Author Topic: Charles Hoskinson Left Ethereum?  (Read 24887 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
How is a DAC toolkit anything other than a toolkit for specifying a set of smart contracts?

Just because you can't dynamically add new contracts doesn't make it not smart contracts...

 It took me quite some time to get the applications of "smart contract" or what they meant.  I came to my own belief that Bitshares should rename their product "smartest contracts" but I don't want to be more contentious than I am.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline cass

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4311
  • /(┬.┬)\
    • View Profile

Guys, my whole point is that different systems need different consensus models in order to optimize their utility.

agreed ... but/and maybe we should consider to open a new thread if we want to discuss POW vs. DPOS vs. ?  furthermore

my 2 btsx
« Last Edit: August 10, 2014, 06:47:16 pm by cass »
█║▌║║█  - - -  The quieter you become, the more you are able to hear  - - -  █║▌║║█

Offline toast

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nikolai
arhag that was a beautiful post.

I think everyone needs to read your analysis of what sorts of blockchain-based systems can be considered "DACs" (or at least, "good DACs"). I think Charles nailed it right on the head that DPOS is particularly well-suited for these types of cryptoequities. I happen to think that DPOS is better for all other kinds of cryptoequities as well based on the limit behavior of other consensus mechanisms, but this is almost by accident.
Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
I want to see if I am understanding the point Charles is trying to make. Charles, please correct me if I misunderstood. Also, everyone else please help me out if you find a flaw in my reasoning.

But first, I need to spend some time explaining how I understand the security of DPOS.

The security of a POS consensus system is derived from the fact that it is expensive to buy up a huge fraction (51%) of the stake (shares in the DAC). For it to be expensive to do this the market cap of the DAC needs to be expensive. How expensive? Expensive enough that the value an attacker can get out of compromising the consensus system of the DAC is less than the cost of acquiring the majority of the stake. What can an attacker do if they compromise the consensus system of a DAC? Typically, they can only filter transactions and trick an individual into thinking some state was committed to the blockchain when it really was not (double-spend attacks).

How much an attacker values filtering (or even entirely shutting down) transaction activity on a DAC is dependent on how much he is interested in reducing the market value of the DAC. Although, the attacker is the one to lose the most financial value from such an attack, if the market cap is small it may be worth it to the attacker to sacrifice that money to shut down the network. Except, in DPOS, the legitimate shareholders can simply purge transactions that voted for the attacker's delegates (the ones who were suspected of filtering or known to not cooperate) and resume operation of the DAC. This means that the attacker cannot permanently shut down the system, only temporarily inconvenience users at great repeated cost to the attacker. Eventually, the shareholders would bleed the attacker dry as long as they were committed to putting up with the annoying restarts for a little while.

So, the only other way it makes any rational sense for an attacker to buy enough stake to control enough delegates to attack a DPOS DAC, is if the attacker can make up enough value from double-spends to cover the costs of registering a delegate, the opportunity cost of not continuing to receiving pay as delegates that do their job properly (since the double-spend victim would quickly present cryptographic proof to the network that the delegates double-signed blocks and are therefore dishonest and can be automatically removed from the delegate list), and the cost of losing significant value in the shares they obtained (because after a successful double-spend attack in a DAC, the market cap of the DAC will likely drop). I am going to assume the first two costs are not significant for an attacker who is buying up a huge stake: delegate registration cost are low which can be easily paid off by just keeping the delegates honest for about a month before carrying out the attack; and, I assume shareholders will want delegate pay to be as low as is sustainable in order to increase the value of their shares as much as possible (at the cost of lower security in the network). So, whether the attack is beneficial to the attacker is a function of the value of double-spends in the DAC and the cost of buying up stake only to use it to reduce its value (which is itself basically just a function of the market cap of the DAC). DPOS DACs in which double-spend attacks are very valuable need to have a high market cap to be secure. But it also means that DPOS DACs where double-spend attacks are not very valuable can afford to have considerably lower market cap.

Now, finally to address what I believe is Charles' argument.

I think his concerns are regarding DACs that have no reason to have a high market cap. A DAC that does not provide services desirable enough to command a high source of income (say through the transaction fees), might not have a high market cap unless the shares in the DAC themselves had high value for other reasons. Examples of such exceptions include BitShares X in which the transaction fees are very low but the DAC can still have a high market cap because the shares are the only way to provide collateral for BitAssets (and BitAssets are desirable to own because they have the properties of a currency assuming the market-peg works as is hoped) and there is a natural network effect in being able to make transactions using a currency with people on the same blockchain. Another example of an exception is something like BitShares Me, but with the entire DAC dedicated to owning shares in a centralized firm. In this case the value in the shares comes from the trust users have that the centralized firm will treat the shares like company stock (meaning paying them dividends by taking corporate profits, buying up the shares in the DAC, and destroy the shares to act as a stock buyback). Companies would do this because they want to give their stock value, and in particular they want to be able to do an IPO to raise initial capital to grow as a company (the people who contribute to the IPO become the shareholders in the genesis block of the DAC). BitShares DNS is actually not one of these exceptions. It is instead an example where the DAC can command a high source of income through fees because of the natural scarcity of human-readable globally-recognized uncensorable names.

Now, what about other DAC concepts such as a storing/hosting service DAC that Charles brings up? For these services the most significant cost is in actually providing the storing/hosting service (hard drives, computers, and bandwidth) which is something only a centralized firm can do. There can however be many different centralized firms competing to provide quality service at low cost. I am not certain what the purpose of the DAC would even be. It would most likely be for bookkeeping, such as trying to set up some incentive structure to allow market participants to accurately gauge the quality of service the firms are providing, or keeping track of how much attention (meaning money) a particular file needs on the servers of a particular firm before it gets deleted to free up space. This is a complicated DAC that I cannot analyze at this time to determine what its actual value would be. But the general rule to follow is: if the DAC has a lot of value (high market cap), then it is well protected from double-spend attacks; if the DAC does not have a high value, then the benefit an attacker can get from double-spend attacks better be very low. If the DAC cannot be constructed in a way to respect this rule, then it has no business being a DAC! Note that in that case it shouldn't matter whether you use PoS or PoW since the security of either one would be low if the DAC doesn't have value (since hashing power is proportional to miner income). In the case of the storage/hosting DAC idea, maybe it ends up making more sense to just keep the storage/hosting business as a centralized firm that one simply pays for its services with BitUSD.

I think it is important for all of us to be clear on what types of services make sense to build with the DAC metaphor (and these can benefit greatly from DPOS and the BitShares toolkit), and what services are more appropriately implemented with traditional methods.

Edit: I took out a paragraph on the Voting DAC because I need to really think about it more before I say it isn't a legitimate DAC. While I believe the network effect is in the human verifiers, there may still be a tendency for the DAC to not clone too much for exactly the reason that it becomes less secure. So, security may in fact be the network effect force for all DACs that tries to merge them together as much as possible (countered by the other force that wants to pull them apart to reduce transaction volume for scaling reasons).
« Last Edit: August 08, 2014, 11:32:13 pm by arhag »

Offline toast

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nikolai
How is a DAC toolkit anything other than a toolkit for specifying a set of smart contracts?

Just because you can't dynamically add new contracts doesn't make it not smart contracts...
Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
Sure, Charles' input is great because he brings in a different perspective.

DACs make no sense without smart contracts and guess what there are now two ventures building them both are not called Invictus. A DAC tookit isn't in demand, IPOs definitely are and will continue to be for the foreseeable future.

What is your definition of a "smart contract"?

Here is mine:
Quote
Would you agree on the following: A smart contract is everything that is conditional + involves more than one economic entity (doesn't have to be human) + uses a blockchain to store the data, for example:
1) Any multisig transaction
2) Ethereum style conditional payments that can be activated with ether (many different smart contracts all on the ethereum blockchain)
3) A Bitshares style DAC. Lottery for example says "IF you buy a lottery ticket THEN you will get a (a) % chance of winning (b) (which depends on how many other others are playing) which is paid out in way (c). Every "smart contract" has its own chain.
 
(2) and (3) are basically the same (both are smart contracts and in both systems the contracts have to be activated with the native currency) except:
- one blockchain vs. many blockchains
- C++ vs. Ethereum's custom scripting languages. Both are turring complete.

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
The whole "philosophical" POW vs. POS discussion is a luxury and probably irrelevant. First we would have to answer the question if POW can AT ALL work profitably over the long term. At the moment I think it is not possible: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=395761.msg6852307#msg6852307 The best argument against this I have heard was: "...then transactions per block have to increase". If transactions per block go up with a POW system the question is still how it compares in terms of efficiency with a POS system and who is willing to pay for the additional costs. Will security have to suffer? Will coin/shares-holders take the dilution? Will users of the network pay higher tx fees?

Anyone with good contra arguments Charles/anyone?   
« Last Edit: August 08, 2014, 09:17:16 pm by delulo »

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
Giving the future workers 3.5 times bigger stake than the total stake of all current owners is a bigger thread to all stakeholders (big or small), IMHO.

What I mean is the current voting system may be the best for selecting delegates [block producers], but it is a terrible system to vote on dilution on one’s ownership.

The way I look at the allocation is simply this:  initial owners paid for about 1 year of development and those development funds will run out.  To maintain future growth and development necessary to really grow the network will require an effort about 3x larger than the first year of development.   The labor contributed in years 2, 3 and 4 is of equal value to the labor contributed in year 1.     In year 5 everyone has ownership proportional to their contribution (value for value).

Now if the original owners from year one vote to fund unproductive work in years 2-4 then that is a problem.... I think large stake holders will be pro-active in making sure no unprofitable dilution occurs.

