Author Topic: Bytemaster (Dan Larimer) on Episode 129 of Let's Talk Bitcoin!  (Read 9926 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Bob1990

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile

Offline fuzzy

This is a good discussion and the show was really a gem.  Truly love Stephanie's line of questions (especially about the delegate corruption).  Anyone interested in running a delegate that pays out a % of tx fees to help fund the creation of DACs in this ecosystem should PM me so we can prove that fan-boys can sometimes be fan-boys of a product because that product is superior to the alternatives, offering economic benefits that others (that were more rushed in their release) cannot.  :D 
« Last Edit: July 30, 2014, 07:03:43 am by fuznuts »
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline lucky331

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 202
    • View Profile
http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-129-dogeparty-and-delegated-proof-of-stake

On Todays Episode

Adam talks about the costs of Counterparty and introduces Dogeparty (dogeparty.io) an experimental solution, along with Proof of Charity - a new Token Initialization Method

Daniel Larimer, CEO of Invictus Innovations (bitshares-x.info) (bitsharestalk.org) speaks with Stephanie, Andreas and Adam about the release of BitsharesX, their Delegated Proof of Stake system, automatic stealth addresses, bitUSD and more.


We were tough in the interview, Daniel did very well and I'm quite pleased with the resulting work regardless of the process that brought us here.

Major kudos!


just listened to the interview.  i like how dan larimer explained the differences and pros and cons in pow, pos, dpos, ripple's consensus. 

thanks for posting.  bitshares has great potential. 

all the success and luck to the project and the guys behind it. 

Offline twitter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
    • View Profile
witness:

Offline Ben Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1070
  • Integrity & Innovation, powered by Bitshares
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: benjojo
I feel this discussion has the wrong emphasis.  As long as the internet remains relatively free of censorship, eventually the people that really matter, the masses....well, they'll adopt whatever offers the best form of entry and the lowest costs to them.  Those of us who are already invested do indeed perceive this technology through the filter of our own hopes and ambitions, however, success or failure of innovation is not likely to be decided by those vested interests.  In reality, if POW is inefficient in comparison to other mechanisms, it's only a question of time before other networks become more valuable.  If everyone hedges to some degree in sensibly chosen innovations, hopefully everyone who has made the crypto space what it is today will secure a piece of the future.  Until we can compete with the incumbent financial systems, we are all on the same side and had better look after each other......the stakes couldn't be higher.

Offline Riverhead

I've said it before and I'll say it again, POW = anti-innovation at this point.  It was and is a great thing, absolute genius but everything is refined.
+5%
The steam engine was awesome.  Was.

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
You guys don't get it :)  Daniel simplifies to say mining = burning money but does not recognize that it is not percieved as such.  If you could achieve same-mining-power-per-person at no percieved additional cost to the person, you give them a way to become a part of it (a stakeholder) without requiring them to go through the same mental calculus as whether they need to decide to buy or even worse, invest in something.
I think no one can disagree with this statement. The unrealistic part in it though is " If you could achieve same-mining-power-per-person at no percieved additional cost".
We should not approach system design by wishing for particular characteristics but present complete systems with all the practical implications each system has and then compare those as a whole. To this day unavoidable implications for POW are the possibility and necessity of pools (to hedge against the volatility of finding a block) and economies of scale (one has to "invest" a lot to be able to compete proving that he has more mining power than the average).

Where did Andreas show he is in favor of POW when compared to POS? I listened to the interview and thought it was very fair and competent by all participants. It is perfect if the interviewer takes the mainstram (POW) perspective and defends it even otherwise the one that is interviewed can not present the arguments that convinces the mainstream of his position.
And maybe he just didn't really deal with POS yet. That is not something to blame. We all have a limited amount of time. In the grand Bitcoin discourse proof of stake is less prominent than we think here which does not mean that it is not underrepresented. Discourse means: The stuff people actually talk about and how they actually perceive things, not whether their assumptions are right or not. 
« Last Edit: July 27, 2014, 06:52:06 pm by delulo »

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
But yeah you should totally call people POW fanboys lol, that's what's going on here.

OH yea, I forget, everyone who disagreed with you on here was a fanboy, but if someone else ............................... ;)

I actually visited Andreas' twitter to see what he is about and found this link https://t.co/OE7ZL8WAd1 Call me a fanboy of his now. lol.

