EOS or Etherium smart contracts?


#63

The Internet censorship office only needs to shut out the EOS block producing servers, so that no user or Dapp can contact these servers. There is no point shutting down any servers.

We went over this already. A country can block EOS sure - but they cannot shut it down. However, BTC can be shut down by china if they wanted to :slight_smile: However, why would a developed western country want to shut down the internet?

‘Distribute the wealth evenly among the rich and poor.’ is communism. Bitcoin only aims to enable payment between people (rich and poor) with no third party involvement. Maybe also control inflation a bit…

I was making a joke out of your reply and how dumb of an idea it was. Looks like you realized too and agreed with me lol. Either that or you’ve blinded yourself in denial and are just disagreeing with me for the sake of disagreeing even when it contradicts you.

PoW based cryptocurrency is a solution to avoid human involvement and corruption in the banking industry.

PoW simply allows the 3 people who control the biggest mining pools to control the network. How is that a good thing? Most of the hash power comes from massive farms running in china too…

PoS is a short sighted ‘solution’ to increase the blockchain speed while reintroducing human corruption into a bookkeeping system that desires no human involvement. Therefore, EOS is wrong at the design level.

  1. DPOS <> PoS. They’re different consensus algorithms.
  2. PoS = PoW ( basically ) except the amount of coins gives you power over the network instead of hashing. You have essentially argued against yourself by arguing that PoS has too much human involvement.

thank you for ignoring like 10 points I made too. I love repeating myself and making arguments that aren’t acknowledged.

The answers to your last few replies can be found further up - I just repeated them. Not going to reply again if you repeat the same thing one more time without acknowledging my reply or asking something new.


#64

No, Bitcoin will still function in all countries even after China shuts down all 3 major mining factories; EOS won’t work in the censored jurisdiction, which breaks its own censorship resistance claim.

Your argument falls into the category of ‘quoting the Quran to convince the agnostic’. You can recite the scriptures all day long with no effects.


#65

No, Bitcoin will still function in all countries even after China shuts down all 3 major mining factories; EOS won’t work in the censored jurisdiction, which breaks its own censorship resistance claim.

Why would they shut down the factories? They would use them and continually attack the network. Essentially they can control the network anytime they want to. Bitcoin is a threat to china as it allows their citizens to move money out of their country.

Your argument falls into the category of ‘quoting the Quran to convince the agnostic’. You can recite the scriptures all day long with no effects.

You have to admit - we’ve been talking in circles… :joy:


#66

Sound money has always been in demand since the invention of money. It predated any form of democracy. That’s why Bitcoin has been accepted and tolerated by almost all countries. The Bitcoin mining factories in China are not different from thousands of other factories that are fabricating quality products for the rest of the world.

The margin of bitcoin printing business is so much more profitable than the T-shirt sweatshops or even PC manufacturing that both the mining company and the Chinese authority are not willing to sabotage the mining logic. Why would anyone prefer making a million T-shirts for the same profit of mining bitcoin for a day?

EOS, on the other hand, is a much less organised and less recognised business proposal than a similar but established business Visa. Why would any cryptocurrency investor want to financially support another Visa company that is worse than Visa? EOS is worse than Visa in the sense that they allow themselves to print more money every year (5% inflation rate) with no total cap.


#67

EOS, on the other hand, is a much less organised and less recognised business proposal than a similar but established business Visa. Why would any cryptocurrency investor want to financially support another Visa company that is worse than Visa? EOS is worse than Visa in the sense that they allow themselves to print more money every year (5% inflation rate) with no total cap.

answered this fully already.

Also good to note EOS’ inflation rate is not 5%. 5% is the max it can be. I think nodes will probably make it 2%.

The margin of bitcoin printing business is so much more profitable than the T-shirt sweatshops or even PC manufacturing that both the mining company and the Chinese authority are not willing to sabotage the mining logic. Why would anyone prefer making a million T-shirts for the same profit of mining bitcoin for a day?

Also answered this fully already.


#68

Most of your arguments stemmed from the EOS sales pitches, which are the reasons for doubt in the first place.

You can not ignore the fundamental weakness of EOS (not censorship resistant; is a Visa like centralised system) and go on with the sales pitches forever. This is after all a cryptocurrency market.