If above is how you see it, I will not argue in principal - I would just love to see you take a long, hard look at A86’s ‘workers’ suggestion.
Other than the name -which is better to be something like ’voting on value creation/ expansion proposals’, this is how this goal should be achieved, imo.


I have some suggestion to make the approval process more easy and fast here (if that’s what is preventing you to go this way): https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=6561.msg88583#msg88583
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

charleshoskinson

  • Guest
Quote
Right, this is what DPOS is.   Pick 101 people to do the work regardless of their token ownership.  If there is a lot of work to do then you pick 101 teams with each team being arbitrarily large with their own allocation strategy.

You'll notice that I did acknowledge that above. I think at this point we are really moving in circles. Again PoS versus PoW seem to be like arguing democrat versus republican to me. It would be more productive if there was an actual use case to analyse.

Guys, my whole point is that different systems need different consensus models in order to optimize their utility.

Offline bytemaster

Giving the future workers 3.5 times bigger stake than the total stake of all current owners is a bigger thread to all stakeholders (big or small), IMHO.

What I mean is the current voting system may be the best for selecting delegates [block producers], but it is a terrible system to vote on dilution on one’s ownership.

The way I look at the allocation is simply this:  initial owners paid for about 1 year of development and those development funds will run out.  To maintain future growth and development necessary to really grow the network will require an effort about 3x larger than the first year of development.   The labor contributed in years 2, 3 and 4 is of equal value to the labor contributed in year 1.     In year 5 everyone has ownership proportional to their contribution (value for value).

Now if the original owners from year one vote to fund unproductive work in years 2-4 then that is a problem.... I think large stake holders will be pro-active in making sure no unprofitable dilution occurs.
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
Giving the future workers 3.5 times bigger stake than the total stake of all current owners is a bigger thread to all stakeholders (big or small), IMHO.

What I mean is the current voting system may be the best for selecting delegates [block producers], but it is a terrible system to vote on dilution on one’s ownership.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2014, 04:30:24 pm by tonyk »
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline bytemaster

To be fair... voting in DPOS is also a violation of property rights of the minority shareholders who don't approve of the current slate of delegates.   Unfortunately, I fear that this problem is unresolvable in all "shared or fractional" ownership systems.

For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
It makes no sense to me that somehow ownership of the token system ought to be the deciding factor in who benefits from providing the work to provide these services. It ought to be the people actually doing the work regardless of their token ownership.

I on the other hand, see a dangerous shift in his thinking in that direction. Hope it does not turn deadly…


Miners of the World Unite!

The concept that the network is owned by the "workers" and not those who are providing capital seems is down right socialist.   Ie: someone who does not own the system should benefit instead and that their benefit should be derived from something other than a free market exchange at the expense of those who own it.

Property Rights and Value-for-Value exchange is the foundation of what we build.  Looks like you have drifted to a different foundation.

Anything that can be perceived as moving away from those values scares me to no end!
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline bytemaster

It makes no sense to me that somehow ownership of the token system ought to be the deciding factor in who benefits from providing the work to provide these services. It ought to be the people actually doing the work regardless of their token ownership.

I on the other hand, see a dangerous shift in his thinking in that direction. Hope it does not turn deadly…


Miners of the World Unite!

The concept that the network is owned by the "workers" and not those who are providing capital seems down right socialist.   Ie: someone who does not own the system should benefit instead and that their benefit should be derived from something other than a free market exchange at the expense of those who own it.

Property Rights and Value-for-Value exchange is the foundation of what we build.  Looks like you have drifted to a different foundation.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2014, 03:48:20 pm by bytemaster »
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
It makes no sense to me that somehow ownership of the token ought to be the deciding factor in who benefits from providing the work to provide these services. It ought to be the people actually doing the work regardless of their token ownership.

I on the other hand, see a dangerous shift in his thinking in that direction. Hope it does not turn deadly…
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline bytemaster

DACs make no sense without smart contracts and guess what there are now two ventures building them both are not called Invictus. A DAC tookit isn't in demand, IPOs definitely are and will continue to be for the foreseeable future.

Second, http://p2pool.in/ exists and it completely removes the negative impact of pool operators. Yes Dan you are correct in that mining power if it is wasting computation is a problem for the little guy; however, you haven't address decentralized storage, general purpose computation and hosting. Despite what you claim, people do pay for these services in their centralized form to the tune of tens of billions of dollars per year.

It makes no sense to me that somehow ownership of the token ought to be the deciding factor in who benefits from providing the work to provide these services. It ought to be the people actually doing the work regardless of their token ownership.

Right, this is what DPOS is.   Pick 101 people to do the work regardless of their token ownership.  If there is a lot of work to do then you pick 101 teams with each team being arbitrarily large with their own allocation strategy.

For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

charleshoskinson

  • Guest
DACs make no sense without smart contracts and guess what there are now two ventures building them both are not called Invictus. A DAC tookit isn't in demand, IPOs definitely are and will continue to be for the foreseeable future.

Second, http://p2pool.in/ exists and it completely removes the negative impact of pool operators. Yes Dan you are correct in that mining power if it is wasting computation is a problem for the little guy; however, you haven't address decentralized storage, general purpose computation and hosting. Despite what you claim, people do pay for these services in their centralized form to the tune of tens of billions of dollars per year.

It makes no sense to me that somehow ownership of the token ought to be the deciding factor in who benefits from providing the work to provide these services. It ought to be the people actually doing the work regardless of their token ownership.

Offline CLains

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: clains
I love hearing what Charles has to say.

Personally I am thinking that the most important thing in this space is not what the details of the technology is, but rather what the first few mainstream DACs will be (aside from currency). If only there was some way to figure out what market would be most compatible with the use cases we are mapping.

According to Charles it would make most sense for I3 to focus almost exclusively on developing, designing, specializing and promoting "IPO in a Box" for companies. This can be understood as a hypothesis about what would - if focused on - most significantly raise the BitShares market-cap in the medium term.

The current strategy of I3 seems to be to develop, design, specialize and promote the "DAC Toolkit" to lower barriers to entry and enable the maximum amount of creativity and parallelism.  This can be understood purely from an economic-growth perspective.

With that being said the implicit focus of I3, which seems to motivate Bytemaster as well as BitShares DNS and BitShares Vote, is a certain view of how the crypto-space will evolve into a parallel crypto-society - a society tinged with a certain ideological flare.

However, I believe that with the invention of DPOS - something will happen. If it simply does not disintegrate into tragedy of the commons, the BitShares ecosystem can soon be making efficient use of potentially hundreds of millions of dollars each year that comes in through revenue and inflation.

In the end I agree that lack of focus is extremely dangerous. It did already steal quite a bit of time, energy and capital from I3. And anyone who have watched shark tank knows that the sharks are constantly analyzing the focus of their potential investment, and when it's lacking they withdraw out of near instinct.

Offline bytemaster

P2P pools decentralize the mining pools, but NOT the mining power.
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline mf-tzo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1725
    • View Profile
Mining: I cannot comment about it much but as far as I understand mining cost should be break even as you purchase the coins on free market at specific time. Therefore, people mine to support a concept that doesn't make sense. They mine speculating for future demand but they could just go buy the coin at the same cost now, hold it and sell it in the future. Unless I have completely misunderstood mining.

POS: Someone thinks has a great idea, makes a coin and convince people why this is different from other coins. Still this doesn't make any sense unless this coin has something to truly offer.

The difference is in what each coin can offer irrespective of POW or POS.

The whole point should therefore be what the true value of each coin is.
1. Very fast money transfers world wide
2. Decentralized and no government control
3. No entry barriers
4. Very fast asset transfers worldwide (stocks, commodities etc..)
5. Smart contracts
6  Make sense from economic perspective
7  Mine something that actually adds true value to this world
8 ...

Bitcoin can't offer currently none of the above.

Bitshares X has the potential to offer all of the above. Obviously 1 and 2,6.
3. In these early stages I think that we need to distribute them to people who have difficulties obtaining them. Let's send to as many people that we can 100 BTSX each one of us. This is $1 now. In the future it could be worth much more. It will be after them to hold or sell but they will have a choice from the early days.
4. Once the market peg works (unless initial shareholders kill it with stupid trading bots) and 1 bitusd = 1 usd then the financial world as we know it will change. I can transfer bitFacebook stocks = Facebook stocks to my Chinese friend with 1 click.
5. I can buy a house with 1 click.

Why is this so difficult for people to understand ? We definitely need people who can explain easily these things to others out there selling the product. We need to start convincing bitcoiners that their model just don't work so they come on board and make Bitshares X  $10 billion market cap (but these are the early miners mostly and are still believing or want to believe that mining makes some sense). The only thing that should be mined out there are cure coins, solar coins etc.. and yet no one does that since it is not profitable..
We need to change this fucking world somehow...

Quote
In terms of mining centralization, what about P2P pools? Then there are no mining pool operators. Also what if the mining algorithm is work that benefits the network?

No idea what you are talking about..define the "benefit of the network". Please note that my experience in crypto is very small compared to most of you in here and I still don't understand obvious things to you.
Everything said above is meant for a constructive discussion to clear things up in my head.
Charles I don't want you to get offended in anyway with what I am saying. Please note that actually I have no idea who you are but it appears that everyone here respect you a lot and you have a lot of experience in crypto.

Offline bytemaster

The challenge with POW based security is that it will always centralize in an uncontrolled manner.  Attempts at getting "dual use" out of the work actually serve to undermine potential security because the attacker now has additional revenue streams for the same work. 

