Quote from: StanLarimer on January 06, 2015, 04:49:54 AM

Ok, these are legitimate questions which I will try to help with, although I'm just an old retired rocket scientist. We'll probably have to get one of the devs in here to cover the fine points when one of them comes up for air.

Quote from: StanLarimer on January 07, 2015, 01:40:58 AM

I've tried my best to explain it for you, but as I said, I'm just an old retired rocket scientist. I'm sure Bytemaster will do a better job.

Quote from: StanLarimer on January 10, 2015, 07:34:34 PM

A vote for xeldel is a vote for his proposal to hire Stan for the blockchain.

Toast is a developer who runs his own delegate. Guys like xeldel make it possible to hire marketers, celebrities, or old rocket scientists who don't have a clue how to run a delegate.

Quote from: StanLarimer on January 12, 2015, 01:01:59 AM

When the BitShares devs get a little uppity, I love to remind them that what they are doing is not exactly rocket science. Cool

But, while trying to find a way to communicate the architecture of BitShares to folks on other forums, I've stumbled on the following description, drawing on my past experience with continuously reconfiguring fault-tolerant flight control systems. (Yes I wrote a technical report with that title back before there was an Internet or even a word processor.)

Stan, nobody cares. Stop trying to validate your position via the fact that you were a "rocket scientist".

Quote from: StanLarimer on January 12, 2015, 07:47:51 PM

The Secret Truth About Signing Insiders

I'll bet if you look at the Top 101 most frequent block signers for any major block chain you will find that this same group signs over 90%, maybe even 99%, of the chain's blocks inside a typical transaction confirmation window. For all such windows.

For convenience, I'll call the members of this elite group the block chain's signing insiders.

Everyone who is not a signing insider has a tiny fraction of that final 1% chance to sign a block. This gratuitous honor is shared among all the outsiders and has no material effect on the reliability, integrity, or security of the network.

The issue with Bitshares is that you have turned who is a "signing insider", as you call them, into a POLITICAL POSITION with the power to tax the rest of the stakeholders. This political hierarchy that you have created is NOT, as you frequently refer to it, a representative government similar to the republican government of the US. If every stakeholder regardless of their wealth, got ONE VOTE then it would be, but it's not. The Bitshares' "government" is a ruling body with delegates who are the most powerful and influential members of the group. These "insiders" will use all sorts of tactics to stay in power. Bitshares' now has two classes of stakeholders. The "insiders" who receive subsidies and the "outsiders" who are subjected to taxation to pay them. What you have created is a PLUTOCRACY (government of the wealthy). By centralizing the forgers, which is exactly what you are doing whether you want to call it that or not, you are practicing a form of wealth redistribution (aka COMMUNISM!).

In NXT, there isn't a government. Nobody VOTES! No one has the power to levy taxation upon anyone else. NXT is a coalition of stakeholders who secure the chain in proportion to their investment. You can't say that NXT is a plutocracy because the wealthiest NXTers forge the most blocks, because there is NOT A GOVERNMENT! NXT is most similar to separate nation states participating in international trade and forming a joint coalition to protect the trade routes. Yes, different nation states have bigger economies and are wealthier than others, but they protect the international trade routes according to their defense budget (stake).

Quote from: StanLarimer on January 12, 2015, 07:47:51 PM

So it doesn't matter how many outsiders are eligible to sign a block, they have no relevance whatsoever. Their chance to win the signing lottery is a mere placebo, designed to make them feel like they are involved.

I think "voting" with DPoS is "designed to make them feel like they are involved." In a PoS system, THEY ARE ACTUALLY INVOLVED REGARDLESS OF THEIR SIZE!

Quote from: StanLarimer on January 12, 2015, 07:47:51 PM

Only the insiders matter in determining whether any transaction gets confirmed.

No outsider, much less the same outsider, will get honored with another turn in the same confirmation window to weigh in on whether any particular transaction should be confirmed. Thus, all transactions are confirmed by insiders.

True for Bitshares. FALSE FOR NXT!

Quote from: StanLarimer on January 12, 2015, 07:47:51 PM

Outsiders don't matter.
Arguing about how many powerless outsiders your chain has is meaningless.

Wow. This certainly is revealing as to your outlook on "decentralization". Lol

Quote from: StanLarimer on January 12, 2015, 07:47:51 PM

All block chains are completely controlled by their signing insiders.

With Ripple, insiders must appoint new insiders and have economic incentives not to go any where near 101 of them.
With POW systems, you appoint yourself to be an insider by acquiring control of one of the top 101 pools of hardware.
With POS systems, you appoint yourself to be an insider by acquiring control of one of the top 101 pools of coins.

What are you talking about? With Ripple, you participate in consensus if you run a node and others mark you as a trusted validator. With PoW, you participate in consensus if you contribute hashpower. With PoS, you participate in consensus if you own coins and forge. There are not just "101 pools of coins" in PoS.

Quote from: StanLarimer on January 12, 2015, 07:47:51 PM

Only with DPOS do outsiders have any say at all in who gets to be an insider.

Am I to interpret this statement as a declaration of revolution by the proletariat?

Quote from: StanLarimer on January 12, 2015, 07:47:51 PM

So, its your call. Do you want your blocks signed by people who appointed themselves as insiders through their ability to acquire large pools of coins or hardware? Or would you rather have that job done by the people, even very poor people, who have done the work necessary to earn one of the best reputations?

How do you get rid of a bad actor that owns a large pool of hash power or tokens?
Um, You can't.

How do you get rid of a bad actor who just violated the trust she had painstakingly earned?
"Click."

Wink

Oh please, don't use that "meritocracy" argument again. You, I and anyone with half a brain, knows that the type of political system you have implemented is not going to turn into a "meritocracy". Interesting fact, the Communists used to use that same argument!

You act like it is impossible to invalidate the stake of a bad actor in PoS. It's not.