Things that make you go Ummm...

[donkeypong]

Much faster.

[bitmarket]

Here are the big ones as I see it that are not obvious from the list of features.

1. Bitcoin has not governence model we do. 1 Larimar 1 vote.

2. The primary benefit to a bitcoin payer (not merchant) is during a black swan event, but can rarely be used.  Let me explain.  From the payers perspective credit cards are better and more established than bitcoin. Both are inexpensive, easy to use, and easy to obtain, and CC's even give you points for using it so you get a free flight every year.   The magor benefit of bitcoin to the user is protection in a blackswan event.  Ask the people of Greece and Cyprus if they would trade their free flights for access to their money.  The catch is, sending money is a very small part of our financial lives.  We borrow, we lend, we trade, we do lots of things.  To use bitcoin in any way other than sending money is to lose its primary benefit which is protection in a black swan event because you have to give up your private keys to third parties.   IF you want to hedge its value you have to let Coinapult hold your coins, IF you want to trade your coins and let them sit on an order book you have to give up your keys to Bitfinex, if you want to do something as elementary as set up a recurring payment you have to give up your keys to coinbase. The list is endless.  Anytime you want to do anything with bitcoin outside of send from A to B you have to jump back in the fire and deal with hokey third parties and trust them with your wealth.   The exact opposite of bitcoin stands for.  Bitshares turns that on its head.   Its primary benefit is the same protection during a black swan, but its sphere of benefit is orders of magniitude better than bitcoin because you can do all of the above things and keep your private keys.

3. Although bitcoin is growing much faster than bitshares ATM it has s short circuit which is holding it back, that if bitshares achieved the same level of support would see it grow much faster.  All crypto's are not particularly attractive for users (not merchants) when compared to credit cards or paypal.  It makes little sense to go to the effort and pay spreads just to send the money away.  Bitcoin used to have a cool way to get some coins in peoples hands.  It was mining with your PC.  Those days are over.  the next obvious way to get bitcoin into peoples hands is since bitcoin is so attractive to merchants compared to bitcoins then eventually more and more merchants will have bitocin in their hands and so it will spread from the merchant side.   Enter the short circuit.  Merchants do not hold bitcoins.  They liquidate them immediately through bitpay and others because bitcoin is volatile.  Bitassets does not have this short circuit.  A merchant need not liquidate them immediately because it is stable and in fact is incentivized not to for black swan protection.   He can hold wealth in bitUSD and only transfer out if needed later without currency risk.   The avoidance of this short circuit cannot be understated.   Cryptos would grow way more if it were absent like it is with bitassets.   IT should be noted however that bitcoin does have an advantage that bitUSD does not have.   bitcoin can attract users because of speculation, bitassets cannot.  In the long term I Would choose bitassets advantages but in the early days bitcoins advantage is pretty sweet.
4. Enhanced security through easier to use multisig and even more importantly limited withdrawals from nominated accounts.  That is a big one.

[btswildpig]

Wow.. I just saw this thread get totally derailed because one person in the thread turned the OP into something else and the rest didn't even seem to bother reading the OP at that point. Or think for themselves... either way not good.

The points of the bitcoin problem vs. the bitshares solution is so people have a clear and concise list of understanding what major innovations bitshares is bringing that solves bitcoin problems because.. thats all most people out there.. even beyond crypo.. have to compare it to as a point of reference.

A list like this is invaluable when presenting to companies seeking to use blockchain in their operations and showing to investors.

All you complain about the market cap and network effect and whatever about bitshares.... if you put as much effort into supporting bitshares in public as you do publicly high over your petty criticisms of them while they are attempting to move it forward, maybe we would be in a very different place today.

Stan.. when you have this list done.. I would really like to have a copy if you don't mind.

I'll just  myself right now.. because I know what I just said isn't going to be popular with the circle jerk going on here.

