Quote from: jonald_fyookball on December 31, 2014, 07:07:08 PM

Quote from: DecentralizeEconomics on December 31, 2014, 06:43:33 PM

Bitshares has already had a Sybil attack occur earlier this year when it was uncovered that an individual named "sfinder" actually controlled the TOP 5 DELEGATES!

Epic fail. I knew it. Not to mention that even if the delegates are known,
then they become subject to manipulation.

How did they uncover this "sfinder" character?

Epic fail is exactly right. It's disingenuous, in every sense of the word, that the Bitshares' devs continue to lead people to believe that Bitshares is "decentralized" and I quote "Safer than a Swiss bank account!" Obviously, they care more about getting investors' money than protecting it and creating an actual decentralized system.

The Bitshares' devs didn't find "sfinder" on their own accord. Daniel Larimer (aka Bytemaster), the main Bitshares' dev, even voted him into multiple delegate positions. It was some individuals in the Chinese community that found out about his multiple delegate positions.

Quote from: toast on December 31, 2014, 07:39:04 PM

Why is having multiple delegates belong to one person bad?
Or are you saying that 101 is indeed the magic number, and anything less is too centralized? What if we coalesced redundant delegates into single nodes?

I'm going to assume the first question is a joke. I'm saying regardless of how many delegates you have 11, 101 or 1001, DPoS is fundamentally flawed because you geniuses forced a social construct onto chain security which opens you up to Sybil attacks.

Quote from: matt608 on December 31, 2014, 08:00:44 PM

Sfinder was found and voted out successfully.

Are you sure about that? Prove it. Oh wait... you can't because it is IMPOSSIBLE to in Bitshares' DPoS mechanism.

Quote from: matt608 on December 31, 2014, 08:00:44 PM

It is almost impossible for full pay delegates to be the same person. Unless they are superhuman and able to complete multiple jobs at the same time. You can view the work delegates are doing. They have to be transparent and productive or they are voted out. It's simply not possible to all be the same person because 1 person cannot do 101 jobs. And there are huge incentives to not do this.

Yes, because we all know that all investors are diligent and have the experience necessary to ensure that they don't fall into a trap. Also, we all know that scammers never, ever work together, right? lol

How are you going to verify a delegate is doing his due diligence as a business if his progress can't be determined solely based on code commits?

Quote from: matt608 on December 31, 2014, 08:00:44 PM

Delegates are one of the great features of BitShares. It's creating a thriving community and a whole new type of decentralised organisation. Not to mention the unique identity verifying features being developed. DPOS is an amazing, fascinating and powerful invention which is going to re-structure society itself. Constructive criticism is always welcomed, but please keep it real.

I am "keeping it real". Everyone involved in Bitshares that supports these claims of it being "decentralized" and "Safer than a Swiss bank account" is misleading those who don't know any better. Bitshares destroyed PoS by adding delegates. What is worse is that imo the real reason the Bitshares' devs added delegates was to steal NXT's PoS mechanism and try to make it look like they were "innovative" when really they just wanted to ride on NXT's success. It is clear that Daniel knows that it is IMPOSSIBLE to ascertain the identities behind delegates, but they continue on this "decentralization" charade, imo purely to capitalize on the uninformed.

Now the Bitshares' cheerleaders will tell you, "What does it matter if the delegates are the same person?" Surely, they jest. The ENTIRE REASON behind ALL consensus mechanisms is to prevent SYBIL ATTACKS! PoW does this with hashpower. PoS does this with stake. DPoS claims to be able to do this with "delegates", but this is impossible because multiple delegates can be controlled by one individual. Some of you might say, well, with NXT's PoS, you can lease your forging power isn't that the same thing? The difference is this. NXT doesn't force the social construct onto the chain. You DON'T have to lease your forging power to anyone! There is NO reason to lease your forging power to anyone unless you want to receive the tx fees you earn on a more consistent basis at the cost of paying the forging pool operator a fee. Leasing in NXT was created so you could lease your stake to YOURSELF and keep your main account offline. Therefore allowing you to protect the network and not keep your main account open on your computer.

Anyone who supports Bitshares' DPoS consensus mechanism is either disingenuous, delusional or severely misinformed.

Quote from: sumantso on December 31, 2014, 08:16:25 PM

DPoS concedes that some degree of gravitating towards a few concentrated points is always going to happen, as was clear in the Ghash success, and later seen in NXT forging pools too. It attempts to regulate this behaviour by making it inbuilt in the protocol itself and trying to make sure that there is no more centralization than is necessary.

Nice try, but NXT's forging pools never got remotely close to GHash's hashpower concentration. NXT also has way more than 101 forgers securing its chain.

Quote from: sumantso on December 31, 2014, 09:41:38 PM

You make it sound so easy.

I make it sound "easy", because it is "easy" to mislead and manipulate people who are uninformed. Have you seen the scams that are being pulled over on people in the altcoin section?