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.
Just popping in to point out some innacuracies after watching the video.All in all, you guys need some serious work on your professionalism, bullying competing coins, and public speaking skills. You failed at all 3 of those in this video.
- you state "namecoin price per domain is fixed", that is incorrect. Namecoin has been around for years now, the cost of the domains started out at 50 NMC each. They appear to be fixed only for now.
- Bitshares' PoS being better than Namecoin's PoW is a strawman argument, as no extra energy whatsoever is spent mining namecoins. Mining namecoins is virtually free, so long as the Bitcoin network exists.
- You could have put a bit more planning into the video, I am not impressed watching you hum and haw about what you're going to talk about next... but I understand I would probably make a similarly awkward video. Just watch it and edit it before you release it next time, you will be received much better I guarantee it.
- yes and no are not points. Also, I wish you would have elaborated more on what exactly a domain auction is and how it works via bitshares.
- you come off as snarky/rude towards namecoiners by smirking every time you mention how namecoin works. (like duhhh, right guys? Namecoin is soooo dumb and outdated!) We've been around for a lot longer than you, son. Give us some respect.
- who/what do you guys keep looking at off in the far distance when speaking to the camera!??! Jesus! lol
- it is not set in stone that namecoin domain purchase transactions will be eaten by the network, miners may receive them at a later date after registration in the future, namecoin is still in it's infancy.
- wtf is "ageoshare funding"? Is that what you said? And then wrote AGS funding? I looked it up and couldn't find anything about it.
- claiming namecoin has no funding is an outright lie.
- that's where I turned off the video.
True. Though the word "one" is a bit troubling in this case, since VCs generally agree that a tech company w/o a cofounder is a bad idea.Just curious.
The more resources one has the faster one can accomplish one's goals.
My BitShares-PTS wallet shows only the wallet address.... PiunA5mHJkWYKRcyjT2jVwAefRQqD4NwGf
I don't know where the private keys are, but I assume I will need them after March 15.
So the question is: how will I get my wallet's private keys to do the bs-pts to bs-x conversion?
BTS wallet will import your PTS and BTC wallets to get the keys from them.
Interesting take on what we are doing...
BitHillaryWinsIn2016 would do the trick
Their system depends upon voting with the consensus or it punishes you. Because it uses voting to reach consensus it is fundamentally flawed in my opinion.
Thanks for getting this additional info.
Regarding quote 1: I personally don't find a string of text "BitHillaryWinsIn2016" to be a convincing explanation. My understanding of BitShares is that it relies on infinite term arbitrage. However, if Hillary wins, who would then buy my shares from me for 1$? Who will trade them at all? Future value = 0, present value = 0. Is it not that simple?
I admit my low interest in exploring BitShares, as I was only trying to answer 'What is the difference [between Truthcoin and] the new BitShares approach?'. If anyone feels I could do more to answer THAT question please let me know. I am still of the opinion that BitShares is not a prediction market, defined as a place where people buy securities which are worth a certain value should an event occur, and zero otherwise. BitShares doesn't even seem to limit prices to a (0,1) range, but perhaps I have misunderstood this.
Regarding quote 2: I am (for the time being) personally more than willing to spend my valuable time answering ANY questions people have about the work I published. However, this is an entirely different matter from attempting to convince everyone of the merits of the idea. I do not expect everyone to agree, certainly not at first.
Reinterpreting that comment as the question "Doesn't the fact that the system use voting to establish consensus make it fundamentally flawed?": Firstly, the system does not use 'voting' to establish consensus, the consensus algorithm uses a SVD-modified weighed-vote for coin-owners only. Coin owners have the highest ROI when future trading is maximized, a proof-of-stake system. The most significant multivariate-outlier-voter loses the most coins in the following period, and has the lowest relative influence within the current period. When voters lose in this way, honest voters gain, so every single actor has an incentive a] to vote honestly, and b] to lie about their voting intentions, discouraging cartels. The (required) accumulation of several votes into a Ballot is also a powerful decentralizing factor.
Figure 3 (page 28) best disproves the claim that 'only voting' is used. In it, the weighted votes for contracts C2 and C3 are split between Yes and No 50%-50%, yet the mechanism determines that C2 was 'Yes' and C3 was 'No'. This is because of SVD.
I doubt that Mr. Larimer seriously read and comprehended the paper in the 3.5 hours which separate those posts. His answers paint him as disinterested (which is fine by me).
[...]
From what I've glanced through of that extremely lengthy discussion, I finally would add to my comparison to say:
1] Truthcoin (in attempting to directly model a traditional prediction market) makes an extremely direct attempt to ensure that the winning state of a market will sell for 1 and losing states sell for 0. BitShares does not attempt to ever directly influence the price, and you have to hope that market participants give you the price you want.
2] Creating a new market appears to be much, much easier in Truthcoin (designed to do this all day, liquidity guaranteed) vs BitShares (apparently requires a whole new blockchain and new participants).
3] Finally, BitShares can force you to sell at the current market price, which seems unstable and manipulable. Truthcoin cannot force any trade.
It is very important for this community not to duplicate work, so it is good (and not a derailment of the thread) to have these discussions. However, I now feel that I've made a strong case for Truthcoin being an extremely separate and valuable project.
Abstract. Where Bitcoin allows for the decentralized exchange of value, this paper addresses the decentralized creation and administration of Prediction Markets (PMs). An alternative proof-of-work blockchain collects information on the creation and state of PMs, with the winning state of a market determined by a modified weighted-vote. An incentive mechanism attempts to guarantee a) that all voters vote honestly, and b) that PM-creators act as entrepreneurs, bearing the economic costs and benefits of the PMs they create. Bitcoin users can create PMs on any subject, or trade anonymously within any PM, and all PMs enjoy low fees and infinite market liquidity through a LMSR market maker. Scalability and customizability can be achieved via ‘branching’ (controlled-fork). The paper closes with a discussion of implementation details.
Quotewhat is the difference to new bitshares approach? - read their (new) whitepaper and for it sounds like a very smart system of implementing prediction marketsJust from glancing at it now, it seems that BitShares would be for a continuous price/time-series on an asset that we expect to never be removed from popular exchanges such as the DJIA, Oil, Gold, whereas Truthcoin is for binary (settling in finite time at 0 or 1) events which do not have to exist anywhere else.
From what I can tell, BitShares is actually not a prediction market. How I can use BitShares to bet on the Election of Hillary Clinton as US President in 2016? How do I collect money if I am correct? etc.
Instead it appears (and claims) to be a fully collateralized bank for paper assets, using a custom currency they can suck away from you. Debt seems to be created with every transaction so it will be interesting to see how stable these markets are.
It doesn't really matter how fuzzy the idea is... the resulting price will be the mean interpretation of the concept. So if you say BitOil... without specifying a type of Oil it will probably track an average of all types of Oil unless most people come to the consensus that it should track Brent.
Ok. So you also suggest that there is no unit of account? For example: BitOil would give a ratio between one barell of oil and 1 bts?
We will probably launch a new TaPOS chain to replace PTS after it hits 2 million mined.
I could create a thread or threads in the altcoin forum with 1. newletter, 2. bitshares paper update, 3. the snapshot news, 4 .... and we could all chime in with positive energy, but I feel as if there is some reason why it is not being done. Not to mention highlighting these things in IRC channels and various chats on exchanges, e.g. btc-e trollbox. Let's see what Brian Page has to say first
You might have to check with Brian and get his blessing on this as he's running the marketing for Bitshares.