Hey data, I agree that identifying comparative strengths and weaknesses between Bitcoin and bitshares is a useful exercise and potentially very helpful. However, the excellently described sentiment by btswildpig concerning the manner in which those strengths and weaknesses are presented to different communities, especially Bitcoin, is clearly of great concern to many. I think this was a fair enough place to raise the point,  although we still need to give Stan's OP more support! I certainly did not believe Stan would use such a list inappropriately.  He has my eternal respect and support as being one of the most open, positive and inclusive individuals you are likely to meet. I'm here because of his and bm's vision.

So to the OP.....

Bitcoin - uses a lot of electricity.
Bitshares - would use a great deal less at the same scale.

It depends on if people want to build a currency that's truely immune to manipulation (not even community consensus-----that's no different than governmental influence)of its total supply  .
If that's the case , no matter how huge the cost is , heavy POW is the right way to that .

Heavy cost , nearly zero development , stable protocol , that's the necessary evil to achieve this commitment .  If the development continues too often , it will need hard forks . When people are used to hard-forks just because the developers say so , then in the end it will open the door to change the total supply .

Fixed supply currency maybe a total mistake . But as long as Bitcoin wants to be a true fixed supply currency no matter how many justification for it to increase  , for now high cost PoW seems the only technology to guarantee that .

It really depends on the application . If it's in a private chain or stock trading , then energy saving is more important . In these applications , BitShares are certainly more cost-effective than Bitcoin .

Blockchains must evolve like language or risk becoming redundant. That evolution must be governed in such a way that, from the perspective of the majority of network participants (assuming they are of sound mind,) the changes continue to be overwhelmingly beneficial. In this manner, any aspect of configuration can work for the majority within the same blockchain network in perpetuity.

After watching 《Sons of Anarchy》 , I realized more and more that a bunch of people who formed a non-governmental organization would still become the the essence of the government , a few people push for the "greater good" by voting , by trusting those who pushes it . And sooner or later , mistakes will be made . Of course , there could also be achievement because of the constant changing . But As we've observed in human history , the latter only favors a few lucky ones .

If Bitcoin should become anything different , miners who have control over the network security and have independent interest of their own is the only way to stop Bitcoin becoming the very same thing it set out to fight in the first place . Of course , this may very well cost Bitcoin's future competing with other technologies because it can not evolve easily . But it also keeps human errors away , and some of those errors may very well end Bitcoin .

Imagine you want to build a gang , and the mandate is "no selling drugs ever" , how can you make sure of that ? Sooner or later , after you're gone , your gang members would think "selling drugs is good for the gang , and we can vote for it" , and there you go , the gang will start selling drugs .  The only way to make sure that didn't happen is that you hire a powerful third party hit squad and they kill anyone in the gang who tries to sell drugs .

If by some miracle the mandate can be fulfilled by some cost-effective technology and still keep the mandate (fixed supply regardless of "votes,greater good , blah blah ")intact , then Bitcoin would and should evolve to that . But from what I've observed so far ,  a massive network of miners seem to be the only way to assure that .

[MrJeans]

bitshares still so weak ,please don't bother  bitcoin  ok?
bitcoin religion is still powerful

focus on  bts‘s GUI  performance  ，user experience  ！！！！！！！！
do the best！！！！

 slogan  such as “beyond bitcoin ”  is too early！！！！！！！！！！！！！

marketcap   ，trade volume  ， exchange……

[Ben Mason]

Wow.. I just saw this thread get totally derailed because one person in the thread turned the OP into something else and the rest didn't even seem to bother reading the OP at that point. Or think for themselves... either way not good.

The points of the bitcoin problem vs. the bitshares solution is so people have a clear and concise list of understanding what major innovations bitshares is bringing that solves bitcoin problems because.. thats all most people out there.. even beyond crypo.. have to compare it to as a point of reference.

A list like this is invaluable when presenting to companies seeking to use blockchain in their operations and showing to investors.

All you complain about the market cap and network effect and whatever about bitshares.... if you put as much effort into supporting bitshares in public as you do publicly high over your petty criticisms of them while they are attempting to move it forward, maybe we would be in a very different place today.

Stan.. when you have this list done.. I would really like to have a copy if you don't mind.

