Quote from: bytemaster on August 19, 2014, 07:52:15 pm

However, I am betting the farm that it will work

Speaking of betting:

@BM, Stan needs to post a picture of the farm otherwise I just take your bet against all the bitUSD I currently own! 

@AdamBL - I am ready to take you bet on which of the 2 will work - bitUSD or LTBcoin.

I don't bet on things I don't understand, your results may vary.

Quote from: bytemaster on August 19, 2014, 07:24:49 pm

Quote

continue to think your major innovative contribution is Protoshares which was the first token that gave people another token.   

I don't know whether I should be offended by that or not    Given TITAN + DPOS + RoboHash + BitAssets...

Apparently Adam thinks PTS is more innovative than TITAN or DPOS 

Its not intended to be an insult, TITAN DPOS are both reinventions of a wheel that already exists.  TITAN is Bitcoin Privacy made simple, DPOS is a mix of POS and the ripple consensus style with a quasi-democracy layer on it.  They might accomplish the same thing differently, but they are a better wheel, not one that didn't previously exist.

Giving someone a token that will later give them another token that has value for another reason was a genuine first.  Real progress where the rest is optimization, I talk about the difference between these two things here

I don't know what RoboHashes are, and as I've mentioned I don't really understand why Bitassets will work.

I've complained many times about provocative thread titles that mislead people, specifically coming from Bytemaster, since forever.  This is another example of a thread that just should not have been posted.  Projects like Ethereum (and this should also be the case for Bitshares) have long term plans and strategies that they follow and execute.  A meeting like the one described here is incredibly common, everybody wants to collaborate but to suggest that a market-changing event will (or even that it might) come out of it, unless agreed on in advance by both parties looks like the one spreading the word is trying to "borrow the thunder" of the one that was planning to keep it quiet.   Now any announcement that COULD be made, will be overshadowed by this pre-announcement. 

Of course, this is Open Source so there was never much of a chance that Ethereum would have a formal partnership with Bitshares - They can just take the parts they like and ignore the social contract since the only people that would impact negatively would be the Bitshares community, which is a fraction the size of the ethereum community and pre-order base.

So with that in mind, really all you could hope to do with this announcement is to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.  You had a nice, productive and foundational encounter with Vitalik.  You probably undid almost all the damage from the Gotcha video from Florida (the ethereum guys thought that was a really low blow), but then you reward him for making the trip out to see you by raising the idea of a merger or partnership which you admit was not even discussed along with talking about the financial rewards that would be given to this community (where does that come from?  at the expense of everyone who is getting it and who is not in this community) which then requires Vitalik to spend his time doing damage control, costing both time and credibility within his organization.  Next time will he come see you, or will he say "it's more trouble than it's worth?"

I am not suggesting you undertake a policy of GIANT SECRECY, just that you really try to filter your posting on the forum because it has a very real impact outside of the forum, and that's your real problem.  People here already love you no matter what you do.

Quote from: AdamBLevine on August 19, 2014, 07:08:06 pm

Read this thread (including that article) from the perspective of someone new to Bitshares and you'll see a community that spends way more time making fun of or insulting the author but either doesn't know or can't make a single refutation of... anything... except by bytemaster saying that he makes different assumptions. 

His concerns may very well be uninformed, but if that's the case it seems all the more urgent to explain why he is wrong both for his knowledge and the betterment of the communities understanding of the highly complicated mechanisms at work behind market created bitassets.  Some humility and due-dilligence might also be in order given the tech he's questioning and you're defending are still totally unproven to work even as we assume they will.

Do you find it a good practice to first write an article and then ask for input on things you do not understand?

Given he extensively cited Bytemaster, linked to the bitshares whitepaper and seemed to have a better understanding of Bitassets than about 99% of people I know in Bitcoin, I'm pretty sure he thinks he understands it. Did you not get that impression?

Quote from: AdamBLevine on August 19, 2014, 01:01:59 am

Quote from: Empirical1 on August 19, 2014, 12:19:12 am

For me it's a question of whether you can design a system that gives shareholders confidence these actions will only be taken in the big cases & when there is a definite clear consensus.

In every other system the answer is no, because you don't have the ability to provide that confidence. So I would not be in favour of a rollback for NXT.

This is *exactly* the problem actually.  If the rollback is only used in big cases, it means that it is safe to be part of a very popular NXT failure but not part of a small one (Because it won't be serious enough to be rolled back) - This will have a very centralizing effect where if you're going to be part of an exchange, well it better be the biggest exchange because otherwise people will say "Well it's not so bad, it wasn't the biggest exchange so we'll survive this". 

