61
General Discussion / Re: LTC Volume as High as BTC Today
« on: July 10, 2015, 10:51:23 am »
And finally and inevitably - the crash. Down over 30% the last 2 hours...
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.
Thom re your first comment - I deliberately said my comments had nothing to do with micro payments, so I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with - do you care to clarify for me?Warning: this tangential discussion has nothing to do with micro-payments:
As an aside, I wondered if it might be beneficial to demand transparency of real identities from witnesses. This would allow the community to better assess the actual decentralisation in the witness pool, the trustworthiness of the witnesses, and put their real-life reputations at stake rather than just an alias that can be replaced. Could this improve network security (albeit at the expense of witness privacy)?
First, I respectfully disagree about the impact of cost on the viability of micropayments. As I stated earlier, the cost of the network must be factored into the equation for determining minimal fees and thus directly relates to whether micropayments will be economically viable and not a welfare feature.
Second, as to the last paragraph, have you considered that mandating a real world identity might make the network weaker? It provides a direct path for gov regulators to attack individual witnesses, which is yet another reason I keep saying coexistence of privacy and forceful (i.e. gov) regulation cannot coexist.
A better way to protect against bad witnesses is their track record of production and other systems of reputation. Real world identification is not necessary.
Red very badHa! Yeah, I hear you!
Green good
Finally I would like to strongly encourage bytemaster to test significant changes like this with the community first - at a minimum, by forming groups of trusted community members that can provide feedback on different policy areas. Why not take advantage of the depth of expertise at hand?
Well said! Yet every time this is suggested, and it has been suggested many times, it is ignored, for example when the PR muzzle silenced open communication. A PR review board was suggested but it was never taken seriously. That doesn't exactly give me a nice warm feeling, and doesn't indicate a very strong level of respect for the community IMHO.
You always have great depth of analysis arhag, but how confident can the community be that we can ever foresee every attack vector?My thinking was that if the attacker used their own stake to vote in all their delegates, then transferred to an exchange and sold (losing the votes), they would have more time to sell and execute the attack if votes are only tallied once a day, instead of immediate.
I see. I'm not too worried about that attack considering the difficulty of controlling enough stake to unilaterally vote in enough active witnesses for an attack. And the 1 day tally is only a downside from the current 0.x system if you believe that voters would react fast enough to vote out that witness in less than 24 hours (which I do not believe at all).
Thanks.We just need our own version of Lightning network for micropayments.If the Bitcoin Lightning network is feasible, and allows full scalability of Bitcoin, what does that mean for the strategic positioning of the bitShares network in the market? Are the two networks mutually exclusive, or can they interact to leverage their relative strengths in different applications?
The lightning network is only useful for transfers of funds between users (so it won't be useful for smart contracts and markets). And even then it is most beneficial if users tend to stick with one asset (e.g. BitUSD) and for smaller amounts (so it is perfect for microtransactions). Furthermore, because of the small block intervals and high TPS of BitShares, it allows the settlement period for the BitShares lightning network to be much smaller (we could handle everything settled once per day for everyone).
I'm not sure what you mean by the networks being mutually exclusive. And I don't see what Bitcoin's relative strength would be other than the fact that it (currently) has the stronger network effect.
We just need our own version of Lightning network for micropayments.If the Bitcoin Lightning network is feasible, and allows full scalability of Bitcoin, what does that mean for the strategic positioning of the bitShares network in the market? Are the two networks mutually exclusive, or can they interact to leverage their relative strengths in different applications?
I have observed the Bitcoin / Crypto Economy Space now for a while and so got in touch with libertarian theory. I am personally very interested in theories about social interaction. I thought a lot about the ins and outs of libertarian theory in a relatively unstructured way until I finally wrote that paper which deals with the very broad concept of externalities.Interesting piece. FYI there was another interesting forum discussion on externalities a while ago in this thread... https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,13338.0.html
I hope you enjoy reading it! Feel free to discuss it. I like the free way things are discussed on this forum
You can find it here: http://consensus-analytics.com/publications/
If you like it share it