If the POW only has theoretical value (SETI@ HOME) then the fact that the market isn't paying for those calculations today is proof enough that the value of those calculations doesn't generate enough value to offset the cost.   Same applies to all calculations.

If the network needs some heavy calculation (say massive compression with quick decompression) that has some value, but a POS coin could still pay for that without compromising security to the centralization that would ultimately occur using POW. 
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

bitbro

  • Guest

Quote
Indeed.

100% of all bitcoins currently in circulation were, by definition,
obtained from someone else**

so what difference does it make?


Sorry but in bitcoin also the early adopters, the geeks have mined enormous amounts in the early days. In a sense isn't it the exact same thing? The small oligarchy of speculators who understood bitcoin hold a substantial stake...
All POW coins are controlled now in reality by mining pools and very few people.

POS coins also may be available cheaply in reality. Who knows if in 5 yeras 1NXT = 1BTSX=$1,000. Everyone has the choice to speculate on that price and 5 years from now people may say the same things that they say about early adopters as in bitcoin...

All in all I believe that none is fair. One is energy efficient the other not. That is the only difference in my head..

This wasn't a complaint about acquisition, but rather rights associated with the coin. Again, for cryptoequities like bitshares, it makes sense to have strong voting rights. I think everyone can dream up a case where this doesn't make sense. That's my point. Again I am neither a blind fan of PoW or PoS. I'm saying consensus needs to be directly connected to desired economic incentives and intended utility of the protocol. 

In terms of mining centralization, what about P2P pools? Then there are no mining pool operators. Also what if the mining algorithm is work that benefits the network? Again, this issue isn't black and white. I will say nothing more about PoW and PoS, this isn't the thread.

What if - what if you would answer your own what if questions

charleshoskinson

  • Guest
Quote
Indeed.

100% of all bitcoins currently in circulation were, by definition,
obtained from someone else**

so what difference does it make?


Sorry but in bitcoin also the early adopters, the geeks have mined enormous amounts in the early days. In a sense isn't it the exact same thing? The small oligarchy of speculators who understood bitcoin hold a substantial stake...
All POW coins are controlled now in reality by mining pools and very few people.

POS coins also may be available cheaply in reality. Who knows if in 5 yeras 1NXT = 1BTSX=$1,000. Everyone has the choice to speculate on that price and 5 years from now people may say the same things that they say about early adopters as in bitcoin...

All in all I believe that none is fair. One is energy efficient the other not. That is the only difference in my head..

This wasn't a complaint about acquisition, but rather rights associated with the coin. Again, for cryptoequities like bitshares, it makes sense to have strong voting rights. I think everyone can dream up a case where this doesn't make sense. That's my point. Again I am neither a blind fan of PoW or PoS. I'm saying consensus needs to be directly connected to desired economic incentives and intended utility of the protocol. 

In terms of mining centralization, what about P2P pools? Then there are no mining pool operators. Also what if the mining algorithm is work that benefits the network? Again, this issue isn't black and white. I will say nothing more about PoW and PoS, this isn't the thread.

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
Quote
Here's my primary problem. PoS is fundamentally controlled by people who own the tokens of the system. If one has developed a non-monetary system such as distributive computation, storage, or hosting services for example, then the vast majority of users likely will not hold a substantial stake in the system's tokens rather a small oligarchy of speculators, early adopters and perhaps infrastructure providers would. Thus you have a system where the people who use the network must accept the demands of a small group  as we currently do with the centralized web.

Sorry but in bitcoin also the early adopters, the geeks have mined enormous amounts in the early days. In a sense isn't it the exact same thing? The small oligarchy of speculators who understood bitcoin hold a substantial stake...
All POW coins are controlled now in reality by mining pools and very few people.

POS coins also may be available cheaply in reality. Who knows if in 5 yeras 1NXT = 1BTSX=$1,000. Everyone has the choice to speculate on that price and 5 years from now people may say the same things that they say about early adopters as in bitcoin...

All in all I believe that none is fair. One is energy efficient the other not. That is the only difference in my head..


Indeed. 

100% of all bitcoins currently in circulation were, by definition,
obtained from someone else**

so what difference does it make?

**arbitrarily generated bar-room fact.
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline BldSwtTrs

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 220
    • View Profile
Now let's examine PoS in general. If one admits a solely store of value system, then PoS is economically aligned with the best interests of the entire network. The majority should be reasonably expected to use PoS to attempt to increase the value of their personal holdings. Also implementations of PoS are considerably simpler than PoW. As I said above, DPOS also adds network health to the list of considerations via the judgement of the voters.

Here's my primary problem. PoS is fundamentally controlled by people who own the tokens of the system. If one has developed a non-monetary system such as distributive computation, storage, or hosting services for example, then the vast majority of users likely will not hold a substantial stake in the system's tokens rather a small oligarchy of speculators, early adopters and perhaps infrastructure providers would. Thus you have a system where the people who use the network must accept the demands of a small group  as we currently do with the centralized web.

There are probably some soft corrections that could be implemented; however, from a philosophical viewpoint, it's not necessarily the best idea to endow the holders of a token to be the voting class of a network. For cryptoequities, matters of corporate governance, DACs in general, this structure makes perfect sense. In systems where the vast majority of users control only an aggregate small amount of tokens, then it doesn't seem to align interests properly. I hope that explains my viewpoint.
Well, free market is what aligns interests properly.

Assuming no barrier to entry, it's holders' interest to comply with users' desires. Otherwise users wil use another network and holders will lose money.

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani

Charles Charles Charles, enough with this pow btc stuff plz.  How many times can we beat a dead horse


« Last Edit: August 08, 2014, 11:32:17 am by liondani »

bitbro

  • Guest
Charles Charles Charles, enough with this pow btc stuff plz.  How many times can we beat a dead horse

Offline GaltReport

Quote
I really do not want to undervalue your effort to collect that much more money. I know it is hard, very hard.

My point is that Ether and Bitshares X will not likely fail (if they do) because the product was not well financed, i.e in a result of not being well developed (coded).
 Either of them will fail because the core ideas were not workable. Not meant to work in the real world.

My point wasn't the raw amount of money collected, it was strictly about adoption. Ideas are worthless without people who subscribe to them. Even flawed ideas can be more powerful than pure ones if there is a legion  of followers- look at a lot of wack job religions.

Ethereum in its sale numbers has demonstrated a large community of people who now have  a financial interest in being advocates for the ecosystem and its ideology. That was my point.
Quote
I did lol a bit.

I just want to hear good reasons for why someone supports POW at this point.   Not really POW vs POS, just expecting thorough reasoning.  Charles, you put so much thought into your words that I expect only the best.  I don't argue with everyone, just those of which I have high expectations.  If such a person says something that doesn't make sense to me or seems wrong, I like to engage them.  Thats why I ended up here.  Blame it on Dan.

Yanno, you don't meet people like Charles at the local watering hole.....

So one starts with a database (the blockchain) that contains an initial state and transitions to another state. The fundamental question is how one verifies that the state change is correct versus any other proposed change. PoW and PoS are both mechanisms to accomplish state transition in a decentralized way.

PoW is an algorithmic meritocracy taking work in the form of something that runs O(n) with an associated global difficulty and verifies in O(1). This requirement has prevented people from using PoW for beneficial tasks as most need either human judgement for verification or verify in same time as the work.

In principle, I like PoW if one can bundle activities that benefit the health of the overall network and then reward the largest contributors. In fact, Dan is attempting to do this with DPOS via delegate competition- those who do the most for the network at the lowest cost per user are most likely to be voted a delegate. No one has yet established a mechanism to accomplish this in a trustless, automated algorithm. So yes PoW is a waste of resources.

Now let's examine PoS in general. If one admits a solely store of value system, then PoS is economically aligned with the best interests of the entire network. The majority should be reasonably expected to use PoS to attempt to increase the value of their personal holdings. Also implementations of PoS are considerably simpler than PoW. As I said above, DPOS also adds network health to the list of considerations via the judgement of the voters.

Here's my primary problem. PoS is fundamentally controlled by people who own the tokens of the system. If one has developed a non-monetary system such as distributive computation, storage, or hosting services for example, then the vast majority of users likely will not hold a substantial stake in the system's tokens rather a small oligarchy of speculators, early adopters and perhaps infrastructure providers would. Thus you have a system where the people who use the network must accept the demands of a small group  as we currently do with the centralized web.

There are probably some soft corrections that could be implemented; however, from a philosophical viewpoint, it's not necessarily the best idea to endow the holders of a token to be the voting class of a network. For cryptoequities, matters of corporate governance, DACs in general, this structure makes perfect sense. In systems where the vast majority of users control only an aggregate small amount of tokens, then it doesn't seem to align interests properly. I hope that explains my viewpoint.

Quote
What DACs should DPOS be applied to instead? If not a DAC but a brick and mortar business what advantages does it have to manage the IPO, board voting rights etc. with DPOS (apart from it being illegal to do an IPO (real IPO with hard promises) without a lot of additional (legal) work)

It's not necessarily illegal to do an online IPO in all jurisdictions and in fact some ecourage it. I've spent the last six months studying the topic very deeply to a great degree of recent success :). In terms of what ought to be the focus on Invictus's efforts, if I was the CEO, then I'd build a licensed IPO platform that would allow companies to conduct crowdsales via launching specialized bitshares chains that would require honoring some part of AGS and PTS positions. Had they made a compelling enough system, then most of the recent coin sales would have likely been launched using Invictus software.

It makes more sense to chase profits stemming from a badly managed space instead of going after apple with music, enduring the dubious legality of gambling, and going after DNS without any public browser compatibility strategy. I could go into greater detail; however, it's a waste of time, I'm not the CEO of Invictus.

