BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: Akado on November 21, 2015, 01:13:20 am
-
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1256406.0
I understand banks dont even know BitShares exists, but they're preferring Ethereum over Ripple for example? For money transfers and banks use cases specifically, shouldnt it be something like
BitShares > Ripple > Ethereum or Ripple > BitShares > Ethereum?
We're way more into this kind of stuff than ethereum is. We have way more potential. We specialize in one thing while Ethereum is ok at everything else.
Do these people actually do decent research or only go for whatever they hear "should" be good enough? Or am I just completely wrong? Unless they want to develop other use cases for which Ethereum might be better at? I just didn't predict banks teaming up with Ethereum. I always thought that Ripple would be the one doing so becasue of all the connections they have and we would be the alternative and the "new" stuff for some other more bold banks while providing services for all exchanges.
Ethereum would just be used for... everything else
-
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1256406.0
I understand banks dont even know BitShares exists, but they're preferring Ethereum over Ripple for example? For money transfers and banks use cases specifically, shouldnt it be something like
BitShares > Ripple > Ethereum or Ripple > BitShares > Ethereum?
We're way more into this kind of stuff than ethereum is. We have way more potential. We specialize in one thing while Ethereum is ok at everything else.
Do these people actually do decent research or only go for whatever they hear "should" be good enough? Or am I just completely wrong? Unless they want to develop other use cases for which Ethereum might be better at? I just didn't predict banks teaming up with Ethereum. I always thought that Ripple would be the one doing so becasue of all the connections they have and we would be the alternative and the "new" stuff for some other more bold banks while providing services for all exchanges.
Ethereum would just be used for... everything else
Ethereum took over Silicon Valley while Bitshares took over Virginia. Silicon Valley is more connected to the tech world so it's obvious why Ethereum is able to do certain things.
But I don't see why banks would choose Ethereum either. Ethereum has questionable security, is experimental, and I doubt banks are going to put all their hope into Ethereum at this time. Maybe in a few years if Ethereum matures it could have some support but it's not going to happen over night.
It took Ripple 5 years. Ripple I've known about since 2011, since before I got involved with Bitcoin, back when it was RipplePay. Ripple has been trying to build relationships with banks for a long time.
Ethereum in my opinion at this time, is not secure enough for banks. Because it is so new, and because it is Turing complete, it's alpha level, and at best banks are only testing it. I do understand why banks would not choose Bitcoin, Bitcoin isn't very flexible and the Bitcoin developers are extremely ideological while banks probably only care about having the best technology for shareholders.
I think the Turing completeness in the long term though will make Ethereum expensive to maintain and secure. It might be secure enough to work in the same way Bitcoin is considered secure enough or Bitshares is considered secure enough, but it will have additional risks brought on it due to it's openness and Turing completeness.
-
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1256406.0
I understand banks dont even know BitShares exists, but they're preferring Ethereum over Ripple for example? For money transfers and banks use cases specifically, shouldnt it be something like
BitShares > Ripple > Ethereum or Ripple > BitShares > Ethereum?
We're way more into this kind of stuff than ethereum is. We have way more potential. We specialize in one thing while Ethereum is ok at everything else.
Do these people actually do decent research or only go for whatever they hear "should" be good enough? Or am I just completely wrong? Unless they want to develop other use cases for which Ethereum might be better at? I just didn't predict banks teaming up with Ethereum. I always thought that Ripple would be the one doing so becasue of all the connections they have and we would be the alternative and the "new" stuff for some other more bold banks while providing services for all exchanges.
Ethereum would just be used for... everything else
Ethereum took over Silicon Valley while Bitshares took over Virginia. Silicon Valley is more connected to the tech world so it's obvious why Ethereum is able to do certain things.
But I don't see why banks would choose Ethereum either. Ethereum has questionable security, is experimental, and I doubt banks are going to put all their hope into Ethereum at this time. Maybe in a few years if Ethereum matures it could have some support but it's not going to happen over night.
I think if they use it they might just fork it. Still, would probably be beneficial for eth. That isn't a race we should loose. Every crypto is trying to find it's niche.
We're just finding ours and would be nice if we wouldn't collide with other projects that could take away our market share.
