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: I need help trying to convince a friend to consider supporting Bitshares.  (Read 2326 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline PotatoPeeler

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile


I am a longtime lurker who never created an account. I am invested In some Protoshares before the snapshot and some afterwards. I have a developer friend who I had some beers with. I introduced him into crypto-currencies and now he seems very interested in Etherium. He says everyone is interested in Etherium and seems dismissive over Bitshares. I am not a real strong technical person so I do not have the background to convince him to change his views.

Can anyone tell me in what ways Bitshares is superior? Can someone point me to the marketing literature that covers this area?

Let me list what little I know so far. I believe that a POS system is superior over mining. It appears their mining will involved running smart contracts and then the contract outputs are somehow made into proofs? I tell him DPOS is a lot simpler, but I am not sure I understand Etherium.

And so by mining - the Etherium is diluted via inflation or does their mining just create transaction fees ?

I told him it is all written in C++ and I hear Etherium is more complicated to learn. It is a completely new thing with a higher learning curve if you already know C or C++. I also understand they have embedded a webclient in Bitshares toolkit so that frontend can be written in modern html.  Does Etherium do this ? How do the Etherium smart contracts interact with the user ?

I told him each DAC inside Bitshares has its own chain. I am not sure about Etherium.

Etherium seems to have started by creating the head of the beast first while Bitshares has created the legs with DPOS. It seems to me that Bitshares will be ready for developers to write DACs before Etherium has a real chain going. While Etherium will have some smart contracts ready to go.

I also understand that there might be some extra privacy protections? TITAN? Does anyone know how Etherium is in this area ?

I keep telling him to get some AGS due to the multiplier. It seems like a great deal to me. It isn’t convincing to him. Is it true there are 2 million AGS and PTS ? I explain how you own shares in a DAC. How is this superior over Etherium ? I need to look at the plans for Etherium’s version of an IPO. It seems you get ether which you either sell or use to run smart contracts. Is there no way to invest otherwise ?

I am trying to find a list of the pros and cons of the 2 systems. Any such documentation comparing the 2 would be the best thing since sliced bread or so my grandfather would say.

Best,
PP
« Last Edit: June 23, 2014, 03:46:15 AM by PotatoPeeler »

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3309
    • View Profile
That’s  a loaded question(s).

 And it is coming at interesting time of the life of the Bitshares’ ecosystem too. A lot of interesting thoughts and questions there . This should be split in several topics, I think.


I  am, myself, curious about some/most of those too, btw…just never formulated them  this way.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2014, 04:08:57 AM by tonyk »
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

merockstar

  • Guest
I found this thread, which, along with the threads it links to, seem like a good starting point for an argument about why bitshares > ethereum.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=2280.0

if we can organize all the information we can find about this subject here in this thread maybe I could whip up some arguments that you could spoon-feed your drinking buddy, PP

*giggles schoolboyishly*

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
 +5%
I found this thread, which, along with the threads it links to, seem like a good starting point for an argument about why bitshares > ethereum.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=2280.0

if we can organize all the information we can find about this subject here in this thread maybe I could whip up some arguments that you could spoon-feed your drinking buddy, PP


 +5%

I'll go look at that thread.  Damn the video is missing.  Who created it originally and I wonder why it was removed.. hrmmm

Quote from: bytemaster
Our technical team has evaluated the Ethereum proposal and design and have concluded the following:

1) Mining means the DAC will be operating at a loss or break-even at best.  No dividends.
2) Scripts will require more blockchain space and bandwidth resulting in lower transaction volume for the same level of decentralization.
3) We do not believe the scripts can efficiently implement a BitShares like market matching with automatic margin calls at scale. 
4) Merged mining would be required to secure parallel chains... this has its own challenges.
5) Mining will result in centralization one block at a time, something very bad for chains that implement markets.
6) Finding GPU developers is hard enough, defining a new dedicated language for this purpose will be even harder.
7) If you eliminate mining, then the cost of launching a new DAC is near 0 and you can simply use C++ to encode your contracts starting from a 'shell DAC' and launch without having to overload everyone not interested in your contract. 
8) NO 'competitor' thus far is willing to admit that multiple parallel blockchains will be required to handle the order of magnitude greater transaction volume an exchange experiences vs Bitcoin and this is for a SINGLE currency pair.  Imagine attempting to have every tradable market on one chain!   This will rapidly be centralized into trusted supernodes that can handle the bandwidth requirements.
9) You think bitcoin verification times have trouble scaling, imagine executing an interpreted language!

Conclusion: We believe Ethereum is an interesting computer science project with little compelling advantage in developing new DACs and many drawbacks.   

We wish them well and if their scripting language and contract design proves useful as a means for very special purpose contracts then we suspect we will be able to adapt it to a more efficient, profitable, AGS honoring DAC.