#69

I don’t know what you’re on about. I just know how DPoS works and how PoW works and some statistics behind it. You don’t seem to know either. never seen an eos sales pitch xD

You can not ignore the fundamental weakness of EOS (not censorship resistant; is a Visa like centralised system) and go on with the sales pitches forever. This is after all a cryptocurrency market.

went over it already and I didn’t ignore it. You just ignored my response.


#70

DPoS is the same thing as PoS, a.k.a. Centralised financial models under heavy human influence that have been proven to be corruptible.

If there any any consolation at all, I see no future of any DPoS/PoS based project.

Bitcoin (PoW+blockchain+fair and gradual adoption) is a non-reproducible process. Non of the separate parts of Bitcoin is the secret for its success. Hoping for another parabolic bull run on of an non cryptocurrency by swapping a piece of the Bitcoin engine is futile.


#71

DPoS is the same thing as PoS, a.k.a. Centralised financial models under heavy human influence that have been proven to be corruptible.

Much more decentralized than the PoW centralized financial model.

that have been proven to be corruptible.

Bitshares and steem have been running for years just fine. If 51% of people want something to happen - it should happen. PoW involves as much human influence than PoS except that PoS is much more resistant to attacks.

**Both involve human influence.

Give some examples of this ‘corruptness’ happening on a blockchain please.

Bitcoin (PoW+blockchain+fair and gradual adoption) is a non-reproducible process. Non of the separate parts of Bitcoin is the secret for its success. Hoping for another parabolic bull run on of an non cryptocurrency by swapping a piece of the Bitcoin engine is futile.

This is a centralized process controlled by 3 mining pools with 71% of the hashing power in China with a very poor governance system. No DPOS or POS system is as centralized as that. Even NEO with it’s tiny ass amount of delegates has takes more entities to overthrow the network.


#72

You are not saying the Visanet (a better version of EOS) is more decentralised than Bitcoin?

Steemit, a centralised social media site, is a little central bank that prints unlimited fiat (steem coin). This failed model (another example is NEO/GAS) won’t last in the crypto market, because it is the exact problem Bitcoin aims to fix.

21 human can be very easily compromised technically and financially due to the huge reward difference between a block producing node owner and the rest of the network node owners. There is no reason trust these people just as we all assume the civil servants in the congress are corrupt by big money by default.


#73

You are not saying the Visanet (a better version of EOS) is more decentralised than Bitcoin?

Dude. Why am I even arguing with you? You LITERALLY read nothing i say.

Steemit, a centralised social media site, is a little central bank that prints unlimited fiat (steem coin).

This has nothing to do with DPOS and Graphene. Steem has 0 fees with 1.5s confirmations.

This failed model (another example is NEO/GAS) won’t last in the crypto market, because it is the exact problem Bitcoin aims to fix.

This has nothing to do with what I said.

21 human can be very easily compromised technically and financially due to the huge reward difference between a block producing node owner and the rest of the network node owners. There is no reason trust these people just as we all assume the civil servants in the congress are corrupt by big money by default.

You’re not making sense. We can’t trust 21 people - but we can trust 3 people who control the bitcoin network?


#74

The Bitcoin logic has not been corrupted by any human yet: the promises of the cryptocurrency are still intact with Bitcoin. While the EOS is a failure monetary model tried many times in all types of human societies.

If you have watched Larimer’s recent video, you would know that he does not get the importance of the immutability and censorship resistance requirement of a proper cryptocurrency (EOS even allows 21 human to change the blockchain history by voting). And he does not get the point that EOS (or other smart contract platforms) does not make sense in most of the non money use cases.


#75

You’re not making sense. We can’t trust 21 people - but we can trust 3 people who control the bitcoin network?

How can a platform be immutable if 3 people can control it with no way of stopping them in the first place.

I get DPOS does not really have immutability - but PoS does. It is vastly more decentralized than PoW and much more immutable.


#76

You can say 1 person controls the Bitcoin network in China if you want. You can also assume that personal privacy and liberty are not respected in non democracies.

I am not sure whether the Bitcoin implementation has the game theory in mind, but it has kept all participants honest so far. A permission-less public network survives and thrives for 10+ years is a triumph in so many aspects of science. It is a living a proof that Bitcoin does not require democracy to function as designed.

The DPOS model is an implementation choice of the POS theory, which is yet to face the test of reality. An obvious POS shortcoming is the performance concern related to a ‘random’ stakeholder (hence a more centralised proposal DPOS). Ethereum (a huge public blockchain that few individual techy is willing to host) is likely to compromise by setting up designated nodes EOS style as well.


