Show Posts

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.


Messages - luckybit

Pages: 1 ... 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 [191] 192 193 194 195
2851
General Discussion / Re: Angel Shares Feedback Requested
« on: December 15, 2013, 10:59:24 pm »
Quote from: bitcool on December 15, 2013, 10:32:31 pm
Quote from: Lighthouse on December 15, 2013, 09:59:56 pm
Luckybit, I don't care if you want the deal to be better for PTS holders or think that 21 million is too many.  When you bought or mined PTS, 10% of 21 million PTS was the deal and this plan does not change that at all.  You will have instant support for this plan because it does not impact PTS holders at all, if they want to ignore it they can and the deal will be exactly the same as if the change had never been made.

Try to understand, the problem here is Invictus looks like they don't know what they're doing and so are changing the game because they miscalculated early on.  Thats bad because the value of PTS and all invictus projects depends entirely on their ability to deliver, so demonstrating incompetence even if it is well intention-ed is inherently bad for the value of PTS.

You are already invested in PTS, Invictus and Bitshares and so you no longer matter with regards to the remaining distribution.  You understand the value, so if you want more you'll buy them, so of course you think it's a good idea for your usergroup to get 50% instead of 10%.  Now look at it from someone on the outside and suddenly the picture doesn't look so clear and in a competitive market where you can invest in increasing numbers of decentralized corporations that means Invictus is more likely to fail.

So just leave PTS alone and make a new deal where you get it right.  Don't change the deal for better or for worse, and then Invictus doesn't have to care what PTS holders think because they're getting exactly what they expected, even if it's not a new better deal you might think you should get.
+1 for leaving PTS deal as is.  When you buy into something like PTS, you are buying a promise. Unlike Bitcoin,  no merchants accept PTS as a medium of exchange (yet) and it's not intended to be one.

Changing the deal, for better or worse, is dangerous because it compromises confidence. The majority can always vote to get more benefits at the expense of future generations/participants. The is the pitfall for most democratic system and the reason why social security has become a ponzi's scheme.  (http://www.financialsensearchive.com/editorials/quinn/2008/1216.html)

Bitcoin solved this problem by hardcoding the money creation logic, PTS/BTS doesn't have one, and that's very dangerous.

Bitcoin isn't perfect and Bitcoin is a currency not a DAC. In my opinion there has to be a way for employees to renegotiate their contract. It should be formal and those formal rules should be enforced through code rather than just a social contract but there has to be a way to do this.

I don't think you can hardcode logic into everything. You need some artificial intelligence for a DAC to function and evolve over time. For example if Proof of Work turns out to be not as good we are stuck with it because that is the terms of the social contract. I'd be willing to go with that approach provided we stick to all of the terms of the original social contract.

If we are going to keep those terms then there must be 21 million Bitshares and those Bitshares should be mined by Proof of Work because that is what people agreed for when it was announced there would be 21 million. I don't think the price of PTS would be this high if people found out there would be 21 million by Proof of Stake.

Quote from: Lighthouse on December 15, 2013, 10:34:55 pm
I'm of the opinion that when a blockchain launches, the social contract is effectively set in stone.   Bitcool nailed it, it is BAD for existing stakeholders like ourselves to vote ourselves a better deal because it comes at the obvious expense of those who would join the project after us.  I would not join a project that engaged in that type of behavior, and I wouldn't be an investor in a project that did either.  I want Invictus to succeed, and in order to do that they need to be beyond reproach and obviously in this for the right reasons.   

When you make a deal, keep your word.  No other option

I agree with you. Money isn't everything. Trust and reputation are more important.

But in the original contract they did state that they could launch a Protoshares 2.0 and that it would honor the original Protoshares 1.0. If they do that and significantly change the way things work then it puts more risk on the people holding Protoshares 1.0, more uncertainty in the market, and from a game theory perspective the people who had certain strategies to increase their holdings now have to change their strategies.

If nothing changes and the social contract stays exactly as it is for Protoshares and Bitshares I don't think there would be much issue. The issue is that they claim they want to remove mining and move to transaction based Proof of Stake. This is a fine idea but you cannot remove that in my opinion without changing the social contract because while it makes sense to mine 21 million Bitshares over 10 years it does not make sense to do the same thing with Proof of Stake because when people mined Protoshares they were under the impression that when Bitshares came out they would also be able to re-use their mining equipment which they purchased to mine Bitshares.

That is the reason miners are upset. Some miners spent their money purchasing new hardware to mine Protoshares, Bitshares and other Proof of Momentum based blockchains and now there is talk of cancelling all of that. Mining cannot be compared to a lottery either, at this point it is a business and while it is too centralized and there are problems associated with it we may be stuck with it for Bitshares. If Bitshares cannot be mined then a lot of people will be upset if they are not able to renegotiate the deal.

