I have resisted replying to any part of this thread up until now. And my policy of responding to trolls posting total inaccuracies and many quotes out of context will remain the same. I don't respond to them.

But I would like to address your specific post. I would like to say that we are always looking for ways to build more transparency to ease the healthy skepticism that this community has toward almost every competing asset.  So our forthcoming move to BitShares helps to address that essential trust issue by making our every move more auditable.

Great work here. Thank you for posting.

I think most people could see it was fairly obvious that it was basically scam/medium to long term con-job from the start. But there are a lot of people in this scene who often get taken advantage of and having a specific post like this where you point everything out is very useful and will hopefully save people some money.

Was really surprised that Bitshares was willing to associate with them. Shocked actually. It's one thing to have an open platform where anyone can use it, but it's another to publicly associate with something like this. Bitshares marketing constantly leaves me scratching my head wondering what they are thinking.

100,000 TPS isn't impossible, its just impossible to do on a block chain in a true P2P decentralized manner without some form of centralization, or "magic trick".  It seems to me BitShares may be doing both as per these 2 quotes in the link you provided.

"...assuming that all the witness nodes have internet connections capable..." so it is indeed confined/centralized to a set of nodes

and

"...with an average transaction size of about 100 bytes."

The latter concerns me, the absolute minimum core basic requirements of a secure verifiable transaction are a sender, a receiver, a value and a signature.  Just the signature alone with a 256bit key is in the order of 70 bytes,  sender pubkey is 32, receiver RIPEMD160 address is 20, and a value is 8 which is a total of 130 bytes with the bare minimum.  If the key space is reduced to 160bit, then it will just fit in 100 bytes, but with a huge loss of security.

I'm assuming that to achieve this 100,000 TPS something similar to this happens:

Transactions are filtered through these "witness nodes" and I send 100 BTS to A.  If within a certain time frame, A moves it to B, and B to C, etc etc that TX isn't recorded on the block chain until such a time that it lives at X for longer than a specified period of time.  The 100 BTS movements between A -> B-> C....X are not recorded in full on the block chain (if at all), only the transaction A -> X

Taking that approach could indeed give you very high TX throughput, but if that is the method used (or something similar) it's a total hack in my opinion and may well lead to issues later.  

Of course I'm speculating as I don't have the time to research this properly, so if you could provide some links/docs/something that details how this works rather than me hunting, I'd appreciate it.  I stand by the fact that it is not possible to do, on a block chain, while recording all transactions to said chain, and allow any node to be a full node without special requirements.


If Monero really has stated "infinity" as their TPS limit, then someone there really needs a reality check!  Regardless of what is possible on a block chain or not, the laws of thermodynamics will step in and dispatch a tough and thorough spanking waaaaay before "infinity" is even close

IMO the only way to achieve anything near a sustainable VISA level transaction throughput, stay in keeping with real decentralization (no special node sub-sets that are selected or voted), not perform any "tricks" which may compromise security, AND have all transactions on a public ledger is to scale horizontally, and NOT vertically!

Chain based ledgers can't scale vertically past a certain point, no matter how big your bag of tricks, nor your processing setup, horizontal is the only way and by that I mean a distributed and partitioned ledger of the ilk that we are doing over here.  No one has even attempted to do this, because its assumed impossible or too difficult, and if it is so be it, at least it was attempted.  However it's not impossible, we've ran it in many betas now and its is very close to being ready for use.


Heh thanks but no thanks, I've ploughed my life and everything I have into eMunie and I'm not jumping ship, ever


EDIT
----

So I did some more digging and came across this:

"...the idea being that if transactions have their signatures validated as they propagate across the network, a witness can have any number of computers surrounding him that validates all of these signatures, and then he gets a list of transactions and puts them in a block, and he doesn’t have to check those signatures himself, because he has got all these other nodes surrounding him that are dividing up the task."

Can someone clarify this?  Witness nodes, which build the blocks DO NOT check transaction signatures themselves, but rely on 3rd parties (which may be dishonest) to inform them that the signature for said transactions validate?  How does a witness node know if a 3rd party is providing false information regarding a transaction, claiming that it contains a valid signature when it may not?  If this happens, how then does the network resolve it, someone, somewhere must be doing a full validation of those 100,000 TPS to ensure that all transactions really are legitimate.

Then all work is waste.  Quit your job, if you have one.



Longer than you can fund the instaminers. 



None of us will have a retirement if we depend on government.  The government creates money that doesn't require any work, which makes it more and more worthless.  So keep buying other currencies that are also worthless.

coins avoiding this forum normally have a reason to do so ...

Bumping this.  Very interesting...20 second block times?  That is almost as fast as full DPOS chains' 5 second tx times...

Let's see if it can scale to Visa Level transaction volumes like BitShares can.  If so, it is a real competitor.

I suppose it's important to remember that it's still on testnet.
Anything mined will be honored with the full release though!!

No windows wallet?
Need CPU hash or GPU hash?

I am a little shocked that people can listen to the wackiness that comes out of his mouth and want to give him money.

He kind of reminds me of somebody who has a BA in Bitcoin.  Somebody who is indeed kind of smart and knows just enough to talk about it and know many genuinely good facts and even sometimes have some good speculation, but that other times has a vision that and total comprehension of somebody who is totally off base.  He needs to go to Bitcoin grad school, get a PhD in Bitcoin and come back.  

He doesn't even organize his arguments in order the right way.  An amateur mistake for sure.

It is so funny that he thinks that Satoshi's bitcoin is a total failure but that his creation is exactly what Satoshi wanted.  BTW.... Satoshi = PhD

if this has the bitshares name, does that mean there will be a PTS snapshot for it?