-
they had $10+ million to promote it and do conferences like devcon where techies and investor attend.
sexy website and sexy presale.
also the banks tech guys are more likely to want to build something from scratch which ethereum alllows for
-
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1256406.0
I understand banks dont even know BitShares exists, but they're preferring Ethereum over Ripple for example? For money transfers and banks use cases specifically, shouldnt it be something like
BitShares > Ripple > Ethereum or Ripple > BitShares > Ethereum?
We're way more into this kind of stuff than ethereum is. We have way more potential. We specialize in one thing while Ethereum is ok at everything else.
Do these people actually do decent research or only go for whatever they hear "should" be good enough? Or am I just completely wrong? Unless they want to develop other use cases for which Ethereum might be better at? I just didn't predict banks teaming up with Ethereum. I always thought that Ripple would be the one doing so becasue of all the connections they have and we would be the alternative and the "new" stuff for some other more bold banks while providing services for all exchanges.
Ethereum would just be used for... everything else
Ethereum took over Silicon Valley while Bitshares took over Virginia. Silicon Valley is more connected to the tech world so it's obvious why Ethereum is able to do certain things.
But I don't see why banks would choose Ethereum either. Ethereum has questionable security, is experimental, and I doubt banks are going to put all their hope into Ethereum at this time. Maybe in a few years if Ethereum matures it could have some support but it's not going to happen over night.
I think if they use it they might just fork it. Still, would probably be beneficial for eth. That isn't a race we should loose. Every crypto is trying to find it's niche.
We're just finding ours and would be nice if we wouldn't collide with other projects that could take away our market share.
My opinion is Bitshares should work with any organization or entity that a corporation could work with. Bitshares can work with banks, governments, non-profits, NGOs, private investors, celebrities or whomever. That in fact is the beauty of the design of Bitshares.
At the same time that is also why I try to tell people to tone down the ideological graffiti. Ideology puts people into a tribal state of mind, it makes it harder to do business dev, harder to collaborate, it divides people, makes people irrational, and while it's good at times for your community to have a deep philosophy, you don't want it on your website or in your marketing.
In your marketing and on your website you want to focus on how much $ the people or organizations can make, or how much $ they can save, by working with you over working with your competitors. You also want to highlight your strengths and compare it to the weaknesses of your competitors.
Bitshares has some clear and irrefutable strengths in the technological arms race. It also has some weaknesses. The strengths actually appeal to traditional institutions like banks and in many ways Bitshares has taken a conservative approach. On the other hand generalized programmable blockchain are a strength and while Bitshares has some of these capabilities it will be left in the dust by some of the other projects.
So Bitshares needs to focus on it's niche. It's niche is financial transactions, it's niche is decentralized exchange, and from a technological point of view if it can do bank functions better than Ethereum then it might win over some of the smaller banks. You don't need to win the biggest banks, you just need any banks.
-
they had $10+ million to promote it and do conferences like devcon where techies and investor attend.
sexy website and sexy presale.
also the banks tech guys are more likely to want to build something from scratch which ethereum alllows for
I think its actually a mistake for banks to try to build from scratch. It's borderline stupid in my opinion because you could have the community build it for you and it might actually be cheaper. I suppose it depends on what you're trying to do and whether or not the community chain supports the features for regulation and controls, and as far as I know if your community chain does support all the necessary regulations and controls then why would a bank waste it's time putting that stuff in?
-
Well now Mr Akado , good question .Do you know why some have their own private jet which takes them to their destination way earlier than a commercial passenger plane can ? Banks are not after public ledger but its tecnology . Why , why , why ?
You and I have bitshares , they dont want to be on ours , they want something which is private to themselves. They will never use a public ledger where they dont have privacy , they might contact Cryptonomex and ask for the same technology , but it will be a one which you and I wont be on. You see this is kind of a race as to who will use a new technology before the next person does so they will take advantage. And privacy is like an ammunition in this battle , believe me they will pay good dollar amount to whoever hands it to them. So Cryptonomex will have to sell this ammunition to someone , question is this: who do you want it to be ? I hope you will appreciate the urgency of privacy more . $45 Gs is peanuts for any bank, they will pay 100 times more who ever hands that privacy to them. The whole point of this technology for us was to cut the middleman out because middleman most of the time uses parties' lack of information against them. I dont want a bunch of banks with their private chains acting as middleman between me and you . Think about it , and members of this community who take privacy lightly , I would like you to think about it . Either they have privacy or you and I have it , the more we have it they will have to start acting responsible and join us rather than trying to rip us . Than you can have more money to do whatever you want.
