Topic: EOS - Asynchronous Smart Contract Platform - (Dan Larimer of Bitshares/Steem) - page 149. (Read 189738 times)

actually the "Marbles in Jars Example" in your blog is an excellent way of explaining it for us laymen. once the math equations come in my eyes tend to glaze over but a visual representation such as marbles in jars comes right through. im finally understanding some of this stuff which prior to this was just so much noise in my head when reading it.. im a bit dense when it comes to this byzantine fault tolerant stuff so  i appreciate the time spent to simplify it down to my level.

thanks!

this is great i was hping for stuff like that : ).
That will definitely move EOS faster to adoption phase and show what that system can make.

EOS has already said they will be leveraging substantial amounts of amount to invest back into the EOS ecosystem -- start-ups, dapps, etc.

Did anybody understand my blog? I have no feedback from any of you other than 18 upvotes before @chryspano censored it from Steemit’s viewers as explained in my prior post.

Was the math of Byzantine fault tolerant consensus more comprehensible the way I explained it? I had edited what I had from my white paper to make it a bit more explanatory.

---

Thanks for asking. I realize that math result is non-intuitive and difficult for a layman to believe.

See the “Math of liveness & safety” section of my blog. Study the explanation of the math that is quoted from my white paper.

It is because over the overlap of 2 elections for the relative pairing of two blocks, and the fact that there are N delegates who vote yet the quorum size must be T. We then solve for a mathematical relationship between T and N by equating the two expressions, because we have another requirement that the excess of N - T be equal to the aforementioned overlap 2T - N - 1.

The point is that it is the need for the ability to objectively prove the relationship between any pairings of block elections in the case that everything is relative because all actors are untrusted and the network propagation order is indeterminant (which relates back to the oft-cited FLP impossibility theorem which is mentioned in more detail in my yet unpublished white paper). This is why mathematically 33% can halt the blockchain, if we care about there existing an objective consensus (i.e. safety and consistency) and not just an unbounded number of subjective competing forks (i.e. double-spends and chaos). Of course a boastful, overeager FOMO-bag seller like Dan would claim this is incredulous, because Dan is apparently ignorant of the math and does not have his priorities on being expert on the research. I find it incredulous that Block.one raised ~$500 million thus far and apparently can’t even be bothered to hire some researchers to teach them about their technological weaknesses.

It is all in the math. I know it is non-intuitive but this result is from the 1980s (although the way I have derived it and explained the well known result may be my own unique insight). Sheesh and Dan is not even aware of it.

Realize the 33% liveness threshold (where 33% can shutdown the forward progress of the blockchain) only applies for an elected set of delegates and not to proof-of-work.

---

Correcting more technological lies being promulgated by the EOS/DPoS-shills:

https://medium.com/@shelby_78386/most-of-what-you-have-written-has-been-holistically-refuted-in-my-newest-blog-which-i-plan-to-also-747fcb9f3e6b

---

The very important, damning blog was also published to Medium:

https://medium.com/@shelby_78386/consortium-blockchains-e-g-dpos-tendermint-cant-internet-scale-a5785be4969a

Almost good price upward trend..
2.5x from 3 days price. hoping for new all time high

What is the purpose of this very old ICO, is not that a short time is enough to start an ICO?
And I see the results are not too much, whether the project is too complicated so we have to wait a very long time

the analysis in that thread (along with everywhere else, tbh) is suspect 

See Brendan Blumer and Partner, Michael Cao at the EOS Tokyo Meetup on Sunday, Nov. 12th
The Agenda is as follows: (Nov 12th, 2017 in Tokyo, Japan)

11:30 - 12:00Guests Arrive

12:00 - 12:05 Opening Remarks made by the MC

12:05 - 12:30 CEO Brendan Blumer

12:30 - 13:00 Partner Michael Cao

13:00 - 14:00Networking and Refreshments

Unfortunately, i am not from Japan so i can not meet them,
if there are users from Japan interesting to join on there can visit this link
https://t.co/oaJKn8UOPx for more information about it
and don't forget share your experience on there with us on here. Thanks

If we want to know about the EOS price i have found good source of information related with EOS price on telegram
Group for EOS investors and crypto enthusiasts for discussing the latest price speculations and future exchange movements.
We can joint on there https://t.me/EOStraders maybe there are something usefull for making prediction of the price,
so we don't just making speculation about EOS price only.

