September 15th 16:00 UTC time

I think it'll take a few weeks to gain so much marketcap. But also I think litecoin is near the end of the road, being a copy paste clone of Bitcoin with a 2.5min block time and scrypt mining algorithm, and NOTHING else going for it, development is very much dead too.

What incentive would a user have to pay for using this instead of Tor?

SPEED! one of the biggest issue I have with TOR is that it's so damn slow. Now if nodes have an incentive to get paid, then they will provide good reliable speedy service to users. I think it would be best if we allow users to choose which nodes to use (and pay for), all anonymously of course, and also a reputation system for reliable/speedy nodes.

Also we should allow node operator to choose to service the users for free, so that those without money are not locked out of the ecosystem. These free nodes will probably be slower/less reliable nodes, since they are crowded.

In addition, there needs to be an incentive for "hosting nodes" (nodes that provide web hosting). Because centralized TOR hosting is often targeted, half of TOR sites are gone due to FBI crack down on Freedom hosting company.  It's kinda like the "storj" concept, where you get paid for your disk space, and you don't see what's on your disk, so you can deny knowledge if you come under scrutiny.

After learning more about how delegate and fee works, I have adjusted my delegate pay to 5%. Thanks

 

Quote from: GaltReport on August 17, 2014, 12:27:39 pm

Quote from: luckybit on August 16, 2014, 01:27:11 pm

Quote from: liondani on August 16, 2014, 12:29:33 pm

Quote from: bytemaster on August 16, 2014, 06:15:46 am

their pay should go up the more votes they get. 

 


and I want to propose something CRAZY but maybe genius....

... you end up with a popularity contest but the problem is the most popular person or people might not be anything more than cult of personality. ...is popularity the only thing that matters for a delegate? ...

I agree with this.  I have seen delegate with 91% reliability with more approval than most others with better reliability and blocks produced.  Is the job to reliably produce blocks or to be a politician who is popular but doesn't do their job?  Or maybe that is the question.  What is the job?  Based on all the discussion, time and energy spent on this, you would think the whole point of BitShares is to run and vote for delegates and the other "functionality" is an aside.

so we could add reliability to the equation, something like :

Max Delegate Pay = (Approval Rate * reliability) / 100

reliability = reliability for the last x blocks (because "current" reliability should be more importand than total...)

I think there needs to be a weighting to high reliability. Because 95% reliability is terrible, but the payout isn't much different from having 99.99% reliability (only a 5% difference), so the incentive isn't there to get high reliability. On the other hand, if you make 95% or below = 10%, and 96% = +20%, 97% = +40%, 98% = +60%, 99%=+80%, 99.9% = +100%, this should put the incentive in the right place.

Say I want to adjust my delegate burn rate from 100% to 50%, how do I go about doing that?

Quote from: cass on August 17, 2014, 12:27:01 pm

Quote from: xeroc on August 17, 2014, 10:07:50 am

Also the hacker seems to  have returned the NXT 50m ..
http://www.reddit.com/r/NXT/comments/2ds1m0/hacker_begins_to_return_stolen_nxt/

ok wow - why he's doing that? Was it like a penetration test ...  ?

One of the hacker's NXT message says, "DevilDave is a plunker" or something like that. Perhaps it was proving a point about the true autonomous nature of a blockchain's ability to resist tampering. Also, the hacker still has the 100BTC for their efforts.

I believe the price was raised to 300 BTC.

Quote from: Riverhead on August 15, 2014, 05:41:50 pm

Quote from: kokojie on August 15, 2014, 04:18:01 pm

The developer will do the rollback with the blessing of majority of the forgers, it's basically a coordinated hard fork that is happening all the time in alt coins (and Bitcoin had one too).

Thinking about this longer I get more concerned. Let's say someone donates $5M worth of X to Israel/Hamas (just picking a random conflict that most would be familiar with which also has strong opinions in both camps). Someone creates a thread on the Xtalk forum slamming the injustice about giving so much money to such horrible people. The community generally agrees, namely the forgers, and they decide to roll back that transaction and give the money to the other side instead.


How many people are needed to effectively perpetrate a 51% attack on their own blockchain? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of an autonomous currency if a relatively small group of people (let's call them the coin's government) can make policy decisions based on political affiliation?


Maybe there's no way around this because someone(s) need to maintain the code so it'll never be completely hands off.

I think the general crypto community is smart enough to decide if it's something "clearly wrong and needs to be rolled back", (ie. code bug, hack of major exchange that will have real impact on all users)

vs something that is "possibly wrong, but not our place to judge" (ie. funding israel/hamas, paying prostitutes, FBI raids etc...).

Reading my own thoughts, now I have a new found respect for "too big to fail" and "bailouts" that happened in 2008. We now have our own case of "too big to fail" (BTER), and will needs to be bailed out (rollback).

Unfortunately, some companies failed so hard, that they can't even be bailed out, like Bear Stearns and Lieman Brothers, and mt.gox...