-
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1256406.0
I understand banks dont even know BitShares exists, but they're preferring Ethereum over Ripple for example? For money transfers and banks use cases specifically, shouldnt it be something like
BitShares > Ripple > Ethereum or Ripple > BitShares > Ethereum?
We're way more into this kind of stuff than ethereum is. We have way more potential. We specialize in one thing while Ethereum is ok at everything else.
Do these people actually do decent research or only go for whatever they hear "should" be good enough? Or am I just completely wrong? Unless they want to develop other use cases for which Ethereum might be better at? I just didn't predict banks teaming up with Ethereum. I always thought that Ripple would be the one doing so becasue of all the connections they have and we would be the alternative and the "new" stuff for some other more bold banks while providing services for all exchanges.
Ethereum would just be used for... everything else
Ethereum is just a toy for tech nerds to play with and pump and dumpers to kick when they feel like it. I see too many problems with ethereum as it is too shaky security wise and it has so many bugs it's not funny.
-
Simple, blockchain labs want to experiment and create their own models, you will want to use Ethereum for that as it is very flexible. Later on you can use an specialised chain if needed for performance, security etc, (Graphene).
-
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1256406.0
I understand banks dont even know BitShares exists, but they're preferring Ethereum over Ripple for example? For money transfers and banks use cases specifically, shouldnt it be something like
BitShares > Ripple > Ethereum or Ripple > BitShares > Ethereum?
We're way more into this kind of stuff than ethereum is. We have way more potential. We specialize in one thing while Ethereum is ok at everything else.
Do these people actually do decent research or only go for whatever they hear "should" be good enough? Or am I just completely wrong? Unless they want to develop other use cases for which Ethereum might be better at? I just didn't predict banks teaming up with Ethereum. I always thought that Ripple would be the one doing so becasue of all the connections they have and we would be the alternative and the "new" stuff for some other more bold banks while providing services for all exchanges.
Ethereum would just be used for... everything else
Ethereum took over Silicon Valley while Bitshares took over Virginia. Silicon Valley is more connected to the tech world so it's obvious why Ethereum is able to do certain things.
But I don't see why banks would choose Ethereum either. Ethereum has questionable security, is experimental, and I doubt banks are going to put all their hope into Ethereum at this time. Maybe in a few years if Ethereum matures it could have some support but it's not going to happen over night.
I think if they use it they might just fork it. Still, would probably be beneficial for eth. That isn't a race we should loose. Every crypto is trying to find it's niche.
We're just finding ours and would be nice if we wouldn't collide with other projects that could take away our market share.
My opinion is Bitshares should work with any organization or entity that a corporation could work with. Bitshares can work with banks, governments, non-profits, NGOs, private investors, celebrities or whomever. That in fact is the beauty of the design of Bitshares.
At the same time that is also why I try to tell people to tone down the ideological graffiti. Ideology puts people into a tribal state of mind, it makes it harder to do business dev, harder to collaborate, it divides people, makes people irrational, and while it's good at times for your community to have a deep philosophy, you don't want it on your website or in your marketing.
In your marketing and on your website you want to focus on how much $ the people or organizations can make, or how much $ they can save, by working with you over working with your competitors. You also want to highlight your strengths and compare it to the weaknesses of your competitors.
Bitshares has some clear and irrefutable strengths in the technological arms race. It also has some weaknesses. The strengths actually appeal to traditional institutions like banks and in many ways Bitshares has taken a conservative approach. On the other hand generalized programmable blockchain are a strength and while Bitshares has some of these capabilities it will be left in the dust by some of the other projects.
So Bitshares needs to focus on it's niche. It's niche is financial transactions, it's niche is decentralized exchange, and from a technological point of view if it can do bank functions better than Ethereum then it might win over some of the smaller banks. You don't need to win the biggest banks, you just need any banks.
