Quote from: FandangledGizmo on January 07, 2015, 08:46:08 AM

Quote from: DecentralizeEconomics on January 06, 2015, 09:26:20 PM

Quote from: FandangledGizmo on January 06, 2015, 10:50:29 AM

You argue that 101 delegates is not decentralised enough but also argue that it's hard to individually vet delegates as unique. This process gets harder for the collective the more delegates you have. In a 500 delegate system it would be easier to get 251 fake delegates in place because the average shareholder simply couldn't process that many. With 101 we know who the majority are and at this stage are sometimes more happy with a high reputation, high trust individual having two positions. Over time the 101 number could change depending on what the free market deems optimal. I can't say it's immune from attack ever but it's the best decentralised system by far out there atm imo.

I argue that it's IMPOSSIBLE to individually vet delegates as unique IN BITSHARES because DPOS is vulnerable to SYBIL ATTACKS. This is not true for Bitcoin or NXT because you either have to own the hashpower or the stake. The ownership of the hashpower or stake is what provides the resiliency against sybil attacks in these two systems.

Bitshares DPOS is NOT "the best decentralized system by far out there". This is an OUTRAGEOUS statement. You are either misinformed or being disingenuous. Are you going to try to convince everyone that limiting forgers is in the best interest of decentralization? NXT's PoS system DOES NOT LIMIT FORGERS! There are over 101 forgers securing the NXT blockchain.

Quote from: FandangledGizmo on January 06, 2015, 10:50:29 AM

Your last point about it being a communist system is wrong. Whereas Bitcoin's distribution makes miners money, our distribution will be spent on developing & marketing BitShares. Imagine if the $500 million spent on miners a year was spent on developing & marketing Bitcoin. I think it's a tragedy that some of the best Bitcoin developers have to worry about making rent. Our maximum dilution is much lower than Bitcoin and I expect shareholders will keep it much, much lower in practice.

Bitshares is imposing a TAX which redistributes wealth from currency holders to businesses. This is the very definition of Communism / Crony Capitalism. Being a NXT stakeholder, I would be upset if my stake was subject to a TAX imposed AGAINST MY FREE WILL to fund businesses in which I have NO INTEREST!

Quote from: StanLarimer on January 06, 2015, 04:37:03 PM

My favorite way to look at it is that BitShares are shares in a company just like Bitcoin are shares in a company. (Just because I called Bitcoin a company in the classic article that introduced the concept of a Decentralized Autonomous Company (DAC) -- http://letstalkbitcoin.com/bitcoin-and-the-three-laws-of-robotics/ doesn't suddenly make Bitcoin subject to securities laws.)

The fact of the matter is that Bitcoin and NXT are NOT shares in a company. They are decentralized systems which have no incorporated entity behind them. They are simply a token which are used between like-minded individuals.

Bitshares(TM) is a corporation based in the United States dealing, as you say, in "products" such as "currency and commodity derivatives" and "trading services". From your explanation it seems that Bitshares is a trademarked "COMPANY, NOT A CURRENCY" selling "shares" that attempts to pass itself off as a currency to avoid US security regulations.

Quote from: StanLarimer on January 06, 2015, 05:27:11 PM

I spent a long time answering each of these questions in great detail further above.

Actually, you didn't answer all of these questions.

Quote from: StanLarimer on January 06, 2015, 05:27:11 PM

Since 101 delegates is just an arbitrary number that could have been 50 or 150, the fact that the number of independent delegates might vary if shareholders allow it is not a big deal. To become a delegate, you really have to work to convince people to vote for you. You have to develop a reputation. You can destroy that reputation in 10 seconds by misbehaving - because everyone can see what you are doing. We all instantly know if you signed a bad block - and we know who did it.

That's the big difference. We know who did it.

From this statement, I am going to assume you believe multiple delegates being controlled by one individual, which is the very definition of a Sybil attack, isn't an issue.

Can you please explain then why Bitshares needs any type of consensus mechanism at all? I assume you know the purpose of all consensus mechanisms is to prevent Sybil attacks.

Quote from: StanLarimer on January 06, 2015, 05:27:11 PM

With BitShares, a misbehaving delegate is instantly flagged to all shareholders who immediately wake up, vote him out, and go back to sleep. It only takes one person paying attention to raise the alarm. Then it takes several more trusted experts to verify the problem and post their opinion. Then the rank and file owners respond and the problem is gone. You can't do that with Bitcoin without inciting a damaging fork war - at huge cost to enforce any discipline at all.

How can you be SURE that you eliminate all delegates controlled by the misbehaving individual even if some of their delegates don't misbehave?

Can you please prove for all parties that this attack on your consensus mechanism, referenced to on YOUR FORUM at https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10937.0;all, has been thwarted and that this individual no longer controls a delegate? Please provide verifiable blockchain proof.

You didn't answer these questions:

1 - How is DPoS an "improved" version of PoS seeing that it is clearly a more centralized consensus mechanism?
2 - How does Bitshares rationalize that it is "decentralized" when it is susceptible to and previously undergone a Sybil attack, where actually, Bytemaster voted ONE person into FIVE delegate positions?

Doesn't NXT have leased forging? Where you delegate your forging power to a pool? So power like Bitcoin ends up being centralised around a handful of pools?
What % of active NXT do a few of them control at any given time?
How many of the pools are properly vetted?

I haven't looked at NXT for a while, so please explain if it works differently.

We can also vote for delegates with no/low dilution to the point that BitShares would be no inflation and profitable. BitShares holders instead currently vote for circa 1% annual inflation to fund development, infrastructure and marketing. http://bitsharesblocks.com/delegates

Personally I like no dilution crypto-currency, but I can't see BitShares not growing very big very quickly by being able to fund itself at the early stage whereas other options seem pretty stagnant with no/low marketing and infrastructure development.

Yes, NXT has leased forging, but as I mentioned in this thread, NXT does not force it upon its stakeholders. There are greater than 101 forgers securing NXT's chain. NXT's pools are just as "vetted" as Bitshares' delegates. A main difference would be NXT doesn't charge ~$1100 to pool operators.

Quote

Now the Bitshares' cheerleaders will tell you, "What does it matter if the delegates are the same person?" Surely, they jest. The ENTIRE REASON behind ALL consensus mechanisms is to prevent SYBIL ATTACKS! PoW does this with hashpower. PoS does this with stake. DPoS claims to be able to do this with "delegates", but this is impossible because multiple delegates can be controlled by one individual. Some of you might say, well, with NXT's PoS, you can lease your forging power isn't that the same thing? The difference is this. NXT doesn't force the social construct onto the chain. You DON'T have to lease your forging power to anyone! There is NO reason to lease your forging power to anyone unless you want to receive the tx fees you earn on a more consistent basis at the cost of paying the forging pool operator a fee. Leasing in NXT was created so you could lease your stake to YOURSELF and keep your main account offline. Therefore allowing you to protect the network and not keep your main account open on your computer.