Peer Review of Cardano's Ouroboros

in cardamon •  3 months ago

I recently had an opportunity to review Cardano’s Ouroboros consensus algorithm as presented in a youtube presentation. The original paper can be found here. The marketing behind Cardano and Ouroboros is that it is the first “peer reviewed”, “provably secure” proof of stake consensus algorithm. Upon reading their paper it becomes clear to those familiar with BitShares 1.0, Graphene, Steem, and EOS that Ouroboros is a copy of Delegated Proof of Stake (DPoS) with a few counter-productive modifications. In fact their paper refers to the term “πDPoS” 17 times without mentioning or recognizing any of my prior work.

Before getting into the more technical review of Ouroboros, let’s look at the performance of the final product.

Block Interval

Block interval determines the latency until a transaction is included in the first block. This is the lower-bound on the responsiveness of decentralized applications built on the protocol. Applications like Steem and BitShares are not really viable unless there is low latency and high certainty of finality.

EOS: 0.5 seconds
Steem/BitShares: 3 seconds
Ouroboros: 20 seconds

Irreversibility

This is how long someone must wait to be certain that a transaction will not be undone by a new/longer fork being released that excludes the transaction. Irreversibility is very important for any multi-step transactions. You don’t want to ship goods until payment is confirmed. You cannot make one trade until the prior trade is locked in. A decentralized exchange is not viable on a platform that has significant latency until irreversibility.

EOS: <= 2 seconds
Steem/BitShares: <= 45 seconds
Ouroboros: > 5 hours

Ouroboros is Unfit for Decentralized Applications

If we assume Ouroboros is actually “more provably secure” by some definition of secure, it is of little practical value because as specified the security completely compromises the practically. It would be like claiming a bullet proof vest is “provably safe” but it weighs 400 pounds. At some point other factors of system design take priority.

Unfortunately we cannot simply assume it has been proven secure. I will demonstrate that despite claims to the contrary, Ouroboros is far less secure due to faulty assumptions in its design. In other words, Ouroboros is a 400 pound bullet proof vest that doesn’t actually stop the real bullets.

Components of Delegated Proof of Stake (aka Ouroboros)

The Delegated Proof of Stake algorithm is divided into two parts:

  • Selecting a set of block producers
  • Scheduling the producers into time slots

The process of selecting block producers is typically derived from proof of stake which may be delegated. The set of block producers is periodically updated. In BitShares this happens every maintenance interval (1 hour), in Steem and EOS it happens every round (N blocks where N is defined as the number of producers in the set). In Ouroboros it happens every 5 days according to Charles Hoskinson in an interview where he describes the protocol.

Once the set of producers are selected they are assigned to time slots where a producer can either produce a block or not. The chain with the most consensus will have the fewest missed blocks and therefore be the longest chain. In ouroboros they call this the “density” of the chain, but the concept is the same.

Selecting Block Producers

Under Ouroboros anyone who wants to be a producer can be selected for a slot proportional to the amount of stake they own or is delegated to them. This is similar to how Steem selects 1 producer in every set (aka every minute). Whereas Steem only schedules 1 out of every 21 time slots in this manner, Ouroboros schedules all time slots with this mathematical distribution. In the case of Ouroboros only those with at least 1% of stake delegated to them are eligible to be in the set of producers, but Steem places no lower limit.

Scheduling Block Producers into Slots

The primary difference between Steem and Ouroboros’ system is that Steem uses deterministic scheduling with pseudorandom shuffling and Ouroboros uses sampling from a source of provable randomness created by a committee of randomly selected stakeholders. Oroboros places a very strong focus on the need for a trustless source of randomness in order to ensure the producer schedule isn’t manipulated by block producers manipulating the block contents so as to control the schedule.

Security Concerns addressed by Randomness

The heart of blockchain security is knowing that during every confirmation window that a diverse set of unlikely-to-collude entities produce blocks. Time to irreversibility depends upon how long it takes to get input from a 2/3+ majority of potential producers.

If the order of producer scheduling can be controlled by the producers there exists a circular dependency. This is the origin of the name Ouroboros (a snake eating its own tail). The focus of the Ouroboros design is to ensure that 2/3+ honest producers can be scheduled without interference. This is why they lock in the set of producers for days and schedule them with a set of provable randomness that no party can manipulate.

Steem / BitShares / EOS

Existing DPOS chains select a set of unlikely to collude entities by approval voting and then schedule them in a pseudorandom order. This shuffling is not really needed because once each of them participates a single block a 2/3+ consensus can be determined. This is why EOS will be removing the random shuffle all together.

With Ouroboros the length of time until 2/3+ of the stake is “randomly selected” is not known. It is entirely possible that in some windows all block producer slots will be randomly assigned to the same producer. While this is statistically unlikely, it is not unreasonable to presume that a long sequence of blocks could be assigned to collusive peers.

You can think of the process of confirmation on Ouroboros to be like an installation progress bar that jumps by random increments. Sometimes it moves forward quickly, other times it taunts you by not making any real progress despite new blocks being produced.

This gives Ouroboros unpredictable latency like Bitcoin. In the best case 2/3+ of the stake might get scheduled in the a half dozen blocks, but in the average case it will take much longer, particularly if there are many producers with 1% weight or a producer with 50% weight is scheduled many times in a row by random chance.

