BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: r0ach on July 19, 2016, 05:55:03 am
-
I keep seeing all these "woe is me, Bitshares isn't worth 1 billion dollars" posts. Bitshares isn't worth anything because it's not actually a decentralized coin. It's a closed entropy, permissioned ledger like all proof of stake coins. Here is my idea for how to create a cryptocurrency with the TPS benefits of DPoS, while also retaining an open entropy system that can still be classified as decentralized. Feel free to comment and possible complaints/improvements:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1550027.0
-
I keep seeing all these "woe is me, Bitshares isn't worth 1 billion dollars" posts. Bitshares isn't worth anything because it's not actually a decentralized coin. It's a closed entropy, permissioned ledger like all proof of stake coins. Here is my idea for how to create a cryptocurrency with the TPS benefits of DPoS, while also retaining an open entropy system that can still be classified as decentralized. Feel free to comment and possible complaints/improvements:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1550027.0
Welcome back. Glad to see some synergy on how to move crypto forward without fighting each other. I can only hope Dan would at least take at look at your post and start a constructive conversation with you and anonymint.
-
I'll admit a lot of this stuff goes over my head...but I can tell you and anonymint are at a whole 'nother level of genius at understanding this stuff. Wish I had a better understanding so I can know what the hell you guys are talking about and be amazed to be witnessing you juggernauts going at it in intellectual fisticuffs. Ah well, I'm amazed either way.
Good to see you around r0ach.
-
IMO the proposed system has several flaws:
1. By using a selected set of block producers, you inherit what people seem to perceive as the most serious flaw in DPOS: a majority of these control the chain and can squeeze out any attempts at stopping them.
2. For economic reasons, miners spend less money on mining than they can earn by producing blocks. You propose to reward miners with TX fees, but TX fees are very low in all crypto coins. This means the global hash rate will be very low in your chain, which means a determined attacker can easily take control (i. e. >50% of the block producers).
3. By using a separate token for mining and buying into the top block producers you run into the nothing-at-stake problem, or a variant of it. An attacker can mine these tokens over a long time, then spend all of them at once, in order to take over the chain (i. e. buy >50% of the block producer slots).
-
Exactly what kind of glowing response do you expect by calling someone 'satan Larimer'?!
If you want to be taken seriously then state the party you wish to address, and get a response from, with their proper name, and with respect.
-
Exactly what kind of glowing response do you expect by calling someone 'satan Larimer'?!
If you want to be taken seriously then state the party you wish to address, and get a response from, with their proper name, and with respect.
Delete the post imo . I didn't come here to read crap like that.
... And why you're at it how about a congratulations on steem?
-
2. For economic reasons, miners spend less money on mining than they can earn by producing blocks. You propose to reward miners with TX fees, but TX fees are very low in all crypto coins. This means the global hash rate will be very low in your chain, which means a determined attacker can easily take control (i. e. >50% of the block producers).
Well, this is the same system as Bitcoin, so that would be more of a you don't think Bitcoin will work complaint.
3. By using a separate token for mining and buying into the top block producers you run into the nothing-at-stake problem, or a variant of it. An attacker can mine these tokens over a long time, then spend all of them at once, in order to take over the chain (i. e. buy >50% of the block producer slots).
Yea, I thought about this problem already. What I posted was a preliminary idea on how to get a system like this to work. The base layer tokens would just follow the longest chain rule and probably need to have an expiration date after a certain number of blocks deep. A reverse confirmation system if you will.
Exactly what kind of glowing response do you expect by calling someone 'satan Larimer'?!
If you want to be taken seriously then state the party you wish to address, and get a response from, with their proper name, and with respect.
It wasn't me that created that phrase. I saw someone else call him that and co-opted it because it's hilarious.
-
Exactly what kind of glowing response do you expect by calling someone 'satan Larimer'?!
If you want to be taken seriously then state the party you wish to address, and get a response from, with their proper name, and with respect.
It wasn't me that created that phrase. I saw someone else call him that and co-opted it because it's hilarious.
That would be the classic 2Kool4Skewl thread...lol
https://nxtforum.org/general-discussion/bitshares-the-great-satan-on-the-blockchain/
-
2. For economic reasons, miners spend less money on mining than they can earn by producing blocks. You propose to reward miners with TX fees, but TX fees are very low in all crypto coins. This means the global hash rate will be very low in your chain, which means a determined attacker can easily take control (i. e. >50% of the block producers).
Well, this is the same system as Bitcoin, so that would be more of a you don't think Bitcoin will work complaint.
Have top alt coin market caps been increasing or decreasing relative to the BTC cap?
The trend is already apparent.
Altcoins are a prisoner's dilemma and the success of altcoins, as in posing an actual threat to BTC, would likely just make them all die together:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1398586.0
-
one nice thing about steem is that he changed some things around to get rid of tx fees, and socialize them
coins shouldn't be stores of value to the first couple hundred nerds that figured out how to get their hands on them. when viewed in that light system wide inflation to keep people working on bettering the system is a good thing to stop some kind of crypto landed aristocracy from developing.
otherwise the market will do it for us via forks, clones and new coins...
-
coins shouldn't be stores of value to the first couple hundred nerds that figured out how to get their hands on them.
Isn't that exactly how Steem functions? i.e. Smooth becoming an instant millionaire
-
Didn't have a Steem account yet so couldn't bother Larimer with stuff like my original post. I was honestly repulsed by the content being upvoted there so I put off creating an account. I decided to make one and do Bitcoin vs Silver market analysis and see what happens:
https://steemit.com/money/@r0achtheunsavory/the-r0ach-report-vol-1-it-s-time-to-back-up-the-truck-for-silver