Someone on Reddit spotted this:




https://github.com/EOSIO/eos/milestone/2


The first EOS testnet is around 4 weeks ahead of schedule and coming in 4,5 weeks. This is the first moment several block producers will start the blockchain to test the software.

Here's the roadmap:


https://github.com/EOSIO/Documentation/blob/master/Roadmap.md


That's good news I would say  .

It seems the EOS price are recovering now though it is not so high as most investors expected, I think maybe the dev team and market team should do something to make the market performance better.

Let’s see what Travis Moore thinks about the prospects of EOS after he reads Shelby Moore’s blog published just now:

https://steemit.com/blockchain/@anonymint/consortium-blockchains-e-g-dpos-and-tendermint-can-t-internet-scale (Archived: http://archive.is/zLuR0)

Alternative link: https://busy.org/blockchain/@anonymint/consortium-blockchains-e-g-dpos-and-tendermint-can-t-internet-scale

The math which proves that Dan is not qualified is in the above blog.

If Travis’ goal is world impact and really wants to invest in decentralization as he claims (if he is really serious about building it out decentralized to 100s of millions of users), then he better not make the mistake Mark Zuckerburg made (which nearly caused him to lose Facebook) and instead invest with my decentralized ledger design instead.

Besides afaik EOS (unlike Steem) has no significant onboarding model. Even Brock admits the goal is all about the size/production of the community that can be onboarded. The tokens are being issued to speculators, not to users. So any apps that want to involve users and tokens (i.e. token gamification), are depending on users to go buy tokens which they will not do (instead EOS expects apps to hodl tokens, delegate their bandwidth to users, and profit on the speculative rise in the value of their hodled tokens). EOS expects the apps to pay for the usage of the blockchain by hodling tokens, yet even though that is dubious enough as is, I also point out in my blog that there is no funding for the websocket servers of an app for example (which was the discussion upthread about the DDoS attack).

Dan is rushing this because he (and apparently Brock Pierce, who is a founding board member of EOS and was founding board member of the 2013 Mastercoin ICO “scam” and who might have shady past) saw a huge $2 billion money grab to go grab asap and the technical and adoption/ecosystem market options are not well thought out.

UPDATE: We have @chryspano a whale-dolphin at Steem abusing the downvoting feature to censor the images and my entire blog post at Steem is now hidden (so much for the power of decentralization when the blockchain is overlorded by whales). Note the busy.org rendering of my blog page is still intact as that site apparently doesn’t enforce Steemit’s whale-controlled censorship.

Also why Travis would get tied up with the probable illegality of the EOS tokens which I explained in detail upthread. I’ll presume Travis is smarter than Dan.

Brock Pierce claims EOS only sold tokens to USA persons, but I documented upthread (and this all archived) that is not the case. Brock also seems to think that 99% of the securities regulation enforcement risk comes from taking funds from USA persons, but I think that is an exaggeration! Afaik, the UK and Canada also have significant securities regulation. Perhaps he means perhaps only the USA has the wherewithal to really fuck you up if they want to. I realize lawyering up and jurisdictional gaming of securities regulation is strategy, but also I think I have documented that the Block.one token sale is about as blatant of a willful attempt to violate securities regulation that I have analysed. Including massive misrepresentation of material facts, which is thus the fraud element the SEC needs to further motivate them. No need to repeat my analysis which is already upthread. I suppose Brock Pierce is very well connected in venture capital and investment banking circles (he mentioned in another video being friends with Goldman Sachs, so I have my suspicions that the regulators are being bought behind the curtain, which is perhaps maybe why you need to grab $2 billion). Note I think the entire securities regulation game is a corruptible mess that needs to be disrupted/disintermediated anyway, so I’m not relying on the SEC to aid my competition against Dan and EOS. I’m just saying whoever partners with Dan’s centralized Rube Goldberg shit, is going to get their butts kicked in the free market by decentralized Internet scalable designs and projects which scale more bottom-up, virally, and not top-down overlording as per the DPoS/EOS/Steem (aka @dantheman) model.