Distribution Security Issues

I have previously made the case that BitShares, Steem, and EOS are the most decentralized because it has the most unique confirmations per confirmation window. In a 6 block confirmation window for Bitcoin only 5 unique individuals confirm a block on average (usually at least one mining pool goes twice in a random 6 block window). In Steem 14 people confirm a block each round.

Because stake and votes are distributed by pareto principle, we know that Ouroboros will assign block producers like mining assigns mining pools. It is exceedingly unlikely that 100 producers will each have 1% of the delegated stake. It is far more likely that there will be fewer than 20 individuals with more than 1% stake required to be approved. Furthermore, there are voting paradoxes in play where voting for someone who doesn’t already have 1% or more of the stake is a wasted vote.

In past articles on proof of stake I have also shown that even if Ouroboros removed the 1% requirement to participate, it would be economically unviable to cover the cost of operating a node with income from less than 1% of the block rewards. I have also argued in the past that because stake is distributed by pareto principle, and voter selection of candidates is also selected by pareto principle, the resulting distribution of stake among producers is pareto2. In other words, stake-weighted voting creates a very high centralization that can only be countered with approval voting followed by giving the top N equal weight (like BitShares, Steem, and EOS do).

Even if the stakeholders divide their stakes and votes to attempt to even out the producer weights, the system is still ultimately under pareto control 1% of the individuals control 51% of the stake. Corruption takes place at the individual level, not the stake level. Furthermore, it is wrong to assume that large stake holders will behave like a group of smaller stakeholders of similar size. Regardless of their stake, they only have one opinion and one interest and therefore the information (good or bad) they contribute to the system is independent of the size of their stake.

Conclusion

Cardano’s Ouroboros algorithm is not mathematically secure due to bad assumptions regarding the relationship between stake and individual-judgment being distributed by the pareto principle. Furthemore, their algorithm is not “new” but a less secure slower variation of the DPOS algorithm I originally introduced in April 2014. The authors of the paper failed to cite relevant prior art or to justify why their deviations from existing art are an improvement.

A blockchain consensus algorithm claiming to value peer review needs to consider who they consider their peers and all such reviews should be public. In the blockchain space, our peers are other blockchain technology companies. From this we can see that DPOS (and variations thereof) is one of the fastest growing consensus algorithms in terms of the number of unique projects choosing it.

I am going to go a step further and claim that much of the academic research and proofs performed by Cardano’s team only bolsters the support and justification of many core DPOS concepts, even if their approach is suboptimal compared to designs of EOS, BitShares, and Steem.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  Trending

A much needed post! Thank you.

I would also be interested in a post describing the falling out with Hoskinson. Not for its gossip value (although feel free to give details and quotes with some name calling ^^) but for context.
Perhaps it can shed some light on the nature of these two new projects (EOS and Cardano) and how they differ on a more fundamental level.

·

Here’s a snippet of events in order to color in context:

  1. Dan writes early BTS paper (though it’s unclear if this was a paper prior to the one published by Charles and Dan together) - sees locking up of BTS for BitAsset as a holy grail in supply reduction.
  2. Charles is in the crypto space already talking about DEX and other later-to-be-developed concepts; teaching courses on bitcoin and cryptocurrency; gets put in touch w Dan
  3. Early BTS; Dan and Charles clash on personal level - stemming from competing technical desires and ego desires. They split.
  4. Charles rebounds immediately and is the first technologist to recognize Turing Complete potential when introduced to Vitalik by Anthony Di Orio. Dan has no awareness to the effort and Ethereum concept.
  5. Ethereum announced.
  6. Dan purports any successes of Eth can be adopted by BTS.
  7. Dan tells confidants (including me but I was later than others) he will attempt Turing Complete one day.
    7.5 Dan leaves BTS.
  8. Dan does Steem with me and founding team.
    8.25 Steem working; July 2016; Dan begins selling Ned about the wow factor of Wren in Dan’s living room.
    8.5. Cob and associate calls Ned. Ned tells them about possible future token protocols on Steem.
  9. Dan tells Steem he will build Turing Complete on Steem (Wren). (I was not pre-aware or expecting the public communications from Dan on this. Others in the organization were skeptical of Wren).
  10. Dan leaves Steem. Tells community he will not be posting anymore.
    10.5. Dan asks Ned not to compete with EOS because of market clarity
  11. EOS begins building by copying BTS STEEM and Ethereum - Wren concept is dropped - subsequently Web Assembly ideas of Ethereum are harnessed - and reverse auction IPO levered for fundraising EOS.
    11.5 Ned writes SMT Whitepaper with @theoretical. Ned includes section criticizing the weaknesses of general purpose / Turing Complete / general scripting on blockchain - and advocates application specific programs tailored to high demand use cases - I.e. specialized programmability tokens for fundraising, monetization and growth.
  12. Dan writes post about Ouroboros and comments about Hoskinson from his very own viewpoint.
  13. The cult of personality on Steem begs for more!

Luckily this is nearly 1/1000th of the gory details and barely magnified! Ive got all the rest in my journals (and tapes from when things got dicey) (that get released by my lawyers if I die (/not only if I am killed/) before deciding to include or not include these chapters in a book).