2852
General Discussion / Re: Angel Shares Feedback Requested
« on: December 15, 2013, 10:07:53 pm »
Quote from: Lighthouse on December 15, 2013, 09:59:56 pm
Luckybit, I don't care if you want the deal to be better for PTS holders or think that 21 million is too many.  When you bought or mined PTS, 10% of 21 million PTS was the deal and this plan does not change that at all.  You will have instant support for this plan because it does not impact PTS holders at all, if they want to ignore it they can and the deal will be exactly the same as if the change had never been made.

Try to understand, the problem here is Invictus looks like they don't know what they're doing and so are changing the game because they miscalculated early on.  Thats bad because the value of PTS and all invictus projects depends entirely on their ability to deliver, so demonstrating incompetence even if it is well intention-ed is inherently bad for the value of PTS.

You are already invested in PTS, Invictus and Bitshares and so you no longer matter with regards to the remaining distribution.  You understand the value, so if you want more you'll buy them, so of course you think it's a good idea for your usergroup to get 50% instead of 10%.  Now look at it from someone on the outside and suddenly the picture doesn't look so clear and in a competitive market where you can invest in increasing numbers of decentralized corporations that means Invictus is more likely to fail.

So just leave PTS alone and make a new deal where you get it right.  Don't change the deal for better or for worse, and then Invictus doesn't have to care what PTS holders think because they're getting exactly what they expected, even if it's not a new better deal you might think you should get.

That would be fine but Bytemaster has talked about moving to a Proof of Stake system. That dramatically changes the value proposition for PTS holders. 21 million Bitshares only made sense in the context of having to mine them but if it's a Proof of Stake system then it does not make any sense at all anymore to have 21 million.

Even if PTS holders don't get any more than the agreed upon deal of 2 million, I think it should be 2 million out of 4 million if it's Proof of Stake not because of PTS holders but because I cannot find a reason why you would need 21 million if it's not going to be mined over a very long period of time. If it's Proof of Stake and does not need to be mined at all then the only way to get coins is to invest.

If the contract were to stay exactly the same with Proof of Work then everyone already accepts that deal. That would be the easiest proposition to make, just add an Angelcoin to the current deal. If they want to go with Proof of Stake though then that changes things for me.

2853
General Discussion / Re: Angel Shares Feedback Requested
« on: December 15, 2013, 09:54:08 pm »
Quote from: Lighthouse on December 15, 2013, 09:40:45 pm
I don't think the deal should be improved for existing Protoshares holders, that deal should just be the deal. 
If you improve the deal you can get instant support. I'd support it. I think 21 million Bitshares is way too many even if you give 20% to PTS holders because then you have 80% which I presume aren't going to be mined so it's Proof of Stake?

I see some security advantages of a Proof of Stake system so I'd be willing to go with that if it's superior but to do that should mean PTS holders get 50% of Bitshares. That would mean 2 million to PTS holders and 2 million to whomever else. I think you cannot get more fair than 50/50.
Quote from: Lighthouse on December 15, 2013, 09:40:45 pm
If PTS holders want to sell their PTS to Invictus in exchange for AngelCoins, that's a voluntary endorsement by PTS holders of the new AngelCoins idea and if the price is advantageous you'll find people doing that.
No one should want or have to sell their PTS. If you're a long term holder making an investment you aren't selling, you're loaning. It's more like a bond scenario and honestly it should be treated more like a bond which gets paid back and then you might have people loan out their PTS. To tell people to buy something which they are guaranteed to get a proportion of by default does not make sense to me because buying it has risks which you don't have just holding.

I think if you promise 50% to PTS holders by default and then give the other 50% to angel investors that is fair.
Quote from: Lighthouse on December 15, 2013, 09:40:45 pm
Regarding the number of coins, one of the dangers Mastercoin faces is someone forking it and creating a version that has more opportunity for people to buy into them, I believe all mastercoins are held by less than 1000 individuals which sounds pretty centralized to me.

I helped distribute Mastercoins to individuals and it's not true that all Mastercoins are held by less than 1000 individuals. It is true that Mastercoin distribution is too heavily centralized which is why I helped to run the giveaway thread.

I think you can do giveaways to make it so that Bitshares are more decentralized but the way it's looking now the Bitshares community isn't very centralized in the distribution. In my opinion while it does have some problems and could be better it's a lot more decentralized than Bitcoin or Mastercoin.

I don't think producing more coins is a smart way to decentralize distribution of the currency. The way to create the maximum number of stakeholders is to give the coins away in small portions which get smaller over time. This way anyone who ever wants a stake can get a stake for free without having to mine it. The problem is where do you get the coins to do these giveaways?

But I do agree with you that you need the giveaway process to circulate the flow of stakes to as many hands as possible. 21 million coins or 4 million? 4 million coins would be worth more to all who hold them while 21 million coins would dilute the base.  Since 4 million coins are highly divisible there is no reason to ever dilute the currency to distribute the coins. This is not like stocks in the real world or like real life coins where you cannot break them up smaller in smaller. Since these coins can be broken up and divided we should just go with 4 million or if you want to have some coins for giveaways 4.5 million and then use the divisibility to allow millions of people to own 0.1 billions with 0.01 and so on. I don't think there will be a problem doing it this way.






