+5% +5% That sounds great! Thanks for letting us know!
I guess Vitalik must be happy for us to share that info? - That Vitalik/Ethereum is strongly considering DPOS?
+5% +5% That sounds great! Thanks for letting us know!
I guess Vitalik must be happy for us to share that info? - That Vitalik/Ethereum is strongly considering DPOS?
Vitalik and I are not very "political" and mostly care about the best technology for the job. I am merely expressing my perspective on the conversation and will let him speak for himself.
for me you both are the brightest stars in crypto and if we good join forces with ethereum both projects could be improve a lot. so you are the alpha and the omega in bitshares +5% +5%
This week I am meeting with Vitalik to discuss a partnership between our two projects. We spent several hours last night and 5 hours to day talking about blockchain technology and challenges we both face. I am happy to report that we are finding some common ground and are planning more regular collaboration.
Some of the things we have discussed is:
Moving Ethereum to DPOS
Honoring AGS/PTS with some of the stake saved by not mining Ether.
Distributing the Mining Rewards via Delegates
Improving the performance of Ethereum
BitAssets, DNS, and other market algorithms.
Vitalik seems to be of the opinion that DPOS is the way to go and the best overall compromise. He appears to recognize proof of work as dead and I have shown him that the "nothing at stake" argument does not apply to DPOS. We will be working to improve upon DPOS.
With respect to Turing Completeness and claims that Ether can do everything and anything, we had a deep discussion regarding the lack of first class data structures (heaps & trees) in Ether and even had some discussion on alternative abstraction on their data store. DPOS could significantly enhance the types of contracts ethereum could run by greatly increasing speed and effectively eliminating the potential for chain reorganizations.
Effectively my goal is to make both projects better and to secure AGS/PTS holders a stake in Ether. Our two communities can then work together to fill the various niches in the DAC ecosystem as we both agree that in its current incarnation Ethereum is not well suited to implementing many of the algorithms we have proposed for BitShares DACs.
Other areas of potential collaboration is our wallet technology. Our architectures are very similar and there is potential we may be able to combine resources here.
Vatalik is a smart guy and the two of us working together really helps sharpen both of us.
Nothing final at this stage, but I am optimistic a lot of good will come out of this.
+5% +5% That sounds great! Thanks for letting us know!
I guess Vitalik must be happy for us to share that info? - That Vitalik/Ethereum is strongly considering DPOS?
Vitalik and I are not very "political" and mostly care about the best technology for the job. I am merely expressing my perspective on the conversation and will let him speak for himself.
BM as usual focuses on hard facts and technology instead of politics and blahblah .. +5% awesome+5% +5% +5%
Too bad AdamBL is gone for the dogeparty .. :D
pretty sure he would have had an opinion on this :)
for me you both are the brightest stars in crypto and if we good join forces with ethereum both projects could be improve a lot. so you are the alpha and the omega in bitshares +5% +5%
I was wondering what kind of T-shirt Toast like to wear. Now I know :)+5%
I was wondering what kind of T-shirt Toast like to wear. Now I know :)you made me lol :) +5%
Too bad AdamBL is gone for the dogeparty .. :D
pretty sure he would have had an opinion on this :)
When you lie Down with dogs...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
That's great, now you need to talk to the person actually in charge of Ethereum- Dr. Wood.
If this happens, you can eat your words hosk. Please take credit for the cameras tho, we know you will anyway
I think this is a good thing. Together we can build something better! Im just wondering if this might hurt us? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=707237.0 i don't know to what extent do people think like that, if it's only a few or not. And there is always people who jump to conclusions or more suspicious about things (specially in the crypto world) but I hope people dont put us in the same bag as I haven't heard anything bad about this project and hopefully things will continue this way
Effectively my goal is to make both projects better and to secure AGS/PTS holders a stake in Ether.
Will the AGS/PTS stake be at least 10% allocation each?
Also, could you elaborate on Ethereum's investment relationship with Goldman Sachs and how/if that would effect future Bitshares projects?
Good news ! +5%QuoteEffectively my goal is to make both projects better and to secure AGS/PTS holders a stake in Ether.
Will the AGS/PTS stake be at least 10% allocation each?
Also, could you elaborate on Ethereum's investment relationship with Goldman Sachs and how/if that would effect future Bitshares projects?
I would like to see a full up relational DB with SQL support as the basic abstraction for the block chain.
QuoteI would like to see a full up relational DB with SQL support as the basic abstraction for the block chain.
A blockchain is at its core a functional database with variation over time not place. Something like Datomic seems to be a significantly better fit. At the very least the entire DB market is moving into the NoSQL realm. Why not chase something like Mongo and BSON style storage?
I haven't evaluated all options, but clearly it needs to be "in-memory" and dynamic.
4) I would want to use a lua scripting engine to validate transactions relative to the SQL database
a) Ethereum currently runs at 1.3 Mhz with their C++ interpreter, storage access via level db is the most expensive operation right now.
b) I think the data set should be kept in RAM validated by delegates. Delegates may need $15K servers at scale, but that should be reasonable.
QuoteI haven't evaluated all options, but clearly it needs to be "in-memory" and dynamic.