Very good point Luckybit, yes this what BTS needs to do; gain mass exposure. I have put it to Fabian about the importance of getting BTS out into the big league BTS has far superior security, hack resistance (virtually hack proofing who starts using it and it is also generally more aligned with big finance to start with.
BTS needs to make its mark on silicone valley, where the boy's clubs are and the tech nerds that need to see what BTS is about.
BTS needs to promote itself as a hard core bottom up industry grade platform that will bring finance into the 21st century, the finance world is still in the dark ages tech wise BTS is the disruptor and it will take on conventional wisdom head on.
A hard nosed assault on silicone valley and the tech world is how BTS will ultimately flourish and be the tour de force it deserves to be.
So marketing is the key here, build enthusiasm in the boy's clubs over there in silicone valley, show the silicone wannabes the innovation force that BTS holds.
Connect Bitshares with the tech world, apps to connect to smart phones and ipads integration with trading platforms, then see what the result is. Whilst BTS is not perfect, nothing is. I see it being far better accepted than some silicone valley sandbox. Ethereum has its place but it's not at the forefront of financial security,
hack prevention and international trade.
The financial world wants security and peace of mind that funds are properly held and secured at all times, this has been and will always be the number one first order priority concerning the stowage and transfer of money.
I will also add that BTC is old hat tech now, it's too slow, too resource intensive and cannot scale up like BTS. So the real truth and fact of the matter of bringing finance into the 21st century is six fundamental rules:
Security, Keep out thieves and hackers.
Speed, Faster the better.
Scaleability, Grow as finance grows.
Adaptability, Make provision for change in the finance sphere.
Flexibility, Empower the individual with the ability to tailor their finances the way they want them not how they're told to..
Convenience, being able to pay and go quickly.
That's the ethos of people friendly modern finance.
-
Sorry what bugs does ethereum have? And why does it have security problems? Aren't these fixes with Casper. I think you guys are missing out on why ethereum is succeeding and forgetting that the things you think are weaknesses are undergoing fixds
-
The difference is that they've had elite connections and a marketing presence from the beginning. If you act like something, and have a lot of people paid to say good things about you, then people start to believe you are something. Having a cash-strapped, decentralized community is much more of a challenge, but we're getting there.
-
Bitshares has some clear and irrefutable strengths in the technological arms race. It also has some weaknesses. The strengths actually appeal to traditional institutions like banks and in many ways Bitshares has taken a conservative approach. On the other hand generalized programmable blockchain are a strength and while Bitshares has some of these capabilities it will be left in the dust by some of the other projects.
So Bitshares needs to focus on it's niche. It's niche is financial transactions, it's niche is decentralized exchange, and from a technological point of view if it can do bank functions better than Ethereum then it might win over some of the smaller banks. You don't need to win the biggest banks, you just need any banks.
Agree. That's why I'm so curious about the bank CNX was in conversations with. Even if they only get CNX to develop something for them, it will add to the legitimacy of BitShares.
Well now Mr Akado , good question .Do you know why some have their own private jet which takes them to their destination way earlier than a commercial passenger plane can ? Banks are not after public ledger but its tecnology . Why , why , why ?
You and I have bitshares , they dont want to be on ours , they want something which is private to themselves. They will never use a public ledger where they dont have privacy , they might contact Cryptonomex and ask for the same technology , but it will be a one which you and I wont be on. You see this is kind of a race as to who will use a new technology before the next person does so they will take advantage. And privacy is like an ammunition in this battle , believe me they will pay good dollar amount to whoever hands it to them. So Cryptonomex will have to sell this ammunition to someone , question is this: who do you want it to be ? I hope you will appreciate the urgency of privacy more . $45 Gs is peanuts for any bank, they will pay 100 times more who ever hands that privacy to them. The whole point of this technology for us was to cut the middleman out because middleman most of the time uses parties' lack of information against them. I dont want a bunch of banks with their private chains acting as middleman between me and you . Think about it , and members of this community who take privacy lightly , I would like you to think about it . Either they have privacy or you and I have it , the more we have it they will have to start acting responsible and join us rather than trying to rip us . Than you can have more money to do whatever you want.