2854
General Discussion / Re: Angel Shares Feedback Requested
« on: December 15, 2013, 09:34:47 pm »
Quote from: Lighthouse on December 15, 2013, 08:35:38 pm
I would encourage the creation of PTS 2.0 (Angelcoins) that would be another 10% of Bitshares's 21 million, so 20% of total Bitshares would be claimed at the beginning through these two rounds of "venture".

THESE you could use in the way you want, where you let people invest weekly and they get a % of the Angelshares proportional to their Bitcoin or Protoshares contribution (and you should probably accept protoshares at a premium relative to Bitcoins)

2.1 million would be  21 months @ 100k Angelcoins per month - The deal stays the same with Protosharesholders, you get to raise a shitload of money to finance multiple DACs at once and try your new mechanism.

Most importantly, you haven't committed to what you'll do with the other 80%, so when you really solve the problem and have the RIGHT idea you won't have tied yourself down like you're trying to do with this 100% to PTS holders nonsense.

Who besides me would support this?

I support this idea with some minor changes. I think the job board or allocation of funds should eventually be decentralized. Mastercoin is starting out centralized but there is a plan to decentralize the dev Mastercoin scheme along the lines of Proof of Stake voting. As long as the community has a way to vote on new features and vote on the proportions of where the money goes I will support it.

If Invictus Innovation basically treats it as theirs and they hire employees in the dark without giving voting rights then I don't support it. Give voting rights via Proof of Stake and let the community decide how to distribute the funds. If there are multiple candidates for programmer position in a long term employment contract then let the free market decide who gets hired by peer vote.

Of course early on I think Invictus Innovations should decide but the social contract should include voting rights which get phased in after a period of time. This way the DACs can get built quickly but with the knowledge that once they are near completion the control over future development decisions will be recycled back into the community.

That is all really. I think I like your idea. I think the original contract should be upheld as much as possible. The only other refinement I would make is I would probably reduce the amount of Bitshares. There does not need to be 21 million Bitshares. I always thought that was too many. There are only 619k Mastercoins. There were something like 400,000 Asicminer shares. There are 2 million Protoshares. I think there should be 4 million Bitshares.

This would mean that the current PTS holders would get 50% of Bitshares in exchange for signing onto the new Proof of Stake based system no matter what happens with Angelcoins. 50% ownership is better than 10/20%.

2855
General Discussion / Re: Angel Shares Feedback Requested
« on: December 15, 2013, 09:04:34 pm »
Quote from: Pocket Sand on December 15, 2013, 08:52:06 pm
Quote from: Lighthouse on December 15, 2013, 08:24:26 pm
Quote from: bitcool on December 15, 2013, 08:08:43 pm
I bought into the PTS idea because the concepts of merged mining, multiple blockchains, blockchain security, DACs and its attraction to little miners. Now if mining is taken away from the picture, the bulk of it seems to be gone.

Essentially, the proposed change is an admission of two things:

1. Ripple model -- a centralized entity controlling money supply, issuing coins instead of mining them -- is better than Bitcoin model.

2. The MasterCoin model is better than the original PTS model, again, centralized control of funds.

I understand there may be some funding difficulty as the result of this, but to me these are not the right direction we should move to, there got to be better alternatives.

AFAIK, Ripple has some pretty deep pocket investors backing them, probably deeper than the ones you meet in Vegas, but as an investor, I won't touch it even with a 10 foot pole.

I had expected something like this would happen but didn't think it would come this early. The handling of this will not only have impact on the future of I3 and DACs, but also this type of business model,  many will be watching how this plays out with great interest.

This is precisely the result of the OP.  Invictus needs to deliver before they do anything else, and talking about changing the deal is arguably worse than actually changing the deal because it introduces uncertainty in the value. 

Where oh where is someone with a lick of marketing sense.  Stop posting, you are making things worse.   Talk to your team and if they can't explain to you why this whole exercise was really stupid you should get a new team.

This is real money for us as it is for you and your family, appreciate that introducing uncertainty even if you have good intentions is a much worse situation than just shutting up until you've figured out a plan that will actually work.
This. +1

I think the purpose of these forums is to have these debates on how to improve PTS and DAC projects. I support that Bytemaster came to the community for feedback and believe it was the right thing to do.

It also highlights that there is a serious problem. We need investment capital, and we need to work with the metaphor that in a DAC we are all employees or contractors for the DAC. To put it simple, we all should have roles within the DAC infrastructure and the miner if it is no longer a viable role in the infrastructure of future DACs then just like any corporation would do you have to now retrain miners into a new role so that they can continue to contribute without feeling left out.

The way this idea was proposed has made miners feel left out. It was not proposed with contests, giveaways, jobs, bounties, and other opportunities so that people who used to mine could potentially move onto something better. It was presented as if miners should just find something else to do or cough up money to pay for their position in the DAC.