Seriously, everyone has that weird assumption that POW = actual work.  I cornered a guy once who is a big bitcoin fan and tried to find out why he can't consider POW wasteful.  All they can do is meander down to some assumption that POW is necessary and the alternative is you get something for nothing.

They ignore the fact that networks/token/coin/currencies/stake/shares can have other values outside of being a currency. Devs/marketers will create the extra value.  It will not be the guys buying mining equipment running numbers on some web ROI calculator bringing value to the network.

It is so funny how so many in the community hate fiat and demurrage, but with Bitcoin they find it completely acceptable.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, POW = anti-innovation at this point.  It was and is a great thing, absolute genius but everything is refined.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline Empirical1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 884
    • View Profile
You guys don't get it :)  Daniel simplifies to say mining = burning money but does not recognize that it is not percieved as such.  If you could achieve same-mining-power-per-person at no percieved additional cost to the person, you give them a way to become a part of it (a stakeholder) without requiring them to go through the same mental calculus as whether they need to decide to buy or even worse, invest in something.

I made this argument loudly in december and january when this was re-allocated from 10% to PTS holders to 50% to PTS holders and 50% to AGS holders, leaving none remaining for those interested and available with time but not able to devote money up front to becoming part of it.

But yeah you should totally call people POW fanboys lol, that's what's going on here.

I think your points about the psychology are valid, Gamey actually made similar observations

The reason sharedrops that "simulate mining" work is because all of the early adopters etc are miners.  Most of the die-hard types sitting on forums have at least dabbled in mining and believe it to be "fair".  There is nothing special about mining that sells a distribution except the existing adopters have mentally bought in.

They've put their capital into mining equipment so now they're a middle man selling hashes and taking the profits and paying the electricity providers.  This is not much different from paying for shares directly, people just need to have it explained to them. 

Mining is also labor intensive so it keeps large capital from showing up and just buying in.  This is probably the one biggest thing people need to avoid in the longrun, the perception that the guy with the most money at the start ends with the most money.  Lots will disagree with it, but this is probably the biggest perception at play when people don't like POS.  An "unfair" distribution.  Mining is only marginally more fair because it requires labor to set it up.

I think Andreas is brilliant personally but I disagree with him regards POW and also the idea that a system like Bitcoin is secure because people with control are incentivised to reap the profits as opposed to damage it. (I mean he argued even big mining pools were OK from that perspective, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgEDOBgYg-g , I disagree. I think competitors (entrenched interests in finance/central banking) are still incentivised to damage the system. And if all you need is the resources to buy mining equipment or to get to a handful of people, it's a problem.)


« Last Edit: July 27, 2014, 05:53:10 pm by Empirical1 »

Offline AdamBLevine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 492
    • View Profile
    • Let's Talk Bitcoin!
You guys don't get it :)  Daniel simplifies to say mining = burning money but does not recognize that it is not percieved as such.  If you could achieve same-mining-power-per-person at no percieved additional cost to the person, you give them a way to become a part of it (a stakeholder) without requiring them to go through the same mental calculus as whether they need to decide to buy or even worse, invest in something.

I made this argument loudly in december and january when this was re-allocated from 10% to PTS holders to 50% to PTS holders and 50% to AGS holders, leaving none remaining for those interested and available with time but not able to devote money up front to becoming part of it.

But yeah you should totally call people POW fanboys lol, that's what's going on here.
Email me at adam@letstalkbitcoin.com

Offline Empirical1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 884
    • View Profile
I just realized why Andreas used such a long-winded and loaded question trying to confirm whether Bitshares would be for traditional businesses looking for better transaction ledgers.

"BitShares does for business what Bitcoin did for money"   ---- This was the first thing Andreas saw when he researched BitShares prior to the interview!  It lead him down a completely incorrect rabbit hole of thinking.  No wonder he didn't have any follow up comments to that question -- He had been completely mislead by our slogan into thinking the USP of our technology would be for traditional businesses rather than the masses.  If we had had a clear slogan on the website that actually explained our USP, Andreas would have participated 10x more in the discussion because he would have been correctly prepared rather than thrown off-guard .  I can only imagine how many people the current slogan has deceived.


We need a better slogan -- Now!

