Topic: Delegated Proof of Stake (DPOS) White Paper by Daniel Larimer (Read 11467 times)

I'm looking for the original DPOS whitepaper. The link in the first post is dead. Does anyone have a copy?

The most significant flaw of any proof-of-stake system and any system that diminishes coin rewards, is it can't distribute currency from the hoarders to the users of the currency, thus it will end up with the hoarders (the banksters) accumulating all the coin and the currency usage dying.

This is because the wealthy spend a much lower % of their net worth than the masses do.


How about this idea: a "Fission" algo that erodes the largest stakes in a PoS network and inflates all (or maybe only some) of the other active wallets on the network

This is an idea I just discussed on the Quark Forum where they are contemplating a fork to PoS. The following is a paste from my original comment at https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7052800.  Whichever post gets the first reply, let that be the genesis block...



What is needed is an algo which will assess a penalty (a drain) against any wallets holding excessively large stakes in the coin. This algo would constantly evaluate and be aware of wealth distribution on the whole network based upon activity recorded in the block chain (pseudo-anonymously).  When the size or advantage of a wallet, or a quorum of wallets, or a "neighborhood" of wallets, reaches a certain threshold or relational structure, then the algo will trigger the "fission" of the coin balance (a small fraction of it) to occur in the designated penalty wallet(s), while the network makes corresponding microdeposits in another designated set of wallets, the beneficiary wallets.

A Fission event may (A) create new coin and/or (B) deduct existing coin.  A Fission event occurs, for example, when one or more stakes becomes "too big," or an oligarchy of stakes becomes too entrenched.  Fission causes the dispersal of coin from the big stake(s) into and among wallets deemed worthy of being beneficiaries.  That opens a wide door, doesn't it?

Fission may accomplish wealth redistribution, or not.  Its up to the devs and the market to decide which fission regimes are the best.  

My preference is to have fission deduct from top stakes and drizzle the harvest into every other wallet on the network in statistically-defined patterns and portions.  

This "fallout" or dust caused by fission can be distributed randomly in all wallets or apportioned methodically into the appropriate beneficiary wallets.  Different coin developers can compete with different coins defining different ways to determine which "standards" and wallets are "appropriate."  It would open up a whole new generation of PoS coins.  

To sum up: In the proposed "fission" mechanism, whenever the algo determines that a critical mass exists in one or more wallets, or that the time has come to forceably reshape the wealth distribution profile of the network, the stakes in the one or more wallets undergo "coin fission," and each stake blasts a calculated sum of coin out into the community to be received however the devs have arranged it. The dynamics of any coin's fission rules can be customized and finely tuned.

And importantly, stakeholders can reasonably predict the consequences of holding a fissile coin, because the terms and criteria are published; however, stakeholders can never predict the precise timing and exact cost of any one fission event (so they cant avoid it). Thus they must acquiesce to the "stake tax" when investing in the coin or they must go find another coin to parasitize.  Still, in a fissile coin, the largest stakeholders do gain enough steady growth overall to compensate and reward them for remaining dominantly invested in the coin.  

My vision of Fission is that it tickles the big wallets more than it mauls them.

Thus, the above concept is a suggestion for implementing a "coin fiission" algo that might save us from the current doldrums of the "gotto go PoS" days of altcoins, where the imperfect infrastructure of the digital economy is selecting strongly for PoS algos even though we may be better off without much PoS.  

The proposed Fission algo will operate upon wallet balances that reach a "critical mass," or throughout a network when it starts dying for lack of liquidity due to excessively large stakeholdings (e.g., high coin age).  Fission imposes a size-dependent cost upon the largest and laziest stakeholders and it makes offsetting deposits in other wallets according to variable rules and goals.  This will promote liquidity in PoS and will smooth out the rough edges of wealth-concentration patterns that would otherwise characterize a mature PoS network.  


Got it?  Great.  Have a beta version in my inbox by tomorrow...

Your comments and criticisms are most welcome...

How about this idea: a "Fission" algo that erodes the largest stakes in a PoS network and inflates all (or maybe only some) of the other active wallets on the network

This is an idea I just discussed on the Quark Forum where they are contemplating a fork to PoS. The following is a paste from my original comment at https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7052800.  Whichever post gets the first reply, let that be the genesis block...


