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.


Messages - thisisausername

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6
16
General Discussion / Re: When is next hardfork?
« on: November 10, 2014, 07:37:35 am »
Around 20000 blocks from now or a bit over 2.3 days.

991700-971000*10/60/60/24 by my calculation.

17
General Discussion / Re: BitShares X rebrands itself as BitShares; adopts greater scope [DRAFT]
« on: November 09, 2014, 06:38:46 am »
It's also worth noting that barring any hardforks (that allow for more delegates) the inflation is self-limiting, since the number of new coins per time period remains fixed while the supply approaches infinity.

e.g. If 101 delegates all took max pay for the first ten years, the maximum possible inflation would've dropped to 4%.

18
General Discussion / Re: Truthcoin - Bitshares(X) perceived limitations
« on: November 07, 2014, 10:58:56 pm »
Quote
BitsharesX (in at least most of its quickly-mutating versions), is unlikely to gain widespread acceptance for several reasons, the chief of which is DPoS, which makes highly flawed assumptions about human nature, is explicitly plutocratic (and not capitalist), has market-design-features which sap needed liquidity, employs Soviet-style price fixing (which retards the flourishing of the crucial BitUSD), doesn’t scale (technically it may scale…recall this is a micro-econ blog), and is simply/cheaply attacked (or, at least, completely re-centralized) by finding/threatening/murdering 76% of the “delegates”.

I think our market design is likely not optimal and some liquidity will be lost to this (and we could probably do without feeds with a better design -- not that they're really an issue for anyone other than delegates), but the rest of the points just sound like they're from someone who hasn't thought very deeply about these things.

It's really quite trivial and obvious that DPOS just organizes the centralization that would be present in any system rather than allowing it to form in an ad hoc and likely less secure fashion.

19
Technical Support / Re: Question on the number of Delegates and Why
« on: November 06, 2014, 11:47:07 pm »
No.  The network's ability to generate value from tx fees is fixed (-ish, constant with regard to the size/value/use of the network.)  The total cost of all minting nodes is a linear function on the number of nodes.  Ergo, above a certain number of minting nodes, the cost of running all those nodes exceeds the network's ability to generate value from tx fees.  This will lead to ad hoc centralization as people merge their stake -- reducing the number of nodes -- below the cut-off for the network being profitable as a whole.

Having more nodes doesn't make running any individual node more expensive, it just spreads the rewards of running such a node more thinly.

20
General Discussion / Re: Notification from the Chinese community about "sfinder"
« on: November 03, 2014, 09:04:39 pm »
Quote from: Ander on November 03, 2014, 06:26:57 pm
Any delegate who has been spreading FUD with the goal of crashing the price for their personal profit should be voted out of all delegate positions as soon as it is clear they are guilty. 

It makes me very angry to think that this price crash couldve been caused by a delegate profiding false info to the chinese community.

Seconded!  Provided there's proof (I can't read Chinese, so can't comment on that,) this may be our first case of delegate dishonesty and our first chance to prove that not only does the technical side of bitshares -- peg, markets, etc. -- work, but that the human element does too.

21
General Discussion / Re: article: "Distributed Consensus from Proof of Stake is Impossible"
« on: October 28, 2014, 06:00:11 am »
The bulk of the paper is just the long-range attack.

This is a better write-up on it.  DPOS does not have this vulnerability.  Even Peercoin no longer has this vulnerability.

22
General Discussion / Re: PTS -> BTS ratio?
« on: October 25, 2014, 03:06:56 am »
Quote from: bytemaster on October 24, 2014, 08:00:22 pm
Quote
It's unreasonable！BM's decision hurt PTSer deeply!

Please describe the value you had in PTS...   what DACs were you expecting a cut in, what percent of those DACs were you expecting to get and when did you expect those DACs to be released?
30% PTS, 30% AGS VOTE that looked like it was going to out-compete BTSX for a little bit there...

Not to say that the plan at that time was any good, the competing DACs model looked to be headed to failure, but the merger/sharedrop is a changed expectation.

23
General Discussion / Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« on: October 21, 2014, 08:08:16 pm »
Quote from: delulo on October 21, 2014, 07:55:42 pm
Quote from: emski on October 21, 2014, 06:49:17 pm
I'm 100% against this proposal. EDIT: I support the merge but not with these numbers
What AGS/PTS get is ridiculously low.
It is against the initial promise.
I fully agree with this. Agree with the merger but the allocation is so low for PTS/AGS after Feb28! Those were the ppl that donated most of the AGS dev fund...

disclaimer: I donated more to AGS after Feb28 than before.
+5% the incredibly low percentage along with the incredibly long vesting period soaks PTS/AGS holders far too much.

24
Technical Support / Re: How to get BitsharesX to run over a socks proxy?
« on: October 15, 2014, 06:29:41 am »
I don't know if the client supports proxies (socks or not) in application, but you could certainly run it through torsocks (directed to the socks proxy of your choice, or tor.)

25
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares LND - P2P Lending - Social Contract & Business Model
« on: October 09, 2014, 03:04:45 pm »
Is anything still happening with this specific lending DAC implementation?  It's been quite a while without news.

26
General Discussion / Re: Is the marketing execution in English happening?
« on: October 08, 2014, 06:27:07 am »
Quote from: Ander on October 08, 2014, 05:57:43 am
It seems that lots of people were thinking that some miracle would happen at the conference and make BTSX go up, and when that didnt happen they all sold.

Ah, so we're feeling the bitcoin contraction, just delayed a bit; assuming the reason we fared so well was a buy-in in preparation for the Vegas miracle.

So given the ~18% drop in BTC, BTSX should bottom-out somewhere between 600 and 700 before the marketing push sends us to heights unseen.

27
General Discussion / Re: Video of Inside Bitcoins keynote?
« on: October 07, 2014, 12:23:13 am »
Also would accept: vertical phone video, drunkenly transcribed notes...

28
General Discussion / Re: change for voting
« on: October 02, 2014, 05:31:20 am »
I thought I had read that this was in the works, but it turns out to be an earlier thread of yours, I'm not quite seeing how this question is different.  But I'm also very tired at the moment.

29
General Discussion / Re: Bitcointalk Censoring old posts of me exchanging messages with Satoshi
« on: September 29, 2014, 02:52:09 am »
Quote from: MeTHoDx on September 28, 2014, 11:20:56 pm
EDIT: Looks like this isn't censorship. It was just that one response; the "meat" of the conversation has been left unscathed. They're cleaning up the thread probably for historic reasons.

I think this is an important point to keep things in perspective here.

30
BitShares PTS / Re: PTS jump?!?!??
« on: September 28, 2014, 07:26:49 pm »
Probably BitMusic / Notes announcements.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6

Page created in 0.201 seconds with 23 queries.