The rules need to be the rules, if you create conditions under which the rules and history itself can be re-written you will be inviting those who want to reinvent history to create exactly the conditions you are trying to avoid.  If it was not desirable to rewrite history such a mechanism could work, but because there are many ways individuals and groups and profit from rewriting history it's a very bad thing to codify in a way that is "OK".

It's concerning more people don't see this intractable issue.

What about in the scenario of police confiscation? Could the network agree to burn in this instance?

One way to do it would be if the previous owner elects to enable the network to burn in the instanced of confiscation. Currently technology doesn't allow proof of event or a sure way to confirm police confiscation.

But in the case that it did happen then the original owner gains nothing by electing to give the network the power to burn his stash.

In the end though it's too complicated to be worrying about this right now. It creates unnecessary confusion. It's like trying to have a dynamically generated digital constitution when we don't even have a fully functioning static digital constitution.

For today let the rules be the rules because that is what works best. If the black swan event occurs then we can react to it then and it will not be so difficult to discuss and decide what to do. If governments confiscated over 51% of Bitshares it's pretty obvious to me that there would be a rollback.

Just like if the Bitcoin community discovered that the government somehow owned most of it's coins they would have to do something if mining/Proof of Work cannot generate new coins. They rely on Proof of Work to allow themselves to have static rules. The FBI can confiscate a lot of coins and even be the largest address but because new coins are always being created it's not like the FBI could ever get 51% of the hashing power even if they had 51% of the coins.

Proof of Stake is different. If the government got 51% of the stake then DPoS would be owned by the government. In that instance we might want to hit the panic button if we saw that kind of takeover attempt.

Quote from: bytemaster on August 19, 2014, 01:18:47 am

Hard rule of no rewrites has least moral hazard.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The only black swan event which I could think of to justify burning a stash is a scenario where governments around the world start raiding and confiscating in unison. At that point it would be clear that it's an attempt to own Bitshares.

But even with these attacks the people who have escaped from confiscation along with the delegates can fight back. I think this black swan event is actually very likely to happen because it has happened with Bitcoin.

There shouldn't be rewrites but it might be possible to invalidate and burn a stash. The problem is to build this in right now creates risks and there is no evidence of the black swan event just yet. It could be that enough governments embrace it that its seen as just another technology, we just don't know yet.

I absolutely do not think letting the network intervene to burn a balance is acceptable.  Even the example you're giving where the "police" confiscate a balance, you want the one condition under which it would be OK to be the one where someone has done something illegal and the legal jurisdiction they're in catches them, confiscates their funds and then the network says "Oh the police!  Quick, burn that guys money!"

I phrase it like that because the idea that the guy who is being investigated by the police goes to the delegates and says "QUICK! BURN THE MONEY BEFORE THE COPS GET IT!" is insane on its face.

Further, if we can use it for that whats to stop a "whale" who gets robbed from going to the delegates asking the rules to change because they've been such a big supporter for so long. 

Any exemption is an invitation to use that exemption, and it will get wider over time as the people who built the system stop being the ones who make these decisions and it becomes about "what are you going to give me right now" since there are people (and not too many) who have the power to do this stuff.

I'm in favor of a hard-line no do-overs stance.  Any "except in the event of" just makes that the action anyone who wants a rollback must cause to occur.  Any "When the people filling these roles think it is appropriate" will result in those people and their replacements the people who must be convinced however to make it happen.

If the rules are there are no rollbacks, than for better or worse you'll have eliminated several major attack vectors you'll otherwise have.

I don't even really know what to say guys.  Invictus has done a terrible job with branding and marketing.  It is ever changing, it is poorly explained and it is exceptionally confusing even to people who are invested in Invictus much less those who have never heard of the product.  Do you disagree?

I'm a PTS, AGS and BTSX holder and I don't understand the structure.  Why is that not a problem?  How much has been paid to Brian, and what has been accomplished by it?  I literally introduced Brian and Daniel, I am not out to shoot myself in the foot - But I also feel like I've been pretty complacent for the last six months while Brian has produced really very little output that I've seen and I am asking for clarity.

It would be great if you guys would take a step back from your investment and ask critical questions.  Mostly this forum is ideation and celebration (because we're all going to be rich and/or change the world) really regardless of whether the circumstances justify it.

The only time I seem to hear from Brian are threads like this and so I am asking what he is doing when he is not posting threads like this about very recent victories.

Do YOU understand what Brian does? Please, explain it to me.

Adam, Brian is extremely occupied bringing the DACs to people and people to DACs thru several mediums, please don't be surprised if it takes a while for a response to your questions

Can you elaborate on any of this from knowledge or is this what you think/hope Brian does?  I feel like I've paid pretty close attention but I might have missed it.