The whole point of a market is so people can work to get value. If the DAC is asking for money and investment as input but isn't giving jobs as output then you will have people who will hesitate. I want to see plenty of jobs going to the little people of the community before I can get behind this idea. Not everybody is a C++ programmer and the problem with the Bitcoin community right now is there does not seem to be much diversity in the kinds of jobs that exist for people who are not technical. In the real world most jobs are not technical and most people in any business are not programmers but in the Bitcoin community it's 90% of the rewards going to programmers and maybe 10% to everyone else.

Mining is the one place where anyone can get started and potentially make a long term profit if the price of PTS does go up x100.



2856
General Discussion / Re: Angel Shares Feedback Requested
« on: December 15, 2013, 08:51:32 pm »
Quote from: Lighthouse on December 15, 2013, 08:20:01 pm
Quote from: bytemaster on December 15, 2013, 08:15:41 pm
It is clear to us that we cannot change ProtoShares even though we believe it would have been a better deal for everyone but the botnets.   

Based upon the feedback you all have provided at our request we will leave ProtoShares and its social contract as-is. 

In the mean time we are still looking for ways to crowd fund development of new DACs through a concept similar to Angel Shares.   

We welcome any constructive suggestions.

You can't change protoshares to exclude people not willing to pay you (invictus) money.  Try to think about this as an opportunity to engage and collaborate.   I told you, the solution is to allocate a fixed % of PTS or BTC revenue to educational initiatives that reward people for learning about your products, giveaways you should probably set up some bounties to spark some grassroots media that focuses entirely on DACs.   If you're removing the mining incentive from the picture, replace it with things people can do that they are rewarded for but doesn't feel like work.  Telling people to market your product and make sure their "friend" uses their code feels exploitative, like you're selling something.  Rewarding people for learning is just smart.

I think you've hit the nail on the head.
The greatest aspect of the whole DAC and Protoshares movement is that it creates a wide web of opportunity where anyone has a chance to make a living. This in my opinion should include miners who instead of being told there is no further use for them in the eco-system should instead be repurposed/retrained into different but equally fundamental roles.

Miners should in my opinion be made into viral marketing teams when and if we move to Proof of Stake. They can blog, they can tweet, they have Facebook, they can explain these concepts and bring in new investment. They should be rewarded for bringing in new investors somehow perhaps by a referral based business model so that instead of mining they get benefits, status or something else through referrals. The point is to keep everyone from the smartest developer to the person who speaks several languages to the person who can just write and read.

Anyone who can communicate can contribute to the potential value of PTS. Any miner can speak, refer, and promote. So it's not just about bringing in developers but also about marketing. There should of course be bounties but I think we need a much more formal and decentralized way of divvying the work load. I don't know how to do it yet but if we are going to treat everyone as employees in these DACs then we need to create the infrastructure to actually track the contributions by Keyhotee ID and reward them.

Quote from: gloine on December 15, 2013, 08:50:16 pm
Quote from: bytemaster on December 15, 2013, 08:15:41 pm
It is clear to us that we cannot change ProtoShares even though we believe it would have been a better deal for everyone but the botnets.   

Based upon the feedback you all have provided at our request we will leave ProtoShares and its social contract as-is. 

In the mean time we are still looking for ways to crowd fund development of new DACs through a concept similar to Angel Shares.   

We welcome any constructive suggestions.

Quote from: bitcool on December 15, 2013, 08:08:43 pm
I bought into the PTS idea because the concepts of merged mining, multiple blockchains, blockchain security, DACs and its attraction to little miners. Now if mining is taken away from the picture, the bulk of it seems to be gone.

Would the merged mining idea still be valid after this discussion? Is bitshares going to be a PoW based system as originally designed in your paper or changed to a PoS based system?

In my opinion, the implementation being done as expected should be regarded as one of the social contracts here.

I think Proof of Work can be changed to Proof of Stake. Proof of Stake is probably better overall but I don't think they can make the change mid stream. Protoshares is currently being mined and people are mining it at a loss because they believe it's going to be worth a lot a year from now or six months from now.

The long term value of Protoshares is very important, but the ideas proposed in this thread seem to promote a short term increase in value at great risk to the long term value proposition. Also it may potentially exclude people who were already involved to invite new rich money into it who want to throw millions.

We need to accommodate the people already involved. Find a way to provide jobs for them first. If you don't have money to pay them then credit them so that their work is registered in a blockchain so that when you do have money to pay them (after you get millions of investment from rich investors) you can pay the small people who were willing to work for the project.

Promoting the value of PTS increasing isn't really paying anyone because not everyone is in it for short term profit. Some people wont want to sell their PTS in 2014 no matter what happens because they are long term supporters. I know I won't be selling any PTS at these prices and even if it went as high as 0.1 I would not sell. Mastercoins already are at 0.1+ and I'm not selling until it's a lot higher.

There has to be a way to pay people and then you have to circulate that money back into investment. So I agree with the goal of creating a sustainable eco-system. I don't agree with the timing and I don't think that method can work if it puts PTS at risk. Create a new DAC.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=998.0
I proposed the idea of a GetWork DAC for precisely this reason and had the exact same concern. I wanted a DAC to allow people to find jobs to do to develop Protoshares and other DACs and get paid for it or credited for it.