I'll just  myself right now.. because I know what I just said isn't going to be popular with the circle jerk going on here.

Hey data, I agree that identifying comparative strengths and weaknesses between Bitcoin and bitshares is a useful exercise and potentially very helpful. However, the excellently described sentiment by btswildpig concerning the manner in which those strengths and weaknesses are presented to different communities, especially Bitcoin, is clearly of great concern to many. I think this was a fair enough place to raise the point,  although we still need to give Stan's OP more support! I certainly did not believe Stan would use such a list inappropriately.  He has my eternal respect and support as being one of the most open, positive and inclusive individuals you are likely to meet. I'm here because of his and bm's vision.

So to the OP.....

Bitcoin - uses a lot of electricity.
Bitshares - would use a great deal less at the same scale.

It depends on if people want to build a currency that's truely immune to manipulation (not even community consensus-----that's no different than governmental influence)of its total supply  .
If that's the case , no matter how huge the cost is , heavy POW is the right way to that .

Heavy cost , nearly zero development , stable protocol , that's the necessary evil to achieve this commitment .  If the development continues too often , it will need hard forks . When people are used to hard-forks just because the developers say so , then in the end it will open the door to change the total supply .

Fixed supply currency maybe a total mistake . But as long as Bitcoin wants to be a true fixed supply currency no matter how many justification for it to increase  , for now high cost PoW seems the only technology to guarantee that .

It really depends on the application . If it's in a private chain or stock trading , then energy saving is more important . In these applications , BitShares are certainly more cost-effective than Bitcoin .

Blockchains must evolve like language or risk becoming redundant. That evolution must be governed in such a way that, from the perspective of the majority of network participants (assuming they are of sound mind,) the changes continue to be overwhelmingly beneficial. In this manner, any aspect of configuration can work for the majority within the same blockchain network in perpetuity.

[btswildpig]

Wow.. I just saw this thread get totally derailed because one person in the thread turned the OP into something else and the rest didn't even seem to bother reading the OP at that point. Or think for themselves... either way not good.

The points of the bitcoin problem vs. the bitshares solution is so people have a clear and concise list of understanding what major innovations bitshares is bringing that solves bitcoin problems because.. thats all most people out there.. even beyond crypo.. have to compare it to as a point of reference.

A list like this is invaluable when presenting to companies seeking to use blockchain in their operations and showing to investors.

All you complain about the market cap and network effect and whatever about bitshares.... if you put as much effort into supporting bitshares in public as you do publicly high over your petty criticisms of them while they are attempting to move it forward, maybe we would be in a very different place today.

Stan.. when you have this list done.. I would really like to have a copy if you don't mind.

I'll just  myself right now.. because I know what I just said isn't going to be popular with the circle jerk going on here.

Hey data, I agree that identifying comparative strengths and weaknesses between Bitcoin and bitshares is a useful exercise and potentially very helpful. However, the excellently described sentiment by btswildpig concerning the manner in which those strengths and weaknesses are presented to different communities, especially Bitcoin, is clearly of great concern to many. I think this was a fair enough place to raise the point,  although we still need to give Stan's OP more support! I certainly did not believe Stan would use such a list inappropriately.  He has my eternal respect and support as being one of the most open, positive and inclusive individuals you are likely to meet. I'm here because of his and bm's vision.

So to the OP.....

Bitcoin - uses a lot of electricity.
Bitshares - would use a great deal less at the same scale.

It depends on if people want to build a currency that's truely immune to manipulation (not even community consensus-----that's no different than governmental influence)of its total supply  .
If that's the case , no matter how huge the cost is , heavy POW is the right way to that .

Heavy cost , nearly zero development , stable protocol , that's the necessary evil to achieve this commitment .  If the development continues too often , it will need hard forks . When people are used to hard-forks just because the developers say so , then in the end it will open the door to change the total supply .

Fixed supply currency maybe a total mistake . But as long as Bitcoin wants to be a true fixed supply currency no matter how many justification for it to increase  , for now high cost PoW seems the only technology to guarantee that .