But why would developers want to put their entire future life at risk of going to jail if they do not need to? As I said, afaics the incentives for developers on EOS’ are not good. You have Block.one with $2 billion in capital, so they are going to dole it out to developers and basically pick the winners and losers instead of the free market. Has my blog post linked above not demonstrated that these dudes are far from being sufficiently omniscient and technologically astute. The truly ironic reality is that the best developers work not mostly just for money but because they want to impact the world, thus they will favor decentralization over top-down scams. And the irony will likely be that developers who approach Block.one will be scamming Block.one to get a slice of the $2 billion. Satan operates this way. Block.one scams the greater fool speculators, then the developers of apps will scam the greater fools at Block.one

Why would an independent development group go work to build the other guy’s token, when you can make your own? This is why there’s very few expert developers available for hire in our ecosystem. You’d only join EOS because you’d been fooled by some ideological+technobabble BS or you’re not very capable, i.e. you’re better at scamming than creating something to impact the world, or because you presume no other option will have sufficient economies-of-scale or that all the momentum will go to EOS (the latter of which I think would be an incorrect analysis).

Another potential problem with taking an uncapped amount of fundraising over a year’s time, is that it’s possible in some cases to deplete the market of future buyers of the token. EOS will have to end being a Top 5 market cap in our sector and possibly even necessary to onboard new capital from outside our existing speculator ecosystem, because they will have taken $2 billion of out our ecosystem in the ICO.

Excellent news lifting EOS price back above $1.  Hope it can hold above $1. If they can deliver on time, price
should go to $10 by end of 2018.

What you think: will there be another good buying opportunity (~0.5x$) before June 1 '18? I think so... the time is long and there are many scenarios in which EOS in particular or ALL Alts/Coins gonna drop significantly...

Told You ... , go go go ...

50k per second is a bold promise  

let's do some calculations:

if we have 100 mbit/sec internet connection then (100 000 000/50 000)/8 = 250 bytes per transaction

so to get 50k /sec rate each transaction have to be 250 bytes or less - is it enogh? maybe, I don know

but in real life there are not much people with full 100 Mbit connection so I think 5-10k is also very good result but 50k looks unreachable

https://medium.com/@eosforumorg/eos-development-ahead-of-schedule-92dba5958535


Enjoy!@!

[EOS]s listed at Livecoin.net Exchange and available for trading.

EOS/BTC: https://www.livecoin.net/en/trade/index?currencyPair=EOS%2FBTC

EOS/ETH: https://www.livecoin.net/en/trade/index?currencyPair=EOS%2FETH
EOS/USD: https://www.livecoin.net/en/trade/index?currencyPair=EOS%2FUSD

I jumped in EOS during its first 5 days, If I remember; that was roughly around $1/token at that time...
I believe in this platform & its brilliant features so I'll be holding till the end to see how things go....

My opinion about recent price pump - it's a pure manipulation. I believe in future of this project, but as I feel what's going on around, this spring-summer ICO rush, when freebie ETH and other mined coins were invested into new projects has ended. Now is the time when people invest their own real money, this is why it's so hard to attract even $10M with ICO. The fact that long forgotten (in terms of ICO) EOS still gets more than $1M each day means to me that they're reinvesting coins collected during July-August to support interest and attract new money in their ICO.

Recent pump looks to me nothing more than just a manipulation. They just said "hey, we're still alive! come again and bring more coins!".
Supposing this pump was artifical, I'd wait till they let the price go down.