2857
General Discussion / Re: Angel Shares Feedback Requested
« on: December 15, 2013, 08:40:59 pm »
Quote from: killsig on December 15, 2013, 06:59:45 pm
Quote from: bytemaster on December 15, 2013, 06:41:45 pm
I believe we have presented the best solution for everyone but the miners who now have to find more productive ways to earn a living.   

  ::)

I guess the first part of me finding a more productive way to earn a living will be dumping PTS.

What Bytemaster does not understand is that miners are doing the viral marketing. It could be organized by Invictus Innovations but there is no real need for centralized marketing at this time when everyone with a stake can be encouraged to market Protoshares to increase the value of their shares.

This is why it's important to have a large, wide and diverse community of stakeholders. Millions of dollars flooding in could get Bitshares developed faster but there is no particular rush to do so in my opinion. The price will go up on it's own.

I do think it would be a good idea to figure out how to get investment into the market but it probably should not disrupt things for people already invested. Angel shares is a fine idea as long as it doesn't negatively affect anyone who already mined or invested.

Miners can be encouraged to do work by having bounties. Create jobs and miners with small amounts of Protoshares will be willing to spend some of their free time to increase their holdings. In fact if you were to build a credit system right now you could always get people to work now for free and agree to pay them later when Invictus Innovation does have the money to give something back, but you should not change the social contract or adjust whatever the deal was for the previous wave of miners.

The new wave of miners should be encouraged to work to build value for this project. We need to use a specific currency just to credit this labor and it should not be Protoshares. Maybe distribute angel shares in a decentralized manner with voting similar to what Mastercoin is going to do with it's Dev Mastercoins. Reputation does matter and if people could be credited for their work within Keyhotee then you can get people to do work.

You wont get full time developers right away, but I also don't think it costs as much because if people really believe Protoshares have value and they have a significant amount then they can hire developers themselves outside of Invictus Innovations. You don't need Invictus Innovations to crowdfund a DAC.

You can crowdfund a DAC through Havelock using Bitcoins if you're not an American citizen. You can also crowdfund a fact using Bitcoinstarter or Kickstarter if you are an American. PiperWallet and TrezorWallet were both crowdfunded on Kickstarter.

My advice would be to start up a Kickstarter and crowdfund the development of a DAC for people who have millions of dollars and who want to contribute. Give them some sufficient prizes and tribute in return for their funding out of whatever the DAC produces.

2858
General Discussion / Re: Angel Shares Feedback Requested
« on: December 15, 2013, 07:38:57 pm »
I don't favor this idea. It only replaces the kind of risks we had before (cheaters) with new kinds of risk (central point of failure and legal).

Crowd funding can be offered but it has to be done in a specific kind of way or it presents legal issues that most Americans don't want to have to deal with. It's important not to call it a stock, or shares.

You could call it a mining contract but once again where are people supposed to get the money from? Unless there will be a supply of jobs which pay in BTC then where is the BTC supposed to come from to pay for the DACs? If it's just Invictus Innovations trying to get extra money away from Amazon or Digital Ocean then we have to decide if we think it's worth the extra risks associated with this centralization and it is.

We go from a bunch of corporations which are bigger and harder to attack to 1 corporation. When you have to buy mining rigs, pay Amazon or Digital Ocean, at least we can say it's decentralized and enough businesses not associated with Bitcoin will benefit that you can have some sort of political cover. When it's just Invictus Innovations then I believe risk is dramatically increased.

Angel investment is needed but what is the rush? If we wait it out then US crowd funding laws might be favorable and then you could implement this right as an equity crowd funding scheme. I suggest you go that route and offer shares both in Invictus Innovations and in this mining solution and for now mine Protoshares until legal clarity is obtained. I see no point in taking unnecessary legal risk when we are months away from a situation where those legal risks could be dramatically decreased.

I also don't think the economic eco-system is fully built out yet. The community isn't as big as it could be at this time and for people willing to work there does not seem to be enough ways to earn money. If there were more angel investment and it were spread appropriately then you could do this because enough people would be earning money to be able to be investors. At this time I think it's a bit too soon to implement and we need to at least get Keyhotee up and running and also wait for the SEC to describe how equity crowd funding can work. I'm not against the plan I just am not sure this is the right time to implement it.

Mining is preferable because it's not crowd funding so you don't have to deal with the SEC at all. 

2859
General Discussion / Re: Angel Shares Feedback Requested
« on: December 15, 2013, 07:23:06 pm »
Quote from: Stan on December 15, 2013, 02:19:29 am
Quote from: bytemaster on December 15, 2013, 02:16:28 am
Quote from: Lighthouse on December 15, 2013, 02:12:35 am
Aren't you sacrificing the equitable distribution and excitement of the Bitshares rollout?  Now it sounds like you're pre-selling the entire thing, which I'm not sure is ideal.

Actually we are proposing a more equitable distribution... you either pay your electric company, Amazon, or someone else who paid their electric company or Amazon.   Now you pay us and everyone gets a fair shot without having to know how to setup a huge mining farm or consuming a lot of their personal time managing servers.

