Author [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] Topic: Stan Larimer  (Read 759 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline barwizi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 764
  • Noirbits, NoirShares, NoirEx.....lol, noir anyone?
    • View Profile
    • Noirbitstalk.org
Stan Larimer
« on: January 13, 2015, 10:32:45 AM »

i just want to give you a

 +5%

for how you are consistently earning your keep by standing up and responding on Bitcointalk.
--Bar--  PiNEJGUv4AZVZkLuF6hV4xwbYTRp5etWWJ

The magical land of crypto, no freebies people.

Offline cass

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4329
  • /(┬.┬)\
    • View Profile
Re: Stan Larimer
« Reply #1 on: January 13, 2015, 12:10:34 PM »
Hey Barwizi,

long time no see! Hope things going well and welcome back :)!


for how you are consistently earning your keep by standing up and responding on Bitcointalk.

 +5% +5% +5%
█║▌║║█  - - -  The quieter you become, the more you are able to hear  - - -  █║▌║║█

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2865
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BTS: Stan
Re: Stan Larimer
« Reply #2 on: January 13, 2015, 01:26:56 PM »
i just want to give you a

 +5%

for how you are consistently earning your keep by standing up and responding on Bitcointalk.

Thanks.  That's something we had been ignoring, figuring those who were interested knew where to find us.  That left the field open for sewing all kinds of misinformation.  At least now we are trying to put the other side of the story along side the wild claims.

One good thing, we've had about 6000 views across several threads since we started engaging more.

BM's blog also helps.  Gives us something concrete to link to.

:)
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline barwizi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 764
  • Noirbits, NoirShares, NoirEx.....lol, noir anyone?
    • View Profile
    • Noirbitstalk.org
Re: Stan Larimer
« Reply #3 on: January 13, 2015, 02:30:13 PM »
Hey guys, yeah,i got to study with the CCC group in Ukraine for a while while i was there then went around in Africa again assessing the Ebola outbreak.

I'll be in and out a while, but looks like things are shaping up.
--Bar--  PiNEJGUv4AZVZkLuF6hV4xwbYTRp5etWWJ

The magical land of crypto, no freebies people.

Offline toast

Re: Stan Larimer
« Reply #4 on: January 13, 2015, 03:45:51 PM »
Holy cow! Welcome back!

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline edilliam

Re: Stan Larimer
« Reply #5 on: January 13, 2015, 04:08:53 PM »
Yeah, those forum threads have been highly entertaining to read. Thanks for all you do Stan.

The same sort of accusations keep coming up. Would it be possible to get a common misconceptions page or similar on the main site?

Offline ripplexiaoshan

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2044
    • View Profile
  • BTS: xiaoshan
Re: Stan Larimer
« Reply #6 on: January 13, 2015, 05:45:32 PM »
I read that post too. Stan was awesome. The argument is a good promotion :P
BTS ID:xiaoshan

Offline luckybit

Re: Stan Larimer
« Reply #7 on: January 13, 2015, 11:30:21 PM »
i just want to give you a

 +5%

for how you are consistently earning your keep by standing up and responding on Bitcointalk.

Thanks.  That's something we had been ignoring, figuring those who were interested knew where to find us.  That left the field open for sewing all kinds of misinformation.  At least now we are trying to put the other side of the story along side the wild claims.

One good thing, we've had about 6000 views across several threads since we started engaging more.

BM's blog also helps.  Gives us something concrete to link to.

:)

It should be possible to somehow rate performance on a blockchain level so if people think someone is doing a good job it can be quantified by "likes" or "appreciation points" or something similar to that.

This would help people figure out voting but it requires reputation to be in effect.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2865
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BTS: Stan
Re: Stan Larimer
« Reply #8 on: January 14, 2015, 05:34:39 AM »
For those of you who have wisely avoided a foray into the noxious land of Mordor (where the shadows lie), I thought I'd salvage a few useful snippets of text that were forged in the fiery cracks of Mount Doom.


Snippet #1
Quote
There has recurring debate about the meaning of the word "decentralized".  Apparently one opinion is that the connotations of the word in this industry have moved it away from its dictionary denotations and that further evolution of its meaning in response to ongoing technological innovations should be resisted.

