Author Topic: BitcoinTalk: PoS is broken .. idiotic arguments  (Read 3477 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mf-tzo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1725
    • View Profile
I fully agree with everything you said and I didn't imply something different...

Quote
I believe if we could devise a series of fun but serious games, that allow the players to exert a reasonable amount of effort to try and win, or gain an advantage by having a unique playing strategy, then if they win more shares it was fun to do it and required strategic thinking.

 +5% to that as long as it is something that everyone can use (like I said send an email)..


Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
There is not such thing as fair distribution...

No one should get something very valuable for free as most probably  won't appreciate it, sell it and get the free money that someone gave to you...

The most fair distribution would be to create something very very simple that anyone outside crypto who can at least send an email can participate. As long as only existing cryptoinvestors participate  and not the rest of the world it will never be fair.

You said there is no such thing as a fair distribution and I completely agree. Then you say no one should get something very valuable for free because most people wouldn't appreciate it etc and to a certain extent I agree.

However...

Bitcoin early adopters got rich for free if they were smart enough not to quickly sell it. They mined thousands of coins with their CPUs and saved them. Satoshi Nakamoto himself did this and we say this is perfectly fair distribution because everyone else had an equal opportunity to do the same thing among the people who knew about Bitcoin.

The problem today is people know about Bitcoin but cannot mine it. It's now Pay-to-Win. It was not Pay-to-Win for the players who played in 2009, 2010, 2011, until GPUs came out and changed the game.

This is not the game Satoshi Nakamoto described when he said one CPU one vote. A vote could also be an opportunity. So one CPU one opportunity. It doesn't mean everyone will win but at least if you have a CPU you have some stake, some chance at achieving a stake, but today a CPU is worthless.

I do agree with you that only people truly interested should get the biggest rewards. Interest should be rewarded but not previous wealth. If you reward wealth then people who have no interested in the technology, the community, can just buy us all out.

Diversity of playing styles, strategies, and game types should be encouraged

I will say that different sorts of games provide different advantages to different demographics of players. This is okay just so long as we keep switching the games up so the same demographic of players don't receive all the advantage all the time. Allow room for skill in the game but don't make it a skill which an exclusive small segment of the nerd population has and then expect that the rest of the people will come running for a seat at the table because to them it's like the poker champions playing while card counting.

I believe if we could devise a series of fun but serious games, that allow the players to exert a reasonable amount of effort to try and win, or gain an advantage by having a unique playing strategy, then if they win more shares it was fun to do it and required strategic thinking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advantage_gambling
« Last Edit: July 02, 2014, 10:58:43 am by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani
There is not such thing as fair distribution...

No one should get something very valuable for free as most probably  won't appreciate it, sell it and get the free money that someone gave to you...

The most fair distribution would be to create something very very simple that anyone outside crypto who can at least send an email can participate. As long as only existing cryptoinvestors participate  and not the rest of the world it will never be fair.

we must make the possibility of future centralization to be as near as zero...
no

Offline mf-tzo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1725
    • View Profile
There is not such thing as fair distribution...

No one should get something very valuable for free as most probably  won't appreciate it, sell it and get the free money that someone gave to you...

The most fair distribution would be to create something very very simple that anyone outside crypto who can at least send an email can participate. As long as only existing cryptoinvestors participate  and not the rest of the world it will never be fair.

Offline liondani

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

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
Read for your self:
I guess they really have no idea about what we are trying to achieve here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=667594.0;all

They have a few valid arguments.

You can quote me on this...

With Proof of Stake if we don't change the distribution mechanism then it really does reward rich players. It's a Pay-to-Win game.

I don't think it's fair to the majority of the possible players to deliberately design it to be Pay-to-Win because then the game becomes less fun. When the game becomes less fun then less people play. So if you want only rich people to play then you keep it set up the way it is now until it centralizes around the wealthiest.

I'm going to be honest, it might actually be better for us in the short time if it's a Pay-to-Win game. It could make some of us filthy rich as the price of the shares skyrocket while millionaires buy them up. In the long term though the level of user adoption will suffer because no one outside of the "first world" will even be able to play and within the first world eventually the people who we really want to play will say it's too expensive.

They also have a strong point to make that it will not remain decentralized if it remains Pay-to-Win. Under Pay-to-Win who do you think the top players will eventually be? Someone who already won in another game can keep paying for wins in every future iteration of a game.

This would be fine if these people came from the Bitshares community and helped launch the industry but if they are people from another community or let's say they are a traditional bank then would you be happy with them doing the 1% attack and grabbing all the equity? If that happens what will the ultimate result be? It will be centralization of wealth in the hands of possibly the very same banking elite that this community in particular complains about.

To keep that from happening you need to move away from the Pay-to-Win model of Proof of Stake. Democratic models are better and DPoS is better. We could fix this bug by simply adding randomness to the selection of the delegates (not in this chain but in some of the future chains).  Adding this randomness will shuffle the deck a little bit and then we can say that we care about decentralization.

I know Democracy is a loaded word around here but no matter what words I use to express these concepts the trend is clear. Players do not like Pay-to-Win because it's not viewed as fair and hence not fun.


« Last Edit: July 02, 2014, 03:38:25 am by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
Read for your self:
I guess they really have no idea about what we are trying to achieve here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=667594.0;all

They know about us, they just don't believe in the technology yet. It's the same attitude people had with PoW when it first happened. It will take time for it to think in.

This is why I am a big proponent of direct comparisons when they are beneficial.  There are problems with the approach since there isn't a released product for Bitshares. It really is an issue of education.  We also have to fight against all the people investing in Bitcoin and mining.  Thats billions of dollars of economic interest vs a fraction of that in POS.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
Read for your self:
I guess they really have no idea about what we are trying to achieve here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=667594.0;all

They know about us, they just don't believe in the technology yet. It's the same attitude people had with PoW when it first happened. It will take time for it to think in.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline puppies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1659
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: puppies
The OP of that thread is full of labor theory of value claptrap.  This same argument is used to explain why war(destruction) is good for the economy. 

Its almost as bad as all of the posts attempting to determine value by number of coins.
 
Sorry, but willful economic ignorance bothers me.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani
Pretty sure these guys over there now start investigating BitShares

...and will make for the first time a right investment  :)

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Pretty sure these guys over there now start investigating BitShares

Offline fuzzy

WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline mf-tzo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1725
    • View Profile

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc

Offline mf-tzo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1725
    • View Profile