Redis is a very nice in memory database. What I'm most interested in is the notion of blockchain sharding.
Ethereum does not have and never has had a relationship with Goldman Sachs. It's a malicious rumor spread by people who don't like the project. There were two former Goldman Sachs employees helping ethereum during its early days. Both left the bank decades ago. Let this fucking FUD die man.
We have had some really good discussions that have lead to improvements in both our systems. The first step is to reach agreement on technical approach and the next step is to work on community buy-in.
Obviously we need to win over Gavin and other Ethereum developers and they are currently not convinced according to V. Primary argument so far is that DPOS creates 2 classes of users and that it is not "elegant" and is "over specialized for known attacks".
We will be holding a joint meeting with the Eth. devs this week to work through these concerns and attempt to weigh them against the other imperfect alternatives.
In any event V. and I have plans to meet every couple of weeks for a brainstorming session and hopefully record our discussions as we work through complex issues in the space.
One of the major issues is the need for Merkle trees in chain databases. There are a lot of trade offs and good discussion that will benefit both of us and the greater community.
(http://is.gd/00SLyc)
This week I am meeting with Vitalik to discuss a partnership between our two projects. We spent several hours last night and 5 hours to day talking about blockchain technology and challenges we both face. I am happy to report that we are finding some common ground and are planning more regular collaboration.
All I know is that when stuff like this starts happening on a Hot August Night in the deserted streets of Raleigh, NC you get cold fusion, flux capacitors, and warp drives...(http://bitshares.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/DV-with-inset.png)
(http://is.gd/00SLyc)
IF these two projects can collaborate I think it would be for the best. Both projects stand to gain tremendously by working together than competing against each other. I would love to invest into both projects if they can find a good common bridge they can build from!
interesting. i also read that vitalik also had talks with arthur britto of ripple labs.
That's great, now you need to talk to the person actually in charge of Ethereum- Dr. Wood.
Effectively my goal is to make both projects better and to secure AGS/PTS holders a stake in Ether
Someone in the Peercoin Reddit sub just posted this. He's suggesting that Dan, Vitalik, and Sunny work together. Whether that happens or not, this thread is good exposure for Bitshares on the Peercoin sub. Please chime in with your best group hug:
http://www.reddit.com/r/peercoin/comments/2dq2wi/bitshares_and_ethereum_are_considering/ (http://www.reddit.com/r/peercoin/comments/2dq2wi/bitshares_and_ethereum_are_considering/)
The main objection and concern I have for Proof-Of-Stake, is that it disallows mining.
It is impossible to mine NXT coin, for example, if you don't own any.
This blocks the community from growth.
In any event V. and I have plans to meet every couple of weeks for a brainstorming session and hopefully record our discussions as we work through complex issues in the space.
The main objection and concern I have for Proof-Of-Stake, is that it disallows mining.
It is impossible to mine NXT coin, for example, if you don't own any.
This blocks the community from growth.
do you mine bitcoin?
I would much rather use my computing power to fold protein than to do some pointless SHA-256 hashing.
Informal collaboration would be fine. A formal partnership may not be workable, as Sunny seems to not be one to show his id or face publicly.
QuoteThat's great, now you need to talk to the person actually in charge of Ethereum- Dr. Wood.
Gav isn't "actually in charge" more so than myself, but any major protocol change does indeed require consensus among myself, Gav and Jeff and of course the community. I only speak for myself.
With Ethereum being not just an open-source project but actually openly developed, we welcome help from all projects. That said, we fundamentally reject any notion of a special arrangement with any other projects, especially those with profit motives.
No partnership nor any sort of special conferencing is happening with any members of any other projects. We are quite capable of judging technologies on their intrinsic merits. Any communication that happens happens, we would hope, for the benefit of the entire community in the true spirit of enlightened discourse.
anyone can release a version of ethereum N.0 for N>1 by making their own additions and giving 0.26x minus mining fees since N-1.0 to their own communities as they deem fit, and if the community deems any implementation technically bad or unfair they can reject it and keep building on the previous instead kinda like a blockchain".Welcome Vitalik! :)
Great to see you on the board, V!!Gavin also has an ether stake which he can sell later.
Unfortunately, it seems you do only speak for yourself... Gav seems to indirectly opposed the Bitshares approach as mentioned in his recent blog post (emphasis mine): http://insightsintoamodernworld.blogspot.de/2014/08/ethereum-collaborations.html
anyone can release a version of ethereum N.0 for N>1 by making their own additions and giving 0.26x minus mining fees since N-1.0 to their own communities as they deem fit, and if the community deems any implementation technically bad or unfair they can reject it and keep building on the previous instead kinda like a blockchain".Welcome Vitalik! :)
Would you mind to expand on this and say it in more simple words?
The main objection and concern I have for Proof-Of-Stake, is that it disallows mining.
It is impossible to mine NXT coin, for example, if you don't own any.
This blocks the community from growth.
do you mine bitcoin?
There is a plan to allow people to mine Bitshares. You can virtually mine PoS so even miners have it better with PoS because with virtual mining you can actually mine stuff which is beneficial for society.
