcoin movement is what destroyed it.  I don't want to see that same fate happen to the cryptocurrency scene in general.  I don't want to see people fall victim to what I believe are faux movements.  The day when corporations take over the blockchain is the day our freedom dies.  I will admit to being a holder of both BTC and NXT.  If you believe that has skewed my viewpoint, so be it; but believe me when I say, I supported these movements not only in the hopes of making profit, but also because I believed in the ideology behind them.  It is my contention that Bitshares' imposed inflation on stakeholders is nothing less than taxation without representation.  You may say, "I can vote for delegates.  How is it without representation?"  I argue it is without representation because you yourself do not forge on your own behalf and instead are forced to hand over the security of your investment to business interests and developers who believe it is their right to be forever delegates and can easily manipulate the vote to form a permanent monopoly over the system.  Monopoly is the nemesis of free enterprise.  Why should a select group of 101 businesses get stakeholder subsidies?  What about the smaller businesses users might want to start?  Such users are forced to pay a tax to their competitors and fund their operations without such an advantage.  Your "freedom to choose" really isn't freedom at all, because all your choices result in you becoming a tributary slave to the delegates.

BTSX changed it's total supply because the coin holders ordered them to.  In BitShares, the coin holders are the boss.  The devs do what we say or we cut their pay! How much voting power does your coin give you?  Are you happy with your dev?  Would you prefer control over how much money your dev makes (or takes?).

The BitShare holders voted to increase the coin supply to merge the developers (and owners) of 4 coins together: DNS, VOTE, PTS, and BitShares.

BitShares is 4 coins in 1 now.


I know right, the shareholders of BitShares were mad that BitShares went from over $100 million market cap to $35 million now!  boo hoo! hilarious.

And the DNS shareholders were mad that their market cap went from a significant fraction of Namecoin's to become addded to BitShares new market cap.

And PTS holders were mad that their $7 million market cap was assimilated into the BitShares brand.

And the VOTE shareholders, well, we didn't hear much about them because they were busy working on their new Bitcoin 2.0 project that is now part of BitShares.  

All those coins, and all those devs are now forced to work under one roof to combine their skills to bring their Ethereum type flexible grand Bitcoin 2.0 vision to life.  Because Ethereum is not trying to sell you 4 different coins, so why should BitShares.  Now you only need to buy one coin ("the one" as Vitalik said in the quote) and you are a member of the current Bitcoin 2.0 market cap leader (unless you consider a 100% centralized Ripple to be true Bitcoin 2.0 tech).

http://bitshares.tv/vitalik-buterin-bitshares-dpos/
I thought that NEO was "d'1"

The funniest losers were Dan and Stan Larimer though.  Ha ha ha !  Those guys' net worth plummeted within hours of mentioning the merger! Hilarious!  No wait, the funniest part is that Stan and Dan are not even the largest stakeholders because their rented Protoshares mining equipment did not show up until a week after their fair launch of the Protoshares coin (which became BitShares the following year) officially began.  So the main devs are not even the largest stakeholders in their own coin?!

Satoshi must be rolling over in his eazy chair!

And why are the devs working on a coin that they do not own a controlling interest in?

LOL, those POW miners who got the most BitShares (more than anybody else in the world) out of the fair launch sure got what they deserved:  A $35 million market cap coin for choosing to mine Protoshares when the zero premine fair launch of BitShares began last year.  

BitShares has zero premine and was born of a fair Proof of Work mining launch. Fun facts indeed.  How many zero premine fair launch POW coins are even still alive today, and why are devs who obviously suck at POW mining dedicated to this one?

BitShares is a coin that gives its owners personal freedom like the USA, while Bitcoin holders are at the mercy of the Bitcoin Foundation which as a form of government is more like..... I'm at a loss for words? Bitcoin is like a government that does not allow its citizens to vote on important matters, and BitShares does.....hmmmm.  All I know is that BitRUB has been more volatile than BitShares lately?  I wonder why.  Maybe we should ask the FED:

http://cointelegraph.com/news/113209/the-federal-reserve-publishes-another-paper-on-bitcoin

Or maybe we should send the FED this:

http://cryptofresh.com/

or maybe not, it's a free crypto, I mean country, and we can vote for whoever we want

The business about whether BitShares is a company or currency is a pedagogical metaphor selection issue which was asked and answered multiple places in this forum, for example,


The best answer to this question was given by Bytemaster himself in his article What is BitShares? where he used TEN different nested metaphors to describe it.  It is eye-opening in its scope.