Despite the commentary, at the end of the day Hoskinson and Larimer are both credibly respectable for certain things - no one is perfect and I believe we can consider them both thoughtful technologists, and to see some of the name calling - frankly from glass houses, it calls to advise everyone to take the “think about yourself” approach before judging others and spreading memes that physically cannot be whole truths because everything is interpretation.

On the whole, and from what seems to have spawned these posts, I’d love to see more real academic style accreditation in crypto industry whitepapers. Other than Bitcoin’s Whitepaper, not many are arguably sound from a formally-correct academic perspective.

In short response, the falling out between the pair, Hoskinson and Larimer, clearly had little impact on the conceptual elements of these new projects, Cardano and EOS, because the pair’s falling out predates even the mother concept, Ethereum - but rather the pair’s falling out was one of the key catalysts for Ethereum coming into existence as successfully as it did because it put Charles on a path to spearhead it.

Contributed from my iPhone. Please excuse any grammatical mistakes or errors.

·
·

Thx Ned!

·
·

pretty nice analysis you have done.

·
·
·

I like boobs

·
·
·
·
·

I don't know, it's kind of bitter sweet. EOS has some great potential, from which the entire space will benefit.

·
·
·

You are right.....

·
·
·

The question is how long will BM stay in the EOS project?

·
·
·
·

For the foreseeable EOS future. There's mass amounts of development support for EOS that will last a lifetime. They will also contribute to Dapps development and so on.

·
·
·

Genius alway want to start something new. Like the Newton always switching new frontiers.

·
·

Thank you, Ned. To me, that context is important and helpful because without it, people imagine in the details. So much of the speculative valuation in the cryptocurrency space relies on sentiment driven by one-sided perspectives on the personalities involved. That increases the importance of individual actions and reputation and on getting accurate information about the history of the people involved.

I wonder how many posts will talk about your thousand dollar vote. :)

·
·
·

MANY of my friends WONT join steemit because of the steem power issues where large investors rule what people see.. and the artistic expression is ruined for those that want to see what is really popular, rather that what is promoted.
IT NEEDS TO GET FIXED

·
·
·

That’s how easy it is to get rewards.
What did I do for those past 1.5 years???

Feeling like a working 🐝🐝🐝 right now😜

·
·

Omg I love it! I’m a 14 year old in the middle of grown men trying to survive . I’ll just keep on posting and roll with the tide!

·
·

Wow, nice info, thanks for sharing this with us.

·
·

thanks for sharing!

·
·

Very good information. I'm sort of disappointed with how Dan jumps from project to project and talks dirt about other projects. Charles never does that (as far as i know).
It would however be very interesting to to see Dan and Charles go on the record and discuss this more on the tech side.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

Haters gonna hate. You keep up the good work.

·
·
·
·

@dan You are doing valuable work no matter what OS "project" you are working on.

In the OS space there is only one team and one project that benefits the whole Universe. Sorry to see people who are asleep to that and only focused on their little sliver of OS.

What we are collectively developing is nothing less than a universe - the Blockchain Universe. Bitshares, Steem and EOS are planets in that universe at specific stages of development. Everything has value because they demonstrate varieties of possibilities for future creations. (from my post ... Philosophy of the OS Universe - by a Blockchain Social Scientist)

·
·
·
·

Naw. He needs to downvote facts. And for the record, the risk to reward ratio for me saying this is definitely not in my favor considering past experience.

·
·
·
·
·

The facts are unacceptable, but this risk may be a big step to win. @fuzzyvest

·
·
·

I don't see nothing wrong with Dan taking on new projects. He's just way too good at designing new systems to be just maintaining one project.

I've heard Jordan Peterson in some video say once that liberal people tend to start companies and conservative people tend to run them. Or something like that. Either way it makes sense to me that some people are just way better at creating new things than maintaining them.

Btw Charles jumps around also, maybe even more.

·
·
·
·

Right. The different personality types need each other. The high in Openness types are required to create, think up, and launch crazy, disruptive ideas/businesses. But they are not the types to RUN the company once established. This is where the high in Conscientiousness types are needed. Their Orderliness and Industriousness (along with a usually lower openness) make them perfect for saying "OK enough of this crazy brainstorming. Let's get this done, effective, efficient and delivered"

There is IMMENSE value in understanding this. It appears to me Dan understood this around the time he left BitShares. He went from CEO of a company to a CTO and he left once his main added value was delivered.
This is how the world will gain most value from Dan, IMO. We won't benefit from Dan attending business meetings, doing taxes, working on a marketing campaign, etc. We benefit from this guy thinking and building incredible DACs/DAOs and DApps.

·
·
·
·
·

great insight
absolutely correct
most have no idea of how important this focus will be
dan make things happen, and manifests - thanks @dan

·
·
·
·
·

That is a really good point, @cob. Very well said. This comment nicely pads out the context Ned "colored" in.

·
·
·
·
·

The world is not split between open minded liberals and industrious conservatives, that's a blatantly oversimplified dualist fairytale but of course Jordan Peterson would say something like that.

