Not trying to be anti-cooperative, but it just seems very bureaucratic and thus I see it (opinion) as an incremental improvement from Bitcoin, but (more opinion) not really in the direction I'd feel proud to say I'm a part of.
Good luck with your project, but I'll wait for something easier to use that's fair for everyone.
Re: smartphones - So I guess the poor guys in Africa can only spend the funds and not ever hope to earn any funds.
Topic: What 2.0 Currency will be the most successful? - page 9. (Read 17851 times)
Why can't all of this be automated? Do we really need all these 'people' involved?
This IS all automated. Shareholders are voting for which computers (operated by somebody) will make up the massively redundant distributed processor at any point in time.
Please show me a computer running anywhere in the world that doesn't have somebody somewhere who's responsible to keep it running with up to date software and a paid up power bill.
Voting, Delegating, Witnessing... uggh.. I'm tired already.
Sorry, I just like my money boring and predictable, but I'm (maybe) in the minority as I'm usually too busy with other tasks and don't want to have to keep monitoring my wallet hour-by-hour to be sure my dollar is still worth a dollar.
Why can't all of this be automated? Do we really need all these 'people' involved?
Also seems like only those with beefy hardware will get earnings and fees. What about those with lower end equipment (including smartphones)? Even if they only confirm 1 txn they should get something for contributing work towards securing the ecosystem.
Sorry, I just like my money boring and predictable, but I'm (maybe) in the minority as I'm usually too busy with other tasks and don't want to have to keep monitoring my wallet hour-by-hour to be sure my dollar is still worth a dollar.
Why can't all of this be automated? Do we really need all these 'people' involved?
Also seems like only those with beefy hardware will get earnings and fees. What about those with lower end equipment (including smartphones)? Even if they only confirm 1 txn they should get something for contributing work towards securing the ecosystem.
Get elected and get paid by the system to upgrade your rig to the size nodes required at any point in time.
There is no such thing as people who can't participate. They just have to be trusted by the stakeholders.
BitShares is the system that pays everybody, rich or poor, who is trusted enough to sign our blocks to get the equipment they need.
Read up on the two years of BitShares theory about how to manage decentralization and overcome the natural tendency of all systems to centralize on a few rich miners. Graphene is an industrial grade blockchain and signing blocks on cell phones is not needed for any conceivable reason. It doesn't make system engineering sense. (You still will be able to have a cell phone wallet, but that's a different system function.)
We are making an upgrade to all our incredible new features available for any developer who want's to upgrade her coin to a new platform for essentially free. Hundreds of coins currently listen on coinmarketcap could become state of the art overnight, if we didn't have such sad "not invented here" attitudes.
What happened to the cooperative attitude the crypto community used to have?
These days we seem awfully eager to throw stones through other people's front windows.
Why isn't Mintcoin on the list? I vote MINT 
Voting, Delegating, Witnessing... uggh.. I'm tired already.
Sorry, I just like my money boring and predictable, but I'm (maybe) in the minority as I'm usually too busy with other tasks and don't want to have to keep monitoring my wallet hour-by-hour to be sure my dollar is still worth a dollar.
Why can't all of this be automated? Do we really need all these 'people' involved?
Also seems like only those with beefy hardware will get earnings and fees. What about those with lower end equipment (including smartphones)? Even if they only confirm 1 txn they should get something for contributing work towards securing the ecosystem.
Sorry, I just like my money boring and predictable, but I'm (maybe) in the minority as I'm usually too busy with other tasks and don't want to have to keep monitoring my wallet hour-by-hour to be sure my dollar is still worth a dollar.
Why can't all of this be automated? Do we really need all these 'people' involved?
Also seems like only those with beefy hardware will get earnings and fees. What about those with lower end equipment (including smartphones)? Even if they only confirm 1 txn they should get something for contributing work towards securing the ecosystem.
What happens in the future if some delegates are voted in that have "gimpy hardware".....it croaks and falls flat on its back? :|
That's a strawman that can't happen with the system we will launch next week as explained in the ongoing lab reports at bitsharestalk.org. The network software ensures that "gimpy hardware" is not overtasked until such time as the community votes to turn up the throttle as the load on the network grows and produces the funding needed to pay all delegates to upgrade to the next level of hardware.
The October 13 system runs fast enough to host the total number of transactions needed by all 600+ coinmarketcap blockchains combined. Which is pretty amazing, don't you think?
You're quibbling about how long it will take to iron out the bugs in something we won't need till next year and whether the initial announcement could be misinterpreted in some creative way as a hopeful controversy while ignoring a clear home run effort by the BitShares community.