Instead of favoring people that have access to the Chinese Super Computer or Botnets we give the everyone equal opportunity.

ALL the money currently spent on mining would go flowing back into ecosystem development rather than up in smoke.

It looks like you want to replace mining with crowd funding which I'm not entirely against but...

What about people who don't have any money? are you going to give people a way to earn money by working for you?

If you haven't noticed, Bitcoins are really expensive now. Protoshares are really expensive now. You need to provide some jobs so anyone can have a way to work for it otherwise you'll be centralizing the distribution of Protoshares.

2860
General Discussion / Re: Decentralized Autonomous Countries
« on: December 15, 2013, 02:56:46 am »
Quote from: phoenix on December 15, 2013, 02:43:15 am
Quote from: luckybit on December 15, 2013, 02:34:01 am
Quote from: bytemaster on December 15, 2013, 02:24:33 am
Quote from: luckybit on December 15, 2013, 02:21:53 am
This thread reveals the gist of the problem with relying exclusively on PoW.
The problem is that Proof of Work consistently results in concentration of power around whomever can develop the best chip or whomever has the money to buy the best / most chips.

Governments (whether the United States, China, or their friends) and corporations (Apple, Nvidia, Intel, AMD, and their friends) will always have a strategic advantage which is insurmountable. They will always have the technological advantage (they will always be the most technologically sophisticated people at the table), and they'll also always have the most financial might. This is assuming they are fair players and not going to cheat.

Assuming they'll use any advantage to win, then you can see that Bitcoin in itself isn't free from political, state, or corporate influence. Bitcoin disperses the problem from being a centralized problem which governments and corporations can solve into being a decentralized problem with much greater complexity.

So a good strategy would be to decentralize as much as possible and increase complexity as much as possible for Eve (Byzantine adversary) and as expensive as possible for the computationally unbounded adversary.

It should be assumed in the design that perfection is not possible, and that if an adversary is big enough and determined enough that they can break it. Bitcoin can be broken but the ease of which it can be broken is what matters. If it's so hard to break that its not worth it then it is a deterrence against breaking it. If it were a World War scenario then for sure it would be broken by various militant forces who would compete for control of it but it will still be useful even if it were broken because none of them would admit if they could break it.

Proof of Stake makes it democratic and early adopters (not the government or companies) would end up owning the stake.

This is a very good point but Proof of Stake eventually shifts the point of failure onto whichever human beings hold the biggest stakes. For that reason I don't think pure Proof of Stake is good enough.

Assume we took the richest list of Protoshares and froze it in time as the Proof of Stake. It might not happen overnight but over time some of the people with high stakes will change their political views or become corrupted somehow and then with it would go everything beneath them.

Basically the concentration of power into too few people will result in the exact same outcome whether it's Proof of Work, Proof of Stake or the government of a traditional country. I don't have the solution to it but I know anonymity would be necessary, along with randomization so that power isn't predictably in the addresses of the richest list. If it is known where the power is and the protocol is not anonymous then the power will be corruptible, will shift, etc.

Flatten the power structure out as much as possible and if some people do rise in power let it be momentary and not permanent so that the system also attempts to be incorruptible from the bottom up. Anything top down is easily corrupted and that is why governments typically favor top down systems.

Any system will have some weakness. The advantage of POS is that the people with the greatest power to topple the system are usually the people with the most to loose. This will definitely keep out individuals and small groups that want to destroy the system, and the government probably won't bother to mess with it unless they can link it to drugs or tax evasion. So, can we just all form a social contract and all agree not to use any DACshares to purchase drugs or avoid paying taxes?

Did you ever see the movie the Matrix when the agents would literally corrupt whomever they had to in order to stop Neo? They would infiltrate and possess the body of anyone closest to Neo.

You're correct that with Proof of Stake the people who seem like they have the most to lose would have an incentive to protect their investment. Here are some ways it could go wrong.

1. The people with the highest stakes might be rich already and not really have the most to lose.
2. The people with the highest stakes might have the most to lose while they are still poor and now that they are millionaires or billionaires they are ready to cash out so rich that their lifestyle has changed. They no longer have anything to lose.
3. The people who are idealists who truly believe in the concept ideologically have the most to lose, but they might not have the highest stakes and might not end up with any power.

There are some ways around this. Early adopters in something like Protoshares probably are idealists because at this time most people don't have a clue what Protoshares are and why it is so important. The people who donated to reserve a name not only believe in the concept but wanted to be part of the genesis block for Keyhotee. So you do have at least some people who probably truly believe in it.

But those people might not be the people who have a lot of Protoshares. So Proof of Stake does have plenty of weaknesses too which become apparent down the road should people with very high stakes become very rich and cash some of their stake out in order to reduce their risks. The other reason is some of these people will not be anonymous and may even become celebrities and they'll be potentially corrupted because of fame.

