Topic: The state of crypto - The only serious thread on the subforum - page 9. (Read 19483 times)

So what has exactly happened to the Bitshares price? I thought the Bitshares will be at the moon surely at this moment, at least the OP made it sound like that. He was very confident about it nevertheless.

I got into the Bitshares at 1800 satoshis, just after a launch. Rode up with them all the way to 9000 satoshis and sold everything between 5000-6000 when they started falling as a rock from 9000. I lived through the whole PTS - BTSX merger. There hasn't be a working wallet for over a year for this coin. And the new BTS wallet (not BTSX) is late about 9 months.

To sum up, for someone to come and to claim how BTS is going to the moon and has bigger volume than Ethereum, the OP is at least to say very cocky!

Lol at DE the NXt troll trying so very hard yet failing lol

Leave it alone decentralized exchange troll nxt marketcap is now falling lower because market is beginning to see thru bs like you.

One thing that stands out is your ego.

Honestly I am giving you my observation. You remind me of RealSolid (dev of solid coin) back in the day.

He would talk so highly of himself and amounted to nothing.

Perhaps instead of building yourself up, be humble and release your project when it is done and stop with the unnecessary ego pumping.

You also can't (at the moment) prove them to be false.

We are still waiting. 

http://cryptorials.io/glossary/delegated-proof-of-stake/
https://bitshares.org/technology/delegated-proof-of-stake-consensus/

Well, well now I see I have the only consensus design that is not a PoS (Piece of Shit), Satoshi's design included.

I take the best from Satoshi and fix it all the way it should have been.

'Nuff said. I need to implement, so I can publish. Sooner the better.

I am so sleepy, been here discussing for entire afternoon and night and now it is 11am again. Zzzzzz....

My white paper will be the first to show the above are false assumptions.

I am telling you I am going to shock the world.

I don't do small things. I rock the Titanic.

Call this hype without details. Fine. But I can't let you write fallacious statements without pointing them out.

It's hard to take your post seriously when your entire account is devoted to shilling for NXT and fanatical stalking of Bitshares devs.  Anyone that read the original post can tell that instead of improving upon PoW, standard proof of stake brings in so many new problems and dead ends, you would probably be better off using Bitcoin, fiat notes, or bartering with random objects from your house instead.  If you're going to claim DPoS can't work while shilling for NXT, you're at least obligated to explain how the mess of a system known as standard proof of stake outlined in the original post is supposed to function on a globale scale.  I just don't see it working at all.

Having said that, most people know that Bitshares is going to have elements of the Roman senate, maybe people will even stab or murder each other eventually.  It will be great for Coindesk news.  It's also going to have elements of corporate fascism, as corporate entites attempt to gain control of a disproportionate number of nodes.  If the ownership of publicly operated delegates seems fishy to you, you can simply stop using the system.  If they're operating nodes on the system, they probably have assets on the system, and will most likely be hurting themselves doing this.  

This is like if you see two Bitcoin PoW pools in China that combine to make up 70% of the hash rate but are owned by the same guy or brothers, you might stop using BTC.  The Satoshi system is obviously not sybil resistant in this case.  The incentives to not do this are basically the same in both systems, but it can still happen.   There will always be politics you can't escape from in the real world that you have to audit yourself.

The purpose of DPoS is kind of to engineer the way these systems play out from start to finish in a defined manner where the likelihood of things like sybil are minimized, or force them to be visible for you to audit.  If you're uncomfortable with the delegate ownership or coin ownership, you should simply not use the platform.  It's no different than manually measuring the different real world metrics of Bitcoin like hash rate to see if it's distributed.  Also like having to manually audit standard proof of stake wealth to figure out if one guy owns 90% of coins, except he could have them in separate accounts, so it's not even possible to do.  Woops, sybil attacked again on 3 different consensus mechanisms.  At least on both DPoS and PoW you had a chance of manually auditing it yourself to find out and prevent it.

Let's take this to the real end game though.  What happens if Bitcoin becomes the world reserve currency?  Do you really believe each nation that already has treaties with each other is going to sit there blowing megatons of coal, hashing away for no reason with basically the only benefit being the preventionion of keynesianism?  At this point, they would all just integrate into a delegate system like DPoS organically.  Things like DPoS are designed to go global, the others are not.

PoW is dead on so many levels it's not even funny, unless you see cryptocurrency always maintaining a tiny market cap and powering things like the Silk Road.  Standard proof of stake is far more sketchy than DPoS, so this leaves you with very limited currently existing options.

