TL;DR - I like BitShares because of the message of freedom, Optional regulatory compliance, Bitcoin exchanges issuing UIA to attract bts users, Development is funded by the blockchain and voted for by the shareholders, At least 101 distributed block producing witnessing nodes, Core development is funded by the blockchain and voted for by the shareholders, Workers are paid by contracts voted for by the shareholders, Delegates are elected officials that act as the human element of the DAC, Blockchain Human Resources, Marketers profit from referrals, All aspects of the DAC are subject to change by a shareholder vote. Hard forks by shareholder vote only, 1 second transaction confirmations, Fast scanning of and reconnection to the network.
Bitshares aims to be a decentralized autonomous community that is funded and directed by shareholders that caters to as large a market as possible to increase profits whilst retaining the principles of freedom and privacy.
Each increase in market cap leads to an increase in the funds available to sustain and develop the DAC to increase profits in a virtuous cycle.
I do not think BitShares will replace bitcoin and other crypto projectswill coexist in the medium term. But due to the shareholder controlled nature of bts and the efficiency of block propagation and confirmations I think that bts will grow to be the largest with the highest market cap.
Bitcoin survives on game theory. I do not think bitcoin will shrink in size because if bitcoin fails then what would that say about the successor? Every time a new innovation comes along the sharevalue will drop as the new system takes over. Bitcoin holders aren't going to let that happen, so it's not going anywhere.
But a decentralized company with the means to adapt and fund itself is IMO going to capture most of the investment money flowing around the world economy. Investment money is already subject to risk, so the meager differences in risk between the secure ledger of bitcoin and the more efficient ledger of Bitshares is negligible.
I think customers will go to bitcoin for security and to BitShares for banking services, coupons/vouchers, trading economic instruments, derivatives and executing smart contracts.Benefits of BitShares:Optional regulatory compliance.
Access to fiat banking services requires this compliance. Until every aspect of the economy becomes compatible with crypto there will always be customers who want to move from crypto to fiat seamlessly. So long as these regulatory burdens are never allowed into the broader ecosystem and regulatory compliance remains optional then there shouldn't be a problem.
The only other way I can think to access fiat is to use a system similar to localbitcoins and Abra. Motivate users to buy and sell bitAssets for cash in person. This method could only replace direct banking access if it was so popular that cash traders are available everywhere.
OPTIONAL Identity verification will be useful for this.Bitcoin exchanges issuing UIA to attract bts users.
Arbitrage of these UIAs will keep price feeds of bitAssets tight and will provide a crypto-fiat gateway.Development is funded by the blockchain and voted for by the shareholders.At least 101 distributed block producing witnessing nodes
sufficiently (determined by shareholder vote) spread across the globe in numerous legal jurisdictions, continents, away from significant natural disaster threats and run by entities that have given evidence to suggest that they will not collude with bad actors and have systems in place to alert shareholders if attempts are made.
Perhaps shareholders will encourage dead-mans-switch type systems to be implemented. Witnesses could be required to sign a message with the current blockchain hash every ____hrs and if they are asked to collude all they have to do is not sign a message. The shareholders are alerted and a new witness can be voted in. The fact that it is so easy to discover collusion attempts should deter any attempt from ever being made.Core development is funded by the blockchain and voted for by the shareholders.Workers are paid by contracts voted for by the shareholders.Delegates are elected officials that act as the human element of the DAC
and provide oracle services to price feeds and multisig worker budgets.Blockchain Human Resources.
Accountability for workers employed by the shareholders increases DAC efficiency.Marketers profit from referrals.All aspects of the DAC are subject to change by a shareholder vote. Hard forks by shareholder vote only.1 second transaction confirmations.
(Dan hinted in a thread a few days ago)Fast scanning of and reconnection to the network
(Dan hinted at seconds or minutes to reindex (?) the chain.). The amount of time a user or business owner has to spend connecting to and downloading a copy of the blockchain of choice is going to be a big selling point.Efficient full-nodes also benefit SPV and light client wallets.
The easier full nodes are to run the more numerous and better connected bts lightweight client servers are going to be. 100% uptime is very desirable so the system that can get closest has a big advantage.
A lot of the confidence I hold in BitShares is how it will run at scale after being convinced by several articles on Bytemaster's blog. Sufficient decentralization, block propagation speed, block sizes and handling transaction volume at scale are all aspects of BitShares that I think are better than the competition. No project has reached a large-scale yet and nobody truly knows for sure how separate block chains will handle it. From what I've read I think BitShares is the superior system already but if it is not then bts shareholders are better placed than any other project to make the changes and development necessary to adapt to problems as they arise.
Look at Gavin's block size debate for examples of how shareholder voting on development could solve that problem much faster. Although perhaps not a direct comparison as bitcoin's #1 priority is security rather than adapting quickly.
A large part of the ease of use is how easy it is to connect to the network and fast scanning of transactions. Efficient super-nodes will allow new participants in the network to reliably connect as quickly as possible.
Can anybody convince me that another project can do this better?