You can mine BOINC and earn Bitshares if we set it up. This way you could search for aliens or fold protein while you earn Bitshares. The way virtual mining works is you do some computation and then it sells that computation to buy Bitshares.
That computation does not have to be Proof of Work, it's not restricted to cryptocurrency.
And here is an example: http://www.foldingcoin.net/
I would much rather use my computing power to fold protein than to do some pointless SHA-256 hashing.
I giess this is very similar to what the sharedrop principle provides for altcoins...where
Altcoins build their own "DACs" to and honor their holders' stakes in their coin as a means of competing with bitcoin. They are all clones of bitcoin essentially and thus must distinguish themselves from the "main" project. Pretty sure if vitalik built a version of ethereum with the cost aavi gs of DPOS (or something like it), he'd get a large portion of the community's backing.
Whether or not Eth. implements DPOS you can bet that V. and I will probably keep pushing the technology forward for future chains.
+5% +5% That sounds great! Thanks for letting us know!+5%, +5%, +5%, +5%, +5%
I guess Vitalik must be happy for us to share that info? - That Vitalik/Ethereum is strongly considering DPOS?
It was just the numbers which I didnt get....anyone can release a version of ethereum N.0 for N>1 by making their own additions and giving 0.26x minus mining fees since N-1.0 to their own communities as they deem fit, and if the community deems any implementation technically bad or unfair they can reject it and keep building on the previous instead kinda like a blockchain".Welcome Vitalik! :)
Would you mind to expand on this and say it in more simple words?
Pretty sure he is saying ethereum could be forked or cloned at some point when there is a divergence in community consensus over something like this.
It will be open source, so the success of ethereum (and any fork/clone) can attempt to exist on its own. I giess this is very similar to what the sharedrop principle provides for altcoins...where
Altcoins build their own "DACs" to and honor their holders' stakes in their coin as a means of competing with bitcoin. They are all clones of bitcoin essentially and thus must distinguish themselves from the "main" project. Pretty sure if vitalik built a version of ethereum with the cost aavi gs of DPOS (or something like it), he'd get a large portion of the community's backing.
It's like the crypto version of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs hanging out :).LOL!
It's like the crypto version of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs hanging out :).LOL!
Thanks for the very interesting conversations and day together bitshares team. It was definitely very useful in our thinking on native extensibility strategies; I was glad to see how similar some of our thoughts and some of our problems have been...
So far the response from the Ethereum community has been very negative. I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised since it's the "one chain to rule them all" fan club but it's still disheartening to see such vocal closed mindedness.
I'm thrilled to see Vitalik and Dan have a good professional relationship and am looking forward to hearing more about the challenges faced by both parties in developing these ecosystems.
anyone can release a version of ethereum N.0 for N>1 by making their own additions and giving 0.26x minus mining fees since N-1.0 to their own communities as they deem fit, and if the community deems any implementation technically bad or unfair they can reject it and keep building on the previous instead kinda like a blockchain".
So far the response from the Ethereum community has been very negative. I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised since it's the "one chain to rule them all" fan club but it's still disheartening to see such vocal closed mindedness.
I'm thrilled to see Vitalik and Dan have a good professional relationship and am looking forward to hearing more about the challenges faced by both parties in developing these ecosystems.
dpos is a great upgrade security wise for the blockchain technology...
But what about your personal security on this real world guys?
Hope your photographer is behind you not only to take pictures, but because they are "watching your backs" ;)
So far the response from the Ethereum community has been very negative. I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised since it's the "one chain to rule them all" fan club but it's still disheartening to see such vocal closed mindedness.
I'm thrilled to see Vitalik and Dan have a good professional relationship and am looking forward to hearing more about the challenges faced by both parties in developing these ecosystems.
What using go and aerospike ( http://www.aerospike.com/ and http://www.aerospike.com/blog/go-aerospike-a-perfect-match/ ).
Go language ( http://golang.org/ ) has a lot of qualities
* Astonishing performance
* Strong typing
* Asynchronous, multithreaded, multicore programming
* Clear, concise syntax
Ethereum is mainly written in Go.
dpos is a great upgrade security wise for the blockchain technology...
But what about your personal security on this real world guys?
Hope your photographer is behind you not only to take pictures, but because they are "watching your backs" ;)
I worry about this as well. I'll bet 1000btsx that Stan is the photographer.
dpos is a great upgrade security wise for the blockchain technology...
But what about your personal security on this real world guys?
Hope your photographer is behind you not only to take pictures, but because they are "watching your backs" ;)
I worry about this as well. I'll bet 1000btsx that Stan is the photographer.
+5%
dpos is a great upgrade security wise for the blockchain technology...
But what about your personal security on this real world guys?
Hope your photographer is behind you not only to take pictures, but because they are "watching your backs" ;)
I worry about this as well. I'll bet 1000btsx that Stan is the photographer.
+5%
he is proud... and he is right to be ;)
Reminds me of something I read once about (I think) .Net, "This will be open platform once everyone is running Windows" :) .
To be fair given the large amount of effort, time, and planning a project of this scope requires I can understand them being a little defensive.