Edit:  Brian, get on this.  and not to be a dick, but get on it now!  Be reminded of this --  discussions about correcting the slogan have have gone on for months and even you have conceded that ithe slogan needs to be changed.  As DOM it is your duty to make this right.  Please respond to this with confirmation as to whether you will or will not change the slogan.

Isn't Andreas another POW fanboy ?  Bitshares has been around for quite some time, I don't think he got much from the slogan.

edit - And with this post, I become "Hero Member".

 +5% Congratulations on hero status  :)

Yeah I don't think Andreas took anything from the slogan. That long line of questioning starting at 28:00 was centred around the idea that a POS type system in general unfairly rewards early adopters specifically in the use case of the shares being used as just a currency.  Andreas feels POW & mining is a much better, fairer form of distribution.

So all his questions were designed around proving that, starting at about 35:30 Daniel clearly succinctly debunked the whole POW idea imo and explained why the BitShares system specifically is actually much fairer even for a global currency use case than anything out there. After that they moved on...

Edit: I'm not against changing the slogan though, I think I'm one of the ones that brought it up. I just haven't seen anything since that jumps out like wow, yes, let's use that! 
« Last Edit: July 27, 2014, 05:07:58 pm by Empirical1 »

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile

He might be, but listen to his question in the interview, it's all about the application of the technology --- "using it for businesses"  like our slogan implies.  Our slogan implies we will use incorruptible transaction ledgers for traditional business.  It is our fault that he was not better prepared.  We need to take responsiblity for this.

Btw. congrats on 500 posts, hero member

Thank you. 

Well, maybe you're right.  I'd have to go relisten to his specific wording.  To me it just sounded like some loaded questioning but nothing that Dan can't fend off.  Thats the beauty of Dan's approach, he's come up with a pretty solid group of technologies.  So all the 'hard questions' or whatever really aren't that hard.

Thats the beauty of defending BitShares etc against others.  Once you understand it, the economics and thus advantages, it becomes pretty easy to defend the whole thing.

"Hero for the day".  I need to youtube the song to wake up properly ;)
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
I just realized why Andreas used such a long-winded and loaded question trying to confirm whether Bitshares would be for traditional businesses looking for better transaction ledgers.

"BitShares does for business what Bitcoin did for money"   ---- This was the first thing Andreas saw when he researched BitShares prior to the interview!  It lead him down a completely incorrect rabbit hole of thinking.  No wonder he didn't have any follow up comments to that question -- He had been completely mislead by our slogan into thinking the USP of our technology would be for traditional businesses rather than the masses.  If we had had a clear slogan on the website that actually explained our USP, Andreas would have participated 10x more in the discussion because he would have been correctly prepared rather than thrown off-guard .  I can only imagine how many people the current slogan has deceived.


We need a better slogan -- Now!

Edit:  Brian, get on this.  and not to be a dick, but get on it now!  Be reminded of this --  discussions about correcting the slogan have have gone on for months and even you have conceded that ithe slogan needs to be changed.  As DOM it is your duty to make this right.  Please respond to this with confirmation as to whether you will or will not change the slogan.

Isn't Andreas another POW fanboy ?  Bitshares has been around for quite some time, I don't think he got much from the slogan.

edit - And with this post, I become "Hero Member". 
« Last Edit: July 27, 2014, 04:10:38 pm by gamey »
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline changematey

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 45
    • View Profile
How about an option for "holding" ;) even though if it means zombie btsx accounts for year or two.
I you don't move you btsx once a year you might be forced to pay a 5% inactivity fee .. just FYI
http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/Inactivity_Fees
Well my bet is if it performs what it says then 5% will not be something to be worried about.

Offline vikram

How about an option for "holding" ;) even though if it means zombie btsx accounts for year or two.
I you don't move you btsx once a year you might be forced to pay a 5% inactivity fee .. just FYI
http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/Inactivity_Fees

Would this also apply for unclaimed btsx?  For example AGS allocation not yet imported?

Yes it would apply; there is no such thing as unclaimed BTSX in the chain.

Offline AdamBLevine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 492
    • View Profile
    • Let's Talk Bitcoin!
Can't wait to listen  :D

BTW, the poll should have a third option, the always capitalized "HODLING"

Just for you ;)
Email me at adam@letstalkbitcoin.com

Offline CLains

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: clains
Can't wait to listen  :D

BTW, the poll should have a third option, the always capitalized "HODLING"

Offline G1ng3rBr34dM4n

Great interview! 
Impressed by the LTB team by really doing a great job of balancing the interview and staying as objective as possible.

