Pre-empt Stans next post: he is still assuming today's distributions are fixed and will never improve
For a fair comparison of his model, he should be using Ripple as his 'vs'. I said previously that distributed models are quicker at achieving consensus as they have a fixed number of nodes to consult, rather then a constantly changing x number that occur in decentralised systems. Last I heard, Ripple have 15 second confirmations. Bytemaster should know this is he truly was "objective as possible", his blog has turned into a hate campaign against Nxt with no right of reply. Comments would allow readers to judge the true value of what he is saying. He also writes as though he has found a big secret..
I can assure you there is not a shred of hate directed against NXT or any other crypto tribe. We want NXT to succeed.
Truth is, we hardly ever think about other tribes except to try to be somewhat informed when interviewers ask us about some point of comparison (or to see what we can learn from them - imitation is the sincerest form of flattery). It is entirely possible that improvements have been made since we last checked in. Discussions like this help us find that out.
The only reason I am even engaged in this conversation at all is for the purpose of explaining that BitShares is exploring a different design space, with different design criteria, and a different set of optimization parameters. And that our design is valid and competitive. Our long term goals go far beyond the current functionality and many of our design decisions are made with that in mind. Without an understanding of that vision and roadmap, we can understand why some of our decisions are not yet well understood. But those who have taken the time to gaze down that road with Bytemaster are truly inspired. Look at the scope of topics at
Bytemaster.BitShares.org and you'll begin to get the idea. He's not making any big secret about it.
Your definition of decentralization doesn't need to agree with ours. You are exploring what you can accomplish along that design axis and that's great. We hope it succeeds and have no need to argue about it except in self-defense.
My campaign is simply this - use the opportunity created by people stirring up controversy to tell our side of the story.
To prove that I am sincere, take a look at this recent article stimulated when Bytemaster and Vitalik were exchanging views on
Our position is clear: we are still in the Cambrian Explosion phase of the crypto-revolution. We need a lot of evolution happening all at once and need lots of species out there mutating. We need continuing recombination of our open source crypto-DNA as the fastest possible path to replacement of the current system's evil dinosaurs. We mammals need to stick together a little while longer!
Some of our ideas about "smart decentralization" we hope will inspire other alternatives to brute force decentralization. We hope that our self-funding model will inspire others to accelerate their development the same way. We hope that our emphasis on building in profitability as a design requirement will point the way to everybody becoming more adapted for survival in whatever ecological niche they have chosen.
So any time we stop to engage with a tribe of fellow-warriors, it is only to share our insights (and defend them if necessary.) We do not need to stay inside the bounds of the current community consensus of opinion. In fact, we aim to break out of it and make new progress on the bleeding edge.
You'll note we never engage in hateful, ad hominum attacks. Every post is aimed only at sharing our ideas. If you find something useful in there you can use, why, you're welcome!
