And as I mentioned, I think we need to have the white papers updated before test chain(which might become real) starts.

Quote from: bytemaster on February 02, 2014, 04:24:13 am

Today I made more progress on the block generation and validation algorithm.   The wallet has successfully mined a few blocks and the difficulty goes up when there is not enough Proof of Stake. 

Tomorrow I will do the following:
1) Select inputs from your wallet oldest-first so that your transactions can be validated as quickly as possible and contribute the most to securing the chain.
2) Automatically generate transactions to yourself if it will generate enough CDD to reduce the difficulty to the minimum amount.

In response to the question about eliminating mining, I have concluded that ripple-style consensus would have more downsides than straight up POS mining.  Namely, even with 100 nodes people would call it centralized.   I will probably work on a consensus based system in the future, but the POS mining is easier now.

Unlike NXT most of the transactions fees are paid as dividends and only a small portion paid to miners.   Also unlike NXT, everyone is contributing to the security of the network when they make a transaction.

To my understanding, at least in the MVP, the Ripple style consensus and the neural network style positive feedback loop is abandoned. Am I wrong?

If it is true and you have already made the decision, I suppose a more clear and official announcement needs to be made.

Bytemaster, appreciated for your effort on daily update w/ big progress on Bitshares X development. I'm really excited about it. One question: do you plan to update the white paper of Bitshares or/and POS recently? I think it makes sense to have this 2 documents updated before 2/28 Bitshares X public test/release then people could be clear about what's the detailed mechanism/logic of bitshares system operation. Thanks.

Quote from: bytemaster on January 31, 2014, 07:50:16 pm

Quote from: delulo on January 31, 2014, 06:41:52 pm

ok Why not decentralize this and give a material incentive to the nodes to be nodes? Without an incentive the biggest stakeholders or those with non-material goals would run nodes. But the system itself doesn't guarantee that nodes are run.

What makes you think those with non-material goals wouldn't be making so much more?   If we pay nodes to participate then everyone will want to be on the receiving side which means you need a fixed reward divided among all players.

Lets step back a second and reconsider everything... suppose you did something like this:

1) Use a mining algorithm like momentum where the difficulty is adjusted by square of the coin days destroyed by the block. 
2) Pay a very small percentage of the fees to the miner.
3) If two blocks are found at once, the one with the most CDD wins.

The consequences of this approach are as follows:
1) block times return to 5 minute intervals rather than seconds...
2) if there are no transactions CDD is 0 and difficulty is infinity... therefore variation in transaction volume will have a bigger impact on the difficulty adjustment than adding or removing miners.
3) centralization one block at a time returns... but if you allow everyone's CDD to factor in then someone excluding transactions is unlikely to win.  Thus the network errors on the side of including transactions rather than excluding them.
4) You end up increasing the expenses of operating the network (paying miners) and thus reducing the dividend.

I suspect that the mining reward can be as low as 1% of the transaction fees and it would be enough incentive for many people to mine in the background at some steady state.  Mining will always be profitable because if it were not people would stop mining.

Overall I think I like this... though I lament the performance cost.

This introduces a perverse incentive for nodes not to forward transactions... though I suspect the damage caused by this would be small..

新年好！新年好！~

（帖子翻译）bytemaster宣布今天已经快完成BTS的共识机制开发
http://8btc.com/thread-2984-1-1.html
(出处: 巴比特论坛)

看了以后觉得逻辑上很清晰。可惜不懂代码。等实测。


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

你理解错了...Dan说的是查尔斯，前CEO，就是在贴子里跟他吵架的这个ID。关于李笑来，两个人都是说好话的(其实是借此讥讽对方不诚实正直。。)。不过这个帖子挺有趣的，仇好深呐。。

Thanks. Also my expectation. Let's wait for bytemaster's response.

Quote from: yidaidaxia on January 27, 2014, 08:44:28 am

Great!

So we will just test this feature(BTS X allocated to AGS/PTS) or also including other features of Bitshares X at Feb 28th test?

Thanks.

Quote from: bytemaster on January 26, 2014, 01:51:02 pm

The last BTC and PTS block on feb 28 th will be used for the snapshot of the bitshares XT blockchain.  This will be the first feature complete test network. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To my understanding, it's a feature complete version and we will test and report bugs for all the features.
Cuz, for BTS genesis block allocation only, you don't need a whole test network.
(Or, you can wait for bytemaster himself to confirm this.)

根据最新的学习。改了下面这两句的翻译。加了“第一个”和译注。

记得之前对此处理解有争论，有人认为这里的"first BTS"是指第一个区块，然后说其实总量不是200万。。虽然不明白这逻辑。也有人争辩说这里的语法指的是第一批提供资金的人。但是first显然理解成修饰BTS比较自然。

然后我看了这个帖子的讨论后觉得比较清楚了。所谓firts BTS是指第一个推出的可支持16种布特资产交易的区块链。
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1696.15


月报译文：
50% of first BTS money supply will be allocated to PTS holders
50%的第一个BTS(译注：指第一个推出的可支持16种比特资产的区块链。下同)将会分配给PTS持有者。

50% of first BTS money supply will be allocated to AGS holders.
50%的第一个BTS将会分配给AGS持有者。