This is why being able to objectively filter 25 - 33% selfish mining attacks and 51% attacks is so critical. Satoshi's design can not do it. Mine can.

With that key improvement, then one can change the way mining is done so that those who are sending transactions are doing the mining, but they don't care about their profitability so then you drastically reduce the electricity used, yet simultaneously make it uneconomic to run an ASIC farm. And pools become irrelevant because no one is mining for profit, rather because they must mine to send a transaction.

So then you have the unbounded entropy of proof-of-work that insures its model of security and game theory, without any of the drawbacks.

TADA.  

DPoS is not decentralized.  Here is why:

Excuse me. Please leave the name calling at the door. I'm not a troll.

I am a genuinely interested user here asking legitimate questions.


To answer you,

Pool mining is built upon the protocol not making it the same as the underlying system.

My point being that bitcoin could survive without pool mining. Pool mining is not a requirement for bitcoin to be useful.

Once again please leave the name calling at the door as I am honestly genuinely interested.

Just because I ask questions does not automatically make me a troll.

What do you think pool mining is?  

First we have litecoin trolls, now semantic trolls.

Did you even look up the word delegated?

It does require trust in order to delegate. Not sure how you have a delegated transaction consensus without trust.

Otherwise, why delegate in the first place?

Or is that just a word you use to put there not actually wanting to have it carry its meaning behind it?

Not trying to get into a silly argument.

You called your system "delegated" yet there it is trustless. As far as I am aware in order to delegate you need to have a central point to delegate from and trust those who you are delegating to.

Otherwise why call it delegated? Poor word choice perhaps?

True. He clearly left an unfinished development for reasons unknown.

Guns and bullets are not the same, but they don't preclude working together. If your point is that delegation does not necessarily imply decentralization, then so what. Satoshi's white paper Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System doesn't have the word decentralized in the name. The title of my white paper emphasizes the key feature of the design. That omission of word in the title doesn't insinuate that it isn't decentralized nor trustless.

Come on I don't want to get into silly tit'for'tat noise.


Very well stated. Thanks. I am not too clear yet on the DPoS design and its tradeoffs. I will look into it.

Satoshi created Bitcoin as a proof of concept and didn't actually engineer any of the end game variables in his system.  The result did not lead to decentralization.  If it wasn't proof of concept, it would have been engineered a specific way from start to finish, but it wasn't, there's far too many loose ends and unaccounted variables.  It's unknown if he was even adamant on forcing the system to run on PoW forever.  He seems like a relatively smart person, so I kind of doubt he would purposely engineer a system to consume something like one fourth the world's power if it became world reserve currency on purpose.  At that point, it would be the equivalent of designing the system to create nanorobots that turn every atom on the planet into paperclips.

I've seen Gavin quotes talking about porting Bitcoin to some form of PoS system in the future (not standard Sunny King PoS), so other people seem to agree on that point, that everything is entirely open ended, it's all proof of concept, and nothing is set in stone.  Decentralized is an ambigious term that means nothing.  Even Kelsey, "the Litecoin troll", acknowledged this.

Trying to claim a system like DPoS isn't decentralized and saying PoW Bitcoin is, is the biggest red herring in the room.  It's trading one set of pros and cons for another, then you weigh what you gained and what you lost and find the winner.  If Bitcoin's current implementation with PoW was buzz word "decentralized", then it would have never hit 50% or more hash rate at Ghash, and Peter Todd wouldn't have sold half his Bitcoin when it happened:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/281ftd/why_i_just_sold_50_of_my_bitcoins_ghashio/

If Bitcoin PoW was "decentralized", then China wouldn't currently control Bitcoin with an iron grip, having 70% of the hash rate in one country, mostly run by 3 pools.  Anything you can count on one hand doesn't exactly sound "decentralized" to me.  There's no such thing as decentralized, everything is just pros and cons.  Satoshi is an excellent cryptographer, mediocre engineer, and great bullshit artist.

No one said that it was antithetical. The point is they are not the same.

Delegated....



Either it is actually delegated or you had poor word choice in describing your system.

Question: Is your system trustless?

Nor is it necessarily an antithetical concept. Delegated can be decentralized and effectively as trustless as Satoshi's design is (with some differing assumptions that have differing tradeoffs).

 And that is accomplished (thinning out) by voting with your wallet.

It is why I don't invest in many of the alt coins.