Author Topic: Charles Hoskinson Left Ethereum?  (Read 24885 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bytemaster

DACs make no sense without smart contracts and guess what there are now two ventures building them both are not called Invictus. A DAC tookit isn't in demand, IPOs definitely are and will continue to be for the foreseeable future.

Second, http://p2pool.in/ exists and it completely removes the negative impact of pool operators. Yes Dan you are correct in that mining power if it is wasting computation is a problem for the little guy; however, you haven't address decentralized storage, general purpose computation and hosting. Despite what you claim, people do pay for these services in their centralized form to the tune of tens of billions of dollars per year.

It makes no sense to me that somehow ownership of the token ought to be the deciding factor in who benefits from providing the work to provide these services. It ought to be the people actually doing the work regardless of their token ownership.

Right, this is what DPOS is.   Pick 101 people to do the work regardless of their token ownership.  If there is a lot of work to do then you pick 101 teams with each team being arbitrarily large with their own allocation strategy.

For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

charleshoskinson

  • Guest
DACs make no sense without smart contracts and guess what there are now two ventures building them both are not called Invictus. A DAC tookit isn't in demand, IPOs definitely are and will continue to be for the foreseeable future.

Second, http://p2pool.in/ exists and it completely removes the negative impact of pool operators. Yes Dan you are correct in that mining power if it is wasting computation is a problem for the little guy; however, you haven't address decentralized storage, general purpose computation and hosting. Despite what you claim, people do pay for these services in their centralized form to the tune of tens of billions of dollars per year.

It makes no sense to me that somehow ownership of the token ought to be the deciding factor in who benefits from providing the work to provide these services. It ought to be the people actually doing the work regardless of their token ownership.

Offline CLains

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: clains
I love hearing what Charles has to say.

Personally I am thinking that the most important thing in this space is not what the details of the technology is, but rather what the first few mainstream DACs will be (aside from currency). If only there was some way to figure out what market would be most compatible with the use cases we are mapping.

According to Charles it would make most sense for I3 to focus almost exclusively on developing, designing, specializing and promoting "IPO in a Box" for companies. This can be understood as a hypothesis about what would - if focused on - most significantly raise the BitShares market-cap in the medium term.

The current strategy of I3 seems to be to develop, design, specialize and promote the "DAC Toolkit" to lower barriers to entry and enable the maximum amount of creativity and parallelism.  This can be understood purely from an economic-growth perspective.

With that being said the implicit focus of I3, which seems to motivate Bytemaster as well as BitShares DNS and BitShares Vote, is a certain view of how the crypto-space will evolve into a parallel crypto-society - a society tinged with a certain ideological flare.

However, I believe that with the invention of DPOS - something will happen. If it simply does not disintegrate into tragedy of the commons, the BitShares ecosystem can soon be making efficient use of potentially hundreds of millions of dollars each year that comes in through revenue and inflation.

In the end I agree that lack of focus is extremely dangerous. It did already steal quite a bit of time, energy and capital from I3. And anyone who have watched shark tank knows that the sharks are constantly analyzing the focus of their potential investment, and when it's lacking they withdraw out of near instinct.

Offline bytemaster

P2P pools decentralize the mining pools, but NOT the mining power.
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline mf-tzo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1725
    • View Profile
Mining: I cannot comment about it much but as far as I understand mining cost should be break even as you purchase the coins on free market at specific time. Therefore, people mine to support a concept that doesn't make sense. They mine speculating for future demand but they could just go buy the coin at the same cost now, hold it and sell it in the future. Unless I have completely misunderstood mining.

POS: Someone thinks has a great idea, makes a coin and convince people why this is different from other coins. Still this doesn't make any sense unless this coin has something to truly offer.

The difference is in what each coin can offer irrespective of POW or POS.

The whole point should therefore be what the true value of each coin is.
1. Very fast money transfers world wide
2. Decentralized and no government control
3. No entry barriers
4. Very fast asset transfers worldwide (stocks, commodities etc..)
5. Smart contracts
6  Make sense from economic perspective
7  Mine something that actually adds true value to this world
8 ...

Bitcoin can't offer currently none of the above.

