I really do not want to undervalue your effort to collect that much more money. I know it is hard, very hard.
My point is that Ether and Bitshares X will not likely fail (if they do) because the product was not well financed, i.e in a result of not being well developed (coded).
Either of them will fail because the core ideas were not workable. Not meant to work in the real world.
My point wasn't the raw amount of money collected, it was strictly about adoption. Ideas are worthless without people who subscribe to them. Even flawed ideas can be more powerful than pure ones if there is a legion of followers- look at a lot of wack job religions.
Ethereum in its sale numbers has demonstrated a large community of people who now have a financial interest in being advocates for the ecosystem and its ideology. That was my point.
I did lol a bit.
I just want to hear good reasons for why someone supports POW at this point. Not really POW vs POS, just expecting thorough reasoning. Charles, you put so much thought into your words that I expect only the best. I don't argue with everyone, just those of which I have high expectations. If such a person says something that doesn't make sense to me or seems wrong, I like to engage them. Thats why I ended up here. Blame it on Dan.
Yanno, you don't meet people like Charles at the local watering hole.....
So one starts with a database (the blockchain) that contains an initial state and transitions to another state. The fundamental question is how one verifies that the state change is correct versus any other proposed change. PoW and PoS are both mechanisms to accomplish state transition in a decentralized way.
PoW is an algorithmic meritocracy taking work in the form of something that runs O(n) with an associated global difficulty and verifies in O(1). This requirement has prevented people from using PoW for beneficial tasks as most need either human judgement for verification or verify in same time as the work.
In principle, I like PoW if one can bundle activities that benefit the health of the overall network and then reward the largest contributors. In fact, Dan is attempting to do this with DPOS via delegate competition- those who do the most for the network at the lowest cost per user are most likely to be voted a delegate. No one has yet established a mechanism to accomplish this in a trustless, automated algorithm. So yes PoW is a waste of resources.
Now let's examine PoS in general. If one admits a solely store of value system, then PoS is economically aligned with the best interests of the entire network. The majority should be reasonably expected to use PoS to attempt to increase the value of their personal holdings. Also implementations of PoS are considerably simpler than PoW. As I said above, DPOS also adds network health to the list of considerations via the judgement of the voters.
Here's my primary problem. PoS is fundamentally controlled by people who own the tokens of the system. If one has developed a non-monetary system such as distributive computation, storage, or hosting services for example, then the vast majority of users likely will not hold a substantial stake in the system's tokens rather a small oligarchy of speculators, early adopters and perhaps infrastructure providers would. Thus you have a system where the people who use the network must accept the demands of a small group as we currently do with the centralized web.
There are probably some soft corrections that could be implemented; however, from a philosophical viewpoint, it's not necessarily the best idea to endow the holders of a token to be the voting class of a network. For cryptoequities, matters of corporate governance, DACs in general, this structure makes perfect sense. In systems where the vast majority of users control only an aggregate small amount of tokens, then it doesn't seem to align interests properly. I hope that explains my viewpoint.
What DACs should DPOS be applied to instead? If not a DAC but a brick and mortar business what advantages does it have to manage the IPO, board voting rights etc. with DPOS (apart from it being illegal to do an IPO (real IPO with hard promises) without a lot of additional (legal) work)
It's not necessarily illegal to do an online IPO in all jurisdictions and in fact some ecourage it. I've spent the last six months studying the topic very deeply to a great degree of recent success
. In terms of what ought to be the focus on Invictus's efforts, if I was the CEO, then I'd build a licensed IPO platform that would allow companies to conduct crowdsales via launching specialized bitshares chains that would require honoring some part of AGS and PTS positions. Had they made a compelling enough system, then most of the recent coin sales would have likely been launched using Invictus software.
It makes more sense to chase profits stemming from a badly managed space instead of going after apple with music, enduring the dubious legality of gambling, and going after DNS without any public browser compatibility strategy. I could go into greater detail; however, it's a waste of time, I'm not the CEO of Invictus.