·
·
·
·

I'm the same. I invent and I'm terrible at maintaining. Many skill sets needed to make the (crypto) world go round.

·
·
·
·

That's true but I would consider all of crypto to be in a creation phase until 2020.
Maybe he just likes the founder coins.

·
·
·
·

No question, it's not about judgement in that respect and I hate that sort of judgement.
Dan is the only person I have seen consistently offer his technical views on so many projects.

·
·
·

I think you will find charles has quite the potty mouth. check his tweets when asked questions about Dpos origins.

·
·
·

BTW Charles has now been involved in BTS - ETH- ETC and now ADA. see a pattern here?

·
·
·

I don't interpret it as dirt, but as a critical review from his experience. Very valuable critique, personally I find it a good sign he jumps from project to project as his value is in being at the frontier. Once a project is running, it's hard to change so there is no real choice here.

·
·

You upvote a comment by around a thousand dollars and you post a list of occurrences with so much context and so many facts missing as if it has any value at all. Somewhat ridiculous.

·
·
·

You are absolutely right. Actually, this is a complete mystery. @benjojo

·
·
·

I am new in steem yet. I do not know if I can be like you someday but I just hope. I would be very happy if you could support me. I hope you see this post @benjojo

·
·

interesting ..i hope you all find peace

·
·
·

Best comment so far.

·
·

Thank you for chiming in Ned! I for one am glad to have the spirit of competition alive and well within the space and see some disagreement between developers from time to time. It just illustrates that they are actively engaging and truly pushing one another to be their best and produce the best possible products.

"If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking." – George S. Patton

·
·

Now I know why Satoshi Nakamoto remains incognito. Otherwise he would have wasted a lot of his energy, being forced to, defend each of his original choices and comment on each new coin and technology.

·
·

Woooooowhaaaa....t

Luckily this is nearly 1/1000th of the gory details and barely magnified! Ive got all the rest in my journals (and tapes from when things got dicey) (that get released by my lawyers if I die (/not only if I am killed/) before deciding to include or not include these chapters in a book).

Oh I see ... and the plot thickens.

If you decide to publish would it be only in book form or series on steemit or some other platform ?

·
·
·

Maybe via Publica (PBL)?

·
·

Thanks for sharing @cob

·
·

I could not agree more on the observation that a lot of whitepapers lack methodology and academic accuracy, which is substituted by layout and marketing mostly!

·
·

Contributed from my iPhone. Please excuse any grammatical mistakes or errors.

Did you type that or mix in speech to text?

·
·
·

Both options can cause grammatical errors I believe.

·
·

Putting it out there @ned. I've never spoken to @dan directly. I know of him, and his history.. and I appreciate his intentions. At some point if you want to talk on discord or email, I'm in email intelliguy@tuta.io -- in all the work you do, I think it would be worth your while to spend 5 minutes with a conversation with me when you are ready on discord or email. I'm a trained systems analysist with years of business. I'd like to talk to you if you can afford the time.

·
·

As always @ned and @dan thank you for the platform you have provided. I know many already benefited and will continue to do so that's including me.

@ned your feedback is always appreciated as you are the face of STEEM. Thank you for your knowledgeable input.

Cheers,
@shares

·
·

upvote because things gets personal and religious way too quickly in here. And this is very scary for everyone, specially newcomers. We need more academic discussions that avoid ad hominem attacks.

·
·

how interesting...dpos didnt exist when dan and charles were talking in the early days about the basic concept of bitassets (which is what bitshares was about.)

And btw ned, at what point did u plan on mentioning that you kicked me from your "elite" steem channel, stole my concepts of community/tag coins that are recorded on record before u ever "envisioned" smt, labeled them "SMT", downvoted the whaletank u said was "better than DASH DAO and worker proposals"

and offered 750k steem in early days for me to sell out to you?

Get off the high horse...people dont fall for it.

·
·
·

If Detractor Fuzzy thinks whale tank pre dates SMT conceptually here is my LOL, and double LOL if Detractor Fuzzy thinks they’re the same in any way, mechanically or in intent. Clearly Detractor Fuzzy is ignorantly proceeding as if all tokens are the same while taking no time to appreciate the nuances of tokens for new use cases nor the vast amount new and borrowered concepts actually recognized in the SMT paper. Detractor Fuzzy’s experiment built on Fail Tokens does not fit the bill to be recognized - but if it’s one use case for SMTs by all means bring it on over. So..If we’re just talking about tokens ...Detractor Fuzzy should go back to the 90’s to start doing proper accreditation.

Contributed from my iPhone. Please excuse any grammatical mistakes or errors.

·
·
·
·

Bro send me some Steem 😜😜😜

·
·

I like boobs

·
·

So I don't understand this stuff nearly as much as you do but what attracted me to Caranado was the ability for on chain upgrades. It's not implemented yet so technically they are still hard forking. The space is looking for an Etherum killer and Ripple ain't it. I can't wait for SMT to get released!!

·
·
·

Eos will have on chain updates as well for many things.

·
·
·

Ripple is the crypto killer. People in it are just handing their money back to the banks.

·
·

I'd read that book.

·
·

Wow Nice Share How can I see the full event?