Bolded part sounds like a smart idea and  fairly straight forward.  I think they can still do this in parallel.  Of course, so many irons in the fire...probably need someone focusing just on that part.  Maybe something like product line managers for "champions" for each potential market who can share  in the success of the market they develop.

Offline mf-tzo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1725
    • View Profile
Quote
Here's my primary problem. PoS is fundamentally controlled by people who own the tokens of the system. If one has developed a non-monetary system such as distributive computation, storage, or hosting services for example, then the vast majority of users likely will not hold a substantial stake in the system's tokens rather a small oligarchy of speculators, early adopters and perhaps infrastructure providers would. Thus you have a system where the people who use the network must accept the demands of a small group  as we currently do with the centralized web.

Sorry but in bitcoin also the early adopters, the geeks have mined enormous amounts in the early days. In a sense isn't it the exact same thing? The small oligarchy of speculators who understood bitcoin hold a substantial stake...
All POW coins are controlled now in reality by mining pools and very few people.

POS coins also may be available cheaply in reality. Who knows if in 5 yeras 1NXT = 1BTSX=$1,000. Everyone has the choice to speculate on that price and 5 years from now people may say the same things that they say about early adopters as in bitcoin...

All in all I believe that none is fair. One is energy efficient the other not. That is the only difference in my head..

charleshoskinson

  • Guest
Quote
I really do not want to undervalue your effort to collect that much more money. I know it is hard, very hard.

My point is that Ether and Bitshares X will not likely fail (if they do) because the product was not well financed, i.e in a result of not being well developed (coded).
 Either of them will fail because the core ideas were not workable. Not meant to work in the real world.

My point wasn't the raw amount of money collected, it was strictly about adoption. Ideas are worthless without people who subscribe to them. Even flawed ideas can be more powerful than pure ones if there is a legion  of followers- look at a lot of wack job religions.

Ethereum in its sale numbers has demonstrated a large community of people who now have  a financial interest in being advocates for the ecosystem and its ideology. That was my point.
Quote
I did lol a bit.

I just want to hear good reasons for why someone supports POW at this point.   Not really POW vs POS, just expecting thorough reasoning.  Charles, you put so much thought into your words that I expect only the best.  I don't argue with everyone, just those of which I have high expectations.  If such a person says something that doesn't make sense to me or seems wrong, I like to engage them.  Thats why I ended up here.  Blame it on Dan.

Yanno, you don't meet people like Charles at the local watering hole.....

So one starts with a database (the blockchain) that contains an initial state and transitions to another state. The fundamental question is how one verifies that the state change is correct versus any other proposed change. PoW and PoS are both mechanisms to accomplish state transition in a decentralized way.

PoW is an algorithmic meritocracy taking work in the form of something that runs O(n) with an associated global difficulty and verifies in O(1). This requirement has prevented people from using PoW for beneficial tasks as most need either human judgement for verification or verify in same time as the work.

In principle, I like PoW if one can bundle activities that benefit the health of the overall network and then reward the largest contributors. In fact, Dan is attempting to do this with DPOS via delegate competition- those who do the most for the network at the lowest cost per user are most likely to be voted a delegate. No one has yet established a mechanism to accomplish this in a trustless, automated algorithm. So yes PoW is a waste of resources.

Now let's examine PoS in general. If one admits a solely store of value system, then PoS is economically aligned with the best interests of the entire network. The majority should be reasonably expected to use PoS to attempt to increase the value of their personal holdings. Also implementations of PoS are considerably simpler than PoW. As I said above, DPOS also adds network health to the list of considerations via the judgement of the voters.

Here's my primary problem. PoS is fundamentally controlled by people who own the tokens of the system. If one has developed a non-monetary system such as distributive computation, storage, or hosting services for example, then the vast majority of users likely will not hold a substantial stake in the system's tokens rather a small oligarchy of speculators, early adopters and perhaps infrastructure providers would. Thus you have a system where the people who use the network must accept the demands of a small group  as we currently do with the centralized web.

There are probably some soft corrections that could be implemented; however, from a philosophical viewpoint, it's not necessarily the best idea to endow the holders of a token to be the voting class of a network. For cryptoequities, matters of corporate governance, DACs in general, this structure makes perfect sense. In systems where the vast majority of users control only an aggregate small amount of tokens, then it doesn't seem to align interests properly. I hope that explains my viewpoint.

Quote
What DACs should DPOS be applied to instead? If not a DAC but a brick and mortar business what advantages does it have to manage the IPO, board voting rights etc. with DPOS (apart from it being illegal to do an IPO (real IPO with hard promises) without a lot of additional (legal) work)

It's not necessarily illegal to do an online IPO in all jurisdictions and in fact some ecourage it. I've spent the last six months studying the topic very deeply to a great degree of recent success :). In terms of what ought to be the focus on Invictus's efforts, if I was the CEO, then I'd build a licensed IPO platform that would allow companies to conduct crowdsales via launching specialized bitshares chains that would require honoring some part of AGS and PTS positions. Had they made a compelling enough system, then most of the recent coin sales would have likely been launched using Invictus software.

It makes more sense to chase profits stemming from a badly managed space instead of going after apple with music, enduring the dubious legality of gambling, and going after DNS without any public browser compatibility strategy. I could go into greater detail; however, it's a waste of time, I'm not the CEO of Invictus. 

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
Quote
Can you expand and be specific about what you mean here?
The point is guys that Dan invented IPO in a box. I was pointing out that it shouldn't be wasted on low hanging fruit like music and  lottery games.
What DACs should DPOS be applied to instead? If not a DAC but a brick and mortar business what advantages does it have to manage the IPO, board voting rights etc. with DPOS (apart from it being illegal to do an IPO (real IPO with hard promises) without a lot of additional (legal) work)

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
I did lol a bit.

I just want to hear good reasons for why someone supports POW at this point.   Not really POW vs POS, just expecting thorough reasoning.  Charles, you put so much thought into your words that I expect only the best.  I don't argue with everyone, just those of which I have high expectations.  If such a person says something that doesn't make sense to me or seems wrong, I like to engage them.  Thats why I ended up here.  Blame it on Dan.

Yanno, you don't meet people like Charles at the local watering hole.....
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile

I have not made even a step in that direction...

Feel free to say where and how you disagree with me....
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

charleshoskinson

  • Guest
The charles hoskinson left ethereum thread has become the PoW versus PoS thread

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
Quote
This isn't correct.  POS gives a great deal more flexibility to distribution.  Theoretically you do not have to distribute all coins on day one.  The distribution allowed by POS is way more flexible than you seem to believe.  In fact I could write a chain that just paid out to hashers who didn't provide security, if I chose.  I would actually have to buy-in to the belief that somehow miners are a more valued way to distribute coins to consider such silliness, but it is at least possible.

With POW you do not have near this flexibility.  POW defines both security and distribution for the most part.  This isn't near the case with POS.  POW miners do not necessarily have incentives aligned with helping the network, so I can't begin to fathom why you think distributing to them is better

If the people who have all the power are coin holders, then why would coin holders accept deterioration of their holdings to broaden distribution? I agree one could develop all kinds of schemes with PoS to handle distribution differently from a 100 percent premine; however, no one seems to have done so at the moment with any degree of success.

For the record, I really dislike PoW in its current form. I think rewards ought to be connected to network maintenance, upgrades, increases in interoperability and driving adoption. At the very least, it would be nice to develop a socially beneficial PoW doing something like folding proteins, unfortunately that whole O(n) -> O(1) requirement is a pain in the ass.   

The authors of the code have the most power.  If open sourced then they give up a great deal of power, but they're by far the most powerful group in any DAC.  It would not be up to coin owners to determine distribution unless the code is  written to do so.

So you really dislike POW in its current form, but you find it preferable to POS because it distributes coins in a marginally better way which is the same way you really dislike ?  Interesting.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
Quote
Ugg - All I want is a killer financial system (well, and a revolution in the music industry)

I've been building it one step at a time. With Bitshares you have the best new stock market and IPO system. Ethereum explores how to deploy smart contracts. What if we had efficient atomic cross chain pegging. Then you could link all those BitUSD together. If only there was a venture to bundle everything together :)

charleshoskinson the venture that bundles everything together!  ;)

If I am Dan I will take this deal... for 98% (of 22,500 BTC) of their IPO :)


I really do not want to undervalue your effort to collect that much more money. I know it is hard, very hard.

My point is that Ether and Bitshares X will not likely fail (if they do) because the product was not well financed, i.e in a result of not being well developed (coded).
 Either of them will fail because the core ideas were not workable. Not meant to work in the real world.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2014, 03:05:00 am by tonyk »
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

charleshoskinson

  • Guest
Quote
Storage is what's getting in the way of atomic cross chain trading? Can you elaborate, not sure I follow

It's basically like having a trusted data feed telling you who owns what without having to store it locally. Smart contracts can be a cross chain trustless escrow bridge.  The maidsafe network would effectively be replacing a trusted server.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2014, 02:58:39 am by charleshoskinson »

Offline carpet ride

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 544
    • View Profile
What would we need for such a venture?  :)

Honestly once you have something like FileCoin/StorJ/MaidSAFE that actually offers reliable storage, all the chains can just live on the cloud. Then cross-chain transactions will be a no-brainer.

Storage is what's getting in the way of atomic cross chain trading? Can you elaborate, not sure I follow
All opinions are my own. Anything said on this forum does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation between myself and anyone else.
Check out my blog: http://CertainAssets.com
Buy the ticket, take the ride.