That is ok. Anyone who knows altcoins with proper Devs get in touch with me please. We don't really need ethereum in order to change the world...though it is nice to see Vitalik hanging around. :)
I doubt Vitalik has the emotional sharpness to force something like this through the social-ideological inertia that surrounds him.. Be Brave, young one!
The main objection and concern I have for Proof-Of-Stake, is that it disallows mining.
It is impossible to mine NXT coin, for example, if you don't own any.
This blocks the community from growth.
do you mine bitcoin?
anyone can release a version of ethereum N.0 for N>1 by making their own additions and giving 0.26x minus mining fees since N-1.0 to their own communities as they deem fit, and if the community deems any implementation technically bad or unfair they can reject it and keep building on the previous instead kinda like a blockchain".
Release a version of ethereum (N.0 for N>1) meaning Version N.0, with N greater than one. This can be taken to mean Ethereum1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 etc...only Ethereum 1.0 has the current obligations. Ethereum version 2.0, 3.0...etc could be created by making your own additions to your version of ethereum (thus making it your 2.0 version of ethereum--there may be many 2.0's).
Giving (.26x - Mining Fees since N-1.0 to their own communities as they deem fit) means to:
"Sharedrop" on holders of your ethereum clone, with (what I would assume) is a total taken from the difference between the .26x inflation with mining fees taken out (so it will be less than the .26x total). This would be intented to keep the supply of YOUR Ethereum clone the same as the original...and you disperse those extra ethereum in whatever way you wish to the holders on your chain.
Hope this helps Delulo. And please feel free to let me know if I am off here guys and gals.
anyone can release a version of ethereum N.0 for N>1 by making their own additions and giving 0.26x minus mining fees since N-1.0 to their own communities as they deem fit, and if the community deems any implementation technically bad or unfair they can reject it and keep building on the previous instead kinda like a blockchain".
Release a version of ethereum (N.0 for N>1) meaning Version N.0, with N greater than one. This can be taken to mean Ethereum1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 etc...only Ethereum 1.0 has the current obligations. Ethereum version 2.0, 3.0...etc could be created by making your own additions to your version of ethereum (thus making it your 2.0 version of ethereum--there may be many 2.0's).
Giving (.26x - Mining Fees since N-1.0 to their own communities as they deem fit) means to:
"Sharedrop" on holders of your ethereum clone, with (what I would assume) is a total taken from the difference between the .26x inflation with mining fees taken out (so it will be less than the .26x total). This would be intented to keep the supply of YOUR Ethereum clone the same as the original...and you disperse those extra ethereum in whatever way you wish to the holders on your chain.
Hope this helps Delulo. And please feel free to let me know if I am off here guys and gals.
This is exactly what I meant, thank you fuznuts.
So as an update on possible collaboration, I think we agreed that keeping things informal is the best way forward at this point. No official partnerships or mergers of any companies or any coins/projects, and it doesn't really make sense to copy-paste codebases in either direction either. But we are happy to participate in standardization efforts and collaborative discussions on technical issues as long as it's an open tent where any crypto-2.0 project can participate. I think there definitely are a few areas (eg. proof of stake algos, client standardization) where that would be quite beneficial.
Thank you for having us over, Bitshares team! Look forward to talking more online and offline in the future.
This is exactly what I meant, thank you fuznuts.
So as an update on possible collaboration, I think we agreed that keeping things informal is the best way forward at this point. No official partnerships or mergers of any companies or any coins/projects, and it doesn't really make sense to copy-paste codebases in either direction either. But we are happy to participate in standardization efforts and collaborative discussions on technical issues as long as it's an open tent where any crypto-2.0 project can participate. I think there definitely are a few areas (eg. proof of stake algos, client standardization) where that would be quite beneficial.
Thank you for having us over, Bitshares team! Look forward to talking more online and offline in the future.
V and I had a great time and I appreciate him making the trip to Virginia.+5%
One thing that has come out of the process is that I am a firm believer in the need for a "Turing Complete" environment on a DAC. The other thing that came out of the meeting is that the existing Eth. design has woefully inefficient abstraction for the types of data structures that DAC developers really need. Technically it is turing complete and it is possible to do everything on their existing design. I was throughly impressed with V's ability to solve problems on the fly and believe that Eth will be a very interesting platform and will find many solutions.
So what I can say is that a future BitShares chain will be fully Turing Complete with the ability to run arbitrary code. I think that we will probably have a friendly competition moving forward as we steal good ideas from each other.
One thing I can say is that nothing replaces real-world experience writing DACs from scratch to learn what the proper abstraction layer is. V gained some insight from our experience writing real DACs while we gained some of his experience with doing things more generally.
We also recognized that the biggest need we have is for our communities to work together rather than against one another. It is kind of like different tribes. It seems that the best way to align our communities is to have a mutual financial interest and for that reason I could see a joint venture with allocation from both sides for the development of BitShares Turing.
All of these things are probably a year or more away as we both have to focus on current systems.
So what I can say is that a future BitShares chain will be fully Turing Complete with the ability to run arbitrary code.