Fact is, current performance is impressive and we are on a clear path to achieve real time blockchain operation when we need it with no remaining breakthroughs required - only the normal debug activities that all developers encounter in wringing out load balancing issues.
Next year's network software is expected to be buggy at this point it time,
because we've been focusing on the product we want to launch now.
What happens in the future if some delegates are voted in that have "gimpy hardware".....it croaks and falls flat on its back? :|
Then only that specific delegate dies. Probably get voted out fast having 0 uptime.
Now, after your testing over the weekend where the test net died at a mere 1-2% of that claim
Oh please, where does it say 100kTPS on a 1 core CPU? They mentioned it would need something like 32 cores to do that. Some guy named "clayop" in Korea ran a test while Larimers weren't even around that peaked at 3k TPS and some of the delegates running were single core VPS I believe. It's a dumb test because he doesn't even list hardware used or what the bottleneck seen was, etc. They need to make sure nobody is running some gimpy single core VPS before doing any more tests.
100k / 32 = 3.125k tps on a 1 core....it should be attainable using that math, yet it died.
Anyway the issue I believe wasn't CPU but networking, which I've pointed out time and time again either that or disc IO would be a problem....and it is.
Doesn't matter if the Larimers were around or not, its not a dumb test. If you are continuously claiming that your network can support 100k tps sustained "conservatively", it should be able to handle a few 1000 tps peaks without issue regardless of hardware in use, whether the overlords are present or not etc etc
What happens in the future if some delegates are voted in that have "gimpy hardware".....it croaks and falls flat on its back? :|
Now, after your testing over the weekend where the test net died at a mere 1-2% of that claim
Oh please, where does it say 100kTPS on a 1 core CPU? They mentioned it would need something like 32 cores to do that. Some guy named "clayop" in Korea ran a test while Larimers weren't even around that peaked at 3k TPS and some of the delegates running were single core VPS I believe. It's a dumb test because he doesn't even list hardware used or what the bottleneck seen was, etc. They need to make sure nobody is running some gimpy single core VPS before doing any more tests.
Not when your original announcement clearly explains
exactly what you have invented (including its limitations)
and what that implies for the future product line specs
and your testing program is an open book for all to observe progress toward that spec.
exactly what you have invented (including its limitations)
and what that implies for the future product line specs
and your testing program is an open book for all to observe progress toward that spec.
this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBlAVeVFWFM implies very clearly that Bitshares can do 100K TPS "conservatively" in the real world right away. Now Bitshares is saying 100 TPS is the max it can handle in the real world....hoping for soft fork improvements later.
Let's take a step back and focus on the big picture.
We really need a crypto that meets these general conditions:
- 100% decentralized: can not be controlled except by the majority of the public.
- Has a stable price.
- Is secure (supports 2FA), easy (like a credit card) and cheap (nearly free).
- Does not waste energy or resources.
- Is as private as a user wants.
- Fair distribution opportunities - no insider advantage before nor after launch. Everyone is rewarded in proportion for the work performed and the money risked.
- Will have capacity to replace all fiat transactions (sustain 100K TPS) whenever needed.
- Has strong evidence of the above via long-running global test, whitepapers, and code reviews.
Please don't launch a Crypto until you've met these conditions.
My think NXT, Qora and NEM are the best three crypto 2.0 coins out there at the moment. Offering the best tech.
Suit yourselves.
Not when your original announcement clearly explains
exactly what you have invented (including its limitations)
and what that implies for the future product line specs
and your testing program is an open book for all to observe progress toward that spec.
exactly what you have invented (including its limitations)
and what that implies for the future product line specs
and your testing program is an open book for all to observe progress toward that spec.
Have you lost common sense?
It does not matter how much you have "explained" and "think you have invented" - what matters is that you could not live up to that fine document you linked, and now you refuse to admit your were wrong. You must be the only one who can't see that.
Pathetic!
Not when your original announcement clearly explains
exactly what you have invented (including its limitations)
and what that implies for the future product line specs
and your testing program is an open book for all to observe progress toward that spec.
exactly what you have invented (including its limitations)
and what that implies for the future product line specs
and your testing program is an open book for all to observe progress toward that spec.
What your original announcement clearly explains is that you took one important component of the system, tested it in isolation, then applied the result of that test to the system as a whole with a disregard for all other components and parameters.
Our balance calculation code can easily do what it needs to do in a couple of micro-seconds or less, its an important piece of the code and also runs in a single thread. So taking your lead I can go around stating that eMunie can process up to 1M tps and plaster it all over our blurb....problem is, eMunie cant process 1M tps at a single node, and never will.