#77

You’re not making sense. We can’t trust 21 people - but we can trust 3 people who control the bitcoin network?

Please answer this ^. Obviously bitcoin has not stood the test of time if it is centrally controlled by 3 people lmao.

PoW is the most centralized consensus algoritm by far. At this point - XRP is literally more decentralized than BTC :joy::joy::joy:

The DPOS model is an implementation choice of the POS theory, which is yet to face the test of reality’

DPOS has been working just fine since 2014. No idea what you’re talking about there. During that time it has no doubt been attacked at every angle and has remained completely decentralized. PoS has also been around for around that time and has also not experience any centralization issues.


#78

Nobody controls the Bitcoin network. Bitcoin will survive without the 3 Chinese mining companies. The mining revenue is the main income source for the large mining companies, the game theory worked on them in the sense that they won’t commit financial suicide by destroying Bitcoin.

The 21 human gate keeper model of EOS is essentially a Visanet model. Why would crypto investor put money into yet another Visa company?

DPOS has not been really tested since few people or company are using the ‘smart contract’ functions proposed by the ‘2nd generation’ crypto products.

EOS is not even positioned to fulfil the function of the 1st generation (Bitcoin, Litecoin) based on its white paper. The 21 gate keepers can even vote to change a transaction or ‘rescue’ lost assets for a user. These are basic banking functions that cryptocurrency claims to avoid in order to be permission-less and censorship resistant.


#79

Nobody controls the Bitcoin network. Bitcoin will survive without the 3 Chinese mining companies. The mining revenue is the main income source for the large mining companies, the game theory worked on them in the sense that they won’t commit financial suicide by destroying Bitcoin.

It might be in their financial incentive. What if it is? RIP BTC. Nothing we can do about it right? I mean we’re seeing many PoW coins being 51% attacked lately because of purely financial incentives. If they believe they can make more money in a 51% attack - they will do it.

Stop calling EOS a visanet model if it is more decentralized than BTC and it’s main function isn’t even supposed to be a currency.

The 21 gate keepers can even vote to change a transaction or ‘rescue’ lost assets for a user.

You’re not making sense. We can’t trust 21 people - but we can trust 3 people who control the bitcoin network? 3 people on bitcoin can change a transaction or rescue lost assets for a user.

I think it’s clear that you have a limited understanding of blockchain… why am I even arguing with you? I have to explain simple concepts to you…


#80

The 51% attacks were usually organised by hackers by exploiting software bugs. That is an attack on every Bitcoin stakeholders including the massive Chinese mining companies. Sure, there is always a possibility for the Chinese mining factories to be incentified enough to attack themselves for more Bitcoins to sell before Bitcoin price crashes (due to the attack). Or a third party would pay them more than their mining revenue. But I guess someone will need to explain the motive of this third party.

No past Bitcoin transaction has been changed yet by anyone.

The whole point of Bitcoin is to allow anyone to send money to anyone without third party censorship. I am not saying EOS (or Visanet) can not fulfil the majority of such transactions. But once the ‘voting-to-reverse-or-block’ functions are built in, the gate keepers are going to use them to kill the soul of blockchain: the Immutability.

Maybe Visa uses such functions only once a month, but that was not good enough for Satoshi Nakamoto.


#81

No past Bitcoin transaction has been changed yet by anyone.

Same goes for steem and bitshares.

The whole point of Bitcoin is to allow anyone to send money to anyone without third party censorship

You’re not making sense. We can’t trust 21 people - but we can trust 3 people who control the bitcoin network?

But once the ‘voting-to-reverse-or-block’ functions are built in

? Miners can just mine a chain with the reverse transaction too? However, it only takes 3 people to do so and not 15 as on the EOS network. Further more, since no one can control these 3 entities like in EOS - they can do whatever they want.

Bitcoin takes 3. EOS takes 15.

You’re not making sense. We can’t trust 21 people - but we can trust 3 people who control the bitcoin network?

Please read the EOS whitepaper before arguing against it. It’s clear you haven’t read it or you wouldn’t be making such statements.

You’re not making sense. We can’t trust 21 people - but we can trust 3 people who control the bitcoin network?


#83

No past Bitcoin transaction has been changed yet by anyone.

This statement is actually incorrect. Bitcoin got hacked in 2010 using an overflow attack and rolled back the chain much like ethereum.