I don't have a solution but Proof of Stake in my opinion has the same problem that oligarchy has. The same problem we'd have if we let hollywood celebrities have permanent voting power for the USA. We need a way to have social mobility so that if the people at the current top become corrupt a new group of people can take their place easily and instantly. Proof of Stake does not allow for people to easily take their place while an anonymous jury type system or even voting in a more flat manner would allow every Keyhotee name to be equal.

So how about you choose randomly from the Keyhotee names registered into the genesis block? Random jury pools can form to allow them to anonymously vote to select certain things or to balance off the Proof of Stake. Let them decide how much a vote is worth, or act in a way which can adjust the voting scheme if Proof of Stake ever fails or becomes corrupt. Since these names are associated with the project forever and they paid money on faith alone it might be a good group to choose from.


2861
General Discussion / Re: Decentralized Autonomous Countries
« on: December 15, 2013, 02:34:01 am »
Quote from: bytemaster on December 15, 2013, 02:24:33 am
Quote from: luckybit on December 15, 2013, 02:21:53 am
This thread reveals the gist of the problem with relying exclusively on PoW.
The problem is that Proof of Work consistently results in concentration of power around whomever can develop the best chip or whomever has the money to buy the best / most chips.

Governments (whether the United States, China, or their friends) and corporations (Apple, Nvidia, Intel, AMD, and their friends) will always have a strategic advantage which is insurmountable. They will always have the technological advantage (they will always be the most technologically sophisticated people at the table), and they'll also always have the most financial might. This is assuming they are fair players and not going to cheat.

Assuming they'll use any advantage to win, then you can see that Bitcoin in itself isn't free from political, state, or corporate influence. Bitcoin disperses the problem from being a centralized problem which governments and corporations can solve into being a decentralized problem with much greater complexity.

So a good strategy would be to decentralize as much as possible and increase complexity as much as possible for Eve (Byzantine adversary) and as expensive as possible for the computationally unbounded adversary.

It should be assumed in the design that perfection is not possible, and that if an adversary is big enough and determined enough that they can break it. Bitcoin can be broken but the ease of which it can be broken is what matters. If it's so hard to break that its not worth it then it is a deterrence against breaking it. If it were a World War scenario then for sure it would be broken by various militant forces who would compete for control of it but it will still be useful even if it were broken because none of them would admit if they could break it.

Proof of Stake makes it democratic and early adopters (not the government or companies) would end up owning the stake.

This is a very good point but Proof of Stake eventually shifts the point of failure onto whichever human beings hold the biggest stakes. For that reason I don't think pure Proof of Stake is good enough.

Assume we took the richest list of Protoshares and froze it in time as the Proof of Stake. It might not happen overnight but over time some of the people with high stakes will change their political views or become corrupted somehow and then with it would go everything beneath them.

Basically the concentration of power into too few people will result in the exact same outcome whether it's Proof of Work, Proof of Stake or the government of a traditional country. I don't have the solution to it but I know anonymity would be necessary, along with randomization so that power isn't predictably in the addresses of the richest list. If it is known where the power is and the protocol is not anonymous then the power will be corruptible, will shift, etc.

Flatten the power structure out as much as possible and if some people do rise in power let it be momentary and not permanent so that the system also attempts to be incorruptible from the bottom up. Anything top down is easily corrupted and that is why governments typically favor top down systems.

2862
General Discussion / Re: Decentralized Autonomous Countries
« on: December 15, 2013, 02:21:53 am »
This thread reveals the gist of the problem with relying exclusively on PoW.
The problem is that Proof of Work consistently results in concentration of power around whomever can develop the best chip or whomever has the money to buy the best / most chips. ASIC companies control Bitcoin because they can generate them exclusively if they choose.

Governments (whether the United States, China, or their friends) and corporations (Apple, Nvidia, Intel, AMD, and their friends) will always have a strategic advantage which is insurmountable. They will always have the technological advantage (they will always be the most technologically sophisticated people at the table), and they'll also always have the most financial might. This is assuming they are fair players and are not going to cheat.

Assuming they'll use any advantage to win, then you can see that Bitcoin in itself isn't free from political, state, or corporate influence. Bitcoin disperses the problem from being a centralized problem which governments and corporations can solve into being a decentralized problem with much greater complexity.

So a good strategy would be to decentralize as much as possible and increase complexity as much as possible for Eve (Byzantine adversary) and as expensive as possible for the computationally unbounded adversary.

It should be assumed in the design that perfection is not possible, that if an adversary is big enough and determined enough that they can break it. Bitcoin can be broken but the ease of which it can be broken is what matters. If it's so hard to break that its not worth it then it is a deterrence against breaking it. If it were a World War scenario then for sure it would be broken by various militant forces who would compete for control of it but it will still be useful even if it were broken because none of them would admit if they could break it.
 


2863
General Discussion / Re: Decentralized Autonomous Countries
« on: December 15, 2013, 01:58:54 am »
Quote from: bytemaster on December 15, 2013, 01:21:59 am
Decentralized Continuous Election of Trustees

Suppose we were to accept the notion that it may be beneficial to have a handful of “trusted” individuals around to certify the official block-chain.   We would want to ensure that these trustees are indeed trust-worthy and not simply self-appointed opportunists who had enough capital to corner the voting market.   Everyone should have a an opportunity to vote without having to purchase special hardware or spend billions every year in electricity just to cast their vote.  Lastly, only those who currently own the currency should have a vote proportional their investment in the currency instead of giving the vote to foreigners who have no current interest in the currency.