·
·

hahahaha this whole thing rules.

while we are talking about controversial steem stuff, anyone want to talk about how much steem the founders own and why and what are they going to do with it?

·
·

That's how analysis is done. Health in their hands @ned

·
·

@ned thanks for sharing with us the timeline!

·
·

MANY of my friends WONT join steemit because of the steem power issues where large investors rule what people see.. and the artistic expression is ruined for those that want to see what is really popular, rather that what is promoted.
IT NEEDS TO GET FIXED

·
·

Very informative!

·
·

Thanks Ned.

I have invested in Cardano for following reasons:
1.Cardano's methodologies will be peer reviewed and code will be audited by third party.
2.It talks about Interoperability which no one else is talking. We can't ignore the giant elephant in the room (govt. regulators) and pretend it doesn't exist or impact crypto currencies in any way.

Cardano is attempting to make peer reviewed white papers as a gold standard for crypto currencies.

·
·
·

Totally agree. Those folks didn't realize the importance of that.

·
·

Ethereum is best crypto

·
·

well this was probably the best comment I ever read on steemit and I read quite a few. Don't wanna sound like I'm licking your boots cause I just realized who you are (the Big Ned:) but hats off bro. There should be a movie made about it, lovely drama. And hopefully those tapes won't ever have to get to any lawyer! I cheer for both EOS and ADA, that's how crypto space grows, despite the ego clashes. Be well @ned!

·
·

12 "Dan writes post about Ouroboros and comments about Hoskinson from his very own viewpoint.
13 The cult of personality on Steem begs for more!

Uff!

·
·

So who would you say is Bill and the other Steve?

·
·
·

Neither fits well and neither is elevated at the height of the industry right now in the likes of Vitalik nor Satoshi - also Bill and Steve were both ENTJs... one company for each. .. Comparisons are unflattering anyway. May all the blockchain pioneers have their own well known legacies some day. :P

·
·
·
·

ha ha ha you right sir , good analysis ! @ned

·

Enjoy the payout ;)

·

wish my comment would worth 1k (I would even take $1)

·
·

dollar on its way

·
·
·

wow a new record for me!

·
·

Really it is worth about $4,000 USD with the SBD around $8 and $500 of the comment going to SBD.

·
·
·

DAT monetization...

·
·
·

I'd argue that the founder appearing in a comment to explain things in such depth is worthy. If hillary clinton can get paid millions for a single speech, you're paying for the appearance just as much as the content, the difference being this is voluntary donation and public

·
·
·

Downvote it like I did.

·

I only up-voted this comment because I want to grab a slice of this big pizza.

·
·

That's not how it works. You could have only got a slice if you had voted before Ned. You just gave Ned a crumb of pizza and you got squat

·
·
·

I know. But somehow my up-goat was bigger on this by $0.02 than up-goating my own comments, as far as experience can tell. Given that, only if @ned will tell us in advance who he will be up-goating to next. Lol

·

Wtf? 1k for your comment? #mindblown

·
·

welcome to steemit.

·

Right, EOS and cardano new two project.

·

I think that is unnecessary. Charles Hoskinson's behaviour speaks louder than any subjective analysis of the past. Investors have all the information they need to make solid decisions right now.

·

please visit my post you ll find good content upvote me

·

Nothing personal @cob, but I'm downvoting your comment, $890 is way too excessive for a few lines of text.

·

competition betwern cardano and eos is a good thing. may the best platform win. in the end its the users that really win. im leaning towards eos ;)

·

Bitshares stands out among the second generation of crypto money with the possibilities offered by users, in fact it is a platform beyond being a crypto money. The most striking feature of this platform is the "crypto-entity". The crypto-entity is the name given to the crypto paral- lel that each user can produce at any time he wants. So anyone entering the system on this side can create their own crypto
@cob @ned

·

Thanks for your post!
Please Follow, Upvote & Resteem my post to help us to travel & explore more
https://steemit.com/travel/@jonbee/travel-with-us-ep-01-kushtia-sugar-mills-kushtia-bangladesh-bd-steemian

Thank you, Dan. I've had a number of people ask me about this and though I've watched a video or two from Charles Hoskinson about Cardano, I felt a pause when I looked into some history.

Is it true you and him had a big falling out in the early days of BitShares? Is there somewhere people can read about this history?

Related to that, do you have somewhere you send people who are concerned about the BitShares "Great Consolidation" history? I know many investors who avoid BitShares, STEEM, and EOS because they are convinced investors will be screwed. I've been trying to find out more about this, but it's difficult to find the whole story. Currently, it seems to me, a bad decision was made to consolidate BitShares related projects (forgive me if this was during the protoshares/angelshares era, I don't know the timeline well) instead of letting them compete and run free which hurt a lot of investors. It could also be argued that was a necessary action to save BitShares during a time when all cryptocurrency markets were in massive decline. Do you have thoughts you could share or a history you could point to for people with these concerns?

Thanks again for doing so much for the cryptocurrency space to build awesome stuff that actually works.

·

@stan has a series of posts called "origins of bitshares." I haven't read most of them (yet), but I think what you're asking for might be covered there.

