Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
This is a sad, sad thread. As ABL warned my similarly-minded friend, this will probably be pearls before swine, but I suppose I just can't resist the opportunity to do the right thing.
AB and GM are more than aware of Bitshares and DPoS, they just think that neither are any good, or even worth spending any time talking about. They laugh at 1:19:54 because all of the proof of stake ideas floating around today are just repeats of what was tried (and abandoned) in 2011 or earlier.
Having corresponded with Blockstream about this in particular, I know that at 1:21:28 Adam Back refers to "Working on What?" in my own anti-PoS blog post ( http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-and-mining/ or, more specifically, his post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=907157.0 ). Then they discussed Nothing-At-Stake, and finally 1:23:45 AB refers to stake-grinding (from Poelstra's paper). All of that is in my post, and, in fact, after writing my post, multiple early Bitcoin-wizards wrote to me to basically say "You seem like a smart guy, you shouldn't waste your time on this because we've all moved on a long time ago. No knowledgeable people care about proof of stake anymore. Try working on X instead."
It is as RH comments here ( http://lesswrong.com/lw/gt/a_fable_of_science_and_politics/ ). That "people who learn the answer leave the conversation".
At 1:25:05, and 1:27:08, GM is poking fun at Bitshares (among other things).
As for BitUSD, there is no clear documentation of the constantly-shifting, constantly-ridiculous technical and economic methods by which BitUSD is constructed. There are too many examples of this to list, try https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4692.msg59823 and note that "Howard" at http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/bitusd/ couldn't even source the BitUSD interest rate after several days of searching. All kinds of new, untested stuff (delegate feeds, market-matching algorithms) has been thrown together in an essentially embarrassing way.
Out.
This actually some of the most constructive criticism I've read on this forum. Thank you AI
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Really? Constructive? I read it several times to try and find something constructively critical and all I found was someone with an axe to grind and a blog to advertise.
He quotes with approval: "because we've all moved on a long time ago" and yet here he is again apparently still reading our forum for a chance to, ah, exactly what? Obsessed much?
"AB and GM are more than aware of Bitshares and DPoS, they just think that neither are any good, or even worth spending any time talking about." That's constructive criticism? Is he a a fly on their wall, or lives in their brains that he knows what they think when they don't state it?
The post is largely a sour grapes advertisement for his own blog and project and consists almost entirely of name-dropping and speculation.
Constructive criticism my ass.
Fully agree with this. I suspect that Carpet Ride was just sarcastic.
This is a sad, sad thread. As ABL warned my similarly-minded friend, this will probably be pearls before swine, but I suppose I just can't resist the opportunity to do the right thing.
AB and GM are more than aware of Bitshares and DPoS, they just think that neither are any good, or even worth spending any time talking about. They laugh at 1:19:54 because all of the proof of stake ideas floating around today are just repeats of what was tried (and abandoned) in 2011 or earlier.
Having corresponded with Blockstream about this in particular, I know that at 1:21:28 Adam Back refers to "Working on What?" in my own anti-PoS blog post ( http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-and-mining/ or, more specifically, his post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=907157.0 ). Then they discussed Nothing-At-Stake, and finally 1:23:45 AB refers to stake-grinding (from Poelstra's paper). All of that is in my post, and, in fact, after writing my post, multiple early Bitcoin-wizards wrote to me to basically say "You seem like a smart guy, you shouldn't waste your time on this because we've all moved on a long time ago. No knowledgeable people care about proof of stake anymore. Try working on X instead."
It is as RH comments here ( http://lesswrong.com/lw/gt/a_fable_of_science_and_politics/ ). That "people who learn the answer leave the conversation".
At 1:25:05, and 1:27:08, GM is poking fun at Bitshares (among other things).
As for BitUSD, there is no clear documentation of the constantly-shifting, constantly-ridiculous technical and economic methods by which BitUSD is constructed. There are too many examples of this to list, try https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4692.msg59823 and note that "Howard" at http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/bitusd/ couldn't even source the BitUSD interest rate after several days of searching. All kinds of new, untested stuff (delegate feeds, market-matching algorithms) has been thrown together in an essentially embarrassing way.
Out.
Can the web wallet integrate the entrance of some gateway or bridge? Then people can loggin to the web wallet and directly deposit fiat and receive bitAsset. It just like the deposit directly from fiat to bitasset. It will be much smooth for people to come in.
As soon as Bitshares implements a fiat onramp, the banks and governments will be all over this, NOT good. Just use the centralized exchanges to send your fiat to bitcoin then xfer to bitshares.
You may be the only person on the forum that believes that. We are dead if we don't get fiat on/off ramps.
Legal compliance is still a concern. We need to get the fiat on/off ramps and clear any legal requirements, where applicable.
We need to comment on this article in as many places as possible since its Reuters. Could use it for marketing.
This means absolutely nothing beyond talks between the Fed and IBM to further digitize the US dollar.
No mention of consensus mechanism.
No mention of inflation rate.
I'm pretty sure their concept of "decentralized consensus" would be something such as allowing each Federal Reserve District a delegate or node.
Even if brought to fruition, these kind of changes may slightly slow the eventual flight from the dollar domestically, but I doubt it will have much effect globally.
edit :
by the way , this is the 15 time in 10 minute that I click this post to see who has replied ..... so you can see how addictive this forum stuff is ....
I want to leave and do some more important things , but I just couldn't resist going back , because I feel like I'm in a conversation while it's not .
help me , please
- Technical aspects - is Rust really THAT good? Is this something we should or could consider at any point?
I've been following Rust for a while with extreme interest and would absolutely consider it as my #1 choice for a FUTURE (after a year or two) project. It still has not hit 1.0 and I would expect another year or two for an an acceptable ecosystem of libraries, etc. to develop.
My hope is that in a couple years we take all the lessons learned from BitShares development and usage and reimplement the entire platform the best way we know how at the time, this time written entirely in Rust, and release it as BitShares 3.0 whose genesis block contains a commitment to a genesis database state which is a live snapshot of the most recent state from the BitShares 2.x chain it instantaneously replaces.
That said, we do need to see value for this quantity of funds. I hope the dev team/vote team/chinese whales can come to a reasonable compromise.
