Quote from: sidhujag on September 29, 2015, 05:09:41 AM

Quote from: DecentralizeEconomics on September 29, 2015, 04:59:03 AM

Quote from: sidhujag on September 28, 2015, 10:56:49 PM

Im trying to be helpful to the dev team by saying to look into bts as the backbone for the network, and this thing keeps interrupting with long quotes trying to fill up the thread with false nonsensical information and calling people communists, so I'm not sure ask the thing.

It's not "nonsensical" if it's accurate. Stan and Dan Larimer are a bunch of wealth redistributers (into their own pockets). Now whether you want to call that "communism". "corporate fascism", or an "outright scam" is up to you.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,17354.0.html

Quote

I may also seize brownie points from any account if you fall out of favor and anyone who complains in any way about how Brownie Points are issued or how I use Brownie Points is certainly not in my favor and may lose any Brownie Points they have earned. -Bytemaster, Dan Larimer

Quote from: fartbags on September 28, 2015, 11:15:39 PM

The Synereo dev team said they have no money. They are already going with Ethereum. @leithaus received a $10,000 EthDEV grant to develop for Ethereum. From what I can find out, Synereo will use the PoS code that Greg Meredith is developing for Ethereum. He is a smart guy who will make the code re-usable, allowing it to be a bridge.

I like the plan above better than BTS with how BTS works right now today. You should definitely read the BTS code and see how it works if you're planning on making something better. I would recommend @leithaus looks at that code. From what I know about BTS, it's centralized like FACTOMs mining. You need to be voted in to be a miner for BTS.

It's my understanding that they have enough funds to release a basic social networking application, but then will require an additional round of funding which would be procured through the sale of AMPs to a VC.

The BTS delegate system is easily rigged through strategic voting (see above post). It's my opinion that it was intentionally designed in such a way so Stan, Dan and a select group of manipulators can effectively control which delegates get elected, thus controlling the chain. Why else would you choose "approval voting" as the delegate selection mechanism?

More lies. brownie pts have nothing to do with delegate voting. its a UIA and the owner can do as they please, similar to synereo on bts chain. i guess you would have a problem with synereo controlling the supply of their asset aswell.

In the end the delegate mechanism is an innovation that will enable many applications for social media that are not possible with non dpos chains.

I'm not lying. I never said brownie pts and delegate voting were the same thing. I'll break it down for you:

1 - My problem with "brownie pts" is that Stan and Dan are allowing them to be sold and sharedropping to them while at the same time retaining the ability to seize them out of people's accounts. How can that even be considered a "crypto"?

2 - My problem with delegate voting is that they use "approval voting" which allows a very small amount of shareholders to effectively rig the delegate elections. See my above post for an example. Here's a link that explains how approval voting is unworkable in contested elections.