[Quote:]

What is needed is an algo which will assess a penalty (a drain) against any wallets holding excessively large stakes in the coin. This algo would constantly evaluate and be aware of wealth distribution on the whole network based upon activity recorded in the block chain (pseudo-anonymously).  When the size or advantage of a wallet, or a quorum of wallets, or a "neighborhood" of wallets, reaches a certain threshold or relational structure, then the algo will trigger the "fission" of the coin balance (a small fraction of it) to occur in the designated penalty wallet(s), while the network makes corresponding microdeposits in another designated set of wallets, the beneficiary wallets.

A Fission event may (A) create new coin and/or (B) deduct existing coin.  A Fission event occurs, for example, when one or more stakes becomes "too big," or an oligarchy of stakes becomes too entrenched.  Fission causes the dispersal of coin from the big stake(s) into and among wallets deemed worthy of being beneficiaries.  That opens a wide door, doesn't it?

Fission may accomplish wealth redistribution, or not.  Its up to the devs and the market to decide which fission regimes are the best.  

My preference is to have fission deduct from top stakes and drizzle the harvest into every other wallet on the network in statistically-defined patterns and portions.  

This "fallout" or dust caused by fission can be distributed randomly in all wallets or apportioned methodically into the appropriate beneficiary wallets.  Different coin developers can compete with different coins defining different ways to determine which "standards" and wallets are "appropriate."  It would open up a whole new generation of PoS coins.  

To sum up: In the proposed "fission" mechanism, whenever the algo determines that a critical mass exists in one or more wallets, or that the time has come to forceably reshape the wealth distribution profile of the network, the stakes in the one or more wallets undergo "coin fission," and each stake blasts a calculated sum of coin out into the community to be received however the devs have arranged it. The dynamics of any coin's fission rules can be customized and finely tuned.

And importantly, stakeholders can reasonably predict the consequences of holding a fissile coin, because the terms and criteria are published; however, stakeholders can never predict the precise timing and exact cost of any one fission event (so they cant avoid it). Thus they must acquiesce to the "stake tax" when investing in the coin or they must go find another coin to parasitize.  Still, in a fissile coin, the largest stakeholders do gain enough steady growth overall to compensate and reward them for remaining dominantly invested in the coin.  

My vision of Fission is that it tickles the big wallets more than it mauls them.

Thus, the above concept is a suggestion for implementing a "coin fiission" algo that might save us from the current doldrums of the "gotto go PoS" days of altcoins, where the imperfect infrastructure of the digital economy is selecting strongly for PoS algos even though we may be better off without much PoS.  

The proposed Fission algo will operate upon wallet balances that reach a "critical mass," or throughout a network when it starts dying for lack of liquidity due to excessively large stakeholdings (e.g., high coin age).  Fission imposes a size-dependent cost upon the largest and laziest stakeholders and it makes offsetting deposits in other wallets according to variable rules and goals.  This will promote liquidity in PoS and will smooth out the rough edges of wealth-concentration patterns that would otherwise characterize a mature PoS network.  


Got it?  Great.  Have a beta version in my inbox by tomorrow...

Your comments and criticisms are most welcome...

You have a silent fundraiser with your buddies, award yourselves all the shares

When I said counterparty equivalent I meant something with a fair distribution. If you see all the next generation projects you find the underlying theme, greed of the developers. I think developers should be greedy but they shouldn't be dishonest and try to claim they are not. NXT, MSC, Ripple, Ethereum has all shown this tendency and Bitshares is following the same path.

You all awarded awarded yourselves all the Bitshares X 2-3 months back even though there is nothing there even now. Why would you do that, except to maximise your share? You have a silent fundraiser with your buddies, award yourselves all the shares and now say keep donating to us in the hope that some others will honour it and you will get something.

I don't know if you all seriously believe in what you seeing. It would be difficult for you to realise the con your developers are pulling out because you all will profit a lot from it. You all are doing your part now by trying to promote now. In the past few weeks I have heard quite a bit about this DPOS, and it seems thats because you now need others to know to increased demand.


clones/copies which aim for a fair distribution and don't aim to award themselves everything with an underhanded distribution will be a good investment. I am not saying there will definitely be a counterparty equivalent, but I will be fully behind one if it happens.