Offline bitmeat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
    • View Profile
What would we need for such a venture?  :)

Honestly once you have something like FileCoin/StorJ/MaidSAFE that actually offers reliable storage, all the chains can just live on the cloud. Then cross-chain transactions will be a no-brainer.

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
Quote
Ugg - All I want is a killer financial system (well, and a revolution in the music industry)

I've been building it one step at a time. With Bitshares you have the best new stock market and IPO system. Ethereum explores how to deploy smart contracts. What if we had efficient atomic cross chain pegging. Then you could link all those BitUSD together. If only there was a venture to bundle everything together :)

charleshoskinson the venture that bundles everything together!  ;)

If I am Dan I will take this deal... for 98% (of 22,500 BTC) of their IPO :)
« Last Edit: August 06, 2014, 02:51:16 am by tonyk »
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline carpet ride

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 544
    • View Profile
Quote
Ugg - All I want is a killer financial system (well, and a revolution in the music industry)

I've been building it one step at a time. With Bitshares you have the best new stock market and IPO system. Ethereum explores how to deploy smart contracts. What if we had efficient atomic cross chain pegging. Then you could link all those BitUSD together. If only there was a venture to bundle everything together :)

What would we need for such a venture?  :)
All opinions are my own. Anything said on this forum does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation between myself and anyone else.
Check out my blog: http://CertainAssets.com
Buy the ticket, take the ride.

charleshoskinson

  • Guest
Quote
Ugg - All I want is a killer financial system (well, and a revolution in the music industry)

I've been building it one step at a time. With Bitshares you have the best new stock market and IPO system. Ethereum explores how to deploy smart contracts. What if we had efficient atomic cross chain pegging. Then you could link all those BitUSD together. If only there was a venture to bundle everything together :)

Offline carpet ride

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 544
    • View Profile

I also think Invictus has terrible marketing, a lack of strategic vision and a dilution of development efforts. Love me or hate me, the ether sale I helped sculpt is now at over 22,400 BTC https://blockchain.info/address/36PrZ1KHYMpqSyAQXSG8VwbUiq2EogxLo2. That's more than money, it's community belief in a project and a desire to participate. If you walked into the room and said this is bitshares! It's going to take IPOs away from goldman sachs and hand them back to the very companies launching them alongside all the infrastructure for the market to price and trade stock, then I think you would get a lot of support. Instead it's bitcoin is a badly run version of a DAC and we build better DACs- check out our music, lottery and DNS stuff. Oh forget about that Keyhotee thing too while you're at it.

Edit: CH is valid in many respects.

All I want is a killer financial system (and a revolution in the music industry)
« Last Edit: August 06, 2014, 02:44:01 am by bed »
All opinions are my own. Anything said on this forum does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation between myself and anyone else.
Check out my blog: http://CertainAssets.com
Buy the ticket, take the ride.

charleshoskinson

  • Guest
Quote
I do not see any irreconcilable differences  between mine and your POV, do you?

Honestly, no.The two things we get with the cryptoscape is both freedom to pick assets that subscribe to our philosophy and second the ability to conduct monetary experiments. There is nothing more American than examining institutions that are bloated, corrupt and exclusive and then giving them the middle finger and burning them all down. I think you guys have a wonderful cryptoequity system, which is why I partnered with Dan in the first place way back in June of last year.

I also think Invictus has terrible marketing, a lack of strategic vision and a dilution of development efforts. Love me or hate me, the ether sale I helped sculpt is now at over 22,400 BTC https://blockchain.info/address/36PrZ1KHYMpqSyAQXSG8VwbUiq2EogxLo2. That's more than money, it's community belief in a project and a desire to participate. If you walked into the room and said this is bitshares! It's going to take IPOs away from goldman sachs and hand them back to the very companies launching them alongside all the infrastructure for the market to price and trade stock, then I think you would get a lot of support. Instead it's bitcoin is a badly run version of a DAC and we build better DACs- check out our music, lottery and DNS stuff. Oh forget about that Keyhotee thing too while you're at it.

 
« Last Edit: August 06, 2014, 02:42:27 am by charleshoskinson »

Offline carpet ride

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 544
    • View Profile
CharlesHoskinson's points about filling out the financial system with additional tools and levers are valid. Building in smart contracts to handle complex derivatives would be extremely valuable to developing nations and thriving powers.  In the financial game, managing risk is paramount, and smart contracts should allow for these additional layers of risk management. 
All opinions are my own. Anything said on this forum does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation between myself and anyone else.
Check out my blog: http://CertainAssets.com
Buy the ticket, take the ride.

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
I do not see any irreconcilable differences  between mine and your POV, do you?

My whole point is that you do not want your money to appreciate.
I prefer them to neither appreciate, nor depreciate.

[edit]
The funny thing is – I am not a techy person by any standard, so when I first heard about bitcoin (2011, I believe) I went and I was expecting somebody to have made the basket currency. I was so disappointed… I did not take another look at it for almost a year.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2014, 02:30:17 am by tonyk »
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

charleshoskinson

  • Guest
Quote
Assuming you are the CEO of the company that is just about to launch this experiment. Wouldn't you consider launch your 5 other products that at its best will be worth 1/50 of this one, BUT their chance for success is not depending on anything untested in the real world. This is a backup plan! I am the one asking 3-4 times a week 'Where is bitUSD? When is it coming? Market functionality, please!', but what Dan do makes a business sense.

If I'm the CEO of Microsoft with a deep economic moat and lots of developer then yes I would consider the strategy. If I'm the CEO of a startup with finite resources, low market share, a new brand and only a handful of developers, then I'd ask what is the most valuable thing about my technology and company? And then do that as much as I can. Look at Lego under Jørgen Vig. It's basically a miracle turn around.
Quote
We can argue all day if basket works better than gold. And if this is the main issue we argue about, we are as close as it gets. So, Gold is there, basket is easy to add for those that find it a better choice

Baskets do work better than gold as gold is a single asset with global changes in supply and demand. It's not some magic metal. It's a metal. A basket allows you to properly hedge against most macroeconomic events. Gold has no mechanism to do so.

Quote
Gold is neither deflationary nor inflationary. Gold is value.... If money are constant you do not have to hold them in 'money' to appreciate. All other problems are non existent - you do not need other 'exchange' currency, or 'City of New York' currency. The money goes to credit, because there is no concerns of devaluation, there is no floating exchange rates and so on and so on...

I'm sorry this isn't correct tonyk. Gold when used as a currency is deflationary and thus the demand in the late 1800s for silver to also be used. In fact you should read the Wizard of Oz again (http://www.amphigory.com/oz.htm). My whole point is that you do not want your money to appreciate. You want it to be value stable. And yes one should always worry about devaluation if your money is based upon an asset that people can decide to stop trading or replace.

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile

In your last two post I feel almost as if bitUSD etc. gets lapsed. Isn't this Daniel's way of solving the problem of having market-cap meddle with asset transfers? It's okay to be skeptical that it will work, but in Daniel's shoes the focus is exactly there. If I got it wrong it would be interesting to hear more about what the difference there is.

When you are focusing on DNS, Music, Lottery and months of next generation consensus research, then you cannot honestly say the primary focus has been BitUSD. It is an experiment that requires market validation. The truth is that the only thing connection BitUSD to USD is the name. Nothing else. You are betting that the market will properly price these assets. Futures contracts force delivery to the final holder and  thus have a direct connection to the underlying asset. BitUSD do not.

Assuming you are the CEO of the company that is just about to launch this experiment. Wouldn't you consider launch your 5 other products that at its best will be worth 1/50 of this one, BUT their chance for success is not depending on anything untested in the real world. This is a backup plan! I am the one asking 3-4 times a week 'Where is bitUSD? When is it coming? Market functionality, please!', but what Dan do makes a business sense.

Second, pegging something to the dollar is not an end solution for building a better currency. You are basically saying the USD is good enough- so why not use the dollar to begin with? I'm saying build a basket of commodities, currencies, equities and other instruments that will effective have a constant value in terms of buying power. If BitUSD works, then this basket can be a fiat asset.
We can argue all day if basket works better than gold. And if this is the main issue we argue about, we are as close as it gets. So, Gold is there, basket is easy to add for those that find it a better choice

I have two fundamental concerns when proposing a new money. First, it shouldn't be managed by a human run central bank. Second, it shouldn't be deflationary or inflationary if possible. Value should be held as constant as possible or at least focused within a narrow volatility band in reference to a basket like CPI. The goal here is to have wealth storage in appreciating assets and means of exchange done in a value neutral currency. See Capacity exchange for more details. 
Gold is neither deflationary nor inflationary. Gold is value.... If money are constant you do not have to hold them in 'money' to appreciate. All other problems are non existent - you do not need other 'exchange' currency, or 'City of New York' currency. The money goes to credit, because there is no concerns of devaluation, there is no floating exchange rates and so on and so on...



Dan, how is the market functionality coming along, btw?
« Last Edit: August 06, 2014, 01:41:38 am by tonyk »
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

charleshoskinson

  • Guest
Quote
Can you expand and be specific about what you mean here?

When someone launches a Bitshares chain with DPOS, it's effectively an IPO for a company with delegates effectively being the board. Via BitUSD and assuming BitUSD actually perform as intended,  you can long and short the company without the need for an exchange. An overlay protocol with smart contracts would allow for complex derivatives to be developed.

In terms of governance, one could attach a contractual connection to ownership of the bitshares asset to election rights for the company's actual board and pretty much anything else you'd like from what the company spends its money on to major events like mergers and acquisitions. It is important to point out that digital assets have no control over physical assets thus you would need a jurisdiction that supports these rights. I find it most likely in Africa, South America  and Asia where countries could view this structure as a new way of bringing investment capital.