·
·

I've read this history but it only has a very small section on The Great Consolidation. To me, if that was a mistake, it's something to be highlighted and explained in detail. This is how we grow and learn. Instead of hiding our mistakes, we can highlight them and demonstrate how we learned from them and rebuilt trust through the process. If this event keeps investors away, why not explain it in detail as to what worked and what didn't and how investors and speculators were handled and how they profited or had losses. Showing how STEEM and EOS learned from that could also be very enlightening. Also, does it relate at all to the disagreement between @ned and @dan related to Smart Media Tokens? Could similar "mistakes" (if they were mistakes) be made with EOS which might harm investors? These are things I'd love to see openly discussed.

·
·
·

I meant posts on steem. There are way more posts here. Here's one of latest ones with list of earlier posts at the bottom. I don't know if it has any more info on The Great Consolidation though.

·
·
·
·

Thanks. I've read through many of those, but will go through the latest ones as well.

·
·
·
·

@sim31 thanks again for posting that. I especially like this BitSharesTalk post @stan links to there. There's a lot of good detail in there explaining the history involved.

·
·
·

Thank you, @lukestokes.

I would love to hear these things discussed in more depth as well.

·
·
·
·

It's frustrating as some people recognize how amazing DPOS technology is but think Dan (or people connected to him) took advantage of investors and so they don't want to invest now. If those people had a complete history, I wonder if they would choose to invest and by doing so, bring more resources to the DPOS community.

·
·
·
·

i love to here all this things

·
·
·

It would be rather ironic if dan opts not to share after his recent post about transparency.

That aisde, though. I agree with this philosophy wholeheartedly, Of course, it's not always easy to admit our mistakes, because many of us like to appear infallible. I have been guilty of this myself more times than I care to remember. But, if we can overcome this sense of competition that drives the current economy, then that wouldn't matter so much, and perhaps we could step into a world like you just described, with a new, fairer, better way of doing things.

·
·
·
·

I did learn. I learned to reserve inflation for growth and to not force the community to adopt my radical changes in thinking. I attempt to avoid repeating mistakes.

·
·
·
·
·

Thank you, Dan.

Would you consider doing a full, deep-dive post about this history? I would personally love to have a post I could send to potential investors with a detailed perspective on the mistakes made, the lessons learned, and the harsh realities which were unavoidable. I don't mean to sound accusatory, I just want more truth out there and some people are avoiding investment in DPOS technology purely because of their subjective (and possibly incorrect) understanding of the past. I've had conversations with people who admit DPOS is by far the best blockchain technology in existence today, but they still don't want to see it succeed because of their personal experiences. If there was a post I could send them with a detailed history of what happened, why, and what the results/lessons learned were, that would be quite helpful.

Thanks again for the amazing things you've already done and are continuing to do. I truly believe these are historic times, and you are doing historically significant work.

·
·
·
·
·
·

It shows maturity to just avoid the drama that would be caused by filling people in on the details of what happened between two people of different perspectives. They parted. The end.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

We're talking billions of dollars at stake here between EOS, Cardona, STEEM, ETH, and BitShares. To not understand the perspectives of the individuals with most of the power within those systems is to be an uniformed investor, trader, or speculator.

Those who can stomach the drama and distill it to facts which give hints about future actions are the ones who do well. Those who blindly invest along with the crowd often get rekt in the long-run.

True maturity involves having difficult conversations about difficult topics without creating drama.

·
·
·
·
·
·

Really Luke, don't you think Dan's time is better spent on solving the issues of the present and future? If those investor friends want to cut their noses off to spite their faces, isn't that up to them. They have all the information they need to make reasonable decisions just like you, don't they?

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

They have all the information they need...

This is what I'm trying to obtain, because the information isn't (IMO) readily available. Some people were part of this from the beginning and experienced this all first-hand. What baffles me is I know people on both sides of this situation that were part of BitShares from the beginning who have opposite perspectives. Some trust Dan completely and see no wrong doing (other than some forgivable mistakes) while others are convinced he and those associated with him are money-grabbing scammers. Clearly there's some information asymmetry going on here. They both can't be right.

I want to bridge that gap by seeing more facts.

As to Dan's time, he's smarter than I am, so I'll leave it to him to determine how to best spend his time. I'm simply making a request as an investor and someone who talks to other investors. An hour or two to write down a history with a lessons learned from his perspective might bring in more support for the things he wants to build which could multiply his efforts.

·
·
·
·
·

Plenty here would love to see a public story from your point of view. No matter how well/poorly handled anything ended up being, it's obvious that it ended with a solid product being created. One that's still getting better, at that.

·
·
·
·
·

Are you talking about how changes are made to Steem?

·

great questions, Luke. I hope @dan can clear some of this up for us.

·
·

You might enjoy this post which @sim31 linked to in a comment above. That post links to this post which has a lot of interesting details. Also, see Ned's comment above. Interesting times. :)

·

I really don't understand the argument for investors getting screwed. Bitshares has performed admirably and is only getting stronger. Back in the earlier days, in the Bitshares forum, many of us suggested that success could only be judged through the lens of a little more time. That being said, Dan has acknowledged mistakes and attempted to learn from them. Isn't his word enough? Dan's tech is being peer reviewed in the public domain against user adoption and it's competition.....the most rigorous kind of peer review there is. I can't see what good can come from dissecting the past any further than that. Where is the value unless it is to stir up acrimony?

