Quote from: thelonecrouton on September 12, 2015, 10:13:54 PM

Quote from: bitcreditscc on September 12, 2015, 06:09:50 PM

Meanwhile, eyes are slowly being opened

Quote from: r0ach on September 04, 2015, 09:37:06 PM

A common complaint of DPoS is that it can't be decentralized because it has the word "delegated" in the title, yet anyone mining with a pool in PoW is doing the exact same thing. Satoshi made the claim of one CPU, one vote, yet you're delegating your vote to the pool owner in PoW pool mining. Some argue you are not delegating in PoW because you can solo mine. While this statement would be technically correct, the miniscule portion of the Bitcoin userbase able to do so makes it functionally infeasible. It's only a question of what percent of the hash rate is being delegated at any given time.

Fun read, albeit not necessarily for all the right reasons. For a moment smooth seemed uncharacteristically semi-rational:

Quote from: smooth on September 05, 2015, 01:19:41 AM

The bigger question behind all this in my mind is whether crypto actually solves any useful problem that anyone cares about. Outside of gold bugs and some anti-Fed zealots no one really cares about "fixed supply" and all that stuff. The existing banking system works pretty well for swipe-your-card-and-pump-gas. Likewise for e-commerce. With Paypal, Swipe, etc. even ordinary people can do convenient payments via the existing banking systems. Where is the compelling use case for crypto coins? I'm not sure it exists

But maintaining a grasp on reality proved too taxing to keep up:

Quote from: smooth on September 11, 2015, 12:32:48 AM

I disagree with this analysis. In analyzing incentives it is often important to have an option to do something even if that option in rarely exercised in practice. For one thing, it puts a cap on the degree of abuse that can be performed by those who can be opted out. Now you can vote out particular delegates in DPoS but you can't opt out of the delegate system, you can only do a "meet the new boss same as the old boss" switch. If the abuses are inherent in the power structure, then replacing Boss Alice with Boss Bob will not fix them.

However, in Bitcoin if the pool system were to be became sufficiently abusive (but it likely won't by the argument in the third sentence of the previous paragraph), miners really could just opt out entirely and solo mine. It would have a cost, but the cost is bounded and even measurable.

Some classic g j higgins in that thread too...

BCR is taking two crucial steps beyond aiming for better and more efficient consensus apparatus though - firstly, separation of distribution from transaction verification, and consequentially, by the method of that separation (bid, buy, back) , funnelling investment directly into the currency itself, instead of orthogonally (at best) into hardware and utility companies.

Quite true,

Bitcoin solved quite a few issues, but it's design as is, is extremely primitive and not in any way suited to today's highly complex financial system. The concepts of supply, control and authority are not even considered by everyday users, that is all technical....when one sees how the world of finance is changing on a global scale , especially corporate and personal finance, one realizes that existing
solutions are ill equipped to deal with the increasingly specific and realtime demands of customers. So we need to have the final product being an easy to use , universally accepted , global/cross platform solution.