The problem is that Etherium has likely changed somewhat, much like Bitshares.  Everything is moving at a high rate of innovation.  I wonder if all of the above still holds true ?  Maybe I can chop up the OP into an outline which we could flesh out ?  I'd like to see real marketing material since Etherium is our biggest competitor.  Perhaps they've changed approaches in some areas ?  Maybe the comparison should be avoided ?  A lot of the features of Bitshares agreed with me, but I never really got into Etherium because I wasn't that interested in "smart contracts".  However I am not all that familar with their full dev environment/dev stack.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2331
    • View Profile
Just ask your friend how he expects to make any money off Ethereum? Where is the value proposition? Bitshares is all about creating value while decentralizing everything. And in a profit-minded world, that combination will make it sustainable and successful far beyond the others. I regard Ethereum as more of a science experiment and maybe they can figure out longer term how to make it pay off.

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3309
    • View Profile
My tech expertize is somewhat  limited so I  must rely to some extend on what I read (like the BM analyses above). So I read this thread more to learn than anything else but

Where I have a bit stronger knowledge (finances/economics), I hear they will be financed by this swarm project. The swarm projects screams scam from every step and action they take.

2c



-the announcement about  said financing:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=653568.msg7411878#msg7411878

-swarm discussion on this forum:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=5098.0

-swarm discussions on BTT:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=653568.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=653741.0

Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline CLains

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2610
    • View Profile
  • BTS: clains
The very fact that everyone knows about Ethereum, and sees it as the next great thing will make it difficult to get a good deal on their IPO. Ethereum is going to have a market cap at 200 million right out the gate.. If PTS goes to a mere 200 million, by contrast, your investment goes 20x.
Vote for BTS-2 witness: spectral (1.6.30)

Follow https://steemit.com/@clains

Offline AdamBLevine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 492
    • View Profile
    • Let's Talk Bitcoin!
I'd suggest focusing on the advantages and impressive features of your system rather than focusing on what makes all its competitors bad.  That just looks defensive.

IMO if Bytemaster succeeds we'll have very very fast reliable transactions at a very low cost, the advantages of the blockchain without many of the costs.

It is fairly compelling, but it all hinges on Bytemasters ability to bring a new paradigm into reality.    Ya'll should really focus on what you're doing rather than what everybody else is doing wrong, that's not a contest you want to get into right now lol.
Email me at [email protected]

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3309
    • View Profile
Still proud with your name on the swarm site, Adam??
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline AdamBLevine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 492
    • View Profile
    • Let's Talk Bitcoin!
What are  you upset with Swarm about?  They haven't even launched yet.
Email me at [email protected]

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3309
    • View Profile
What are  you upset with Swarm about?  They haven't even launched yet.

I do not think they are launching anything other than a boat to run away with…
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline Empirical1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 884
    • View Profile
I'd suggest focusing on the advantages and impressive features of your system rather than focusing on what makes all its competitors bad.  That just looks defensive.

IMO if Bytemaster succeeds we'll have very very fast reliable transactions at a very low cost, the advantages of the blockchain without many of the costs.

It is fairly compelling, but it all hinges on Bytemasters ability to bring a new paradigm into reality.    Ya'll should really focus on what you're doing rather than what everybody else is doing wrong, that's not a contest you want to get into right now lol.

I think marketing anything requires communicating both your own strengths as well as the weaknesses of your competitor/s.



Offline onceuponatime

I'd suggest focusing on the advantages and impressive features of your system rather than focusing on what makes all its competitors bad.  That just looks defensive.

IMO if Bytemaster succeeds we'll have very very fast reliable transactions at a very low cost, the advantages of the blockchain without many of the costs.

It is fairly compelling, but it all hinges on Bytemasters ability to bring a new paradigm into reality.    Ya'll should really focus on what you're doing rather than what everybody else is doing wrong, that's not a contest you want to get into right now lol.

I think marketing anything requires communicating both your own strengths as well as the weaknesses of your competitor/s.

It is dangerous and uneceesary to point out competitors weakness. If you successfully communicate your own strengths your audience will know your competitors weaknesses without you directly bringing attention to them.

