Wow.. I just saw this thread get totally derailed because one person in the thread turned the OP into something else and the rest didn't even seem to bother reading the OP at that point. Or think for themselves... either way not good.
The points of the bitcoin problem vs. the bitshares solution is so people have a clear and concise list of understanding what major innovations bitshares is bringing that solves bitcoin problems because.. thats all most people out there.. even beyond crypo.. have to compare it to as a point of reference.
A list like this is invaluable when presenting to companies seeking to use blockchain in their operations and showing to investors.
All you complain about the market cap and network effect and whatever about bitshares.... if you put as much effort into supporting bitshares in public as you do publicly high over your petty criticisms of them while they are attempting to move it forward, maybe we would be in a very different place today.
Stan.. when you have this list done.. I would really like to have a copy if you don't mind.
I'll just myself right now.. because I know what I just said isn't going to be popular with the circle jerk going on here.
Hey data, I agree that identifying comparative strengths and weaknesses between Bitcoin and bitshares is a useful exercise and potentially very helpful. However, the excellently described sentiment by btswildpig concerning the manner in which those strengths and weaknesses are presented to different communities, especially Bitcoin, is clearly of great concern to many. I think this was a fair enough place to raise the point, although we still need to give Stan's OP more support! I certainly did not believe Stan would use such a list inappropriately. He has my eternal respect and support as being one of the most open, positive and inclusive individuals you are likely to meet. I'm here because of his and bm's vision.
So to the OP.....
Bitcoin - uses a lot of electricity.
Bitshares - would use a great deal less at the same scale.
It depends on if people want to build a currency that's truely immune to manipulation (not even community consensus-----that's no different than governmental influence)of its total supply .
If that's the case , no matter how huge the cost is , heavy POW is the right way to that .
Heavy cost , nearly zero development , stable protocol , that's the necessary evil to achieve this commitment . If the development continues too often , it will need hard forks . When people are used to hard-forks just because the developers say so , then in the end it will open the door to change the total supply .
Fixed supply currency maybe a total mistake . But as long as Bitcoin wants to be a true fixed supply currency no matter how many justification for it to increase , for now high cost PoW seems the only technology to guarantee that .
It really depends on the application . If it's in a private chain or stock trading , then energy saving is more important . In these applications , BitShares are certainly more cost-effective than Bitcoin .
Blockchains must evolve like language or risk becoming redundant. That evolution must be governed in such a way that, from the perspective of the majority of network participants (assuming they are of sound mind,) the changes continue to be overwhelmingly beneficial. In this manner, any aspect of configuration can work for the majority within the same blockchain network in perpetuity.
After watching 《Sons of Anarchy》 , I realized more and more that a bunch of people who formed a non-governmental organization would still become the the essence of the government , a few people push for the "greater good" by voting , by trusting those who pushes it . And sooner or later , mistakes will be made . Of course , there could also be achievement because of the constant changing . But As we've observed in human history , the latter only favors a few lucky ones .
If Bitcoin should become anything different , miners who have control over the network security and have independent interest of their own is the only way to stop Bitcoin becoming the very same thing it set out to fight in the first place . Of course , this may very well cost Bitcoin's future competing with other technologies because it can not evolve easily . But it also keeps human errors away , and some of those errors may very well end Bitcoin .
Imagine you want to build a gang , and the mandate is "no selling drugs ever" , how can you make sure of that ? Sooner or later , after you're gone , your gang members would think "selling drugs is good for the gang , and we can vote for it" , and there you go , the gang will start selling drugs . The only way to make sure that didn't happen is that you hire a powerful third party hit squad and they kill anyone in the gang who tries to sell drugs .
If by some miracle the mandate can be fulfilled by some cost-effective technology and still keep the mandate (fixed supply regardless of "votes,greater good , blah blah ")intact , then Bitcoin would and should evolve to that . But from what I've observed so far , a massive network of miners seem to be the only way to assure that .