As I said, good luck with your project. It is very innovative and has the potential to show a viable alternative to the cartel which is ruining Bitcoin. Its just sad that you all fell into the same greed trap.

When I said counterparty equivalent I meant something with a fair distribution. If you see all the next generation projects you find the underlying theme, greed of the developers. I think developers should be greedy but they shouldn't be dishonest and try to claim they are not. NXT, MSC, Ripple, Ethereum has all shown this tendency and Bitshares is following the same path.

How is counterparty more fair? Because it used proof of burn? That doesn't make anything about their crowd funding model more fair that just means that the developers can't use any of that money to help with development. How is the bitshares fundraiser not the most fair? It was announce well in advance and the duration of the fundraiser is longer than any other to date. You can mine pts, you can buy pts, you can donate btc, you can donate pts. There are so many ways to get an allocation in the snapshot. And as previously mentioned the daily allocation of 10,000 allows smaller players to accumulate more stake than they might otherwise.

You all awarded awarded yourselves all the Bitshares X 2-3 months back even though there is nothing there even now. Why would you do that, except to maximise your share? You have a silent fundraiser with your buddies, award yourselves all the shares and now say keep donating to us in the hope that some others will honour it and you will get something.

Bitshares X is a year in the making. There have been several posts here at bitcointalk regarding the Feb 28th snapshot for Bitshares X. Its not a silent fundraiser simply because you did not take the time to look into bitshares. Bitsharestalk.org is the second most active forum only after bitcointalk.org. Theres a huge community of supporters and it continues to grow.  

I don't know if you all seriously believe in what you seeing. It would be difficult for you to realise the con your developers are pulling out because you all will profit a lot from it. You all are doing your part now by trying to promote now. In the past few weeks I have heard quite a bit about this DPOS, and it seems thats because you now need others to know to increased demand.

In the past few weeks you should have heard quite a bit about DPOS its revolutionary and the concept only came out about a month ago. The reason for the delay in the bitshares x software is largely due to the newly found realization of how to secure the block chain at the lowest cost.

I think you will find that clones/copies that try to cut out the people that made this happen will not be a good investment.
Let me know if you have questions.

   

Finally the real reason for all the sudden interest comes out. You and your group awarded all to yourselves and are now promoting it. I don't know whether you really believe what you wrote in that post is it part of the act.

I don't think you developers should work for free, but you should be honest. If you want to award even 50%, state that clearly and others will still support. Trying to keep it hidden, awarding yourselves all and claiming it was fair later on won't fool us here. We have seen enough to spot when it happens. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised as Bitshares are closely linked to the Ethereum group who even with all their advertising efforts couldn't fool the community with their IPO.

Good luck with your project. Its very interesting and anything which can emerge as an alternative to the cartel has my support. I will just wait for a Counterparty equivalent of your project.

Finally the real reason for all the sudden interest comes out. You and your group awarded all to yourselves and are now promoting it. I don't know whether you really believe what you wrote in that post is it part of the act.

I don't think you developers should work for free, but you should be honest. If you want to award even 50%, state that clearly and others will still support. Trying to keep it hidden, awarding yourselves all and claiming it was fair later on won't fool us here. We have seen enough to spot when it happens. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised as Bitshares are closely linked to the Ethereum group who even with all their advertising efforts couldn't fool the community with their IPO.

Good luck with your project. Its very interesting and anything which can emerge as an alternative to the cartel has my support. I will just wait for a Counterparty equivalent of your project.

Finally the real reason for all the sudden interest comes out. You and your group awarded all to yourselves and are now promoting it. I don't know whether you really believe what you wrote in that post is it part of the act.

I don't think you developers should work for free, but you should be honest. If you want to award even 50%, state that clearly and others will still support. Trying to keep it hidden, awarding yourselves all and claiming it was fair later on won't fool us here. We have seen enough to spot when it happens. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised as Bitshares are closely linked to the Ethereum group who even with all their advertising efforts couldn't fool the community with their IPO.

Good luck with your project. Its very interesting and anything which can emerge as an alternative to the cartel has my support. I will just wait for a Counterparty equivalent of your project.