The strategy has occasionally succeeded - but more often failed.

http://www.cbc.ca/undertheinfluence/season-3/2014/06/14/when-brands-mock-other-brands-1/

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3309
    • View Profile
OP-er, I found some security concerns related to running those scripts for the smart contracts:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=431513.msg4727775#msg4727775

‘say you want to run arbitrary source code on a p2p node to make possible "smart contracts". how do you know the source is not going to root your operating system? to understand that you have to know how easy and quick introducing backdoors is, in terms of computational complexity. in most cases you have program flow, create some kind of jump, and emulate further normal program flow. usually you have to be quite clever, as Operating System/application developers battle hackers all the time and there is a long list of vulnerabilities. it takes only one bug to introduce a hole. vulnerabilities can be a combination of software and configurations.

writing source code which can predict if source code does what is supposed to do is largely impossible (virus scanners are basically just a list of known vulnerabilities). for smart contracts you need inputs from the outside world, otherwise they are useless. you want inputs like prices, or even a verified date (bitcoin is a timestamp server). if you get data from the outside world that means you can inject any data into nodes you want, and the runner of node has no means to verify whether he is currently executing code which steal his money. remember, in John-Von-Neumann programmable machines code and data exist in the same address space.

as for ethereum. there are some good ideas, but raising millions of dollars very heavily skews the conflict of interest. and I say this in the most friendly way I can. so take all of their claims with a very heavy grain of salt. if you go through the paper you will not find an example of what smart contracts or DAO in this context should even mean. its sad as there is some quite interesting elements. most of it is just nonsense though, if you really think about this should work’
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline Empirical1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 884
    • View Profile
I'd suggest focusing on the advantages and impressive features of your system rather than focusing on what makes all its competitors bad.  That just looks defensive.

IMO if Bytemaster succeeds we'll have very very fast reliable transactions at a very low cost, the advantages of the blockchain without many of the costs.

It is fairly compelling, but it all hinges on Bytemasters ability to bring a new paradigm into reality.    Ya'll should really focus on what you're doing rather than what everybody else is doing wrong, that's not a contest you want to get into right now lol.

I think marketing anything requires communicating both your own strengths as well as the weaknesses of your competitor/s.

It is dangerous and uneceesary to point out competitors weakness. If you successfully communicate your own strengths your audience will know your competitors weaknesses without you directly bringing attention to them.

The strategy has occasionally succeeded - but more often failed.

http://www.cbc.ca/undertheinfluence/season-3/2014/06/14/when-brands-mock-other-brands-1/

On the whole I agree with you, but when for example we promote Bitshares and people say, 'your distribution wasn't fair compared to Counterparty's', personally I like to be able to point out/counteract with something like Agent86's rebuttal in this thread...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=558316.40

Quote
ounterparty proof of burn just robbed the project and investors of development funds.  Imagine investing in a company by everyone getting together and awarding shares based on how much cash you throw in a bonfire, it makes just about that much economic sense.

Disclosure: I actually own XCP but that's the kind of thing I mean.

Edit: In fact one of the things that first drew me to Bitshares was the clear and compelling case I saw made by Bitshares about the weaknesses of Bitcoin.


At the Inside Bitcoin conference in Las Vegas the CEO of Butterfly Labs did a presentation on “The Future of Mining”.   In his presentation he pointed out that about 5 people collectively control 75% of the hashing power behind Bitcoin and 2 people control over 51%.   He then made the case that this centralization was good for Bitcoin because it means they could coordinate to rapidly resolve unexpected forks such as the one that occurred in March 2013.     According to Sonny Vleisides, without this centralization in mining Bitcoin would have died 9 months ago as decentralized clients would have been unable to reach a consensus on which fork to follow in a timely manner.

Whether or not you agree that Bitcoin would have died,  Sonny Vleisides has effectively admitted that Bitcoin has become centralized, that a small handful of powerful pool operators can unilaterally decide which block chain fork is the “official” fork, that they all know each other and that they effectively vote on which chain to support.   The session ran out of time before I had an opportunity to publicly ask the following question:  “If a small handful of self-appointed people have taken it upon themselves to decide which chain to officially support, then why should the Bitcoin ecosystem spend $1 billion dollars per year in electric costs to provide the same effective security as having 2 or 3 signatures on every block that costs next to nothing while providing infinitely more security?” 

Whether signatures or hashing power, the regular Bitcoin user has no more control over the official block chain policy than the regular Federal Reserve Note user has over official monetary policy.   Their only way to ‘vote’ is to switch to another currency which will have a smaller network with fewer exchanges, products, and services available to it. 

The fact that mining results in centralization should not have been a surprise to those who understand economies of scale.  Mining profitability is a function of efficiency and large centralized mining farms powered by the latest capital-intensive ASICs packaged and cooled in an industrial setting will eventually push all profitable mining into the hands of a single player.  Effectively, mining means that consensus is defined by an organization that can derive profits from alternative revenue streams such as taxation, tainted coins, or limiting transactions to privileged players.   It means that in the name of ‘progress’, these large miners will support other changes to the protocol that also benefit from economies of scale such as reducing block intervals, increasing block sizes, and offering instant transaction validation services.   
We have come to the conclusion that there is no traditional proof-of-work system that can provide security and decentralization at the same time.  A new approach is needed.

« Last Edit: June 23, 2014, 09:14:32 PM by Empirical1 »

 

Google+