Quote from: bytemaster on December 15, 2013, 01:17:44 pm

Pts has helped in all of the viral growth.  It taught us a lot about pow and invictus did manage to raise some money via pts. 

If we sold our pts at these low prices to fund development we would end up owning nothing and burn our wad.   We would also crash the price.

We want to increase pts value to maximize the gains pts provides without crashing the price.  Reallocating waisted resources seemed to be the best way to accomplish both goals.

It is very sad that burning wealth is seen as beneficial because of class envy and a desire to prevent anyone but amazon, power companies, and botnet operators from gaining.   

The movement against centralized powers needs all of the funding it can get and our whole community is shooting itself in the foot by burning our capital in non productive activity. 

We would use the funds in a transparent manner.  Not to pad our personal bank accounts. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why do I not hear about the leveraging of a resource invictus has literally infinite FREE supply of?  Founder ID's (or perhaps newly minted alternative ID's that carry with them a sense of prestige) for getting the talent you need? 

If I am a student or professional with great talent who is just starting out...it would be a smart play to increase the value of my future work if I have a provable and prestigious contact ID through Invictus that PROVES I was instrumental in their success.  We sometimes need to stop thinking about the "Money" and remember that the value of "money" is a simple psychological perception. 

I have spoken with others (who I trust) and they tell me it is not possible, even if the blockchain code is forked, but I want to float it to the community just in case they were incorrect.

The problem with this is that the founder IDs are all in the Keyhotee Genesis Block. After the Genesis Block is launched, there are no more founder IDs available

Are you angry at the people mining PTS right now? You sound angry. I think people are generally earning PTS in proportion to their contributed col/min are they not? That sounds fair to me.

No one is going to give you BTC to run your own private mining pool.

What he's suggesting is that this would be the only way of getting new PTS. In this system, Invictus isn't running a mining pool, they're running the entire PTS Blockchain. This way, they can collect all the money being wasted on mining, and use it to develop more DACs, fix flaws, and make the DAC industry more well known

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?

I like that you want to recapture the money that's being wasted on mining. I hate to see centralized cloud mining companies getting all the money that goes into developing a "decentralized" currency/DAC

The best way to limit the Trustees power would be to make it as easy as possible to become a Trustee, thereby allowing almost anyone to become one. This would then spread out the power among the people, hopefully preventing the formation of political parties.

Agreed, that is a REALLY interesting proposal. 

Trustees are tempting but I think taking that shortcut will bite us.

I think that it wouldn't actually bite us to much, since if there was any attempt to manipulate the block chain, people would stop voting for the Trustees responsible for the manipulation, and then they would quickly lose power, and things would continue just fine.

I like the idea here, not sure if you could actually pull it off

This isn't a serious source of competition. It still looks like a centralized method, and I doubt the code will be open source. They do have a significant advantage in the fact that they probably have access to more funding than Invictus Innovations does, which will help with widespread adoption. However, since Keyhotee is open source, it'll be easier for developers to create new uses for it, which will help encourage adoption as well