Well yeah you're right. I was just under the impression that we would later have all the privacy tools needed so that FI and regular people could coexist. Basically a public and permissionless ledger into one. Isn't that feasible? Everyone can get their privacy and only reveal and make their data public when needed. I might be confusing the permission and privacy concepts maybe?
And while I agree that our objective is to cut the middlemen, realistically you will need 3rd party services for people to use. Banks will still exist (at least for quite a while) and it's way easier to work with them than against. Working with them doesnt mean you're suddenly evil. It just means you're trying to make them provide better services so that they can't make shady schemes any more. You're correcting them rather than making them disappear which I think it's what makes most sense and is realistic.
The difference is that they've had elite connections and a marketing presence from the beginning. If you act like something, and have a lot of people paid to say good things about you, then people start to believe you are something. Having a cash-strapped, decentralized community is much more of a challenge, but we're getting there.
This is true. But from a performance perspective is so strange. Still, I guess it's only normal when they haven't heard of BitShares yet. That's where Ethereum succeeded and we didn't.
-
Do these people actually do decent research or only go for whatever they hear "should" be good enough?
When you bail out a bunch of idiots who make stupid decisions, you get more stupid decisions... not necessarily going with ethereum but going with privatized blockchains, and you know they will not settle for a public blockchain. Public blockchains are the future. Banks are obsolete. Period.
-
Do these people actually do decent research or only go for whatever they hear "should" be good enough?
When you bail out a bunch of idiots who make stupid decisions, you get more stupid decisions... not necessarily going with ethereum but going with privatized blockchains, and you know they will not settle for a public blockchain. Public blockchains are the future. Banks are obsolete. Period.
I don't believe they are obsolete. People will still need to use services. They're just going to adapt, that's it.
-
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1256406.0
I understand banks dont even know BitShares exists, but they're preferring Ethereum over Ripple for example? For money transfers and banks use cases specifically, shouldnt it be something like
BitShares > Ripple > Ethereum or Ripple > BitShares > Ethereum?
We're way more into this kind of stuff than ethereum is. We have way more potential. We specialize in one thing while Ethereum is ok at everything else.
Do these people actually do decent research or only go for whatever they hear "should" be good enough? Or am I just completely wrong? Unless they want to develop other use cases for which Ethereum might be better at? I just didn't predict banks teaming up with Ethereum. I always thought that Ripple would be the one doing so becasue of all the connections they have and we would be the alternative and the "new" stuff for some other more bold banks while providing services for all exchanges.
Ethereum would just be used for... everything else
Ethereum took over Silicon Valley while Bitshares took over Virginia. Silicon Valley is more connected to the tech world so it's obvious why Ethereum is able to do certain things.
But I don't see why banks would choose Ethereum either. Ethereum has questionable security, is experimental, and I doubt banks are going to put all their hope into Ethereum at this time. Maybe in a few years if Ethereum matures it could have some support but it's not going to happen over night.
It took Ripple 5 years. Ripple I've known about since 2011, since before I got involved with Bitcoin, back when it was RipplePay. Ripple has been trying to build relationships with banks for a long time.
Ethereum in my opinion at this time, is not secure enough for banks. Because it is so new, and because it is Turing complete, it's alpha level, and at best banks are only testing it. I do understand why banks would not choose Bitcoin, Bitcoin isn't very flexible and the Bitcoin developers are extremely ideological while banks probably only care about having the best technology for shareholders.
I think the Turing completeness in the long term though will make Ethereum expensive to maintain and secure. It might be secure enough to work in the same way Bitcoin is considered secure enough or Bitshares is considered secure enough, but it will have additional risks brought on it due to it's openness and Turing completeness.
In time you will all come to see what I've been talking about all along. I knew as soon as Ethereum seemed to get inordinate amounts of press and Vitalik was lifted up as a god-child...all while Ethereum was just an (untested) idea on a piece of paper. All the ridiculous levels of press showed me something was up. Some might think I'm crazy, but I assure you the current cabals are not planning on leaving this planet and dying. They are going to go for the technology which they know can best move forward to their devoted ends.