The point is guys that Dan invented IPO in a box. I was pointing out that it shouldn't be wasted on low hanging fruit like music and  lottery games.
Quote
In your last two post I feel almost as if bitUSD etc. gets lapsed. Isn't this Daniel's way of solving the problem of having market-cap meddle with asset transfers? It's okay to be skeptical that it will work, but in Daniel's shoes the focus is exactly there. If I got it wrong it would be interesting to hear more about what the difference there is.

When you are focusing on DNS, Music, Lottery and months of next generation consensus research, then you cannot honestly say the primary focus has been BitUSD. It is an experiment that requires market validation. The truth is that the only thing connection BitUSD to USD is the name. Nothing else. You are betting that the market will properly price these assets. Futures contracts force delivery to the final holder and  thus have a direct connection to the underlying asset. BitUSD do not.

Second, pegging something to the dollar is not an end solution for building a better currency. You are basically saying the USD is good enough- so why not use the dollar to begin with? I'm saying build a basket of commodities, currencies, equities and other instruments that will effective have a constant value in terms of buying power. If BitUSD works, then this basket can be a fiat asset.

I have two fundamental concerns when proposing a new money. First, it shouldn't be managed by a human run central bank. Second, it shouldn't be deflationary or inflationary if possible. Value should be held as constant as possible or at least focused within a narrow volatility band in reference to a basket like CPI. The goal here is to have wealth storage in appreciating assets and means of exchange done in a value neutral currency. See Capacity exchange for more details.   


Quote
This isn't correct.  POS gives a great deal more flexibility to distribution.  Theoretically you do not have to distribute all coins on day one.  The distribution allowed by POS is way more flexible than you seem to believe.  In fact I could write a chain that just paid out to hashers who didn't provide security, if I chose.  I would actually have to buy-in to the belief that somehow miners are a more valued way to distribute coins to consider such silliness, but it is at least possible.

With POW you do not have near this flexibility.  POW defines both security and distribution for the most part.  This isn't near the case with POS.  POW miners do not necessarily have incentives aligned with helping the network, so I can't begin to fathom why you think distributing to them is better

If the people who have all the power are coin holders, then why would coin holders accept deterioration of their holdings to broaden distribution? I agree one could develop all kinds of schemes with PoS to handle distribution differently from a 100 percent premine; however, no one seems to have done so at the moment with any degree of success.

Second, PoS seems to be a more hands on system than a PoW system. I understand the whole DAC notion and the goal of making currency holders shareholders, yet if my goal in acquiring the asset is merely means of exchange, then from both the merchant and consumer side, I should really only care about value stability and efficiently of exchange. If you are considering the asset to be a cryptoequity and want governance to be in some way connected to the equity holders, then DPOS is a perfect system, kudos.

For the record, I really dislike PoW in its current form. I think rewards ought to be connected to network maintenance, upgrades, increases in interoperability and driving adoption. At the very least, it would be nice to develop a socially beneficial PoW doing something like folding proteins, unfortunately that whole O(n) -> O(1) requirement is a pain in the ass.     

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
I'm still not sold on something intended on being a currency having the total supply distributed on day zero. While, outside providing a nice pool of randomness, PoW is a waste of resources, it does provide a marginally better distribution model than the developers trying to figure it out on day one- or an IPO style sale.

This isn't correct.  POS gives a great deal more flexibility to distribution.  Theoretically you do not have to distribute all coins on day one.  The distribution allowed by POS is way more flexible than you seem to believe.  In fact I could write a chain that just paid out to hashers who didn't provide security, if I chose.  I would actually have to buy-in to the belief that somehow miners are a more valued way to distribute coins to consider such silliness, but it is at least possible.

With POW you do not have near this flexibility.  POW defines both security and distribution for the most part.  This isn't near the case with POS.  POW miners do not necessarily have incentives aligned with helping the network, so I can't begin to fathom why you think distributing to them is better
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline CLains

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: clains
In your last two post I feel almost as if bitUSD etc. gets lapsed. Isn't this Daniel's way of solving the problem of having market-cap meddle with asset transfers? It's okay to be skeptical that it will work, but in Daniel's shoes the focus is exactly there. If I got it wrong it would be interesting to hear more about what the difference there is.

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
Can you expand and be specific about what you mean here?
Quote
a next generation equity and governance system for the developed and developing world

charleshoskinson

  • Guest
Quote
I respect you too much to let you loose you talent chasing utopian future, if I can help it.


If my initial comment was dubious. I meant, do not solve problems excising only because currant state is based on wrong foundation.

I'm uncertain what is utopian about pursuing technology that aligns profit motive with transparency and decentralization. I have different economic opinions about the best design to accomplish this goal. For example, I don't think one should try to combine the goals of increasing the value of an asset with using the asset as an effective means of exchange or credit. It basically creates a harsh reality for those in need of credit that they have to repay the appreciation plus interest. It also kills the fixed income security and secondary equity markets as both typically wouldn't have attractive enough returns for the risk premium paid. Thus apparently, we'd live in an economy with only high risk investments and 20 percent interest rate loans.

The other problem with the economics of deflation is that while wages fall, prices don't necessarily follow immediately or at all (especially for inelastic goods). Thus you create groups of people who needlessly suffer- most powerfully demonstrated in London during the great deflationary period from 1870-90s (Jevon wrote a lot of wonderful things leading up to it). The same can be said for inflation. Thus wise central banks attempt to keep the value of a money supply predictable and somewhat stable within a volatility band.

The challenge is that it's politically convenient to debase currencies for short term gain. It's nothing new for example refer to Henry the VIII's great debasement  or Rome's monetary policy in the latter days of the empire. So it's clear that people ought not to be in charge of currencies if we can help it.

I'd like to replace the doctrine of Lex monetae with private currencies that are value pegged to a basket of commodities, companies, and other instruments of value with the goal of preserving buying power of some basket of goods. It ought to be market priced, consumer chosen and supply algorithmically controlled. Convertibility is really the key here and probably the biggest innovation of the cryptocurrency space. Should we continue to push our industry, then the carefully crafted choke points put in place nearly a century ago to control the flow of sovereign currency will completely fall apart. This means merchants won't care what currency they accept as the transaction cost of convertibility is so low they can do so instantly at the point of sale and consider it a convenience cost for the consumer. The same holds for employers who can offer their employees whatever currency they desire to be paid in.

If this happens, then people will keep the bulk of their wealth in assets that appreciate while converting whatever is necessary at the time of purchase to the means of exchange currency (rich people already do this and guess what they get richer). More money in investments is fundamentally better for an economy. DACs, triple entry accounting and other innovations blockchains bring can also improve returns for investors and lower the probability of black swan events.

In terms of Bitshares, I am absolutely perplexed by the push for things like DNS, lottery and music. You guys have a next generation equity and governance system for the developed and developing world alike alongside all the market infrastructure necessary to trade them. Look at all the coin IPOs happening and imagine if they were connected with Bitshares? Focus is always what I3 has lacked. My two cents.

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile

I respect you too much to let you loose you talent chasing utopian future, if I can help it.


If my initial comment was dubious. I meant, do not solve problems excising only because currant state is based on wrong foundation.
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

charleshoskinson

  • Guest
Quote
If you take advice from strangers - dig in the opposite direction...

You guys always have a way of making me feel so warm and fuzzy inside. Here tony: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWnRMAVWVjk

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
Quote
Best wishes to you, Charles. I hope you have a very restful time to recuperate and get your bearings.

And after you have freshened up a bit, I really hope that you and Invictus could figure it out.

My 2c.

Thanks Werneo. I think Invictus the company is on its way out yielding to a structure more friendly to the needs of Bitshares the ecosystem. I don't think I have a place in either of these ventures; however, there is also the pool of AGS donors and PTS holders. I'd love to do something including them amongst others.

Lately I've been spending a great deal of time addressing the scalability and consensus problems facing the cryptoscape (see I used a new word; happy anti-currency people :) ). DPOS seems nicely suited to a company equity model. Efficient atomic cross chain trading seems to be a stopgap solution for the ocean of coins we seem to be forced to sail.

This said, I'm more inclined to develop a single master chain that can be effectively broken into thousands of different pieces and distributed in a way that preserves the trustlessness of a homogeneous model. I'm still not sold on something intended on being a currency having the total supply distributed on day zero. While, outside providing a nice pool of randomness, PoW is a waste of resources, it does provide a marginally better distribution model than the developers trying to figure it out on day one- or an IPO style sale. Economically I live in a camp that doesn't like massive appreciation in an instrument intended on being a means of exchange (see Professor Nell's work -> http://vimeo.com/70393015 & spend some time with capacity exchange -> http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/business/economic-research-and-information/research-publications/Documents/research-2012/Capacity%20Trading%20Update%20Report.pdf)

In any event, we as an community (the cryptoscape not just bitshares) are very close to a revolution. It's now just an assembly problem of different technologies with the right team, marketing and philosophy. First person to win gets a bill gates sized fortune.

   

If you take advice from strangers - dig in the opposite direction...
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

charleshoskinson

  • Guest
Quote
Best wishes to you, Charles. I hope you have a very restful time to recuperate and get your bearings.

And after you have freshened up a bit, I really hope that you and Invictus could figure it out.

My 2c.

Thanks Werneo. I think Invictus the company is on its way out yielding to a structure more friendly to the needs of Bitshares the ecosystem. I don't think I have a place in either of these ventures; however, there is also the pool of AGS donors and PTS holders. I'd love to do something including them amongst others.