We also recognized that the biggest need we have is for our communities to work together rather than against one another. It is kind of like different tribes. It seems that the best way to align our communities is to have a mutual financial interest and for that reason I could see a joint venture with allocation from both sides for the development of BitShares Turing.
V and I had a great time and I appreciate him making the trip to Virginia.
One thing that has come out of the process is that I am a firm believer in the need for a "Turing Complete" environment on a DAC. The other thing that came out of the meeting is that the existing Eth. design has woefully inefficient abstraction for the types of data structures that DAC developers really need. Technically it is turing complete and it is possible to do everything on their existing design. I was throughly impressed with V's ability to solve problems on the fly and believe that Eth will be a very interesting platform and will find many solutions.
So what I can say is that a future BitShares chain will be fully Turing Complete with the ability to run arbitrary code. I think that we will probably have a friendly competition moving forward as we steal good ideas from each other.
One thing I can say is that nothing replaces real-world experience writing DACs from scratch to learn what the proper abstraction layer is. V gained some insight from our experience writing real DACs while we gained some of his experience with doing things more generally.
We also recognized that the biggest need we have is for our communities to work together rather than against one another. It is kind of like different tribes. It seems that the best way to align our communities is to have a mutual financial interest and for that reason I could see a joint venture with allocation from both sides for the development of BitShares Turing.
All of these things are probably a year or more away as we both have to focus on current systems.
One thing that has come out of the process is that I am a firm believer in the need for a "Turing Complete" environment on a DAC.Could you please expand more on this? In particular, what would you say is the value of adding user-generated Turing complete scripts on an existing DAC over developer-generated Turing complete code implementing new features on a new DAC (or a fork of the old DAC)? I sort of think of it like the difference between compiling then running code written in a statically-typed language vs using an eval expression to interpret code written in a dynamically-typed language. If the basic framework is going to be used again and again, it would make sense to me to just implement those features in the codebase, fork, and now everyone can enjoy it. On the other hand, if these features are unique to each particular user's situation, I suppose being able to (less efficiently?) implement the custom script on an existing DAC could be useful. But I am wondering what those use cases actually are.
So what I can say is that a future BitShares chain will be fully Turing Complete with the ability to run arbitrary code.I do think it would be pretty fun to try out a BitShares-branded DPOS DAC that has Turing complete scripts. But I want to make sure that I understand correctly; you are not advocating that core BitShares DACs like BitShares X and BitShares DNS become "Turing complete" correct?
I'm really encouraged by this collaborative attitude by the 2.0 community's best minds. While we view ourselves as competitors the true "other team" is the status quo economic systems that are so entrenched.
The concept of a universal client is appealing; like a web browser for blockchains.
dpos is a great upgrade security wise for the blockchain technology...
But what about your personal security on this real world guys?
Hope your photographer is behind you not only to take pictures, but because they are "watching your backs" ;)
I worry about this as well. I'll bet 1000btsx that Stan is the photographer.
+5%
he is proud... and he is right to be ;)
So I talked to Ethereum.. they basically told me that they are not interested in a partnership.. and that they felt that this announcement of a partnership was shady.
Need proof? Comes from Ethereum core coder:
http://insightsintoamodernworld.blogspot.de/2014/08/ethereum-collaborations.html
Just read this on the BitShares forums from Bytemaster (Daniel Larimer), the founder & main developer of BitShares, it his just perspective & not be construed as being from Vitalik/Ethereum directly but...
Vitalik and I are not very "political" and mostly care about the best technology for the job. I am merely expressing my perspective on the conversation and will let him speak for himself.
Who announced a formal partnership? All that this thread was discussing is the potential for a partnership and ways to collaborate (hence the "?" in the title). Looks like our community is very open minded and looking for the best technology. V. is also very open minded.
The only thing shady is the hostility of those against even the idea of collaboration.
So I talked to Ethereum.. they basically told me that they are not interested in a partnership.. and that they felt that this announcement of a partnership was shady.
Need proof? Comes from Ethereum core coder:
http://insightsintoamodernworld.blogspot.de/2014/08/ethereum-collaborations.html
Who announced a formal partnership? All that this thread was discussing is the potential for a partnership and ways to collaborate (hence the "?" in the title). Looks like our community is very open minded and looking for the best technology. V. is also very open minded.
The only thing shady is the hostility of those against even the idea of collaboration.
The only thing shady is the hostility of those against even the idea of collaboration.+5%
But if you now know there is going to be no deal.. keeping it as the intro of this thread.. seems a little shady. lol
open discussions.. Dan even mentioned that future partnerships on mutually beneficial projects like Bitshares Turing could still happen in the future.+5% The forking future is bright!
I've complained many times about provocative thread titles that mislead people, specifically coming from Bytemaster, since forever.
I agree with Adam here... Dan should know better.
This thread is our outstretched hand of friendship, an attempt to mellow down the competitive urges and set a new tone for the industry. Let's not be in such a hurry to build a fence across that bridge. :)
I've complained many times about provocative thread titles that mislead people, specifically coming from Bytemaster, since forever.I agree with Adam here... Dan should know better.