Ethereum is the cabal's chosen tech. Saw it coming from a hundred miles away. The one thing that sucks most is that the cabal can very easily control the crypto market to ensure the chains survive that they want to survive. Killing a chain is a bit tougher for them though, luckily. 8)
-
One of the things I told the German-speaking bankers who attended my 7-minute talk in Frankfurt on Thursday was this:
For most of human history banks have helped to reduce economic friction my making it easier to do business over long distances. With the advent of the Internet, this role has reversed. Business now takes place at the speed of light until it must pass through a bank, then it slows way down. So the internet is now working on removing that source of friction one revolution at a time. (Friction in the form of costs, security, regulation, and bundling of services all under one company brand.)
First Generation Architectures (BitcoinDOS) - simply bypass the banks to make payments between businesses.
Second Generation Architectures (BitSharesOS) - integrate a whole business onto a blockchain where its customers can perform a class of business actions at low friction without exiting to bank space.
Third Generation Architectures (GrapheneOS) Integrate multiple businesses onto the same blockchain for all the same reasons. Now we continue to grow the "friction free zone" to entire industries and ecosystems.
Fourth Generation Architectures (heh heh) will extend this to The Internet of Everything making the entire Internet one big friction free zone.
So, if you are a Source of Friction, what should you do? Move your products and services into a friction free zone where they are still very much needed. Offer a bond or a bank issued asset or whatever -- as a reusable component. If you unbundle them there, then all the world's entrepreneurs can come up with new ways to repackage and resell them rather than waiting for your own slow bureaucracy to implement them one by one.
That's the concept behind OpenLedger, is it not? All members put their products and services into a friction free zone where they can be used as building blocks by everyone else.
Note, only in First or Second Generation Architectures can a Big Company contemplate offering their own private solution. Third and Fourth Generation Architectures have already moved beyond the point where a private chain can prevail with the lowest friction solution.
There was a startup in Frankfurt briefing their awesome new mining chips.
I felt bad for them.
I also felt bad for the folks that think you need an on-chain scripting language.
For pretty much the same reason.
:)
-
Seems like a tip, did you do that on purpose Stan? If you did, could you confirm the the following:
So PlasmaOS is about also being able to implement private/permissionless atributes in BitShares? That's what I got from it. We're going into the permissionless businesses.. Or so I hope, that's where the big money is.
-
It's obvious why banks choose ethereum and ripple over bitshares, and we've covered this before:
*) Banks and institutions do not have expert knowledge in this area, so they call upon experts to do their analysis
*) The first thing experts will do, is look at the white papers and do their analyses based on the theory contained within
Look at the white papers for ethereum and ripple:
https://ripple.com/files/ripple_consensus_whitepaper.pdf
https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/White-Paper
Extremely detailed mathematical analysis that experts can use to build their risk profiles. If you compare that to bitshares, you'll see a huge difference:
http://docs.bitshares.eu/_downloads/bitshares-financial-platform.pdf
This reads like a brochure and contains nothing about the security of DPOS or any concensus design implications.
To an expert, bitshares core is completely opaque, so they move on to the other chains which do have proper white papers.
-
It's obvious why banks choose ethereum and ripple over bitshares, and we've covered this before:
*) Banks and institutions do not have expert knowledge in this area, so they call upon experts to do their analysis
*) The first experts will do, is look at the white papers and do their analyses based on the theory contained within
Look at the white papers for ethereum and ripple:
https://ripple.com/files/ripple_consensus_whitepaper.pdf
https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/White-Paper
Extremely detailed mathematical analysis that experts can use to build their risk profiles. If you compare that to bitshares, you'll see a huge difference:
http://docs.bitshares.eu/_downloads/bitshares-financial-platform.pdf
This reads like a brochure and contains nothing about the security of DPOS or any concensus design implications.
To an expert, bitshares core is completely opaque, so they move on to the other chains which do have proper white papers.
great points...
-
I see Bitshares as a bank in itself which is owned by its shareholders. Banks can go wherever they like, we should be going after their customers.