Bitshares X has the potential to offer all of the above. Obviously 1 and 2,6.
3. In these early stages I think that we need to distribute them to people who have difficulties obtaining them. Let's send to as many people that we can 100 BTSX each one of us. This is $1 now. In the future it could be worth much more. It will be after them to hold or sell but they will have a choice from the early days.
4. Once the market peg works (unless initial shareholders kill it with stupid trading bots) and 1 bitusd = 1 usd then the financial world as we know it will change. I can transfer bitFacebook stocks = Facebook stocks to my Chinese friend with 1 click.
5. I can buy a house with 1 click.

Why is this so difficult for people to understand ? We definitely need people who can explain easily these things to others out there selling the product. We need to start convincing bitcoiners that their model just don't work so they come on board and make Bitshares X  $10 billion market cap (but these are the early miners mostly and are still believing or want to believe that mining makes some sense). The only thing that should be mined out there are cure coins, solar coins etc.. and yet no one does that since it is not profitable..
We need to change this fucking world somehow...

Quote
In terms of mining centralization, what about P2P pools? Then there are no mining pool operators. Also what if the mining algorithm is work that benefits the network?

No idea what you are talking about..define the "benefit of the network". Please note that my experience in crypto is very small compared to most of you in here and I still don't understand obvious things to you.
Everything said above is meant for a constructive discussion to clear things up in my head.
Charles I don't want you to get offended in anyway with what I am saying. Please note that actually I have no idea who you are but it appears that everyone here respect you a lot and you have a lot of experience in crypto.

Offline bytemaster

The challenge with POW based security is that it will always centralize in an uncontrolled manner.  Attempts at getting "dual use" out of the work actually serve to undermine potential security because the attacker now has additional revenue streams for the same work. 

If the POW only has theoretical value (SETI@ HOME) then the fact that the market isn't paying for those calculations today is proof enough that the value of those calculations doesn't generate enough value to offset the cost.   Same applies to all calculations.

If the network needs some heavy calculation (say massive compression with quick decompression) that has some value, but a POS coin could still pay for that without compromising security to the centralization that would ultimately occur using POW. 
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

bitbro

  • Guest

Quote
Indeed.

100% of all bitcoins currently in circulation were, by definition,
obtained from someone else**

so what difference does it make?


Sorry but in bitcoin also the early adopters, the geeks have mined enormous amounts in the early days. In a sense isn't it the exact same thing? The small oligarchy of speculators who understood bitcoin hold a substantial stake...
All POW coins are controlled now in reality by mining pools and very few people.

POS coins also may be available cheaply in reality. Who knows if in 5 yeras 1NXT = 1BTSX=$1,000. Everyone has the choice to speculate on that price and 5 years from now people may say the same things that they say about early adopters as in bitcoin...

All in all I believe that none is fair. One is energy efficient the other not. That is the only difference in my head..

This wasn't a complaint about acquisition, but rather rights associated with the coin. Again, for cryptoequities like bitshares, it makes sense to have strong voting rights. I think everyone can dream up a case where this doesn't make sense. That's my point. Again I am neither a blind fan of PoW or PoS. I'm saying consensus needs to be directly connected to desired economic incentives and intended utility of the protocol. 

In terms of mining centralization, what about P2P pools? Then there are no mining pool operators. Also what if the mining algorithm is work that benefits the network? Again, this issue isn't black and white. I will say nothing more about PoW and PoS, this isn't the thread.

What if - what if you would answer your own what if questions

charleshoskinson

  • Guest
Quote
Indeed.

100% of all bitcoins currently in circulation were, by definition,
obtained from someone else**

so what difference does it make?


Sorry but in bitcoin also the early adopters, the geeks have mined enormous amounts in the early days. In a sense isn't it the exact same thing? The small oligarchy of speculators who understood bitcoin hold a substantial stake...
All POW coins are controlled now in reality by mining pools and very few people.

POS coins also may be available cheaply in reality. Who knows if in 5 yeras 1NXT = 1BTSX=$1,000. Everyone has the choice to speculate on that price and 5 years from now people may say the same things that they say about early adopters as in bitcoin...

All in all I believe that none is fair. One is energy efficient the other not. That is the only difference in my head..