·
·

Exactly. Every investor is risking their own money on their own initiative out of SPECULATION for the future. When you hear an announcement that something is going to happen that you didn't predict and the price crashes, that's your own fault for investing speculatively and not expecting anything to change. You have to be willing to lose any money you put in and not be bitter about the project going a direction you weren't expecting. Do your due diligence people.

·
·

Thanks for commenting. I've had similar feelings that there may have been some differences in timescale (maybe speculator verses investor thinking?).

That said, where can I find a full post about mistakes and lessons learned? I don't necessarily think that would stir up acrimony (though it might), but I do think it might clarify historical reality and hopefully bring peace and harmony to those who are still upset (maybe unjustifiably so?) about the past. I've been told "just read bitsharestalk" when I ask for clarification on what people were so frustrated about. Maybe some specific links might help, but to me, a well thought out post would be best.

·

Use this wisely, Gresham's law, seems insightful here, (worth googling) , remember the market is highly irrational , especially now. It is consistent with this irrationality that marketing trumps reality and ADA is priced higher than EOS.

·

I like the project but can't invest because there is no wallet for linux which is a bit of a red flag

·
·

it's an ERC20 token at the moment.

·
·
·

Do you have a source for that? @ashe-oro as to me it looks like they have their own main net and block explorer if it was an ICO they would be using https://etherscan.io and I've tried searching for their token and it;s not listed

Also this doesn't explain why they have a windows wallet and not linux as we have been requesting this for months now

·
·
·
·

the actual EOS tokens aren't available until the blockchain is launched.

Ohhhhh u were talking about the Cardano tokens. I'm not sure, I dont' follow the project closely.

·
·
·

I'll sell by June then buy back after its launched officially. The registration on Ethereum is quite tricky.

·
·
·
·
·

Nice work but I like to wait for official releases as I nearly got burnt once so am being extra careful! Looks very professional however so I'm sure it's probably safe

·
·
·
·

EOS is still an ERC-20 token.
You can use any ethereum wallet of your choosing.
There won't be an official wallet till the launch of EOS(june) or later.

·

I'm digging the Steemit more and more, finding threads like this @lukestokes. I think I need 1 year vacation to spend 8 hours a day on steemit!

Oh what shocking news, after hundreds of people put their money into Cardano it turns out to be a "product" without a chance to survive against others :D One can´t mention it often enough: Due Your own research before you invest!

·

It's just like living through the dot-com era all over again! Hundreds and hundreds of startups with stock pricing going straight to the moon, only to crash down to earth again. Remember petsupplies.com? Have your pet supplied delivered straight to your door. Well, it did happen, only it's call Amazon.com.

·
·

During the dot com era people really had no clue what this internet thing was and how it would develop. Cryptos are also uncharted waters but in my opinion it's easier to predict the future for them because they are based on this infrastructure called the internet. The example you made with petsupplies and amazon.com is very interesting because it shows how this crypto space will likely develop in the future, my guess is that only protocol coins will survive and all the petsupplies.com of this world will be built on top of these blockchain.

Glad to see this response. I lost respect for Charles and the Cardano project after seeing him, multiple times, essentially shilling Cardano in the Bitshares Telegram group as if he's doing the community there a favor.

Then, he posts a link to a YouTube live "AMA" (interview with youtuber) and he claims 1) he can't comment on EOS because he doesn't follow it nor read up on it (I smell stinky bullshit)... and 2) he claims bitUSD as a "wonky failed experiment" or something like that. Ummm.... bitUSD (and its sibling bitassets / smartcoins) are about to take Bitshares to the moon.

(shout out to the mods there, who went on to ban him from that group :)

All this academic talk being tossed around by Charles is funny. Academia is well known for doing research, for the sake of research, and not commercializing or transferring that IP into the real world.

The fact that their market cap is ~4x EOS right now after the insane pump recently only justifies a much higher price point for EOS.

·

CH cannot bring himself to acknowledge the work of others. He touts standards for peer review, research and acknowledgment yet blatantly falls short of observing those standards himself.

The marketing behind Cardano and Ouroboros is that it is the first “peer reviewed”, “provably secure” proof of stake consensus algorithm. Upon reading their paper it becomes clear to those familiar with BitShares 1.0, Graphene, Steem, and EOS that Ouroboros is a copy of Delegated Proof of Stake (DPoS) with a few counter-productive modifications.

Yeah, that really stuck in my craw while reading the whitepaper, and I immediately called bullshit!

Thanks for writing this @dan.

in the real world, an influencer is paid by his/her ability to generate ad revenue or change opinions which are ultimately paid by the end ad buyer or influence buyer. steemit right now is self jerking its esteem power without any end buyers through steem tokens chased by crypto gamblers not much different tulip gamblers. crypto inventors lack understanding of economics.

@dan,

Holy sh*t!

Enjoyed your post immensely.

Salutations. I am JaiChai. Delighted to make your acquaintance.

RE: Your Post

Never even thought of "subliminal", camouflaged pareto principle-induced outcomes.

Wish I didn't miss the 18 Jan 2018 ICO deadline for EOS.

Anyway, may you and yours be well and loving life today.