-
Ññnñn
-
It's obvious why banks choose ethereum and ripple over bitshares, and we've covered this before:
*) Banks and institutions do not have expert knowledge in this area, so they call upon experts to do their analysis
*) The first experts will do, is look at the white papers and do their analyses based on the theory contained within
Look at the white papers for ethereum and ripple:
https://ripple.com/files/ripple_consensus_whitepaper.pdf
https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/White-Paper
Extremely detailed mathematical analysis that experts can use to build their risk profiles. If you compare that to bitshares, you'll see a huge difference:
http://docs.bitshares.eu/_downloads/bitshares-financial-platform.pdf
This reads like a brochure and contains nothing about the security of DPOS or any concensus design implications.
To an expert, bitshares core is completely opaque, so they move on to the other chains which do have proper white papers.
great points...
You are comparing apples with pies ..
The 'one' whitepaper we have describes a financial platform ONTOP of a consensus scheme ..
Ethereum IS a consensus scheme with a coding language ..
BTW .. a dpos paper is planed as well .. we just don't have the time to write it since we want to deliver a product first .. (I know, people don't like that approach much)
-
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1256406.0
I understand banks dont even know BitShares exists, but they're preferring Ethereum over Ripple for example? For money transfers and banks use cases specifically, shouldnt it be something like
BitShares > Ripple > Ethereum or Ripple > BitShares > Ethereum?
We're way more into this kind of stuff than ethereum is. We have way more potential. We specialize in one thing while Ethereum is ok at everything else.
Do these people actually do decent research or only go for whatever they hear "should" be good enough? Or am I just completely wrong? Unless they want to develop other use cases for which Ethereum might be better at? I just didn't predict banks teaming up with Ethereum. I always thought that Ripple would be the one doing so becasue of all the connections they have and we would be the alternative and the "new" stuff for some other more bold banks while providing services for all exchanges.
Ethereum would just be used for... everything else
Ethereum took over Silicon Valley while Bitshares took over Virginia. Silicon Valley is more connected to the tech world so it's obvious why Ethereum is able to do certain things.
But I don't see why banks would choose Ethereum either. Ethereum has questionable security, is experimental, and I doubt banks are going to put all their hope into Ethereum at this time. Maybe in a few years if Ethereum matures it could have some support but it's not going to happen over night.
It took Ripple 5 years. Ripple I've known about since 2011, since before I got involved with Bitcoin, back when it was RipplePay. Ripple has been trying to build relationships with banks for a long time.
Ethereum in my opinion at this time, is not secure enough for banks. Because it is so new, and because it is Turing complete, it's alpha level, and at best banks are only testing it. I do understand why banks would not choose Bitcoin, Bitcoin isn't very flexible and the Bitcoin developers are extremely ideological while banks probably only care about having the best technology for shareholders.
I think the Turing completeness in the long term though will make Ethereum expensive to maintain and secure. It might be secure enough to work in the same way Bitcoin is considered secure enough or Bitshares is considered secure enough, but it will have additional risks brought on it due to it's openness and Turing completeness.
In time you will all come to see what I've been talking about all along. I knew as soon as Ethereum seemed to get inordinate amounts of press and Vitalik was lifted up as a god-child...all while Ethereum was just an (untested) idea on a piece of paper. All the ridiculous levels of press showed me something was up. Some might think I'm crazy, but I assure you the current cabals are not planning on leaving this planet and dying. They are going to go for the technology which they know can best move forward to their devoted ends.
Ethereum is the cabal's chosen tech. Saw it coming from a hundred miles away. The one thing that sucks most is that the cabal can very easily control the crypto market to ensure the chains survive that they want to survive. Killing a chain is a bit tougher for them though, luckily. 8)
I happened to know a way with which you can easily kill 3 chains . It doesn't even need the power of a cabal .
-
I happened to know a way with which you can easily kill 3 chains . It doesn't even need the power of a cabal .
You mean the merger?
-
You are comparing apples with pies ..
The 'one' whitepaper we have describes a financial platform ONTOP of a consensus scheme ..
Ethereum IS a consensus scheme with a coding language ..
BTW .. a dpos paper is planed as well .. we just don't have the time to write it since we want to deliver a product first .. (I know, people don't like that approach much)
Having a DPOS paper would be a great start. +5%
We want the outside world to know about bitshares, especially the advantage of bts's DPOS. A DPOS paper is very much needed. I hope we can have it sooner than later.