Fortunately such a voting system is easy to setup by utilizing a concept known as coin-days-destroyed by a transaction to vote for trustees.  Coin-days-destroyed is calculated as your account balance multiplied by the length of time you have held that balance.    When you create a transaction to make a purchase you also include the address of the Trustee you would like to vote for using the coin-days destroyed by the transaction.

Each trustee would accumulate coin-days-destroyed in their voting balance, and when they vote on a block they consume some of their accumulated coin-days.  The best block is the one which has been voted upon by the most trustees.    While Bitcoin block creation is centralized in one person at a time, this new system would require several unique individuals as elected by the shareholders to approve every block.  As a result not even a single block is centralized into a single user.

The trustee’s could use a consensus model based upon the Ripple algorithm to agree on which blocks to create.    This means that in theory blocks could be produced multiple times per minute.   

Trusting the Trustees in an otherwise Trust-less system. 

The major innovation of Bitcoin was that it claimed to create a trust-less currency; however, as we have seen recent developments have reintroduced trust focused on the mining pools.   Does electing Trustees to certify the network open the network up to abuse of power?  In our opinion there is no such risk as the Trustee cannot create transactions that violate the rules of the block-chain and they have their signature on every block they produce.  Any trustee that signed two different blocks that would result in a double spend could be held accountable and of course as long as there are more honest trustees than dishonest trustees this is not a problem.

Pseudo-anonymous random elections may be the only way (similar to a draft or a grand jury system). If their identities are known they will be corrupted eventually (they won't remain trusted for very long). Just look at what happened recently with the shut downs of many centralized trusted exchanges like Bitfunder or BTCT. Look at Mike Caldwell the maker of Casascius fame. I don't think there is any way to do it without an acceptable level of anonymity for voters and trustees. I also don't think any trustee should be in a position for too long. The longer we must trust them the more risk there is for us.

I think it's a bad idea to put our trust in human beings for long periods of time. Power corrupts the human being and it's only a matter when not if it will happen.

2864
General Discussion / Re: PTS Thoughts
« on: December 14, 2013, 01:05:40 am »
Quote from: que23 on December 11, 2013, 12:22:50 pm
Well, I think if we could at least get our operation looking more like mastercoin, we would hit .1 BTC for 1 protoshare. Mastercoin is the master at looking big. They have around 10 sites. We need that too. I have three weeks vacation and would love to work on a project. Hint Hint


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Okay here is a way to get PTS like Mastercoin. First you need to have a PTS faucet. You also have to look at the fact that there are something like 619,000 or so Mastercoins ever while there are 1,138,746 Protoshares. More people have to have a stake in Protoshares and the difficulty has to go up significantly which could take a few months. The cost of making a Protoshare is still too cheap and a lot of people made theirs early on and are dumping to keep the price low or to cash out.

Giving a lot of people a small amount in a faucet, these people aren't very likely to sell. Giving a few people a whole lot and these people are more likely to sell.

So if Mastercoin is like Asicminer then we can expect that it will eventually be going for 2-3 BTC each as a fair price. There are going to be 2 million PTS and unlike MSC you have inflation at a fairly high rate. Not long ago there were only 500,000 protoshares and now we are already over 1 million. The price probably should be double what it is but there are more Protoshares being mined and these miners are probably not little miners with their PCs but big datacenter players mining hundreds or perhaps thousands of Protoshares and then selling them.

If you have a few hundred computers mining Protoshares you can get thousands of them and sell thousands for 0.024. If you're one guy and it takes you over a week to get 1 PTS you're not going to sell it for that.




2865
General Discussion / Re: PTS Thoughts
« on: December 14, 2013, 12:57:28 am »
Quote from: Gekko on December 11, 2013, 12:59:53 pm
Quote from: que23 on December 11, 2013, 12:22:50 pm
Well, I think if we could at least get our operation looking more like mastercoin, we would hit .1 BTC for 1 protoshare. Mastercoin is the master at looking big. They have around 10 sites. We need that too. I have three weeks vacation and would love to work on a project.

By the way... where's


(... and why is his surname underlined? :) )

Protoshares do not cost $100 each to mine so there is no way it will hit .1 anytime soon. But I do think the prices it is at now cannot possibly be profitable for miners. I stopped mining weeks ago. 

I would say 1 PTS would take around $50 of resources to mine if it were truly a decentralized group of miners then the price would be around 0.05 for PTS.

We wont see 0.1 in 2013. We might see it in 2014 after Bitshares or some DACs are released which follow the social contract. The more DACs which follow the social contract the higher the value of protoshares so anyone making a DAC would be wise to buy protoshares now if they intend to honor the social contract.


Pages: 1 ... 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 [191] 192 193 194 195

Page created in 0.205 seconds with 23 queries.