Lately I've been spending a great deal of time addressing the scalability and consensus problems facing the cryptoscape (see I used a new word; happy anti-currency people :) ). DPOS seems nicely suited to a company equity model. Efficient atomic cross chain trading seems to be a stopgap solution for the ocean of coins we seem to be forced to sail.

This said, I'm more inclined to develop a single master chain that can be effectively broken into thousands of different pieces and distributed in a way that preserves the trustlessness of a homogeneous model. I'm still not sold on something intended on being a currency having the total supply distributed on day zero. While, outside providing a nice pool of randomness, PoW is a waste of resources, it does provide a marginally better distribution model than the developers trying to figure it out on day one- or an IPO style sale. Economically I live in a camp that doesn't like massive appreciation in an instrument intended on being a means of exchange (see Professor Nell's work -> http://vimeo.com/70393015 & spend some time with capacity exchange -> http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/business/economic-research-and-information/research-publications/Documents/research-2012/Capacity%20Trading%20Update%20Report.pdf)

In any event, we as an community (the cryptoscape not just bitshares) are very close to a revolution. It's now just an assembly problem of different technologies with the right team, marketing and philosophy. First person to win gets a bill gates sized fortune.

   
« Last Edit: August 03, 2014, 01:03:28 am by charleshoskinson »

Offline werneo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 305
    • View Profile
    • chronicle of the precession of simulacra
  • BitShares: werneo
In any event, it's been fun sparring with everyone and building great things. I'm going to spend some time outside of the crypto space. Most likely will return to mathematics. Good luck everyone and thanks for all the fish.

Best wishes to you, Charles. I hope you have a very restful time to recuperate and get your bearings.

And after you have freshened up a bit, I really hope that you and Invictus could figure it out.

My 2c.

Offline cass

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4311
  • /(┬.┬)\
    • View Profile
Quote
I actually get along with most people. My health has gotten progressively worst over the past six months and the 12 hour seven day a week pace hasn't helped it much. Ethereum is headed in a great direction and doesn't need me to be there anymore. I need a break mostly.
I wish you the best!

 +5% Charles take your time to recover & repower! Health has 1# priority and i could understand this completely.

█║▌║║█  - - -  The quieter you become, the more you are able to hear  - - -  █║▌║║█

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Quote
I actually get along with most people. My health has gotten progressively worst over the past six months and the 12 hour seven day a week pace hasn't helped it much. Ethereum is headed in a great direction and doesn't need me to be there anymore. I need a break mostly.
I wish you the best!

charleshoskinson

  • Guest
Quote
I loved to talk with Charles on The Bridge every day and hear what contacts and deals he had made in the past 24 hours.  He was a true master at making connections.  I agree we have been lacking that since Charles departed.

Spending time on the bridge was probably one of the most exciting and intellectually fun times of my life. Every day felt like we were dreaming up an entire new industry. I do miss that Stan.

Quote
Anyway my original question had to do with why Hoskinson is a hot potato.

I actually get along with most people. My health has gotten progressively worst over the past six months and the 12 hour seven day a week pace hasn't helped it much. Ethereum is headed in a great direction and doesn't need me to be there anymore. I need a break mostly.

Quote
Instead, we have an Invictus that is lopsided in its technical strength and relative marketing weakness.

That's Dan and Co learning how to run a business, test new ideas and deal with enormously high expectations all at the same time. It isn't easy and the constant technology changes haven't helped much. For what it's worth, Bitshares seems to have evolved into a form that is workable and DPOS could work nicely. Really it's just releasing a product at this point and seeing if the DAC model is economically viable. It requires market testing. Egos aside, the market always answers all questions in the end.

Quote
I'm just wondering if Charles Hoskinson is Paul McCartney in this analogy

One of my favorite songs was written by Paul.

Quote
What I'm saying is that Vitalik is a very smart guy but he doesn't really look like a 'competent' leader, people person, speaker.

Vitalik will be a titan in this space within five years. It was a rare honor to work with someone so profoundly honest, brilliant and deeply caring. He gives me hope for the future.

Quote
Let us get Charles Hoskinson on Beyond Bitcoin talking about why he left Bitshares and Ethereum..

Bitshares basically comes down to Dan and I not being able to work together long term. Ethereum comes down to changes in the underlying execution model made me obsolete and health. There really aren't grand conspiracies or behind the scenes drama in these things. It's a matter of style and use. I entered the bitcoin space to solve big problems and had the privilege to work with some of the brightest minds to bootstrap two major projects, educate 40,000 people via Udemy, write the KYC and AML regulations for an entire country and met hundreds of fellow entrepreneurs. It's been one hell of a year.

Quote
My theory is he ran out of ether and his contract halted.

Nicely done :)

Quote
Could it be the case  he thinks that ether was a big bubble and it was his biggest mistake to leave bitshares at the first place...?

No

Quote
Hoskinson seems like a good talker and someone who is adept at building early relationships. At a certain point in a project, he seems to get the boot.

Forgot the y

Quote
Hate to be one of those guys, but  +5%

Love you too

Quote
I will probably invest if this really happened : D

Glad to have your contribution to changing the world. Vitalik deserves all the support he can get.

----
In any event, it's been fun sparring with everyone and building great things. I'm going to spend some time outside of the crypto space. Most likely will return to mathematics. Good luck everyone and thanks for all the fish.

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit

The alpha/beta paradigm is overused.  I'd guess you think Wozniak was a beta, because he was not an ass like Steve Jobs.  You make the judgement without really knowing how they interacted.

Not everyone has the same preferences on leadership.  Dan and Vitalik have both struck me as someone I would trust.  That is rarely the case.  I want my leaders to be as smart as possible and as straightforward as possible.  It was Dan's videos that brought me around here, not Charles'.

I think Charles is one of the best communicators and was instrumental at popularizing Bitshares. His videos were well done and whatever it is that he was doing behind the scenes kept my attention.

I remember hearing about Bitshares as Project Quixote and a specific widely public debate between AnonyMint, Bytemaster, Charles and Cunicula encouraged me to read the whitepaper more carefully.

After I did that I concluded that the idea could work with some tweaking and followed it ever since. I think the fact that Bytemaster and Charles were willing to defend the project in a public peer review process and the fact that Bytemaster responded to my questions in PM led me to believe in the intentions behind the project.
It seems very clear to me that economic debates are entertaining, but ultimately will require experimentation.    Obviously all new innovations enter a market of skeptics and often appear to contradict conventional thinking.    So rather than debating the theory, lets plan the experiment.   Bitcoin was an experiment that has left many "economics professors" at a loss and has defied their predictions.   Throwing in those credentials at the end as a "disclaimer" is really just the fallacy of "appeal to authority" and should be entirely left out of such a conversation.  Such an appeal causes readers to avoid critical thinking and instead be lazy and 'trust' an authority.   

So when we launch the test network one side will be filled with professors who doubt, the other with believers and the market will show us what actually happens given the set of rules proposed by BitShares.

Until we have proved via experimentation that BitUSD will behave as I expect it to, it is merely a conjecture.   

Once the code is complete it would be trivial to launch a version without dividends and see how it competes.

In the end the market will discover what works and what doesn't.  In the mean time, lets focus on trading strategies given the proposed set of rules.  Explain how you would value BitUSD relative to BitShares, when you would 'short' and when you would go long.   

For the sake of getting the experiment out the door and settling all debate, I am going to restrict my involvement in this thread to a minimum.    If you have ideas on how to run an experiment please post.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279771.0
« Last Edit: June 16, 2014, 08:18:37 am by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan

The alpha/beta paradigm is overused.  I'd guess you think Wozniak was a beta, because he was not an ass like Steve Jobs.  You make the judgement without really knowing how they interacted.

Not everyone has the same preferences on leadership.  Dan and Vitalik have both struck me as someone I would trust.  That is rarely the case.  I want my leaders to be as smart as possible and as straightforward as possible.  It was Dan's videos that brought me around here, not Charles'.

I make the judgment because it's true. Steve Jobs was an alpha who sought leadership. Steve Wozniak was a beta who eschewed leadership.

So what does that make Bytemaster?  He eschews leadership as long as everybody does what he says...

I don't know. Maybe he really can be both Lennon and McCartney, but I don't see it so far.

Anyway my original question had to do with why Hoskinson is a hot potato. Because during the time when he was CEO, the company seemed to operate with a nice combination of head and legs. The head talked and the legs moved the body.  Nowadays Invictus shows plenty of legwork, but not much in the way of talking-head face-time to educate the public (and "sell the vision") and get positioned to take advantage of the network effect after product release.

Instead, we have an Invictus that is lopsided in its technical strength and relative marketing weakness.

Just saying.

I loved to talk with Charles on The Bridge every day and hear what contacts and deals he had made in the past 24 hours.  He was a true master at making connections.  I agree we have been lacking that since Charles departed.

But, as Marty McFly once said, "History is gonna change."

One of the things DPOS Delegates does is incentivize candidates to attract new voters to stay elected.  It won't be about posting a "vote for me" plea on the forum and sitting back to watch the votes pour in.  At least not for very long.

The natural selection process for delegates is "survival of the fittest recruiters."  The successful candidates will quickly realize that it's easier to get more votes by recruiting new users than to convince an existing user to switch.  So candidates will go forth into the highways and byways of the world telling people about BitShares in the process of soliciting their votes.

And one out of a thousand of those they recruit will say, "Hey, why should not I be a Delegate instead of them?"

So our number 1 marketing mission right now is getting the word out about the value of being a BitShares Delegate and how easy it is to do it if you are already an opinion-shaper with a community of your own.

Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline werneo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 305
    • View Profile
    • chronicle of the precession of simulacra
  • BitShares: werneo

The alpha/beta paradigm is overused.  I'd guess you think Wozniak was a beta, because he was not an ass like Steve Jobs.  You make the judgement without really knowing how they interacted.