It really depends on the application . If it's in a private chain or stock trading , then energy saving is more important . In these applications , BitShares are certainly more cost-effective than Bitcoin .

[Ben Mason]

Wow.. I just saw this thread get totally derailed because one person in the thread turned the OP into something else and the rest didn't even seem to bother reading the OP at that point. Or think for themselves... either way not good.

The points of the bitcoin problem vs. the bitshares solution is so people have a clear and concise list of understanding what major innovations bitshares is bringing that solves bitcoin problems because.. thats all most people out there.. even beyond crypo.. have to compare it to as a point of reference.

A list like this is invaluable when presenting to companies seeking to use blockchain in their operations and showing to investors.

All you complain about the market cap and network effect and whatever about bitshares.... if you put as much effort into supporting bitshares in public as you do publicly high over your petty criticisms of them while they are attempting to move it forward, maybe we would be in a very different place today.

Stan.. when you have this list done.. I would really like to have a copy if you don't mind.

I'll just  myself right now.. because I know what I just said isn't going to be popular with the circle jerk going on here.

Hey data, I agree that identifying comparative strengths and weaknesses between Bitcoin and bitshares is a useful exercise and potentially very helpful. However, the excellently described sentiment by btswildpig concerning the manner in which those strengths and weaknesses are presented to different communities, especially Bitcoin, is clearly of great concern to many. I think this was a fair enough place to raise the point,  although we still need to give Stan's OP more support! I certainly did not believe Stan would use such a list inappropriately.  He has my eternal respect and support as being one of the most open, positive and inclusive individuals you are likely to meet. I'm here because of his and bm's vision.

So to the OP.....

Bitcoin - uses a lot of electricity.
Bitshares - would use a great deal less at the same scale.

[wuyanren]

I feel humble can grow up slowly

[btswildpig]

Thanks Guys.

I agree with the concern expressed.  We have no interest in picking fights.

My point is, if you asked a Bitcoin enthusiast what problems they still need to work on, what would be the top ten issues they would list?

I'm interested in being able to describe BitShares progress against that list, not against Bitcoin.

So, what would be on a Bitcoiner's wish list?

It depends on who is asking .
If Nasdaq is asking , it would care more about the volume and speed .

If a random bitcoin dude is asking , he would only care about confirmation time and not price stability because he actually want Bitcoin to rise so it can not be stable . And if he knows the only reason that a software can worth billions of dollars is because it can not be easily changed even sucked as this , he would rather stick to the old tech and not risking a different outcome .

If rep from a bank is asking , he would care more about KYC .

Some features are useless to different people , and some more important .

Remember , even NXT solved tons of issues that Bitcoin has , but that doesn't matter . Because the people who matters to the industry cares more about their issues rather than Bitcoin's issue . So , try to think what those people want and sell it to them  . If they didn't liked Bitcoin , better than Bitcoin means nothing to them . But if they like Blockchain , then solving their issues for them using blockchain is the most attractive selling point . (would Nasdaq care about so-called price stability ? Would a bank care about voting and "community consensus" stuff ? )

 Bitcoiners or crypto lovers or blockchainers  , different approach .

crypto lovers would like to see the list and try to invest in it . Bitcoins woud argue your list is bullshit and have tons of justification why it's that way . Blockchainers would like to see how they can use your product .

[cass]

Strategically aligning BTS with BTC in a win-win is definitely the best strategy moving forward.

 

[bubble789]

You do know that you can list a bunch of "problems" for the most advanced aircraft carrier right ?

The competitive edge of Bitcoin is the liquidity , marketcap , network effect , not technology .

You can bash bitcoin's technology all you want , but in the end you would just push away a major community that's open minded enough to invest in something "so lame , so slow , so old" . If they're opened minded for something "so lame" , imagine what they would see in BitShares if you present it well ?

The best way to achieve the success for BitShares is to grow the whole crypto and blockchain industry instead of hoping people would abandon bitcoin and come to jesus .