@OP  you claim NXT is more decentralized, can you respond to specific points here?  http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2015/01/07/The-Most-Decentralized-Proof-of-Stake-System/

The OP knows a lot about BitShares, they must have read the manual:

http://cryptofresh.com/

The OP is helping teach people about Bitcoin 2.0 technology, they could come work for the BitShares blockchain and get paid like Methodx, Max Wright, Byte Master and hopefully someday:

http://bitshares.tv/vitalik-buterin-bitshares-dpos/
That guy has an opinion about weather or not BitShares is a scam, but I don't know if he quite "gets it" though:

This guy gets paid by the public blockchain to sit on his ass and pump what that last guy says is "the one".  What a cushy job:
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/57283183

Seriously OP, all those guys do is pump BitShares with words, pictures, and videos.  You could do that too, and I would vote for you (to pay you for your efforts).  That is how work is rewarded in a decentralized free economy.  Fair pay (in crypto) for your hard work.  Then you can take your paycheck and convert it into Bitcoin, Gold, Rubles, etc, (or not) (because you are free).

Bitcoin is to BitShares as Bitcoin 1.0 is to Bitcoin 2.0

Remember the mental hurdle you had jump in order to completely get Bitcoin?

Well mach 2 has a little mental resistance you need to overcome (learn) too just like you had to do a little learning and understanding in order to completely overcome your mental barriers before you fully reached mach 1.0

Don't worry, though, you are not late to this party by a long shot

It's just getting started:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVJYS1L1snA
"Welcome to the (BitShares) party" OP!

get long BTS

Actually, returning to the original ideology of Bitcoin was the theme of Bytemaster's keynote address at the Las Vegas Inside Bitcoin conference:


His point is that most of us share the ideology of Bitcoin and are working to upgrade it for the long term success of the ideology, not the technology du jour.  No other industry's technology stands still these days, why should Bitcoin be stuck with its initial implementation forever?  A lot of technology has gone into aerospace since the Wright Brothers first flight. Should we still be using wing warping and pusher propellers?

Anyway, BitShares seeks to grow the Bitcoin ecosystem by providing a decentralized exchange to avoid what happened at Mt Gox and BitStamp.  The two can co-exist, and together with other serious block chains work to forge a solution to the real competitor: today's corrupt global financial system.


The best ideas will emerge and recombine until the Bitcoin ideology wins out over those who hold our freedom hostage today.

Not truth, with today BTS exchange rate every old supporter which doesn't agree with changes can sell stake, take profit and run away easily.

Amazing, but not surprising to see the BTS bagholders defending every decision here. I must have dreamed of all the crying and whining which happened on your forum.

I was saying earlier, they have already invested and now have no option other than to keep supporting.

All of the impolite accusations posted here have been patiently answered here:


Since the OP's strategy is to spam such disinformation everywhere, we are forced to collect our answers to his erudite and edifying literary efforts in that one place.   It also collects his recurring accusations in one place so that his style and agenda become obvious.  Think of this link as an improvised "BitShares version of Snopes"  


Oh, and by the way, Bytemaster just put out a brand new article today explaining the reasoning behind why DPOS was developed after starting with POW, looking approvingly at POS, and then layering a couple rounds of improvement on that.


We aim to please, so I'm sure the OP's global droppings will stimulate us to produce more great articles like this.

I guess that's a good thing.  OPer is certainly helping to call attention to the BitShares opportunity.  

NXT has nothing to do with fair distribution and therefore should not be mentioned together with Bitcoin as a positive sample in a discussion about decentralized digital currencies.

No I have stakes in two no inflation crypto-currencies PTS & RPCD (yet to be released) both are DPOS. I just don't have a stake in NXT because it's not competitive and POS is inferior imo.

Where you guys and others tend to be really centralised is on developers. If something happened to your two top developers (or those on other coins) then they'd really struggle. This is a huge centralised weakness. With DPOS, the blockchain is able to hire talent and fund itself.