For somebody that posts 75-100 post a day, I refused to post in this thread up to now. Above is more or less the reason I did so.
I think this is making a mountain out of a molehill...
Let's keep some perspective here :).
I've complained many times about provocative thread titles that mislead people, specifically coming from Bytemaster, since forever.I agree with Adam here... Dan should know better.
For somebody that posts 75-100 post a day, I refused to post in this thread up to now. Above is more or less the reason I did so.
http://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/2e0q0a/bitshares_guy_here_sorry_we_caused_such_a_stir_we/
I just noticed super3, was Storj also represented at this gathering?
I've complained many times about provocative thread titles that mislead people, specifically coming from Bytemaster, since forever.I agree with Adam here... Dan should know better.
For somebody that posts 75-100 post a day, I refused to post in this thread up to now. Above is more or less the reason I did so.
http://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/2e0q0a/bitshares_guy_here_sorry_we_caused_such_a_stir_we/
Good mea culpa, although it seems Vitalik didn't agree quite as much as you thought, more that he was just very open (probably because they are actively seeking solutions and not tied into anything yet)
V and I had a great time and I appreciate him making the trip to Virginia.
One thing that has come out of the process is that I am a firm believer in the need for a "Turing Complete" environment on a DAC. The other thing that came out of the meeting is that the existing Eth. design has woefully inefficient abstraction for the types of data structures that DAC developers really need. Technically it is turing complete and it is possible to do everything on their existing design. I was throughly impressed with V's ability to solve problems on the fly and believe that Eth will be a very interesting platform and will find many solutions.
So what I can say is that a future BitShares chain will be fully Turing Complete with the ability to run arbitrary code. I think that we will probably have a friendly competition moving forward as we steal good ideas from each other.
One thing I can say is that nothing replaces real-world experience writing DACs from scratch to learn what the proper abstraction layer is. V gained some insight from our experience writing real DACs while we gained some of his experience with doing things more generally.
We also recognized that the biggest need we have is for our communities to work together rather than against one another. It is kind of like different tribes. It seems that the best way to align our communities is to have a mutual financial interest and for that reason I could see a joint venture with allocation from both sides for the development of BitShares Turing.
All of these things are probably a year or more away as we both have to focus on current systems.
One thing that has come out of the process is that I am a firm believer in the need for a "Turing Complete" environment on a DAC.Could you please expand more on this? In particular, what would you say is the value of adding user-generated Turing complete scripts on an existing DAC over developer-generated Turing complete code implementing new features on a new DAC (or a fork of the old DAC)? I sort of think of it like the difference between compiling then running code written in a statically-typed language vs using an eval expression to interpret code written in a dynamically-typed language. If the basic framework is going to be used again and again, it would make sense to me to just implement those features in the codebase, fork, and now everyone can enjoy it. On the other hand, if these features are unique to each particular user's situation, I suppose being able to (less efficiently?) implement the custom script on an existing DAC could be useful. But I am wondering what those use cases actually are.So what I can say is that a future BitShares chain will be fully Turing Complete with the ability to run arbitrary code.I do think it would be pretty fun to try out a BitShares-branded DPOS DAC that has Turing complete scripts. But I want to make sure that I understand correctly; you are not advocating that core BitShares DACs like BitShares X and BitShares DNS become "Turing complete" correct?
I haven't posted it yet, but pretty sure we have the Truthcoin Devs wanting to show up for a Saturday Meetup. I'd really like to get Devs from all different crypto-ecosystems to chat with the community so if anyone knows some, let me know!
Also, BM. Is Friday a go or a no go at the moment?
I've complained many times about provocative thread titles that mislead people, specifically coming from Bytemaster, since forever.I agree with Adam here... Dan should know better.
For somebody that posts 75-100 post a day, I refused to post in this thread up to now. Above is more or less the reason I did so.
http://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/2e0q0a/bitshares_guy_here_sorry_we_caused_such_a_stir_we/
Good mea culpa, although it seems Vitalik didn't agree quite as much as you thought, more that he was just very open (probably because they are actively seeking solutions and not tied into anything yet)
I've complained many times about provocative thread titles that mislead people, specifically coming from Bytemaster, since forever.I agree with Adam here... Dan should know better.
For somebody that posts 75-100 post a day, I refused to post in this thread up to now. Above is more or less the reason I did so.
http://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/2e0q0a/bitshares_guy_here_sorry_we_caused_such_a_stir_we/
Good mea culpa, although it seems Vitalik didn't agree quite as much as you thought, more that he was just very open (probably because they are actively seeking solutions and not tied into anything yet)
So what I can say is that a future BitShares chain will be fully Turing Complete with the ability to run arbitrary code.damn straight +5%
the best way to align our communities is to have a mutual financial interest and for that reason I could see a joint venture with allocation from both sides for the development of BitShares Turing.another brilliant solution +5%
The main objection and concern I have for Proof-Of-Stake, is that it disallows mining.
It is impossible to mine NXT coin, for example, if you don't own any.
This blocks the community from growth.