To put it in a differently, what you are doing is taking a 1litre 4 cylinder car, putting it on axle stands with the wheels in the air, planting the gas and telling everyone its capable of 150mph because the speedometer said so.
Not when your original announcement clearly explains
exactly what you have invented (including its limitations)
and what that implies for the future product line specs
and your testing program is an open book for all to observe progress toward that spec.
exactly what you have invented (including its limitations)
and what that implies for the future product line specs
and your testing program is an open book for all to observe progress toward that spec.
BitShares will launch on schedule with enough throughput to support all current needs plus all of Bitcoin and most altcoins combined (if they wanted to move onto our platform for some fiendishly wise reason).
We are still optimizing the network code, which is not part of the blockchain itself, so that in coming months we can continue to scale up to full design specs of 100,000 TPS without even a hard fork.
The test net is where we are doing this optimization, so when you hear about a test "fail" is has nothing to do with what is launching on October 13. We will have many more such fails on the test net side as we tune up to light speed, but the production blockchain where everybody's funds reside will hum along without breaking a sweat.
We are still optimizing the network code, which is not part of the blockchain itself, so that in coming months we can continue to scale up to full design specs of 100,000 TPS without even a hard fork.
The test net is where we are doing this optimization, so when you hear about a test "fail" is has nothing to do with what is launching on October 13. We will have many more such fails on the test net side as we tune up to light speed, but the production blockchain where everybody's funds reside will hum along without breaking a sweat.
The initial benchmark you made that led to the claims of 100,000 tps was suspect at best.
Now, after your testing over the weekend where the test net died at a mere 1-2% of that claim (as I expected), and resulted in Dan posting a statement detailing that the platform will be limited to just 100 tps, that claim of 100,000 tps is now completely irrelevant.
A lot of your "hype" about BTS2.0 has been based around this 100,000 tps, but its now clear the claim can not be achieved, or anywhere close.
It should be retracted until you have solved some of the issues with networking, and performed open load testing where those claims are at least viable. Continuing to "sell" the platform from this point and stating that claim as fact is immoral IMO.
There is no shame in stating you over estimated the capabilities, in fact it deserves respect if anything.
+1 to Fuserleer.....what BTS are doing is what is known in the car trade as a 'bait and switch' :
You promise absolutely everything to the customer until they until come to the sales lot, then you suddenly 'discover' that the DeLorean you promised them has just been sold/evaporated/stolen by aliens................... and then pressure them to take a nice shiny Toyota instead.
It's a lot easier to sell crap to people when they've already walked in the door.
Where I can buy eMunie?
Yes, BitShares test network has a problems but as I know it's not connected to the peaks of transactions, it's more connected to transactions itselfs, if you interesting about what happened, you can check here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18717.0.html
If not, just read BitShares thread here and you will be updated about all fails and successes of BitShares
You can't buy eMunie yet, they haven't released it and it's still in beta... If everything goes as planned and what transaction times they are boasting are actually true that has some privacy to it, then it will be the most revolutionary new crypto out there besides Monero IMO.
The initial benchmark you made that led to the claims of 100,000 tps was suspect at best.
Now, after your testing over the weekend where the test net died at a mere 1% of that claim (as I expected), and has resulted in Dan posting a statement detailing that the platform will be limited to just 100 tps, that claim of 100,000 tps is now completely irrelevant.
A lot of your "hype" about BTS2.0 has been based around this 100,000 tps, but its now clear the claim can not be achieved, or anywhere close.
It should be redacted until you have solved some of the issues with networking, and performed open load testing where those claims are at least viable. Continuing to "sell" the platform from this point and stating that claim is immoral IMO.
There is no shame in stating you over estimated the capabilities, in fact it deserves respect if anything.
Now, after your testing over the weekend where the test net died at a mere 1% of that claim (as I expected), and has resulted in Dan posting a statement detailing that the platform will be limited to just 100 tps, that claim of 100,000 tps is now completely irrelevant.
A lot of your "hype" about BTS2.0 has been based around this 100,000 tps, but its now clear the claim can not be achieved, or anywhere close.
It should be redacted until you have solved some of the issues with networking, and performed open load testing where those claims are at least viable. Continuing to "sell" the platform from this point and stating that claim is immoral IMO.
There is no shame in stating you over estimated the capabilities, in fact it deserves respect if anything.
Perhaps you published this non-sequitur while I was posting the above?
Everything is as it has always been claimed at bitshares.org since the original announcement.
We have the flux capacitor and are building a Delorian around it.
