So do small balances have to wait or not ?  Either way seems to open up attacks. If you let them go immediately in front of line without some sort of value that accumulates the equity * time ... then you can attack the network/nodes by creating a ton of small accounts. Even guys with .1% of the network seem like they could do a number on the system just by creating a ton of small addresses... then at some point those small addresses can remerge their account balances because fees are 0. I get it that it doesn't make economic sense to buy shares to attack, but it could in some other context.

Basically fees keep dust based/bloat attacks at bay.  0 fee opens that back up.

If there is something in the paper that addresses this, my apologies. Is this problem covered because one is forced to register an account before receiving a transfer?

The system is not subject to sybil attacks.

Quote from: bytemaster on February 10, 2016, 02:57:31 pm

Quote from: clemahieu on February 10, 2016, 06:20:48 am

Quote from: fuzzy on February 10, 2016, 05:49:22 am

Quote from: clemahieu on February 10, 2016, 03:22:29 am

Quote from: lil_jay890 on February 10, 2016, 03:07:14 am

KISS - an acronym that bitshares needs to learn to apply

Instead we are more MICAHI...

That's funny, that's our tagline

'We've applied the philosophy of "Do one thing and do it well", giving you performance and scalability unmatched by any other platform.'

though i agree to a certain level...i also think people are impatient.  most people who know a little about coding will tell you it is riddled with unexpected turns of events.  and our dreams are big...that is true, but i think, @lil_jay890 it has some great benefits to be so broad thinking.  though i can also see the point that do one thing and do it well is necessary, i also am very proud to say bitshares already has one thing it does in unparalleled fashion: tx speed & scalability. 

This is saying nothing of sexiness IOTA could bring...hehe.

Understood, as a c++ compiler engineer myself, performance is near and dear to my heart.

One thing I noticed with the BTS 2.0 document was [embracing the inherently single threaded nature of a blockchain].  With RaiBlocks we broke the ledger in to a graph where each account manages their own chain; essentially each account can have its own thread because its impossible for their transactions to conflict.  We found an incredible degree of scalability by making this modification to the traditional blockchain concept.

Do you see BTS 3.0 as making a similar performance enhancement?

If only everything were as simple as currency transfers. The model of blockchain-per-account is extremely elegant but makes designing applications much more complex.

It seems like it applies to any situation where signing key can perform operations.

A transfers to B... if I understand the concept then A creates a new output that B can claim. 

From a blockchain perspective, that "lock" that the threads will be contending over is called the heap. Also for A to know about B there must be an index that maps all outputs by keys... or A must scan all outputs linearly.

It is the index on the data that is hardest to resolve.  In other words, the only thing chain-per-account does is post-pone reconciliation and any other calculations that must be performed based on the intersection of A and B.

Quote from: bytemaster on February 10, 2016, 03:17:29 pm

... allocate it as best as we can. ...

How?

It would create a market competition for the BEST things to fund. If people don't like where the money is going they can bid better / more work for the same money.

Rather than adjusting the supply, we could just commit to the maximum level of inflation and then allocate it as best as we can. This way any unexpected reductions in inflation can boost the price rather than fear, uncertainty, and doubt every time we vote for something.

See my latest blog post for a more detailed write up on this: http://bytemaster.github.io/article/2016/02/10/How-to-build-a-decentralized-application-without-fees/

After my spur of research in the Motivation litterature in 2015, i've gradually drifted toward spirituality. This is because it now seems to me that the most persistent illusion that seems to cause the most havoc is the sense of self or "ego." Our ego is constantly out go get something out of fear or desire, motivations driven by more ancient parts of our brain, which then twist our higher intellect into its service.

Having tried some psychedelics it sometimes happens that people get glimpses of the ego-less state, but then most people quickly fall down again once the effect of the drug wears out. Scientifically the drug pushes activation away from the so-called "default-mode network" which is associated with sense of self and ruminating thoughts revolving around that self. Removed from that DMN, an energy-draining black hole, the activation spreads to the higher cognitive functions of the outer brain and reality is seen without the filter of our ego, our personal lawyer that confabulates all kinds of things to fit a personal narrative and bias.

Some of the spiritual traditions have been warning about the ego, and ego-ism, in this sense, that the DMN gets too much energy and can spiral into destructive, internal loops and depression. However aside from catching glimpses of a state with no ego and ruminating thoughts, the only real way to fight it is to fully understand how it works, and not just intellectually, but using our own awareness to catch the ego in action.

This is called the "direct path" in buddhism, and it goes by way of asking "Who am I?" and being aware as consciousness turns inwardly; one can also ask similar questions, such as "What is here?" or "Where does each thought come from? Where does it go?" or "What feels the feelings?" and other such meditative questions that if we pursue diligently with awareness, honestly and truthfully, we can gradually begin to understand how the mechanisms of defense, fear, jealousy, and embarrassment work in ourselves.

The more we look within to be aware of these things directly from our own experience, we can see how thoughts come, where they come from and perhaps some of the underlying motivations for those thoughts. Then rationality really becomes a matter of deep understanding instead of arguments coming out of nowhere to justify an illusory ego that binds to a given idea or cause out of fear for lack of identity or desire to be something.

Well stated!

http://bytemaster.github.io/article/2016/02/09/The-Currency-Distribution-Problem/