Like it or not , Bitcoin will grow , the blockchain industry will grow , multiple projects will grow , even the ones lamer than Bitshares , even the ones who refuse to take BitShares's technology , even the ones with 1 hour confirmation . And investors are investing in the whole industry instead of a single project now .

You have to adjust your expectations . You don't need people to sell their bitcoin and buy Bitshares . You need people to buy Bitcoin and Bitshares because they're both awesome .

And there are many ways to show how awesome something is . Making people think they're not wise enough to choose your product is not a good way . At least not a good way for a project that's suppose to gain the most network effect as possible .

Come back to the question in OP . It's not a matter of "good" or "bad" or "problems" , it's about the suitableness in specific applications . You should link the features to a specific application to sell it , such as high volume stock trading .

Imagine a world where people use Bitcoin as currency in a major way , and businessmen use BItShares to issue and trade stocks , and Bitcoin would be still slow , lame as hell . So what ? Who says that's not a win for BitShares if other project still succeed with lame features while BitShares also succeeded ?

wise words as always.
i do enjoy reading your insights

[Stan]

Thanks Guys.

I agree with the concern expressed.  We have no interest in picking fights.

My point is, if you asked a Bitcoin enthusiast what problems they still need to work on, what would be the top ten issues they would list?

I'm interested in being able to describe BitShares progress against that list, not against Bitcoin.

So, what would be on a Bitcoiner's wish list?

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

@Stan .. Here is one:

Problem: Equal powers for elected block producers
Bitcoin: Totall not solving the issue since bigger miners have higher chances to produce more blocks. Problem gets worse with pooled mining.
BitShares: Once elected into the Top101(N), you have equal powers to all other delegates/witnesses. A single maintainer can only fuck with less than 1% (if 101 delegates are maintained by independent individuals)

Problem: Achieving social consensus about where to go with the ecosystem
Bitcoin: Clueless, see blocksize debate
BitShares: Per Stake voting for: blockproducers, parameters, hardforks, budget items

Problem: Reflect/Implement a traditional business in software
Bitcoin: One token, no governance .. at all .. profits? At least not inherently, if at all
BitShares: Shareholder voting, Business controlled by three entities: Controllers to check the numbers (witnesses), Committee (to tweak the business plan), Projects (that take funds and evolve the business), products (that make the business profitable)

That's a way better answer than mine. .. awesome!

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

Wow.. I just saw this thread get totally derailed because one person in the thread turned the OP into something else and the rest didn't even seem to bother reading the OP at that point. Or think for themselves... either way not good.

The points of the bitcoin problem vs. the bitshares solution is so people have a clear and concise list of understanding what major innovations bitshares is bringing that solves bitcoin problems because.. thats all most people out there.. even beyond crypo.. have to compare it to as a point of reference.

A list like this is invaluable when presenting to companies seeking to use blockchain in their operations and showing to investors.

All you complain about the market cap and network effect and whatever about bitshares.... if you put as much effort into supporting bitshares in public as you do publicly high over your petty criticisms of them while they are attempting to move it forward, maybe we would be in a very different place today.

Stan.. when you have this list done.. I would really like to have a copy if you don't mind.

I'll just  myself right now.. because I know what I just said isn't going to be popular with the circle jerk going on here.

[xeroc]

@Stan .. Here is one:

Problem: Equal powers for elected block producers
Bitcoin: Totall not solving the issue since bigger miners have higher chances to produce more blocks. Problem gets worse with pooled mining.
BitShares: Once elected into the Top101(N), you have equal powers to all other delegates/witnesses. A single maintainer can only fuck with less than 1% (if 101 delegates are maintained by independent individuals)

Problem: Achieving social consensus about where to go with the ecosystem
Bitcoin: Clueless, see blocksize debate
BitShares: Per Stake voting for: blockproducers, parameters, hardforks, budget items

Problem: Reflect/Implement a traditional business in software
Bitcoin: One token, no governance .. at all .. profits? At least not inherently, if at all
BitShares: Shareholder voting, Business controlled by three entities: Controllers to check the numbers (witnesses), Committee (to tweak the business plan), Projects (that take funds and evolve the business), products (that make the business profitable)