Topic: Communist Bitshares Wealth Redistribution IS THEFT! - page 9. (Read 28375 times)

Technically you are paying the network, who pays the delegates, who process and secure the network, who also happen to bring development into the bts eco system.  The delegates who a bunch are the developers should not be working for free.  They have quit their full time jobs, have bills to pay, all to help push crypto technology.  This obviously motivates delegates to make BTS the best they can.

You need to look at the bigger picture.

So i am paying someone 0.005 so that they can stake thousands for themselves. so money out of my pocket to make someone else more money.

Yeah, you guys pretty much got it.

The cost of voting is a transaction fee of 0.5 bts.  At the current rate of bts = $0.01 usd, voting costs an incredible $0.005 usd.  I have seen discussions of lowering this to 0.1 bts etc...

LOL.  This was the best post...ever.  The "Snopes of BitShares".  Yeh, BitShares and NXT are actually very similar except BitShares is provably more decentralized with respect to stake distribution and NXT basically has "contract periods" that you can lease your stake to transparent forgers while BitShares enables you to vote and take away that vote at the drop of a dime.  Both have valuable methods.  I prefer BitShares and NHZ (Horizon) over NXT though.

You're right, I haven't.

But it hasn't nothing to do with the talent.

As I alluded to earlier in the thread, I
don't think DPos "works" fundamentally.

Although, if its any consolation, I don't
think PoS works either.

Interesting.  You obviously haven't looked into the awesome software talent that created BitShares and now work directly for the blockchain in funded delegate positions.  BitShares is the only DAC that has a mechanism to hire up to 101 professional software developers and even 101 software development companies to work for it as it approaches the size of Bitcoin. (There are already multiple established software companies working to support it.)   Further, since it is open source, independent parties can inspect the software.  Further still, there is a growing number other independent clone teams (PeerTracks, Play, Sparkle, PTS, etc.) that use (and therefore inspect) the BitShares Toolkit for their own purposes.

yes but I would rather trust competent software engineers to inspect code than i would to delegate stake holders...that is one reason I'm not a bitshares advocate.

That's probably a gross understatement.


A company is a capitalist construct for voluntarily pooled property rights in a free market economy.  (The key difference is the phrase "free market economy".)

Communism is the centralized control of all companies by the wealthy elite funded via non-voluntary seizure of property rights by the wealthy.  (The key difference is the phrase "centralized control of all companies by the wealthy elite".)

There is no "free market economy" in Bitshares.  A small group of the wealthiest stakeholders are able to control the mass majority of delegate positions / businesses and they are funded by the "non-voluntary seizure of property".  Bitshares is a Supercapitalist / Communist state attempting to pass itself off as a populist representative government.

Precisely.  The chief goal of most crypto-projects is the removal or reduction of the need to trust.   This has not been perfectly achieved yet.  To date, we have had to be content with tolerating some residual trust in those who have effective control over what software gets executed.

We seek to explicitly place that control in the hands of the owners.  Others allow it to emerge somewhere by default.

Companies are a capitalist construct for voluntarily pooled property rights. 
They can still have global scope as long as participation is voluntary.
 
Communism oversimplified is non-voluntary seizure of property rights by the state.
And the viewpoint that all people do not have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property.

The key difference is the word voluntary.

That's COMMUNISM!   

you were the one the suggested I replace 'global currency' with 'global company' hence the comparison.  I would trust neither of those two institutions with control of money.

I don't quite get where you are going with the first question, but ok:

Google is a company organized by a group of people who pooled their capital to earn shared profits and to obtain certain protections under the laws of the jurisdictions in which it is incorporated.  The Federal Reserve is cartel of bankers that managed to con the US government into giving them the monopolistic authority to manage the US money supply to the benefit of those bankers and the eventual enslavement of all mankind.  It is neither Federal nor a Reserve.  

Your second question, however, is extremely interesting!

Block chain technologies enable transparent, decentralized, immutable public records.
They are useful for many things you have not dreamed of.


You can use it to implement other things than currencies - like unmanned companies.
These also can exist on a continuum from completely sovereign to completely subject to central authorities.

BitShares is engineered to be completely sovereign from any of the world's other governments and yet able to interact peacefully with other entities that are still subject to those central authorities.  It has been released into the wild and is now on its own. There is no central organization which runs it.  It lives in international waters as a creature of Free Space. Whether it achieves its design goals or not depends upon the will of its current and future owners.  The BitShares community is as decentralized as its software.  So where it will go is up to their independent, collective efforts.  I merely point out what is possible.

Market Pegged Assets (MPA) can autonomously track the value of fiat currencies and commodities subject to other legal jurisdictions. They exist outside the current fiat framework.

User Issued Assets (UIA) can be implemented to be fully compliant with the laws in the jurisdiction of each UIA issuer, or entities of Free Space.

MPAs and UIAs can trade freely in the international waters of BitShares Free Space.  You should think about what that means!

So, everything you have learned about crypto currency theory and lore is still applicable inside the BitShares Free Space universe. But it is only a small subset of what is actually possible.

You don't have to give up what you like about Bitcoin.  But BitShares gives the Bitcoin ecosystem a whole bunch of exciting new possibilities.  It does not seek to replace Bitcoin.  It aims to extend the Bitcoin vision.

You can't get away from central authorities in general because people are inherently lazy and want other people to do the work for them so are willing to trust something they think will work for their benefit, same thing as outsourcing to India for customer service representative's.

Ok...and what difference do you see
between the Federal Reserve and
Google?

I thought the whole point of cryptocurrencies
is to get away from central authorities.

Ok, what do you think were the actual reasons?