This wasn't a complaint about acquisition, but rather rights associated with the coin. Again, for cryptoequities like bitshares, it makes sense to have strong voting rights. I think everyone can dream up a case where this doesn't make sense. That's my point. Again I am neither a blind fan of PoW or PoS. I'm saying consensus needs to be directly connected to desired economic incentives and intended utility of the protocol. 

In terms of mining centralization, what about P2P pools? Then there are no mining pool operators. Also what if the mining algorithm is work that benefits the network? Again, this issue isn't black and white. I will say nothing more about PoW and PoS, this isn't the thread.

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
Quote
Here's my primary problem. PoS is fundamentally controlled by people who own the tokens of the system. If one has developed a non-monetary system such as distributive computation, storage, or hosting services for example, then the vast majority of users likely will not hold a substantial stake in the system's tokens rather a small oligarchy of speculators, early adopters and perhaps infrastructure providers would. Thus you have a system where the people who use the network must accept the demands of a small group  as we currently do with the centralized web.

Sorry but in bitcoin also the early adopters, the geeks have mined enormous amounts in the early days. In a sense isn't it the exact same thing? The small oligarchy of speculators who understood bitcoin hold a substantial stake...
All POW coins are controlled now in reality by mining pools and very few people.

POS coins also may be available cheaply in reality. Who knows if in 5 yeras 1NXT = 1BTSX=$1,000. Everyone has the choice to speculate on that price and 5 years from now people may say the same things that they say about early adopters as in bitcoin...

All in all I believe that none is fair. One is energy efficient the other not. That is the only difference in my head..


Indeed. 

100% of all bitcoins currently in circulation were, by definition,
obtained from someone else**

so what difference does it make?

**arbitrarily generated bar-room fact.
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 BldSwtTrs

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 220
    • View Profile
Now let's examine PoS in general. If one admits a solely store of value system, then PoS is economically aligned with the best interests of the entire network. The majority should be reasonably expected to use PoS to attempt to increase the value of their personal holdings. Also implementations of PoS are considerably simpler than PoW. As I said above, DPOS also adds network health to the list of considerations via the judgement of the voters.

Here's my primary problem. PoS is fundamentally controlled by people who own the tokens of the system. If one has developed a non-monetary system such as distributive computation, storage, or hosting services for example, then the vast majority of users likely will not hold a substantial stake in the system's tokens rather a small oligarchy of speculators, early adopters and perhaps infrastructure providers would. Thus you have a system where the people who use the network must accept the demands of a small group  as we currently do with the centralized web.

There are probably some soft corrections that could be implemented; however, from a philosophical viewpoint, it's not necessarily the best idea to endow the holders of a token to be the voting class of a network. For cryptoequities, matters of corporate governance, DACs in general, this structure makes perfect sense. In systems where the vast majority of users control only an aggregate small amount of tokens, then it doesn't seem to align interests properly. I hope that explains my viewpoint.
Well, free market is what aligns interests properly.

Assuming no barrier to entry, it's holders' interest to comply with users' desires. Otherwise users wil use another network and holders will lose money.

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani

Charles Charles Charles, enough with this pow btc stuff plz.  How many times can we beat a dead horse


« Last Edit: August 08, 2014, 11:32:17 am by liondani »

bitbro

  • Guest
Charles Charles Charles, enough with this pow btc stuff plz.  How many times can we beat a dead horse

Offline GaltReport

Quote
I really do not want to undervalue your effort to collect that much more money. I know it is hard, very hard.

My point is that Ether and Bitshares X will not likely fail (if they do) because the product was not well financed, i.e in a result of not being well developed (coded).
 Either of them will fail because the core ideas were not workable. Not meant to work in the real world.

My point wasn't the raw amount of money collected, it was strictly about adoption. Ideas are worthless without people who subscribe to them. Even flawed ideas can be more powerful than pure ones if there is a legion  of followers- look at a lot of wack job religions.

Ethereum in its sale numbers has demonstrated a large community of people who now have  a financial interest in being advocates for the ecosystem and its ideology. That was my point.
Quote
I did lol a bit.

I just want to hear good reasons for why someone supports POW at this point.   Not really POW vs POS, just expecting thorough reasoning.  Charles, you put so much thought into your words that I expect only the best.  I don't argue with everyone, just those of which I have high expectations.  If such a person says something that doesn't make sense to me or seems wrong, I like to engage them.  Thats why I ended up here.  Blame it on Dan.

