Quote from: DecentralizeEconomics on January 07, 2015, 09:31:44 AM

Quote from: testz on January 07, 2015, 01:58:01 AM

Be careful when you use word "communist", it's scary word only in USA, peoples in China, Russia and many other countries still love this word - this turns your post to BitShares propaganda and you to BitShares propagandist.

PS: If you like you can fork BitShares to BitShares Communist Edition where everybody can be delegate and can select pay rate which he needs.

If the word "communism" doesn't horrify you, then replace it with the words "crony capitalism" and you will surely be mortified.

Quote from: StanLarimer on January 07, 2015, 03:15:28 AM

Ha ha, this is great!

I knew that DE had talent, but we couldn't buy a more attention grabbing post. Nice job.

We've also been having lots of fun point-counterpoint interactions with his various identities over here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=913075.msg10065220#msg10065220

You assume incorrectly that I am "Newmine".

Quote from: StanLarimer on January 07, 2015, 05:40:25 AM

The only other things we disagree about are:

It is a currency. (A volatile coin containing an unmanned company that generates non-volitile smart coins, actually.)

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

Of course. BitShares is a company! If the owning stakeholders think that will make them more profitable and grow faster, why can't a company decide to do that?

In the short term, while shares are worth pennies

Remember, BitShares is a company, not a currency. It is a unmanned, decentralized company that produces and trades interest-paying "smart currencies" as its product. So judge it by whether it is a good idea and implementation for a company, not a currency. Then you can get past all the accepted rules that (may or may not) apply to future currencies and see clearly what the investment opportunity truly is here.

Which is it? A company or a currency?

Quote from: StanLarimer on January 07, 2015, 05:40:25 AM

It is decentralized. Much more decentralized than Bitcoin's six major mining companies who control it all.

You cannot prove this because there is no way to verify delegates are independent. You actually assert that an individual controlling multiple delegates is acceptable.

It is not "more decentralized" than NXT.

Quote from: StanLarimer on January 07, 2015, 05:40:25 AM

BitShares has zero central control other than those who lead by reputation and consensus.

Again, this is an assumption. Please provide verifiable blockchain proof. Oh wait... you can't.

Quote from: FandangledGizmo on January 07, 2015, 06:15:03 AM

BitShares is free market capitalism that has given power to the people of their own property

Wrong. Bitshares forces its stakeholders to give their power to delegates. Why would anyone want to hand over the security of their investment to anyone especially ones that are not verifiable to be independent. If you want to give the power back to the people, you allow them to secure their own investment and not force them to delegate it to others. The only logical rational for forcing people to centralize their forging power around delegates is to ensure that the system can be controlled by a select group individuals.

Quote from: FandangledGizmo on January 07, 2015, 06:15:03 AM

I don't want miners to have power over me, they're my coins, give me a vote. Our community would have voted Ghash.io out in a few minutes and not let them get 40%+ control. Ghash.io is what happens when you give up your personal freedom to hashers. (Not that I don't like Bitcoin, but I believe we have better models now.)

Why does the OP think distribution of coins to miners is not re-distribution of wealth but distribution to development, infrastructure and marketing is?

How has the $80 million that Litecoin paid to miners last year helped LiteCoin? - That's a messed up system having no choice but to pay 30% tax a year and getting nothing in return. (In LTC's case miners actually earned more from new coins than LTC is even currently worth.)

You failed to read these critical words:

Quote from: DecentralizeEconomics on January 07, 2015, 01:30:31 AM

The original ideology of Bitcoin

PoW was a different system when the currency holders used their own computers to secure the chain. Now that the chain is mainly secured by profiteers it is no longer operating in the original design and spirit that Satoshi intended.

It's a company/currency hybrid for me. My personal preference from a pure currency POV is a no dilution defined currency like NXT. I don't hold NXT though because it's not very competitive.

For me the reason most alts are stagnant and 1/100 of BTC or less is because they have very limited development, usually down to 1/2 people. They can't hire by consensus.

The BitShares blockchain can hire the best development talent, pay for marketing and grow infrastructure all in a decentralised way by stakeholder consensus. I have more voting power and it's more decentralised than POW pools. I can vote out a Ghash.io. Is DPOS more decentralised than POS?
I think that's what Daniel's latest blog post is about so I'll defer to that.

If NXT is happy with their system, great. I just don't think you can compete on development, marketing or infrastructure with a blockchain that can hire talent by consensus and you're going to really the see the gap widen at a rapid pace these next few months.

If anyone thinks they can add value to BitShares you can make a delegate proposal and get hired by the blockchain... Check it out - https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?board=61.0