Namaste (I recognize the divine in you),

JaiChai

A belated follow. My bad.

Cardano is completely overvalued. They haven't even implemented anything yet.

They are willing to work hard to implement something that is worse than dPoS. nice.

·

Cardano's market success was driven primarily by brilliant marketing strategy, I suspect. I have both coin/token though.

·

They've implemented plenty. Their native token is being used on their blockchain, with their native wallet. It has withstood a $20 billion bug bounty via the hostile open Internet so far. They have a long way to go, but make regular progress reports. They started from scratch, unlike many projects which were a fork from pre-existing code, so they have done a lot to get this far.

Existing DPOS chains select a set of unlikely to collude entities by approval voting and then schedule them in a pseudorandom order. This shuffling is not really needed because once each of them participates a single block a 2/3+ consensus can be determined. This is why EOS will be removing the random shuffle all together.

How will EOS determine the order of the block producers? If the order is not pseudorandom can this be exploited in some way?

·

As I am interested in the issue of determining the order of the block producers in EOS, today I read from their whitepaper( https://github.com/EOSIO/Documentation/blob/master/TechnicalWhitePaper.md )

"The top 20 by total approval are automatically chosen every round and the last producer is chosen proportional to their number of votes relative to other producers. The selected producers are shuffled using a pseudorandom number derived from the block time. This shuffling is done to ensure that all producers maintain balanced connectivity to all other producers."

According to my understanding of the quote, the producers will be shuffled. The whitepaper was updated 4 months ago, though. @dan (or anybody of good will), could you please clarify the issue?

·
·

See the "Removing block producer schedule shuffling" section in the most recent eos.io development update

Thank you Dan~~good information

Very interesting post.

This man is a BlockChain genius!💂

This ego to the fullest.
No wonder we have so many coins.
It is clear we need multiple taste, but as we can see, ego plays big in these variants.

·

Consider:
What the community WANTS is what the community GETS.
This is P2P and we get to support what we WANT 2 B.

·
·

absolutely I agree @surfyogi 2B supported and I support

"Furthermore, their algorithm is not “new” but a less secure slower variation of the DPOS algorithm I originally introduced in April 2014. The authors of the paper failed to cite relevant prior art or to justify why their deviations from existing art are an improvement."

Thank you @dan for hammering these silly attempts to make a quick buck on other peoples work back to where it belongs, I all along had the feeling that there is nothing better then EOS (STEEM and Bitshares).. Even though I been programming in many periods of my life, I think I will let blockchain programming upto the best minds of today, wow its so exciting to see the future inventions in this space...

I am very confident that your projects are the best of today.

All the best
Lasse Ehlers

·

Thanks good to know

DPOS is currently the best option we have...
I hope other coins will also switch to it, to save planet earth from evil aliens who brought us Bitcoin so we heat ourselves to death :(

EOS is far superior than any of the proposed platforms... Looking forward for EOS wallet launch!

·

I also think so.

·

Me too.

·
·

Happy to see @markzuckerbegs quitting facebook, supporting Steem and cryto-currencies! LOL

·
·
·

he is not the one..so please be careful

·
·
·
·

I knew...haha!

·
·
·
·
·

ooh kk..friend...haha

·
·

Agreed my friend!

I was just recently reading the ouroboros whitepaper and realized it was a poor copy of your work. I'm glad to see your post here. It would be much more interesting to me had they acknowledged your work or sought your advice. I'm very interested in all that can be done with your DPOS technology, but after looking through the ouroboros whitepaper for a bit, there were enough signs to cross this one off my list.

·

Totally agree. Same for me.

ADA is just collecting value to be transferred to EOS once the chain goes live. Same with ETH. It is probably not unreasonable to assume that the market caps of ADA and ETH will move to EOS by Q3 2018.

·

Mmm, not sure. ADA/ETH investors are clearly not doing their research before investing. I bet they will miss the boat still holding their worthless bags.

·
·

ETH has advantages : it worked first, has a rich ecosystem of dapps that will be released these next months, and strong and skilled leadership (what is killing bitcoin), so it may copy new techniques from EOS or other competitors

·
·
·

WE SHALL SEE and if not, bye bye

A much needed post! Thank you.

I hardly understood anything written here but I'm looking forward to read what kind of comments @dan 's ex-spouse @ned has to reply here..

Yeah ... @dan those last minute votes are a shame... but honestly, what gets on my nerves much more is those early paid votes that clog up the hot and trending pages with shitposts.

imho it would be more important to prevent paid votes before the posts are a day or maybe 2 old. I get that this initiative targets improved correctability (if that's a word) of post rewards but I think re-enabling organic discovery through "normally" curated trending/hot sections would be of greater effect!

just my two cents!

#kittensunite

edit: oh and blacklists... why can't we just get all those meme-re-posters blacklisted in the big voting bots... damn, i forgot again, they all just care for the ka-ching and couldn't give less shit about the health of this ecosystem...

#rantover

editagain: and just to be clear, yes I do use voting bots, it would be silly to let the shameless walk away with all of it by themselves... but I do play it fair and vote my stuff at 3-5 days - my "real" supporters get their curation and you get your chance to correct me if neccessary...