Yanno, you don't meet people like Charles at the local watering hole.....

So one starts with a database (the blockchain) that contains an initial state and transitions to another state. The fundamental question is how one verifies that the state change is correct versus any other proposed change. PoW and PoS are both mechanisms to accomplish state transition in a decentralized way.

PoW is an algorithmic meritocracy taking work in the form of something that runs O(n) with an associated global difficulty and verifies in O(1). This requirement has prevented people from using PoW for beneficial tasks as most need either human judgement for verification or verify in same time as the work.

In principle, I like PoW if one can bundle activities that benefit the health of the overall network and then reward the largest contributors. In fact, Dan is attempting to do this with DPOS via delegate competition- those who do the most for the network at the lowest cost per user are most likely to be voted a delegate. No one has yet established a mechanism to accomplish this in a trustless, automated algorithm. So yes PoW is a waste of resources.

Now let's examine PoS in general. If one admits a solely store of value system, then PoS is economically aligned with the best interests of the entire network. The majority should be reasonably expected to use PoS to attempt to increase the value of their personal holdings. Also implementations of PoS are considerably simpler than PoW. As I said above, DPOS also adds network health to the list of considerations via the judgement of the voters.

Here's my primary problem. PoS is fundamentally controlled by people who own the tokens of the system. If one has developed a non-monetary system such as distributive computation, storage, or hosting services for example, then the vast majority of users likely will not hold a substantial stake in the system's tokens rather a small oligarchy of speculators, early adopters and perhaps infrastructure providers would. Thus you have a system where the people who use the network must accept the demands of a small group  as we currently do with the centralized web.

There are probably some soft corrections that could be implemented; however, from a philosophical viewpoint, it's not necessarily the best idea to endow the holders of a token to be the voting class of a network. For cryptoequities, matters of corporate governance, DACs in general, this structure makes perfect sense. In systems where the vast majority of users control only an aggregate small amount of tokens, then it doesn't seem to align interests properly. I hope that explains my viewpoint.

Quote
What DACs should DPOS be applied to instead? If not a DAC but a brick and mortar business what advantages does it have to manage the IPO, board voting rights etc. with DPOS (apart from it being illegal to do an IPO (real IPO with hard promises) without a lot of additional (legal) work)

It's not necessarily illegal to do an online IPO in all jurisdictions and in fact some ecourage it. I've spent the last six months studying the topic very deeply to a great degree of recent success :). In terms of what ought to be the focus on Invictus's efforts, if I was the CEO, then I'd build a licensed IPO platform that would allow companies to conduct crowdsales via launching specialized bitshares chains that would require honoring some part of AGS and PTS positions. Had they made a compelling enough system, then most of the recent coin sales would have likely been launched using Invictus software.

It makes more sense to chase profits stemming from a badly managed space instead of going after apple with music, enduring the dubious legality of gambling, and going after DNS without any public browser compatibility strategy. I could go into greater detail; however, it's a waste of time, I'm not the CEO of Invictus.

Bolded part sounds like a smart idea and  fairly straight forward.  I think they can still do this in parallel.  Of course, so many irons in the fire...probably need someone focusing just on that part.  Maybe something like product line managers for "champions" for each potential market who can share  in the success of the market they develop.

Offline mf-tzo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1725
    • View Profile
Quote
Here's my primary problem. PoS is fundamentally controlled by people who own the tokens of the system. If one has developed a non-monetary system such as distributive computation, storage, or hosting services for example, then the vast majority of users likely will not hold a substantial stake in the system's tokens rather a small oligarchy of speculators, early adopters and perhaps infrastructure providers would. Thus you have a system where the people who use the network must accept the demands of a small group  as we currently do with the centralized web.

Sorry but in bitcoin also the early adopters, the geeks have mined enormous amounts in the early days. In a sense isn't it the exact same thing? The small oligarchy of speculators who understood bitcoin hold a substantial stake...
All POW coins are controlled now in reality by mining pools and very few people.

POS coins also may be available cheaply in reality. Who knows if in 5 yeras 1NXT = 1BTSX=$1,000. Everyone has the choice to speculate on that price and 5 years from now people may say the same things that they say about early adopters as in bitcoin...

