BTW, everytime I post this stuff to reddit, I also post in http://www.reddit.com/r/BitShares/ but I assume everyone knows that

all valid transactions of the blocks inside the shorter chain are re-added to the pool of queued transactions and will be included in another block.

Yes.

Comments from: http://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/227be4/delegated_proof_of_stake_dpos_white_paper/cgk4j2a?context=3

This is very exciting; a really promising advancement. I have some concerns about their implementation, however:

Quote

    2.1 Becoming a Representative

    To become a representative you must register your public key with the network and be assigned a 32 bit unique identifier. This identifier can then be referenced in the header of every transaction.

32 bits only provides about 4 Billion possible IDs. Assuming that many will be lost, forgotten, etc., I think that this is not nearly enough. This is exactly the problem that currently plagues IPv4 and is the main reason why a transition to IPv6 is currently underway. There is no reason not to use 64 bits (or even just 48) as a rep's ID, and it provides the overhead that will assure that there will be enough unique IDs for the next hundred or even thousand years. 32 bits is emphatically not enough.

I understand that only 100 reps are working at a time (but why only 100?), but since being a rep is well-compensated, I foresee that most users of a currency that adopted this system would also "throw in their hat" to be potentially voted to be a "working" rep (among the 100) - and they will all need IDs.

Quote

    It may be possible for a single individual or organization to control multiple representatives in the chain, but this process would involve deceiving a large percentage of the shareholders into supporting sock-puppets.

This seems to just brush off the issue. I see no actual methods, incentives or reasons that would prevent sockpuppet representatives - after all, on the internet, nobody knows you're a dog (or a sockpuppet). The author assumes that "deceiving a large percentage of the shareholders" is somehow inherently more challenging than getting them to vote for a legitimate representative, but it certainly isn't as I can see it. Shareholders are still not going to be meeting most of these representatives in real life.

The only possible solution I can see to this would be a strong Web of Trust that can trace any sockpuppets to a common source - but since most trust signing is going to happen between pseudonyms on the internet, anyway, even this would probably just become "some silly formality" that users engage in without really understanding what they're doing, and a new sockpuppet would have no problem finding itself well validated in the web in a short time.

All in all, it's a very promising idea, and I don't think that these challenges I've described are impassible. I would look forward to a response (and perhaps even an updated proposal) from the author(s) on these concerns.

Don't forget -->BTS Xe to make the feminists happy..

https://github.com/Feminist-Software-Foundation/Internet-plus-Equality

People love Andreas; I posted the Andreas DAC video w/ a pointer to BitShares:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/21lfbw/what_is_a_dac/
http://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/21lfdd/what_is_a_dac/

I am interested in this type of idea, but haven't thought about it or researched existing proposals for a while now. The last similar thing I remember seeing was Bitstorage; take a look and see if it is relevant.

If two buyers buy same domain in the same block, which one will success? Depend on Miner or the one with higher price?
Ask this question because the codes reveals that the order are matched in wallet client.

The transaction with the higher price should win, assuming it references the lower price transaction, even if they are in the same block. I am not sure what order matching code you are referring to, could you link?

I think there is an issue with the site's width. It seems to be a relative width design, which is nice, but on Firefox on my 13'' Mac with a full screen browser window, I am getting a side to side scroll bar which is making the user experience really bad. Please check the relative width parameters.

Same with Firefox on 1280x800 Windows.