Not everyone has the same preferences on leadership.  Dan and Vitalik have both struck me as someone I would trust.  That is rarely the case.  I want my leaders to be as smart as possible and as straightforward as possible.  It was Dan's videos that brought me around here, not Charles'.

I make the judgment because it's true. Steve Jobs was an alpha who sought leadership. Steve Wozniak was a beta who eschewed leadership.

So what does that make Bytemaster?  He eschews leadership as long as everybody does what he says...

I don't know. Maybe he really can be both Lennon and McCartney, but I don't see it so far.

Anyway my original question had to do with why Hoskinson is a hot potato. Because during the time when he was CEO, the company seemed to operate with a nice combination of head and legs. The head talked and the legs moved the body.  Nowadays Invictus shows plenty of legwork, but not much in the way of talking-head face-time to educate the public (and "sell the vision") and get positioned to take advantage of the network effect after product release.

Instead, we have an Invictus that is lopsided in its technical strength and relative marketing weakness.

Just saying.

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan

The alpha/beta paradigm is overused.  I'd guess you think Wozniak was a beta, because he was not an ass like Steve Jobs.  You make the judgement without really knowing how they interacted.

Not everyone has the same preferences on leadership.  Dan and Vitalik have both struck me as someone I would trust.  That is rarely the case.  I want my leaders to be as smart as possible and as straightforward as possible.  It was Dan's videos that brought me around here, not Charles'.

I make the judgment because it's true. Steve Jobs was an alpha who sought leadership. Steve Wozniak was a beta who eschewed leadership.

So what does that make Bytemaster?  He eschews leadership as long as everybody does what he says...
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile

The alpha/beta paradigm is overused.  I'd guess you think Wozniak was a beta, because he was not an ass like Steve Jobs.  You make the judgement without really knowing how they interacted.

Not everyone has the same preferences on leadership.  Dan and Vitalik have both struck me as someone I would trust.  That is rarely the case.  I want my leaders to be as smart as possible and as straightforward as possible.  It was Dan's videos that brought me around here, not Charles'.

I make the judgment because it's true. Steve Jobs was an alpha who sought leadership. Steve Wozniak was a beta who eschewed leadership.

It does not follow that because you don't want to manage that you are a "beta".  If this was true then "betas" would by definition be those who do not wish to lead out of desire.  This goes counter to what I've seen in "betas".  If they're not leaders then it isn't usually out of choice or desire. 
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline werneo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 305
    • View Profile
    • chronicle of the precession of simulacra
  • BitShares: werneo

The alpha/beta paradigm is overused.  I'd guess you think Wozniak was a beta, because he was not an ass like Steve Jobs.  You make the judgement without really knowing how they interacted.

Not everyone has the same preferences on leadership.  Dan and Vitalik have both struck me as someone I would trust.  That is rarely the case.  I want my leaders to be as smart as possible and as straightforward as possible.  It was Dan's videos that brought me around here, not Charles'.

I make the judgment because it's true. Steve Jobs was an alpha who sought leadership. Steve Wozniak was a beta who eschewed leadership.

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani
It was Dan's videos that brought me around here, not Charles'.

 +5%

agree but it was a great team also (marketing wise)


PS I believe I could forgive him if I knew each party truly recognized the mistakes, and would honestly don't repeat them in case of a new... restart (it catches every single time with ... windows :P)
« Last Edit: June 15, 2014, 10:27:16 am by liondani »

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile

The alpha/beta paradigm is overused.  I'd guess you think Wozniak was a beta, because he was not an ass like Steve Jobs.  You make the judgement without really knowing how they interacted.

Not everyone has the same preferences on leadership.  Dan and Vitalik have both struck me as someone I would trust.  That is rarely the case.  I want my leaders to be as smart as possible and as straightforward as possible.  It was Dan's videos that brought me around here, not Charles'.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline werneo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 305
    • View Profile
    • chronicle of the precession of simulacra
  • BitShares: werneo
True
Steve Jobs wasn't the one with the technical skills when he founded Apple that was Steve Wozniak.

We are all human and we still judge whether a leader or CEO is competent based on old evolutionary characteristics that made hunters successful. Such as people skills, looks, testosterone, confidence portrayed.

What I'm saying is that Vitalik is a very smart guy but he doesn't really look like a 'competent' leader, people person, speaker.

people skills + looks + testosterone + confidence = charisma

If Steve Jobs was the performing alpha, Steve Wozniak was the unsung beta always in the shadow. But both are credited with the creation of Apple Computer. Essentially, Wozniak was the engineer and Jobs was the marketing guy. Apple would not exist if it did not have both parents.

Vitalik and Daniel and so many other crypto developers are like shades of Steve Wozniak. It's like a room full of Lennon's -- but no McCartney in sight.

I'm just wondering if Charles Hoskinson is Paul McCartney in this analogy. Followed by the haunting realization that something written by Lennon and McCartney together is usually better than anything written by either Lennon or McCartney solo.

BTW - in some cases it's actually better if the alphas just disappear: 
see Dr Robert Sapolsky and the Keekorok Baboon Troop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Q-bB-qywJ0

Offline jae208

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 525
    • View Profile
I still don't really understand why Charles Hoskinson left I3 in the first place. Possibly it has something to do with Daniel's propensity to make on-the-fly changes to the business plan. That kind of quick adaptivity might have been hard for Charles to swallow.

Here is Daniel Larimer expressing high confidence in Hoskinson:
at about 56 minutes:
http://beyondbitcoin.libsyn.com/hangout-051014-dan-larimer

... DL says Charles Hoskinson's work ethic and his ability to communicate a vision was unparalleled.

But we still don't know why I3 lost confidence in him.

That's too bad, because I honestly think that if there is anyone in the crypto world that could compare to Steve Jobs, it's Charles Hoskinson. Articulate, visionary, passionate. I guess the only thing he lacks is the ability to play well with others.

True
Steve Jobs wasn't the one with the technical skills when he founded Apple that was Steve Wozniak.

We are all human and we still judge whether a leader or CEO is competent based on old evolutionary characteristics that made hunters successful. Such as people skills, looks, testosterone, confidence portrayed.

What I'm saying is that Vitalik is a very smart guy but he doesn't really look like a 'competent' leader, people person, speaker.


http://bitsharestutorials.com A work in progress
Subscribe to the Youtube Channel
https://www.youtube.com/user/BitsharesTutorials

Offline werneo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 305
    • View Profile
    • chronicle of the precession of simulacra
  • BitShares: werneo
I still don't really understand why Charles Hoskinson left I3 in the first place. Possibly it has something to do with Daniel's propensity to make on-the-fly changes to the business plan. That kind of quick adaptivity might have been hard for Charles to swallow.

Here is Daniel Larimer expressing high confidence in Hoskinson:
at about 56 minutes:
http://beyondbitcoin.libsyn.com/hangout-051014-dan-larimer

... DL says Charles Hoskinson's work ethic and his ability to communicate a vision was unparalleled.

But we still don't know why I3 lost confidence in him.

That's too bad, because I honestly think that if there is anyone in the crypto world that could compare to Steve Jobs, it's Charles Hoskinson. Articulate, visionary, passionate. I guess the only thing he lacks is the ability to play well with others.

Offline CLains

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: clains
Charles Hoskinson on Beyond Bitcoin talking about why he left Bitshares and Ethereum..
link?

Edited: ops, was meant to be a suggestion :D

Xeldal

  • Guest
Charles Hoskinson on Beyond Bitcoin talking about why he left Bitshares and Ethereum..

link?

Offline CLains

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: clains
Let us get Charles Hoskinson on Beyond Bitcoin talking about why he left Bitshares and Ethereum..
« Last Edit: June 14, 2014, 04:37:13 pm by CLains »

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani
My theory is he ran out of ether and his contract halted.  :o

I didn't know ether's are in existence...

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
Except it was a great I3 masterplan to sent him to the competition to spy them and mess their project* and then let him come back to make the grand TITAN debut  :P


* seems the plan was succesfull (maybe we have not bitsharesX live yet but a least the fundraising is about to end when they didn't start it at all... if I remember well they promised to start the ether sale ... midle of May... it seems now, they are much slower than we are, could it be the reason Charlses is moving again? Could it be the case  he thinks that ether was a big bubble and it was his biggest mistake to leave bitshares at the first place...?

My theory is he ran out of ether and his contract halted.  :o

I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani
Except it was a great I3 masterplan to sent him to the competition to spy them and mess their project* and then let him come back to make the grand TITAN debut  :P


* seems the plan was succesfull (maybe we have not bitsharesX live yet but a least the fundraising is about to end when they didn't start it at all... if I remember well they promised to start the ether sale ... midle of May... it seems now, they are much slower than we are, could it be the reason Charlses is moving again? Could it be the case  he thinks that ether was a big bubble and it was his biggest mistake to leave bitshares at the first place...?

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile
Hoskinson seems like a good talker and someone who is adept at building early relationships. At a certain point in a project, he seems to get the boot. From what little I've seen, I think there may be reasons for this. But who the hell am I? I don't know him personally. I'm just thankful for some of the alliances he built for Bitshares and I wish him the best wherever he lands. 

Offline fuzzy

I will probably invest if this really happened : D

Hate to be one of those guys, but  +5%
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline voldemort628

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
    • View Profile
I will probably invest if this really happened : D

Offline cass

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4311
  • /(┬.┬)\
    • View Profile
█║▌║║█  - - -  The quieter you become, the more you are able to hear  - - -  █║▌║║█