One of the things we have discussed is lessons learned from Ethereum and BTSX and ways to generalize things better:
1) We agree that smart contracts are useful
2) We agree that smart contracts + BitUSD are very powerful
3) I would like to see a full up relational DB with SQL support as the basic abstraction for the block chain.
a) This would allow constraints to be placed on the tables / rows
c) This would make indexes easy to maintain
4) I would want to use a lua scripting engine to validate transactions relative to the SQL database
a) Ethereum currently runs at 1.3 Mhz with their C++ interpreter, storage access via level db is the most expensive operation right now.
b) I think the data set should be kept in RAM validated by delegates. Delegates may need $15K servers at scale, but that should be reasonable.
5) One of the major slowdowns for Eth. is the use of merkel trees to support light-weight proofs. I would do away with this feature.
a) On a proof of stake chain you cannot validate block headers independent of block contents because you can not use POW as a proxy for trust.
b) With DPOS + Bonded validation agents you can get cryptographic proofs good enough for light weight clients. Delegates can lose their job for lying.
c) Merk. trees help serve as a "double check" on the "deterministic application of transactions", but otherwise are unnecessary. The check can be performed independent of the consensus algorithm.
As you can see the idea that Eth. represents can benefit significantly by working with our team and we benefit from their challenges as well. Whether or not Eth. implements DPOS you can bet that V. and I will probably keep pushing the technology forward for future chains.
So as an update on possible collaboration, I think we agreed that keeping things informal is the best way forward at this point. No official partnerships or mergers of any companies or any coins/projects, and it doesn't really make sense to copy-paste codebases in either direction either. But we are happy to participate in standardization efforts and collaborative discussions on technical issues as long as it's an open tent where any crypto-2.0 project can participate. I think there definitely are a few areas (eg. proof of stake algos, client standardization) where that would be quite beneficial.
So as an update on possible collaboration, I think we agreed that keeping things informal is the best way forward at this point. No official partnerships or mergers of any companies or any coins/projects, and it doesn't really make sense to copy-paste codebases in either direction either. But we are happy to participate in standardization efforts and collaborative discussions on technical issues as long as it's an open tent where any crypto-2.0 project can participate. I think there definitely are a few areas (eg. proof of stake algos, client standardization) where that would be quite beneficial.
I could not agree more.
And I am sure that most of the Nxt Community also agrees that standardization efforts might help the crypto ecosystem in general. So, if you feel Nxt should participate in such discussion, feel free to invite us. There will be many people willing to devote their time on this.
I personally feel that this is a very important issue which needs to be considered and addressed by a broader audience.
So as an update on possible collaboration, I think we agreed that keeping things informal is the best way forward at this point. No official partnerships or mergers of any companies or any coins/projects, and it doesn't really make sense to copy-paste codebases in either direction either. But we are happy to participate in standardization efforts and collaborative discussions on technical issues as long as it's an open tent where any crypto-2.0 project can participate. I think there definitely are a few areas (eg. proof of stake algos, client standardization) where that would be quite beneficial.
I could not agree more.
And I am sure that most of the Nxt Community also agrees that standardization efforts might help the crypto ecosystem in general. So, if you feel Nxt should participate in such discussion, feel free to invite us. There will be many people willing to devote their time on this.
I personally feel that this is a very important issue which needs to be considered and addressed by a broader audience.
+5%So as an update on possible collaboration, I think we agreed that keeping things informal is the best way forward at this point. No official partnerships or mergers of any companies or any coins/projects, and it doesn't really make sense to copy-paste codebases in either direction either. But we are happy to participate in standardization efforts and collaborative discussions on technical issues as long as it's an open tent where any crypto-2.0 project can participate. I think there definitely are a few areas (eg. proof of stake algos, client standardization) where that would be quite beneficial.
I could not agree more.
And I am sure that most of the Nxt Community also agrees that standardization efforts might help the crypto ecosystem in general. So, if you feel Nxt should participate in such discussion, feel free to invite us. There will be many people willing to devote their time on this.
I personally feel that this is a very important issue which needs to be considered and addressed by a broader audience.
Awesome. It is so fantastic to see you guys being open to meetings of the minds. I'm very excited that NXT is open to these discussions and that there is a lot of common ground. We all gain from this.
Welcome to the forum!
So as an update on possible collaboration, I think we agreed that keeping things informal is the best way forward at this point. No official partnerships or mergers of any companies or any coins/projects, and it doesn't really make sense to copy-paste codebases in either direction either. But we are happy to participate in standardization efforts and collaborative discussions on technical issues as long as it's an open tent where any crypto-2.0 project can participate. I think there definitely are a few areas (eg. proof of stake algos, client standardization) where that would be quite beneficial.
I could not agree more.
And I am sure that most of the Nxt Community also agrees that standardization efforts might help the crypto ecosystem in general. So, if you feel Nxt should participate in such discussion, feel free to invite us. There will be many people willing to devote their time on this.
I personally feel that this is a very important issue which needs to be considered and addressed by a broader audience.
This is a perfect place to let everyone know it is completely free to log into the Mumble Server and chat during the hangouts...or even set up your own hangouts/events. Regardless where they are held, however, discussions need to be held and a focus needs to be found as to how to best move forward.
