Perhaps you haven't noticed that changing Bitcoin's protocol is incredibly difficult because it requires convincing 50% of the mining hashrate to do so. In my design, it will require ~100%. That is zero effective politics. People can foam at the mouth but they can't actually change the protocol.

Whereas in Proof-of-Stake coins, the collectivized, centralized control is absolute.

Also I assume you are ignoring the radical distinction in the security model. I will link the chart to our recent epiphany on explaining that distinction.


Monero cleaned up the rough edges of Cryptonote such as getting the wallets correct for the equal denominations for mixing. They were able to bring a polished CN implementation to the market. They focused on doing one thing well. Perhaps Boolberry also accomplished some of those too, but afaik zoid has become unresponsive. Although I say CN is unprovable anonymity, that is not saying it is not anonymous mixing. Tor is unprovable too, yet many people feel it aids their privacy. I claim that Dash is spyware because the anonymity is trusted to masternodes which are an obvious target for the NSA or anyone who can profit on breaking anonymity (e.g. those who want to blackmail you or whatever).

Monero has invented RingCT. That is not trivial cryptography. Even Blockstream folks were involved and impressed. Two months before they completed theirs, I (claim to have) invented a similar system ZKT (Zero Knowledge Transactions) which is based on the theoretically more compact CCT instead of Blockstream's CT. I even claim to have improved CCT to eliminate its weaknesses (e.g. the requirement for the Proof-of-Square). Simultaneously I perfected Satohi's Proof-of-Work, and the details of that are in my thread. That is something that no one else has been able to do.

So yeah, my R & D is above average, especially for only 1 dude. (and I am not even formally trained in the requisite math and cryptography, so I started with a handicap)

Afaics, Dash has invented nothing original but Dunning-Kruger flaws.

Afaics BitShares has introduced inferior systems such as DPOS which suffer from the flawed security model of Proof-of-Stake. They do some reasonably high-level tech (Daniel is smart dude) but afaics their focus has been incorrect. I remain somewhat opened-minded to BitShares, because at least Daniel is smart.

At least the original design for BitUSD failed afaik. Which is what I told him when he was proposing it. As what I remember, many of Daniel's ideas have been not very well thought out. Nevertheless he is a smart dude, so I don't entirely ignore BitShares (unlike Dash which I totally ignored for the past year until they announced Evolution which purports to compete with my design, so then I had to investigate more closely).


They have done a lot of ideas that seem dubious to me. Agree they are very busy and have engineering talent. But they don't seem to have focused talent. They've accomplished somethings, but nothing stands out for me as a big win yet.

If you can point out any feature that is a really a big innovation, I am interested to reconsider my thinking about BitShares?


I corrected the chart. Is it also a SPV wallet? (so I can correct the chart on that point)


I will just point out that my angel investor pointed to the failure of Auroracoin, and I explained to him just now that marketing is very nuanced. And so one key element of a marketing strategy can make all the difference.

Of course I am not going to tell you or anyone else. You'll find out when it is too late to copy it.


You missed the technical epiphany that was revealed in my thread over the past 2 days. I will update the chart to link to that.