Our point has been that there are multiple valid ways to move control away from the center and that having all stakeholders select from a high-quality set of candidate block signers based on their established reputations has some design advantages over randomly selecting signers from a much larger group of candidates with unknown reputations. (At least for some systems with certain additional design objectives and target applications.)  Signing authority is uniformly distributed among the 101 most respected members of the community without regard to the size of their stakes.  This can change every 10 seconds and everybody has a chance to participate based on merit, not chance.  Signers have strictly limited power.  They can either faithfully do their job or be detected and immediately fired.

The key is recognizing that there are multiple design degrees of freedom we can play with.  We need enough scalable signing nodes to be fault tolerant and a decentralized way to select them.  Both NXT and BitShares accomplish this objective in different, valid ways.  Whether each stakeholder does the routine and transparent signing work on their own computer or on a computer from someone with a vetted reputation they are still selecting which computer they want to have do it.  I know I'd certainly rather pick somebody I trust to do the signing than take responsibility for that technical specialty myself!

All "trustless" systems allocate residual trust somewhere, usually by default.  We have made it explicit.  Making it explicit in turn gives us a unique by-product asset - trustworthy nodes selected by all stakeholders.  Our designs then leverage these assets to assign them other functions that benefit from established trustworthy reputations, where any breach of trust can be detected and instantly removed by all stakeholders as well.

Snippet #2
Quote
101 is indeed an arbitrary number.   We could have chosen 51 or 151.  101 was chosen simply by an argument about diminishing returns.  Going from 1 to 2 signers doubles the redundancy.  Going from 100 to 101 increases the redundancy by less than 1%. 

The important thing to recognize is that the axis being analyzed here was how much redundancy, not how much decentralization.  We felt that dispersing the processing uniformly among 101 nodes would mean the loss of any one node would impact the system performance by less than 1% until it could heal by dynamic reconfiguration to insert a "hot spare" standby node.  Adding more nodes increases costs linearly, while improving performance robustness negligibly.

Decentralization of control in BitShares is a completely different design axis.  Every shareholder gets to choose which 101 of the available nodes they want to perform this fault tolerant processing function.  They are free to vote for their own processor or any other processors they feel will suit their interests.  If they do pick their own, and enough of their peers agree, their node will be used.

So, in BitShares, all nodes participate in building a consensus about what is the most trustworthy cost-effective fault tolerant configuration of available processors to run the system.  All stakeholders participate in this consensus according to the amount of stake they have at stake, so to speak.

So, all people have a chance to sign blocks. 
Instead of having their chances determined by the size of their stake,
it is determined by the size of their reputation.

Snippet #3
Quote
101 is just a point of comparison with BitShares.   As I have discussed on my blog:

1) We assume that free market competition drives margins toward 0
2) We assume that to avoid subsidizing by stakeholders, transaction fees equal cost of block production
3) We assume that the market will drive transaction fees as low as possible via competition among chains
4) We assume that for a given number of transactions, the fewer block producers that must share the fees, the lower the fees may be.
5) We assume that no sustainable system should depend upon actors operating at a loss.
6) We assume marginal utility decreases for each additional block producer
7) We conclude there exists a number where fees / # producers == marginal utility of an additional producer.
Cool We conclude that the lowest fees will be a system with one block producer
9) We conclude that no system will profitably operate significantly outside the same # producers
10) When measured on a log2 scale we submit that all systems will converge on statistically the same amount of decentralization *OR* fail their users.
11) When all systems converge on the same number of nodes, we submit that delegated voting creates a more TRUSTED and FLEXIBLE set.
12) We project that 101 nodes is greater than the # the market will naturally converge upon as being a sufficient between robustness and cost.

If you really want to increase the effective decentralization then you must double the fees for each additional level of decentralization when measured on log2 scale.  Given two chains with equal features, it would require a hell of a network effect to sustain 2x fees.   
« Last Edit: January 14, 2015, 05:36:54 AM by Stan »
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

 

Google+