We will continue to publish the two benchmarks (BitShares vs. Graphene) for all to track progress. Meanwhile, the BitShareholders will vote for how much throughput they want to pay for in the active network which can grow to keep ahead of demand for the foreseeable future.
Meanwhile, Graphene has other application chains beyond BitShares that will also scale at different rates.
BitShares will launch on schedule with enough throughput to support all current needs plus all of Bitcoin and most altcoins combined (if they wanted to move onto our platform for some fiendishly wise reason).
We are still optimizing the network code, which is not part of the blockchain itself, so that in coming months we can continue to scale up to full design specs of 100,000 TPS without even a hard fork.
The test net is where we are doing this optimization, so when you hear about a test "fail" is has nothing to do with what is launching on October 13. We will have many more such fails on the test net side as we tune up to light speed, but the production blockchain where everybody's funds reside will hum along without breaking a sweat.
We are still optimizing the network code, which is not part of the blockchain itself, so that in coming months we can continue to scale up to full design specs of 100,000 TPS without even a hard fork.
The test net is where we are doing this optimization, so when you hear about a test "fail" is has nothing to do with what is launching on October 13. We will have many more such fails on the test net side as we tune up to light speed, but the production blockchain where everybody's funds reside will hum along without breaking a sweat.
The initial benchmark you made that led to the claims of 100,000 tps was suspect at best.
Now, after your testing over the weekend where the test net died at a mere 1-2% of that claim (as I expected), and resulted in Dan posting a statement detailing that the platform will be limited to just 100 tps, that claim of 100,000 tps is now completely irrelevant.
A lot of your "hype" about BTS2.0 has been based around this 100,000 tps, but its now clear the claim can not be achieved, or anywhere close.
It should be retracted until you have solved some of the issues with networking, and performed open load testing where those claims are at least viable. Continuing to "sell" the platform from this point and stating that claim as fact is immoral IMO.
There is no shame in stating you over estimated the capabilities, in fact it deserves respect if anything.
That's the process we are going through on the test net as we develop the network feeders (transaction stream aggregation processors) for increasing levels of performance. The hard part is done and ready for October 13. The other benchmarks you suggest will occur on our test network in the coming months and are only necessary for applications we have yet to announce.
There are two quoted transactions per second numbers: "measured" and "at scale". The 1000 TPS measured right now is limited first by our ability to load it, so we have everybody firing all they have at the test network which is running on ordinary commodity grade processors.
The "at scale" benchmark of 100,000 TPS is based on lab tests of the main non-parallelizable serial thread which also achieved that rate on ordinary commodity grade hardware. However, the initial network will not start out paying for enough parallel front end (ordinary commercial grade) hardware to feed 100,000 transactions into the serial thread until we need it. By that time, the fees that much traffic would generate would easily cover the costs of gradual addition of more transaction stream aggregation processors to keep Graphene's 100,000 TPS serial fire hose fed. (And since any competent person that gets elected to sign blocks (solely based on reputation) will receive sufficient funds directly from system revenues to pay for their hardware at any scale, this can not be said to centralize on wealthy owners of specialized barrier-to-entry hardware farms in any way. Anyone can lease the equipment they need while they remain elected and therefore receiving funds to cover their expenses.)
As it is, the current test system demonstrates that the Oct 13 release will start out with the ability to process the combined transaction rates of every coinmarketcap.com blockchain (including Bitcoin) if they all moved their ledgers onto the BitShares platform (which they, of course, should). This seems like it ought to be all the node hardware BitShares needs to pay for on Day One.
The "at scale" benchmark of 100,000 TPS is based on lab tests of the main non-parallelizable serial thread which also achieved that rate on ordinary commodity grade hardware. However, the initial network will not start out paying for enough parallel front end (ordinary commercial grade) hardware to feed 100,000 transactions into the serial thread until we need it. By that time, the fees that much traffic would generate would easily cover the costs of gradual addition of more transaction stream aggregation processors to keep Graphene's 100,000 TPS serial fire hose fed. (And since any competent person that gets elected to sign blocks (solely based on reputation) will receive sufficient funds directly from system revenues to pay for their hardware at any scale, this can not be said to centralize on wealthy owners of specialized barrier-to-entry hardware farms in any way. Anyone can lease the equipment they need while they remain elected and therefore receiving funds to cover their expenses.)
As it is, the current test system demonstrates that the Oct 13 release will start out with the ability to process the combined transaction rates of every coinmarketcap.com blockchain (including Bitcoin) if they all moved their ledgers onto the BitShares platform (which they, of course, should). This seems like it ought to be all the node hardware BitShares needs to pay for on Day One.
Jump to: