DPOS thought

[Ben Mason]

Yes, I've been following the discussion that Bytemaster began. I don't think it represents the majority of participants within the bitsharesX network wanting dilution. I hope that after the discussion, reason will prevail.

There are many ways of growing the BTSX network that we have not attempted and evaluated and many potential means of funding those efforts without resorting to dilution.

Dilution represents a critical move away from the key principals that original BTSX participants used to evaluate their investment. It also clearly sets a precedent within the BTSX network.

That said, If someone wants to fork the code to launch BTSXDilution, good luck to them. Conversely, if the BTSX equity holders in majority want to change BTSX to BTSXDilution, so be it. We can re-launch BTSXnodillution.

Network participants will put value where they think it should be....the overall network effect will continue to increase (based on utility) and eventually one network may become stronger than the other. There could be many versions of BTSX, all of which could keep changing the rules along with some that don't, it's all good as long as over time, more people are attracted to crypto in general and society benefits from the power of money being more widely distributed.

[Empirical1.1]

Let's worry about the tyranny of the minority in the present before we assume stupidity and tyranny of the majority in the future.

Unfortunately, we are already faced with a situation where the good intentioned majority may change the rules https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9603.0

Crypto-currencies are not best as DACs they are best as DA's (Decentralised Autonomous...)

DACs will be popular for well, 'companies'

DAs will be popular as crypto-currency.

There is a difference between crypto equity and crypto money but BitShares has been interchanging them.

BTSX has some blurred lines.

[Ben Mason]

If crypto currency/equity survives, DPOS being the superior choice to date, then so many things about people and our societies will change. The potential that will be unlocked across the planet is colossal.

Take education, the quality will go up over time (via the introduction of important truths) and therefore the quality of the decisions of those participating in consensus networks will go up, strengthening these networks.

Let's worry about the tyranny of the minority in the present before we assume stupidity and tyranny of the majority in the future.

[Empirical1.1]

Is the following statement true

Non DPOS crypto-currencies would have a harder time reaching or claiming to reach a democratic consensus about change.

If so then

The ideas, vision and principals on which a specific crypto-currency was founded are actually afforded much greater protection under a non DPOS crypto-currency.

(DPOS is good for most DAC use cases just not crypto-currency if that is the case.)

[pariah99]

While useful as consensus mechanism for a DAC this thread has revealed that DPOS may be flawed for a crypto-currency use case. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9603.0

DPOS would allow users to come to a consensus about changing the rules on which the crypto-currency itself was founded.

This isn't any different from other blockchains.  If it's POW, then a group of miners could reach a consensus and fork the chain with a new rule.  If it's POS, then a group of coinholders could do the same.  It's impossible for any kind of a monetary system to protect the minority against the "tyranny of the majority," but that's part of what gives currency value - because by using the system you are giving up your right to make the monetary policy whatever you want it to be.

I suppose that you could have a different cryptocurrency for each person in existence, each with its own policies according to the preferences of its creator; however, that fundamentally defeats the purpose of what currency is supposed to be: A social contract by which people transmit value.

[arhag]

You cannot avoid politics in any consensus system. We can just design the system to be smarter about how the politics are handled.

Previously a majority that wanted something different in the short term would have to change currencies or fork but with DPOS, if the group that wants to hold the fundamental rules and principles of the currency is in the minority then they are the ones forced to change or fork.

With POW, if the majority of hash power reached a consensus to change Bitcoin's inflation schedule, it would change and everyone would be forced to go along with it or move their money to a competing currency. The majority still rules in DPOS, except now it requires the majority of the delegates (who are controlled through the votes of the shareholders) to come to a consensus on a decision. This is a more sensible political strategy than depending on the majority consensus of unelected miners.

Only some sought of limited consensus model that somehow realistically removes the ability to change those initial rules and principals on which a crypto-currency was founded is able to be a trusted long term store of value and more importantly a benefit to society if history is a guide.

This is either impossible or actually exists in every system depending on your point of view. The rules (encoded in software) of the system define the cryptocurrency. If you change the rules, you change the cryptocurrency. You can create a cryptocurrency that follows a set of rules and those rules NEVER change. But you need to keep in mind that you may end up being the ONLY PERSON IN THE WORLD who uses that particular cryptocurrency (therefore it is totally worthless). You cannot force your will (a particular set of rules for a cryptocurrency) on other people. By the way the same is true of a physical system like gold. We cannot change the physical properties of gold (that would violate the laws of physics) but we can change our human perception of its value. If everyone stopped valuing gold (thus it experienced severe price inflation), would you say that people unfairly changed the inflation rules of gold? Ultimately, all of these systems require people to come to a compromise (which means politics) so that we all use the same system and benefit from that network effect. That is just a fact that cannot be ignored no matter how much you may hate it because we are ultimately dependent on other people for our survival.

[bitAndy]

My concern with DPOS since the beginning was the introduction of politics into what I feel should be a democracy free zone.  Ultimately what I have come to understand (with great help for Bytemaster) is that this problem exists in all cryptocurrencies.  If the majority of bitcoin miners and users decided that rather than cut new coin generation in half every four years they would double it, that is what would happen.  This would require a fork, and majority consensus.  If the majority of BitsharesX users decided that they wanted an inflationary scheme to bring in more users, then it would require a fork and majority consensus.

It is concerning that crypto.  Our chance to free ourselves from the shackles of oppression.  Ultimately is a form of democracy, with all of the evil that entails.

''The market is a democracy in which every penny gives a right to vote'' - Ludwig von Mises.

A democracy that is voluntary, like a DAC, is fine in my opinion. If you don't like what a DAC is doing, you can withdraw economic consent. Democracy is only a problem when its politcally imposed on people.

[gamey]

I do not understand what sort of argument could make this hold more true for DPOS over other consensus algorithms.  We can point to empirical observations about resources required for blockchain attacks but they are all anecdotal.  I do not understand how DPOS could be different from other consensus mechanisms  ??

[puppies]

My concern with DPOS since the beginning was the introduction of politics into what I feel should be a democracy free zone.  Ultimately what I have come to understand (with great help for Bytemaster) is that this problem exists in all cryptocurrencies.  If the majority of bitcoin miners and users decided that rather than cut new coin generation in half every four years they would double it, that is what would happen.  This would require a fork, and majority consensus.  If the majority of BitsharesX users decided that they wanted an inflationary scheme to bring in more users, then it would require a fork and majority consensus.

It is concerning that crypto.  Our chance to free ourselves from the shackles of oppression.  Ultimately is a form of democracy, with all of the evil that entails.

[blahblah7up]

Yep.  It's exactly flawed as humanity is flawed.

This is like watching the wheel be reinvented.

But it is very astute of you to look further into the future.  When all the founders are gone and the leaders have changed the only thing left will be the apathetic will of the majority, easily coerced and mislead by elaborate delegate campaigns.  And in this new "democracy" there's not even a constitution to violate!

[Empirical1.1]

While useful as consensus mechanism for a DAC this thread has revealed that DPOS may be flawed for a crypto-currency use case. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9603.0

DPOS would allow users to come to a consensus about changing the rules on which the crypto-currency itself was founded.

Previously a majority that wanted something different in the short term would have to change currencies or fork but with DPOS, if the group that wants to hold the fundamental rules and principles of the currency is in the minority then they are the ones forced to change or fork.

It is therefore likely A DPOS crypto-currency use case will always succumb to the fate & flaws of all currencies and democracies that have preceded it.

Only some sought of limited consensus model that somehow realistically removes the ability to change those initial rules and principals on which a crypto-currency was founded is able to be a trusted long term store of value and more importantly a benefit to society if history is a guide.

DPOS only allows for a digital company share while a limited consensus model allows for digital gold.

If so will users looking for a crypto-currency choose a digital gold or a digital company share?

Will users choose a BitAsset system that is backed by digital gold or digital company shares?