One thing for consideration: Anyone who is interested should be able to attend any of these discussions on standardization. They should also be able to easily record and report on them as they are happening, from a transparent and open forum. This isn't simply a matter of a few dev teams working together...this is a matter that requires the input of everyone who is able to provide it over the cross-section of any interested communities (not just NXT, BitShares & Ethereum).
The pictures of golfing and everything are nice, but all I care about is that people are aware what is going on and that it is not kept to secret meetings where only "insiders" can participate. This is my #1 concern...and I will bark about it nonstop...because this is about more than just a few devs getting together to "help the standardize the crypto industry". But what if that help ends up producing a product completely different from that which was originally promised? Everyone needs to have a say, and the community of investors in these projects needs to be able to form consensus on how to move forward in the case that they feel this work toward standardization moves them too far away from the philosophy behind why they originally invested. Lots of stuff to consider...I just hope we all consider the bigger picture and realize a couple of technological geniuses making decisions for everyone is no way to move forward. If this is what happens, I will be wholly against it.
3) I would like to see a full up relational DB with SQL support as the basic abstraction for the block chain.
a) This would allow constraints to be placed on the tables / rows
c) This would make indexes easy to maintain
So as an update on possible collaboration, I think we agreed that keeping things informal is the best way forward at this point. No official partnerships or mergers of any companies or any coins/projects, and it doesn't really make sense to copy-paste codebases in either direction either. But we are happy to participate in standardization efforts and collaborative discussions on technical issues as long as it's an open tent where any crypto-2.0 project can participate. I think there definitely are a few areas (eg. proof of stake algos, client standardization) where that would be quite beneficial.
I could not agree more.
And I am sure that most of the Nxt Community also agrees that standardization efforts might help the crypto ecosystem in general. So, if you feel Nxt should participate in such discussion, feel free to invite us. There will be many people willing to devote their time on this.
I personally feel that this is a very important issue which needs to be considered and addressed by a broader audience.
This is a perfect place to let everyone know it is completely free to log into the Mumble Server and chat during the hangouts...or even set up your own hangouts/events. Regardless where they are held, however, discussions need to be held and a focus needs to be found as to how to best move forward.
One thing for consideration: Anyone who is interested should be able to attend any of these discussions on standardization. They should also be able to easily record and report on them as they are happening, from a transparent and open forum. This isn't simply a matter of a few dev teams working together...this is a matter that requires the input of everyone who is able to provide it over the cross-section of any interested communities (not just NXT, BitShares & Ethereum).
The pictures of golfing and everything are nice, but all I care about is that people are aware what is going on and that it is not kept to secret meetings where only "insiders" can participate. This is my #1 concern...and I will bark about it nonstop...because this is about more than just a few devs getting together to "help the standardize the crypto industry". But what if that help ends up producing a product completely different from that which was originally promised? Everyone needs to have a say, and the community of investors in these projects needs to be able to form consensus on how to move forward in the case that they feel this work toward standardization moves them too far away from the philosophy behind why they originally invested. Lots of stuff to consider...I just hope we all consider the bigger picture and realize a couple of technological geniuses making decisions for everyone is no way to move forward. If this is what happens, I will be wholly against it.
Just the opposite. :o
The thing that always causes the biggest uproars is Dan's tendency to immediately share what he is thinking, hoping, and talking about with others the same day.
Keeping secret thoughts has never been a problem.
:)
I nominate fuznuts as the official BitShares Ambassador-At-Large.+5%
I nominate fuznuts as the official BitShares Ambassador-At-Large.
I nominate fuznuts as the official BitShares Ambassador-At-Large.
flattered, donkey, but have to be honest. Someday once im completely done with school, my wife will be expecting meto get a better paying job :P
What ive done here was never meant to be an end...it was meant to spark others to action in hopes that the community would offer their grassroots support to education, marketing and journalism that for a long time it was lacking.
Once beyond bitcoinx is finished, ill likely walk away and try to find something else that makes me hopeful for my baby's future in this sadly corrupt world. In bitshares ...and dan, I saw an opportunity to help something worth helping.
You know, thougb...there is nothing keeping ANY of you from being ambassadors :P
I nominate fuznuts as the official BitShares Ambassador-At-Large.
flattered, donkey, but have to be honest. Someday once im completely done with school, my wife will be expecting meto get a better paying job :P
What ive done here was never meant to be an end...it was meant to spark others to action in hopes that the community would offer their grassroots support to education, marketing and journalism that for a long time it was lacking.
Once beyond bitcoinx is finished, ill likely walk away and try to find something else that makes me hopeful for my baby's future in this sadly corrupt world. In bitshares ...and dan, I saw an opportunity to help something worth helping.
You know, thougb...there is nothing keeping ANY of you from being ambassadors :P
Staying with Bitshares and continuing to do the admirable job you do now, will earn you the $$$ you seek to support your growing family. I think I can speak for most of the members of this forum
OMG :'( :'(
OMG :'( :'(
?
OMG :'( :'(
?
The greater the hope, the greater the disappointment
OMG :'( :'(
?
The greater the hope, the greater the disappointment