All in all I believe that none is fair. One is energy efficient the other not. That is the only difference in my head..

charleshoskinson

  • Guest
Quote
I really do not want to undervalue your effort to collect that much more money. I know it is hard, very hard.

My point is that Ether and Bitshares X will not likely fail (if they do) because the product was not well financed, i.e in a result of not being well developed (coded).
 Either of them will fail because the core ideas were not workable. Not meant to work in the real world.

My point wasn't the raw amount of money collected, it was strictly about adoption. Ideas are worthless without people who subscribe to them. Even flawed ideas can be more powerful than pure ones if there is a legion  of followers- look at a lot of wack job religions.

Ethereum in its sale numbers has demonstrated a large community of people who now have  a financial interest in being advocates for the ecosystem and its ideology. That was my point.
Quote
I did lol a bit.

I just want to hear good reasons for why someone supports POW at this point.   Not really POW vs POS, just expecting thorough reasoning.  Charles, you put so much thought into your words that I expect only the best.  I don't argue with everyone, just those of which I have high expectations.  If such a person says something that doesn't make sense to me or seems wrong, I like to engage them.  Thats why I ended up here.  Blame it on Dan.

Yanno, you don't meet people like Charles at the local watering hole.....

So one starts with a database (the blockchain) that contains an initial state and transitions to another state. The fundamental question is how one verifies that the state change is correct versus any other proposed change. PoW and PoS are both mechanisms to accomplish state transition in a decentralized way.

PoW is an algorithmic meritocracy taking work in the form of something that runs O(n) with an associated global difficulty and verifies in O(1). This requirement has prevented people from using PoW for beneficial tasks as most need either human judgement for verification or verify in same time as the work.

In principle, I like PoW if one can bundle activities that benefit the health of the overall network and then reward the largest contributors. In fact, Dan is attempting to do this with DPOS via delegate competition- those who do the most for the network at the lowest cost per user are most likely to be voted a delegate. No one has yet established a mechanism to accomplish this in a trustless, automated algorithm. So yes PoW is a waste of resources.

Now let's examine PoS in general. If one admits a solely store of value system, then PoS is economically aligned with the best interests of the entire network. The majority should be reasonably expected to use PoS to attempt to increase the value of their personal holdings. Also implementations of PoS are considerably simpler than PoW. As I said above, DPOS also adds network health to the list of considerations via the judgement of the voters.

Here's my primary problem. PoS is fundamentally controlled by people who own the tokens of the system. If one has developed a non-monetary system such as distributive computation, storage, or hosting services for example, then the vast majority of users likely will not hold a substantial stake in the system's tokens rather a small oligarchy of speculators, early adopters and perhaps infrastructure providers would. Thus you have a system where the people who use the network must accept the demands of a small group  as we currently do with the centralized web.

There are probably some soft corrections that could be implemented; however, from a philosophical viewpoint, it's not necessarily the best idea to endow the holders of a token to be the voting class of a network. For cryptoequities, matters of corporate governance, DACs in general, this structure makes perfect sense. In systems where the vast majority of users control only an aggregate small amount of tokens, then it doesn't seem to align interests properly. I hope that explains my viewpoint.

Quote
What DACs should DPOS be applied to instead? If not a DAC but a brick and mortar business what advantages does it have to manage the IPO, board voting rights etc. with DPOS (apart from it being illegal to do an IPO (real IPO with hard promises) without a lot of additional (legal) work)

It's not necessarily illegal to do an online IPO in all jurisdictions and in fact some ecourage it. I've spent the last six months studying the topic very deeply to a great degree of recent success :). In terms of what ought to be the focus on Invictus's efforts, if I was the CEO, then I'd build a licensed IPO platform that would allow companies to conduct crowdsales via launching specialized bitshares chains that would require honoring some part of AGS and PTS positions. Had they made a compelling enough system, then most of the recent coin sales would have likely been launched using Invictus software.

It makes more sense to chase profits stemming from a badly managed space instead of going after apple with music, enduring the dubious legality of gambling, and going after DNS without any public browser compatibility strategy. I could go into greater detail; however, it's a waste of time, I'm not the CEO of Invictus.