I was super excited when Andreas came storming out of the gates.  And the "1% of the 1% of the 1%" comment gave me goosebumps, in a good way.


lzr1900

  • Guest

Offline blahblah7up

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 192
    • View Profile
How about an option for "holding" ;) even though if it means zombie btsx accounts for year or two.
I you don't move you btsx once a year you might be forced to pay a 5% inactivity fee .. just FYI
http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/Inactivity_Fees

Would this also apply for unclaimed btsx?  For example AGS allocation not yet imported?

Offline vikram


Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
How about an option for "holding" ;) even though if it means zombie btsx accounts for year or two.
I you don't move you btsx once a year you might be forced to pay a 5% inactivity fee .. just FYI
http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/Inactivity_Fees

Offline changematey

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 45
    • View Profile
How about an option for "holding" ;) even though if it means zombie btsx accounts for year or two.

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
BM, regarding min. 54:45.
3 questions:
1) How exactly could the bitshares toolkit "provide an alternative accounting mechanism....
2) ....and allow the regulations to be hard coded into the system"
...for a brick and mortar corporation?
3) which "system"? (as quoted in see (2))

Offline bitcoinba

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 193
    • View Profile
What was Andreas thinking during BM's dialogue?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was really hoping for more from Andreas. More intriguing questions for Dan.

bitbro

  • Guest
What was Andreas thinking during BM's dialogue?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Offline Simeon II

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 355
    • View Profile

We were tough in the interview, Daniel did very well and I'm quite pleased with the resulting work regardless of the process that brought us here.

Major kudos!


Ok listened to it. Thanks Adam & co! Yeah some challenging questions, but I thought it was fair. Fantastic, interesting interview covered a lot of ground. I thought Daniel was GREAT!    +5% +5% +5% +5%
+5%
+5% +5% +5%

Offline fuzzy


We were tough in the interview, Daniel did very well and I'm quite pleased with the resulting work regardless of the process that brought us here.

Major kudos!


Ok listened to it. Thanks Adam & co! Yeah some challenging questions, but I thought it was fair. Fantastic, interesting interview covered a lot of ground. I thought Daniel was GREAT!    +5% +5% +5% +5%
+5%
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline Empirical1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 884
    • View Profile

Xeldal

  • Guest
 +5% Enjoyed it!  Very well done.
Got excited and went and bought some more.

Offline alt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2821
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: baozi
+5%
great :D

来自我的 HUAWEI P7-L00 上的 Tapatalk


Offline myhometalk

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 32
    • View Profile

Offline Empirical1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 884
    • View Profile

We were tough in the interview, Daniel did very well and I'm quite pleased with the resulting work regardless of the process that brought us here.

Major kudos!


Ok listened to it. Thanks Adam & co! Yeah some challenging questions, but I thought it was fair. Fantastic, interesting interview covered a lot of ground. I thought Daniel was GREAT!    +5% +5% +5% +5%


Offline jae208

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 525
    • View Profile
I'm going to listen to it right now. Great job Adam and Thanks!

Big thanks to Dan and everyone else that made Bitshares X a reality!
http://bitsharestutorials.com A work in progress
Subscribe to the Youtube Channel
https://www.youtube.com/user/BitsharesTutorials

Offline Empirical1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 884
    • View Profile

Offline Strip

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 63
    • View Profile
BTS: strip

Offline AdamBLevine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 492
    • View Profile
    • Let's Talk Bitcoin!
http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-129-dogeparty-and-delegated-proof-of-stake

On Todays Episode

Adam talks about the costs of Counterparty and introduces Dogeparty (dogeparty.io) an experimental solution, along with Proof of Charity - a new Token Initialization Method

Daniel Larimer, CEO of Invictus Innovations (bitshares-x.info) (bitsharestalk.org) speaks with Stephanie, Andreas and Adam about the release of BitsharesX, their Delegated Proof of Stake system, automatic stealth addresses, bitUSD and more.


We were tough in the interview, Daniel did very well and I'm quite pleased with the resulting work regardless of the process that brought us here.

Major kudos!
Email me at adam@letstalkbitcoin.com